iamthecreaturefromuranus

What a load of crap.

They lie and cheat their way in and that's OK because they have "good Karma"?

I guess if someone commits murder and gets away with it, that's all down to good Karma as well then?

mrsgreenstar76

My sentiments exactly!

ColonialCousin

If they change the rules to make the 2 year residence mandatory obligation of the visa, who is it penalizing?

I'm not saying people shouldn't honour their side of the gentleman's agreement. At the same time, there isn't a quantifiable way to check whether a person has given it his all in finding employment in that state; and its a personal call. Some might have had enough in a month; some might want to stick it out for six.

We possibly just care to give a shit about different things. Someone using the rules as they stand, to their best advantage, isn't that high on my list. If it were, I'd have to be indignant at every second taxpayer.

iamthecreaturefromuranus

That won't, but visas that were previously seen to be being abused were simply abolished. If SS visas were to go the same way that would penalise plenty.

I'm bored with all this now. I have my view about liars and cheats, you have a different view. They are never going to meet in the middle.

mrsgreenstar76

The point is, they will clamp down and make it harder to obtain the SS. It may be making it mandatory, it may be something else, but subsequent applicants will have a harder time obtaining a visa because of others' selfish behaviour.

I don't know, maybe the applicant could tell them? I.e. Update them on what is happening rather than doing a moonlight flit. By the same logic though, some people may have "had enough" after a week. What about a day?

ColonialCousin

No they aren't. If they were, they wouldn't be verifying a person's work experience history by calling their previous employers, requiring employment verification letters and pay slips. So no, DIAC doesn't operate on the assumption that the person is telling the truth.

mrsgreenstar76

Yes, they have to make checks. That doesn't mean they will assume everyone is lying. It's just the rather nasty, immoral people in the last few years that have ended up causing more checks to be required. What do you think will happen with regards to checks on intention to remain in state? If they are increasing the number if checks generally, and people start abusing state sponsorship, they will do more checks there. So it will end up penalising subsequent applicants. By your logic, they'll assume that everyone is a liar. Thankfully, not all of us will lie to obtain a visa.

ColonialCousin

How is doing more checks penalising anyone who always intends to reside in the sponsoring state? Perhaps by taking more time to grant the visa, but as we've seen, the timeline isn't set in stone, so it isn't exactly a penalty in my book.

mrsgreenstar76

Again, it may not just be more checks. They could change the requirements or as iamthecreature pointed out, they may just end up scrapping SS. Do you not think that would be penalising future applicants? People that may fall short of points that they could have gotten from SS. How about increasing the amount of funds required by SS applicants? Maybe not all applicants could raise an increased amount. Lying in order to obtain something never ends up being good for anyone. Quite frankly, if someone lies in order to get a SS place (and thereby a visa), they should have that visa/SS revoked.

ColonialCousin

Actually, DIAC can and has revoked visas of applicants who are found to have lied on their application. I could be wrong but citizenship, if obtained via a visa which the applicant was found to have obtained by misrepresenting facts on their application, can also be revoked.

Considering we haven't heard of DIAC cancelling visa's of applicants who have moved away from their SS states, I'd say its not a high priority "violation" for DIAC to look at.

And while scrapping SS would potentially impact future applicants, I don't believe in telling someone they can not use the current rules to their advantage (and I don't see using rules to one's advantage as breaking the rules) because someone else down the line might miss out.

Nor do I believe in imposing my moral compass on someone else; which is what this discussion is boiling down to.

mrsgreenstar76

Again, it breaks down to using (or abusing) rules and lying. It may not bother you that someone else might miss out, but if that person was legitimately going to live in that state, they are being deprived because of abuse of the system by others. That is not right.

By promoting and supporting the abuse of the system, you are equally trying to impose your 'moral' compass on others - just on the other side of the coin.

As for the priority for DIAC as a violation, we don't know that at the moment. I'm hoping to find out though. I emailed Chris Bowen to ask about where the department stand on it and how they are tackling it.

ColonialCousin

I'm not. I chose not to judge anyone who uses the system as it stands to their advantage. That does not equate to promoting and supporting the use of the system of the current set of laws to their best advantage. That does not equate to imposing my moral compass on others. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't do it myself (and haven't needed to, through the entire process of moving here, to naturalizing); but I wouldn't judge others either.

mrsgreenstar76

You are actually. You are judging people that oppose the abuse of the system. You have said that there is nothing wrong with people using the loophole as it is to get their families into the country.

Back to my earlier example of obtaining a credit card. Would you think that that person is entitled to the card, even though they gave false information? Would you object to people that condemn the process?

PamE

I resisted buying any Tupperware and I was done with this discussion as has become very repetetive, but crikey have you actually emailed CB and told him you know of people in the virtual world who are in your opinion fraudulently obtaining visas,and what are DIAC going to do about it??

Dobbing is considered very un-Australian you know. Immoral, even.

P.S. not to mention I would imagine he has a little more important things going on right now e.g. christmas island riots - PERSPECTIVE anyone?!

mrsgreenstar76

I just asked him his position on it, and what his department would do with regards to it. I named no names - I have none to name! To be honest, I wouldn't care if my attitude was un-Australian, un-British, or un-anything else. I have to act according to my conscience - I'm the one that has to live with it (my conscience)! That's in any aspect of life.

Glad you had fun at the Tupperware thing I can rarely resist buying things!