top 18 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 6 points 4 months ago*

with revenue from the changes supporting "this reform and other government priorities".

The increased revenue supports the reform of increased revenue? What is this garbage?

I see a lot of comments here blaming the victim, but let's be hi est: Australia's visas and passports are stupidly expensive when compared to the rest of the world. I don't see how an overnight 200% increase in cost is remotely warranted, especially when the justification is this bullshit quote above.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    not captive, not no choice

    yoona is choosing, she just doesn't like that there isn't a perfect choice

    I suggest yoona and her family tackle the problem where it originates, the plummet of wages in Australia since the 1970s

    Australians now earn one third of what they did in the 70s, that is why everything feels expensive

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    I suggest yoona and her family tackle the problem where it originates,

    The problem originates with South Korea's rules, not Australia. From the article:

    Yoona can’t become an Australian citizen without giving up her South Korean citizenship — something she isn’t willing to do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago* (2 children)

    The misleading headline quote is contradicted by the article.

    Yoona can’t become an Australian citizen without giving up her South Korean citizenship — something she isn’t willing to do.

    She literally has a choice. She could choose to give up her SK citizenship. She could also choose not to travel at all. Those might have a lot of downsides, even worse than the $1475 fee, so she might be making the best possible choice for her, but it's still a choice.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    this is not a reasonable take when asking whether or not this fee is extractive and exploitative.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago*

    My "take" is that the misleading headline quote is misleading and clickbait and ABC should be better with their titles. They could have come up with many other better sentences - even using a phrase such as "extractive and exploitative" in the headline. How about something simple like "Visa fee for permanent residents raised to $1,475"

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Oh that's bullshit. Although 9 years on a pr with a spouse? Get a citizenship already.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 4 months ago

    Despite living in Melbourne as a permanent resident, Yoona can't become an Australian citizen without giving up her South Korean citizenship — something she isn't willing to do.

    A few paragraphs in. I wouldn't make the same choice, myself, but I'm not her, so..

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)

    I just won't travel outside Australia, then.

  • source
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    They should put the price for a 5 year Aussie passport up to $1,475 as well, so as not to discriminate.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (4 children)
    • Australia allows dual citizenship
    • Republic of Korea requires you to relinquish your Korean citizenship if you become a citizen of another country
    • Girl with 'no options' chooses to keep her Republic of Korea citizenship
    • Australia imposes visa fees that apply to non-citizens of Australia
    • You suggest Australian's that are born here, or choose to become citizens here, pay more to make it fair

    Walk me through this logic? Why should people that choose to join (or are born in) Australian citizenry pay more to make it fair for a limitation of RoK citizenship?

    Let's discuss whether the visa fee is too high, for sure. But suggesting a penalty for Australian citizens to "not discriminate" against someone that has chosen not to become a citizen is absolutely ludicrous to me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    It's a horrible charge, nothing but a discriminatory money grab. So grab money from everyone, then at least it's not discriminatory.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 child)

    I initially thought you meant discrimination between rich and poor, but "grab money from everyone" still discriminates against people that can't afford the visa/passport.

    Citizens have rights and eligibilities that non-citizens don't. That's not discrimination that needs to be addressed; it's national sovereignty. Non-citizens aren't eligible for HECS, aren't eligible to vote, aren't eligible for a passport, and aren't eligible for federal jobs. Non-citizens aren't eligible for these because they are not Australian.

    Live here and choose to become an Australian, or live here and choose to not become an Australian. Choose the latter and you'll need a visa.

    For the record; I think the Returning Resident visa fee is exorbitant. I also think the suggestion that Australians should pay more so it's fair for non-Australians is ridiculous.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    Regarding the "rich and poor", international travel is generally beyond the means of the poor anyway, depending on where you draw the line. I'd rather see high fees on stuff like passports and have public dental care and other essentials funded.

  • source
  • parent