UK Embassy Launches 'Priority Visas' For Thai Nationals

[bobrussell]

This link should let you know who is eligible!

http://www.vfs-uk-th...lservice.html#1

Fundamentally it is for those who have been good boys and girls in the past five years!

Edited April 4, 2012 by bobrussell

[bobrussell]

So, how about this for an idea ? The Embassy keeps telling us that the number of applications for visit visas in Thailand is rising every year. and is now about 50,000 a year or more. Of that 50,000 the Embassy issues around 94%, which by my calculation is around 47,000. So, all of this effort is to refuse just 3,000 visa a year to visitors. All of those ECOs, all that support staff, all that cost, is to refuse 3,000 visas a year. Well, why not remove the visa requirement ? Let the immigration officer in UK decide if a passenger can enter or not, just as they do with Malaysians and Singaporeans. At least that immigration officer will get to interview the passenger, which an ECO apparently doesn't have time to do. Plus, what a saving on the cost of the visa operation in Thailand ! I have just saved the British government a fortune ! Or have I cost the British government 47,000 visit visa fees ( from obviously genuine visitors ), which I work out at around 3, 666,000 GBP a year ? Am I being cynical ?

Fully agree with ThaiVisa, GBP3.6 million revenue is peanuts for the UK and if the Government adopted this stance they could save the cost of the annual contract they have with VFS, I don't know what it's worth (but it must have been published somewhere?), and if they send x number of no longer required ex-Pat Border Agency officers back to the UK then they can use the money saved to send out more consular officials to help ex-Pats with their everyday problems.

If visas were freely issued or removed completely how many extra 'visitors' would there be arriving at Heathrow? How many extra immigration officers would need to be on duty to sort out and return those that did not comply with immigration rules?

The only way this would work would be for the airlines to take over the sorting of the wheat from the chaff because they are liable for fines/cost of returning those refused entry! Ferries between the UK and the Continent have been largely self-policing for years so there are already models for this!

Can you imagine the extra hoops they will introduce to make sure they don't get fined? I suspect it would become much harder for the 'average' applicant.

[denishuahin]

There is just 3 things that stands out here 1: The UK Border Agency 2: Border Agency 3: Agency, sorry forgot the forth > money

[AllanJordan]

So, how about this for an idea ? The Embassy keeps telling us that the number of applications for visit visas in Thailand is rising every year. and is now about 50,000 a year or more. Of that 50,000 the Embassy issues around 94%, which by my calculation is around 47,000. So, all of this effort is to refuse just 3,000 visa a year to visitors. All of those ECOs, all that support staff, all that cost, is to refuse 3,000 visas a year. Well, why not remove the visa requirement ? Let the immigration officer in UK decide if a passenger can enter or not, just as they do with Malaysians and Singaporeans. At least that immigration officer will get to interview the passenger, which an ECO apparently doesn't have time to do. Plus, what a saving on the cost of the visa operation in Thailand ! I have just saved the British government a fortune ! Or have I cost the British government 47,000 visit visa fees ( from obviously genuine visitors ), which I work out at around 3, 666,000 GBP a year ? Am I being cynical ?

Fully agree with ThaiVisa, GBP3.6 million revenue is peanuts for the UK and if the Government adopted this stance they could save the cost of the annual contract they have with VFS, I don't know what it's worth (but it must have been published somewhere?), and if they send x number of no longer required ex-Pat Border Agency officers back to the UK then they can use the money saved to send out more consular officials to help ex-Pats with their everyday problems.

If visas were freely issued or removed completely how many extra 'visitors' would there be arriving at Heathrow? How many extra immigration officers would need to be on duty to sort out and return those that did not comply with immigration rules?

The only way this would work would be for the airlines to take over the sorting of the wheat from the chaff because they are liable for fines/cost of returning those refused entry! Ferries between the UK and the Continent have been largely self-policing for years so there are already models for this!

Can you imagine the extra hoops they will introduce to make sure they don't get fined? I suspect it would become much harder for the 'average' applicant.

The Thais seems to sort out the "wheat from the chaff" very well, so why can't we do the same thing in the UK? They're well trained and well funded so there's no excuse

[AllanJordan]

So, how about this for an idea ? The Embassy keeps telling us that the number of applications for visit visas in Thailand is rising every year. and is now about 50,000 a year or more. Of that 50,000 the Embassy issues around 94%, which by my calculation is around 47,000. So, all of this effort is to refuse just 3,000 visa a year to visitors. All of those ECOs, all that support staff, all that cost, is to refuse 3,000 visas a year. Well, why not remove the visa requirement ? Let the immigration officer in UK decide if a passenger can enter or not, just as they do with Malaysians and Singaporeans. At least that immigration officer will get to interview the passenger, which an ECO apparently doesn't have time to do. Plus, what a saving on the cost of the visa operation in Thailand ! I have just saved the British government a fortune ! Or have I cost the British government 47,000 visit visa fees ( from obviously genuine visitors ), which I work out at around 3, 666,000 GBP a year ? Am I being cynical ?

Fully agree with ThaiVisa, GBP3.6 million revenue is peanuts for the UK and if the Government adopted this stance they could save the cost of the annual contract they have with VFS, I don't know what it's worth (but it must have been published somewhere?), and if they send x number of no longer required ex-Pat Border Agency officers back to the UK then they can use the money saved to send out more consular officials to help ex-Pats with their everyday problems.

If visas were freely issued or removed completely how many extra 'visitors' would there be arriving at Heathrow? How many extra immigration officers would need to be on duty to sort out and return those that did not comply with immigration rules?

The only way this would work would be for the airlines to take over the sorting of the wheat from the chaff because they are liable for fines/cost of returning those refused entry! Ferries between the UK and the Continent have been largely self-policing for years so there are already models for this!

Can you imagine the extra hoops they will introduce to make sure they don't get fined? I suspect it would become much harder for the 'average' applicant.

The Thais seems to sort out the "wheat from the chaff" very well, so why can't we do the same thing in the UK? They're well trained and well funded so there's no excuse

I believe that Thai citizens should be visa-exempt, just as UK citizens are when they arrive in Thailand. It's a political issue. Not an economic issue related to risk of flight. There a many poorer countries in the UK visa-exempt list below than Thailand, and the risk that their citizens will overstay their visa is accepted and managed.

If the UK were to treat Thailand in a fairer and better way then maybe, just maybe, visa runs will become a thing of the past. As I said, its a political issue, that could be easily resolved.

Let's welcome Thai citizens into the United Kingdom just as they welcome British citizens into theirs.

Citizens of the following countries and territories are visa-exempt for stays in the UK of up to 6 months (or 3 months if they enter from the Republic of Ireland) as long as they fulfil all of the following criteria:

• they do not work during their stay in the UK
  
• they must not register a marriage or register a civil partnership during their stay in the UK
  
• they can present evidence of sufficient money to fund their stay in the UK (if requested by the border inspection officer)
  
• they intend to leave the UK at the end of their visit and can meet the cost of the return/onward journey
  
• they have completed a landing card and submitted it at passport control unless in direct transit to a destination outside the Common Travel Area
  
• if under the age of 18, they can demonstrate evidence of suitable care arrangements and parental (or guardian's) consent for their stay in the UK
  

(Citizens of European Union countries and Switzerland have no visa restrictions and can reside in the UK indefinitely)

Andorra

Antigua and Barbuda

Argentina

Australia

Bahamas

Barbados

Belize

Botswana

Brazil

Brunei

Canada

Chile

Costa Rica

Croatia

Dominica Timor-Leste

El Salvador

Grenada

Guatemala

Honduras

Hong Kong

Israel

Japan

Kiribati

Macau

Malaysia

Maldives

Marshall Islands

Mauritius

Mexico Micronesia, Federated States of

Monaco

Namibia

Nauru

New Zealand

Nicaragua

Palau

Panama

Papua New Guinea

Paraguay

Saint Kitts and Nevis

Saint Lucia

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

San Marino Samoa

Seychelles

Singapore

Solomon Islands

South Korea

Taiwan

Tonga

Trinidad and Tobago

Turkey

Tuvalu

United States

Uruguay

Vanuatu

Venezuela

Vatican City

[theoldgit]

^^^^^

Whilst I agree with the crux of your argument, you need to bare in mind that whilst nationals of the countries you list, and I haven't checked the list, are allowed to travel to the UK without entry clearance they can still be refused entry if an Immigration Officer at the port of entry believes the visit isn't genuine or that the visitor may not comply with immigration requirements.

I do believe that the world is changing, Thailand has a thriving economy and the UK doesn't, though in Thailand the wealth isn't shared. I can see the time where maybe we will need a visa to enter Thailand and Thai nationals wishing to visit the UK will not.

Again bare in mind that entry into either country doesn't allow visitors to work or claim benefits, to work in the UK an employer must satisfy themselves that the person is legally allowed to do so, though I remember when young Thai women advertised in phone boxes for cash in hand work.

[Fishface]

A visa does not give right of entry. You could still be denied entry at port of call.

Allowing anyone to travel to uk and have them processed at UK would make those think. At present you will just loose to cost of the visa and not the cost of an air ticket just to see the international lounge of Heathrow. It would cut down the 'Oh ille give it a try' just to take thier bird down the pub, so making travel to Uk absolutely necessary only.

Only problem would be that it would be very confrontational " ive paid my taxes why cant she come in,--- ille see a lawer and have your job etc etc. You know the type,--- a 24 year old sex tourist that lives with his Mom and works nights for British Rail.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Fishface

[7by7]

Why should any person not be allowed to sponsor a visitor? So what if his visitor is a lady he met 'professionally?' How they met and the circumstances of their relationship is their business, not mine. As long as she comes to the UK to visit and not work, in any capacity, and leaves when she should I don't have a problem.

If the person seeking entry has a visa then they must have satisfied the ECO that they do, on the balance of probabilities, satisfy the requirements for that visa. As I understand it, the only reason an IO can refuse entry to a visa holder is if they have sufficient grounds to suspect that the visa was obtained fraudulently or that the visa holder's circumstances have changed sufficiently since it was issued for them to no longer qualify for it. Maybe someone with the relevant experience can confirm or correct?

It is true that no system can be perfect and that people who are genuine can be refused, and those seeking entry for reasons other than stated are successful.

But what do people want?

Tighten the system up so much that the bad 'uns all get refused, which would make it a lot harder for genuine visitors; or do away with entry clearance all together so that anyone can easily enter, regardless of their purpose?

There are plenty of posts in this forum complaining bitterly about the fact that EU citizens have the right to come and go more or less as they please (as British citizens do to other EU countries), so presumably most would not want the latter option.

[VisasPlus]

Why should any person not be allowed to sponsor a visitor? So what if his visitor is a lady he met 'professionally?' How they met and the circumstances of their relationship is their business, not mine. As long as she comes to the UK to visit and not work, in any capacity, and leaves when she should I don't have a problem.

If the person seeking entry has a visa then they must have satisfied the ECO that they do, on the balance of probabilities, satisfy the requirements for that visa. As I understand it, the only reason an IO can refuse entry to a visa holder is if they have sufficient grounds to suspect that the visa was obtained fraudulently or that the visa holder's circumstances have changed sufficiently since it was issued for them to no longer qualify for it. Maybe someone with the relevant experience can confirm or correct?

It is true that no system can be perfect and that people who are genuine can be refused, and those seeking entry for reasons other than stated are successful.

But what do people want?

Tighten the system up so much that the bad 'uns all get refused, which would make it a lot harder for genuine visitors; or do away with entry clearance all together so that anyone can easily enter, regardless of their purpose?

There are plenty of posts in this forum complaining bitterly about the fact that EU citizens have the right to come and go more or less as they please (as British citizens do to other EU countries), so presumably most would not want the latter option.

Everything you say is true, but the question is, do Thais deserve to be on the visa requirement list ? The figures would appear to say no. It would be interesting to know the UK governments reasoning on why Thailand remains on the list. Assuming that there are , or might be good reasons, for Thailand remaining on the list, then the system itself needs looking at. Any system that assesses qualification for a visa solely on documentation cannot be fair. The UKBA relies on its "evidence - based " decision making, which means in effect, that they will not deal with people face to face. This is wrong. What the UKBA is saying is, that the applicant must produce the correct documentation or the visa will be refused. In many cases ( without the right of appeal ) there is no come back. This would be okay if the ECO was always 100% correct, but, as we know, he isn't. Not giving someone the right to explain must be wrong, and must be against the principals of natural justice. The UKBA is saying that an applicant cannot ever make an error, or mistake ( if he wants to be sure that a visa will be issued ), but an ECO can, without question, refuse a visa, and make as many mistakes as he wants. For instance, the UKBA's refusals based on documents that are not even required under the immigration rules. The UKBA will argue that a refused applicant can always seek judicial review of a refusal decision, but that is an option that many, if not most, applicants cannot afford.

The answer to this is, of course, to interview visa applicants, or allow visa applicants to have the opportunity to be interviewed if they want. Many genuine applicants would take the opportunity to have an interview, and the opportunity to be able to explain any misunderstandings in the documentation or story. The advantage of immigration officers talking with passengers on arrival in the UK is that they get a "feel" for the passenger, often based on experience, and more genuine passengers will gain entry, as well as non-genuine passengers being refused entry. I have now suggested twice, to the British Embassy, that they consider a payment system for interview of visa applicants, and have twice received absolutely no response, not even an acknowledgment. I guess that, one day, we will see it on the Embassy's "news and updates" page as a new UKBA service.

Edited April 6, 2012 by VisasPlus

[7by7]

...........the question is, do Thais deserve to be on the visa requirement list ? The figures would appear to say no. It would be interesting to know the UK governments reasoning on why Thailand remains on the list.

I, too, would very much like to know the criteria for a non EEA country to be on the list of those whose nationals require visit visas or the list of those who don't!

Some, like the USA, are obvious; their nationals are viewed as unlikely to be overstayers or otherwise breach the conditions of entry to the UK as a visitor. Others, from the list posted above by AllanJordan (which may or may not be complete and correct, I haven't checked) are less obvious and one would think that a national of some of those countries would be more of a risk than a Thai.

It obviously cannot be some sort of reciprocal arrangement: many countries allow British nationals visa free entry as visitors whereas their nationals need a visa for the UK, e.g. Thailand.

It isn't anything to do with the Commonwealth; nationals of some Commonwealth countries require visit visas; others don't.

I cannot see any logic to it.

The answer to this is, of course, to interview visa applicants, or allow visa applicants to have the opportunity to be interviewed if they want.

I can see the logic of this, but don't see it happening. The main reason for the decision to interview as few applicants as possible was taken, I believe, to reduce processing times and therefore the number of ECOs required in post; i.e. to save money. Re-introducing interviews, even if only when requested by the applicant, would mean either longer processing times for all, or having more ECOs in post. I can't see the government going for the latter, even if those requesting an interview pay extra for the privilege.

If such a system were to be introduced, what about people who don't request an interview but the ECO decides to hold one anyway? Would they have to pay extra? I think we know the governments answer to that!

As an aside, the UK is not the only country to have weird rules and systems. I have just checked the 'visa wizard' on the London American embassy site and found that I do not qualify for the 90 day visa free entry to the USA as a tourist usually available to British citizens. The reason? I have a 30+ year old criminal conviction (the site makes it clear that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act does not apply, and all convictions count, except minor traffic offences).

So, it seems that the USA government believes that because over 30 years ago I was caught traveling on a train without a valid ticket I am some sort of threat to their national security!

[Fishface]

The simple criteria is being ignored. If a Uk resident travels to Thailand they can not claim social security or health care or loose themselves in a job of the China towns that exist in UK. Do you know of any English towns in Thailand.

The simple fact is that Thais would rather live in Uk than Thailand along with many other far eastern countries hence we need to know that they have no intentions to stay.

I know of one Laos girl that has said that if her husband,-- a friend of mine ever takes her to uk there is no way she will come back, not a chance.

This is why we need Visas

[RAZZELL]

I will say this...

I have lived here in Thailand for six years now.

I will also say I have been with my Thai girlfriend for the same time.... we are a couple...

Three years ago my dad aged 90, was diagnosed with bowell cancer, I wanted her to meet him before he passed away.

Many applications and cost later My country said no..... no reason ... just no....

My girlfriend has family , children here, I am more than able to take of her as was stated in my application...I live here in Thai I want to come back.............. They refused her.... Thank you England....

He died 2 years ago.

I am still with my girlfriend.

Hard to explain why she was not allowed to meet my dad.

I regret ever having been born there.........

Whilst I have every sympathy for you..Getting a visa isn't rocket science...It's about ticking boxes...

You have to look at the application you submitted

RAZZ

[JohnnyGray]

^^^^^

Whilst I agree with the crux of your argument, you need to bare in mind that whilst nationals of the countries you list, and I haven't checked the list, are allowed to travel to the UK without entry clearance they can still be refused entry if an Immigration Officer at the port of entry believes the visit isn't genuine or that the visitor may not comply with immigration requirements.

I do believe that the world is changing, Thailand has a thriving economy and the UK doesn't, though in Thailand the wealth isn't shared. I can see the time where maybe we will need a visa to enter Thailand and Thai nationals wishing to visit the UK will not.

Again bare in mind that entry into either country doesn't allow visitors to work or claim benefits, to work in the UK an employer must satisfy themselves that the person is legally allowed to do so, though I remember when young Thai women advertised in phone boxes for cash in hand work.

A visa does not give right of entry. You could still be denied entry at port of call.

Allowing anyone to travel to uk and have them processed at UK would make those think. At present you will just loose to cost of the visa and not the cost of an air ticket just to see the international lounge of Heathrow. It would cut down the 'Oh ille give it a try' just to take thier bird down the pub, so making travel to Uk absolutely necessary only.

Only problem would be that it would be very confrontational " ive paid my taxes why cant she come in,--- ille see a lawer and have your job etc etc. You know the type,--- a 24 year old sex tourist that lives with his Mom and works nights for British Rail.

I don't agree with the oldgits premise that some time in the future general tourists from the UK or other Western countries may be required to apply for a Thai visitor visa before travel - the Thais will never implement a policy which would damage their lucrative tourist industry.

And to put fishface's comments into perspective, between June 2009 and June 2010 12.4 million non-EEA nationals visited the UK. Of all visitors to the UK, including EEA nationals, in the same period only 18,940 were refused entry (about 52 a day) (Google The Home Office for the details).

I believe Thai citizens should be allowed to stay in the UK for 30 days without applying for a visa beforehand, just as UK citizens are allowed to in Thailand, i.e. visa on arrival. Of course there's a risk that some will overstay, just as some UK citizens overstay in Thailand.

But the risks are negligible and can be managed and are not at all comparable to, for example, Bangladeshis, Pakistanis or Indians who already have established communities and support networks in the UK into which they can "disappear" - as some do, even though they've been granted short-stay visas.

To put this into perspective, The Office for National Statistics estimates that, in 2009, 35,000 Thai-born people were living in the UK, less than 0.06% of the UK population. Whereas the Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities make up almost 4% of the UK population, or 2.3 million, so temporary visitors from those countries clearly pose a much greater risk and should quite rightly be subject to tighter immigration control.

Edited April 9, 2012 by JohnnyGray

[Grumbles]

Yup, Nothing new here. More TV posters posting negative remarks over every news piece posted. Sad world we live in. Can't please evferyone alll the time, right?!

Lifer, if you think the new service is a good idea, then say so. You will be in a minority at the moment. Members are entitled to comment on what they see as a retrograde step by the Embassy. I believe it is a big step in the wrong direction, and I have given reasons why I think so. Please feel free to put your reasons for supporting the move.

I thought that visa's were just a document required by countries to prevent the entry of undesirable aliens whilst keeping a check on who is coming or going.

If this is the case then people should have to pay a reasonable admin fee for the service.

However I really can't see how they can justify charging almost double the price for the 'fast track" service. After my own horrific experience with these people, I would suggest they improve the 'slow track' service before trying to gouge even more money out of people.

One example; charging 800 baht to post documents from Bangkok to Chanthaburi, which arrives with a 65 baht stamp. Since when has the labour cost in Thailand been 700 baht an hour, as that is a generous allowance to put documents in an envelope, walk to the post office, buy a stamp and walk back again.

The sooner governments start providing government service and cut out the middlemen (agencies) the better.

[Grumbles]

The simple criteria is being ignored. If a Uk resident travels to Thailand they can not claim social security or health care or loose themselves in a job of the China towns that exist in UK. Do you know of any English towns in Thailand.

The simple fact is that Thais would rather live in Uk than Thailand along with many other far eastern countries hence we need to know that they have no intentions to stay.

I know of one Laos girl that has said that if her husband,-- a friend of mine ever takes her to uk there is no way she will come back, not a chance.

This is why we need Visas

Not disputing the need for visas, with respect to the Laos girl:

a) wait until she experiences an English winter.

People from Laos come to Thailand for a better life 'nuff said. But I believe the original statement was with regards to THAI people getting 30 days automatically not Laoations.