Disability A Burden: A Case Study
Case Analysis Within this assignment, I’m going to breakdown the manifest and latent in the article “Disability a ‘burden’ to Australian community, immigration rules.” In this article, Bhajan Kaur is in a predicament that many other intellectual disabled people are faced with. A migrant is a person who leaves their homeland to move to a foreign country. (Martin and Nakayama, 2013). Within this migration issue, Kaur’s circumstances are unfortunate and something no migrant should have to go through.
An immigrant is an individual that settles permanently in a new country (Martin and Nakayama, 2013). Kaur faces many obstacles and road blocks when dealing with the immigrant process to become an Australian citizen. Kaur and her family apply for …show more content…
citizenship and go through the process to become an authorized immigrant. When dealing with any process that requires approval, she encounter obvious and not so obvious reasoning when dealing with a complicated decision.
The manifest shown in this article is her intellectual disability, which is the main component of her not becoming a citizen.
Although, Kaur’s family did state they will willingly absorb any medical expenses she might have in her lifetime. The country’s deciding factor was they did not want to fund any costs related to her disability. This may result in an immigration conflict, due to the fact that the Kaur’s family would absorb any medical expenses, if the cost was the major issue. The tribunal, Gary Ledson, noted that Kaur’s supportive family had never been a burden to authorities in Singapore or Australia. This proves that in Kaur’s circumstance of the cost to the community wouldn’t seem to be an issue in funding her disability.
Segregation the policy of two groups to live distant from each other (Martin and Nakayama, 2013). One barrier that stuck out was the fact that language was a major divide within the process of her becoming an immigrant. Within this approval process, there was an appointed medical insurer who was also the translator and language barrier between both sides. When Kaur was required to meet the medical insurer, she was to be assessed on her disability. The family stated that when the medical insurer saw Kaur, he took one look at her and decided she is moderately disabled and would be a cost to the
community.
The Australian immigration department said this policy is not discriminatory towards disabled people as all applicants must cost the taxpayer less than $40,000 in health care. This draws the question of what did the medical insurer specifically state would cause $40,000 in direct medical assistance? This is significant component of the not so obvious factors that go into a major decision. A medical condition is an extremely important deciding factor when giving approval for an immigrant. In this case, the medical insurer took one look at her and deemed her moderately disabled. This raises a concern due to the fact that there was no specific exam or mental assessment documented as mentally disabled.
This latent reason also brings up who is there to defend her? When her family cannot intervene and the person that is not properly testing her is her personal translator, what else could she do? It seems unjust that the nature of the circumstance seems to be in the hands of someone other than Kaur and her family.
Migrant-host relationship the relationship between the migrants and the host country, in which the transnational migration is typically deemed as an individual or family decision. In this case, it was the family’s decision to have Kaur become an Australian legal immigrant. After living there for eight years and her family becoming Australian citizens, you would think this would make it easier to become an authorized immigrant. This brings up the subject of the reasoning behind the court’s decision saying she was “moderately disable” for someone who is reliant on her family for disability help, how is plausible to allow citizenship to a family, but not the disabled family member? Kaur’s eleven-year-old niece wrote a letter court stating she knows the man wanting to deport her aunt is not a mean person, so why is he splitting up their family? It appears a lot of the information in the hands of the court was vastly vague with a situation so serious. The underlying systematic incident here is that she is a victim of not having the same human rights of a migrant.
When it comes to immigration policy every little component plays a major role within the decision of an individual’s citizenship. In this case, intellectual disability was the key element why Bhajan Kaur was declined citizenship. A supportive family that is willing to cover all expenses and care for their loved one shouldn’t be up for debate whether she would be a burden to tax payers. This circumstance can be a learning tool to the next person dealing with immigration and a situation like this.
An immigrant is an individual that settles permanently in a new country (Martin and Nakayama, 2013). Kaur faces many obstacles and road blocks when dealing with the immigrant process to become an Australian citizen. Kaur and her family apply for …show more content…
citizenship and go through the process to become an authorized immigrant. When dealing with any process that requires approval, she encounter obvious and not so obvious reasoning when dealing with a complicated decision.
The manifest shown in this article is her intellectual disability, which is the main component of her not becoming a citizen.
Although, Kaur’s family did state they will willingly absorb any medical expenses she might have in her lifetime. The country’s deciding factor was they did not want to fund any costs related to her disability. This may result in an immigration conflict, due to the fact that the Kaur’s family would absorb any medical expenses, if the cost was the major issue. The tribunal, Gary Ledson, noted that Kaur’s supportive family had never been a burden to authorities in Singapore or Australia. This proves that in Kaur’s circumstance of the cost to the community wouldn’t seem to be an issue in funding her disability.
Segregation the policy of two groups to live distant from each other (Martin and Nakayama, 2013). One barrier that stuck out was the fact that language was a major divide within the process of her becoming an immigrant. Within this approval process, there was an appointed medical insurer who was also the translator and language barrier between both sides. When Kaur was required to meet the medical insurer, she was to be assessed on her disability. The family stated that when the medical insurer saw Kaur, he took one look at her and decided she is moderately disabled and would be a cost to the
community.
The Australian immigration department said this policy is not discriminatory towards disabled people as all applicants must cost the taxpayer less than $40,000 in health care. This draws the question of what did the medical insurer specifically state would cause $40,000 in direct medical assistance? This is significant component of the not so obvious factors that go into a major decision. A medical condition is an extremely important deciding factor when giving approval for an immigrant. In this case, the medical insurer took one look at her and deemed her moderately disabled. This raises a concern due to the fact that there was no specific exam or mental assessment documented as mentally disabled.
This latent reason also brings up who is there to defend her? When her family cannot intervene and the person that is not properly testing her is her personal translator, what else could she do? It seems unjust that the nature of the circumstance seems to be in the hands of someone other than Kaur and her family.
Migrant-host relationship the relationship between the migrants and the host country, in which the transnational migration is typically deemed as an individual or family decision. In this case, it was the family’s decision to have Kaur become an Australian legal immigrant. After living there for eight years and her family becoming Australian citizens, you would think this would make it easier to become an authorized immigrant. This brings up the subject of the reasoning behind the court’s decision saying she was “moderately disable” for someone who is reliant on her family for disability help, how is plausible to allow citizenship to a family, but not the disabled family member? Kaur’s eleven-year-old niece wrote a letter court stating she knows the man wanting to deport her aunt is not a mean person, so why is he splitting up their family? It appears a lot of the information in the hands of the court was vastly vague with a situation so serious. The underlying systematic incident here is that she is a victim of not having the same human rights of a migrant.
When it comes to immigration policy every little component plays a major role within the decision of an individual’s citizenship. In this case, intellectual disability was the key element why Bhajan Kaur was declined citizenship. A supportive family that is willing to cover all expenses and care for their loved one shouldn’t be up for debate whether she would be a burden to tax payers. This circumstance can be a learning tool to the next person dealing with immigration and a situation like this.