NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,587641,00.html (German only)
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,24897,24580889-601,00.html

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24579702-1243,00.html (English)

From the article:

"The federal Health Minister is to take up the case of a German-born doctor denied permanent residency because his son has Down syndrome, and the Victorian Government says it will fight for him '100 per cent'.
Nicola Roxon today said Australia needed doctors like Bernhard Moeller, who moved to Horsham in central west Victoria two years ago to help fill a doctor shortage.
She said she would talk to Immigration Minister Chris Evans about his family's plight.

Dr Moeller has a temporary visa that is valid until 2010, but the Immigration Department has rejected his application for permanent residency because his youngest son, Lukas, 13, does not meet the health requirement.

Ms Roxon said the Government valued the contribution made by overseas-trained doctors, particularly those who worked in Australia's rural and regional communities.

'I will be talking to the Immigration Minister, but my understanding is that a process needs to be undertaken first and that there is a valid reason for this doctor and his family to be eligible to stay here in Australia providing those services,' she said.

'As a government we understand the importance of having doctors working in our rural and regional communities and we support them in many ways and continue to do this.'

Victorian Premier John Brumby said the decision should be overturned and the state Government would support Dr Moeller's application through an appeal process.
'We will be supporting his case to the Federal Government 100 per cent,' Mr Brumby said.

'I believe it's an error of judgment and it discriminates against him and his family unfairly.'

The Immigration Department wrote to Dr Moeller saying his son had been assessed as a burden on Australian taxpayers and could not be granted permanent residency.
A copy of the decision said care for Lukas was 'likely to result in significant costs to the Australian community in health care and community services'.

But Dr Moeller said his son would always be cared for by family and his needs at school were not prohibitive. 'I have the means to look after him and I will look after him,' he said.

Residents in Horsham, which has a population of 20,000, are supporting Dr Moeller and rallied outside his practice yesterday, demanding the decision be overturned.

As well as his private practice, Dr Moeller fills a key role at the Wimmera Base Hospital, which serves 50,000 people in the region.

Business Horsham's Andrea Cross said: 'We are desperate for doctors in the country and the Government says we must get skilled labour from overseas.
'The decision to reject residency is crazy. He has a disabled child but we've got great support for him here.'
Lukas attends a mainstream primary school, has an integration aide and receives speech therapy.
He plays football, cricket, golf and table tennis and his parents say he has no difficulties coping.
Ms Moeller said: 'We fought for years against discrimination in Germany against Lukas.
'We wanted to make sure he got the best quality of life, and when we looked all over the world we decided Australia was the right place to live.
'We came to Australia in April 2006 on a temporary residency visa, and we told everybody then we wanted to stay in Australia as permanent residents, but they didn't mention anything like this even possibly happening.
'Now we have to start fighting all over again against discrimination.'
Down Syndrome Victoria executive officer Catherine McAlpine said: 'This decision is disgraceful and discriminatory.
'The department are not looking at Lukas as an individual or seeing his potential.
'Instead, they are making assumptions based on their outmoded understanding of intellectual disability.' "

---

So, let me get this straight: You and your family follow a call by the Australian government for skilled workers to come to Australia to work as a much-needed doctor in rural areas, and when you do, work there, settle in, and try to become a permanent part of the Australian society, they turn you down in down-under because your kid has down syndrome?

Huh. Interesting. But their reasoning is even more telling than anything else.

So I ask NSG: Is it reasonable to deny permanent residency or citizenship based on the "assessment as a burden on taxpayers", even though you or your family contribute greatly to the country?

I don't think it is. What do you guys think?

So I ask NSG: Is it reasonable to deny permanent residency or citizenship based on the "assessment as a burden on taxpayers", even though you or your family contribute greatly to the country?
Any more so than any other means of arbitration? No. But then, there does not need to be reason behind choosing to grant or deny someone residency or citizenship.

The notion of nationhood is entirely arbitrary. Countries are just treehouse clubs that happen to be a bit bigger. If they want to, they can choose to keep the girls out with water bombs. They might be stupid to do so, but because it's their club, it's their choice.

Is that helpful? 'course not. But countries aren't about "helpful". They're about power and exclusion. So I'm not at all surprised when they use their power to exclude.

I feel that it's definately wrong to turn people away because they are deemed to be a burden - very wrong indeed. Goes against my helpy principle
:p

It's awful. I hope they get to stay.

Isn't that, like, Nazi? Refusing a person the right to live in your country because they don't meet your standards of what a human should be. I mean Hitler took it to extremes by trying to kill everyone who had an untreatable mental disease but Canberra seems to be looking wistfully down that blood-red path alright.

Speaking for America, The US will take him.

The Premier of Victoria has argued strongly that Dr Moeller and his family should be granted visas. As for the question: "Is it reasonable?", immigration is a thorny issue for many countries. Australia has always had this policy that only healthy immigrants or workers should enter and redide in the country. It's a hard one. Where does one draw the line. Should AIDS victims and the mentally ill be allowed free access to settle in the country. Most people would probably say no. However, Australia needs doctors and if I were Dr Moeller I would say, "Sorry, if you don't want my Down Syndrome son, you won't get me." I hope that he and his family can come. is the overall policy reasonable - probably yes. Is this particular case reasonable - probably not.

So I ask NSG: Is it reasonable to deny permanent residency or citizenship based on the "assessment as a burden on taxpayers", even though you or your family contribute greatly to the country?

I don't think it is. What do you guys think?

That depends. Will 'contributing greatly' add more than 'being a burden' takes away?

Well, in the US at least it theoretically shouldnt. I mean, we have this big old statue that says...

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door. "

Well, in the US at least it theoretically shouldnt. I mean, we have this big old statue that says...

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door. "

You could always give it back to France.

You could always give it back to France.

Too bad France lives up to those words even less than we do.


Which is saying something.

Any more so than any other means of arbitration? No. But then, there does not need to be reason behind choosing to grant or deny someone residency or citizenship.
While that may very well be true, I find it very harsh to welcome the father working as a doctor which seem to be in short supply in rural Australia, yet at the same time not welcoming his child.
I mean, he was granted residency exactly because he was needed. His son? Not so much.
The notion of nationhood is entirely arbitrary. Countries are just treehouse clubs that happen to be a bit bigger. If they want to, they can choose to keep the girls out with water bombs. They might be stupid to do so, but because it's their club, it's their choice.
Yeah, but to stay with your example, you're keeping the girls out after they supplied you with lemonade. If you'd keep up this behavior, I'd bet it was the last time they gave you something you needed or wanted.
Is that helpful? 'course not. But countries aren't about "helpful". They're about power and exclusion. So I'm not at all surprised when they use their power to exclude.
The thing that really irks me is that at least in this particular case, the family was first welcome because of what the father does, and then all of the sudden unwelcome because of what the son is.
I mean, if the son's condition were of any concern, why let them into the country to work there in the first place and not reject them from the start?
I feel that it's definately wrong to turn people away because they are deemed to be a burden - very wrong indeed. Goes against my helpy principle
:p
Same here.
It's awful. I hope they get to stay.
So do I.
Isn't that, like, Nazi? Refusing a person the right to live in your country because they don't meet your standards of what a human should be. I mean Hitler took it to extremes by trying to kill everyone who had an untreatable mental disease but Canberra seems to be looking wistfully down that blood-red path alright.
Hey, at least they're not trying to kill the kid. They just don't want him to live in the place that his father has contributed to.
Speaking for America, The US will take him.
However, it looks like the family doesn't want to emigrate to the U.S. for they thought they'd found their new home down under.
The Premier of Victoria has argued strongly that Dr Moeller and his family should be granted visas. As for the question: "Is it reasonable?", immigration is a thorny issue for many countries. Australia has always had this policy that only healthy immigrants or workers should enter and redide in the country. It's a hard one. Where does one draw the line. Should AIDS victims and the mentally ill be allowed free access to settle in the country. Most people would probably say no. However, Australia needs doctors and if I were Dr Moeller I would say, "Sorry, if you don't want my Down Syndrome son, you won't get me." I hope that he and his family can come. is the overall policy reasonable - probably yes. Is this particular case reasonable - probably not.
As you've said, I agree, it is a thorny issue. And I can understand why countries chose to (only) accept those who can contribute to the common good of that particular country.
What I don't understand is that Moeller Jr.'s condition was of no concern when they first came to the country. And the way the case presents itself, it seems that Dr. Moeller's contribution to the common well-being was appreciated, whereas his son's condition is not.

Makes me wonder how Australia treats their "own" disabled people. I mean, had Dr Moeller been an Australian from the start, this wouldn't even be an issue, or would it?
That depends. Will 'contributing greatly' add more than 'being a burden' takes away?
You be the judge.

"We're in dire need of doctors so people can be healed, operated, and saved from death" vs. "I'm a father with a decent salary whose son has Down Syndrome and therefore requires some special support which I'm willing to pay for."

Not that hard of a decision to make, is it?

Besides, to tell a father that his work is much needed and highly appreciated and thus a "boon to society" but at the same time tell him that his kid is a "burden to society" is infamous to say the least.
Well, in the US at least it theoretically shouldnt. I mean, we have this big old statue that says...

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door. "
Don't you know that the golden door has been welded shut some time ago?

Might as well sell the Lady for scrap metal.

However, it looks like the family doesn't want to emigrate to the U.S. for they thought they'd found their new home down under.



Well Australia doesn't want him. or specifically his son. Looks like it is Us or back to Germany. If he opened up shop in Arizona I am sure he could find a comparable climate to what he is looking for.

Citizenship should not be awarded based on merits or burdenship, it should be based upon random chance! Dr Molier's case should be decided the same way as anyone else's, by a flip of the coin. If the powers that be are feeling generous, they can even let him call it in the air.

It seems stupid to me. If the need for doctors is so freaking dire, one would think that would be factored into the calculation weighing potential burden against potential benefit. Do they need doctors or don't they? Is this doctor proposing to dump his kid in Australia and run, as soon as the kid gets citizenship? Or is he going to be there, providing the benefit of a doctor that they say they need so direly? This sounds to me like brainless bureaucrat syndrome.

Also, how charming of Australia to deny citizenship to disabled children on the grounds that they might be a burden. Do they enjoy kicking starving puppies down the street in that country too? Way to PR, people.

Citizenship should not be awarded based on merits or burdenship, it should be based upon random chance! Dr Molier's case should be decided the same way as anyone else's, by a flip of the coin. If the powers that be are feeling generous, they can even let him call it in the air.
It seems stupid to me. If the need for doctors is so freaking dire, one would think that would be factored into the calculation weighing potential burden against potential benefit. Do they need doctors or don't they? Is this doctor proposing to dump his kid in Australia and run, as soon as the kid gets citizenship? Or is he going to be there, providing the benefit of a doctor that they say they need so direly? This sounds to me like brainless bureaucrat syndrome.

Also, how charming of Australia to deny citizenship to disabled children on the grounds that they might be a burden. Do they enjoy kicking starving puppies down the street in that country too? Way to PR, people.
See guys, I'm not even sure this is about receiving Australian citizenship. I thought this was about extending the limited visa to allow an unlimited stay or permanent residency. As far as I could tell from the articles, the Moeller family would still be German but live in Australia, no?

See guys, I'm not even sure this is about receiving Australian citizenship. I thought this was about extending the limited visa to allow an unlimited stay or permanent residency. As far as I could tell from the articles, the Moeller family would still be German but live in Australia, no?
Yeah, he's trying to get the same setup as my family.

There is a points system. You need a certain minimum number of points to get the visa, and you get them for doing well on an English exam, being rich, having an in-demand job and so on. I don't know this, but it seems reasonable to suspect that having a disabled child would subtract points from you, which can then tip the balance against you.

It's an idiotic systems, as all immigration controls are. The reason we don't have the government dictating the economy by 5-year plans is because we realise and accept that it does not have the information, nor the means to develop proper plans, nor the flexibility to change them if needed. The exact same arguments apply to the movement of people, yet somehow we're quite happy to be Soviets about that one. It's moronic.

Well, in the US at least it theoretically shouldnt. I mean, we have this big old statue that says...

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door. "
Poetry on a monument is hardly equivalent to government policy.
You be the judge.

"We're in dire need of doctors so people can be healed, operated, and saved from death" vs. "I'm a father with a decent salary whose son has Down Syndrome and therefore requires some special support which I'm willing to pay for."

Not that hard of a decision to make, is it?

Besides, to tell a father that his work is much needed and highly appreciated and thus a "boon to society" but at the same time tell him that his kid is a "burden to society" is infamous to say the least.

Indeed. If they need doctors that badly then a doctor with a son who needs some, but not much, special support seems perfectly acceptable.

See guys, I'm not even sure this is about receiving Australian citizenship. I thought this was about extending the limited visa to allow an unlimited stay or permanent residency. As far as I could tell from the articles, the Moeller family would still be German but live in Australia, no?
My point stands.

Do they need the doctors or don't they? Beggars can't be choosers, after all.

And whether the kid would be a citizen or a resident alien of some kind doesn't really matter. They are still announcing their decision to act in a douchely manner about a handicapped child. Still makes them look like a bunch of pricks.

Of course he and his two sons, daughter and wife should stay. For one thing, he'll probably pay more in tax than his son costs the two tiers of government in support services. For another, he's sending his daughter to university and his other kids are in school.

Committing his family so thoroughly to the country, but not having examined the rules closely enough, does seem like bad judgement on the part of him and his wife. They could have talked to the Immigration dept at any time in the last two years.

But getting in the press will work too.

Minister will order a review. Immigration will probably reverse that decision.

I agree with Bugs on this. "What's up Doc?" are what his patients will be saying in Australia soon.

That depends. Will 'contributing greatly' add more than 'being a burden' takes away?

In this case he is a doctor in the rural community which does suffer from a shortage of doctors already. And he would be paying taxes more than a national as he isn't one.

Do they need the doctors or don't they? Beggars can't be choosers, after all.

Yes we do really need doctors especially in the bush.

Also, how charming of Australia to deny citizenship to disabled children on the grounds that they might be a burden. Do they enjoy kicking starving puppies down the street in that country too? Way to PR, people.

Well what else would you expect from a party that instituted a policy of compulsory detention for all refugees, bitched about it during when in opposition and then continued it when back in power. I was not surprised that the government thinks they should kick them out he is providing a valuable service and should be allowed to stay I was shocked when I read this and slightly outraged (more at the government's hypocrisy than anything) but I was not surprised that this issue happened from a 'caring' government.

I hope the minister decides to break an election promise and reverse the departments decision.

I hope the minister decides to break an election promise and reverse the departments decision.

Oh, I think she can probably talk them 'round.

*looks dubiously at pile of broken Immigration Ministers*

The Minister of Immigration, Multiculturalism and Ethnic Affairs, Chris Evans has the ministerial discretion to reverse his department's decision.
The Premier of Victoria, John Brumby has protested DIMEA's decision and it's front page news, so Chris Evans is bound to act on it. The department (DIMEA) was simply following guidelines that have existed for a long time.
In 1983, my partner who is English (I'm Aussie but hold a Brit passport as well) gave birth to our second son, Edmund in London. This made Edmund a Brit although I'm Aussie born. We had to sponsor him through immigration. That meant that our baby boy was subjected to a very thorough health check - similar, I guess, to the one the Moeller family went through. We were fortunate that Edmund was perfectly healthy. If he hadn't been, we would not have returned to Australia.... it disturbed us at the time.
I'm sure, that most European and North American Immigration departments have a similar policy however.

The Minister of Immigration, Multiculturalism and Ethnic Affairs, Chris Evans has the ministerial discretion to reverse his department's decision.
The Premier of Victoria, John Brumby has protested DIMEA's decision and it's front page news, so Chris Evans is bound to act on it. The department (DIMEA) was simply following guidelines that have existed for a long time.
In 1983, my partner who is English (I'm Aussie but hold a Brit passport as well) gave birth to our second son, Edmund in London. This made Edmund a Brit although I'm Aussie born. We had to sponsor him through immigration. That meant that our baby boy was subjected to a very thorough health check - similar, I guess, to the one the Moeller family went through. We were fortunate that Edmund was perfectly healthy. If he hadn't been, we would not have returned to Australia.... it disturbed us at the time.
I'm sure, that most European and North American Immigration departments have a similar policy however.

See that is strange despite you holding an Australian passport you still had to go through immigration to get your kid in Australia.

Now I wonder if you would have to do it if both of you were Australian. If so that is just plain stupid.

Isn't that, like, Nazi? Refusing a person the right to live in your country because they don't meet your standards of what a human should be. I mean Hitler took it to extremes by trying to kill everyone who had an untreatable mental disease but Canberra seems to be looking wistfully down that blood-red path alright.

Yes, what the Victorian Government is doing is morally wrong, but they have to stick to the law. Making an excuse for allowing them into the country, even if it was as good as the ones that people have made here, is still going to cause outrage. The Goverment can't just bend the law to let one person past or people who are coming into the country who won't pull their own weight will start arguing about why they let in the Doctor.

But putting the Australian people into context as Nazis? Now, come on. That is just too far. The difference between 'Not being alowed to let one family into a counrty' and 'Commiting atempted Genocide' is immence. Please, try not to do that again. People will take offence to it.



Also, how charming of Australia to deny citizenship to disabled children on the grounds that they might be a burden. Do they enjoy kicking starving puppies down the street in that country too? Way to PR, people.

Being Australian, it pains me to say that the goverment has done wrong. Keeping out these people is not the right thing to do. But it isn't the Australian People that should be to blame, just the Goverment who keeps the laws in place. And as I said before, they can't just bend the laws. And if they changed them, they would be forced to let in many other refugees who (And I really don't want to cause offence), will not do anything to help the Australian people.
now don't get me wrong. I wish my country could let in every single person that came to it's coasts. But we just can't. If we did, we would suffer from over-population. You might argue that there is heaps of space to accomodate a few more immagrants, but there isn't. Unless of course you plan to dump them in the middle of nowhere with no job, and no money.

So don't start blaming the Australian People. We do not, as you so fondly put it, "Kick starving puppies down the street". If you wish to blame something, maybe you should consider the reasons why the immagrants left their countries in the first place. Some, I agree, come of their own free will. If they are denied access for any reason, then they will do fine back where they came from. But people who are removed my militia force from their own countries, or run away from their homes to escape death; These people should be considered much more than a Doctor and his family.
But in the same light, the Australian Goverment cannot let either of them in. If they are unable to help the economy, then they should not try to migrate here.
I hate it utterly, but it's the law. And it's the only thing keeping Australia from over-population.

Yes, what the Victorian Government is doing is morally wrong, but they have to stick to the law. Making an excuse for allowing them into the country, even if it was as good as the ones that people have made here, is still going to cause outrage. The Goverment can't just bend the law to let one person past or people who are coming into the country who won't pull their own weight will start arguing about why they let in the Doctor.
That's fucking absurd. The doctor is filling a needed role in the community; a role that they had to go to another country and actively look for a person to fill. Not letting him stay in the country is going to cause an outrage which will tear down the Nazi system.

They are the government - of course they can bend the fucking laws. They made that shit up and they can bend the rules of they fucking feel like it. There is no Australian overlord forcing the government to obey every absurd law because they are the government.

It's been a big story in the media here & has caused quite a bit of community outrage (in support of Dr Moeller). The Victorian state Premier & the federal health minister have both formally asked the federal immigration minister for an urgent review of the case. I'm pretty sure he'll be granted permanent residency.

For one thing, he'll probably pay more in tax than his son costs the two tiers of government in support services.So might the people that won't be dead or disabled because they've visited him...

Being Australian, it pains me to say that the goverment has done wrong. Keeping out these people is not the right thing to do. But it isn't the Australian People that should be to blame, just the Goverment who keeps the laws in place. And as I said before, they can't just bend the laws. And if they changed them, they would be forced to let in many other refugees who (And I really don't want to cause offence), will not do anything to help the Australian people.
now don't get me wrong. I wish my country could let in every single person that came to it's coasts. But we just can't. If we did, we would suffer from over-population. You might argue that there is heaps of space to accomodate a few more immagrants, but there isn't. Unless of course you plan to dump them in the middle of nowhere with no job, and no money.

So don't start blaming the Australian People. We do not, as you so fondly put it, "Kick starving puppies down the street". If you wish to blame something, maybe you should consider the reasons why the immagrants left their countries in the first place. Some, I agree, come of their own free will. If they are denied access for any reason, then they will do fine back where they came from. But people who are removed my militia force from their own countries, or run away from their homes to escape death; These people should be considered much more than a Doctor and his family.
But in the same light, the Australian Goverment cannot let either of them in. If they are unable to help the economy, then they should not try to migrate here.
I hate it utterly, but it's the law. And it's the only thing keeping Australia from over-population.
Perhaps my use of the letters "PR" was too obscure. "PR" stands for "public relations." I was referring to your government's bad actions affecting the public image of Australia as a nation (as reflected in its policies) in the eyes of the rest of the world.

Obviously, the bad image created by your immigration officials is a false one in regards to the Australian people, but since the rest of the world can only know what we see, and what we see is "Australia" being douches to a handicapped child... You get the picture. And since Australia is a democracy... well, it does actually reflect on the people to an degree.

You know, just like how, here in the US, all Americans are tarred with the brush of the Bush administration's illegal war and idiotic and destructive policies. Never mind the fact that barely half of all Americans voted Republican (if that many) -- we bear the blame and will do so until we change our government.

And so will you.

But thank you for clearing up the real image of Australians. From what I read above, you people do not enjoy kicking starving puppies down the street unless they are also too sick and crippled for you to make money off them.

(Note: I don't think you represent all Australians, either, btw, but seriously, you should think about your choices of words.)

With immigration, a country can't let its heart rule its head. Mind you, a country shouldn't be heartless either. There are many reasons why countries have fairly tough immigration restrictions:
1. One's country would be flooded with many more desperate immigrants than its infrastructure could handle - people needing urgent hospital treatment, people wanting pensions, people desperate for work in times of recession etc.
2. The voters would throw out any government who allowed too many immigrants in because workers in the country would be threatened by a flood of immigrants willing to work for less and racist organisations would have a field day exploiting people's fears.

its the choice of the government who they allow in and dont. I fully support the decision made as the family may have been a net drain on the Australian public despite the parent being a doctor.