steandleigh

British citizens living in Australia and wishing to study at uni have to have lived in Australia 2 years (from date of 'landing') before they are eligible for HECS...(Subject/course fee loan).

OK, we don't have to pay 'International' fees...which are exorbitant... but still...there's a waiting period...

What to do? I waited until I'd lived here two years and then I started uni...

HECS does something else...if you pay full upfront fees by the uni census date (withdrawal without academic penalty) then you are eligible for a 20% discount on your fees.

O.K., not fair if you want to study and go to uni without your 2 years residency and not everyone can afford to pay their uni fees upfront...BUT, point is, every country has it's own rules.

You agree to abide by them when you accept your visa and the reverse is, you should research, understand and accept the rules of your birth country before you leave.

I think this argument is based around an individual's bitterness about what Euros can receive rather than so called Brits...

ezzie

Yes, this 'rule' is for British Citizens studying wanting to study in Australia. Our point is about British Citizens wanting to study in Britain!

moneypenny20

Which she covered, very nicely I thought, in her final two sentences.

ezzie

This is just going around in circles now, but the moot points being:
-most other countries support their citizens with full rights for life
-no one is capable of, or thinks of examining every single nuance of British law or rules and regulations as they leave the country
-migrating children may not want to stay in their adoptive country
- the current situation gives British citizens equal rights with a person from outside the EU who has never set foot on British soil, not paid tax or has any hertitage links whatsoever with the country.
- surely it is in a country's interest to ensure its citizens can return to their country rather than keep them out?

A change in this law wouldn't cause a flood of expats into the UK education system, I think most ex-pats are obviously, if you read the rest of these boards, quite contented with their new countries - but for those who aren't and do want to return with older children, it can make a world of difference - many are currently 'trapped' overseas. I also think it's healthy that a country's citizens feel supported and accepted wherever they travel in life and that they know their country gives them rights above those presented to foreigners. This is generally the case - but not with Britain!

luvwelly

Not everyone becomes an expat because of the grass is always greener syndrome....we may be a minority but some big (UK) companies move their staff around the world - whether the spouses and kids like it or not that's where the current post is based - yes they pay attractive salaries but not sufficently more to make it worth your while paying 'unnecessary overseas resident fees' for several children. So we will probably have to 'retire back' to UK earlier than might otherwise have been the case.

ezzie

Absolutely, and also those who've gone o/s to do voluntary work, church work or care for relatives....etc, etc. Not being eligible for standard citizenship rights isn't something you contemplate and it comes as a bit of shock when you find out.

Giantaxe

As far as college fees go, count me sceptical. Even from this thread, we know that both the US and Australia have residence requirements in this regard. I very much doubt they're alone.

"Ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law"

Most students haven't paid any tax before they receive a taxpayer-subsidized tertiary education. Typically, they "pay back" the cost of their education through tax payments later in life. But only if they have a nexus with the country and are likely to remain there post-graduation. This is really the crux of the issue, imo, and the reason why a residence period is needed, in order the stop people getting a taxpayer-subsidized education when the liklihood of their remaining in the UK post-graduation is minimal.

Nobody's keeping anyone out; they are merely being asked to establish a nexus before being able to avail themselves of a taxpayer-subsidized tertiary education. People can and do get a degree outside the UK and then move there post-graduation.

This is where I think you are mistaken. Just because one is "quite contented" with one's new country doesn't mean you wouldn't avail yourself with a taxpayer-subsidized education in the UK. And this is the exact reason why the residence requirement needs to exist.

Nonsense. British citizenship gives you the unfettered right to live and work in the UK. That right is not available to non-EU nationals. By your premise, would you also expect to receive a full UK pension if you returned to the UK, even with a contribution record that didn't qualify you for one?

Giantaxe

You have an interesting sense of "entitlement" for services paid for by other taxpayers. Would you also expect unemployment pay if you moved back to the UK without a job?

Giantaxe

A fair point, but noone's forced to take a job overseas. If I was in this position, I would certainly expect the employer to compensate me for this cost if they wanted me to take a position abroad that would exclude my children from getting resident tuition rates.

ezzie

err, yes actually! The same as getting health care or other entitlements.
You seem to presume that people wanting to return haven't paid tax in the UK! It would seem intelligent that a country would want to encourage ex-pats who are choosing to return, who are motivated, have new skills and a fresh perspective to re-enter the country and become active participants of the workforce.

Contrast this to what we hear about the 'can't be stuffed' service providers in the UK and the massive payouts being given for sickness, unemployment benefits etc to British residents....most expats would have paid way more than those people. I personally know of quite a few in the UK who are 'on the sick' who have no more ailments than the next fit person. I find this disgraceful.

If the UK maybe sorted this situation out and paid benefits to those who really were eligible as opposed to lazy sods, then with the billions they'd save, there would be no problem allowing British citizens from overseas to access home rates for universities.

The main point is that British citizens are being required to pay the same as any other overseas student (except EU residents who are eligible for home fees). Fine, charge ex-pats more than home fees, but don't make them pay the full overseas rates. It really does trap many Brits and make life incredibly difficult and painful.

Giantaxe

As I said, you have an interesting sense of "entitlement". Would you also expect a full pension regardless of your contribution record?

Almost all students will have paid no tax before receiving a taxpayer-subsidized tertiary education. That's why it's perfectly reasonable that the UK government takes steps to ensure that a student has a nexus with the UK before spending other taxpayers money on them. A residence period prior to college is the fairest way to do this, imo.

ezzie

...and UK resident students have paid tax? I don't think so. A residency provision is fine, but 3 years is a long time to wait. 12 months would be fairer, ensures a period of settlement whilst providing a system that is manageable for those returning to work with.

I do think we're all on the same side here, no one wants to see Britain taken advantage of, it's all about providing a reasonable system as opposed to permanantly casting out citizens.

Giantaxe

What is it about my prior comment...

...that you didn't understand

Three years is almost certainly the chosen time because that is the length of an undergraduate degree (except in Scotland). With a one year qualification period, anyone would effectively be able to get a subsidized education for all but the first year of their degree.

Noone is permanently cast out by the current system.

Sally Redux

I actually think the 3-year rule is understandable even though my kids could benefit if it wasn't there.

People moan about the cost of living in Britain but then expect the country to shell out for them for the rest of their lives.

ezzie

Wrong! You have to do the 3 years residency beforehand. Once you go to Uni - paying o/s fees (up to 16,000 quid per year), even if you've already a year or two under your belt living in the UK, you are stuck paying o/s fees for the duration of your degree.

...and, there was nothing I didn't understand about your comment. The presumption is that any ex-pat will remain in the UK to live and work, especially as they had made the decision to return to the UK at presumably, personal cost in terms of friends, stability etc. Whereas a 'resident' UK Uni student is more likely to take off 'to see the world'...and may not return!

...yes, they are cast out by the current situation, if they weren't, we wouldn't have started the petition.