fregat222

Эксклюзив: новая кампания надеется завершить австралийские визовые баталии для людей с ограниченными возможностями На этой неделе в Аделаиде соберутся лучшие юристы, эксперты по миграции и защитники прав инвалидов, чтобы призвать правительство Австралии пересмотреть свои требования в отношении здоровья мигрантов, которые, по их словам, дискриминируют людей с ограниченными возможностями. Новозеландец Николь Форбс-Худ и двое ее несовершеннолетних детей юридически слепы, поэтому она была шокирована, когда ее 16-летний сын Кэмерон был единственным, чье заявление на постоянное проживание в Австралии было отклонено после того, как правительство не выполнило требование по миграции. Для Департамента иммиграции решение сводилось к тому, что у Кэмерон также есть аутизм и умственная отсталость, которые, по его словам, будут слишком дорогими для австралийского налогоплательщика. «Это было чрезвычайно разрушительным и непостижимым во многих отношениях», - сказала г-жа Форбс-Худ в интервью SBS News в тот момент, когда она получила отказ Кэмерон в 2015 году. «Я была шокирована и разбита горем, что они могут принять одного ребенка, а не другого». Семья из четырех человек переехала в Брисбен несколькими годами ранее в 2009 году и считала, что процесс получения гражданства Австралии будет «простым» из-за соглашений между двумя странами и потому, что дедушка детей был гражданином Австралии. «Мы действительно хотели лучшие возможности для нашей семьи, теплой погоды и австралийского образа жизни», - сказала 42-летняя г-жа Форбс-Худ. «Мы быстро устроились на работу, построили дом, и дети процветали. Мы жили австралийской мечтой ». Но требование по миграции для австралийских виз помешало этому. Требование здоровья относится к правилу, согласно которому люди, подающие заявление на визу или постоянное проживание, должны быть свободны от инвалидности или болезней, которые «могут потребовать медицинских или общественных услуг» и привести к затратам на сумму более 49 000 долларов США в течение 10 лет или на срок их пребывания при подаче заявления на временные визы. Это означает, что нескольким семьям и отдельным лицам каждый год запрещается мигрировать в Австралию исключительно на основании их инвалидности или хронического состояния здоровья, даже если нет никаких признаков того, что государственные службы по инвалидности или медицинские услуги будут использоваться. Г-жа Форбс-Худ делится историей своей семьи в рамках возобновленного толчка к пересмотру требований к миграции, более чем через 10 лет после того, как совместный парламентский обзор обнаружил, что она «несправедливо дискриминирует тех, кто имеет инвалидность». Кампания « Приветствуя инвалидов» , проводимая адвокатами по инвалидности, юристами и экспертами по вопросам миграции, призывает к пересмотру правительственного доклада 2010 года «Возможность Австралии» и немедленного выполнения рекомендаций. Официально стартуя в Аделаиде в четверг, организаторы кампании, которую поддерживают Австралийский синдром Дауна и Австралийские юристы за права человека, говорят, что они надеются, что она даст новый свет «несправедливому» и «несправедливому» процессу. «Прошло 10 лет с тех пор, как доклад« Включая Австралию »о миграционном лечении людей с ограниченными возможностями был передан правительству… но очень мало было сделано», - сказал Ян Готард, миграционный агент Estrin Saul Migration Lawyers, специализирующийся на проблемах инвалидности. запуска. «Последовательные правительства упустили это из виду, и мы считаем, что пришло время привлечь правительство к ответственности… потому что люди все еще сильно страдают из-за требований к миграции». Исполнительный директор Австралийского синдрома Дауна Эллен Складзин, которая также поддерживает кампанию, заявила, что потребность в здоровье - это «проблема прав человека». «Идея о том, что наше правительство просит людей, отвечающих всем остальным требованиям для получения визы, не въезжать в Австралию исключительно из-за того, что у них есть ребенок с синдромом Дауна, просто несправедлива и противоречит всем, за что мы выступаем, с точки зрения прав людей. с ограниченными возможностями », - сказала она. «Эти законы усиливают стигму и дискриминацию, с которыми уже сталкиваются инвалиды». Требование здоровья мигрантов преследует три цели: защитить население от рисков для здоровья населения, таких как инфекционные заболевания, предотвратить невозможность доступа австралийцев к медицинским услугам по требованию, таким как пересадка, и защититься от значительных расходов на здравоохранение. Министерство внутренних дел утверждает, что законодательство не является дискриминационным, поскольку оно в равной степени относится ко всем заявителям на получение визы и вида на жительство. Представитель департамента сказал SBS News, что со всеми заявителями обращаются «одинаково и справедливо». «Ни действующая, ни предыдущая политика не являются дискриминационными по отношению к заявителям, имеющим инвалидность или заболевание», - сказали они, добавив, что заявители, не отвечающие законодательным требованиям, могут подать заявку на вмешательство министров. Д-р Готард указывает на тот факт, что правила Закона о миграции освобождены от Закона о дискриминации инвалидов. «Если это не является дискриминационным, то почему его нужно исключить из Закона о дискриминации инвалидов? Это либо одно, либо другое, вы не можете иметь это в обоих направлениях », - сказала она. В 2018 году Кэмерон получил австралийское гражданство после того, как тогдашний министр иммиграции Питер Даттон вмешался в дело семьи. Это последовало за долгой и дорогой борьбой с апелляциями, которая заняла почти два года и обошлась семье более чем в 20 000 долларов. «Это было просто утомительно, - сказала г-жа Форбс-Худ. «Я просто не хочу видеть других в такой же ситуации… То, что у кого-то есть инвалидность, не означает, что он не может внести свой вклад в общество». Источник

How refugees succeed in visa reviews: new research reveals the factors that matter Asylum seekers with legal representation are seven times more likely to succeed before the government tribunal tasked with reviewing refugee cases than those who represent themselves. Where refugees come from and which individual member is reviewing their case on the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) may also significantly influence their odds of success. These are some of the major findings from our research into the decision-making patterns of the overburdened AAT in refugee cases. The data, obtained from a freedom of information request, cover 18,196 cases decided by the AAT between January 2015 and December 2019. Our research only looked at asylum seekers who arrived by plane and had access to a review by the AAT. The analysis is part of larger project, run in collaboration with my research student, Keyvan Dorostkar, collating and studying quantitative data at all stages of Australia’s asylum process. How the visa approval and review process works For refugees and asylum seekers applying for protection visas in Australia, the process is lengthy and arduous. The initial assessment of a protection visa application is carried out by the Department of Home Affairs. If this is denied, the options for review then depend on how they arrived in Australia. Those who arrived by plane can seek review at the AAT, where they are given a fresh hearing assessing the merits of their claim for protection. Those who arrived by boat without authorisation can only access a much more limited form of review before the Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA). If the asylum seeker’s claims fail at the IAA or AAT, they can then seek judicial review at the Federal Circuit Court, but only on the very narrow grounds of there having been some serious legal error. Overall, we found asylum seekers received favourable outcomes before the AAT in just 13% of cases. This includes instances where a visa has been granted or the matter was sent back to the department for reconsideration. In the remaining 87% of cases, the original decision to refuse a visa was affirmed by the AAT or the application was withdrawn. Why legal representation matters Our analysis of the data reveals much more about the factors that tend to lead to a successful or unsuccessful review. One of the most striking findings relates to the potential influence of professional migration advice from a lawyer or migration agent. We found that only 4% of unrepresented applicants were successful at the AAT. This figure rose to 28% when an asylum seeker had legal representation. These statistics suggest the government’s decision to restrict public funding for free legal advice services may be severely disadvantaging applicants who cannot secure representation. This is all the more concerning given our data show that just over half (52%) of all applicants do not have representation when they appear before the AAT. Country of origin plays a huge role in success There are also stark differences in the success rates of applicants from different countries. Of the countries that had 20 or more applications during the period we studied, applicants from Libya (91%), Afghanistan (76%), Ethiopia (61%), stateless individuals (43%), Iraq (53%) and Iran (47%) were the most likely to succeed with their reviews. While some variation is to be expected in these cases, the very high rates of decisions being overturned for certain countries raises concerns about the quality of the initial decisions being made on visas by the Department of Home Affairs. Why is the department getting it wrong 90% of the time for Libyan applicants? Or more than 75% of the time for applicants from Afghanistan? At a time when the AAT is facing a record backlog of applications, it’s vital to understand why this is happening so that some of the pressure might be alleviated. At the other end, the success rates for visa reviews for those from Ireland and Tonga were 0%, followed by Taiwan and South Korea (1%) and Malaysia (3%). The Malaysian applicants are significant as they made up more than one-third of the entire caseload for the period (6,488 applications). The large numbers and low success rates among this group significantly skew the overall data. When the Malaysian applications are removed, the success rate for all asylum seekers increases from 13% to 19%. A parliamentary inquiry found that people smugglers and illegal labour hire companies may be bringing workers into the country on travel visas and then applying for protection visas. This concern was raised particularly with respect to Malaysians. However, there is no strong evidence that backs up claims around the systematic involvement of people smugglers and organised crime. Regardless, the only incentive to put in an unmeritorious asylum claim is that it can buy you more time living and working in Australia. If exploitation is a concern, the best way to ensure the integrity of the system is to reduce delays and invest more resources to boost the capacity for high-quality decision-making at both the department and AAT. Which tribunal member hears the case also matters In our research, we also found significant differences in the success rates for refugee visa reviews, depending which tribunal member hears the case. We only examined members who had decided 50 or more cases to ensure the sample is large enough to be statistically relevant. Two members did not find in favour of a single asylum seeker applicant, and another 16 had approval rates of less than 5%. At the other end, one member decided in favour of the asylum seeker in 86% of cases, while another three members had approval rates over 40%. It is important to caution against drawing inferences as to the cause of this variation. While this could be a result of the individual preferences or biases of tribunal members, it could also be explained by the way cases are allocated. Members generally have expertise in specific types of claims from specific countries, which influences the cases they are assigned. In response to questions about this, the AAT said We will examine these factors in more detail in future research. The AAT is under enormous pressure with its record backlog of cases and associated delays. We believe making data on decision-making patterns publicly available for analysis can lead to better ideas for improving the efficiency and fairness of the process. And this would be in the interest of both refugees and the government. Источник

Напоминаю о Правилах форума и о том, что их нужно соблюдать ВСЕМ ФОРУМЧАНАМ БЕЗ ИСКЛЮЧЕНИЯ. Если кто-то считает, что Правила написаны не для него/не для нее, то не вопрос. Вступать в перепалки не буду, но пожизненный бан поставлю. Так что решайте сами, как у Чернышевского.

In 2019, US denied one in five H-1B petitions with denial rate higher for Indian IT companies: Study WASHINGTON: The US has denied one in every fifth new petitions for the most-sought after H-1B visas in 2019 to individuals with the denial rate higher for Indian IT companies like the TCS and InfosysNSE -2.62 % in comparison to the American firms, according to a study from official figures. The H-1B visa is a non-immigrant visa that allows US companies to employ foreign workers in speciality occupations that require theoretical or technical expertise. The technology companies depend on .. The H-1B visa is a non-immigrant visa that allows US companies to employ foreign workers in speciality occupations that require theoretical or technical expertise. The technology companies depend on it to hire tens of thousands of employees each year from countries like India and China. While the denial rate has dropped slightly to 21 per cent in 2019 from 24 per cent in 2018, the National Foundation for American Policy has said it is much higher for Indian IT companies like the Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) and WiproNSE -0.61 % and very low for American companies like Amazon and Google. For instance, the denial rate for the TCS, and Infosys in 2019 was 31 per cent and 35 per cent respectively, whereas for Wipro and very low for American companies like Amazon and Google. For instance, the denial rate for the TCS, and Infosys in 2019 was 31 per cent and 35 per cent respectively, whereas for Wipro was 47 per cent and 37 per cent for Tech Mahindra. On the other hand, the denial rate for the new H-1B petitions in 2019 was just four per cent each for Amazon and Google. The denial rate for Microsoft during the same period was six per cent, and Facebook along with Walmart was was just three per cent each. «In 2020, the Trump administration is expected to introduce a new H-1B regulation that will make it more difficult for employers to hire high-skilled foreign nationals in the United States,» the policy said in a report this week. The issue of H-1B visa has been discussed between India and the US many times in the past. In February, during President Donald Trump’s maiden official visit to India, the issue of H-1B visa was raised and contribution of the Indian professionals in high-tech sector was highlighted. In December last year, during the 2+2 dialogue in Washington, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar stressed on the importance of people-to-people ties, saying they were the defining elements of the Indo-US friendship. Since 2004, the annual limit of 65,000 H-1B petitions and the 20,000 exemption from that limit for individuals with an advanced degree from a US university has been exhausted every fiscal year. The 85,000 new H-1B petitions allowed each year come to only 0.05 per cent of the US labour force of approximately 164 million. In addition to higher denial rates under the Trump administration, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) data shows the percentage of completed cases with Requests for Evidence (RFEs) increased from 22.3 per cent in 2015 to 40.2 per cent in 2019. According to the report, new H-1B petitions for the top seven Indian-based companies declined by 64 per cent between fiscal 2015 and fiscal 2019. The seven companies had only 5,428 H-1B petitions for the initial employment approved in fiscal 2019, accounting for six per cent of the 85,000 H-1B petitions for companies (or 0.003 per cent of the US labour force), it said. Denials may have contributed to this decline but the primary reason for the drop in H-1B visas is a choice by companies to build up their domestic workforce in the United States and rely less on visas, the report said. In 2018, there was a sharp 10 per cent decline in the approval of the H-1B visas by the US. The Trump administration has tightened the noose on firms violating H-1B visa rules. President Trump has himself accused many IT companies of abusing the work visas to deny jobs to American workers. Two years ago, Trump signed the ‘Buy American and Hire American’ executive order, which seeks to create higher wages and employment rates for US workers and to protect their economic interests by rigorously enforcing and administering our immigration laws. It directed the Department of Homeland Security, in coordination with other agencies, to advance policies to help ensure H-1B visas are awarded to the most-skilled or highest-paid beneficiaries. Источник

Ссылка отсутствует. "Страница не найдена" пишет. Разберись и доложи

The Fiscal Impact of Refugee Resettlement No Free Lunch for Taxpayers Jason Richwine, PhD, is a public policy analyst based in Washington, D.C., and a contributing writer at National Review. Steven A. Camarota is the director of research and Karen Zeigler is a demographer at the Center. Advocates of expanding the number of refugees admitted to the United States have lately portrayed their position as a win-win — refugee resettlement not only assists the refugees themselves, it also allegedly improves our nation’s fiscal health. The fiscal claim is unsupportable. Although refugees from earlier generations were often well educated, today’s refugees have fewer than nine years of schooling on average. Because of their low earning power and immediate access to welfare benefits, recent refugees cost the government substantially more than they contribute in taxes, even over the long term. Our best estimate of the average refugee’s lifetime fiscal cost, expressed as a net present value, is $60,000, with those entering as adults (ages 25 to 64) costing $133,000 each. Perhaps this is a price that the United States should be willing to pay to further its humanitarian goals. However, resettlement in the United States may not be the most cost-effective means of aiding displaced people. Key points: The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine developed a model that estimates the lifetime fiscal impact of new immigrants, counting all taxes paid and services consumed at the federal, state, and local levels. Educational attainment is the most important predictor in the model. Generally speaking, highly educated immigrants will contribute more in taxes than they consume in services, while immigrants with low levels of education will contribute less than they consume. Based on data from the Annual Survey of Refugees, one-third of refugees between the ages of 25 and 64 completed no more than the sixth grade before their arrival in the United States. About 53 percent have less than a high school diploma. Only 18 percent have education beyond high school. When we apply the education levels of refugees to the National Academies’ fiscal model, we find that the average refugee will cost about $36,000 in net present value over his or her lifetime. (Conceptually, «present value» means that all of the lifetime costs have been consolidated into a single upfront payment.) Because the National Academies model is based on all immigrants at each education level, some adjustments are required for refugees who, unlike most immigrants, impose administrative costs for resettlement and can access welfare payments immediately. After these adjustments, our cost estimate rises to $60,000 per refugee. Although the fiscal impact of refugees is negative overall, it differs significantly across age groups. Refugees who enter as adults (age 25 and over) have a large negative impact under every plausible model. Refugees who enter as children may have a positive impact, although this requires optimistic assumptions about mobility. Policymakers need to consider whether resettlement in the United States is the best way to help displaced people. Perhaps overseas assistance would be a more efficient use of limited public resources. Introduction According to the 2016 Annual Survey of Refugees, one in three recent refugees between the ages of 25 and 64 arrived in the United States with no education beyond the sixth grade. Some 53 percent lacked a high school diploma, compared to 7 percent of U.S. natives in the same age range. Similarly, only 18 percent of refugees had a four-year college degree, compared to 34 percent of natives. Despite the disparity, just 7 percent of recent refugees between the ages of 25 and 64 were currently pursuing a degree of any kind. Why is education relevant? Because under the U.S. government’s progressive taxation and spending structure, high-earning Americans tend to receive less in public benefits than they pay in taxes, while lower-earners receive benefits that exceed the taxes they contribute. Given their low education levels, today’s refugees are unlikely to possess the earning power necessary to become net fiscal contributors. This is not a reflection of their character; it is simply a reality of economic life in the United States. In fact, common sense tells us that the public sector would not be struggling every year with budget deficits if even its least-educated citizens were somehow paying their own way.1 Nevertheless, advocates claim that refugees do, indeed, pay their own way. They cite two major studies. The first is a working paper by William Evans and Daniel Fitzgerald finding that each refugee pays an average of $21,000 more in taxes than he or she receives in benefits over the first 20 years in the United States.2 The second is an unpublished (and apparently unfinished) report from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) finding that refugees created a net fiscal benefit of $63 billion between 2005 and 2014.3 Both studies have two fundamental problems: First, they exclude major cost categories, and, second, they are based on the experience of older refugees who are altogether different from today’s refugees. As to the first problem, anyone could appear to be a net fiscal contributor if enough costs are excluded. Evans and Fitzgerald count all (or nearly all) taxes paid by refugees, but reduce the services they receive to six social programs — cash welfare, SSI, Social Security, food stamps, Medicare, and Medicaid. All other costs that governments might incur from immigration — housing, infrastructure, education, law enforcement, and so on — do not count. They also fail to adjust for the underreporting of the social programs in Census data. The HHS report is more comprehensive, but it still excludes «congestible» public goods, such as police protection and road maintenance.4 As a result, the HHS study comes to the odd conclusion that almost everyone is a net fiscal contributor — even though the federal government has been running a deficit, and most states are perpetually cash-strapped.5 The second problem is one of interpretation. In order for either study to be relevant to current policy, one must assume that today’s refugees are just like yesterday’s. In the 20th century, the United States took in several groups of higher-skill refugees — for example, Cubans after Castro’s takeover, South Vietnamese after the fall of Saigon, Soviet dissidents in the 1980s, Eastern Europeans in the 1990s, and so on. Today, refugees come mainly from less developed parts of the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia. The difference is evident in the education data published by the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) in 1995 vs. 2015. As Table 1 indicates, the education level of refugees declined both in absolute terms and relative to natives. For example, the fraction of refugees without a high school diploma increased from 36 percent to 51 percent between 1995 and 2015, while the rate decreased from 20 percent to 13 percent for natives over the same time period.6 t is unrealistic to imagine that the current group of refugees, or those who are likely to be admitted in the near future from places such as the Middle East or Africa, will be as economically productive as the prior group of refugees. For that reason, we project the fiscal impact of refugees based on their own characteristics as new immigrants, not on the characteristics of a different group of refugees from the past. Finally, we emphasize that our analysis is intended to be comprehensive. The popular press often circulates collections of factoids — e.g., how quickly refugees learn English, or how much disposable income they have — that are insufficient to assess the fiscal impact of refugees.7 There is no substitute for an analysis that takes all taxes and spending into account. Results Table 2 has three main rows. The first row, «National Academies’ Model», gives the lifetime fiscal impact of immigrants who have the educational profile of refugees, categorized by their age of entry into the United States. We did not make any adjustments for refugee-specific costs in this row. Because the National Academies created eight separate scenarios using different budgetary assumptions, we report the fiscal impacts that are highest (best for taxpayers) and lowest (worst for taxpayers), as well as the median impact, which is our preferred estimate. A positive number in the table means a gain for taxpayers; a negative number means a loss. The National Academies’ model is based on all types of immigrants, not refugees in particular, so we make additional adjustments in the next two rows. The second row, «Plus Refugee Administrative Costs», adds $9,230 to reflect per-refugee administrative expenditures by the State Department and ORR. The third row, «Plus Five-Year Welfare Costs», adds additional costs based on refugees’ immediate access to welfare programs. (Most other immigrants cannot access programs such as Medicaid and food stamps until they have established five years of legal permanent residency.) As the median estimate in the «Plus Five-Year Welfare Costs» row and «All Ages» column indicates, the average refugee imposes a cost of roughly $60,000 in net present value over his or her lifetime. In the most optimistic scenario, that cost falls to $8,000. In the most pessimistic scenario, it rises to $125,000. No plausible model, not even the National Academies’ best-case scenario, comes close to suggesting that refugees who enter as adults will be net fiscal contributors. Refugee-specific costs add about 22 percent over and above the cost of other immigrants, but low education by itself is enough to push adult refugees’ estimated fiscal impact well into negative territory. The National Academies is more optimistic about the children of low-skill adult immigrants, whom the model assumes will surpass their parents’ education levels. But even with favorable assumptions about refugee children, the overall impact (all age groups combined) is still clearly negative. Detailed Methods The one-sentence version of our method is that we used the National Academies’ fiscal model as a base estimate, and then we made adjustments to reflect added refugee costs within the first five years of their arrival. The base model and the adjustments are reflected in the three major rows of Table 2 above, and we explain them in greater detail below. National Academies’ Model. This model, which includes all taxes and spending at all levels of government, projects immigrant fiscal impacts for eight different budgetary scenarios.8 Each of those scenarios contains estimates for five education categories — less than high school, high school, some college, college, and more than college — and three age-at-arrival levels — 0-24, 25-64, and 65 and over. These estimates are «net present values», meaning future values have been discounted (reduced) to reflect the time value of money. In essence, the entire stream of future costs and benefits has been consolidated into a single upfront payment.9 We use these estimates to assign each recent refugee a lifetime fiscal cost based on his or her entry age and education.10 For example, if a refugee entered at age 39 and has 10 years of education, we assign that refugee the cost of an immigrant who arrived between the ages of 25 and 64 and who has less than a high school diploma. Summing over all refugees produces the results in the «National Academies’ Model» row in Table 2. Because there are eight budgetary scenarios, we report the high, low, and median fiscal impacts from that set of eight. Information on the age and education of refugees comes from the 2016 Annual Survey of Refugees (ASR). Conducted by ORR, the ASR samples from a cross-section of refugees who arrived between 2011 and 2015, and it covers the period of refugee resettlement before the restrictions imposed by the Trump administration.11 It is the first version of the ASR for which the microdata are available to researchers. Although the ASR provides a valuable set of data, it does have two significant limitations. First, 23 percent of recent refugees speak languages so obscure that none of the 16 foreign-language versions of the interview were suitable for them.12 Because speakers of obscure languages tend to come from remote areas, and because secondary schools usually offer instruction in a more popular language, most of the excluded refugees must have arrived with education levels well below the average of the 77 percent who were covered. The survey designers attempted to adjust for this problem using the sampling weight, but missing such a large and non-random subset of the population could reduce the sample’s precision. A second limitation of the ASR is that responses to the education questions do not map neatly on to the five education categories used by the National Academies. Table 3 below explains how we derived the familiar five education categories from the ASR questions on the highest degree obtained and years spent in school. Refugee Administrative Costs. According to previous CIS research, refugee resettlement costs the State Department $4,433 per refugee, while ORR pays $4,797 per refugee, for a total of $9,230.13 The «Plus Administrative Costs» row in Table 2 displays the sum of the $9,230 value and the estimates from the «National Academies’ Model» row. Because administrative costs occur at arrival, no time discounting is necessary. Five-Year Welfare Costs. Although refugees may differ in several ways from the average immigrant modeled by the National Academies, we focus on the clearest legal difference — namely, that refugees are immediately eligible for federal welfare programs, while most other immigrants must be legal permanent residents for five years before accessing benefits. The «Plus Five-Year Welfare Costs» row in Table 2 includes the added cost of Medicaid, cash assistance, food stamps, and housing benefits that refugees consume in excess of what the average immigrant consumes within the first five years. Refugees may continue to consume more welfare dollars than the average immigrant in their age and education group beyond the first five years, but we do not attempt to estimate that difference due to data limitations. To estimate five-year welfare costs, we first identify «high-refugee countries», meaning places that send primarily refugees to the United States rather than other types of immigrants. These countries are Bhutan, Burma, Congo/Zaire, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, and Eritrea, which accounted for 86 percent of all refugees between 2010 and 2015.14 We use the 2013-2017 American Community Survey (ACS) to estimate the cost of food stamps, cash assistance, and Medicaid among immigrants from these countries who arrived in the prior five years.15 Because the ACS lacks information on housing benefits, we use a combined three-year sample of the Current Population Survey (CPS) to identify those in public or rent-subsidized housing. Following the National Academies example, we adjust for undercount of welfare expenditures in Census surveys by adjusting the totals to match administrative data.16 To ensure that we are capturing only added costs associated with refugee status, we subtract the welfare costs associated with all recent immigrants from the costs associated with immigrants from the high-refugee counties.17 We sum these excess costs over five years of welfare eligibility, discounting at 3 percent in accordance with the National Academies. The net present value of the five-year welfare costs, broken down by age and education, are displayed in Table 4. Because so few refugees are elderly — only about 2.5 percent of refugees in the ASR were 65 or older upon arrival — our sample of age-65-plus immigrants from high-refugee countries in the ACS was too small to divide by education. We instead assigned the age-65-plus refugees the average cost of all education levels within their age group. Conclusion There is a tendency for partisans on both sides of the immigration debate to believe that their values are always reflected in economic data. For example, advocates have asserted that accepting refugees is not only a moral imperative but also a fiscal boon. Similarly, when concerns arise about the cultural compatibility of refugees with American communities, opponents insist the economic cost must be enormous. In reality, the fiscal impact of refugee resettlement is just one aspect of a more complex issue involving economic, social, and political considerations. The purpose of this report is not to argue that all refugee resettlement is wrong, but rather to remind policymakers that there are costs associated with the program. Specifically, we find that the average refugee will cost around $60,000 in net present value over his or her lifetime, with adult refugees costing upwards of $133,000. These costs are due mainly to the low levels of education possessed by refugees upon their arrival. Most refugees admitted to the United States have «no immediate medical, social, or security concerns which would merit expedited processing.»18 Given the costs, it may be possible to help a greater number of displaced people overseas rather than paying to settle them here. Overseas assistance could allow some refugees to eventually resettle in countries where they have stronger cultural or historical ties than they do with the United States.19 In addition, many refugees are in temporary camps near their homes. Assisting host governments, NGOs, and the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees with supporting these individuals until they can return home is another way the United States may be able to more effectively leverage its resources. End Notes 1 Outside of a U.S. context, most media outlets seem to understand that low-skill migrants strain government resources. For example, the New York Times uncritically cited the «dire» economic consequences predicted by Mexican officials if their country became the last resort for refugees and asylees. (Michael D. Shear and Azam Ahmed, «Mexico and the U.S. Have Made Progress Toward Averting Tariffs», The New York Times, June 6, 2019.) Yet the Times also trumpeted the HHS study discussed below claiming refugees are net fiscal contributors in the United States. («Rejected Report Shows Revenue Brought In by Refugees», The New York Times, September 19, 2017.) 2 William N. Evans and Daniel Fitzgerald, «The Economic and Social Outcomes of Refugees in the United States: Evidence from the ACS», NBER Working Paper No. 23498, June 2017. 3 «The Fiscal Costs of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program at the Federal, State, and Local Levels, from 2005-2014», unfinished draft, Department of Health and Human Services, July 29, 2017. 4 Excluding public goods is sensible when considering the fiscal impact of adding a few refugees, but adding large numbers of people creates new costs for services such as road maintenance and law enforcement, particularly in small towns with high concentrations of newcomers. 5 In fairness to the author (or authors) of the HHS study, revisions may have been intended for a final version that was never completed. 6 Note that we use 2015 in Table 1 rather than 2016. The refugee survey was revamped in 2016, breaking comparability with past years. («Annual Report to Congress: Fiscal Year 2016», Office of Refugee Resettlement, p. 70.) Also note the age range of 16 and older – it is the only age range for which ORR published information on education before 2016. 7 See, for example, «From Struggle to Resilience: The Economic Impact of Refugees in America», New American Economy, June 19, 2017. 8 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration, Francine D. Blau and Christopher Mackie, Eds., Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2017, Table 8-12. 9 The National Academies used a 3 percent «discount rate» to calculate present values. Applying a 3 percent discount rate converts the value of $103 paid next year to $103/(1 + 0.03) = $100 today. Similarly, $103 paid two years from now has a present value of $103/(1 + 0.03)2 = $97.09 today. Discounting is simply a means of making costs comparable when they occur at different points in time. Without discounting, the total dollars spent on refugees over their lifetimes will obviously be greater than the present value. For example, in the calculation above, $103 is to be paid next year, and another $103 is to be paid the year after that. By discounting, we can see that stream of payments is equal to a single upfront payment of $100 + $97.09 = $197.09. The actual outlays, of course, will still be $103 + $103 = $206 over two years. 10 In the 25-64 and 65-plus age columns, education refers to the education level of the immigrants themselves. In the 0-24 age column, however, some new immigrants are still in school, so education refers to the education of the immigrants’ parents. The National Academies generally expects the education of a child immigrant to be higher than the level of his or her parents. That assumption of educational gains allows the projected fiscal impact of young immigrants to be positive in some scenarios even when their parents do not have high school diplomas. It is reasonable to expect immigrants who arrive before their late teenage years to continue their education upon arrival. (Indeed, the National Academies modeled educational improvement by selecting immigrants who were between the ages of 10 and 16 and comparing their education 15 years later with the education of their parents.) It is less reasonable, however, to assume that immigrants who arrive between the ages of 19 and 24 will make large educational gains. About 13 percent of refugees ages 0 to 24 in the ASR are immigrants whom we call «independent youths» — between the ages of 19 and 24, not currently in school, and either head of their own household or the spouse of a household head. The National Academies overstates the fiscal impact of these independent youths by assuming educational gains that are not realistic given their age and life circumstances. For the analysis in this report, we considered an adjustment that would shift independent youths into the age 25-64 column for cost purposes. However, we felt that would be an over-correction, as independent youths do at least have more working years ahead of them than their counterparts in the 25-64 column. 11 The Trump administration has lowered the annual number of refugees resettled in the United States from 85,000 in FY 2016 to 30,000 in FY 2019. The cap for FY 2020 has been set at 18,000. See Jens Manuel Krogstad, «Key Facts About Refugees to the U.S.», Pew Research Center, October 7, 2019. In addition, the White House is setting more of its own priorities rather than relying on the UN when selecting which refugees to resettle. This year, religious minorities and Iraqis who assisted the U.S. military have a high preference. See Nayla Rush, «The Trump Administration’s Long Overdue Revision of the Refugee Resettlement Program», Center for Immigration Studies, September 30, 2019. 12 One could hardly accuse the ASR designers of being inattentive to translation needs. Included among the 16 foreign-language versions of the survey were Sgaw Karen, Tedim, Tigrinya, Lai, Kinyarwanda, and Chaldean — dialects that are, of course, rarely heard in the United States. Attempting to cover the remaining 191 languages spoken by refugees would have been cost-prohibitive. (Timothy Triplett and Carolyn Vilter, «2016 ASR Annual Survey of Refugees Data File User’s Guide: A Technical Research Manual», Department of Health and Human Services, July 2018, p. 8.) 13 Steven Camarota, «The High Cost of Resettling Middle Eastern Refugees», Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder, November 4, 2015, Table 1. 14 «Yearbook of Immigration Statistics», Department of Homeland Security, years 2012 and 2015, Table 14. 15 Medicaid costs per individual enrollee reflect age and disability status as reported in the ACS. «Medicaid Spending Per Enrollee (Full or Partial Benefit): FY2014», Kaiser Family Foundation, undated. 16 We match total expenditures found in the «Historical Tables» published by the Office of Management and Budget. 17 One may wonder how recent immigrants who are not refugees can consume welfare, given the five-year residency requirement. There are other special categories of immigrants — asylees, spouses eligible for expedited naturalization, children in certain states, etc. — who are also exempted from the five-year rule. In addition, food stamps and housing subsidies are household-level variables that may be received by an eligible resident even when the household head is ineligible. Finally, some immigrants may simply misreport their year of arrival or their welfare use. 18 Nayla Rush, «For Most Refugees, Resettlement Is Not a Matter of Life and Death», Center for Immigration Studies, July 25, 2018. 19 Burma’s Rohingya people, who are Muslims from a predominantly Buddhist country, have resettled in Muslim Bangladesh. Bantu tribesmen, whose ancestors were brought to Somalia by Arab slave traders, have resettled in parts of their tribal homeland in Tanzania and Mozambique. DHS lifts H-2B seasonal worker visa cap by 35,000, ties it to measures tackling abuse The Department of Homeland Security on Thursday announced that it is lifting the H-2B visa cap for seasonal guest workers by 35,000 — coupling the move with a series of measures to tackle fraud and abuse in the system. “This year’s supplemental allocation was determined after extensive consultation with stakeholders—including members of Congress and the Department of Labor—and is intended to strike a careful balance that benefits American businesses and American workers,” DHS said in a statement. The number of H-2B visas, which gives temporary legal status to non-agricultural seasonal workers in areas such as landscaping and service-industry jobs in restaurants and hotels, is capped at 66,000 a year by Congress. Congress has given DHS the authority to raise that cap by 64,000 visas a year. Last year the administration raised it by 30,000. The 35,000 number is lower than the full cap, and lower than initial reports that had tagged the increase at 45,000. Immigration hawks have long opposed increases in H-2B visas, while business groups have said they are essential in a tight labor market. On the Hill, raising the cap has seen both bipartisan support and opposition. Groups of Republicans and Democrats have written to the administration on both sides of the issue. “These realities of the H-2B program, as it operates today, incentivize unscrupulous employers to hire H-2B workers instead of American workers and create poor working conditions for immigrant workers and American workers alike,” a letter by Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa., Tom Cotton. R-Ark., Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and Richard Durbin, D-Ill., said in January. “Therefore, absent significant regulatory and legislative reforms to the program, we do not believe that an increase in the number of H-2B visas is in the interests of either American workers or H-2B visa holders.» DHS Acting Secretary Chad Wolf was urged by lawmakers last month to increase the cap. “I’ve got a whole bunch of small businesses in New Hampshire who aren’t going to be able to do their business this summer if they don’t have those workers,” Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., said. “If that stretches out into June or July, before those actual releases come, that’s too late for the season and so trying to be able to get those done faster is better than slowly trying to be able to piece those out,” said Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla. DHS is responding to some of the concerns about the program by coupling the increase with measures to fight fraud and abuse in the system. Those measures include requiring matching start dates on a petition and the employer’s needed start date, greater collaboration with the Labor Department on increased site visits, and limiting supplemental visas to returning workers who have proven they can follow immigration law. But the reforms were not enough to spare the move from criticism from groups that advocate for lower levels of overall immigration. «The H-2B visa is a flawed program that depresses wages and eliminates job opportunities for American workers,» Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), said in a statement. «In our view, labor market dynamics do not justify an increase that is 5,000 more than last year. Congress must quit offloading this politically unpopular decision to bring in more wage-impacting foreign workers.» Notably, DHS is also allocating 10,000 visas for nationals from Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras, in support of efforts in helping the U.S. bring down illegal immigration from their countries. The majority of visas normally go to Mexican workers. The visas will be made available in two batches: 20,000 starting April 1, and a second batch starting May 15. Источник

Каждый выбирает свой путь и свою жизнь. Ну и каждый несет ответственность за свой выбор.

Здравствуйте. Я сильно сомневаюсь, что у Вас получиться получить статус беженца. Мои сомнения основано на многих моментах, в т.ч. и на том, что я очень хорошо знаю, что В НКАО происходило (когда и как). И как обстоять дела сейчас. Но все вопросы на данную тематику рассматриваются в ином разделе настоящего форума.

"Звезда в шоке" от такой "экономии" и экономики.

Keneally says surge in visitors on tourist visas claiming asylum exposes 'dire' system Labor’s shadow home affairs minister says online lodgement of tourist visas has seen a 700% increase in asylum claims A surge in asylum claims from Chinese nationals arriving on tourist visas following a government change to the visa system is further proof of the “dire” state of Australia’s migration system, Labor’s shadow home affairs minister, Kristina Keneally, says. In a speech to the Law Council of Australia’s immigration law conference on Friday, Keneally will release new figures showing that since the government allowed the online lodgement of tourist visas for Chinese nationals, there has been an almost 700% increase in the number of people arriving by air from China and claiming asylum. In the 12 months after online lodgement was introduced, from March 2017 to February 2018, 7,304 Chinese nationals on tourist visas made claims for asylum compared to just 1,060 in the 12 months prior. From February 2017 to September 2019, the total number of Chinese nationals to have claimed asylum is 13,462. Keneally said the surge was contributing to the system being overloaded by often spurious claims, with about 90% of the 100,000 airplane arrivals who have claimed asylum in the past five years found to be unmeritorious. “This is not an issue of a person’s nationality – it is about the integrity of our migration system – and an insight into how backlogs have grown so quickly,” according to a draft copy of Keneally’s speech. “Claiming asylum is an important right that we need to uphold, and you play a vital role in supporting that right. But an overloaded system that discourages or delays genuine claims disadvantages all asylum claims.” The apparent link between the online lodgement system and the surge in claims comes despite the government announcing $5m in the 2017-18 budget to “further strengthen the integrity” of the electronic authority system. Keneally also warned that with an increased number of people on bridging visas, the backlog leads to a growing “honeypot” for people smugglers who facilitate travel to Australia for the specific purpose of having an extended stay in our country, often to access the labour market. “As that continues, along with the wilful ignorance on the part of the government, the exploitation of these vulnerable people – a developing economic underclass – will only continue to grow. “Plain and simple – this is a work scam.” Since taking on the home affairs portfolio, Keneally has been targeting minister Peter Dutton over plane arrivals and the growing number of temporary migrants in Australia, saying their number has doubled since 2007 to 1 million people, or 4% of the population. A large cohort of this is the more than 216,000 people on bridging visas in Australia, with the majority of those waiting for the department of home affairs to process their visa applications. There are also more than 62,000 people who have overstayed their visa living in Australia, and the administrative appeals tribunal has 66,500 cases currently listed before the migration and refugee tribunal of the AAT. She pointed to the “astonishing” fact that the processing time for partner visas had blown out to 31 months, leaving people in a state of “migration limbo”. “Our permanent migration intake has been reduced by the current government whilst the number of temporary migrants in Australia continues to swell,” Keneally said. “The health of Australia’s migration system is dire.” Labor has established a Senate committee into temporary migration which is examining exploitation of temporary visa holders and the number of airplane arrivals claiming asylum, and how this is flowing through to the Australian economy more broadly. Keneally said the government did not have a plan to stop the “slavery-like conditions” that were afflicting the temporary migrant workforce, and called for increased funding and “identity management improvements” to get on top of the issue. “It’s incumbent on the Morrison government to try and stem these arrivals because a failure to do so will only add to the intractable caseload,” she said. Источник

Прошу придерживаться Правил форума и не офф-топить в теме.

Если не секрет, во сколько обошлось клиентке прокол с первоначальной подачей документов. Т.е. насколько она, ее муж, т.е. семья клиентки попали из-за некомпетентности адвокатов?

Египет вводит туристические визы Новые правила въезда начнут действовать летом 2020 года В Египте по указанию премьер-министра страны Мустафы Мадбули вводятся туристические визы. Как передает РБК-Украина, об этом пишет Egyptian Streets. Отмечается, что визы будут введены летом 2020 года - с первого июня. Согласно новым правилам, туристы смогут неоднократно въезжать в страну, однако при этом максимальное количество дней пребывания при однократном въезде составит не более 90 дней. Документы можно будет оформлять через египетские консульства или на портале по оформлению электронных виз. Виза будет выдаваться сроком на пять лет. Туристам, прилетающим в аэропорты Луксора и Асуана в летние - самые жаркие месяцы, будет предоставлена скидка на визу в размере десяти долларов. Напомним, Украина начала переговоры с Британией о политическом сотрудничестве. Главная тема переговоров - стратегическое партнерство и визовый диалог с Британией. Также двухстороннее соглашение, которое обсуждается, может в себя включать политическое сотрудничество, свободную торговлю и партнерство. Источник

В прошлую субботу мне перезвонила одна дама из Британии. Она гражданка Украины, но замужем за гражданином этого государства. Первоначальная виза ею была получена, НО...отношения не сложились и сейчас она думает о расторжении брака. Однако сам товарищ категорически против их расторжения. Мало того, он угрожает ей, шантажирует ее и говорит, что если этот брак она расторгнет на территории Украины (откуда она родом и является гражданкой этого государства), то у нее будут проблемы и с въездом в Европу и в саму Британию. А еще это решение суда не признает Соединенное королевство. Очень интересный подход. Особенно интересно, что в самом СК оба они подписали необходимые документы о том, что они не проживают вместе как одна семья...более 6 месяцев. Кроме того, есть весьма интересные документы из полиции, когда дама их вызывала в связи с домашним насилием со стороны своего мужа. Но это было ДО подписания всех этих документов. Поэтому хотелось бы напомнить...особенно в преддверии Женского дня. Уважаемые дамы, напоминаю всем вам, вас не нашли на помойке, никто вас не отмывал от грязи и всего остального и не оказал БОЛЬШУЮ БЛАГОСТЬ перевезя вас в Великобританию. Это вы оказали свою благосклонность согласившись стать женами граждан и резидентов Британии. Не вы предлагали руку (!!!!!!) и сердце, а вам предлагали. В любой ситуации мужчина должен оставаться мужчиной, а не... Поэтому у меня большая просьба, уважайте себя и заставьте уважать себя других. С глубоким уважением, вечно ваш fregat222

Антон, ты знаешь, что мне, приходиться как модератору читать все сообщения на данном форуме, и очень заинтересовал твой последний пост вот тут. Ты как обычно на высоте, с чем я и поздравляю тебя и твоих клиентов. Интересен и подход людей к выбору и иммиграционного адвоката/иммиграционных адвокатов и к подходу к самому процессу иммиграции. Нет, я их ни в коем случае не хочу не в чем ни обвинять (упаси Бог) или насмехаться (еще хуже). Но меня лично, как иммиграционного адвоката, заинтересовал этот случай. Попытаюсь обосновать свою заинтересованность. Любая иммиграция, это, в первую очередь, юридический процесс. Иммигрируя, человек коренным образом меняет свою жизнь. Это и язык общения, и сам круг общения, и законы, и традиции и еще масса чего. Особенно это актуально, когда человек выезжает не один, а с членами своей семьи. Т.е. ему нужно нести ответственность не только за себя, но и за членов своей семьи, которые тоже выезжают, а ,значит, так же переживают долгосрочный стресс. А иногда и больше. Но, если иммиграционный адвокат в такой ситуации проиграл дело, а люди заплатили ТАКИЕ ФИНАНСЫ (!!!!!!) то вывод напрашивается сам собой. Вернее выводы. 1. Сам иммиграционный адвокат либо не иммиграционный адвокат вовсе либо он абсолютно некомпетентен либо он/они не специализируется/специализируются на подобных делах. 2. Сами клиенты либо не хотели контролировать процесс либо не могли этого сделать. Если тебе не сложно, разъясни пожалуйста ситуацию более детально. Заранее благодарен.

US citizenship in three months! Many rich Indians are doing this The route also allows the spouse of a visa holder to freely work in the US and covers dependent children under 21 While attaining US citizenship is increasingly becoming a difficult and expensive prospect, many rich Indians have found out a way around it - through Grenada. Rich Indians are increasingly looking at Grenada as a route to attain US citizenship through the Grenada Citizenship by Investment (CBI) programme. Interest in the CBI programme has increased in the last three months, sources in the know told the Economic Times. Under the Grenada CBI programme, a visa applicant has to make $220,000 investment in a government-approved real estate project to acquire citizenship. Now, the Caribbean island has an E2 visa treaty with the US. A Grenadian can apply for the US citizenship and acquire it within three months. The E2 visa treaty allows an individual to invest a minimum of $150,000 and live and do business in the country. The investment must be in an enterprise that is able to "develop and direct" as mentioned in the report, and which is 50 per cent owned by the investor. While the route might seem long, it has come after the US changed the investment guideline of the EB-5 programme. The minimum investment for the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program was raised to $900,000 from $500,000 in the Targeted Employment Area (TEA) and from $1 million to $1.8 million in the non-TEA in November last year. This has led to a dip in interest towards the US' EB-5 programme. However, the route to US through Grenada is not only cheaper but the processing time is also quicker - 90 days for Grenadian citizenship and another 90 for E2 visa. To add to it, the route also allows the spouse of a visa holder to freely work in the US and covers dependent children under 21. Another country that has similar provisions is Cyprus that has also become another preferred option. Источник

Turkey grants visa exemptions to 11 countries Country to provide 90-day exemptions for tourist purposes and transit passage urkey will provide citizens of 11 countries 90-day visa exemption for tourist travel, the country's official gazette announced early Monday. Turkey has decided to exempt visa requirements for citizens of Austria, Belgium, the U.K. and Northern Ireland, Croatia, the Netherlands, Ireland, Spain, Malta, Norway, Poland and Portugal. The exemption will be provided to countries for tourist travel and transit passage for 90-day visits once every 180 days. Источник

Полностью поддерживаю. Если в Вашем СОР нет национальности немец одного из родителей либо немцы - обоих родителей, то шансы малы. Если ТС родился после 1991 года, то тогда потребуются косвенные доказательства национальности родителей либо иные доказательства принадлежности к немецкой нации и немецкой культуре. Если это отсутствует, то лучше воспользоваться программой Германии по привлечению квалифицированных специалистов, которая начала действовать с 01.03.2020 года.

Вы думаете, что-то в сознании наших людей сильно поменялось? У ТС, если все что он описывает, присутствует и он сможет подтвердить - проблем быть не должно. Но к самому процессу подготовки документов нужно подойти серьезно и решить для себя, что нужно - обучение/курсы, а потом вернуться назад в Украину или настраиваться на иммиграцию. Уверен, Вы и второй наш старожил поддержите в этом меня.

Ну и что? Я таких программистов вижу и общаюсь ежедневно десятками (ТС, прошу не воспринимать на свой счет, т.к. у Вас все понятно), и они сидят на соответствующих сайтах и просто гоняют одностраничные сайты и все, от лова ВСЕ. Ни ЧП, ни налогов -нет совсем. И сидят и бухгалтеры, и бывшие сотрудники милиции/полиции, и фотографы. Это те, которых я лично знаю. Я могу еще не один десяток (если не сотню) примеров привести, как в начале 2012 года ко мне обращались самые разные люди, желающие получить визы в Канаду, США, Британию, Австралию ссылаясь на то, что в Украине пройдет ЧЕ по футболу и им нужно знать английский язык, поэтому им нужно ехать изучать его именно в эти страны. Догадайтесь кто по профессии были эти люди и насколько им удалось получить эти самые учебные визы на языковые курсы.

А где в первом сообщении написано, что ТС работает в крупной компании??? Я исходил из первого сообщения, т.е. из того, что бухгалтер (но не как в той песне про милого бухгалтера) самостоятельно (т.е. нигде не обучаясь) поменял специфику работы и сейчас подает документы на обучение в IT сфере. Или что-то неверно понял, когда отвечал?? Никаких оснований думать, что у человека не иные намерения, кроме обучения. Я имею ввиду исходя из первого сообщения. Полностью поддерживаю.

Вот это вызовет вопросы. Так что постарайтесь внятно в мотивационном письме все разъяснить. В противном случае получите отказ.

Indians will pay $50,000 more for US investor visa from April Washington: Beginning April 1, Indians wishing to immigrate to America using the EB-5 or the US investor visa will now have to pay an additional $50,000 (Dh183,650), a media report said. Although, this additional tax would impact all visa categories, it will predominantly create a barrier for people investing in the EB-5 visa programme, the American Bazaar daily said in the report on Friday. In 2019, the EB-5 investor visa programme, for the first time since the 1990's, increased the minimum investment amount to $900,000. With this increase in minimum investment, the new 5 per cent additional tax would mean that applicants would have to pay the extra $50,000, when they move money to an escrow account in the US to fulfil their application criterion. "The changes to the tax on remittances is a reminder to Indians to carefully plan their tax position before making the move to the US," the American Bazaar quoted Mark Davies, Global Chairman, Davies & Associates LLC, as saying. "People seeking to emigrate who do not wish to pay this tax at source and rather account for it later may wish to move their money ahead of the new rules coming into effect. "It is possible to pre-emptively move money into an escrow account in the US until such a time as they are ready to proceed with emigration process," he added. Источник

'Fraught with risks': Senate rejects plan to outsource visa processing A Senate committee has warned a billion-dollar tender process on outsourcing visa processing is threatening the integrity of Australia's migration system. A billion-dollar plan to outsource visa processing has been rejected by a Senate committee over fears it would undermine the integrity of the migration system. The Senate committee, chaired by Labor's Kim Carr, found the “privatisation” of Australia's visa application and assessment system would reduce service quality and price gouge visa applicants. But the Federal Government dismissed the criticism saying the proposed "Global Digital Platform" is needed to reduce processing times as visa applications are projected to increase to more than 13 million per year in the next decade. The committee recommended the $1 billion tender process be scrapped in favour of more funding to support the Department of Home Affairs. “Outsourcing Australia’s visa processing system is a project fraught with risks and the committee is not satisfied that these risks have been sufficiently addressed,” the committee concluded. It said international experience, particularly in the United Kingdom, has shown the outsourcing model could have dramatic consequences. “Profit-making entities are driven to find ways to maximize their profits, and this inevitably leads to reduced service quality and/or higher fees,” the committee reported. The current visa system currently involves more than 50 different computer systems, two of which are more than 25 years old. Australia Visa Processing (AVP), a consortium previously run by ex-Liberal Party deputy director Scott Briggs, and a joint Australia Post and Accenture venture are vying for the contract. A decision on the tender process was due to be made in October last year, but as of February no decision had been made. In a dissenting report, Liberal senators Amanda Stoker and Claire Chandler defended the model, insisting the new workflow tool to support the processing of digital visa applications did not amount to privatisation. “This modernisation process is necessary to reduce processing times and to ensure visa decision making continues to support key export industries like tourism and education,” their report said. “The provider of the workflow tool will have no role whatsoever in visa decision making.” During the committee hearings, the Migration Institute of Australia (MIA) expressed “grave concerns” about “commercialising” visa processing, citing tension between profit and service delivery. A number of witnesses pointed to the experience of visa applicants in the UK which outsourced its system to French tech company Sopra Steria in November 2018. It heard the “privatisation” had led to reduced service quality and increased costs to consumers as providers used long delays for free appointments to drive demand for premium, higher-priced products. But the Federal Government argues the outsourcing process in Australia would allow the Department of Home Affair’s staff to refocus their efforts on higher-value, more complex decision making and help clear backlogs. If the government goes ahead with the tender process, the committee recommended complex and vulnerable people's applications should continue being handled by department staff. The department has already agreed the successful tenderer would only process less challenging visa applications, such as temporary skilled workers, international students and special category visas for New Zealanders. Источник

NZ filters immigration tap, turn-by-turn Immigration New Zealand has revealed that while the Govt hasn't raised residency requirements, it will simply bury many new applications for a while. Immigration New Zealand will send new residency applications from skilled migrants to the bottom of a two year-old queue unless they earn more than double the median wage or satisfy occupational registration requirements. Existence of the new criteria emerged this week when a further change taking effect from Monday meant even a type of residency application that had been allowed to jump the skilled migrant residency queue without double the median wage earnings would now also not be processed. INZ quietly changed its website on Monday to disclose it had stopped looking at residency applications from applicants earning less than $106,080 per year, $51 per hour, unless they were in a registered occupation like teaching. Those amounts are well above the official requirements for residency. The site said: “Recently we have received enough applications that meet the priority criteria, that other applications were no longer being allocated.” The department confirmed this wasn’t a new “priority” policy but one it had adopted for skilled migrants since the middle of 2018. The policy was signalled to immigration advisers, but had not been widely publicised. Since that policy was put in place, Residence for Work (RfW) “talent” applications had been allowed to jump the queue. Those applications were where a migrant may have worked for an accredited employer for two years, but the number of applicants from this category had ballooned after the exception was granted. From February 24, those RfW applications would no longer be allowed to jump the queue unless applicants earned double the median wage or had occupational registration in a profession like teaching, INZ's border and operations manager Stephanie Greathead said in a statement. Taking those applications out would allow INZ to start processing a backlog of skilled migrant applications that stretched back to December 2018, Greathead said. 'Keep both queues moving' Immigration Minister Iain Lees-Galloway said the move would keep the priority and non-priority queue moving without requiring a Cabinet vote on a new residency planning range or on changing the number of points required for residency. However, it was “impossible” to say how many residency applications would be processed by the end of this year under the new approach, Lees-Galloway said. “The key thing here is both queues will keep moving." The old residency planning range expired at the end of last year and was used to decide how many residency applications would be granted. A total of 52,048 applications were approved during the 18-month period from July 2018 to December 2019, when the planning range was 50,000 to 60,000 applications. That was effectively an approval rate of 35,000 per year, and left a backlog of 26,000 unprocessed skilled migrant residency applications as of November 2019. Greathead said INZ would continue processing applications with the same resources and at the same rate until the planning range was replaced. She said there were 13,800 Skilled Migrant category and Residence for Work category residency applications on hand as of February 18. The stalled call David Cooper of Malcom Pacific Immigration said this all came down to a long overdue call on residency numbers that Newsroom reported had stalled at Cabinet. “It’s just putting a sticking plaster on the problem and the problem right now is there are three times more people applying than places that were available under the old programme,” Cooper said. “No changes have been made to stop people applying, to cut numbers back at the front end. And nothing’s been done to help those people that have done the right thing because the Government said please apply for residence in New Zealand because you’re just the people we want here,” he said. “What they’re doing is they’re sticking them in a queue and they’re damaging people's lives.” Potential applicants for residency are invited to apply after they file expressions of interest (EOIs). This system allows the government to tweak residency requirements to reach a particular target of residencies. If the government needs to grant more people residency under the target they simply lower the number of points needed, if they need to grant less they raise it. However the number of points required hasn’t changed and the target, the New Zealand Residence Programme (NZRP) expired at the end of last year. New Zealand has operated a 'planning range' of 45,000 to 50,000 residency approvals per year since the early 2000s, and this has often been expressed as a two-year range from 90,000 to 100,000. The previous National Government lowered the range to 85,000 to 95,000 for the two years to June 2018, which meant the annual allowance fell from 47,500 to 45,000. The current Labour-New Zealand First Coalition Government lowered that again to between 50,000 to 60,000 for the period from July 1, 2018 to December 31, 2019, effectively lowering the annual rate to 37,000 for the period that expired at the end of last year. So, the number of work visas has grown while the number of potential residency visas has been cut. In 2008 there were a potential 125,000 applicants on work visas for 47,000 residency visas: a ratio of 2.65 to one. Today that ratio sits at 7.84 to one. It has meant the number of unprocessed residency applications has almost quadrupled in the past two years, as this previous article reports and this chart shows: Cooper said the residency requirements hadn’t been officially changed because once they were, many people on work visas who were already employed in New Zealand would no longer choose to stay. “The politicians keep saying the media are overblowing it whatever, whatever, whatever,” Cooper said. “My question would be: where’s the harm in making a decision? It’s not that hard, it’s gone on for years that whoever is the government of the day can announce the residence programme. What’s your concern? What’s your worry? Why are you deferring?,” he said. Alastair McClymont, an immigration lawyer, said he had told his clients to expect a wait of up to two years on their applications. Many of the more skilled migrants in IT who earned salaries just shy of $80,000 a year were already exploring other options. The backlog itself had caused a further backlog as people panicked and tried to get their applications in, he said. “They’re all afraid that something is going to happen and that the doors are just going to shut on them,” McClymont said. Kate, a migrant from the UK whose application is in the queue and who Newsroom spoke to earlier, was cautiously optimistic her application might have a better chance of being processed after the announcement. “I just think they’re doing it to cover themselves because of all the media that’s gone on and now they’re doing something about it,” Kate said. “They’re not stopping people applying…[and are] happy to take people’s money,” she said. “It’s not really sorting the problem. It's just masking it.” Another person in the queue, who Newsroom has spoken to before, said she had her first interview with a case officer this week. She filed her application in October 2018. “[The case officer] didn’t say when she can give me the decision. I didn’t even ask.” she said. Источник