July 16th, 2009 at 04:11pm
Under Elder Law
Should I consider finding a house nurse? Should I send my parent/parents to an old age home? What will make them happy?
It’s been documented that because millions of people are deciding to migrate, millions of frail elderly people are left behind to fend for themselves. While the young leave their home countries for a better life, their parents are often left in the lurch. It’s estimated that more than 1 000 people a week migrate to Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States. As a result, Hong Kong has seen a growing number of “elderly orphans”.
Perhaps the best and most sensible start would be to have a chat with your parents. Consider their feelings and their concerns. Perhaps, they’re not interested in such a massive change? Try to discuss your feelings and then compromise. Attempt to alleviate your parents concerns. Offer alternatives to ideas you do not agree with.
Once you’ve had a heart-to-heart with your parents, set up a meeting with a clued up consultant, for in depth information. Then consider your various options.
Usually, parents aren’t included as accompanying dependants of the main applicant. Parents can be sponsored once the applicant becomes a permanent resident. In exceptional cases an elderly parent can be included as an accompanying dependant pursuant to the Last Surviving Member policy.
Family Sponsorship Currently, when applying for the entry of parents or grandparents it is done under the family sponsorship route. You require a proof of relationship and meeting the LICO (low Income Cut Off) Standards of Income. Canadian applications to sponsor your parents, will require you to prove to the Canada Immigration that you have sufficient income to support a family group of a certain number. Everything is dependent on the Canadian city you plan to live in.
Note:
Each country abides by a set of rules such as Australia.
Family Stream of Australian Migration Program: With this visa you’re able to the reunion in Australia of immediate family members, including parents. Consider; the parent category and the contributory parent category.
Contributory parent category: This category is considered ahigher priority. This Visa has a substantially higher visa application charge and larger Assurance of Support (AoS) bond, with a longer AoS period).
Parent Category comprises:(for applicants from outside Australia). This category comprises of Subclass 103 Parent (Migrant) Visa and (for applicants applying from within Australia) Subclass 804 Aged Parent (Residence) Visa).
You could contact organisations such as http://www.elderlyparents.org.uk. These organisations will help you and your parents make the neccessary decisions.
Your Parents still have their lives to live. They should have the right to make choices that will make them happy. Your parents should be a priority.
Want more information from one of our trained professionals? Fill out our Free Online Assessment form or call us on 0845 2 606030 on a no obligation basis.
Disclaimer: While all due care has been taken to ensure that the information within this article at the time of publication is correct, I.U cannot accept responsibility for the content for any inaccuracies that occurs as a result of changes in immigration regulations, policy or other variables affecting the eligibility of individual applicants. Immigration laws, skill shortage determinations etc are subject to change by appropriate authorities and thus are outside of our control. Please contact us for further advice before taking steps towards immigrating. This article is published in good faith.
Perhaps Australia or New Zealand is a perfect option for you -complete a free online assessment and find out! Consider the countries, democracy and an absolute feeling of freedom!
July 13th, 2009 at 02:58am
Under Constitutional Law
Congresswoman Michele Bachmann is rocketing up the Obama Administration’s enemies list because she is asking questions no liberal wants asked and making points they certainly do not want made. Yes indeed she is. For while asking questions of Timothy, smartest man in the room, America cannot survive without him at Treasury, Geithner about past actions and current plans to allow the federal government more power to seize and manage the assets and contracts of businesses it deems, “too big to fail,” Ms. Bachmann no doubt caught the ear of Big Brother himself over in the White House. For you see, Ms. Bachmann did something that always catches the ears of liberals and lefty politicos busily scribbling words on to paper in order to secure themselves more and more power.What is this thing she did? Why, she cited the Constitution of these United States. And for yet another brief moment in a growing long line of brief moments it became clear once again that Timothy Geithner was indeed not the smartest man in the room.You could hear the uneasiness in Geithner’s voice as he was forced to attempt to answer an actual question of substance. You could also imagine at how at the same time as he was trolling for an answer in that vast, empty sea of a brain of his that he was making mental notes about who he would have to contact to make sure no such substantive questions would ever be raised again.Here is how it went down and how Geithner struggled:BACHMANN: “What provision in the Constitution could you point to … to give authority for the actions that have been taken by the Treasury since March of ‘08?”GEITHNER: “Oh, well, the — the Congress legislated in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act a range of very important new authorities.”BACHMANN: “Sir, in the Constitution. What — what in the Constitution could you point to to — to give authority to the Treasury for the extraordinary actions that have been taken?”GEITHNER: “Every action that the Treasury and the Fed and the FDIC is — is — has been using authority granted by this body — by this body, the Congress.”BACHMANN: “And by — in the Constitution, what could you point to?”GEITHNER: “Under the laws of the land, of course.”Note that not once did Mr. Geithner ever actually answer the simple question posed to him. When asked to cite the Constitutional authority for any of the actions taken by the Treasury since early last year he simply responded that Congress had given the Treasury certain powers and that they are “under the laws of the land.” But his response is a non-response. The smartest man in the room was flabbergasted and unable to answer a question that he knew that if he answered truthfully would doom all the current, past and future plans of he and his fellow travelers. Perhaps he should have borrowed President Obama’s teleprompter and had his remarks prepared for him by a speech writer.But let’s explore his non-answer answer further. Is citing Congress doing something good enough of an excuse? Is Congress’s power to make law absolute under the Constitution? Of course we all know that it is not. If it were then what powers would be reserved to the states and the people under the Tenth Amendment exactly?Geithner’s response, had it been truthful, would have been that there was no such authority for the vast, vast, vast majority of what the Treasury has done in the last year. But to answer truthfully it would mean that he would have to admit that he and his fellow liberals, both Democratic Party socialists and Republican Party socialist-lites, had violated the Supreme Law of the Land. So truthful answers to these sorts of serious questions are never things you will get from the blowhards inside the beltway.We all know that just because Congress makes a law that the law is not de facto Constitutional. If it were, no law would ever be stricken as being unconstitutional. But since many laws have been it puts the lie to any notion that just because Congress decrees from on high that the order should be accepted and obeyed. We can even go very absurd to prove this point if you like. If Congress were to, for example, pass a bill that stated all people who have blond hair and blue eyes were inferior and not subject to the same rights as people with other combinations of hair and eye colors would it be a Constitutional law? Even if everyone accepted the law would it still be Constitutional? No.Now say that we do not have to worry about Congress being so absurd all you like. That is not the point. And besides we all know that many absurd laws have indeed come out of Congress. Add to that the fact that liberals throughout time and all over the world have espoused the same sort of social and economic philosophies and have indeed sought to treat people very differently based on how they looked . The point is that if Congress did make a law stating such it would not be Constitutional just because Congress made such a law.But Mr. Geithner and the liberals in charge of our government probably have little to fear from the American public recognizing this fact. Because they know that most Americans do not have a clue what our Constitution says and that they will not understand the importance of this exchange between Geithner and Congresswoman Bachmann. Instead they will carry on in blissful ignorance as the nation burns and President Obama fiddles.