Damn.
Not being a lawyer or an immigration expert, all I can do is join leechbabe and others in prayer, and every other (sensible) person in saying, I’m sorry, Thylacine.
Why the hell do we have to have laws against the way people love each other? It’s not as if there’s amassive over-supply of love in this world …
One:He’s(I think) College Age
Two:He’s trying to be witty.
I am sure Australia has some recognition of same sex partnerships.
A gay friend of mine’s boyfriend - a Chinese national - was first trying to get refugee status on the grounds of persecution back in China. But he eventually applied (not sure if he got it) as the permanent de facto partner of my friend - I am sure there was a recognised mechanism to do this. This was in Sydney.
By then though, he had managed to live in Sydney with my friend for the required two years. I guess your difficulty might be proving the de-facto-ness. There are some excellent lawyers about that specialise in gay rights.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Muffin *
**Time to withdraw your comments, county, and while you are at it, apologize for your tone and apologize for not first reviewing the law before making your assertions and demands.
My post effectively withdrew my comment. As far as the rest of it, fuck that, I am not obligated to bleed for everybody’s personal problems and am not terribly concerned about a couple’s romantic problems. They’ll find a way or they won’t.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by county *
**
You sound like a very kind, caring, considerate person. :rolleyes:
Our circumstances (my SO has a child) made it much more practical for me to be the one moving Istara but you are likely thinking of the Interdependent Partner Migration Visa that in theory allows for queer immigration to Australia. In practice it is extraordinarily hard to qualify as you need to have one full year of living together somewhere before application as well as a host of other proof of your relationship which is not required by married or engaged folks.
That works well for those already in one place, say those who meet while on long term business or student visas. It is not applicable to us as we were unable to string together 12 legal months as recognised by Australian law under the visas we qualified for either here or there.
For us it is over. We were getting nowhere and then I injured my back which has made hoop jumping pretty near impossible.
really, you sound kinda sarcastic
Thylacine if we are to make an effort to get the laws changed for all what could us Aussie dopers do? Is there someone we write to or a petition we can start up?
Well, our immigration minister is the kindly, caring Phillip Ruddock, so he’d be a good start. Failing that, John Howard. Failing that, get a new government…
here is more on the Interdependent Partner Migration Visa. I was incorrect, apparently straight couples wishing to be recognised without legal marriage have the same problem except thay do have the option of marriage.
Leechy, write to your Federal Member and the charming Immigration Minister, the oh so cuddly and always honourable Philip Ruddock MP.
I suspect MP stands for Major Pillock
I see tavalla beat me to it. Thanks tav.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by county *
**
Romantic problem?
Who said anything about a romantic problem. The problem is bigotted imigration laws.
Way to blame the victims, Asswipe.
I’ve been working on that at every election but so far little Johnnie keeps hanging in there.
What is the likelihood a labour government would change the immigration laws. Are they more tolerant than the liberals?
I know, I know!!!
How about you land in the US claiming asylum/refugee status on the grounds that you have been denied your fundamental human rights here in Oz, and that situation is likely to remain for the forseeable future? That you are actively discriminated against (and thus persecuted) for your sexuality at least in this situation? Wouldn’t this come under UN criteria for a legitimate reason?
Would it, could it posiibly work??
Well moron, that is your take on the situation. Me, I see it as two people who can’t marry and live where they want to.
Me, I’m not “blaming anybody” - a lot of you motherfuckers really like to put your own spin on what another person says. Try and get past your own fucking filters, biases and prejudices before you call someone else an “Asswipe” - you fucking dingleberry on Ashcroft’s ass.
Folks, we’ve got bigger fish to fry than hassling with county. Let’s see if we can save that energy for use in helping Thylacine & her partner.
Thylacine, do you posses any unusual or high-demand job-related skills? Maybe we can find you work with an accomodating employer, get you in the door legally that way…?
Isn’t it ironic that social-conservatives are now in the business of trying to break up families and make long-term commitment more difficult?
Gee, I thought we were supposed to be “fighting ignorance,” not speaking on its behalf.
Well, I’ve come to this thread late, but Thylacine I am sorry to hear that it has come to this for you both, and thanks to some seriously fucked-up laws.
I’ve got no help to really offer here, and I’m sure you’ve become expert in this field over the last several years, but for heterosexual couples I’m pretty sure actual marriage isn’t mentioned in the law, is it? Well ok, it is, but not exclusively - ie. de facto relationships qualify. I have a friend who was in this situation with his girlfriend. He went through a lot of the hoops that you have gone through (it nearly drove him utterly spare, and he ended up living on boiled rice and beans for a while because the expenses were so high), but in the end he did it, and he did it legally. This was called, IIRC, a Potential Spouse Visa, although the qualifying criteria did not include marriage. Is this the same as the Interdependent Partner one? The two sound almost identical, from what you’ve described. The time criterion seemingly the most important one.
O fuck this is fucking fucked. We’ve got two Western, wealthy, democratic nations which are almost identical to one another - both relatively sparsely populated. If one Aussie or one Yank wants to move, who is it going to hurt? Nobody is looking at this as a cheap ticket out of the slums of a third world country, or to sneak off to a flying school, or a terrorist training camp…
The law stinks.
In defence of Howard though, gay marriage is still very, very new or not yet achieved in most countries, including those with governments further to the left. Now it shouldn’t be that way of course, but the Howard administration isn’t on its own. What did Hawke and Keating do? Or Clinton? Still, nothing changes if there is no agitation for it. I suggest anybody wishing to write to Ruddock include a copy of the very moving OP in the envelope.
A spouse can be via marriage or de facto, but either way gays are excluded.
**MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994
(1) For the purposes of these Regulations, a person is the spouse of another person if the 2 persons are:
(a) in a married relationship, as described in subregulation (1A); or
(b) in a de facto relationship, as described in subregulation (2).
. . .
(2) Persons are in a de facto relationship if:
(a) they:
(i) are of opposite sexes; and . . .**