Proposals to cut the time non-EU tourists can stay in the UK from six months to three are expected to be announced by ministers this week.

Full article can be read here : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7146527.stm

Let's hope they cut the fee in half as well then....yeah, right

Two things struck me reading this article: The £1000 deposit refunded when the family member leaves and the following paragraph scared the hel_l out of me -

"Our correspondent also said the existing right of appeal to a full tribunal against a decision by immigration authorities not to grant a visa could be scrapped. "

Great - we read all the time how people get decisions overturned. Whats going to happen now?

On the £1000 deposit: I welcome that if it makes getting a visa easier - doubt it will though just another hoop to jump through.

Two things struck me reading this article: The £1000 deposit refunded when the family member leaves and the following paragraph scared the hel_l out of me -

"Our correspondent also said the existing right of appeal to a full tribunal against a decision by immigration authorities not to grant a visa could be scrapped. "

Great - we read all the time how people get decisions overturned. Whats going to happen now?

On the £1000 deposit: I welcome that if it makes getting a visa easier - doubt it will though just another hoop to jump through.

Yes if the 1000 GBP would make it easier I would agree but I think it would just be an extra cost to those that want to stay on illegally as well as the another hoop for the genuine.

There was mention of 10K before but immigrant groups were up in arms about it saying in it penalise the poor and a lot of immigrants were in that category

They should be applying this to 'EU' citizens, rather than alienating our US and Commonwealth friends.

We are letting in 100's of thousands of Poles and Romanians with no control whatsoever. These are soon to be joined by Turks, Serbs, Kosovans, et al.

No wonder so many of us are emigrating.

If LOS needs justification for their strict visa legislation, just look at what is happening in the UK.

I hope Ted Heath is turning in his grave.

EU - See U.

"We are letting in 100's of thousands of Poles and Romanians with no control whatsoever. These are soon to be joined by Turks, Serbs, Kosovans, et al."

This is hyperbole right now - how do you know if they will even be allowed to join the EU?

I doubt France and Germany would allow the Turks in - the politicians may say it but the population will not allow it.

Kosovo is not even independent yet

Serbia - this will be a long time coming - they need to hand over war criminals for a start - my good pal is Deputy Ambassador there!

I have just heard on the BBC that the UK Visitor Visa is to be reduced from 6 to 3 months maximum as part of the new immigration rules.

Any idea when this would come into force?

Iain

Thanks to eagle eyed member Basil B in the Pattaya forum:

From the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7146527.stm

Tourist visa times 'to be halved'

New measures are being introduced to tighten the visa system

Proposals to cut the time tourists from outside the EU can stay in the UK from six months to three are expected to be announced by ministers this week.

The move is among measures aimed at further tightening the visa system.

A deposit of at least £1,000 to be paid by families who want relatives to visit Britain will also be introduced.

Meanwhile, the Home Office has defended the payment of thousands of pounds to failed asylum seekers to persuade them to return to their home countries.

Forfeit bond

The new measures are said to be contained within a consultation document set to be unveiled by immigration minister Liam Byrne.

The BBC's political correspondent, Gary O'Donoghue, said the idea of a cash bond was not a new one but he understood ministers were convinced it was the way forward.

It would see people using "sponsored family visits" to enable relatives from outside the European Union to visit on temporary visas would need to put up a cash bond.

The bond would then be forfeited if the relative did not leave when the visa expired.

Our correspondent also said the existing right of appeal to a full tribunal against a decision by immigration authorities not to grant a visa could be scrapped.

He said such appeals which currently cost between £30m and £40m a year, could be replaced by a simpler and cheaper appeal process.

The government has already announced other changes to the visa system which Mr Byrne described as the "biggest shake-up of the immigration system in history".

They included a points-based system for economic migrants and the tightening of procedures for people bringing spouses into the country.

The facility to accept a surety was enacted in the '99 Act of which section 16 states:-

(1) In such circumstances as may be specified, the Secretary of State may require security to be given, with respect to a person applying for entry clearance, before clearance is given.

(2) In such circumstances as may be specified—

(a) the Secretary of State may accept security with respect to a person who is applying for entry clearance but for whom security is not required; and

( in determining whether to give clearance, account may be taken of any security so provided.

(3) “Security” means—

(a) the deposit of a sum of money by the applicant, his agent or any other person, or

( the provision by the applicant, his agent or any other person of a financial guarantee of a specified kind, with a view to securing that the applicant will, if given leave to enter the United Kingdom for a limited period, leave the United Kingdom at the end of that

period.

(4) Immigration rules must make provision as to the circumstances in which a security provided under this section—

(a) is to be repaid, released or otherwise cancelled; or

( is to be forfeited or otherwise realised by the Secretary of State.

(5) No security provided under this section may be forfeited or otherwise realised unless the person providing it has been given an opportunity, in accordance with immigration rules, to make representations to the Secretary of State.

(6) Immigration rules may, in particular—

(a) fix the maximum amount that may be required, or accepted, by way of security provided under this section;

( specify the form and manner in which such a security is to be given or may be accepted;

© make provision, where such a security has been forfeited or otherwise realised, for the person providing it to be reimbursed in such circumstances as may be specified;

(d) make different provision for different cases or descriptions of case.

(7) “Specified” means specified by immigration rules.

(8) Any security forfeited or otherwise realised by the Secretary of State under this section must be paid into the Consolidated Fund.

At the time, the government tried to introduce this in relation to visitors from the sub-continent, but there was an outcry that this was discriminatory, so the plan was abandoned. It looks as if they're going to try again, but this time will apply it to all non-EEA nationalities to avoid the discrimination tag.

Scouse.

Thanks to eagle eyed member Basil B in the Pattaya forum:

From the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7146527.stm

Tourist visa times 'to be halved'

New measures are being introduced to tighten the visa system

Proposals to cut the time tourists from outside the EU can stay in the UK from six months to three are expected to be announced by ministers this week.

The move is among measures aimed at further tightening the visa system.

A deposit of at least £1,000 to be paid by families who want relatives to visit Britain will also be introduced.

Meanwhile, the Home Office has defended the payment of thousands of pounds to failed asylum seekers to persuade them to return to their home countries.

Forfeit bond

The new measures are said to be contained within a consultation document set to be unveiled by immigration minister Liam Byrne.

The BBC's political correspondent, Gary O'Donoghue, said the idea of a cash bond was not a new one but he understood ministers were convinced it was the way forward.

It would see people using "sponsored family visits" to enable relatives from outside the European Union to visit on temporary visas would need to put up a cash bond.

Unfortunately this is the area were it was abused to the extreme.

The bond would then be forfeited if the relative did not leave when the visa expired.

Our correspondent also said the existing right of appeal to a full tribunal against a decision by immigration authorities not to grant a visa could be scrapped.

He said such appeals which currently cost between £30m and £40m a year, could be replaced by a simpler and cheaper appeal process.

The government has already announced other changes to the visa system which Mr Byrne described as the "biggest shake-up of the immigration system in history".

They included a points-based system for economic migrants and the tightening of procedures for people bringing spouses into the country.

As with most countries were immigration is attractive, they and the U.K. have been forced to act and adjust the present laws that have been exploited and the situation relating to the above in one form and another and presents huge abuses.

Sounds fair to me as one of the many who have been crying out for change and the ability to control a situation that has truly got out of hand.

IMHO as always

What we need is a fair and sensible approach taken to understanding the reasons why and not using unreasonable views to gleen fault for the sake of it.

Those already here legally will also appreciate this happening as long term it effects them also.

marshbags

"Our correspondent also said the existing right of appeal to a full tribunal against a decision by immigration authorities not to grant a visa could be scrapped. "

Great - we read all the time how people get decisions overturned. Whats going to happen now?

I see the cutting the 6 month to 3 as a sensible change as most people who are true visitors really stay more than 2 weeks, the problem is with people visiting extended family with no adequate funds or job of substance in their home country being invited here who soon find illegal work, at least after 3 months they will be less rooted and easier to remove.

I would also like to see possibility to extend a visa if:

• The applicant has adequate funds.
  
• The applicant has not been in any trouble.
  
• The applicant can give good reason why they wish to stay.
  

(may be this could apply for a Thai visa as well).

Of course this will only work if the UK starts checking and recording those who leave the UK, I mean how those who deposited bond money going to get it back?

BB

Does the rule still exsist that if you have had a 6 month tourist visa you must spend 6 months in your host country before you re apply.

There never has been such a rule.

Scouse.

There never has been such a rule.

Scouse.

Spot on but i bet its not easy returning and re applying straight away more for family members i would have thought.

Why you therefore referred to this being a rule, defeats me.

As with many immigration applications, it is the individual circumstances which will dictate how difficult or easy it is.

Scouse.

Because on my wifes hol visa she applied for 3 months which was issued but thet always insert 6 months on the visa we rang the Embassy who said thats correct but she must return within 3 months of departing.When i questioned this they said basically yes she can stay 6 but you will have a prob on her return ? as if she stays 6 she will be expected to stay in her host country 6 before re applying ????

She was my partner at the time 16 months ago when she had this visa since then we have married, the reason i asked was a friend was issued the same he applied for 6 weeks she has stayed 6 months and he seems to think no problems will arise.On his return next week he will put in for a further 6 months not really a tourist visa then is it who goes on holiday for 12 months at a time.

It's not one of your punters, is it Azzzey?

Why you therefore referred to this being a rule, defeats me.

As with many immigration applications, it is the individual circumstances which will dictate how difficult or easy it is.

Scouse.

Thought this was an open forum i hope my further post helps you with this matter.

It's not one of your punters, is it Azzzey?

Please explain.

Scouse.

Scouse, you're not the only one in this business and it seems Azzzey has set himself up as an immigration advisor and pops over here for a bit of guidance when he doesn't know what he doing.

Don't know if I'm allowed to post links to other forums on here, but if you want the details I can send 'em to you by PM.

Does the rule still exsist that if you have had a 6 month tourist visa you must spend 6 months in your host country before you re apply.

this is the very same advice he gave me in another forum, on the same subject. I have already told him it is not true.

FWIW I was v fortunate to have a long chat with Scouser a few months ago, and called him to thank him the other day. not only is he up to date with his info, but is factual not guess work. I managed to have two denials overturned inside an hour.

the problem seems tobe that everyone thinks they are an expert, and "services" seem to pop up everywhere, mostly with rubbish info and poor if any experience.

anyone needing serious, honest and professional advice.. use davis kahn.

regards

t

a thai girl i know applied for a tourist visa to the UK around 1 month ago and applied for 4.5 months. The visa was approved OK but she was only given 3 months.

So they charge someone £1000 deposit to take there loved one's to see his/her family in the UK. If the children are not British it will be expensive. Meanwhile squandering £1000s to persuade failed "asylum" seekers to go home.

Personally i can't see a problem with reducing the 6 month visa to 3 months. Most tourist visits should fall well short of that.

Also can't see a problem with the £1000 bond , although i agree with others that it won't make getting a visa any easier but yet another thing to do .

It could be good news that they are thinking of scrapping the full appeal if it IS replaced with a simpler and cheaper (and thus probably much quicker) appeal system. The current situation where you wait ages at often huge expense (if you decide to go through a lawyer) is long overdue an overhaul. Have to sit on the fence until the details of this are announced.

Of course all these changes are bourne out of the government's fury that they cannot stop the EU people coming here so they turn instead on those they still can.

Interestingly it appears that every year more British citizens are leaving the country to be replaced with EU and foreign nationals settling here. I like this concept as it is slowly replacing the Boring Brits with the more open minded foreigners. Perhaps in 20 years time we will see a less controlled police-state Britiain that we have now and see it replaced with a more relaxed one as more and more the population is made up of those from abroad.

Continued at:-

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=159292

Scouse.