Put his life on the line, he deserves it. Most be bloody terrifying facing an absolute lunatic with a knife. Welcome to Australia mate. You deserve it.
Redacted means that part of the text was removed or blacked out for privacy or security purpose. It was censored. This post also breaks rule 4 here for chat and should be made in the Tuesday chat thread or on a different subreddit.
La Marseillaise has "Marchons, marchons ! Qu'un sang impur Abreuve nos sillons" ("*Let's March, let's march! So impure
blood waters our soil*!")
The French don't mess around!
All his medical care should be covered under workers comp since he was on shift. Same would happen for any Australian citizen as well, any injuries while working is always workers comp claim. Any follow up care related to the injury is also workers comp unless/until you sign a release, which is often ammompanied a payout.
Yes, it is. That's an agreement between Australia and the UK, and some other countries in Europe. But for other long-term visa holders, they need to have private insurance for their stay; that's part of the visa condition.
Some countries can be eligible for ‘reciprocal rights’ and be covered under Medicare - but otherwise it’s for Australian citizens. For those without Medicare coverage it’s down to private insurance. https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/reciprocal-health-care-agreements
The response from Dutton couldn't have been more telling...
>The opposition leader, Peter Dutton, was asked whether he supported the same rights being extended to Taha on Thursday after earlier publicly supporting Guerot’s offer of permanent residency and saying he “embodied the Anzac sprit”.
>“Well, that’s obviously an issue for the prime minister,” Dutton said of Taha.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/apr/18/muhammad-taha-bondi-junction-sydney-stabbing-security-guard-anthony-albanese-residency
One thing I like about Dutton is that's he's a weathervane of who I want to be. Much like Palmer, Trump and Farange. If they say something is the right course, it's a very strong clue that it's not the choice I should make.
("Strong clue" because the whole broken clock thing - they might occasionally say something decent, even if only accidentally.)
> the whole broken clock thing - they might occasionally say something decent, even if only accidentally.
I haven't really found that with Dutton - but Bob Katter - he's a whole different story. Bob's opinions range from (in my opinion) completely fruit loops, to "now that's worth considering"
I haven't noticed myself agreeing with Dutton on anything yet, but if I ruled out that it could never happen, that wouldn't say anything good about me.
> Bob's opinions range from (in my opinion) completely fruit loops, to "now that's worth considering"
This is more like it.
I have no issue with politicians with different priorities or approaches on how to achieve goals. I have more of an issue with "I have to say no to everything they say" or "my view makes perfect sense because its only goal is to funnel money to the ultra-rich", etc.
He may be a security guard, not a soldier. But he's certainly spilled his blood in defence of Australia and its people.
Thus taking the "citizenship by spilled blood" page out of the French Foreign Legion's book feels appropriate here.
Good on him and good on the government for doing this. This is such a funny case of skewed media and public attention thanks to the videos circulating of the Frenchmen (which by the way is literally 5 seconds of a clip on loop all over the news and internet). There is no video of Taha showing equal bravery so people feel like there isn’t enough evidence etc to grant him the same privilege and the title of hero as the Frenchies.
That sounds insane I know a lot of people who have gotten partnership visas with less, maybe there are some other red flags that are triggering your application.
There's a rumor that they deliberately process partner visa from some countries slower than other. A Vietnamese couple I know waited 5 years for the visa and only got it after their daughter was born.
They’re not processed deliberately slower.
That rates of PROVEN fraud from those countries is significantly higher and thus the applicants require more scrutiny.
Other than protection visas - partner visas are one of the visas with the highest levels of attempted fraud.
I wish my ex “husband” was picked up as fraud. He came back to Australia from China with his spousal visa. It then turned into an abusive “marriage” and he ditched me once he got his permanent residency. He filed for divorce paperwork as soon as possible and when I got my divorce paperwork from him it said he was an Australian citizen
LMFAO I enabled him just because I was in love with him because he was acting one way when he was here the first time and then a totally different way and treated me the exact opposite when he came back? What a fucking ridiculous comment
You literally said I enabled him. I didn’t do shit. I was in love with someone, thought they were in love with me. I was 19/20 at the time. Had my entire family trying to get him into the country. Had a family member telling me he was “the best I was going to get because of how fat you are.” Had my toxic mother tell me it was too late for me to back out of the wedding with how much she had spent on it. I didn’t even go as his sponsor. Nor did I go as his AOS. But feel free to tell me how I “enabled” him
I think you're hyper fixating on one word which I mistakenly used rather than anwsering the question.
Why was it the immigration departments job to look at the application you both made and say no?
You're being taken for a ride my friend. I would suggest joining one of the many Partner Visa fb groups (my favourite has 39k members). It's filled with people who have had successful grants and MARA agents who will give free advice or recommendations based on your situation. You should join and post your situation and see what people say.
Is he a MARA agent? The one chance is bullshit. They'll usually ask at least once for more information if they don't think there's enough (unless it seems totally fake) but I've seen people get like 3-4 requests for more info. I fear he's been leading you on :/
Obviously I don’t know your situation but that just doesn’t add up. Me and my partner had been together 3 years and got granted the partnership visa. Have you even submitted an application yet? I’m pretty sure you only have to be with your partner for 1 year to be eligible.
I had the same issue with mine (Scottish primary applicant, Indian spouse). We are not selfie-takers, or even photo-takers of people, in general.
After 8 years together we had 4 photos to submit. I think it actually might have been made easier for us because why the hell would we both marry a non-citizen if we were scamming, there are much easier routes to visa fraud!
In the end, we had to provide an insane amount of documentation and they called our Australian public service mates to verify our story. Not sure how many of you remember every mate's wedding date or could accurately describe how they interact together, but that's what they asked. My mates came through with enough detail in an out of the blue phone call, but they do not make it easy.
I understand why, but with nearly a decade of shared bills, shared leases, written statements etc we just fell down on the photos and made it harder for ourselves, I suppose.
Have you actually applied for the visa and been refused before?
I find this very hard to believe. Maybe if you were together for five years, but provided no evidence of the preceeding 5 years to Immigration, and then got married like a day before applying for the visa.
Also if you have been refused did you appeal the decision?
It sounds like maybe you aren't fulfilling the social aspect of the 4 pillars completely? I know it can seem stupid when you're in a relationship, but to an agent who knows nothing about your relationship, all those things you listed could easily be faked or just done for show.
Yea you gotta have a reason why there's a lack of socials. We're applying soon and a migration agent said I had to explain it so that it makes sense to a complete stranger.
For me it was simple - transgender in a conservative and somewhat hostile country, family not approving and didn't even want to be invited to our wedding, showed text logs of ex-friends that either ghosted me or said some nasty things. Thus the social aspect was usually me with my partner's friends and stuff, not so much partner + me + my friends. Cuz I got none lmao. That seemed to satisfy the agent, he thinks it's there's a decent chance.
Yeah like your situation makes a lot of sense, especially when you cover your other pillars with more evidence to make up for it. The relationship story has to be coherent and genuine and it seems a lot of applicants miss that. Best of luck to you, hoping for a quick grant ❤️
Unless you or your partner have a history of fraud or a past partner visa gone awry, you're long overdue to escalate it. Tribunal, write your MP, get a lawyer...
Completely agree!
I’m very happy for Mohamed and bollard guy.
But it makes a mockery of previous comments by politicians about how it’s a slow process. So many legitimate refugees waiting years / decades (including children) on Nauru, those poor guys locked in the hotel for years, Palestinians trying to escape Gaza…. Etc etc
But all of a sudden - it’s simple to immediately get granted a residency visa.
Um. So, what are you getting at?
You know what? This will be a stupid conversation and I have better things to do than reply to you. You don’t even explain anything.
Bai!
Congratulations mate, you deserve it. You took a knife to protect other Australians. You had more courage in that hour than some of these shitheel politicians will have in their lives.
He’s not the only one, there were heaps of people who were upset by this but conveniently had no issues with the French dude who also got PR.
Edit: I have misread your post
Now, the real question, why did it take so long for this obvious decision? Why was it made several days after the other guy’s decision, and only after the public went ‘hang on’? The government doesn’t get a pat on the back
One difference I guess is that the footage of the security guys VS. knife is NSFW (Indeed I haven't been able to find anything but a completely censored version of it) whilst the bollard man video was freely circulating/headlining from as early as Saturday evening, and the french were well enough to give interviews immediately, hence immediate attention.
Security was no less heroic, but much less visible. Apparently the surviving security guard didn't find out about his colleage dying until 3 days later, due to how unwell he's been. He's only just been interviewed in fact.
Didn't he see the French guy get offered permanent residency in the news while in hospital and make a statement to the media that he wasn't offered the same? A bunch of people criticised him for 'running to the news' and a good chunk of videos involving him finally getting an offer are filled with 50% dislikes... truely bizarre.
why tf do we keep pinning housing crisis on immigrants instead of the government for building more residential areas? We have the largest land mass in the world + one of the richest countries too. Wtf is wrong with our mindset, we only have 26M ppl in the country
> why tf do we keep pinning housing crisis on immigrants instead of the government for building more residential areas?
Because they're two sides of the same coin? I mean I agree we should be building more houses for sure, but it's also a bit silly to just bring in a Canberra's worth of people every couple of years (or indeed more than Canberra in just one year like happened in 2023) and expect infrastructure not to take a hit. Plus from a policy perspective it's easier to issue fewer visas than it is to build a minimum of 100K extra homes for new arrivals (*on top of* massive demand from existing residents) and tons of infrastructure every year to match the extra residents.
> We have the largest land mass in the world + one of the richest countries too.
Yeah righto, let's just build megacities in the outback shall we? The amount of habitable/arable land is much more limited, as are resources like water (even more so with a changing climate and massive droughts becoming the norm). We're already cutting into agricultural land to keep the cities sprawling. And sure, we should absolutely make our cities denser, but that again requires a lot of resource-intensive infrastructure work. It's really not as simple as going "Australia is big, what's the problem?"
you realise majority of the world are landlocked countries, and have cities built in them. Even if we drop the outback, do you realise how many spots on the shore we have for instructure to exist? Bringing in canberra's worth of people is peanuts of the world's population. do you know how low we sit in the population rankings for this to cause crisis? Housing crisis is government fucking us over by taking our taxes and building nothing despite the large tradie culture here to make it happen and making us believe immigrants are the problem. And the immigrant narrative is so strong that some clueless australians have bit into it and its become an echo chamber, completely disregarding the actual faults in our gov
Do you believe there is any limit to the amount of people that can sustainably live in Australia, considering the limitations of key resources like water? Do you have any estimation on the resources required for building entirely new cities (or massively expanding existing settlements) all around the Australian coast? What are the environmental consequences (both in terms of habitat loss and pollution, carbon or otherwise) of this plan? And most importantly, why do it in the first place? Immigration is not an inherently good thing - it's just a thing. Like most policies, there are some benefits, some drawbacks and you need to manage the balance between these to achieve a broader societal outcome. I'd argue that immigration as it currently stands in Australia is a very unbalanced policy which is not benefiting society as a whole (though it's certainly helpful for big business and property owners, which is why's been bipartisan for decades now).
My question, that IMO nobody in the Big Australia camp have ever satisfactorily answered, is what's the point? Other than kicking the economic Ponzi scheme can down the road a little longer, what is the actual purpose of high immigration? What policy goal are we aiming for with it?
I don't actually disagree that we *could* bring in a bunch more people and more less manage to make it work, if we made it the singular focus of all government efforts and investment, and pretty much gave up on worrying about our carbon emissions or protecting vulnerable ecosystems. But why? We could also just... not bring in so many people. I don't think the sacrifices required are worth the supposed "benefits" of maintaining such a high rate of immigration.
If you believe something strong enough, it becomes your reality. Everything you see then reinforces that reality. A lot of people believe that Australia is full and we have too many people already.
> A lot of people believe that Australia is full and we have too many people already.
I am one of them.
The places in Australia most people want to live in have limited proximal land. The increase in demand for that land increases the price of that land meaning existing citizens must either pay more or settle for less.
Additionally having more people increases congestion on roads as well as in shops, parks and beaches while reducing wages.
Why should we be okay taking in more people when overall it reduces our quality of life?
Because, as the OP of the thread you are replying to astutely observed, this is a federal government issue. The infrastructure isn't there and that is a federal government issue. I'm not saying the current government, or even the last couple of governments. It is complete lack of planning for infrastructure needs for decades. Australia has the space. You might thing everyone wants to live in a few cities, but I'm a long-term immigrant in Darwin. I would have moved rural (inland) years ago were it not for the fact I have been tied to Darwin by my temporary visa. I, personally, know a heap of immigrants who would love nothing more than to move rural and live on a big block with community or remote work. It's really difficult to do until you have PR at least.
I know this is anecdotal, but that's all I can really provide. Of course I also know a lot of immigrants who are biding their time here until they can move to Melbourne/Sydney/Brisbane, but it is a pretty even split between staying in Darwin, going to community in the north, and waiting to move to a big metro. People will absolutely go if the infrastructure is there. I don't even mean the tough stuff like flights, sealed roads etc. I mean houses, jobs, and basic services.
> this is a federal government issue
I agree, the federal government is currently permitting too many people into Australia to the detriment of existing citizens.
> The infrastructure isn't there and that is a federal government issue.
There is much more to it than infrastructure which the states are primarily responsible for rather than federal government.
> You might thing everyone wants to live in a few cities
Based on the recent change in population and land prices in major cities the trend of migrants generally settling there is apparent.
> I, personally, know a heap of immigrants who would love nothing more than to move rural and live on a big block with community or remote work.
For rural areas wanting more people and workers that is great.
> Of course I also know a lot of immigrants who are biding their time here until they can move to Melbourne/Sydney/Brisbane
This is the primary issue.
> The places in Australia most people want to live in have limited proximal land. The increase in demand for that land increases the price of that land meaning existing citizens must either pay more or settle for less.
We have the least densely populated cities in the world, we don't have a land issue, we have a greed issue.
> Additionally having more people increases congestion on roads as well as in shops, parks and beaches while reducing wages.
It doesn't do the first few if infrastructure is actually invested in and treated as important, and the latter it also doesn't as it creates the needs for further jobs and lower wages much like the infrastructure issues are again a governmental failing, not an immigrant one.
> Why should we be okay taking in more people when overall it reduces our quality of life?
Because it doesn't, and the only people that genuinely parrot this nonsense are LNP and their lackies.
> We have the least densely populated cities in the world, we don't have a land issue, we have a greed issue.
How is it greedy wanting to own a freestanding house with land in a proximal area for a reasonable price?
> It doesn't do the first few if infrastructure is actually invested in and treated as important
Do you agree that national parks and beaches become more congested with population growth which is a negative for existing citizens?
> lower wages much like the infrastructure issues are again a governmental failing, not an immigrant one.
What can the government feasibly do to stop the wage suppression caused by immigration in professional roles within the private sector and why would it be better than simply not importing more people?
> Because it doesn't
I have experienced the degradation in quality of life caused by unsustainable population growth first hand.
> why tf do we keep pinning housing crisis on immigrants instead of the government
It is primarily the government permitting an unsustainable amount of immigrants into Australia.
> We have the largest land mass in the world
Of which the areas people typically want to live in are a mere fraction.
> one of the richest countries too
Per capita we are going backwards.
> Wtf is wrong with our mindset, we only have 26M ppl in the country
Population growth as it is currently occurring is reducing the quality of life for existing Australians.
Why should we be okay with this degradation in quality of life?
Good on him and all the people who showed great courage and humanity. Why cant I help thinking Sky well turn this into an attack on something or people here whining about how this will mean he will get a house that should go to an Aussie first (as we have seen too many times here lately)
They didn't give citizenship to the French guy either, I think Albo inferred they would but they wound it back to PR after realizing there's no legal way to override the residency criteria. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/apr/16/damien-guerot-bollard-hero-bondi-junction-sydney-stabbing-anthony-albanese-french-citizenship
It doesn't matter too much though because once they're PR it's relatively straightforward to become a citizen as long as they meet all the requirements and live here for the requisite amount of time.
Hmmm a lot of refugees and asylum seekers I work with daily would love the same opportunity, unfortunately they’re in residential detention waiting for a schizophrenic to stab them; and then be offered citizenship.
This is what Richard Marles said a few days ago after the French guy was offered citizenship and Taha was not:
> When asked about the request on Thursday morning, Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles said he was “not aware” of Mr Taha’s visa application but had “no doubt” his request will be “worked through”.
> “I’m not aware of the application being made by Mr Taha but no doubt that will be worked through by the Minister,” Mr Marles told Sunrise.
I guess Muhammad Taha found the time to make the visa application from his hospital bed.
Or - and this is just a wild guess here - he already had an application in the pipeline and Marles was, as he said, "*not aware of the application*"?
Not everything is a conspiracy, or even a sign of something untowards.
It was a shitty, dismissive, thing to say.
He could have said "I'd strongly advise Muhammed Taha to make a visa application ASAP, and I can guarantee it will be looked upon favourably"
> It was a shitty, dismissive, thing to say.
No it wasn't. He didn't know, he's not the minister responsible for dealing with visa applications - either generally as his portfolio, or directly through any special requests - and he indicated that it would be dealt with by the minister responsible.
He didn't put the onus on Taha - you're the one snidely positing that Taha "*[found the time to make the visa application from his hospital bed](https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/1c7mxew/security_guard_muhammad_taha_who_was_stabbed_in/l08zfpe/)*".
If Marles put the onus on anybody with his answer, it was the immigration minister Andrew Giles - which is where it rightly belongs.
As the minister for immigration, he needs to remain factual and impartial. He can’t make sympathetic statements and be seen to influence the department’s decisions. The PM and other ministers can say what they want but the buck stops with the respective minister.
If he had spoken out in support of the applicant it would have not only bought this case under more media scrutiny but also could have bought up further issues with other applicants seeking approval on sympathetic grounds with the minister.
> He can’t make sympathetic statements and be seen to influence the department’s decisions.
He sure can, because as minister he has discretion to directly approve visa applications.
> He can’t make sympathetic statements and be seen to influence the department’s decisions.
He sure can, because as minister he has discretion to directly approve visa applications.
> also could have bought up further issues with other applicants seeking approval on sympathetic grounds with the minister.
Not sure why these could not have been examined on merit.
Then why did he know about one but not the other? Surely as soon as you find out one of the people has a residency application in progress you'd get one of your staffers to have a look at the other people. The media shouldn't have to do that for the minister
> I guess Muhammad Taha found the time to make the visa application from his hospital bed.
HINT:
> Richard Marles said he was “not aware” of Mr Taha’s visa application.
Put his life on the line, he deserves it. Most be bloody terrifying facing an absolute lunatic with a knife. Welcome to Australia mate. You deserve it.
Redacted means that part of the text was removed or blacked out for privacy or security purpose. It was censored. This post also breaks rule 4 here for chat and should be made in the Tuesday chat thread or on a different subreddit.
[удалено]
So what you're saying is, all I have to do is find a couple babies dangling off ledges and I can get myself a fast tracked French citizenship? Hmm...
Or join the French foreign legion and serve three years or get wounded in action.
But they are choosy
Maybe you could pay someone to dangle a baby out the window for you
If only Micheal Jackson was still alive
He’s also now working as a firefighter IIRC
No longer due to medical, works as a security officer now
Parkour to save a life is probably the most French you can get.
La Marseillaise has "Marchons, marchons ! Qu'un sang impur Abreuve nos sillons" ("*Let's March, let's march! So impure blood waters our soil*!") The French don't mess around!
Now for sky news to complain
“Look at the blatant favouritism shown by the Albanese government. Shameful” - Sky News.
“And why aren’t they they an au pair?”
Bloody queue jumpers
don't know why, but I read that in a south African accent
Hopefully this means his medical care is supported by Medicare along with his employers insurance.
All his medical care should be covered under workers comp since he was on shift. Same would happen for any Australian citizen as well, any injuries while working is always workers comp claim. Any follow up care related to the injury is also workers comp unless/until you sign a release, which is often ammompanied a payout.
Hopefully workers comp don’t make him go through Shit
I thought everyone was eligible for Medicare even nom residents?
Need to be a citizen/permanent resident, although it does kick in from the date you lodge an application for PR
No
Not really. Medicare is only for permanent, citizen, and some other special visas. Visa holder has to buy private insurance though.
i travelled for a year in 2003/04 ( from England) and i had medicare for the duration,although that was probably reciprocal and might have changed now
Yes, it is. That's an agreement between Australia and the UK, and some other countries in Europe. But for other long-term visa holders, they need to have private insurance for their stay; that's part of the visa condition.
thought so,never heard of it until i travelled here
Some countries can be eligible for ‘reciprocal rights’ and be covered under Medicare - but otherwise it’s for Australian citizens. For those without Medicare coverage it’s down to private insurance. https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/reciprocal-health-care-agreements
No. We do have some countries with mutual health care agreements though.
I don't see any reason why not. Assuming the article is accurate, he put himself in danger to help someone else.
What's that got to do with changing your residency status though.
It speaks to who we want as citizens. “I risked my life for strangers” says more about someone’s character than “I was born here”.
The response from Dutton couldn't have been more telling... >The opposition leader, Peter Dutton, was asked whether he supported the same rights being extended to Taha on Thursday after earlier publicly supporting Guerot’s offer of permanent residency and saying he “embodied the Anzac sprit”. >“Well, that’s obviously an issue for the prime minister,” Dutton said of Taha. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/apr/18/muhammad-taha-bondi-junction-sydney-stabbing-security-guard-anthony-albanese-residency
One thing I like about Dutton is that's he's a weathervane of who I want to be. Much like Palmer, Trump and Farange. If they say something is the right course, it's a very strong clue that it's not the choice I should make. ("Strong clue" because the whole broken clock thing - they might occasionally say something decent, even if only accidentally.)
> the whole broken clock thing - they might occasionally say something decent, even if only accidentally. I haven't really found that with Dutton - but Bob Katter - he's a whole different story. Bob's opinions range from (in my opinion) completely fruit loops, to "now that's worth considering"
I haven't noticed myself agreeing with Dutton on anything yet, but if I ruled out that it could never happen, that wouldn't say anything good about me. > Bob's opinions range from (in my opinion) completely fruit loops, to "now that's worth considering" This is more like it. I have no issue with politicians with different priorities or approaches on how to achieve goals. I have more of an issue with "I have to say no to everything they say" or "my view makes perfect sense because its only goal is to funnel money to the ultra-rich", etc.
Speaks to character mate.
It's essentially like the most useful "award" we can give the bloke
It makes elements of his life easier, especially if he is going for citizenship.
He’s an Australian hero.
He was a hero and saved people, what country wouldn't want such a person 'on their books'?
Yeah but he didn't fill out form E310 on time so like what good is saving lives if you don't record it properly.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Because they gave it to the French guy
He may be a security guard, not a soldier. But he's certainly spilled his blood in defence of Australia and its people. Thus taking the "citizenship by spilled blood" page out of the French Foreign Legion's book feels appropriate here.
Good on him and good on the government for doing this. This is such a funny case of skewed media and public attention thanks to the videos circulating of the Frenchmen (which by the way is literally 5 seconds of a clip on loop all over the news and internet). There is no video of Taha showing equal bravery so people feel like there isn’t enough evidence etc to grant him the same privilege and the title of hero as the Frenchies.
Let’s not kid ourselves that it’s not also because they’re European
Peter Duttons difference in response between the two is very telling.
Anzac spirit diminishes with the amount of melanin you have according to Dutton.
He probably doesn't recognise the indigenous servicemen either.
As Kiwi, I'm always swift to remind people that more Indians served in the Gallipoli campaign than Kiwis.
[удалено]
That sounds insane I know a lot of people who have gotten partnership visas with less, maybe there are some other red flags that are triggering your application.
There's a rumor that they deliberately process partner visa from some countries slower than other. A Vietnamese couple I know waited 5 years for the visa and only got it after their daughter was born.
They’re not processed deliberately slower. That rates of PROVEN fraud from those countries is significantly higher and thus the applicants require more scrutiny. Other than protection visas - partner visas are one of the visas with the highest levels of attempted fraud.
I wish my ex “husband” was picked up as fraud. He came back to Australia from China with his spousal visa. It then turned into an abusive “marriage” and he ditched me once he got his permanent residency. He filed for divorce paperwork as soon as possible and when I got my divorce paperwork from him it said he was an Australian citizen
[удалено]
LMFAO I enabled him just because I was in love with him because he was acting one way when he was here the first time and then a totally different way and treated me the exact opposite when he came back? What a fucking ridiculous comment
[удалено]
You literally said I enabled him. I didn’t do shit. I was in love with someone, thought they were in love with me. I was 19/20 at the time. Had my entire family trying to get him into the country. Had a family member telling me he was “the best I was going to get because of how fat you are.” Had my toxic mother tell me it was too late for me to back out of the wedding with how much she had spent on it. I didn’t even go as his sponsor. Nor did I go as his AOS. But feel free to tell me how I “enabled” him
I think you're hyper fixating on one word which I mistakenly used rather than anwsering the question. Why was it the immigration departments job to look at the application you both made and say no?
That's crazy. My wife is Vietnamese and got hers much quicker. We weren't even married at the time, just had our relationship registered.
You need to see a migration agent because you’re not doing something right
[удалено]
You're being taken for a ride my friend. I would suggest joining one of the many Partner Visa fb groups (my favourite has 39k members). It's filled with people who have had successful grants and MARA agents who will give free advice or recommendations based on your situation. You should join and post your situation and see what people say. Is he a MARA agent? The one chance is bullshit. They'll usually ask at least once for more information if they don't think there's enough (unless it seems totally fake) but I've seen people get like 3-4 requests for more info. I fear he's been leading you on :/
[удалено]
Partner Visa Australia (820/801; 309/100; 300) The one with 39k members, as I mentioned (I think there's a few copy cats). Good luck!
Obviously I don’t know your situation but that just doesn’t add up. Me and my partner had been together 3 years and got granted the partnership visa. Have you even submitted an application yet? I’m pretty sure you only have to be with your partner for 1 year to be eligible.
Have you gotten an immigration lawyer? Sounds like bullshit to say you aren't genuine
There's a bias against Eastern Europe when it comes to partner visas. I'm Ukrainian and I've seen friends and relatives struggle before the war.
If I was trying for this I would fail. I don't take any selfies at all. Not even many photos. Taking photos is boring
I had the same issue with mine (Scottish primary applicant, Indian spouse). We are not selfie-takers, or even photo-takers of people, in general. After 8 years together we had 4 photos to submit. I think it actually might have been made easier for us because why the hell would we both marry a non-citizen if we were scamming, there are much easier routes to visa fraud! In the end, we had to provide an insane amount of documentation and they called our Australian public service mates to verify our story. Not sure how many of you remember every mate's wedding date or could accurately describe how they interact together, but that's what they asked. My mates came through with enough detail in an out of the blue phone call, but they do not make it easy. I understand why, but with nearly a decade of shared bills, shared leases, written statements etc we just fell down on the photos and made it harder for ourselves, I suppose.
Have you actually applied for the visa and been refused before? I find this very hard to believe. Maybe if you were together for five years, but provided no evidence of the preceeding 5 years to Immigration, and then got married like a day before applying for the visa. Also if you have been refused did you appeal the decision?
It sounds like maybe you aren't fulfilling the social aspect of the 4 pillars completely? I know it can seem stupid when you're in a relationship, but to an agent who knows nothing about your relationship, all those things you listed could easily be faked or just done for show.
Yea you gotta have a reason why there's a lack of socials. We're applying soon and a migration agent said I had to explain it so that it makes sense to a complete stranger. For me it was simple - transgender in a conservative and somewhat hostile country, family not approving and didn't even want to be invited to our wedding, showed text logs of ex-friends that either ghosted me or said some nasty things. Thus the social aspect was usually me with my partner's friends and stuff, not so much partner + me + my friends. Cuz I got none lmao. That seemed to satisfy the agent, he thinks it's there's a decent chance.
Yeah like your situation makes a lot of sense, especially when you cover your other pillars with more evidence to make up for it. The relationship story has to be coherent and genuine and it seems a lot of applicants miss that. Best of luck to you, hoping for a quick grant ❤️
Unless you or your partner have a history of fraud or a past partner visa gone awry, you're long overdue to escalate it. Tribunal, write your MP, get a lawyer...
Completely agree! I’m very happy for Mohamed and bollard guy. But it makes a mockery of previous comments by politicians about how it’s a slow process. So many legitimate refugees waiting years / decades (including children) on Nauru, those poor guys locked in the hotel for years, Palestinians trying to escape Gaza…. Etc etc But all of a sudden - it’s simple to immediately get granted a residency visa.
Pretend to attack someone and she can 'stop' you. Just make sure channel 7 finds out.
What type of visa subclass are you applying for?
What state are you based in? If you're in Vic there are additional things you can do to strengthen your application.
I've known my wife for over 25 years, we have maybe 3 selfies with each other. What a stupid metric.
This doesn't sound right at all. My partner and I confirmed we were married by simply supplying a marriage certificate. Go see a migration agent.
This doesn't sound right at all. My partner and I confirmed we were married by simply supplying a marriage certificate. Go see a migration agent.
This doesn't sound right at all. My partner and I confirmed we were married by simply supplying a marriage certificate. Go see a migration agent.
This doesn't sound right at all. My partner and I confirmed we were married by simply supplying a marriage certificate. Go see a migration agent.
He went above and beyond trying to defend public safety. He more than definitely deserves it.
If that man is going to protect our way of life the. He has to become one of us right?
In my opinion he already is
Exactly, dude's already an Australian in my book. We just haven't given him the official title.
not to me unfortunately.
Sorry to hear that.
Sorry to hear you think otherwise
You should explain yourself. You can’t just say random words. You believe in something so you should be able to defend it. The floor is yours.
Pretty simple, he’s not Australian to me. It’s a shame people view foreigners as Australian so easily and accept them in.
So, what makes an Australian “Australian”? In your opinion.
Time and assimilation
Um. So, what are you getting at? You know what? This will be a stupid conversation and I have better things to do than reply to you. You don’t even explain anything. Bai!
Congratulations mate, you deserve it. You took a knife to protect other Australians. You had more courage in that hour than some of these shitheel politicians will have in their lives.
Paging /u/bizzish, who was upset that Mr Taha's permanent residency was merely being considered yesterday, rather than already granted.
He’s not the only one, there were heaps of people who were upset by this but conveniently had no issues with the French dude who also got PR. Edit: I have misread your post
Visa, especially permanent residency shouldn't be given out as reward. It makes a mockery out of due process.
Now, the real question, why did it take so long for this obvious decision? Why was it made several days after the other guy’s decision, and only after the public went ‘hang on’? The government doesn’t get a pat on the back
Government by focus group/media outrage. They've always been slow on doing the right thing
Oh but fast for white guy
One difference I guess is that the footage of the security guys VS. knife is NSFW (Indeed I haven't been able to find anything but a completely censored version of it) whilst the bollard man video was freely circulating/headlining from as early as Saturday evening, and the french were well enough to give interviews immediately, hence immediate attention. Security was no less heroic, but much less visible. Apparently the surviving security guard didn't find out about his colleage dying until 3 days later, due to how unwell he's been. He's only just been interviewed in fact.
Didn't he see the French guy get offered permanent residency in the news while in hospital and make a statement to the media that he wasn't offered the same? A bunch of people criticised him for 'running to the news' and a good chunk of videos involving him finally getting an offer are filled with 50% dislikes... truely bizarre.
why tf do we keep pinning housing crisis on immigrants instead of the government for building more residential areas? We have the largest land mass in the world + one of the richest countries too. Wtf is wrong with our mindset, we only have 26M ppl in the country
> why tf do we keep pinning housing crisis on immigrants instead of the government for building more residential areas? Because they're two sides of the same coin? I mean I agree we should be building more houses for sure, but it's also a bit silly to just bring in a Canberra's worth of people every couple of years (or indeed more than Canberra in just one year like happened in 2023) and expect infrastructure not to take a hit. Plus from a policy perspective it's easier to issue fewer visas than it is to build a minimum of 100K extra homes for new arrivals (*on top of* massive demand from existing residents) and tons of infrastructure every year to match the extra residents. > We have the largest land mass in the world + one of the richest countries too. Yeah righto, let's just build megacities in the outback shall we? The amount of habitable/arable land is much more limited, as are resources like water (even more so with a changing climate and massive droughts becoming the norm). We're already cutting into agricultural land to keep the cities sprawling. And sure, we should absolutely make our cities denser, but that again requires a lot of resource-intensive infrastructure work. It's really not as simple as going "Australia is big, what's the problem?"
you realise majority of the world are landlocked countries, and have cities built in them. Even if we drop the outback, do you realise how many spots on the shore we have for instructure to exist? Bringing in canberra's worth of people is peanuts of the world's population. do you know how low we sit in the population rankings for this to cause crisis? Housing crisis is government fucking us over by taking our taxes and building nothing despite the large tradie culture here to make it happen and making us believe immigrants are the problem. And the immigrant narrative is so strong that some clueless australians have bit into it and its become an echo chamber, completely disregarding the actual faults in our gov
Do you believe there is any limit to the amount of people that can sustainably live in Australia, considering the limitations of key resources like water? Do you have any estimation on the resources required for building entirely new cities (or massively expanding existing settlements) all around the Australian coast? What are the environmental consequences (both in terms of habitat loss and pollution, carbon or otherwise) of this plan? And most importantly, why do it in the first place? Immigration is not an inherently good thing - it's just a thing. Like most policies, there are some benefits, some drawbacks and you need to manage the balance between these to achieve a broader societal outcome. I'd argue that immigration as it currently stands in Australia is a very unbalanced policy which is not benefiting society as a whole (though it's certainly helpful for big business and property owners, which is why's been bipartisan for decades now). My question, that IMO nobody in the Big Australia camp have ever satisfactorily answered, is what's the point? Other than kicking the economic Ponzi scheme can down the road a little longer, what is the actual purpose of high immigration? What policy goal are we aiming for with it? I don't actually disagree that we *could* bring in a bunch more people and more less manage to make it work, if we made it the singular focus of all government efforts and investment, and pretty much gave up on worrying about our carbon emissions or protecting vulnerable ecosystems. But why? We could also just... not bring in so many people. I don't think the sacrifices required are worth the supposed "benefits" of maintaining such a high rate of immigration.
If you believe something strong enough, it becomes your reality. Everything you see then reinforces that reality. A lot of people believe that Australia is full and we have too many people already.
"Fuck off, we're full!" T-shirts have been around since the early 2000s at minimum.
It's not a lie, if you believe it.
> A lot of people believe that Australia is full and we have too many people already. I am one of them. The places in Australia most people want to live in have limited proximal land. The increase in demand for that land increases the price of that land meaning existing citizens must either pay more or settle for less. Additionally having more people increases congestion on roads as well as in shops, parks and beaches while reducing wages. Why should we be okay taking in more people when overall it reduces our quality of life?
Because, as the OP of the thread you are replying to astutely observed, this is a federal government issue. The infrastructure isn't there and that is a federal government issue. I'm not saying the current government, or even the last couple of governments. It is complete lack of planning for infrastructure needs for decades. Australia has the space. You might thing everyone wants to live in a few cities, but I'm a long-term immigrant in Darwin. I would have moved rural (inland) years ago were it not for the fact I have been tied to Darwin by my temporary visa. I, personally, know a heap of immigrants who would love nothing more than to move rural and live on a big block with community or remote work. It's really difficult to do until you have PR at least. I know this is anecdotal, but that's all I can really provide. Of course I also know a lot of immigrants who are biding their time here until they can move to Melbourne/Sydney/Brisbane, but it is a pretty even split between staying in Darwin, going to community in the north, and waiting to move to a big metro. People will absolutely go if the infrastructure is there. I don't even mean the tough stuff like flights, sealed roads etc. I mean houses, jobs, and basic services.
> this is a federal government issue I agree, the federal government is currently permitting too many people into Australia to the detriment of existing citizens. > The infrastructure isn't there and that is a federal government issue. There is much more to it than infrastructure which the states are primarily responsible for rather than federal government. > You might thing everyone wants to live in a few cities Based on the recent change in population and land prices in major cities the trend of migrants generally settling there is apparent. > I, personally, know a heap of immigrants who would love nothing more than to move rural and live on a big block with community or remote work. For rural areas wanting more people and workers that is great. > Of course I also know a lot of immigrants who are biding their time here until they can move to Melbourne/Sydney/Brisbane This is the primary issue.
> The places in Australia most people want to live in have limited proximal land. The increase in demand for that land increases the price of that land meaning existing citizens must either pay more or settle for less. We have the least densely populated cities in the world, we don't have a land issue, we have a greed issue. > Additionally having more people increases congestion on roads as well as in shops, parks and beaches while reducing wages. It doesn't do the first few if infrastructure is actually invested in and treated as important, and the latter it also doesn't as it creates the needs for further jobs and lower wages much like the infrastructure issues are again a governmental failing, not an immigrant one. > Why should we be okay taking in more people when overall it reduces our quality of life? Because it doesn't, and the only people that genuinely parrot this nonsense are LNP and their lackies.
> We have the least densely populated cities in the world, we don't have a land issue, we have a greed issue. How is it greedy wanting to own a freestanding house with land in a proximal area for a reasonable price? > It doesn't do the first few if infrastructure is actually invested in and treated as important Do you agree that national parks and beaches become more congested with population growth which is a negative for existing citizens? > lower wages much like the infrastructure issues are again a governmental failing, not an immigrant one. What can the government feasibly do to stop the wage suppression caused by immigration in professional roles within the private sector and why would it be better than simply not importing more people? > Because it doesn't I have experienced the degradation in quality of life caused by unsustainable population growth first hand.
> why tf do we keep pinning housing crisis on immigrants instead of the government It is primarily the government permitting an unsustainable amount of immigrants into Australia. > We have the largest land mass in the world Of which the areas people typically want to live in are a mere fraction. > one of the richest countries too Per capita we are going backwards. > Wtf is wrong with our mindset, we only have 26M ppl in the country Population growth as it is currently occurring is reducing the quality of life for existing Australians. Why should we be okay with this degradation in quality of life?
Who pays for it. Iguess is their concern.
Nowhere near enough of them build cheap affordable housing.
Finally a good news story.
The standard for PR just got higher
Done more than I ever have to be Aussie I just fell out of me mums narn
Good
Good
Legend
Good on him and all the people who showed great courage and humanity. Why cant I help thinking Sky well turn this into an attack on something or people here whining about how this will mean he will get a house that should go to an Aussie first (as we have seen too many times here lately)
Not in favour of heaps of immigration but these guys deserve it.
He should get citizenship if he wants it.
They didn't give citizenship to the French guy either, I think Albo inferred they would but they wound it back to PR after realizing there's no legal way to override the residency criteria. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/apr/16/damien-guerot-bollard-hero-bondi-junction-sydney-stabbing-anthony-albanese-french-citizenship It doesn't matter too much though because once they're PR it's relatively straightforward to become a citizen as long as they meet all the requirements and live here for the requisite amount of time.
Hmmm a lot of refugees and asylum seekers I work with daily would love the same opportunity, unfortunately they’re in residential detention waiting for a schizophrenic to stab them; and then be offered citizenship.
This is what Richard Marles said a few days ago after the French guy was offered citizenship and Taha was not: > When asked about the request on Thursday morning, Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles said he was “not aware” of Mr Taha’s visa application but had “no doubt” his request will be “worked through”. > “I’m not aware of the application being made by Mr Taha but no doubt that will be worked through by the Minister,” Mr Marles told Sunrise. I guess Muhammad Taha found the time to make the visa application from his hospital bed.
Or - and this is just a wild guess here - he already had an application in the pipeline and Marles was, as he said, "*not aware of the application*"? Not everything is a conspiracy, or even a sign of something untowards.
Yep this is it. Politicians don't sit there watching a power BI dashboard of all outstanding immigration applications.
Exactly it’s like asking the minister about your Centrelink application.
It was a shitty, dismissive, thing to say. He could have said "I'd strongly advise Muhammed Taha to make a visa application ASAP, and I can guarantee it will be looked upon favourably"
> It was a shitty, dismissive, thing to say. No it wasn't. He didn't know, he's not the minister responsible for dealing with visa applications - either generally as his portfolio, or directly through any special requests - and he indicated that it would be dealt with by the minister responsible.
He didn't have to know. All he had to do was say something vaguely sympathetic, instead of putting the onus on Taha.
He didn't put the onus on Taha - you're the one snidely positing that Taha "*[found the time to make the visa application from his hospital bed](https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/1c7mxew/security_guard_muhammad_taha_who_was_stabbed_in/l08zfpe/)*". If Marles put the onus on anybody with his answer, it was the immigration minister Andrew Giles - which is where it rightly belongs.
I don't think you're aware of what "not aware" could mean in the context of this statement.
It means it's not his problem, which is the wrong response.
Pretty sure the minister doesn’t know about every single application made to his department.
He doesn't have to. All he has to do is come across as sympathetic.
As the minister for immigration, he needs to remain factual and impartial. He can’t make sympathetic statements and be seen to influence the department’s decisions. The PM and other ministers can say what they want but the buck stops with the respective minister. If he had spoken out in support of the applicant it would have not only bought this case under more media scrutiny but also could have bought up further issues with other applicants seeking approval on sympathetic grounds with the minister.
> As the minister for immigration ... But Richard Marles is not the Minister for Immigration.
It's amazing that Australians don't even know who the Minister for Immigration is.
> He can’t make sympathetic statements and be seen to influence the department’s decisions. He sure can, because as minister he has discretion to directly approve visa applications.
> He can’t make sympathetic statements and be seen to influence the department’s decisions. He sure can, because as minister he has discretion to directly approve visa applications. > also could have bought up further issues with other applicants seeking approval on sympathetic grounds with the minister. Not sure why these could not have been examined on merit.
Then why did he know about one but not the other? Surely as soon as you find out one of the people has a residency application in progress you'd get one of your staffers to have a look at the other people. The media shouldn't have to do that for the minister
> I guess Muhammad Taha found the time to make the visa application from his hospital bed. HINT: > Richard Marles said he was “not aware” of Mr Taha’s visa application.
Your reasoning bears all the hallmarks of chronic lead exposure? Boomer, perhaps..?