It happened! The visa was approved! What a relief!
It's been a hard 7 1/2 months waiting for this visa to come through. I've had difficulties with jobs, stress, fear, loneliness and isolation. A big part of the whole horror of this process was that I gave the immigration department my blog address as part of our relationship evidence. What I didn't realize until later was that by giving them my blog address, I would have to self-censor this place--my place. My place for self expression.
Out of fear that they would deny me the visa if they knew how unhappy and dissatisfied I am with life in Australia, I decided to either post relatively neutral posts (I tried but usually failed) or say nothing at all. Which is why I went so many weeks without saying anything.
Life here has been hard and so many of you will never know the extent of it. It's not just the finances. I would say my number one problem with Australia is the people and for that reason, we will probably leave. Soon. As in, likely before January. I'm not 100% sure where we will go. I've been working on my visa documents for Korea since August and they're almost ready. We also applied for jobs in Japan back in September with ECC and have been put into a pool of accepted teachers waiting for placement offers.
But the main thing is that I don't have to keep silent in solitary confinement anymore. It's been hard. I haven't made any close friends here at all save one German exchange student who left Sydney and returned home a year ago. Instead, I've met a lot of really "nice" people. "Nice" as in, not really interested in knowing you or being your friend but will happily pretend they're interested as long as it doesn't require too much effort. When I tried to reach out here on my blog, watering down my feelings of isolation for immigration but still looking for some support, I got a surprising range of responses: a bit of loving encouragement, a bit of ambivalence, a bit of denial, a bit of hope, a bit of "you should just get happy," and even one glorious piece of hate mail.
Thanks so much to those of you who knew what was really going on and stood by with a metaphorical arm around my shoulder. I can't thank you enough. I'm not sure how much I'll be blogging here anymore but I'll try to post the random update here and there so you at least know what's happening for the next few months.
Ciao my faithful readers!
Showing posts with label Immigration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Immigration. Show all posts
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Friday, September 3, 2010
Back on the Job Hunt
It's that time again!! (You can't tell, but that exclamation is DRIPPING with sarcasm.)
I finished my last day at CRG yesterday. It was sad. I really liked the people I worked with there and they really liked me. I wasn't sure up until yesterday but they gave me a really nice going away party with the world's most delicious chocolate cake, a book and a nice bath set from the Body Shop. And the general manager even made a nice speech about me and how I'd added value to the company and helped them win back some major pharmaceutical company contracts. It was a good way to go.
Why am I going? It's complicated but I'll try to explain. My first visa in Australia was a Working Holiday visa which allowed me to stay for a year and work up to 6 months in any work place (ie. I can work for 6 months at CRG and simultaneously 6 months at Thomson Reuters and then do another 6 months somewhere else if I want to). Just before that visa expired, we submitted an application for a Temporary Partner visa which essentially means I'm become Jeremy's common law wife and he remains my sponsor. However, that visa application is still in processing and yet to be approved and so, in the meantime, I am on a Bridging Visa (type A).
What is that? A Bridging Visa does as it says--holds you over during processing until your next visa comes through. It carries all the work rights of your previous visa which, in my case, is the Working Holiday visa. So, even though I'm not technically on that visa anymore, I'm still restricted as though I were.
So, having been at CRG for 6 months, I had to quit lest I break my visa restrictions (and risk deportation). Same goes for Thomson Reuters though my last day there isn't for a couple more weeks.
Thus, the hunt begins. I've already turned in a few applications and I need to do more, but we'll see what happens. It's hard to find the energy to keep trying when you've had such rotten luck in the past.
I finished my last day at CRG yesterday. It was sad. I really liked the people I worked with there and they really liked me. I wasn't sure up until yesterday but they gave me a really nice going away party with the world's most delicious chocolate cake, a book and a nice bath set from the Body Shop. And the general manager even made a nice speech about me and how I'd added value to the company and helped them win back some major pharmaceutical company contracts. It was a good way to go.
Why am I going? It's complicated but I'll try to explain. My first visa in Australia was a Working Holiday visa which allowed me to stay for a year and work up to 6 months in any work place (ie. I can work for 6 months at CRG and simultaneously 6 months at Thomson Reuters and then do another 6 months somewhere else if I want to). Just before that visa expired, we submitted an application for a Temporary Partner visa which essentially means I'm become Jeremy's common law wife and he remains my sponsor. However, that visa application is still in processing and yet to be approved and so, in the meantime, I am on a Bridging Visa (type A).
What is that? A Bridging Visa does as it says--holds you over during processing until your next visa comes through. It carries all the work rights of your previous visa which, in my case, is the Working Holiday visa. So, even though I'm not technically on that visa anymore, I'm still restricted as though I were.
So, having been at CRG for 6 months, I had to quit lest I break my visa restrictions (and risk deportation). Same goes for Thomson Reuters though my last day there isn't for a couple more weeks.
Thus, the hunt begins. I've already turned in a few applications and I need to do more, but we'll see what happens. It's hard to find the energy to keep trying when you've had such rotten luck in the past.
Elections Follow-up
So, I didn't follow-up the elections before and I apologize for that (to my three or four readers). But nothing is resolved yet. There was basically a tie between Labour and Liberal and they have been recounting ballots for weeks. As it stands, Labour has 73 and the Liberals have 72; to form a government, you need 76. There are three independents MPs left who can end this election conundrum but they need to form an alliance with one of the parties. And pretty much all of them need to side with one side.
So what we've got going on now is the two party leaders making some pretty sketchy deals trying to woo those independents. Recently, the fourth among them made a deal with Labour after Tony Abbott of the Liberals made a ridiculous offer of $1 billion to Hobart hospitals for his allegiance--which ultimately insulted the MP because he felt that was unreasonable and at the cost of the rest of Australia. It's also become apparent in the last week that the Liberals, who were reluctant to hand over their proposed budget to the MPs, have actually been campaigning saying they will bring the country out of debt without accounting for an $11 billion hole in their budget (probably allocated to remote independent constituent hospitals).
It's a zoo.
So what happens if the independents split evenly and neither party makes it to 76 seats? In that situation, the Governor General (the Queen's representative in Australia) steps in and with either decide the election herself (not likely) or call a new election. However, the Governor General has a conflict of interest since her daughter is married to one of the leading Liberal MPs.
That's leaves an election, right? Which means no MP can be sure of their seat. And means this election is going to take a long time to resolve.
Of course, the Independents could side with one or the other and just end it all. For a while that is. Because whoever the opposing party is of the new government would have enough MPs to carry out a vote of no confidence and send the government back to elections within 6 months. Both sides have said publicly that they will not do this but I don't believe them. Not even a little bit. This has become such an ugly election and they both want it so bad--someone will be challenged.
How does this effect me? Well, let me tell you! Until the election is settled and the MPs can take their seats, the government has stopped processing all visas. Ha! Just what I need, right? What's another 6 months of waiting to get on with my life?
I'm sick of elections.
So what we've got going on now is the two party leaders making some pretty sketchy deals trying to woo those independents. Recently, the fourth among them made a deal with Labour after Tony Abbott of the Liberals made a ridiculous offer of $1 billion to Hobart hospitals for his allegiance--which ultimately insulted the MP because he felt that was unreasonable and at the cost of the rest of Australia. It's also become apparent in the last week that the Liberals, who were reluctant to hand over their proposed budget to the MPs, have actually been campaigning saying they will bring the country out of debt without accounting for an $11 billion hole in their budget (probably allocated to remote independent constituent hospitals).
It's a zoo.
So what happens if the independents split evenly and neither party makes it to 76 seats? In that situation, the Governor General (the Queen's representative in Australia) steps in and with either decide the election herself (not likely) or call a new election. However, the Governor General has a conflict of interest since her daughter is married to one of the leading Liberal MPs.
That's leaves an election, right? Which means no MP can be sure of their seat. And means this election is going to take a long time to resolve.
Of course, the Independents could side with one or the other and just end it all. For a while that is. Because whoever the opposing party is of the new government would have enough MPs to carry out a vote of no confidence and send the government back to elections within 6 months. Both sides have said publicly that they will not do this but I don't believe them. Not even a little bit. This has become such an ugly election and they both want it so bad--someone will be challenged.
How does this effect me? Well, let me tell you! Until the election is settled and the MPs can take their seats, the government has stopped processing all visas. Ha! Just what I need, right? What's another 6 months of waiting to get on with my life?
I'm sick of elections.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Election Eve in Australia
Tomorrow morning marks the beginning of the end of elections. For the next 36 or so hours, I expect to hear nothing but endless political polling, pondering and postering about the Astralian national election. And then, I suspect Australian will revert once again to it's general mumness on politics (it's pretty uncommon to hear Aussies discuss politics openly).
But seeing how it's actually an important event and one that doesn't come around too often, I thought I should blog about it.
First, I should say that all Australians over the age of 18 are required by law to vote. I'm not sure how I feel about that. Jeremy tells me that the root of the law was based on the notion that the government wanted a force to equal out the royalists (those favoring the monarchy) which were very vocal in Australia's early days. And so, by forcing Australians to vote, they forced the people to build the country. Makes sense, but it's kinda of a misnomer to force people to exercise their rights, and isn't the ultimate show of democracy the right to choose not to partake in it?
Anyway, that's not the point of this post. The point of this post is that Australia is at a cross road. On June 24th, former Labour Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was overthrown by his Deputy Prime Minister (ie. Vice President) Julia Gillard and the Labour Party in the face of unfavorable polls. It happened because the Australian parliamentary government works like this: Australians vote for a party and the party appoints a leader (in this case, the leader was Kevin Rudd). However, if that leader loses favor with the public and starts dropping in the polls, their party can (and often does) oust them with a vote to elect a new leader.
PM Kevin Rudd was elected with one of the highest approval ratings of any Australian Prime Minister, riding in and making some much needed changes. Upon election in 2007, K-Rudd (or KRudd -- both loving nicknames) ratified the Kyoto Protocol and made a public apology to the Stolen Generations (Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders removed from their homes in the mid-90s by the government and the church in an effort to "remove the black in them"). These were immensely popular moves that catapulted Rudd into the stratosphere of popularity. Not only that, but he held the country together during the GFC and is fluent in Chinese (making international relations with their big neighbor better).
But following the International Summit on Climate Change and in light of the international community's reluctance to adopt any serious stance on the environment, Kevin Rudd dropped his policy on carbon trading and refocused on taxing the coal mining industry in Australia (which btw, is one of Australia's biggest exports). The original proposal was for a 40% tax increase on profits called "The Super-Profits Tax." As you can imagine, some mining companies were unhappy about this and the Liberal coalition (Liberal Party + National Party) started towing the line that this tax would drive out businesses and cost Australian's jobs, ultimately ruining the economy. The tax proved too much for Kevin Rudd's popularity and so, with two and a half years as Prime Minister, his party voted him out and his Deputy in out of fear that an unpopular PM would cost them the general election should one be called. (Given that an election must be called once every three years (and Rudd was at two and a half) the election was looming and pressure was rising.)
Talk of Julia Gillard taking over circulated for about a week before it happened though she assured everyone that it was just talk and that she fully supported Kevin Rudd. So it was a bit of a shock when word got out late in the afternoon June 23rd that she was going to challenge him, and even more of a shock when he announced early the next morning that he had resigned and that Julia Gillard was the new Prime Minister, voted in unanimously by his party in the wee hours of the morning.
It's not the first time this has happened (other Prime Ministers include Bob Hawke by Paul Keating while the practice of ousting the leader happens frequently on the Premier level (akin to State Governor) and among the opposition party (ie. whichever party isn't in power)). But people have been upset that Julia Gillard would oust him so quickly and with so much support, despite their growing discontent with his policies. So, with just a few weeks under her belt, Julia Gillard called an election for August 21st to justify her rise to power and hopefully right some wrongs and placate a few dissidents by resolving outstanding issues.
But it's been a hard slog (as the Aussies would say) because even though Ms. Gillard was relatively popular as a Deputy Prime Minister, she's up against a formidable foe: the Liberal Party leader, Tony Abbott.
Now, when I say "formidable", I mean "outspoken", "blokey" and "equally conservative as she is liberal". (Side note: even though they are called the Liberal Party, they are actually conservative ala Republican Style. They are also Royalists (loyal to the Queen) which is decidedly a conservative platform).
About the Candidates
Prime Minister Julia Gillard is surprisingly a single, Athiest woman (oh God, she'd never make it in American politics!) who is in a long-term De-Facto (Common Law Marriage) relationship with a hairdresser. And she doesn't plan on getting married. She was born in Wales (also a no-go for American presidential-hopefuls). She used to be a lawyer for Slater & Gordon (a very large top-tier firm specializing in tort law).
Tony Abbott is a married man with two or three daughters. He's well known for his athleticism, having recently competed in several big races (including an 100km "ultrathon"), and can usually be found in his Speedo on Bondi Beach talking up voters. (But we must give credit where credit is due--he pulls off a speedo well.) Born in London, he originally intended to enter the Catholic priesthood but gave it up for politics, earning himself the title "The Mad Monk."
The Battle
Since Gillard came to office, she has ended the mining tax fiasco by agreeing with the mining companies on a 30% tax increase though it continues to be the leading complaint of the Liberals, primarily because a couple companies have renegaded on the deal and because she has proposed a civilian council/summit to hear people's opinions on the tax. This is one thing that I really don't get--to me, getting civilian opinions and feedback on this sort of issue seems like a really good idea (maybe it's an American thing?), but most Australians are just all out of sorts over it and some quite frankly pissed off. They believe the government is elected and should just make decisions as they see fit and not bother them, the lowly, uneducated people with complicated matters like this. What?!? I just don't get it. I really don't. They are mad but they don't want anyone to listen to them... It's confusing.
Other rather unpopular Labour policies include a website called My School (aimed at creating transparency of school and student performance to parents and the general public), a home insulation program (which resulted in a few home fires due to poorly trained contractors), and a school building scheme (which resulted in mismanaged funds when contractors inflated their costs). One big and personally concerning policy of Labour is the proposal of a nationwide internet filter to weed out things like child pornography (good), but a Wikileaks report showed that the proposed blacklist of the filter also included activist and political groups (not good). While I think it's universally agreed that ridding the internet of heinous crap like child porn is an overwhelming good thing, there is just too much potential for such a web filtering program to be abused on a national scale. Plus, trials and tests have shown the filter is easy to get around.But the trade is that they'll improve Australia's internet connectivity (like 100 fold).
Unpopular Liberal policies include an increase on grocery taxes, increases on power rates, hospital funding cuts, no faith in climate change (planting trees and reducing carbon pollution by 5% isn't enough methinks), they really aren't keen on immigration (maybe that's why it's taking so long for my visa to be approved?), and they are not serious about improving Australia's internet (they see laying fiber optics as a private industrial responsibility which means it won't happen and so all internet connections are running on old copper telephone cables ran by a monopoly--Telstra).
My Personal Opinion
Neither politicians are spectacular. Julia Gillard impressed me once upon a time as an eloquent woman, well spoken on her views and policies but she's been drug into the political mud-slinging rat race. She's lost her dazzle (kinda like Obama, I'm sorry to admit). Tony Abbott is shmarmy and reminds me more of a used car salesman than politician (though I guess they're not that different really). You just know this guy has a lot full of lemons he'd love to show you. And I really dislike the tone he takes and the distrust he exudes when it comes to asylum seekers which he loves calling "Boat People" (it's like calling a Mexican a Beaner--it's rude). I hate that neither side is taking the climate seriously which is in peril.
I can't vote in this election because I'm not a citizen, but if I were, I'd vote Labour--or better, Green Party (it's getting late so I won't explain them--they won't win anyway). Why? Because I believe in health care, gay marriage, I'm pro-immigration (obviously), and climate is high on my list. Jeremy feels the same.
This election is important because the next administration will have to tackle some pretty big issues: climate, mining, the GFC, IT development, housing costs (which are out of this world), and capping Australia's population. I just wish that the two big choices here were more competent people. Lots of Australians have expressed to me that they don't like either choice, so it may mean a lot more go Green, and if they do, we may see a Bush-Gore re-run where the Greens steal some of the Labour vote and the Liberals (conservatives) win. We'll find out tomorrow! Stay tuned!
But seeing how it's actually an important event and one that doesn't come around too often, I thought I should blog about it.
First, I should say that all Australians over the age of 18 are required by law to vote. I'm not sure how I feel about that. Jeremy tells me that the root of the law was based on the notion that the government wanted a force to equal out the royalists (those favoring the monarchy) which were very vocal in Australia's early days. And so, by forcing Australians to vote, they forced the people to build the country. Makes sense, but it's kinda of a misnomer to force people to exercise their rights, and isn't the ultimate show of democracy the right to choose not to partake in it?
Anyway, that's not the point of this post. The point of this post is that Australia is at a cross road. On June 24th, former Labour Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was overthrown by his Deputy Prime Minister (ie. Vice President) Julia Gillard and the Labour Party in the face of unfavorable polls. It happened because the Australian parliamentary government works like this: Australians vote for a party and the party appoints a leader (in this case, the leader was Kevin Rudd). However, if that leader loses favor with the public and starts dropping in the polls, their party can (and often does) oust them with a vote to elect a new leader.
PM Kevin Rudd was elected with one of the highest approval ratings of any Australian Prime Minister, riding in and making some much needed changes. Upon election in 2007, K-Rudd (or KRudd -- both loving nicknames) ratified the Kyoto Protocol and made a public apology to the Stolen Generations (Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders removed from their homes in the mid-90s by the government and the church in an effort to "remove the black in them"). These were immensely popular moves that catapulted Rudd into the stratosphere of popularity. Not only that, but he held the country together during the GFC and is fluent in Chinese (making international relations with their big neighbor better).
But following the International Summit on Climate Change and in light of the international community's reluctance to adopt any serious stance on the environment, Kevin Rudd dropped his policy on carbon trading and refocused on taxing the coal mining industry in Australia (which btw, is one of Australia's biggest exports). The original proposal was for a 40% tax increase on profits called "The Super-Profits Tax." As you can imagine, some mining companies were unhappy about this and the Liberal coalition (Liberal Party + National Party) started towing the line that this tax would drive out businesses and cost Australian's jobs, ultimately ruining the economy. The tax proved too much for Kevin Rudd's popularity and so, with two and a half years as Prime Minister, his party voted him out and his Deputy in out of fear that an unpopular PM would cost them the general election should one be called. (Given that an election must be called once every three years (and Rudd was at two and a half) the election was looming and pressure was rising.)
Talk of Julia Gillard taking over circulated for about a week before it happened though she assured everyone that it was just talk and that she fully supported Kevin Rudd. So it was a bit of a shock when word got out late in the afternoon June 23rd that she was going to challenge him, and even more of a shock when he announced early the next morning that he had resigned and that Julia Gillard was the new Prime Minister, voted in unanimously by his party in the wee hours of the morning.
It's not the first time this has happened (other Prime Ministers include Bob Hawke by Paul Keating while the practice of ousting the leader happens frequently on the Premier level (akin to State Governor) and among the opposition party (ie. whichever party isn't in power)). But people have been upset that Julia Gillard would oust him so quickly and with so much support, despite their growing discontent with his policies. So, with just a few weeks under her belt, Julia Gillard called an election for August 21st to justify her rise to power and hopefully right some wrongs and placate a few dissidents by resolving outstanding issues.
But it's been a hard slog (as the Aussies would say) because even though Ms. Gillard was relatively popular as a Deputy Prime Minister, she's up against a formidable foe: the Liberal Party leader, Tony Abbott.
Now, when I say "formidable", I mean "outspoken", "blokey" and "equally conservative as she is liberal". (Side note: even though they are called the Liberal Party, they are actually conservative ala Republican Style. They are also Royalists (loyal to the Queen) which is decidedly a conservative platform).
About the Candidates
Prime Minister Julia Gillard is surprisingly a single, Athiest woman (oh God, she'd never make it in American politics!) who is in a long-term De-Facto (Common Law Marriage) relationship with a hairdresser. And she doesn't plan on getting married. She was born in Wales (also a no-go for American presidential-hopefuls). She used to be a lawyer for Slater & Gordon (a very large top-tier firm specializing in tort law).
Tony Abbott is a married man with two or three daughters. He's well known for his athleticism, having recently competed in several big races (including an 100km "ultrathon"), and can usually be found in his Speedo on Bondi Beach talking up voters. (But we must give credit where credit is due--he pulls off a speedo well.) Born in London, he originally intended to enter the Catholic priesthood but gave it up for politics, earning himself the title "The Mad Monk."
The Battle
Since Gillard came to office, she has ended the mining tax fiasco by agreeing with the mining companies on a 30% tax increase though it continues to be the leading complaint of the Liberals, primarily because a couple companies have renegaded on the deal and because she has proposed a civilian council/summit to hear people's opinions on the tax. This is one thing that I really don't get--to me, getting civilian opinions and feedback on this sort of issue seems like a really good idea (maybe it's an American thing?), but most Australians are just all out of sorts over it and some quite frankly pissed off. They believe the government is elected and should just make decisions as they see fit and not bother them, the lowly, uneducated people with complicated matters like this. What?!? I just don't get it. I really don't. They are mad but they don't want anyone to listen to them... It's confusing.
Other rather unpopular Labour policies include a website called My School (aimed at creating transparency of school and student performance to parents and the general public), a home insulation program (which resulted in a few home fires due to poorly trained contractors), and a school building scheme (which resulted in mismanaged funds when contractors inflated their costs). One big and personally concerning policy of Labour is the proposal of a nationwide internet filter to weed out things like child pornography (good), but a Wikileaks report showed that the proposed blacklist of the filter also included activist and political groups (not good). While I think it's universally agreed that ridding the internet of heinous crap like child porn is an overwhelming good thing, there is just too much potential for such a web filtering program to be abused on a national scale. Plus, trials and tests have shown the filter is easy to get around.But the trade is that they'll improve Australia's internet connectivity (like 100 fold).
Unpopular Liberal policies include an increase on grocery taxes, increases on power rates, hospital funding cuts, no faith in climate change (planting trees and reducing carbon pollution by 5% isn't enough methinks), they really aren't keen on immigration (maybe that's why it's taking so long for my visa to be approved?), and they are not serious about improving Australia's internet (they see laying fiber optics as a private industrial responsibility which means it won't happen and so all internet connections are running on old copper telephone cables ran by a monopoly--Telstra).
My Personal Opinion
Neither politicians are spectacular. Julia Gillard impressed me once upon a time as an eloquent woman, well spoken on her views and policies but she's been drug into the political mud-slinging rat race. She's lost her dazzle (kinda like Obama, I'm sorry to admit). Tony Abbott is shmarmy and reminds me more of a used car salesman than politician (though I guess they're not that different really). You just know this guy has a lot full of lemons he'd love to show you. And I really dislike the tone he takes and the distrust he exudes when it comes to asylum seekers which he loves calling "Boat People" (it's like calling a Mexican a Beaner--it's rude). I hate that neither side is taking the climate seriously which is in peril.
I can't vote in this election because I'm not a citizen, but if I were, I'd vote Labour--or better, Green Party (it's getting late so I won't explain them--they won't win anyway). Why? Because I believe in health care, gay marriage, I'm pro-immigration (obviously), and climate is high on my list. Jeremy feels the same.
This election is important because the next administration will have to tackle some pretty big issues: climate, mining, the GFC, IT development, housing costs (which are out of this world), and capping Australia's population. I just wish that the two big choices here were more competent people. Lots of Australians have expressed to me that they don't like either choice, so it may mean a lot more go Green, and if they do, we may see a Bush-Gore re-run where the Greens steal some of the Labour vote and the Liberals (conservatives) win. We'll find out tomorrow! Stay tuned!
Saturday, November 14, 2009
"So where the bloody hell are ya?!"
For some time, that was the slogan the government used to promote tourism in their "visit Australia" adds. Most Aussies don't see anything wrong with it because it's all part of the more relaxed and laid back culture here, however, it's not so laid back outside the island (yes, Australia is an island) and several big names from big countries (mainly Britian) complained about the slogan being offensive and in bad taste. So it was changed.
But I think it's a good example of how different things really can be here. This may be a Common Wealth country, but it's pretty much the last out-post of the English monarchy (it's the "wide open spaces" couped up monarchs dream of), and though it's often hard to differentiate what is uniquely Australian culture and what is not, a lot of things still surprise me.
So, I intend to write a few blogs in the next month or so about the little things that make Australia different. Let the fun begin!
You're on candid camera!
This one always makes me laugh: in New South Whales (NSW), traffic cameras have to be sign posted. Yeah, so if you're caught speeding by a camera, you really are the biggest dunce on the road. But I honestly think it does the opposite of deterring the speedsters. If I had a car, I'd certainly adjust my speed to accommodate the cameras... I'd slow down just before and speed up just after. (Don't judge--you'd probably do it too.) The cameras are also used to catch people in the bus lane (which I think is great as I ride the bus everywhere) but like speeding, they often just hop out before the camera and back in after. Sign posting cameras really seems so counter-intuitive to me and I just don't get it. Apparently, the idea behind this law is that roads will be safer because people won't brake at the last minute when they spot a camera and therefore an accident will be avoided. I think this argument is a little self defeating though--camera signs don't assure this outcome and mightn't people do the same thing when they see camera signs?
We all Live in a Yellow Customs Ship (think Beatles)
In the US, we are practically assailed with immigrants from all sides. Seriously, they are tunneling into our country like moles!! It's really difficult to keep them under control with such long and empty land borders. So you would think it's a lot easier to control illegal immigration when your country is an island... But a lot of Australians (or maybe it's just Mr. Rudd) think otherwise.
Currently, ol' Kevin Rudd (prime-minister) is facing a lot of very negative press over his handling of "the boat people" (an affectionate Australian term similar to "beaners" and "wet backs"). So far this year, something like 35 boats of illegal immigrants from Indonesia have been intercepted in the waters just north of Darwin and are being held in detention centers on Christmas Island, awaiting refugee status. (Does anyone else see the irony of a prison island/state creating it's own prison island/state?) However, the detention center at Christmas Island has become over crowded from the ever-continuing boats and the petrifyingly slow immigration department, and since the government refuses to process immigrants on the mainland, as John Howard did before him, K-Rudd has resumed demands that Indonesia take back the immigrants (remember, most of the time these people are just traveling through Indonesia on their way to Australia, so Indonesia would then be taking illegal immigrants instead of Australia). And for the last week, a poor group of Sri Lankan Tamil refugees have been stuck on a customs ship just off the shore of Indonesia, threatening Kevin Rudd to bring them to Australia or else they won't get off. Ie: Tamil rebels have hijack an Australian customs ship!!
Of course, Indonesia isn't complaining--they're not too eager about taking the immigrants either. Indonesia, by comparison, has 11 times the population of Australia and roughly 1/4 of the Australia's total area. There are faaaaarrr too many mouths to feed in that country and very little infrastructure.
I like to think of the situation like this: it's Christmas at JFK and immigration tapes off the custom counters and puts out a sign that reads, "America has reached maximum capacity. Please go to Canada." To speed things along, they stick everyone on a plane and instead of flying them to the clean, orderly and modernized streets of Toronto, the visitors are flown to Tiajuana (enough said). Total bummer, dude.
Who knows how this saga will conclude. Of course, Australia will look pretty silly if they take the refugees now after all this hard-to-get stuff and will certainly have created an immigration nightmare (I can already hear the "but you let him immigrate!" complaints now); they'll look pretty much like cruel people if they force the immigrants off the customs ship; they will come off as "un-humanitarian" if they force the Tamil refugees back to their war-torn country (btw, the Tamils are a notoriously oppressed people by the ethnically Indian government of Sri Lanka); and if the boat people do decide to get off, the Australian government will look even more bully-like because they forced Indonesia to deal with truthfully an Australian problem and because those poor people were placed into another situation not too un-like the one they were fleeing from. As you can see, I have no sympathy for the Australian government. This is a right royal mess of their own making.
Recently, the refugees announced that they would get off in Indonesia as long as they were placed in community housing and not in an Indonesian detention center. Can you blame them?? Who wants to spend the next 5 years in an Indonesian prison camp?! So far, I haven't heard anything about an agreement or meeting of the refugees terms, but until the Australian government starts acting like a compassionate and caring country concerned with the quality of life of even illegal immigrants, "boat people" they will remain.
More to come...
Okay, that last snippet on immigration was longer than I expected. I'll write more on other things Australian tomorrow.
But I think it's a good example of how different things really can be here. This may be a Common Wealth country, but it's pretty much the last out-post of the English monarchy (it's the "wide open spaces" couped up monarchs dream of), and though it's often hard to differentiate what is uniquely Australian culture and what is not, a lot of things still surprise me.
So, I intend to write a few blogs in the next month or so about the little things that make Australia different. Let the fun begin!
You're on candid camera!
This one always makes me laugh: in New South Whales (NSW), traffic cameras have to be sign posted. Yeah, so if you're caught speeding by a camera, you really are the biggest dunce on the road. But I honestly think it does the opposite of deterring the speedsters. If I had a car, I'd certainly adjust my speed to accommodate the cameras... I'd slow down just before and speed up just after. (Don't judge--you'd probably do it too.) The cameras are also used to catch people in the bus lane (which I think is great as I ride the bus everywhere) but like speeding, they often just hop out before the camera and back in after. Sign posting cameras really seems so counter-intuitive to me and I just don't get it. Apparently, the idea behind this law is that roads will be safer because people won't brake at the last minute when they spot a camera and therefore an accident will be avoided. I think this argument is a little self defeating though--camera signs don't assure this outcome and mightn't people do the same thing when they see camera signs?
We all Live in a Yellow Customs Ship (think Beatles)
In the US, we are practically assailed with immigrants from all sides. Seriously, they are tunneling into our country like moles!! It's really difficult to keep them under control with such long and empty land borders. So you would think it's a lot easier to control illegal immigration when your country is an island... But a lot of Australians (or maybe it's just Mr. Rudd) think otherwise.
Currently, ol' Kevin Rudd (prime-minister) is facing a lot of very negative press over his handling of "the boat people" (an affectionate Australian term similar to "beaners" and "wet backs"). So far this year, something like 35 boats of illegal immigrants from Indonesia have been intercepted in the waters just north of Darwin and are being held in detention centers on Christmas Island, awaiting refugee status. (Does anyone else see the irony of a prison island/state creating it's own prison island/state?) However, the detention center at Christmas Island has become over crowded from the ever-continuing boats and the petrifyingly slow immigration department, and since the government refuses to process immigrants on the mainland, as John Howard did before him, K-Rudd has resumed demands that Indonesia take back the immigrants (remember, most of the time these people are just traveling through Indonesia on their way to Australia, so Indonesia would then be taking illegal immigrants instead of Australia). And for the last week, a poor group of Sri Lankan Tamil refugees have been stuck on a customs ship just off the shore of Indonesia, threatening Kevin Rudd to bring them to Australia or else they won't get off. Ie: Tamil rebels have hijack an Australian customs ship!!
Of course, Indonesia isn't complaining--they're not too eager about taking the immigrants either. Indonesia, by comparison, has 11 times the population of Australia and roughly 1/4 of the Australia's total area. There are faaaaarrr too many mouths to feed in that country and very little infrastructure.
I like to think of the situation like this: it's Christmas at JFK and immigration tapes off the custom counters and puts out a sign that reads, "America has reached maximum capacity. Please go to Canada." To speed things along, they stick everyone on a plane and instead of flying them to the clean, orderly and modernized streets of Toronto, the visitors are flown to Tiajuana (enough said). Total bummer, dude.
Who knows how this saga will conclude. Of course, Australia will look pretty silly if they take the refugees now after all this hard-to-get stuff and will certainly have created an immigration nightmare (I can already hear the "but you let him immigrate!" complaints now); they'll look pretty much like cruel people if they force the immigrants off the customs ship; they will come off as "un-humanitarian" if they force the Tamil refugees back to their war-torn country (btw, the Tamils are a notoriously oppressed people by the ethnically Indian government of Sri Lanka); and if the boat people do decide to get off, the Australian government will look even more bully-like because they forced Indonesia to deal with truthfully an Australian problem and because those poor people were placed into another situation not too un-like the one they were fleeing from. As you can see, I have no sympathy for the Australian government. This is a right royal mess of their own making.
Recently, the refugees announced that they would get off in Indonesia as long as they were placed in community housing and not in an Indonesian detention center. Can you blame them?? Who wants to spend the next 5 years in an Indonesian prison camp?! So far, I haven't heard anything about an agreement or meeting of the refugees terms, but until the Australian government starts acting like a compassionate and caring country concerned with the quality of life of even illegal immigrants, "boat people" they will remain.
More to come...
Okay, that last snippet on immigration was longer than I expected. I'll write more on other things Australian tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)