Does Anybody Else Feel Overwhelmed With This Visa Stuff

[sikishrory]

is it just me or does anyone else feel overwhelmed by all this visa stuff to get your thai partner to come to your country or to go and stay in hers? the ins and outs and the amount of stuff there is to learn for an average joe is alot.

i'd say the obvious answer is yes, but im just wondering what other people think about this.

i could ask questions all day on this forum regarding visa rules and regulations to the point that i'd prob get banned or something but theres that much information on here that seems to make it sound so difficult.

for me personally it sounds like a painful and testing drawn out process (an australian visa in my case). i've been reading this forum on and off for almost a year now. i've gained so much knowledge (thankyou bridge) but in the back of my mind i have a feeling that it's a futile effort. but i won't give up.

im not after sympathy. i guess i just want to hear other peoples experiences and if it has worked out for them or not or if others feel the same way. i am not a rich man and i believe with enough knowledge you can avoid using a migration agent but it's not easy.

it seems to me that even if you do opt for a migration agent that your still going to have to do all the legwork in medicals and criminal checks and evidence so why would you bother...

[7by7]

Like any process that involves dealing with a bureaucracy, applying for a visa, especially settlement, can be a lengthy, tedious affair, which in a perfect world should not be necessary.

Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world.

The key is to know what it is the visa regulations of the country you are applying to require for the type of visa you want. This can be found out by researching the relevant government websites, asking on forums such as this or paying an agent to tell you. Although any one of these can give you the wrong information!

Once you know what is required, then it is a matter of preparing the necessary documentation to show that you meet those requirements; again using an agent to assist if you so desire; though, of course, if health checks or a language test are required an agent can't do them for you, ditto if an interview is required.

But, if thinking of using an agent, be careful; there are a lot of sharks out there who overcharge and make promises they know they can't keep! There's a pinned topic on visa agents I'd recommend anyone who is thinking of using one read first.

Then, once you have everything prepared it is a matter of submitting the application and waiting for a decision.

For some countries, the whole process is a lot simpler and quicker than it is for others. Based upon what I have read here, it seems a lot easier, and quicker, to get a settlement visa for the UK than it is for Australia or the US. It was certainly easier for my wife and step-daughter to get Indefinite Leave to Remain in the UK and then British citizenship then it will be for me, when the time comes, to ever get permanent residence in Thailand, let alone Thai citizenship!

To all those currently going through the process, for whichever country, best of luck; and remember that patience is a virtue that is difficult to have, but essential in situations like this. If you, or your loved one, meet the requirements for the visa, and have shown that this is so, then you will get what you want; even though it may take a while. A settlement visa is for a lifetime together; surely the preparation and the weeks or even months of waiting for it is worth it in the end.

We had a gap of nearly 5 months between submitting the application and my wife and step-daughter arriving in the UK, now after over 10 years together in the UK, my wife and I certainly think the effort and wait were worth it!

[aland2012]

To all those currently going through the process, for whichever country, best of luck; and remember that patience is a virtue that is difficult to have, but essential in situations like this. If you, or your loved one, meet the requirements for the visa, and have shown that this is so, then you will get what you want; even though it may take a while. A settlement visa is for a lifetime together; surely the preparation and the weeks or even months of waiting for it is worth it in the end.

Beautifully said 7by7, this is why we do it. If you want it so much its worth the time and effort.

Alan

[manarak]

I wouldn't make any excuses for the government.

It is one of the examples of how the administration has been increasingly made into working against its citizens.

I have been through that process too and luckily, that was over ten years ago. It is an even bigger hassle now.

At some point they will have to recognize that civil servants should be given a power of decision based on how they gauge the applicants instead of blindly applying procedures.

I want more inequality in treatment. Same procedures for everybody makes it hell for everybody - instead, they could expedite the process for "honorable" members of society (up to the civil servants to decide who is honorable). But making it hell for everybody, regardless if hobo or lord is not my idea of democracy.

Edited June 30, 2011 by manarak

[gburns57au]

A matter of sorting wheat from chaff.

There is a lot of info out there and the Government/Embassy sites are the best starting points, If you get stuck on some points or need interpretation/clarification then these sort of sites are great. If you are totally stuck, not very adept at paperwork or have some complications then use an Agency.

What you need to do is work out what pertains to the applicants situation and concentrate on making those points strong so that the application is clutter free and as strong as it can be.

Be honest in your dealings with the Embassy, Any sign of deceit or dishonesty may result in application failure.

At the end of the day the applicant prepares the best application they can and then it is upto the Embassy, while it is a frustrating and anxious time while waiting on decisions, it is a part of the process.

[7by7]

Manarak, it seems that you and I have very different definitions of democracy.

One of the keystones of a democracy is that everyone is the same in the eyes of the law.

I acknowledge that some people find it easier to satisfy the visa requirements, particularly the financial ones, than others, but, at least for the UK, those requirements are the same for everyone, and should remain so. Anything less is most certainly not democratic.

[supaprik]

simple process for my girl to get visas for Australia, perhaps the fact that she has held a management position with a multinational company in Bangkok for 10 years, has her own home ( mortgauge ) has filed tax returns and never worked as a hooker but still there is a process but she has never waited more than 3 days for her visas and never been rejected either, so no I don't feel any stress or "overwhelmed" at all. If your girl has all the things the Oz gov requires then it is a very simple process which takes a few days

Edited July 1, 2011 by supaprik

[sikishrory]

well all my girlfriend has is land thats worth about 500- 700 thousand baht.

she has taken on a job in a large hotel as a cashier purely to help with our applications but she only earns 4000 baht a month. has a car to pay off and a mother breathing down her neck trying to pimp her out and bleed her dry.

the hotel shes working at are telling her they cannot supply her with a simple letter stating the dates/duration she has worked there unless she stays there for a year, which is frustrating. perhaps the payslips would be sufficient for the application anyway, i dont know.

shes had many jobs in the past and been half owner of a 7/11 at one stage but she tells me she cannot provide any paperwork to show this.

a certain visa agent that uses this forum regularly told me that they have had tourist visa apps to australia approved for girls that didn't even have any job whatsoever which doesnt sound quite right to me considering its stated on the aussie immigration site as a requirement i believe.

im starting to think maybe we can just scrape by and get a successful 3 month tourist visa to australia. but the partner visa we plan on applying for after that is a different kettle of fish entirely. that worries me.

it was good to read peoples comments though. i guess you just have to soldier on and keep doing research until you feel confident in your knowledge and confident that you can put forward a strong application... no matter how stressful or overwhelming it may be.

[gburns57au]

Wheat from chaff..

If she has the title for the land that helps provide a reason to return...

A stand alone applicant will need to show proof of funds sufficient enough for the visit..

An applicant being supported doesnt have to have to have a job or money in the bank as long as the person supporting the applicant can show proof of income, usually 6 months worth of payslips or a tax refund notice. Immigration is only concerned that the applicant can support themselves or be supported financially while they are in Oz. There is no relationship requirement with the tourist visa, just show that you actually know each other.

A letter of invitation or even a Stat Dec outlining what level of support is being provided will go a long way in assisting the application.

The partner visa is a different kettle of fish but....one step at a time...deal with that when the time comes,

well all my girlfriend has is land thats worth about 500- 700 thousand baht.

she has taken on a job in a large hotel as a cashier purely to help with our applications but she only earns 4000 baht a month. has a car to pay off and a mother breathing down her neck trying to pimp her out and bleed her dry.

the hotel shes working at are telling her they cannot supply her with a simple letter stating the dates/duration she has worked there unless she stays there for a year, which is frustrating. perhaps the payslips would be sufficient for the application anyway, i dont know.

shes had many jobs in the past and been half owner of a 7/11 at one stage but she tells me she cannot provide any paperwork to show this.

a certain visa agent that uses this forum regularly told me that they have had tourist visa apps to australia approved for girls that didn't even have any job whatsoever which doesnt sound quite right to me considering its stated on the aussie immigration site as a requirement i believe.

im starting to think maybe we can just scrape by and get a successful 3 month tourist visa to australia. but the partner visa we plan on applying for after that is a different kettle of fish entirely. that worries me.

it was good to read peoples comments though. i guess you just have to soldier on and keep doing research until you feel confident in your knowledge and confident that you can put forward a strong application... no matter how stressful or overwhelming it may be.

[manarak]

Manarak, it seems that you and I have very different definitions of democracy.

One of the keystones of a democracy is that everyone is the same in the eyes of the law.

I acknowledge that some people find it easier to satisfy the visa requirements, particularly the financial ones, than others, but, at least for the UK, those requirements are the same for everyone, and should remain so. Anything less is most certainly not democratic.

I'm not talking about the Law here, but about administrative procedures.

Many of these procedures are aimed at convincing the administration of something, such as that the visa applicant will really return to their country.

I say that if the applicant's host is a respected person in good standing in his community, the process should be expedited.

If the host is rather the shady type and the administration sees a chance of the applicant going into illegal stay or illegal work, then by all means ask for the great great great grandfathers' original birth certificate from the Tchang Kai Tchek period.

[gburns57au]

Manarak, it seems that you and I have very different definitions of democracy.

One of the keystones of a democracy is that everyone is the same in the eyes of the law.

I acknowledge that some people find it easier to satisfy the visa requirements, particularly the financial ones, than others, but, at least for the UK, those requirements are the same for everyone, and should remain so. Anything less is most certainly not democratic.

I'm not talking about the Law here, but about administrative procedures.

Many of these procedures are aimed at convincing the administration of something, such as that the visa applicant will really return to their country.

I say that if the applicant's host is a respected person in good standing in his community, the process should be expedited.

If the host is rather the shady type and the administration sees a chance of the applicant going into illegal stay or illegal work, then by all means ask for the great great great grandfathers' original birth certificate from the Tchang Kai Tchek period.

Ahh yes......lets create an elitist society, it didnt work before

[7by7]

I'm not talking about the Law here, but about administrative procedures.

I can only comment on the UK, where the immigration rules are a statement of the law!

These rules lay out the requirements for every type of UK visa, leave to enter, leave to remain etc. and these requirements are, and I hope always will be, the same for all.

[manarak]

I'm not talking about the Law here, but about administrative procedures.

I can only comment on the UK, where the immigration rules are a statement of the law!

These rules lay out the requirements for every type of UK visa, leave to enter, leave to remain etc. and these requirements are, and I hope always will be, the same for all.

Not sure how deeply your knowledge of such procedures runs, but the visa requirements usually state something along the lines of "proof of intent to return" followed by "for example by providing: return ticket, .... or any other proof".

What is being accepted as proof is up to the (senior) officers.

And an Embassy usually always has a discretionary power to grant or refuse visas to anyone, with or without required paperwork.

Furthermore, these "same for all" principles only had one result in the last 20 years: some abusing minority fuc_ked it up for the rest of the citizens.

That's why it is now so hard to invite someone from Thailand, Russia or other countries to stay at your home in UK, EU or elsewhere for 6 months or a year or even open-end.

I understand it as my right as a citizen to invite who I want for as long as I want in my place, as long as I guarantee the person will not commit crimes or work illegally.

But somehow that right was taken away in the past years (along with many other rights). why ??

The answer is simple: abuse by some people, while 90% wouldn't cause any problems.

Edited July 1, 2011 by manarak

[7by7]

Again, I can only comment on the UK.

Different categories of visa have different requirements; and for visits one of these is to satisfy the Entry Clearance Officer that the applicant will leave the UK when or before their visit visa expires; this is commonly referred to as "reason to return."

The onus is on the applicant to 'prove this, but the level of proof is "On the balance of probabilities" rather than the much harder "Beyond reasonable doubt."

Reading forums such as this shows that many people are successful in obtaining UK visit visas when there is no concrete reason to return such as a job. The UKBA's statistics show that year after year the success rate for UK visit visa applications in Thailand averages around 90%.

I do agree, though, that the activities of those who enter a country illegally or for a purpose other than that stated or overstay or otherwise breach the rules have, over the years, made the requirements for obtaining a visa harder. The UK rules state that if an applicant has previously in some way breached the rules then they can, and usually are, banned from applying again for 10 years, except for certain categories such as settlement as a spouse, or even for life in all categories.,

All of which is really irrelevant to the basic democratic principle that everyone is, or should be, equal under the law.

[manarak]

"On the balance of probabilities"

My point exactly - the probabilities vary consirably depending on who applies and who invites.

[mickylonster]

Like any process that involves dealing with a bureaucracy, applying for a visa, especially settlement, can be a lengthy, tedious affair, which in a perfect world should not be necessary.

Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world.

The key is to know what it is the visa regulations of the country you are applying to require for the type of visa you want. This can be found out by researching the relevant government websites, asking on forums such as this or paying an agent to tell you. Although any one of these can give you the wrong information!

Once you know what is required, then it is a matter of preparing the necessary documentation to show that you meet those requirements; again using an agent to assist if you so desire; though, of course, if health checks or a language test are required an agent can't do them for you, ditto if an interview is required.

But, if thinking of using an agent, be careful; there are a lot of sharks out there who overcharge and make promises they know they can't keep! There's a pinned topic on visa agents I'd recommend anyone who is thinking of using one read first.

Then, once you have everything prepared it is a matter of submitting the application and waiting for a decision.

For some countries, the whole process is a lot simpler and quicker than it is for others. Based upon what I have read here, it seems a lot easier, and quicker, to get a settlement visa for the UK than it is for Australia or the US. It was certainly easier for my wife and step-daughter to get Indefinite Leave to Remain in the UK and then British citizenship then it will be for me, when the time comes, to ever get permanent residence in Thailand, let alone Thai citizenship!

To all those currently going through the process, for whichever country, best of luck; and remember that patience is a virtue that is difficult to have, but essential in situations like this. If you, or your loved one, meet the requirements for the visa, and have shown that this is so, then you will get what you want; even though it may take a while. A settlement visa is for a lifetime together; surely the preparation and the weeks or even months of waiting for it is worth it in the end.

We had a gap of nearly 5 months between submitting the application and my wife and step-daughter arriving in the UK, now after over 10 years together in the UK, my wife and I certainly think the effort and wait were worth it!

A very good post 7x7 you speak from personal experience and your wise words about patience are very apt , much respect !

[7by7]

"On the balance of probabilities"

My point exactly - the probabilities vary consirably depending on who applies and who invites.

[Ianatlarge]

I sympathise with the original poster. There is an ever growing amount bureaucracy and delay to get an Australian visa. All, ostensibly, to keep us safe from terrorists and illegal immigrants, which it does not. What it does do is harass people, people who are trying to get on with their lives. It also creates jobs for bureaucrats, encourages people to grow accustomed to governments intervening in their personal lives, and create jobs for migration agents—many of whom started off working as bureaucrats. The recent debacle in Australia with the livestock export industry and its 'oversight' would render any belief in the capability of governments to monitor correctly, going back a few years the Australian wheat marketing board, which was accepting bribes from Saddam. No advice I can give, but best wishes.

[VisasPlus]

I'm not talking about the Law here, but about administrative procedures.

I can only comment on the UK, where the immigration rules are a statement of the law!

These rules lay out the requirements for every type of UK visa, leave to enter, leave to remain etc. and these requirements are, and I hope always will be, the same for all.

Not sure how deeply your knowledge of such procedures runs, but the visa requirements usually state something along the lines of "proof of intent to return" followed by "for example by providing: return ticket, .... or any other proof".

What is being accepted as proof is up to the (senior) officers.

And an Embassy usually always has a discretionary power to grant or refuse visas to anyone, with or without required paperwork.

Furthermore, these "same for all" principles only had one result in the last 20 years: some abusing minority fuc_ked it up for the rest of the citizens.

That's why it is now so hard to invite someone from Thailand, Russia or other countries to stay at your home in UK, EU or elsewhere for 6 months or a year or even open-end.

I understand it as my right as a citizen to invite who I want for as long as I want in my place, as long as I guarantee the person will not commit crimes or work illegally.

But somehow that right was taken away in the past years (along with many other rights). why ??

The answer is simple: abuse by some people, while 90% wouldn't cause any problems.

You say : " I understand it as my right as a citizen to invite who I want for as long as I want in my place, as long as I guarantee the person will not commit crimes or work illegally."

Playing Devil's Advocate, how exactly do you think that can work ? That is, how can you guarantee what somone else will, or will not, do ? The visa officer does not know you or the applicant. How can you expect him to take your word for it ?

[huck]

Manarak, it seems that you and I have very different definitions of democracy.

One of the keystones of a democracy is that everyone is the same in the eyes of the law.

I acknowledge that some people find it easier to satisfy the visa requirements, particularly the financial ones, than others, but, at least for the UK, those requirements are the same for everyone, and should remain so. Anything less is most certainly not democratic.

To get Married in Thailand I had to get proof that I was singel from the Dutch embacy. No such paper was ever given to me when I divorced a few years ago. The Dutch embacy told me I needed a 1. birth certificate. 2. Officially stamped and certified divorce paper 3. Paper saying I no longer lived in Holland 4. Paper from all the foreign embacies of Holland in the foreign countries where I lived. 5. Proof of income 6> Proof that tax had been paid on the income. 7. All papers had to be less than 6 monthes 8. All papers had to be in English and in Dutch 9. With certified stamps of the translations. 10. All papers coming from Dutch embacies had to be applied for at the embacy of the country in person. 11. All papers at the Dutch embacies had to be accopanied with proof of legal recidencies in of those countries and had to be lagalized again. 12. If I had lived in foreign countries a long time ago then all new papers from those countries were have to applied for.

Well I got all of the papers and then I went to the Dutch embacy in Bangkok to get my paper saying I was singel and then they said I was still missing a paper saying that I did not owe the Dutch tax man any money. One of the papers was going to expire within days of the 6 monthes dead line. The embacy didn t except that it would take me at least an other few weeks to get this paper. I hade spent over 5000 Euro's getting these papers. And I gave up and told them that they are basically terrorists. Yes Governements are basically terrorist organizations is my conclussion.

[gburns57au]

You say : " I understand it as my right as a citizen to invite who I want for as long as I want in my place, as long as I guarantee the person will not commit crimes or work illegally."

Playing Devil's Advocate, how exactly do you think that can work ? That is, how can you guarantee what somone else will, or will not, do ? The visa officer does not know you or the applicant. How can you expect him to take your word for it ?

Ahh you see Manarak believes that if you are Hi-so, landed gentry, well connected etc.....then that should be enough for the Embassy to give you more consideration than the common muck.

[bangkockney]

And sadly he isn't far from the truth; under Tier 4 of the UK's PBS differentiation agreements - the UKBA's term - do exist.

Those from countries deemed low risk are exempt from producing any supporting documents with their application. Whilst it doesn't exempt them from the requirements, this is clearly a departure from a single set of rules for all.

You say : " I understand it as my right as a citizen to invite who I want for as long as I want in my place, as long as I guarantee the person will not commit crimes or work illegally."

Playing Devil's Advocate, how exactly do you think that can work ? That is, how can you guarantee what somone else will, or will not, do ? The visa officer does not know you or the applicant. How can you expect him to take your word for it ?

Ahh you see Manarak believes that if you are Hi-so, landed gentry, well connected etc.....then that should be enough for the Embassy to give you more consideration than the common muck.

[reenatinnakor]

Beautifully said 7by7, this is why we do it. If you want it so much its worth the time and effort.

Alan

I would suggest that for a country like the UK it isn't worth it! I left 6 years ago and don't want to go back.

The thing is with the Thai females they think everything is so amazing in Australia, UK and US.....if only they knew it wasn't. A short holiday on a tourist visa would be enough for them to see how shit it is in these country's....ok, except Australia, and how Thailand is a better place to live. Much better to keep getting the Thai visa every year and stay there.

[hotandhumid]

Beautifully said 7by7, this is why we do it. If you want it so much its worth the time and effort.

Alan

I would suggest that for a country like the UK it isn't worth it! I left 6 years ago and don't want to go back.

The thing is with the Thai females they think everything is so amazing in Australia, UK and US.....if only they knew it wasn't. A short holiday on a tourist visa would be enough for them to see how shit it is in these country's....ok, except Australia, and how Thailand is a better place to live. Much better to keep getting the Thai visa every year and stay there.

There speaks a wise man. All this trouble just so you and your wife can live in a declining mess called the UK. If it wasn't so sad it would be funny. If possible, stay in Thailand. I may have to go back to the UK with my wife due to kids and finances etc, but the thought of 'celebrating' just because my wife can live in the freezing depressed UK, woohooo lucky old her!!!....makes me cringe with embarrassment.

Edited July 12, 2011 by hotandhumid

[manarak]

You say : " I understand it as my right as a citizen to invite who I want for as long as I want in my place, as long as I guarantee the person will not commit crimes or work illegally."

Playing Devil's Advocate, how exactly do you think that can work ? That is, how can you guarantee what somone else will, or will not, do ? The visa officer does not know you or the applicant. How can you expect him to take your word for it ?

Ahh you see Manarak believes that if you are Hi-so, landed gentry, well connected etc.....then that should be enough for the Embassy to give you more consideration than the common muck.

In principle yes, but you are drawing the line wrong.

It is not hi-so against lo-so, it is respectable against... well, not so respectable.

I come from a respectable family, but we are by no means rich or hi-so.

The administration should make a difference between people whose families have never been involved in criminal activities and whose name doesn't appear in police records, who pay their taxes, have a job, etc.

and people who aren't.

I have no problem showing this to an immigration officer.

I can show my CV, my diplomas, my police record, give names of other respectable people to vouch for me (references), show my tax receipts, sports clubs, etc.

Another thing: in Switzerland, before the Swiss adopted the EU Schengen procedure for visas, I was required to show I had 20.000 CHF on my account, and this was a guarantee against damages caused by the person I invited. I understood this could also cover efforts by officials to prosecute my guest if he/she was found involved in illegal activities or overstaying.

Not a bad thing! 20.000 CHF make you really think twice before inviting someone and also you are rather vigilant when the person is in the country!

[7by7]

The administration should make a difference between people whose families have never been involved in criminal activities and whose name doesn't appear in police records

Again, I can only speak for the UK, though I imagine other countries are similar: When can I refuse on the grounds of criminal convictions – paragraph 320 (18)? . This does apply only to the applicant themselves, of course; not their family.

Are you seriously saying that just because someones uncle, cousin, even sibling has a criminal record then they should also be treated as a criminal? If so, then not only do you have a completely different definition of democracy to mine, but of justice too.

who pay their taxes, have a job, etc.

When my wife and stepdaughter applied for settlement, neither had a job (the girl was only 9). By your rule, they should not have been allowed to settle in the UK with me!

When my step-son came for a visit he was a student, so no job, no taxes. By your rule he should not have been allowed to visit his mother, sister and I in the UK!

My sister-in-law does work, but like many 'working class' Thais she does not pay direct tax (she pays indirect tax, of course, every time she buys something with VAT on it). By your rule she should not have been allowed to visit us in the UK!

You are effectively saying that my family is not respectable enough to visit or live in the UK. This says more about you than I.

Another thing: in Switzerland, before the Swiss adopted the EU Schengen procedure for visas, I was required to show I had 20.000 CHF on my account, and this was a guarantee against damages caused by the person I invited. I understood this could also cover efforts by officials to prosecute my guest if he/she was found involved in illegal activities or overstaying.

Not a bad thing! 20.000 CHF make you really think twice before inviting someone and also you are rather vigilant when the person is in the country!

Such a 'guarantee' would be unenforceable in UK law. Even if it were, as most visitors are sponsored by someone they know, I don't see how demanding any such guarantee, financial or otherwise, would change anything. I would not invite someone I didn't know or trust, even though, by your definition, I am not as respectable as you.

Many visitors, maybe even the majority, don't have a sponsor anyway.

All visitors to the UK, sponsored or not, have to show that they have sufficient funds available to cover the cost of their visit and return or onward journey.

[bifftastic]

I know the visa rules can appear to be a pain in the arse, but to suggest that there be some sort of 'respectability' test based primarily, it seems, on finances or whether one is from a 'good family' or not would be, unfair, unworkable, illegal and just plain wrong!

.

Yes, any system can be abused but, in my opinion, having a set of rules that are the same for everyone is the best way to proceed.

I'm currently in the process of helping my wife apply for a visit visa, there are some 'hoops' to be jumped through but the main requirements are to show that we are a genuine married couple, can afford the trip and that, as a visitor, she will do just that, visit and then go home.

As I said, it's a pain in the arse but I can see the reasoning and fairness behind it. The idea that someone from a 'more respectable' family than mine (there are many!) should be allowed to just breeze through the airport whereas myself and my wife, being of 'low birth' should be prevented from enjoying the benefits of world travel and happiness is, to be honest, disgusting.

My country (UK) has a history based on a class system, thankfully, most of it's prejudices have disappeared.

[manarak]

Are you seriously saying that just because someones uncle, cousin, even sibling has a criminal record then they should also be treated as a criminal? If so, then not only do you have a completely different definition of democracy to mine, but of justice too.

No I'm not.

What I am suggesting is that people where no record of the sort exists have their procedures sped up.

The rest goes through normal process.

(and to clarify "family", I would refer to first degree relatives and people living under the same roof).

When my wife and stepdaughter applied for settlement, neither had a job (the girl was only 9). By your rule, they should not have been allowed to settle in the UK with me!

When my step-son came for a visit he was a student, so no job, no taxes. By your rule he should not have been allowed to visit his mother, sister and I in the UK!

My sister-in-law does work, but like many 'working class' Thais she does not pay direct tax (she pays indirect tax, of course, every time she buys something with VAT on it). By your rule she should not have been allowed to visit us in the UK!

You are effectively saying that my family is not respectable enough to visit or live in the UK. This says more about you than I.

I think you are doing your best to misunderstand on purpose what I posted.

First, the stuff I listed is not to be used as criteria to grant visa, it should be used as criteria to speed up the process in cases where in all probability granting the visa will not cause any problems.

Second, the job, occupation, salary stuff, etc. is not about the invitee, it is about the inviting person.

How would a European civil servant determine the degree of respectability of a Thai person?

Another thing: in Switzerland, before the Swiss adopted the EU Schengen procedure for visas, I was required to show I had 20.000 CHF on my account, and this was a guarantee against damages caused by the person I invited. I understood this could also cover efforts by officials to prosecute my guest if he/she was found involved in illegal activities or overstaying.

Not a bad thing! 20.000 CHF make you really think twice before inviting someone and also you are rather vigilant when the person is in the country!

Such a 'guarantee' would be unenforceable in UK law. Even if it were, as most visitors are sponsored by someone they know, I don't see how demanding any such guarantee, financial or otherwise, would change anything. I would not invite someone I didn't know or trust, even though, by your definition, I am not as respectable as you.

Many visitors, maybe even the majority, don't have a sponsor anyway.

All visitors to the UK, sponsored or not, have to show that they have sufficient funds available to cover the cost of their visit and return or onward journey.

I am taking about people who visit ME in my country, and as the inviting person I am their sponsor anyway.

Anything is enforceable by Law.

I had to sign a paper that I financially vouch with up to 20.000 CHF of my personal funds for the food, accomodation, and medical expenses of the person I am inviting if that person was to run out of money, as well as for any damages this person might cause.

I am sad this system has been scrapped in Switzerland, because it worked well. No problems and visas were usually granted within a week.

Now the process has become very bureaucratic like in the rest of the Schengen zone and takes ages (up to six weeks, intolerable).

Maybe you would invite only people you trust.

But the reason the system has become so tough is that, say, nightclub owners would invite 5 Thai girls to stay at their place...

[bifftastic]

Nightclub owners? Dreadful people, how dare they invite people to stay with them!

I see your point, people should be judged 'respectable' or not. Riff raff should be thoroughly investigated and those who have been deemed respectable should be fast-tracked.

So having 20,000 francs makes one respectable does it? Cool, all of a sudden I'm respectable!

[VisasPlus]

Please don't ban manarak. He's making me laugh !