The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Australian families: collateral damage of our flawed asylum seeker system > Comments

Australian families: collateral damage of our flawed asylum seeker system : Comments

By Michael Simmons, published 24/2/2014

Migration law is tempered by recognition of the importance of family unity, unless the prospective visa applicant happens to be an asylum seeker.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
This Author is a lawyer and a registered migration agent, and thus one needs to remember he makes money out of encouraging and promoting this asylum seeker industry.
Posted by ozzie, Monday, 24 February 2014 8:41:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Ozzie,

You may be aware that since September the new government has ceased referring clients under the IAAAS program, that is the government funded scheme to provide migration assistance to certain protection visa applicants. As for my own personal incentive, I assist applicants with many types of visa applications and receive a salary from my employer. The number or types of applications I complete don't increase or decrease my earnings.

I agree that we need to follow the money, and I suggest a good place to start is looking at the obscene expense of offshore processing. The massive contracts awarded to private security companies at IDCs in Australia and offshore also deserve greater scrutiny, IMO.
Posted by Michael S., Monday, 24 February 2014 10:04:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The number or types of applications I complete don't increase or decrease my earnings".

That may be generally true up to a point, however what would happen if there was a substantial fall in the number of applications, would you or anyone else in your organisation be asked to reduce their hours of possibly laid off?

Five years ago whilst coming back from OS, this migration lawyer was sitting next to me at Singapore airport, and he was just going on and on about how much he was making from this industry.
Posted by ozzie, Monday, 24 February 2014 10:35:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Michael,
So you're somehow different to an employee of Transfield, G4S or any of the other people who make their living from immigration?
We don't see it that way, you're part of the problem, you're making money by contributing to the "pull factor" so as a refugee advocate and immigration profiteer you're just as culpable in the misery of Manus as anyone else.
Here's a post I made in 2011, to which I've never received a satisfactory reply, what's the connection between big business, the state and refugee advocates?

Can anyone further enlighten me on the relationship between Dr John Casey, Mark Goudkamp, The Refugee Action Ccoalition and Occupy Sydney?
Casey is an advocate of globalisation and open borders, he's lectured on immigration policy for free trade and international movement of labour.
What's more he advises Police forces on "Multicultural Policing" and was involved in the drafting of the 1996 Rotterdam Charter on diversity and Policing.
Mr Goudkamp and Dr Casey have presented numerous talks and seminars together under the auspices of the RAC and Mr Goudkamp has been the public face of Occupy Sydney.
Time constraints don't permit me to quote Dr Casey at length but even his CV is well worth a look, download it and you'll see why my interest has been piqued.

Why would a counter Capitalist coalition/movement be involved with an advisor to Governments, Police and Free Trade advocates?
Dr Casey is the very definition of a Globalist public servant, there's simply no other way to characterise him and his "Humanitarian" activities, work on NGO's and Refugee advocacy seem at odds with his support for Globalist Capitalism.
To put it in a more understandable way Dr Casey seems to be on the public policy end of the globalist capitalism, smoothing the way and re calibrating NGO's, activist groups and other notionally Liberal concerns into either controlled opposition to or controlled advocacy for Globalist Capitalism.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Sunday, 23 October 2011 2:53:15 PM
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Monday, 24 February 2014 2:52:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Instead of jumping straight to ad hominem attacks, how about engaging with the substance of Michael’s argument? I think he raises some important issues.
Posted by Rhian, Monday, 24 February 2014 3:39:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Jay,

We can agree to disagree about my personal complicity in the failure of government policies which I do not endorse. No asylum seeker is mandated as a refugee without assistance of some nature, regardless of where their claims for protection are considered. The fact that most asylum seekers do not understand the intricacies of refugee law and cannot prepare their application independently, does not negate the fact that those who are mandated are fleeing persecution. My interest and involvement in migration law is to act in the best interests of my clients, which you are likely aware is a professional obligation owed by all solicitors. I don't have any knowledge of the individuals or organisations from your earlier post so unfortunately cannot address your questions.

The purpose of this article was to instigate a discussion around a particular aspect of migration law which I think warrants greater scrutiny. I'd be glad to hear what you think about denying certain asylum seekers, who now have Australian families, access to the family migration program. They have built relationships with Australians because of various policy failures which lead to them waiting for months and years in the Australian community. Given the other concessions made to applicants for family visas, I think it is difficult to deny these Australian families the ability to settle permanently with their loved ones.

Do you have a particular view on this matter?
Posted by Michael S., Monday, 24 February 2014 3:49:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Michael,
Thanks for your reply.
I don't have anything further to contribute since you've declared your professional interest in high migration levels, we all do what we have to do to earn a living within the parameters set by the state.
I'm more interested in how refugee activism and humanitarian groups intersect with the state and global capitalism and since you've said you have no further information to pass on our conversation is at an impasse. That said if I was an aspiring refugee advocate whose prime motivation was altruism I'd be casting a very critical eye over the spokespeople and facilitators of the movement.
Altruistic, emotionally driven people however are rarely critical thinkers, that's one of life's constants.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Monday, 24 February 2014 4:42:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The circumstances you outline could just as well apply to an Australian family except they do not have free lawyers and refugee advocates bending over backwards to help them.

Also there are Australian families in worse situations as they are homeless (refugees get preferential housing at the expense of Australian citizens) why don't you help them?

Refugees also have the charities bending over backward to help them but the money then comes from the taxpayer.

My bleeding heart has no pity for your clients.

The only thing taxpayers money should be used for is to send the economic invaders home.
Posted by Philip S, Monday, 24 February 2014 6:47:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello Michael,

Your portrayal of asylum seeker families and reference to human rights standards (particularly with reference to Rights of Children)to me sits in contrast to media reports earlier this month about a 12 year old girl in the Hunter Valley being arranged by her own family into a relationship with a 26 year old Lebanese national. This relationship was also officially endorsed within her community via a religious ceremony.

Pru Goward then spoke out about it saying this was not an isolated case but the secrecy within the community prevented authorities from knowing what the true scale is. I do not know whether anyone involved in this particular case was an asylum seeker or not but they were migrants, perhaps you could check on that Michael.

It is quite possible that asylum seeker families you have represented have gone on to commit this type of child abuse. As an immigration lawyer I wish you would pay more attention to this issue because I think you are in a better position than most to investigate families you represent seeking asylum.

It is not the floodgate of visas that concerns me Michael it is the knowledge that Australian law is being systematically ignored by families you represent who once settled in Australia go on to engage in the type of child abuse.
Posted by Farquhar, Monday, 24 February 2014 8:23:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The root of the problem and source of cruelty is that the state of Australia hogs this whole continent and doesn't allow entry to those it doesn't like. That state is imposed on Australians and non-Australians alike, as most of us were never even asked or given a choice whether or not we want or accept to be part of it. The only thing that allows this state of affairs are certain political/military conditions that prevailed in the 18th century (a time when slavery was still rampant too).

In one extreme, it is clear that the people of Sydney don't want refugees or their families - and indeed they should have the right to block their entry into their city.

In the other extreme, however, Tasmania welcomes refugees and their families with open arms. So why can't Tasmanians invite them, with a condition on their visas that forbids them to cross the Bass strait?

The evil is in having such a vast stretch of land, mostly undeveloped, held under the same law and same administration.

While people (thus societies) may protect their investment/development/social-order in limited, extensively-developed areas such as cities, nobody has a moral right to monopolise the access to significant portions of this planet.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 25 February 2014 12:32:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Phillip,

"The circumstances you outline could just as well apply to an Australian family except they do not have free lawyers and refugee advocates bending over backwards to help them."

If you re-read my article you may notice that I am in fact referring to Australian families and the denial of certain parents and partners to settle with their Australian citizen spouses.

As for 'Australian families in worse off situations', I don't think you're trying to suggest I can single handedly end all the various forms of suffering in Australia. By no way does my work in one area diminish the suffering of others and I never said that this was the only area I was active in or concerned about. If you care to engage with the content of the article I'd be happy to discuss further with you.

Hi Farquhar,

I have no knowledge of the case you refer to beyond a few headlines. I do not know if there were any refugees involved and I am not sure whether it is pertinent. If there are higher instances of such problems in migrant communities (I don't know if this is so) then something should be done but i am not aware of any such data.

Given the low number of new australians who are also refugees (~15'000 per annum compared with a migration program of over ~200'000 per annum, if my memory serves me correct) I would be hesitant to conflate all child abuse instances in migrant communities with refugees. But once again this is far beyond the scope of my article. Perhaps this may be an article topic for you to write?
Posted by Michael S., Tuesday, 25 February 2014 8:14:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Michael,

Would you be able to respond to the question I asked in my second response above. The one concerning what would happen if there was a substantial drop in applications.

Thanks.
Posted by ozzie, Tuesday, 25 February 2014 10:46:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The underage marriage conspiracy case involved the child's father who was an Islamic convert,a man from Lebanon who was out here on a student visa and an Imam whose background was not disclosed.
In other news another White child is maimed by refugees, but who cares eh Michael?.
Mother of boy stabbed in Clarendon Street, Cranbourne, begs for end to violence.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/mother-of-boy-stabbed-in-clarendon-street-cranbourne-begs-for-end-to-violence-20140224-33b9n.html

Party host Jessica Woeltjes said that before Ben was stabbed "it was a pretty sweet night".

She said a group of about 20, believed to be aged between 14 and 18 and of African origin, tried to join the party before she and her partner turned them away.

"Four got into the backyard and my partner asked them to leave," she told 3AW.

"Without us knowing, they all turned around and went around the block and waited."

Jess said Ben and his friend then left the party to go for a walk around the block before the teenager was assaulted. His friend, a girl, dragged Ben back to the party, where Jess called the ambulance.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Tuesday, 25 February 2014 12:31:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jay,

That type of thing is happening all the time and much of the media does not care. The ABC refused to even mention that the gang was of African appearance. Can you imagine the media frenzy if the situation had been reversed, with a gang of 20 white guys stabbing a single black guy.

Its quite sad, so much for racism. The word is only used when whites are at fault.
Posted by ozzie, Tuesday, 25 February 2014 8:33:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Michael,

Now that our government has stopped the flow, what career course do you see for yourself in a couple of years time?

Surely you realise these issues you find so important now are 'mere' flea bites in comparison to the plight of the millions of refugees in camps all over this world. Have you ever considered pro bono work on the behalf of any of those unfortunates.

Don't you think it more important to gain entry and asylum, for them than it is to focus on making the circumstances of someone, who has already gained safety, more comfortable.

Ali is safe and could have, with a little more responsibility have waited before putting himself and others in the difficult position they all now find themselves. Surely as a responsible adult you wouldn't marry and start a family while you were in a position where you were unable to ensure the safety or support of a family. Nor do our traditions.
Why did Ali think our society mores would allow him to flaunt them and expect us to not express disapproval when he then turns around and asks us to fund his remedies?

And you think that behaviour should be defended? If one of my kids tried to marry while broke, unemployed and likely be incarcerated ... well the facts of life would be pointed out quite quickly. And if they went ahead they would be expected to clean up their own mess.
What is so special about Ali that he can behave in this manner and have the expectations be has?
Posted by imajulianutter, Wednesday, 26 February 2014 7:54:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
But Imajulianutter,

You didn't consider the possibility that Ali married an Australian Millionaire and has no need for your money.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 26 February 2014 8:33:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Most young men when they act responsibly in this country don't need my money nor do they grizzle when the muck up. In my world they take responsibility for themselves.

Why doesn't Ali?
Posted by imajulianutter, Wednesday, 26 February 2014 12:43:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Besides they are struggling financially and Michael has not denied his firm is being paid from taxpayers funds to represent Ali.

It isn't me or my money, I have plenty, but it is the average young couple struggling with three jobs, the cost of living and rent and trying to feed clothe and educate their kids.

Is it fair they are funding Ali's irresponsibility?
Posted by imajulianutter, Wednesday, 26 February 2014 3:36:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Imajulianutter,

<<Is it fair they are funding Ali's irresponsibility?>>

Of course not!

Migrants (and I am a migrant myself) should not receive any benefits from the state at least until they are full citizens, which should be at least 10 years later.

In general, I believe there should be several tiers of citizenship and only the innermost tier should receive any financial benefits - in return for deeper conformance.

If however Ali himself or someone else is willing and happy to fund him and his family, then why not allow him to stay (assuming of course he is not a criminal risk or a health hazard)?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 26 February 2014 5:47:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yutusu

We agree. I' d even sanction government guaranteed loans as a possible solution.

What do you think Michael?
Posted by imajulianutter, Wednesday, 26 February 2014 6:24:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I see that the expense of these various policies is of particular concern to many of you. In the example I gave, Ali had been holding down a job in regional Australia for almost two years. Ali was financially independent. Due to the policy of the new government his bridging visa, like those of most others in his cohort, was left to expire. This meant he no longer had work rights and his employer could be fined if he continued to allow him to work. If Ali continued to work and the Department become aware his application for protection would be adversely affected. The current government has forced asylum seekers back onto welfare payments and won't even let them undertake voluntary work. Furthermore, many employers in rural areas have lost a large number of their staff over the past few months due to the denial of work rights. These employers cannot find local people who are willing to undertake the jobs that asylum seekers will do.

As to the notion of tiers of citizenship, that is an interesting idea but it would be inconsistent with our constitution as it currently stands. It is not possible to create classes of citizens, some of whom have more rights than other classes
Posted by Michael S., Thursday, 27 February 2014 8:26:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As to the ideas of loans for asylum seekers to cover their expenses, I presume that if you endorse this idea than you accept that asylum seekers must have the right to generate income in order to pay back the loan. This is a greater concession than what our current government is willing to bestow. I suspect most asylum seekers would actually endorse such as idea as they are willing and eager to contribute to Australia. Of course, if we allow them to put their skills and work ethic to use then they are already contributing to the tax base and will continue to do so over their life here. We have a number of very successful Australians who have contributed a great deal to Australia through academia, innovation and entrepreneurialism who also happen to have a refugee background.
Posted by Michael S., Thursday, 27 February 2014 8:33:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Michael,

<<It is not possible to create classes of citizens, some of whom have more rights than other classes>>

But of course more rights come with more obligations.

On one extreme, those on the outermost tier should receive no protection or aid from the state, but in turn should only be obliged to follow such laws that protect the ability of the rest of society to peacefully enjoy the full benefits of their society. On the other extreme, those in the innermost tier would benefit from all current state-protections and perhaps even more, but would be obliged in return to follow the state's direction and contribute as much as they can to the state's objectives. Then there's all that's in-between.

This idea will turn Locke's/Rousseau's illusory "social contract" from a myth into reality.

No Australian should be disadvantaged from this as all current Australian citizens and their future progeny will automatically be members of the innermost tier unless they opt out.

Constitutions can be changed to accommodate tiers of citizenship.

While certain issues like election-rights cannot be resolved without changing the constitution, other aspects can be implemented even under the existing constitution.

For example, nothing in the constitution mandates Medicare, so citizens should be able to opt out of Medicare. They will then not receive any free medical services from the state, but in turn they will be able for example to drive without seat-belts or helmets, because if they get injured it will become their own problem alone (or that of their private health insurer).

In another example, Australians travelling overseas may be asked whether they consent to follow certain Australian norms while abroad and continue to pay Australian tax. Those who agree will receive full Australian passports while others will only receive/purchase basic travel documents that do not grant them any consular protection or assistance.

With such a tiered system, I can't see why anyone should object to allowing any immigrant/refugee who does not pose a criminal/health risk to come and remain in the outermost tier (for those worrying about jobs, legislation may preference inner-tier citizens)
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 27 February 2014 11:08:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I take it Michael your two previous post were addresing me?

I've been with my mates drinking rum this afternoon on our yachts so I'm a bit pissed right now and I hear an invite for dinner.
i'll get back to you tomorrow. I find your response interesting ... odd but interesting.
Posted by imajulianutter, Thursday, 27 February 2014 5:55:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Michael, it is not prudent to assume. As you are well aware it is not necessary to have an income to obtain a bank or private loan. So no it is not apparent that I endose Ali working. What I would propose is a loan mortgaged with substaintial local assets or the Legal firm dealing with Ali's application, if they are convinced of it's likely success, act as a guarantor for Ali. That way my friends with the 3 jobs rising rents and costs of living and with the kids needing clothing and education would not be disadvantaged in anyway at all.

You did mention a bridging visa that was withdrawn. If Ali married and started a family while holding this visa then he was never guaranteed at any time permenant residence. His irresponsibility stands. He shouldn't expect my friends to pay for that irresponsibility at all.

Like the rest of us he must face up to his predicament and fund it's remedy himself.

Why is he so special that his expectations are that he should not?
Posted by imajulianutter, Friday, 28 February 2014 8:36:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Michael

From the high moral ground the scene with Ali appears mired in a morass of deceipt, inconsistancy, unnecessary complication and downright unreasonableness, especially in regards to the expected ongoing huge legal costs. To save struggling Australian families an inordinate expense it would be best foe Ali to go back overseas and apply for a visa, through normal and less expensive avenues.

For my high moral ground that would be both a responsible and a reasonable outcome.

Mate he's arrived here's by boat without a visa and probably without identification, either reunited with his wife and previous children and conceived another, or married a woman with children, in uncertain circumstances, had his application for refugee status refused, gone to court grizzling, had an order for it to be reassessed, been awarded another visa with limited tenure and expects struggling Australian families to pay for it all. You wouldn't have incouraged him at all would you? I reckon there would be huge ongoing income for you firm in Ali's (not his real name)case.

You wrote this article castigating the way we do things because it hasn't suited Ali.

Next time you see or talk to him think of Australian struggling families. They are paying for it.
Posted by imajulianutter, Sunday, 2 March 2014 12:14:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So here I was trawling through the internet reading news related to asylum seekers and I stumbled across this. Truth be told, I am an Australian Citizen in a relationship with an asylum seeker. The thought of being torn apart from this man who has made such a huge impact on my life and the lives of my children because of bureaucratic red tape sickens me.It continues to astound me the opinion people have of those who seek asylum. It continues to disgust me that some are of the view that people who have already been traumatised severely and come to our country for aid, are treated as though they are less worthy of a safe and happy life, less worthy of compassion and less worthy of dignity and respect. We have a very real and longstanding relationship. He contributes as much as he can to our family, however he, like Ali also has been affected by the changes in law and whilst he previously had working rights, he can no longer work without risk of being sent back to detention. So instead we struggle financially, with me bearing the brunt of most of our financial obligations without complaint. Why? Because we love each other and are committed to each other. Let me get something straight. The asylum seekers I have met, my partner included to NOT want to be reliant on any form of welfare.they are hardworking and genuinely want to find a job and contribute to society. My partner currently volunteers. He does not sit idolly waiting for his case to be heard, he works for free to give back to the community. He has come from a tragic situation through no fault of his own and is currently making the most of a life of uncertainty whereby he does not know what is ahead for him or us at any given moment. or a wife nor should he have to.
Posted by Natalie, Tuesday, 11 March 2014 7:10:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
 If we could apply for and receive a partner visa (for which we validly meet all criteria) then we would.. but there are two reasons we have not yet attempted it. One is the law currently prevents it (as explained in the article) and two, because he genuinely needs protection and believes he will receive it and does not want anyone ever questioning his motives for being with me. He cannot just put his life on hold and never experience having a family or a wife nor should he have to. Basic human rights come in to question here. So in response to this article, from someone affected by it... After exhausting all avenues of protection, if someone meets the criteria including security checks and health checks to obtain a partner visa and is in a genuine relationship, is willing to forgo any financial assistance with the exception of Medicare, has a partner who is willing to sponsor them, commonsense shows there is no logical reason that they should not be eligible. In Ali's case he has a child on the way. Refusing to allow Ali to stay will not only be detrimental to the mental health of Ali and his partner but also the child. Adding to this, the mother will be entitled to claim centrelink benefits for the child, which will in turn generate more costs to the Australian Government. I am not saying that there are not people who try to rought the system... There will always be someone, somewhere who trys to make false claims, be it asylum seekers or in our own country for centrelink payments but that doesn't mean that genuine people with genuine claims should be disregarded and that is also why it is such a lengthy and financially burdening process.
Posted by Natalie, Tuesday, 11 March 2014 7:12:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The government and the community as a whole should be working together to find a solution. They wanted the boats stopped? Its happened for the moment. The financial burden is too great? Then stop spending $500k per year to keep one person on Manus and find an alternative solution. People are angry about handouts? Then let those who can, work and install a program for asylum seekers like HECS debts whereby once they are earning a certain amount per annum they can pay back a portion of the assistance they received upon arrival. They dont want hand outs... They want a hand to hold to help them get on their feet and have a life again.
Posted by Natalie, Tuesday, 11 March 2014 7:13:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Natalie,

I feel distressed to hear your story. It's just so cruel.

For the last days I was tossing some practical advice for you, typing and erasing, typing and erasing, but eventually I consider none of this advice good enough to publish.

Feeling helpless as you are, all I can do now is pray for you and your beloved partner.

May God speed your journey.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 18 March 2014 4:33:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu thank you so much for your kind words & thoughts. I hope that Michael (the writer) will also find the time to respond at some stage and perhaps give us some direction. Best wishes :)
Posted by Natalie, Thursday, 27 March 2014 9:06:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Natalie,

Sorry for the delayed response and thank you for your contribution. Your situation is sounds terrible and unfortunately is not uncommon. This is not the result of a negligent oversight, it is an intentional, malicious government action. It is an affront to our ICCPR obligations which enshrine the sanctity of the family unit. Unfortunately given the sweeping discretions bestowed to the minister and the inferior legal standing of non-citizens, particular those we deem to never have entered Australia (although they are physical here), it is not clear if or when the courts may intervene. I hope that ultimately public pressure will force the Minister's hand if he starts removing people with Australian partners and children, but this is not a certainty. I am happy to discuss your situation with you further, I can be contacted via the public register of migration agents - see www.mara.gov.au
Posted by Michael S., Saturday, 29 March 2014 2:23:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you so much Michael, I will be in contact you this week. It will be nice to discuss this with someone who has some experience in our situation and might I add, I appreciate your attempts to bring to light some of these issues that many are not aware of.
Posted by Natalie, Saturday, 29 March 2014 9:38:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy