mrsgreenstar76

If a person has obtained a visa through deception, I think that's a fairly glaring show of the type of character involved.

It is black & white. Obtaining a visa in the full knowledge that you are never going to live or work in the state that sponsored is wrong. The legal issue will catch up with the moral one at some point.

ColonialCousin

I've always wondered how those immigration raid's work. I assume they are conducted in areas with large number of labourer's and casual workers, which might attract those overstaying their visa, or otherwise illegally present in Australia.

Then again, since the right to silence isn't codified in the Australian constitution, I suppose even naturalized citizens can be asked to produce documentation proving they are legally permitted to work!!



Its hard to know one way or other whether the person did or did not really want to live in the sponsoring state, and so I'd rather not judge (as it isn't my place to do so).

If DIAC is satisfied (and clearly they'd have to be - before granting the visa) then who am I to point fingers? It is DIACs job to ascertain that the person applying for a particular visa is infact eligible to obtain that visa, and meets the other criteria for the visa, before granting it. If the DIAC is happy in its judgement that the applicant wishes to reside in the sponsoring state for the foreseeable future, pending extraneous circumstances; then why should I feel outrage?

If DIAC considered it to be a legally binding obligation to remain in the sponsoring state, they could pursue the offenders if they chose to. They don't. And I don't feel the need to appoint myself an "adjudicator of morals" about an issue that I have no expertise in.

Where's the need for me to feign moral outrage?

mrsgreenstar76

DIAC are accepting the assurance of the applicant(s) that they are going to live & work where they say they will. As for being hard to know, that argument doesn't really hold up when they come on to a public forum and declare their intent to do so. That is deciding to break the terms of the state sponsorship even before getting it.

Again, DIAC will catch up with the loophole. As has been done with the students & hairdressers. Then people who legitimately want to live & work in a particular state are going to find it harder to get the sponsorship because of the immoral decisions taken by others. People get annoyed & have moral indignation because of the willingness to blatantly circumvent the rules. You may not have moral outrage over it, but how would you feel if someone else decided to screw you over & take a visa place with no intention of honouring their commitments?

iamthecreaturefromuranus

Well you repeated yourself !

How would you feel if DIAC abolished all SS visas now, quoting "systematic abuse of the system" and told you to get the Hell out of Dodge?

PamE

Totally. I genuinely don't get the moral outrage, it seems completely out of proportion and nobody is running out of steam. Bizarre.

Oh puh-lease.


Gah!! Cannot bear it any longer. Over and out

mrsgreenstar76

People have explained why they have moral outrage. I don't see how that can be any clearer really. Well, you know, without repeating ourselves.

mrsgreenstar76

Good point!

PamE

Lordy please don't glare at me, it's only 7.30am & I've barely finished my vegemite on toast, far too early for dirty looks! I am off to a tupperware party this morning, must go get ready (the hardcore madness never stops here on the Banana Coast ) Have a wonderful day

mrsgreenstar76

LOL Sounds like non-stop, roller-coaster fun! Seriously though, have a nice day

iamthecreaturefromuranus

...and we don't get your complete lack of indignation about people cheating the system.
You keep telling us all the hoops you have/had to jump through and yet don't seem to comprehend, that, if people keep cheating this system, then it will be removed and nobody else will get the option to jump through those same hoops. Your route into Australia would be closed to others because of the actions of cheats.... but hey, you're in, so it's not an issue anymore.

We've seen the solution to this posted on here. Make SS a temp visa for two years. If you don't fulfil your side of the deal, then out you go. Simple

mrsgreenstar76

Also, I think maybe a financial implication possibly. I reckon if DIAC were to fine the states for failing to check that people were keeping their obligations (or not intending to from the start), the states would be more careful/quicker to act on state jumpers. Also, possibly fine the applicants that deliberately move immediately (i.e. have not tried & don't have the states permission) & revoke the sponsorship and ban them from going for SS for x amount of time. Sounds harsh, but I think they need to start clamping down.

ColonialCousin

And it is up to DIAC to find those applicants, ascertain their intentions as genuine or not and then decide whether to grant or deny the visa.

Screw me over? The visa is not my visa till its granted to me. The place isn't my place till I am assured of it (via the grant of a visa) . The visa, as is often repeated, is not a right. It goes to whoever DIAC grant's it to, and its not mine till its stuck in my passport. It might be a zero sum game, but no one has a way of knowing if their application would've been successful or not, regardless of what the other applicants intentions are. Blowing up at someone who's doing everything within the rules to get themselves and their family into Australia isn't something I'm keen to do.

If they get their visa and I don't, maybe the had good karma from the past or they have bad karma headed their way in the future. Still doesn't make it my job to be indignant and cause stress. Live and let live; I say.

DIAC grant's visa's to whoever it feels meets the criteria laid out, and passes the other checks (character, security, background, yadda yadda). If DIAC is satisfied about the person's intentions to live in the sponsoring state, then what is it to anyone else?

Surely you'd agree DIAC is a better judge of deciding who is and isn't let into the country; than the crowd here getting on their moral high ground about someone who in all possibility, is talking about no intentions to live in the sponsoring state just to stir the pot.

ColonialCousin

Where to start. Speeding could border on cheating the system; with more sever consequences. Does everyone here get indignant over someone driving a 1KM/HR past the speed limit? If not, why not?

After all, the law is being broken, not just used to their advantage. Sorry mate, just haven't got the bandwidth to blow up at every Tom Dick and Harry who choses to use the system to his/her advantage.

If someone gets in, good on them. They must've accumulated good karma thats paying off; or bad karma headed their way.

iamthecreaturefromuranus

Just have a glance through some of the big SS threads... then judge if it's just stirring the pot.

Some people simply lie about their intentions to stay in the sponsoring State. DIAC can't know their lying, but what DIAC will do, if they see constant abuse of the system, is change the rules for the visa. That will see people penalised through no fault of their own.

You use the term "getting on their moral high ground" as a dig at people and yet all we are saying, is that perhaps people might want to try honouring their side of a bargain. they made with their sponsoring state. If that puts me on the "moral high ground" so be it. It's preferable to the other option of not giving a shit.

mrsgreenstar76

You seem to have missed your own point there. It is obtaining a visa by fraudulently obtaining state sponsorship that they had no intention of honouring. It may be a loophole, it doesn't mean that it is right or what DIAC would agree to. Do you think that if someone was intending to jump state and told DIAC & the state of their intentions, that they would be granted their visa? No. They wouldn't. As they are clearly not being honest in their application (i.e. lying in order to get it). If you go for a state sponsored visa with no intention of honouring it, you are taking a place from someone who intends to live and work in that state. If you tell DIAC & the state that you are intending to live & work there, and you meet the other obligations, there's no reason for the visa to be denied. It's nothing to do with karma. it is people choosing to engage in immoral behaviour in order to gain an advantage.

Let me give you another example. If person X wants a credit card & thinks "hmm...I'm not sure I'll get it on AU$20000 pa. I know! I'll tell them I'm on AU$100000 pa!" and for some reason they get the card, that would be fraud. Obtaining it by deception.

As for DIAC being better qualified to make the decision over who to admit than people on here. It's a nice idea. However, they are operating under the assumption that the applicant is telling the truth. Where as on BE, we are seeing more & more cases of people asking, and even bragging, about cheating the system in order to dodge the usual requirements for a visa.

So, yes, the staff at DIAC are more qualified to make the decisions, but they need to be given correct, accurate information. Which isn't being given by people who lie to get state sponsorship.