> Because they need to have PR to be eligible for grant of citizenship.
>
> At least that's DIMIA policy - if it was only your children's status
> at stake, then you might want to try getting them Australian
> citizenship (once you have yours) using 125 and only applying for them
> to have PR if it was refused.
>
> That wouldn't help your wife, though. So it makes sense to do the
> spouse visa application and you can include your children on this for
> free (then sort out their citizenship).
>
>
>
>
>
> Of course they can get PR - it's just not automatic and a Child
> visa sponsorship is required. Plus medical and the normal
> immigration fee.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The basic issue is that most New Zealanders who left Australia before
> Feb/March 2000 have no more rights to permanent residence than a New
> Zealander arriving today. Even if they lived in Australia for 30
> years beforehand.
>
> The only way to secure status in Australia was to take out Australian
> citizenship, which most New Zealanders in Australia did not make the
> effort to do.
>
> It's not much different to those thousands of British people who
> abandoned Australia without taking citizenship and then found the
> immigration rules changed in their absence (in the early 70s),
> leaving them with no chance of returning. Plus many others later on
> who just let their PR expire and didn't think about citizenship until
> much too late.
>
> There should be a community organisation in your city that's able to
> help with your wife's spouse visa application. For example, IARC in
> Sydney
> http://www.iarc.asn.au
>
> Their website might prove to be useful too.
>
> If the new legislation to increase the citizenship waiting period
> exempts existing PRs, there may be a benefit to your wife if her
> spouse visa gets processed sooner rather than later. Either way, the
> clock for citizenship ought to start ticking sooner. DIMIA may not
> automatically count her time on a Special Category Visa unless it
> falls within the proposed concessions for temporary residents in the
> new law.
>
> Agreed - it is frustrating. But you'd be better advised to focus your
> energy on ensuring your wife and children *get* Australian PR and
> citizenship, rather than on the fact that they're not citizens
> currently.
>
>
> Jeremy
Nah, Form 125 states under 'Who can use this form', child must be a
permanent resident living with you in Australia. We're Ok with the bit
about living with me in Australia but as we know, able to live here
indefinitely is decidedly different from being a PR.
Looks like I'm back were I started - only advantage is I can include my
wife in a 3 for 1 deal (hopefully)... reason i started this thread is
that PR for my wife is not essential whereas for my kids it is (in our
situation anyway).
--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com |