ColonialCousin

I'm not. I'm not telling anyone that they can't oppose an applicants actions that are within the letter of the law. I refuse to oppose their actions myself; so long as they are not flouting the letter of the law.

The person is entitled to the card if the financial institution is satisfied of his ability to service his debt. It is up to the financial institution to verify the details submitted by the applicant before granting credit (just as it is up to DIAC to verify the applicants details and circumstances before granting a visa). It is quite plausible that someone intending to enter their income as 30000 hits an extra "0" thus entering 300000. Which is why the banks usually request pay slips or other proof of income before granting credit (unless ofcourse your salary is credited to that same bank, in which case they already have a record of your net salary!).

mrsgreenstar76

Actually, that's not the case. It would be quite easy to prove fraud. A lot of financial applications are run through automated credit checking, so if someone has decent credit but inputs an incorrect salary, it could conceivably be approved. That's obtaining money by deception (assuming they did it deliberately).

I wouldn't stand on one side if someone deliberately misled a state and obtained a sponsorship, which then led to a visa being granted (with false information because it was granted due to the sponsorship). People need to be protected from others that would abuse a situation to gain an advantage that they don't deserve and that would lead to someone else suffering. Fair enough that you wouldn't object, and you would do nothing about it, but some of us do object and would do something about it. Someone that lies to get the sponsorship/visa doesn't deserve it. Someone that applies truthfully, with every intention of honouring their commitment, does.

ColonialCousin

And how is this the job of anyone but those involved in actually granting these visas? If the states are fine with it and DIAC is fine with it (and we don't know if they aren't); then isn't it entirely a matter between the applicants, DIAC and the sponsoring state?

Do you also call the cops when you are doing the speed limit on a freeway and someone overtakes you? Do you call the fire department every time you see a violation of the fire code?

mrsgreenstar76

It is the duty of everyone to be responsible enough to report violations like that. If someone is going to brag in public places about deliberately breaching the SS, then they'd have to accept the consequences. Do you not call the police if you see someone being broken into or attacked? Where do you draw the line?

ColonialCousin

Yes.

But I don't make it my business to call the police when someone on an online forum tells me they are planning a heist.

I guess I draw the line at actually seeing a violation of law take place than going by hearsay.

mrsgreenstar76

So, if you saw someone planning to rob bank x, decided to ignore it, and then bank x was subsequently robbed, you'd be okay with that?

PamE

ColonialCousin

Seeing someone planning to rob a bank isn't the same has having someone discuss robbing a bank on a web forum.

If I heard someone planning to rob a bank, I'd be inclined to ignore it considering I have no reason to believe if they were being serious, or discussing something else entirely. Subsequent to the bank being robbed, I'd be very inclined to report what I saw/heard, and descriptions of the people involved.

Short of that, I have no reason to run to the authorities. When that happens, this happens.

mrsgreenstar76

The Daily Mail is not really a credible source of information! So, your inaction could prevent bank x being robbed, but you decide not to do something because it 'doesn't concern you'. What if it was a neighbours' house? Would that change it? Does it have to affect someone that you know before you will take action? Or do you not care as long as it doesn't affect you? The severity of the incident involved makes no difference. If someone told me that they were going to break SS rules (or had already done so), I would tell DIAC.

iamthecreaturefromuranus

DIAC seem to think otherwise.

http://www.immi.gov.au/managing-aust...ob-in-line.htm

mrsgreenstar76

Cheetah7

When we got our SS visa, we knew before we applied that we had to remain in WA for 2 years and complete the surveys. Mr PP was lucky enough to get a job in his first week and me about a month later.

Now if you have searched for work in your area and cannot get it, you look for work outside your area.

But to purposely use the SS route to get into your favourite part of Australia because you cannot meet the normal criteria, it is wrong. If you are lucky enough to get the SS visa and you dont want to commit to that state, suck it up and get on with it and make the best of it.

Because if/when the time comes and DIAC stop that route due to people not honouring their obligations, many people will find that the one hope they did have of coming to this country has gone.

It was our only hope and we were extremely grateful for the chance and it will be a shame if they ever stopped it due to people having no intentions of living in the state that has been good enough to sponsor them.

ColonialCousin

Yet a person blabbing on about something on an anonymous web forum is credible enough to email the minister for immigration!!!

Washington Post credible enough for you?

My inaction "could" prevent a bank from being robbed. But, unless I know that for certain, I have absolutely no reason to get paranoid by something I might over hear, which could be totally out of context, and cause unnecessary inconvenience to someone because I didn't hear something correctly.

Would you also immediately note down the number of any car that passes by you when you are doing the maximum speed limit, pull over to the side of the road and call the police to report their license plate?

Would you also call the police every time a person decides to jaywalk (and not just tell you on a web forum about wanting to jaywalk)?

If not, why not?

mrsgreenstar76

I rarely trust the American media. It's as biased as the DM with fewer regulations. So your decision that you may be being paranoid could result in a crime occurring, and that isn't a problem? I imagine the manager of said bank would disagree.

Yes I would report any cars I saw breaking the law (assuming it was safe for me to get the details. I.e. if I have a passenger to take the details down or I can find a place to park). I have done it on many occasions. Jay walking isn't a crime here.

You seem to be getting remarkably het up about something you're 'not judging people' over.

BTW You do realise that anyone can email a minister, don't you? They're not some special little person that only people of a certain calibre can converse with

PamE

seriously seriously am PMSL here! Certainly providing amusement between household chores. Honestly, I cannot believe the stuff people are coming out with. Cannot Karma you again CC it won't let me, but cheers, I am enjoying your contributions