mrsgreenstar76

I'd be up for that.

newjersey

Got me thinking. If a person goes out of state to work, then yes they lied to the state government on their visa application, but they remain economically active. Then restriction on movement is just wrong.

I think that it would be much better to have a law that would allow DIAC to refuse visa extensions, re-entry or RRVs, citizenship applications, what have you, based on character grounds. It works much better if you know it *will* catch up with you, see.

iamthecreaturefromuranus

Nice idea that one. I still think people should fulfil their obligation to the State that sponsored them, only being released from the deal by the sponsoring State, not just walking away from it. If they don't fulfil their end of the bargain, then, as you say, DIAC should get involved with any new visa grants.

canadaeh

I really think the easiest way around this would be to make the SS Visa much like the Defacto/Partner visa in that it should be only a 2 year temporary visa.

At the end of the 2 years if you have stayed in your state then you get PR, if not you go home.

Could be controlled just like (if not easier) than the partner visa, which after 2 years if you are no longer in the relationship you go home and no PR.

moneypenny20

[.=canadaeh;9239691]I really think the easiest way around this would be to make the SS Visa much like the Defacto/Partner visa in that it should be only a 2 year temporary visa.

At the end of the 2 years if you have stayed in your state then you get PR, if not you go home.

Could be controlled just like (if not easier) than the partner visa, which after 2 years if you are no longer in the relationship you go home and no PR.[/QUOTE]

Excellent idea

milon_h

I don’t know why DIAC don’t think like you. Obscures there is something that’s why they don’t think like you.

ColonialCousin

Probably because the numbers haven't reached the critical mass yet where the cost to make the 2 year commitment legally enforcible balances out with the "cost" of such visa holders moving outside their sponsoring state.

PamE

I choose Pollyana's post cos it seems to sum it up nicely for those that take this stance. I didn't realise this same topic was going on in another thread when I posted in the other one past couple of days about the SS "moral" obligation to remain in state. I am still bamboozled as to why uninvolved people who already live here are so worked up about this (people who are not yet here have a lot of frustration in the waiting so I can kind of see why they get het up).

I was wondering, do you lot also think that a person should only look for work in the profession or trade that they got sponsored in on?

bcworld

It's a good question...and you could take it further...should people who come on independent skilled migration have to work in the professions for which their skills were assessed for 2 years. You could argue they got a visa for a reason and morally they should work in that profession. But let's not go there!

PamE

Yes well I am stirring a bit I know But I am genuinely curious to know if those weilding the morality banner would condemn those who are not working in the SS profession / trade. Personally I think it would be impossible - and immoral - to insist that people work in their nominated trade / profession. Could hardly prevent people feeding their families just cos they couldn't find a job in nominated profession. Surely, not even on BE would anyone go so far as to shriek, send them back! deny them PR! if they don't work in their nominated profession / trade! Surely?? Sadly, I am not so sure!

mrsgreenstar76

Actally, I think the main issue is people who choose to break the requirement to remain in state *before* they've even moved there. It is obtaining a visa by deception that someone else deserves. As for the argument about uninvolved people being bothered by it, what do you expect when people post their intentions to do so on a public forum? By the same logic, what does it have to do with any of you that are there that don't mind making an immoral (yes there's that word again, immoral) decision? Quite frankly, yes, I would say send them back. If they lie to get a visa, thereby depriving someone who actually deserves it, they don't deserve to be there.

Object all you want, but as soon as someone screws you over, you'll scream blue murder.

vxm665

Interesting to read this post. It seems lot of people are not happy with DIAC as it let the people to go out of state which has sponsored and made the migration process easier.

DIAC already aware of this and there should not be rules to restrict the people movement. If there is a rule and people can't find a job within the sponsored state, the state will have the responsibility to compensate the cost of living and help to find a job. For an example, people who have migrated few years ago can able to cliam all the public benefits including job less since their arrival into the country. This is due to the fact that Aus govt can't ask the people to go for jobs other than the one applicant claim in the skill migration process. Recently, govt imposed a rule to avoid the job less benefit for 2 years.

As a result, DIAC can't impose a rule to restrict the people who leave the sponsored state unless govt is ready to compensate them till they find a job. State can only increase the requirement to filter the people who can easily get a job.

Two of my friends, who have migrated to Australia in 2008 and stayed in the sponsored state for quite long. Finally, they got the permission to leave the sponsored state due to their inability to find a job. They have the letter given by the state.

Another friend got the state sponsor before the state migration plan was implemented. When the new list was arrived, his skill wasn't included. He got the visa recently and let the sponsored state know that according to recent list, it is confirmed that there is not much work for his skill and got the permission to go to other state.

There is always a loop hole for the people who don't care about the moral obligation. I think moral obligation is not a matter for anyone in this world. People from europe, US, asia or anywhere are same minded. Everyone thinks and works for their own benefit.

moneypenny20

I happily put my hand up to being here and complaining about those trying to get here either by lying or by saying they'll do something when they have no intention of doing so which obviously LAO amounts to lying. However I had the same beliefs before I was here.

Too many people struggle like hell to get here by doing the right thing, for others to be granted a visa and then not abide by the rules they agreed to. Currently there is no moral obligation for people to work in the profession they get sponsorship for. There IS a moral obligation to remain in that state for two years because the state concerned is accepting you on the basis that you will bring skill and money to them. For them to go to the trouble to say yes and then for the person to piss off somewhere else is wrong.

A visa is a privilege, not a right. You agree to the rules, you abide by them. End of.

mrsgreenstar76

As I have already pointed out, what irritates people is the pre-planned abandonment of the requirement for 2 years in that state. Not the people who are unable to find a job in said state and then get permission.

As for the state compensating them for being unable to find a job, are you kidding? The state owes them nothing. It is not a right to immigrate there, it is a privilege. If they are unable to find the work and get permission from the state, fair enough, try somewhere else, but the state has no obligation to support them. That would be ridiculous. DIAC will eventually close the loophole, as has been done with hairdressers and students. All because people didn't mind effectively stealing a visa from someone who legitimately wanted to live in that particular state. If it were to happen in the UK, it would be deemed to be a breach of visa conditions and UKBA would throw the person(s) into an IRC, forcibly deport them, and ban them from the country for x amount of time. At some point, DIAC are going to end up having to do the same thing because of all the people who are willing to disregard the rules. As for the "moral obligation not being a matter for anyone in this world" - I think we've already shown that it is. There are people willing to do the right thing - the moral thing - regardless of if it is detrimental to themselves.

paulry

The skill argument holds as much water as the one about detention centres. No promise is made to practice professions that formed the basis of the skilled migration route - though most people would of course prefer to practice what they're qualified to do.

Have you never experienced the frustration of life being tougher to navigate thanks to past dishonesty/abuse/poor behaviour by a few? Those who take SS with no intention of honouring their commitment is the stuff that those frustrations are made of.

And another thing: Would you trust someone who reneges on their promises?