Beoz

Or on the flipside, if you have financial backup that you have created where you currently are, then whats the point in leaving. If one hasn't been able to create financial backup where they are, then maybe its time for a change.

the troubadour

Well while financial improvement plays a role into leaving, it should not be the sole reason. The need to feel emotionally at home equally important. Even taking into consideration what may appear the right thing to do now, may be seen in a different light further down the track. If one has the ability to decamp and return it surely allows a greater piece of mind?

Beoz

I agree. It may even work negatively, and there are many reasons for leaving or better put, exploring new places. Running away from problems has always been a popular one.

brits1

From my own experiences some who are not financially well off are just as happy if not more so but my point was moving at the best of times can be stressful for some let alone the costs involved which can sometimes cause problems where there was none add to that a move to the unknown, it can work wonderfully for some and not for others that's life.

Beoz

I guess there is 2 financial parts to this. The cost of moving and the financial back up after the move. If there is no money to fund the cost of the move (which may include a period of time without an income) then the move doesn't happen in the first place. For many visa's I believe evidence of money is required. From memory we had to show bank statements and the ability to support ourselves for the spousal visa.

Pollyana

Used to be required but not anymore

brits1

We did not have to show any banks statements etc but that was back in the 90's

Beoz

Makes sense. I recall thinking it was a bit weird given the permanent nature of the spousal visa back then.

the troubadour

I suspect you will find it was around the matter of marriage of convenience. It most certainly was a way to stay in Australia and considered an option among back packers met decades back. Then there were those enticed into marriage in developing world countries to enable migration into Australia.

Beoz

Decades back? Well one and half decades back marriage had nothing to do with it. It was all about proof of your relationship. Joint bank accounts, photos together, leases and mortgages together. At the time our joint bank account had very little in it. It was a slush fund to pay joint things like groceries and rent and by the end of the pay month it was usually pretty bare.

the troubadour

I'm going back to the eighties it was quite common, at least in thought, if not actual action at the time. The rest could be arranged. Aussie men being either taken advantage off ( yes it was voiced in political circles) or simply business transactions or mutual convenience (Like a gay Aussie male with dual UK/Aussie citizenship ) marrying an American female to obtain USA living rights and she UK/Aussie ones over time, met in London. Easy enough, if wanting it bad enough to do such things.

Pollyana

Definitely requires in 2003, but it was changed fairly soon after that. Mind you it was pretty flexible, I had a friend on here back in around 2003-2005 who was ion Centreliunk payments for various reasons, and she still managed to sponsor her fiance.

the troubadour

The person being sponsored may have been able to show to financial well being, to the extent that could provide evidence that would not be a drain on the public purse.

Pollyana

The partner did have a good job in the UK, if i remember rightly