Of course we can't tell what an alternative future would be. But I think they were heading to be permanent at the time of pregnancy.
Given that they were turned down over two years after the birth of their child for a (third?) visa its not clear that they were actually making any real meanigful steps towards residency. The article says they were looking at it before the birth but its doesn't appear that they have trued to progress this any further beacause it looks like they have been knocked back at the point their visa's were up for renewal and then found out.
There is no evidence they would have been rejected if they either didn't have a child or had a non-disabled child.
Correct but they did and that changed the equation. There's only so many ways I can say the same thing really. Anyone moving to work in another country on a visa should be prepared for the possibility that it won't be renewed and or that citzenship of the country in question may not follow. And the circumstances that can lead to that possibilty can be entirely out of the hands of the visa applicant. The host country may have changed / tightened their visa rules (as the UK did recently) or the visa applicants personal situation may have changed, (somewhat) outside of their control.
But the end result is the same. You may have to leave when your current visa expires, that's the deal.
The internets full of accounts of people that have come across these sorts of issues from various coutries... for example
The publisher of W42ST is rallying support from readers and elected officials to help him get back to his life and work in Hell’s Kitchen.
www.thecity.nyc
They have purely been rejected because they have a disabled child.
Just the same as their application would have been turned down if they were first time applicants from the UK. Ultimately they're not Australian citizens and a renewal application will look at the benefit to the host nation, primarily from an economic standpoint, and pretty much on the same basis as if they were 1st time applicants. So for example if at the point of visa renewal the applicant was no longer working it whatever key role they had been given a visa for and or not earning the requiste amount of money required they could expect to have their visa renewal declined even if the reason they were no longer working in the afermentioned role or earning enough was out of their hands.
I still would challenge a law that says this kid isn't Australian. If his parents died tomorrow his only known life would be in Australia.
The chid's two... a move to the UK with the parents will barely even register. As i've said before although the childs disabiity is the primary cause of the visa renewals being declined the child is largely irrelevant to the argument against the Australian goverments position as there's no argument the child's move to the UK requires any additional suffering. If the child had been healthy but visa rules had changed in the interim this family could still be being told that they would have to return to the UK. This is really about the parents not wanting to return to the UK and no doubt the decision a big dissapointment to them after eight years but it's an outcome that was always a distinct possibility with or without a child.
The parents had been in Australia for 6 years prior to starting a family. In my view anything above short term visas are residential. 6 years is way above a visitors visa time.
Again I dont know how many times I can repeat what the deal with work visa's is. The goverment of a foreign nation offers you 'X' years to work in their country because its likely advantageous for both applicants and the host nation. It can be a means of moving towards an application for citizenship of that country but there's no guarantee of that. The whole idea if visa's falls into farce if the argument becomes "well i've been here for 'X' years on a visa so the county most now grant me citizenship!" That's not the deal!
I think the law the Australian government is using is to stop "anchor babies", were people fly to a country on a visit and give birth. I remember Chinese people were doing it in the US. I would contest this situation is not an anchor baby.
Thats at the more egregious end of what they are trying to prevent but ultimately Australia's work visa system is in place to seek to provide a benefit to Australians not for the benefit of people from other countries.
It's a weird disease, mostly western nations, where we have a widespread form of pathological altruism only it’s expressed by demands for spending moslty other people’s tax money on stuff. If a country wants to operate a social security net and or socialised health care for citizens it must consider the financial costs of any persons allowed to visit or stay in the country or else it's diminishing the ability it has to provide for its own citizens .
