Can you really not move to Australia with Autism?

[sandygrapes]

Just that really.

I follow a midwife on there from the UK. She is open and honest, and is paid so much better with amazing working conditions. That's just one example of a profession

Is it really true families who have someone who's autistic cannot move out there or is it far more complex than that?

This is just out of interest.

I have family in NZ and know they're quite strict there

Glad there’s been a sea change and that it is case by case.

What was worse about the SA restrictions? @Allthehorsesintheworld

@Testina - Apartheid, presumably.

Does there need to be a referendum on it? Couldn’t it just have been agreed by the government?

From what Id read at the time it did seem complicated.

I find it interesting the difference in how Maori status is on a par in NZ but aboriginals (this is ok to use?) are not in Australia.

Oh, did the poster mean the overall situation in the country? I thought she was making a comparison with the application form, and was interested to know what was on it that was worse!

I have migraines and I was refused because I’m a higher risk of stroke, apparently. That was just 10 years ago.

That's your autism. As we are always being reminded, no two people with autism are the same and we shouldn't stereotype or generalise. You can be Christine McGuinness or Chris Packham or Steve Jobs, or you can be Rain Man in bare feet and ear defenders, needing two professional carers to guide you round the supermarket. It's quite a gulf, you have to admit.

The reaction to Aus their country their rules to U.K. is marked on mn

But God forbid we should want the same rules!

Hence case be case being important which is what Australia and other countries do.

We’re no where near it. Aus actually has a centre left gov with their immigration policy.

Mn says great good on them, but can’t get to applying to UK

Watching the struggle here is depressing. I’m not sure we’ll ever sort it

Whats the alternative though, grant everyone except the disabled person a visa? That's no less discriminatory. FWIW I don't blame them- it makes sense to only allow people who will benefit your country financially in. It's not personal.

The title indicates it was a blanket decision which would be discriminatory as Autism and disability both have a big spectrum. A poster further down who deals with Australian immigration has said this isn’t the case so continuing to justify something which doesn’t appear to actually happen is a bit pointless.

I can only speak for the cities I've visited over numerous visits but it's def not the 1950s there. They have electricity and AC and inside toilets and everything.

Okay so it may not be a blanket ban after all and it may indeed be assessed case by case. But some people are outraged and bewildered that that is even the case.

You may get in as a person with autism or the parent of a child with autism, or you may not. It will, I imagine, depend on multiple factors and how much of an asset you'd be in spite of the autism, or whichever other factor or condition might potentially count against you. In the end you'll be point scored on all the factors positive and negative, and if it tots up in your favour, then great.

The important thing is that Australia (and many other countries) defend the right to pick and choose as they see fit., to protect their economy and the social fabric and culture of their country.

The bottom line here is 'what is immigration for'?
The Australian government answers this question - its to benefit Australia. Importing people who will cost the Australian tax payer millions of pounds over their lifetime does not, at least on the face of it, benefit the Australian tax payer. If people think it does, please explain how?
Individual people and families will answer this question differently- how will emigration is to benefit me/my family. Going to another country, even if just to access better healthcare, education and financial benefits does benefit the individual and family even if that costs the tax payer of their new country millions.

It seems like you've conflated a few things there. The first is incorrect: turn it around and you'll see why Australia has these rules. Would England gladly take in absolutely anyone that will require a lifetime of benefits and care? It is unpalatable, but while they live in a country that can supply those needs, there is no requirement for Australia to take them. It isn't as though Australia doesn't have a disabled population already.

Your second point seems irrelevant.

Do you feel similarly about U.K. out of interest?

I rarely see people post in the same way as they do for Aus

@Perfectlystill

t's true.
Australia is so behind the rest of the civilised world. It's like the 1950s there.

That's true. We don't have computers or the internet yet.

I haven't really said how I feel about it?

I suppose I've pointed out that importing people with severe disabilities needing complex care will be expensive. And that both families and government will both be thinking 'how will this benefit me?' and that those answers will be different.

I know someone who recently moved (about 2022) to the UK for an IT job with two very severely disabled children, both non verbal and going to very high needs special schools. So I guess the UK does act differently, my opinion on it is irrelevant.

There seems to be a disconnect with these threads with Aus and UK and I’m wondering why

Aus is more their country their rules than what I see on mn generally

Yes, I read that and glad to hear it. They still are going to have rules and standards, though. It is very good that they can judge some things on a case by case basis. That is never a bad thing.

Yeah, but I heard that a lot of places have indoor plumbing and bathtubs now! I bet the icehouses are busy in the summer...... 😉

It seems to be one of the few considerations for entry to America. Too bad it isn't enforced.

And the USA.