Tougher Tourist Visa Application Process 'Costs Uk £2.8Bn'

[crazydrummerpauly]

I am sorry, Anon999, but it is obvious from reading your post that you do not understand the new rules as they apply to family migration; have you read them?

Rather than direct you to the numerous UKBA pages now incorporating them, have a read of the statement of intent.

Having done so, perhaps you will then direct me to where it says that only family migrants who "fall into the highly qualified categories."

You may argue that unless one is "highly qualified" then one will not have an income high enough to meet the financial requirement. Highly qualified to earn £18600 pa? Most unskilled workers earn more than that. Remember it is the level at which a couple no longer qualify for income support; so it's not that high.

Even so, it's too high.

My personal feeling is that it should have been set at the income support level of about £110 per week. Indeed I said so when I took part in the consultation last year.

Did you, Anon999, and you, marshbags, take part in that? It was well publicised on this and many other similar forums and websites.

My feelings about the other changes?

Five years for ILR.

Broadly in agreement. I have seen relationships where the immigrant partner has done a runner the moment they have their ILR. A longer qualifying period will discourage this and will not really effect genuine couples.

Except for the need to extend one's leave to remain after 30 months. Nothing wrong in that, per se. But having to pay for it; that's wrong, in my opinion.

Language requirement for ILR.

Not much change here, except that the ability to pass this when one has effectively no English at all by going from zero to entry level 1 on an ESOL course has been removed.

I can see nothing wrong in requiring immigrants to a country to be able to speak that country's language at a basic level; and B1 and the level required for the LitUK test are not that far above basic (see here); and people have 5 years to learn to do so!

Try getting permanent residence in, for example, Thailand without being fluent in Thai; spoken and written. You wont.

The level required for the LitUK test and B1 is not very high and anyone with 5 years in which to study should be able to manage it. Unless they have learning disabilities which prevent them from learning English; in which case they will be exempt from this requirement.

Genuineness of relationship

Not just to try and eliminate sham marriages; but also to protect those who may be forced into a marriage so their 'partner' can enter the UK.

Who here would argue against protecting the victims of forced marriage?

Although this is not really the place to discuss these changes, there is another topic running in which to do so, as it has been brought up here I would, Anon999 and marshbags and anyone else who feels like it, appreciate your comments on the above.

Remember, though, we are talking about family migration; not the changes to other categories, e.g. Tier 1, outlined in the statement of intent.

Quote: "You may argue that unless one is "highly qualified" then one will not have an income high enough to meet the financial requirement. Highly qualified to earn £18600 pa? Most unskilled workers earn more than that. Remember it is the level at which a couple no longer qualify for income support; so it's not that high.

Uh, almost choked on my tea...the UK minimum wage (and many work for less) is a tad over £6 an hour..x 40 = £240 a week, or just £11,520 per annum. £18,600 pa is - shamefully - still way up the income-scale for far too many UK workers.

[7by7]

If you are going to criticise something I, or any other member, has said, and there is no reason why you shouldn't, at least have the courtesy to quote all of the part you are criticising.

At least you did provide a full quote first, in which it can be clearly seen that I went on to say the level, in my opinion, is way too high and that the level should be the income support level of approx. £110 per week.

Yes, there are those who earn less than £18,600, but it is below the average salary for full time workers in all sectors and regions; source.

[crazydrummerpauly]

If you are going to criticise something I, or any other member, has said, and there is no reason why you shouldn't, at least have the courtesy to quote all of the part you are criticising.

At least you did provide a full quote first, in which it can be clearly seen that I went on to say the level, in my opinion, is way too high and that the level should be the income support level of approx. £110 per week.

Yes, there are those who earn less than £18,600, but it is below the average salary for full time workers in all sectors and regions; source.

Aren't you confusing 'criticism' with a simple correction for everyone's information? It is simply not true that: "Most unskilled workers earn more than that (£18,600)" And i think that as your posts are always so very scrupulous about facts - which is a real benefit to us all - the least you could do is thank me with good grace for taking the time to point out the mistake. NB: UNSKILLED workers tend to get the Minimum Wage - that is who it is meant for. The point is, the statement plays a supportive role in your overall argument, so if it is incorrect, the argument might be affected. Might, that's all. I'm not interested in arguing about it - and i won't waste my time trying to be informative if it is going to be taken wrongly. Nor was i trying to take part in the wider socio-political debate about immigration - absolutely no axe to grind either way! By the way - i see nothing wrong with quoting only the statement that i feel is problematic - to quote your whole post would have been superfluous, and potentially tiresome for readers. I had one small fact-based point to make, if it's unwelcome, so be it, end of story.

[marshbags]

When members take part in a debate or start a particular thread, it is accepted that it will be expanded on and indeed we look forward to and invite the much welcomed posting of the comments our fellow members wish to post..

I for example am quite happy to have any kind of observations being made so long as they do not get into uneasy situations whereby we are prevented / not encouraged to let a thread flow and thus members are not inclined to offer their much valued input and actual experiences.

I appreciate their are EEA regulations ect and yes of course they should be taken into account, but to keep quoting rules and regs while not seemingly empathising with the problems many are experiencing / have experience, sadly anyone continually doing so, especially in an officious manner, does not enhance this or any other debate.

Perhaps those who keep quoting as per this and that repeatedly should try a more friendly approach because at the end of the day this is what we expect when offering our contributions and personal real life experiences, not dictarorial type responses that stiffle any further comments and the expanding of the debate.

It would be nice if we could share our experiences that are associated with a certain topic and allow each other to decide if a particular offering is interesting and in return offer each others observations, support and empathy / remarks.

Please become part of the thread, not above it. and make members feel they are welcome to offer their contributions.

IMHO as always

marshbags

Edited July 18, 2012 by marshbags

[7by7]

It is simply not true that: "Most unskilled workers earn more than that (£18,600)"

I am classed as an unskilled worker. My wife is also. We both earn more than £18600; not by much, but more.

A quick look at my local Jobcentre Plus job search shows most unskilled vacancies are offering an hourly rate that would, just, put people above £18600. Admittedly that is in the South East.

None of which detracts from the opinion that the minimum of £18600 is too high. An opinion we seem to share.

[7by7]

Marshbags,

I must admit to being at a loss as to the meaning of your post. As far as I am aware, this topic has been allowed to flow and members have been allowed to offer their input.

Indeed, it has even been allowed to wander a long way from it's original topic!

Debate means offering different opinions and views to those you are debating with, and using, where appropriate, facts and figures to back up your arguments.

To be honest, you seem to want posts only from those who agree with you! (Personal opinion)

[bangkockney]

It makes sense for the UK to fully enact the Schengen Agreement - the UK has already negotiated the right to pick and choose which parts it wants.

It'll never happen though because immigration and border control are so political in the UK.

How many times do we have to listen to the defunct argument that the UK is an island and therefore special....blah blah blah.

[tw25rw]

The argument is that joining it will throw away the advantages of being an island, eg those 'refugees' that were encamped near Calais (but I think have since been moved on by the French) will be able to enter the UK unhindered. As will any of the people who are currently entering the country by hiding in trucks etc.

[true blue]

Marshbags,

I must admit to being at a loss as to the meaning of your post. As far as I am aware, this topic has been allowed to flow and members have been allowed to offer their input.

Indeed, it has even been allowed to wander a long way from it's original topic!

Debate means offering different opinions and views to those you are debating with, and using, where appropriate, facts and figures to back up your arguments.

To be honest, you seem to want posts only from those who agree with you! (Personal opinion)

ive always appreciated your assistance to all and sundry on tv 7by 7,and your help im sure has been a boon,but you do only see one point of view in your summing up of situations and that is the offical view,which you think is sacrasant,its a very emotive issue visas,and people are looking for emotive support and not continual seconding of rules and regs,which you seem to support at most times,

[bangkockney]

The argument is that joining it will throw away the advantages of being an island, eg those 'refugees' that were encamped near Calais (but I think have since been moved on by the French) will be able to enter the UK unhindered. As will any of the people who are currently entering the country by hiding in trucks etc.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

And, have you not heard of air travel? Yet you maintain the "we're special cos we're an island" nonsense.

Thanks for making my point that the same defunct arguement gets trotted out.

[tw25rw]

The argument is that joining it will throw away the advantages of being an island, eg those 'refugees' that were encamped near Calais (but I think have since been moved on by the French) will be able to enter the UK unhindered. As will any of the people who are currently entering the country by hiding in trucks etc.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

And, have you not heard of air travel? Yet you maintain the "we're special cos we're an island" nonsense.

Thanks for making my point that the same defunct arguement gets trotted out.

It's a perfectly valid argument. Air travel is different because it's hard to get onto a plane without the right documents.

[bobrussell]

There is a big difference between protecting our shores from 'immigrants' (used in a derogatory, tabloid sense), immigration of family members and those with specific skills needed and visit visas.

Anything that discourages genuine visitors from bringing their brimming wallets to the UK so they can spend, spend, spend has to be a lost opportunity.

We should be welcoming them with open arms!

If someone has provided the evidence to get a Schengen visa I would have thought a much simplified visa application form would be possible

If we cannot trust the Schengen visa application process then perhaps we have a good reason to keep all our barriers up! There does not seem to be any real evidence (that I can find) to suggest the Schengen visa system is lax.

Travel itinerary, hotel bookings, insurance and a copy of the Schengen visa should allow 2/3rds of the intimidating application UK form to go. Perhaps finish the form with 'We hope to see you soon!'.

We want/need tourism, it is the life blood here in the New Forest.

Tourism is nothing to do with immigration so really nothing to do with this thread!

Families (within limits) have the right to stay together and sometimes we don't have the right numbers with the right skills so have to import them.

[tw25rw]

There is a big difference between protecting our shores from 'immigrants' (used in a derogatory, tabloid sense), immigration of family members and those with specific skills needed and visit visas.

Anything that discourages genuine visitors from bringing their brimming wallets to the UK so they can spend, spend, spend has to be a lost opportunity.

We should be welcoming them with open arms!

If someone has provided the evidence to get a Schengen visa I would have thought a much simplified visa application form would be possible

If we cannot trust the Schengen visa application process then perhaps we have a good reason to keep all our barriers up! There does not seem to be any real evidence (that I can find) to suggest the Schengen visa system is lax.

Travel itinerary, hotel bookings, insurance and a copy of the Schengen visa should allow 2/3rds of the intimidating application UK form to go. Perhaps finish the form with 'We hope to see you soon!'.

We want/need tourism, it is the life blood here in the New Forest.

Tourism is nothing to do with immigration so really nothing to do with this thread!

Families (within limits) have the right to stay together and sometimes we don't have the right numbers with the right skills so have to import them.

I agree with that. We should be accepting Schengen visas at the borders. Just that fully integrating with the Schengen zone means no borders with the rest of the zone. And it's a zone that has a long and porous border. In other words, let people with Schengen visas enter, but continue to check people arriving from within the zone.

[marshbags]

Skill is often given due consideration and being granted permission and easier access to getting into the U.K.

One important thing we have to recognise and take into account regarding the Thai spouse is their unique skill in relation to our families and all it encompasses.

They really are multi skilled when you consider their input and all the parental knowledge that is needed to bring a family up.

It is and always has been recognised within the U.K. how important a role mothers / wives have on the family.

Many of the same people within government who continually talk about their importance seemingly do not consider our Thai wives as equals and this is a blatant contradiction of their well rehearsed views when being interviewed by the media or standing in front of parliament.

If they did then surely this would be applied to them when visa requests are submitted and duly recognised equally, especially when children are involved at the very least.

Hows about it then, Cameron and Cleggy, can we look forward to this replacing some of the not so important parts of the application.

They will by the way if the visa is granted, soon start improving / speaking better English and start learning about our cultures ect. ect. once you allow the proven, genuine sponsored applicants to be with their loved ones / spouses as they rightly deserve.

I promise you on behalf of our grateful families.

Perhaps you can start with changing / replacing the tests relating to these in their cases when the skill factor surely comes first.

IMHO as always of course

marshbags

Edited July 19, 2012 by marshbags

[7by7]

always appreciated your assistance to all and sundry on tv 7by 7,and your help im sure has been a boon,but you do only see one point of view in your summing up of situations and that is the offical view,which you think is sacrasant,its a very emotive issue visas,and people are looking for emotive support and not continual seconding of rules and regs,which you seem to support at most times,

Thank you for the kind words, but I disagree, obviously, with the rest of your post.

Yes, I do often quote and refer to the official rules and guidance; for the simple, and I would have thought obvious, fact that it is those rules and guidance that are used to judge applications; they have to be followed or the application will be refused.

Both the last government and this current one have tinkered with the immigration rules; effectively making settlement in the UK harder and more expensive. If you look through my posting history you will find that I have been, and still am, often critical of these changes and the governments, both Labour and Coalition, which have set them. One current example being my opposition to the minimum income requirement for settlement which I think is way too high.

I have also been, and will continue to be, critical of mistakes or bloody mindedness by UKBA staff, whether ECOs at the embassy or in the UK.

Yes, a visa application, in particular a settlement one, can be an emotive and worrying time; especially at times like now when processing times are so lengthy. But posts which repeat what is very close to racist propaganda against EEA nationals do nothing to ease this and when people post such lies I will always point out, with evidence where necessary, that they are indeed just that; lies.

It's worth mentioning, because it's often forgotten, that a, for example, Thai citizen married to a, for example, Polish citizen who wished to move to Poland with their Polish partner would have to satisfy the Polish immigration rules, not the EEA regulations.

There are two types of immigrants to the UK; those from the EEA and those from outside the EEA. Different rules and regulations govern them and no government of any persuasion is going to change that as it would mean leaving the EU.

Unless the British people are daft enough to elect a UKIP government. Obviously UKIP wants to leave the EU and break the various EU and EEA treaties, including those governing freedom of movement. But it's not just immigration from the EEA they want to restrict; it's all immigration.

From UKIP policy in immigration

UKIP calls for an immediate five-year freeze on immigration for permanent settlement. We aspire to ensure that any future immigration does not exceed 50,000 people p.a.......

Ensure that after the five-year freeze, any future immigration for permanent settlement will be on a strictly controlled, points-based system similar to Australia, Canada and New Zealand...............

Reintroduce The ‘Primary Purpose Rule’ (abolished by the Labour Government), whereby those marrying or seeking to marry a British citizen will have to convince the admitting officer that marriage, not residence, is their primary purpose in seeking to enter the UK..........

How's that, Marshbags? Thai wives, husbands, partners, and those from anywhere else, would be banned from moving to the UK for 5 years and after that it would be harder than now for them to obtain a visa and if the quota had been filled; tough, try next year. Is that what you want?