Irish Paralympian fighting for PR held back by english test.

catbear

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-24/irishmans-paralympic-aspirations-held-back-by-language-test/6802434
I'm interested in opinions on this, especially anyone who's done the language test for points.

One of the inventors of the test, linguist Dr David Ingram, said he was not surprised some English speakers were failing.

He said the test was never meant to be used as an immigration tool.

While the problem could well be his own literacy issues, I do wonder if the reason to deny his application is his disability. I'm not saying this without reason, I was very shocked when I heard this story some years ago.

A German doctor refused permission to live permanently in Australia because his son has Down's Syndrome has promised to fight the decision as an immigration row erupted over his future.
Bernhard Moeller came to Australia two years ago with wife Isabella and three children to work at the Wimmera Base Hospital in rural Victoria state, and was given a temporary visa to help plug a critical doctor shortage in Australia.
But immigration officials today refused permission for the Moellers to settle permanently because youngest son Lukas, 13, failed health tests and was judged by officials as likely to be a permanent drain on taxpayer funding due to his condition.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1082071/Doctor-denied-Australian-visa-Downs-Syndrome-son-permanent-drain-taxpayers.html#ixzz3meaifz68

gobsh!te

What can you say? Australia is tough on these things.

As for the English test, yeah it's a joke to make money.

catbear

gobsh!te wrote: »

What can you say? Australia is tough on these things.

As for the English test, yeah it's a joke to make money.

Well is it reflective of societal attitudes, do Australians view their fellow Australians with downs syndrome as a burden?
My point is why doesn't Australia state that disabilities will disqualify PR applications rather than having temporary residents who are fit enough to be taxed on their earnings wasting their time and money only to find out the hard way.

myhorse

catbear wrote: »

Well is it reflective of societal attitudes, do Australians view their fellow Australians with downs syndrome as a burden?

Australians? possible some but in this case it is immigration making the call. majority of Australians would not consider them a burden

catbear wrote: »

My point is why doesn't Australia state that disabilities will disqualify PR applications rather than having temporary residents who are fit enough to be taxed on their earnings wasting their time and money only to find out the hard way.

It kind of does state it. It has always been known that there are a list of illnesses/disabilities that can prevent PR. As a temporary resident you are not entitled to a lot of "benefits" available to PR/ citizens. when you move from temp to PR you become eligible and that is when immigration dont want a "burden". I may be wrong but in some temp visas the sponsor etc are liable for a lot of expenses (open to correction on this) and not the state or federal bodies. Also you are advised to take out private cover as you are not eligible for medicare etc (in some visa types)
Also the waters get really muddied when someone goes from PR - citizenship and can then sponsor family members to come over. Usually this can be an elderly parent(s). "some" nationalities are known to bring as many people over on this scheme - just a statistical fact. These would place a huge strain on the public health care if they were allowed to just "move on to medicare" or be automatically eligible

catbear

myhorse wrote: »

It kind of does state it. It has always been known that there are a list of illnesses/disabilities that can prevent PR. As a temporary resident you are not entitled to a lot of "benefits" available to PR/ citizens. when you move from temp to PR you become eligible and that is when immigration dont want a "burden". I may be wrong but in some temp visas the sponsor etc are liable for a lot of expenses (open to correction on this) and not the state or federal bodies. Also you are advised to take out private cover as you are not eligible for medicare etc (in some visa types)

Actually british citizen on temporary visa's are entitled to medicare and don't need private cover as there's a reciprocal arrangement between the two countries healthcare systems. This system does not exist for RofI and citizens of other countries so they have to provide their own private cover but this in no way is an explicit declaration that people with disabilities who are entitled to work and be taxed as temporary residents are not eligible for PR because of their disability.
Going by the implicit practice Australian immigration practice a british citizen with a disability who's health is covered by medicare on a temporary work visa could be refused PR!

gobsh!te

I don't have a problem with the disability stuff. It makes sense to me but the English exam is just a scam to raise money.

They discriminate against older people for the same reason.

myhorse

catbear wrote: »

they have to provide their own private cover but this in no way is an explicit declaration that people with disabilities who are entitled to work and be taxed as temporary residents are not eligible for PR because of their disability.

never said explicit, that is your word.
There is a medical test for PR. That is a fact. therefore if you fail that test you do not get PR (hence the idea of a test). The suggestion I referred to (I said "kind of") is - if you fail the test due to not meeting the criteria of the medical test (be it physical or otherwise) you do not get the PR. Regardless if you are taxed or otherwise as a temp holder or what type of visa you were holding at the time of the test. Also you do not have to have pre-existing (at time of getting temp visa) illness and fail. You can also get ill/ have accident/ get disease will in Australia on your temp visa and still fail even though you got ill in Australia. Anyways the main thing is the word "temporary" in the temporary visa. it has this word because it is just that - temporary and can be cancelled at any time for a range of reasons and not a guarantee to permanency

catbear wrote: »

Going by the implicit practice Australian immigration practice a british citizen with a disability who's health is covered by medicare on a temporary work visa could be refused PR!

of course - they ,the british, have to do the test. the test is there to errrrr test. Fail it and you do not get the visa. temporary to permanent is not a given. Even though ,through an agreement, a british person can get medicare it does not exclude them from doing the test like everyone else and therefore fail or pass like anyone else.

catbear

OK then reason this for me, why should a UK family on temporary work visas be deemed not a burden with a down syndrome child but yet be classed as such fore PR?

I thought Australia had signed up for the UN ban on eugenics.

myhorse

catbear wrote: »

OK then reason this for me, why should a UK family on temporary work visas be deemed not a burden with a down syndrome child but yet be classed as such fore PR?

The chance of significant cost in the long term to the Australian community. (That is the actual reason as per the migration white paper). On a temporary visa there is no chance of long term cost as it is (again) a temporary visa

catbear wrote: »

I thought Australia had signed up for the UN ban on eugenics.

They may well have (I am not sure so I have to say may well have), however that does not equate to a open house policy on immigration. Signatories do not have to sweepingly repeal national policies by signing up. however areas such as forced sterilization would be banned by signing up

catbear

myhorse wrote: »

The chance of significant cost in the long term to the Australian community. (That is the actual reason as per the migration white paper). On a temporary visa there is no chance of long term cost as it is (again) a temporary visa

Well your white paper argument is not worth the paper it's written on.

German doctor Bernhard Moeller will be allowed to stay in Australia with his Down syndrome son Lukas.
"I received a request this morning from Dr Moeller to intervene and I have granted permanent visas.
"As minister, I can take into account all the circumstances and it was clear to me Dr Moeller was making a very valuable contribution to the community."
The decision followed Dr Moeller's final appeal to Senator Evans, after the Migration Review Tribunal yesterday upheld the Immigration Department's controversial decision to deny the family residency.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/german-doctor-wins-visa-20081126-6hzr.html#ixzz3mkBKHL49

Further contradictions:

In 2004, immigration officials used the health requirement to reject the residency application of an Indian social worker whose 12-year-old son was autistic. The case made headlines when it was found that another government department had used the boy's photo on a taxpayer-financed calendar celebrating the International Day of People with Disability. Six months later, the immigration minister at that time, Amanda Vanstone, quietly overturned the decision and allowed the family to stay.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/04/world/asia/04iht-doctor.1.17504311.html?_r=0

Upon further reading in 2008 Australia was one of the first countries to ratify the Convention on the rights of people with disabilities.

Ms McAlpine, who has a 13-year-old son, Julian, with Down syndrome, said our laws breached the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which has been ratified by Australia.
Article 18 of the Convention says: “State parties shall recognise the rights of persons with disabilities to liberty of movement, to freedom to choose their residence and to a nationality, on an equal basis with others, including by ensuring that persons with disabilities ... have the right to acquire and change a nationality and are not deprived of their nationality arbitrarily or on the basis of disability.”

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/baby-gammy-isnt-the-only-one-the-ugly-law-shaming-australia/story-fnixwvgh-1227021191521

jank

catbear wrote: »

Well your white paper argument is not worth the paper it's written on.

Correlation does not equal causation.
Besides, are to make immigration policy via the media? That has worked out well in Europe hasn't it.

NZ has similar polices in this regard and are actually tougher then OZ in my experience. If you are overweight in NZ and apply for PR then you have a high likely hood of being turned down.

http://blogs.loc.gov/law/2013/07/how-big-is-too-big-for-new-zealand/
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10557061

With the western world battling obesity, expect this to become more standard practice.

jank

Regarding the OP, why does an Irish national have to do an English test anyway, I would have thought that they had an exemption. I never had to do one and I went from 457->PR->Citizen.

gobsh!te

jank wrote: »

Regarding the OP, why does an Irish national have to do an English test anyway, I would have thought that they had an exemption. I never had to do one and I went from 457->PR->Citizen.

We do have an exemption but you can get points from the test. They should automatically give us these points but they don't which proves it is a joke

jank

Points for Skilled migrant visa?

catbear

If English proficiency is the real obstacle then for $5,000,000 he can buy his way in.

There are no language requirements or upper age limit and applicants do not have to engage in business in Australia.

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1420236/chinese-snap-australia-significant-investor-visas
The only requirement is a criminal check but those with 5 Million to spare can probably buy a clean criminal record if they need to.

The last line in that piece.

"The real crime of the boatpeople is to come without lots of money."

jank

Again, people with money can get visas for the US, UK, NZ, OZ and elsewhere. Sure wasn't there a passport for sale scheme going on in Ireland in the 90's?

This link is interesting reading.
http://www.cnbc.com/2013/11/14/buying-citizenship-which-nations-are-affordable.html

So if the attempt to paint Australia in some bad light, then one can look much closer to home and see that this is actually very common. So not really sure what this thread is about tbh.

catbear

jank wrote: »

So if the attempt to paint Australia in some bad light, then one can look much closer to home and see that this is actually very common. So not really sure what this thread is about tbh.

Ultimately it's about applicants wasting their time and money when the immigration does not state specifically that disabilities aren't eligible.
I've been looking at the USA immigration for people with disabilities and the focus there is more on if the person has any condition that may be a public danger.

1. a physical or mental disorder and a history of behavior associated with the disorder that may pose or has posed a threat to the property, safety or welfare of themselves or others; or
2. previously had a physical or mental disorder and a history or behavior associated with the disorder that may pose or has posed a threat to the property, safety or welfare of themselves or others and which behavior is likely to recur or lead to other harmful behavior.

http://www.ccdonline.ca/en/socialpolicy/access-inclusion/disability-and-immigration-law-in-usa

The only requirement is

Under INA §212(a)(4), an applicant who is likely to become a public charge at any time is excludable. The INS looks at the totality of circumstances in making its determination including their age, capacity to earn a living, health, family circumstances, employment history and whether or not they have ever received public assistance. Most immigrants must submit an affidavit of support as evidence that they will not become a public charge. The affidavit is required of all family based immigrants. The affidavit of support creates an enforceable legal obligation and the US government can sue to recover any public benefits provided in the first five years of residence.

Basically Australia has an inflexible blanket ban on disability, basically the Stephan Hawkings of this world need not apply. Australia sees the disability but ignores the ability.

NORZ

catbear wrote: »

While the problem could well be his own literacy issues, I do wonder if the reason to deny his application is his disability.

He hasn't had an application denied or rejected (yet). He has simply failed to yet meet the points threshold to be invited to apply for an independent skilled visa. In fact the Department of Immigration have yet to become involved in his application at all.

That being said, there is almost no chance of an independent PR visa being granted anyway, due to his cerebral palsy. I'm aware of a 12 year old child with CP being assessed at a cost of $3.5m to the Commonwealth over the course of his life. The maximum assessed lifetime medical cost to the Commonwealth for an independent skilled visa is $40k. Any higher and the applicant doesn't meet the "Public Interest Criteria". There is no waiver available for this visa.

I will also add that if citizenship is a requirement for joining the Aussie Paralympic team, then he hasn't a chance of participating (for Australia). The Paralympics start in Rio on 9 Sept 2016. A person must be a perm resident for at least 1 full year before they can even apply for Aus citizenship. Even if he got his IELTS 7.0 tomorrow he wouldn't be a PR until Christmas 2015 at the earliest (if he didn't have CP).

Regarding the English test requirement in general - the alternative is to give a procedural advantage to Anglosphere passport holders and that is not a good look given Australia's history (look up 'White Australia').

catbear

Thanks for that Norz. I reckon he has to build up a swell of public support from fellow paralympians and the general public to help build his case for ministerial intervention like in the German doctors care.
If i were in his position that's what I'd do if I wanted a hope of PR.

seamus

jank wrote: »

Again, people with money can get visas for the US, UK, NZ, OZ and elsewhere.

http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/INIS/Pages/New%20Programmes%20for%20Investors%20and%20Entrepreneurs

NORZ

catbear wrote: »

Thanks for that Norz. I reckon he has to build up a swell of public support from fellow paralympians and the general public to help build his case for ministerial intervention like in the German doctors care.
If i were in his position that's what I'd do if I wanted a hope of PR.

Yep, MI is his only bet if he continues to pursue that visa option. Imagine, your future hinging on Peter Dutton...

catbear

seamus wrote: »

http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/INIS/Pages/New%20Programmes%20for%20Investors%20and%20Entrepreneurs

Interesting, no mention of disabilities being a barrier.

munchkin_utd

to get back on topic, if you do a search for the test that he did, it is COMPLETELY the wrong test to be taking.

His was a test for academics on academic subjects concepts and language, amost like the lingustic equivalent of an advanced drivers test rather than a regular one. Its not to test the basics, its WAY beyond that.
I had a go a few sample papers and its damn hard as you really have to think about what is being asked.
Even the creator of the test says that it shouldnt be used for assessing if someone has a basic language ability as part of an immigration process

NORZ

munchkin_utd wrote: »

to get back on topic, if you do a search for the test that he did, it is COMPLETELY the wrong test to be taking.

His was a test for academics on academic subjects concepts and language, amost like the lingustic equivalent of an advanced drivers test rather than a regular one. Its not to test the basics, its WAY beyond that.
I had a go a few sample papers and its damn hard as you really have to think about what is being asked.
Even the creator of the test says that it shouldnt be used for assessing if someone has a basic language ability as part of an immigration process

Nope - though you are right about alternative tests being available (Pearson is becoming popular), there are 2 x different IELTS tests available - General and Academic. Both are OK for Aus migration purposes. General is the one most people sit and does not require academic prowess.

catbear

Interesting piece about the language proficiency test in the Irish times.
http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/generation-emigration/would-you-pass-the-english-test-for-an-australian-visa-1.2369830

Richard Coates from Dublin, who works as a migration agent in Adelaide, told The Irish Times over the weekend that 90 per cent of Irish people who do the English test fail it at least once.

Well that would tally with the original piece.

jank

catbear wrote: »

Basically Australia has an inflexible blanket ban on disability, basically the Stephan Hawkings of this world need not apply. Australia sees the disability but ignores the ability.

Hyperbole aside, do you have proof of this? If the best you can do is point to a handful of articles from the past 10 years (where visas were actually given in those circumstances), where by in those ten years at least 1 million people would have emigrated to Australia legally then it stands to reason they are more anomalies then some 'blanket ban' on people with disabilities.

For someone who lived there for a time, you sure have some negativity built up regarding the country. Did you have ANY positive experiences?

jank

NORZ wrote: »

Regarding the English test requirement in general - the alternative is to give a procedural advantage to Anglosphere passport holders and that is not a good look given Australia's history (look up 'White Australia').

Perhaps but it would also indicate a requirement of the applicant to have some knowledge of the official language of the state which imo is a good thing in the long run regarding ability to assimilate. Canada, NZ has similar requirements and I would rather their type of multiculturalism then European style multiculturalism and the problems with this that are self evident.

jank

Regardless, it seems that in 2012 they changed the rules regarding disability being an automatic negative regarding visa applications and assessments are geared towards the individual.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/a-win-for-disabled-migrants-20121031-28kao.html
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2012/11/08/move-relax-disability-restrictions-immigrants

Disability advocacy groups have broadly welcomed an announcement that the federal government will make it easier for people with disabilities or health problems to migrate to Australia.

(Transcript from World News Australia Radio)

Immigration Minister Chris Bowen says people who want to migrate to Australia will be assessed on the potential social and economic benefits they bring, rather than just the burden they could place on the healthcare system.

Up until now, the migration process has assumed in most cases that potential migrants with a disability will be a burden to taxpayers.

That meant they were routinely rejected for permanent residency, with appeals to the Migration Review Tribunal always upholding the original decision.

Their only recourse has been to appeal directly to the Immigration Minister.

This was the course taken by blind social worker Simran Kaur, and one that was ultimately successful after she proved she was making a contribution to the country through her work.

Ms Kaur's colleague at Vision Australia, international relations manager Maryanne Diamond, says it shows why the system should be changed to assess people on what they can do rather than their disability.

"I'd like to congratulate Chris Bowen and the government on, finally, making the right decision. And it is totally in line with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Article 18, and Australia has ratified that convention that says people have the right to live anywhere that they choose and disability should not be a barrier."

Sundy

He should try the Pearson English test instead

http://pearsonpte.com/

AngryHippie

This is not about his ability to converse or communicate with the locals !


Its for bonus points for a visa, not for the requirements of the visa itself.

https://www.border.gov.au/Lega/Lega/...petent-english

He didn't have enough points for his visa assessment, he tried IELTS to get a few extras, it fell over.

To be brutally honest, he's not going to get much sympathy for bleating to the press about it either. considering:

To prove that you have competent English you must provide evidence of one of the following:

You hold a valid passport issued by the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Canada, New Zealand or the Republic of Ireland and you are a citizen of that country.

from Immi.gov.au

4 other alternatives are also allowed to prove your language competence.
That's not what he was trying to do.

To get bonus points for English Competence in that exam, study is required. Technical proficiency and Grammar is essential. Diction and spoken English must also be of a very high standard.

The funny part is how many people are getting the wrong end of the stick. I suppose it's proving the point that comprehension of the language isn't exactly a given.

Yes it sucks for the guy that he can't get his visa sorted, but I'm pretty sure if he pulls his finger out, does some study and sits it again he'll get his bonus points and enough points for the visa.

What won't and shouldn't help is some sort of media campaign against the system that Immi have put in place. They aren't using this test as a barrier to entry, they are using it as a way for people that have gone over and above in their efforts to learn the language to get some extra credits towards a visa.

There is a lot of misrepresentation of the facts regarding this matter happening.

Mellor

catbear wrote: »

While the problem could well be his own literacy issues, I do wonder if the reason to deny his application is his disability.

His application hasn't been denied, it hasn't even been made by the sounds of things.

I don't disability excludes anyone, but if you are likely to higher "healthcare cost" than the average person, you'll have a hard time getting past the health check. They are open about that fact I believe.

gobsh!te wrote: »

We do have an exemption but you can get points from the test. They should automatically give us these points but they don't which proves it is a joke

Considering the failure rate, then it's not really a given that an Irish or UK passport automatically reflects that level of english.



Tbh, I'm not a fan of shilling a sympathy stories to the paper. Especially when its misleading. The idea "I've been speaking english my whole life. But they are making me do a test" is plainly false. He doesn't have to, the passport is enough to qualify for the basic english needed. If he is choosing to sit the test to increase his points, then that's up to him.

The RIO angle is strange also. Even if they waived the English test today, it'd be mid-2017 before he gets a passport.