mrsgreenstar76

Yes, darn those daft people willing to uphold a certain moral standard! What were they thinking?

ColonialCousin

Keep deflecting.

CNBC - Biased??



Of course it isn't a problem.

Why should my paranoia cause inconvenience to others? If I saw a bunch of armed thugs heading into a bank, I'd call the cops. If I thought someone looked like they were planning on robbing a bank, I'd chalk that up to paranoia and keep moving.

The manager of the said bank can disagree all he wants. There's a reason why he has insurances for that sort of thing.


As a matter of fact, jaywalking is an offence in Australia.

http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/...3841_news.html
http://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch10s09s07.php

Should you wish to let the AFP know, I regularly jaywalk across the intersection of cooyong st and lonsdale street, civic, ACT.




Oh yeah, living (and jaywalking) in Canberra, as I do, I'm well aware that anyone can email a minister or any MP for that matter. The discussion wasn't about whether one can email a minster or not, but what one does so for, and what causes them to do so. Nice try deflecting though.

You think running to the minister because someone on an anonymous web forum spoke about doing something that is perfectly legal within the current law is perfectly fine.

I don't.

You begrudge people who are acting within the current law.

I don't.

mrsgreenstar76

Clearly you don't grasp what counts as 'American media' No deflection, but I fail to see the relevance. From what I can tell, you seem to object to possibly reporting something in case it turns out to be inconsequential or someone may be inconvenienced. Well, really, that would be tough. I'd rather report something (particularly since in this case we are talking about things where people are bragging that they have already done it or about to do it) than not. There are too many people with your attitude of ignoring because you think it's none of your business. The caring only for things that directly affect you. I disagree with that policy.

I'm in the UK - jay walking isn't an offence here. If I were there, then I wouldn't have a problem reporting it. Clearly you still don't understand the purposes of contacting a minister/MP. It is perfectly valid to contact a minister to enquire about matters of policy within his/her department. In fact, I have contacted my local MP/MEP on many occasions over policy issues.

It's not a case of 'running to the minister' because I saw that someone was breaching SS. If I had names/details, I'd just call DIAC. Contacting the minister is the best way to get clarification over a policy that affects immigration and to see what their actions are/were.

I begrudge people obtaining visas by deception. I'm not denying that. Whereas you appear to be happy enough to allow it to continue, even though it will negatively affect others.

ColonialCousin

I hope all that rolling around isn't hurting too much. And clearly you are happy to blanket all American Media as biased. Not the least surprising.

The relevance was to the entire "bank robbing" line of questioning. An example of how paranoia inconveniences all and sundry. Then again, perhaps you also believe that taking a bottle of water on board an aircraft somehow threatens its security. I digress.

So you are reporting people who are working perfectly within the existing law?

mrsgreenstar76

Yes, by & large, I distrust all US media. Paranoia can be inconvenient, but that's all it is. Big deal if someone's inconvenienced! Better a little inconvenience than something possibly worse.

No, I don't particularly think a bottle of water is a much of a risk, but I understand why they clamped down. Similarly, I wouldn't try taking something onto a 'plane that I knew was prohibited. Whereas you seem to have no issues of ignoring rules if they have the risk of inconvenience.

Yes, I would (as I have already stated) report someone if I knew that they had obtained a visa fraudulently. I'm not sure how many times you'd like me to repeat that. If you could let me know so I can just copy & paste it.

moneypenny20

I'm confused as to why it's bothering you so much that someone you don't know holds different values to you and decides they want to inform DIAC of what they believe to be wrong. So what? Does it impact you? Of course it doesn't.

In a democracy, the people should (in theory) be listened to. If DIAC are considering changing some rules and then they hear from Joe Public that such rules do require changing then it could (in theory) help get those rules changed. However if you don't consider the rules need changing then you're fully within your rights to inform DIAC of that fact.

DIAC do in fact, read this and other migration boards so they possibly already know your views and those of everyone else who's posted on here, saves you worrying about whether to let them know your thoughts.

ColonialCousin

@moneypenny

Why is it bothering me so much? It's not. Its a rather slow day here in the nations capital.

I don't believe a group's inherent paranoia about any particular religion/race/what have you; should be reason enough to inconvenience others.

Ah, except, I not once defended breaking the rules. If the law states a certain object is prohibited from being taken on the plane, I wouldn't take it. If someone told me they were planning on taking a prohibited object on the plane in an online forum, I wouldn't see a reason to call all the airports.

So, working within the laws laid down by DIAC for a particular visa equates to obtaining it fraudulently?

iamthecreaturefromuranus

Applicants must demonstrate a genuine interest in South Australia and a commitment to live and work in the state for at least two years

That's from South Australia's State Sponsorship website. By stating, before they even have a visa, that they have no intention, whatsoever, of remaining in South Australia does that not constitute obtaining the visa by deception... or fraudulently?

mrsgreenstar76

Your story about someone being picked because of their headscarf is irrelevant. I agree, there is a chance that it was because of that, and that would be wrong, but it has no bearing on this subject and the issue of reporting people for potentially breaking a law.

Again - since you seem to have difficulty with this, I shall put it in bold:

Yes - I would report them. It is applying for SS under false pretences. It is lying to the state to obtain sponsorship with no intention of fulfilling their obligation. Without said sponsorship, the likelihood of the visa being granted is in doubt. So they are being granted the visa because of the sponsorship that was granted because of the false declaration. So, yes, it is obtaining it fraudulently.

Just in case you have trouble with that, here's a link to form 80 http://www.immi.gov.au/allforms/pdf/80.pdf - particulars for character assessment.

There's a nice little bit right by the signature box that may interest you.

Still confused?

ColonialCousin

So, basically a person needs to have the intention to remain in the sponsoring state at the point of signing and submitting that declaration.

mrsgreenstar76

Yes.

moneypenny20

By George, he's got it!

mrsgreenstar76

- it's taken long enough!

ColonialCousin

I "had" it all along. The point was that the "intention" could change after the form was signed and that would still pass muster because the information was true when the form was signed and submitted. (and thus coming back to the point that unless an enforcible condition of the visa is to reside and work only in the sponsoring state for 2 years - any discussion around this issue is academic at best).

Or, to run the gauntlet of your ethics, the "intention" could change right after the visa grant, or soon after landing in the state. And it seems that would be fine by you.

So why the hullaboo?

mrsgreenstar76

If the "intention" changed after submission, then they should contact DIAC to withdraw, and again you seem to miss (or ignore) the point that has been made, many, many times, that if they move immediately after landing, there is clearly an intention to not honour the agreement.

I really don't see how it could be any clearer. So, I think at this point, unless you are having a legitimate problem with comprehension, you are either being deliberately obtuse, or trolling. I have explained in great detail the issues. If you like, I can copy and paste my previous points.