New visitor visa bonds

[Somtamme]

It is reported in the Sunday Times today, that the Govt will be introducing visa bonds of £3000 before granting visitor visas from persons coming to the UK from 'high risk' countries like India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Ghana.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/govt-plans-visa-bonds-high-risk-asians-africans-044925537.html

Visitors from Thailand for the time being are exempt from these bonds. But it begs the question what enforcement action is actually done by the UKBA when any person breaches their terms of a visa. If the true cost of enforcement was factored into visa charges for all countries, then there may not have been a need to introduce this potentially discriminatory policy. There may be retaliatory action from countries black listed.

[Tony M]

Interesting, if it ever happens. It is something that has been suggested for many years, but the government has always resisted initiating it, for many reasons.

A bond of 3,000 GBP seems pretty low to me, as many "visitors" will consider this a reasonable sum to abuse their visit visa. It is an amount that can be earned fairly easily in the black economy to make overstaying economically worthwhile. Of course, they still have to qualify for the visa in the first place, and let's hope that the introduction of a bond doesn't dilute the visa decision-making process. I would prefer to see a higher bond amount, something between 5,000 - 7,000 GBP.

It will, of course, introduce a whole new business opportunity - bond lending. Would you loan the bond ( at a reasonable interest rate, or with suitable collateral) at the risk of losing the bond amount if the visa holder doesn't return ?

[7by7]

Indeed, it is a proposal which has been brought up many times over the years; and rejected.

It would, of course, simply not work.

Those who wish to enter the UK illegally are already willing and able to pay much more than this to people smugglers and the like to enable them to do so.

Introducing such a bond will only make it cheaper and easier for the crooks whilst making it harder, if not impossible, for the genuine visitor.

Neither my step son nor my sister in law would have been able to visit us in the UK if such a bond requirement had existed at the time for the simple reason that after paying visa fees, flights etc. we simply did not have this kind of money.

Unlikely that a reputable lender would have loaned us it for such a purpose, so that would leave just loan sharks and exorbitant interest rates.

Not that this would deter the present government; who seem hell bent on appeasing the right wing by 'doing something' about immigration; even though, like the changes to family migration, those changes penalise the law abiding but do nothing to deter illegals!

Anyone have any figures on how many people overstay a visit, or any other type of, visa? I can't seem to find any.

Not surprising, as passports are not checked on leaving the UK.

Reintroducing that, with financial penalties for overstaying such as the Thai system, would, in my humble opinion, do more to combat overstaying than any bond system.

Edited June 23, 2013 by 7by7

[theoldgit]

My first response was to close this thread as it's not remotely Thailand related.

A couple of very reasoned responses, it would be great if we could keep it that way and have a meaningful debate.

Thanks.

[Jay Sata]

Well we will see if it works pretty soon as it is more than just hot air and the scheme starts in November.

You say it's not Thai related Oldgit but Thailand looks like being included in the second tier of countries such as Kenya and

Mrs May says she plans to expand it to most non EEC nationals.

A pilot scheme, introduced by Home Secretary Theresa May, will target hundreds of people coming to Britain on six-month visit visas from India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Ghana, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.

As I've said before these are the countries that have caused the the clampdown on visas that affects those of us with friends or family in Thailand

Reading today's Daily Mail Teresa May has certainly got plans to further the idea.

A second scheme will cover countries such as Kenya, the newspaper reports, which are considered to be lower-risk because immigration officials have fewer doubts about migrants' plans to return home.

Edited June 23, 2013 by Jay Sata

[theoldgit]

I'm honestly not sure that is has properly been thought through and not convinced that it will ever get off the ground.

Immigration is certainly a hot potato and May is certainly looking for quick hits to appease the Great British Public many of who, wrongly in my view, blame immigrants and visitors from overseas for the hard times they are facing.

The UK needs tourists and other Ministers, even Cameron, are saying that visa restrictions to be eased to allow businessmen and high spending tourists to visit, whilst still protecting the UK Borders.

Travel and retail organisations are saying that many high spending visitors are put off because the UK is not part of the Shenghen agreement.

Normal genuine visitors like the ones 7by7 describes are clearly not a risk, but will certainly have to think twice before busting their loved ones, and indeed may not be able to afford to do so..

[Somtamme]

It might not be Thai related at present, but is worth noting.

But my point was, the proposal to introduce a bond for some visitors, makes a mockery of the UKBA's ever increasing charging system for visa's. Why is there a need for this bond at all? To control family immigration, this Govt's policy intervention was via introduction of min. salary £18,600 and/or savings up to £62,500. So, for persons unluckily to come from the blacklisted countries there will be another £3000 in addition to all other charges to find for any family member(s) to visit.

However strongly one feels about public sector pay and pensions, surely the purpose of the UKBA charges should be to cover the reasonable costs including enforcement. What is to say, on default of the terms of this sum, will there be any action by taken by the UKBA apart from a letter? Does anyone care what the UKBA will use this money for, will auditors check? I would be surprised if they do. If the proceeds are not to pay for UKBA to do something other than a letter, why introduce it in the first place?

My concern as always is, until UKBA charges reflect the true or reasonable costs of visa(s) those that do not flout the law and abide by the rules will always be discriminated.

Under section 51 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, there is no duty available to impose any visa charges. It is a discretionary power available to the Secretary of State. To use it as currently proposed (appears there to merely reduce numbers of people visiting UK) cannot be correct or proportionate to the 'problem'.

[Jay Sata]

A bond is not cash lost but merely money put up which is returned when the applicant leaves the UK.

Genuine tourists should not have a problem.

There are issues with some visitors travelling to make use of the NHS which rarely checks on the eligibility of

foreign patients.

I agree the UK needs tourists and genuine visitors and those coming from Thailand usually have family links to the UK.

Personally I have no objection to putting up a bond for a family member. Much better and easier than rejection.

Edited June 23, 2013 by Jay Sata

[7by7]

As I said in my previous, if I had been required to put up a £3000 bond when my step son and later when my sister in law visited; they wouldn't have been able to come. That you'll get the money back makes no difference if you don't have it in the first place!

How may tourists would be prepared to pay this extra amount; particularly as they already need a separate Schengen visa if they want to tour the UK and Europe? Most, I'm suspect, would simply strike the UK off their itinerary.

Health tourists are a separate issue; and the Dept of Health have instructed hospitals to tighten up on their residency checks. Would a bond of this nature deter health tourists? I think not; except genuine ones coming for private treatment who will be tempted to take their money elsewhere if such a bond were required.

[theoldgit]

Not quite sure what public sector pay and pensions has got to do with the debate.

I imagine that if the UKBA collected the bond it would kept in an imprest account and would most certainly be ring fenced, they wouldn't be able to use it for day to day operational spending.

The whole thing would be a logistical nightmare, who would hold the bond and where, if the bond was taken when the visa was issued, when would the bond be returned, when the person returned from their two week holiday or when the visa expired.

There would be massive operating costs, embarkation controls may have to be reintroduced, or at least a way of recording that somebody left the UK, managing and returning the bond, appeal processes if the bond was wrongfully withheld, no doubt visa costs would need to go up again.

[7by7]

Personally I have no objection to putting up a bond for a family member. Much better and easier than rejection.

If introduced, this bond system would not replace the immigration rules for visitors; which would still have to be satisfied.

Therefore there would still be the same chances of success or failure as at present.

The only difference being that many of us and our family members don't have £3000 lying about, so our family members would no longer be able to visit us in the UK.

On law for the rich; another for the poor.

You may think that's fair; I don't.

[theoldgit]

A bond is not cash lost but merely money put up which is returned when the applicant leaves the UK.

Genuine tourists should not have a problem.

Think of a genuine family of say a couple with a couple of kids saved hard to visit Europe, and wanted to extend their trip into the UK, they could well have to deposit £12k, that would certainly be make or break for me and I suspect many others.

[jrtmedic]

Believe Australia has a system whereby a substantial "bond" can be required as a condition associated with issuing certain visas.

[Jay Sata]

Frankly anyone on a trip of Europe with a family will already be looking at substantial travel costs.

I'm sure most people would just stick it on their credit card in which case we are only talking about the interest.

It's a bit like a car hire company taking a few hundred pounds when you rent a car.

There are several countries that require a bond including Malaysia.

http://www.virtualmalaysia.com/visit_malaysia/immigration/visa.cfm

Australia imposes bonds in some circumstances.

Dr Anna Boucher, an immigration expert from the University of Sydney, explained: "Individuals may want to sponsor their parents aged over-65 to enter the country.

"Most of those people coming in are on a permanent basis so we’re not using it as a requirement for them to leave, rather, we're using it to ensure that they don't rely upon the welfare state after they arrive in the country."

Nick Clegg supports the idea.

If you take a look at newspapers such as the Daily Mail today it appears 90% of readers back the idea.

Edited June 23, 2013 by Jay Sata

[Somtamme]

Not quite sure what public sector pay and pensions has got to do with the debate.

I imagine that if the UKBA collected the bond it would kept in an imprest account and would most certainly be ring fenced, they wouldn't be able to use it for day to day operational spending.

The whole thing would be a logistical nightmare, who would hold the bond and where, if the bond was taken when the visa was issued, when would the bond be returned, when the person returned from their two week holiday or when the visa expired.

There would be massive operating costs, embarkation controls may have to be reintroduced, or at least a way of recording that somebody left the UK, managing and returning the bond, appeal processes if the bond was wrongfully withheld, no doubt visa costs would need to go up again.

My point is the purpose of the bond is to reduce risk of overstay. If someone however, chooses to flout the law and stays beyond their 6-month period, what will the money be used for? If it isn't clear why impose this? There is no duty on the Home Office to impose this.

[jrtmedic]

"If you take a look at newspapers such as the Daily Mail today it appears 90% of readers back the idea."

The Daily Mail projects a very right wing viewpoint ! The readership agree with the newspapers political leaning.

Does not mean much and certainly cannot be interpreted as a poll representing the majority of British people.

[7by7]

Frankly anyone on a trip of Europe with a family will already be looking at substantial travel costs.

Yes they are. How is adding another £12,000 for a family of four to that cost going to encourage them to visit the UK as well?

I'm sure most people would just stick it on their credit card in which case we are only talking about the interest.

If your credit card has a high enough limit.

As both my step son and my sister in law stayed for several months, the interest would have been fairly high.

Even higher if the bond was kept by the UKBA until the visa expired after 6 months rather than returned when they left the UK.

Which logically it would have to be; otherwise there would be nothing to stop a visitor leaving the UK after a couple of weeks, getting their bond back and then immediately returning while their visa was still valid.

Which defeats the whole purpose.

Like I said, such a system would do nothing to deter illegals, only penalise genuine visitors.

[Jay Sata]

Link here to how the scheme works in Australia.

http://news.sky.com/story/1068302/immigration-bonds-how-they-work-in-australia

The Daily Mail is pretty much in the middle of the political span of newspapers.

Here is what Nick Clegg said

“Visa overstayers are the major part of UK Border Agency’s enforcement caseload.As early as 2006 we had reports arguing that visa overstaying would be one of the biggest challenges for our immigration system in the 21st century.

As people travel more, for work, for holidays, you have more people coming into the country for temporary periods and so you need to find ways to make sure they leave.”

[jrtmedic]

As the UK only count people coming into the country and not those leaving, any guess about the numbers overstaying is pure conjecture !

[7by7]

Jay Sata, if you think the Daily Mail "is pretty much in the middle of the political span of British newspapers" then you either know very little about the British press or your own politics are slightly to the right of Hitler!

[Jay Sata]

Reading through a number of versions of this story it appears the sum of £3k is only for the high risk countries. I guess the figure will be substantially lower for countries such as Thailand.

But ministers plan to extend it to all visa types, including work and student visas, and to all countries, although it will not cover every one of the 2.2m people granted visas each year. Visitors from the EU will be exempt.

The move will require a change in immigration rules but not a vote by MPs. The home secretary will put a commencement order before parliament later this summer that will activate a power under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999

source http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/482116/20130623/3000-cash-bond-india-pakistan-sri-lanka.htm

Incidently this idea has been floating around for years. The last Labour government backed down in 2000 when they were planning the move.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/715951.stm

[7by7]

As the UK only count people coming into the country and not those leaving, any guess about the numbers overstaying is pure conjecture !

indeed, and I understand that the majority of overstayers entered as students or workers, not as visitors.

Extending it to students will not be popular among universities; many of whom rely on the fees from foreign students.

The massive increase in student visa fees introduced by Blair and the steady above inflation rises in them since have seen a dramatic fall in the number of foreign students coming to the UK. If they have to pay an extra £3000 on top, they will take their money elsewhere; as many are already doing.

Edited June 23, 2013 by 7by7

[Tony M]

As the UK only count people coming into the country and not those leaving, any guess about the numbers overstaying is pure conjecture !

Indeed it is. And, certainly in years past, amongst the most prevalent overstayers were young adults from the USA and Australia. That is probably still the case today, so how will they get to be included in the scheme ( not being visa nationals) ? An overstayer is an overstayer ? Canada dropped their proposed bond scheme as it was seen to be discriminatory. It will be interesting to see how long it takes for the same claim to be made about this scheme.

[jrtmedic]

An academic friend who is a Professor at one of the "better" universities tells me the college has not experienced any reduction in overseas application.

This university moreover invests in extensive fraud detection!

[7by7]

Then his university must be an exception.

Immigration crackdown hits university numbers

Foreign students spurn UK universities after immigration curbs

I do accept, though, that after an initial fall in numbers following Blair's fees increase, numbers had begun to rise again; until this government's new measures made getting a student visa more difficult. That, plus their increase in the tuition fees.

If you add having to fork out an extra £3000, this can only get worse.

Edited June 23, 2013 by 7by7

[jrtmedic]

A lot of this problem followed the LMU affair where the "university" were alleged to have been complicit in facilitating visa fraud.

Whilst the Russell group and other universities of stature may have experienced a brief reduction in enquiry/application I very much doubt this will prove to be long term.

Other "universities" may well suffer a lack of foreign students as "creative" visa application is cracked down upon.

Edited June 23, 2013 by jrtmedic

[Jay Sata]

An academic friend who is a Professor at one of the "better" universities tells me the college has not experienced any reduction in overseas application.

This university moreover invests in extensive fraud detection!

My son went to SOAS, University of London (School of Oriental and African Studies.)

It's a highly reputable and probably the most multicultural uni in the UK and I understand they have experienced no drop in students from overseas.

There were a lot of one room establishments in Whitechapel which have disappeared.

As I pointed out earlier the effects on visitors from Thailand will be minimal.

[Somtamme]

As the UK only count people coming into the country and not those leaving, any guess about the numbers overstaying is pure conjecture !

It will be interesting to see how long it takes for the same claim to be made about this scheme.

Even Nick Clegg's own party think his proposals for visa bonds are a mistake

http://www.libdemvoice.org/security-bonds-are-a-mistake-nick-33828.html

Furthermore, the shadow Home Secretary (Yvette Cooper) back in June 2012 had asked in Parliament why the Govt had ruled out on consulting on a bond that could have been used to protect the taxpayer, if at a later date someone needed public funds later-on.

Teresa May's response to the shadow Home Secretary was;

"The right hon. Lady asked why we had gone down the route of the income threshold. We asked the independent Migration Advisory Committee to advise us on what we should do and on what income level we should adopt. It gave us a range of income levels from £18,600 up to a higher point, and we chose to adopt the lower point, adding in elements for individual children, rather than go down a route that would be available only to those people who had capital and were able to put up a bond in the first place."

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm120611/debtext/120611-0002.htm#1206117000003

So, when Nick Clegg talks about introducing a bond for visa applicants, it goes against his own Governments response at the time and murmurs from his own party. So, Nick Clegg's response is naive. Does he not understand that we already make it difficult for citizens of many countries to get a visa, insisting on payment without guarantee of success. Adding an additional 3000 GBP tier will only put family members further off.

But it can’t apply only to family visits, or you would create an incentive to lie about the purpose of your visit, so it must potentially apply to all visitors from the designated countries, which brings potential effect on tourism and trade.

If you are a tourist, you have a choice of destination. You’re probably price sensitive, and if the United Kingdom wants to add a large chunk to the potential upfront cost, I might decide that it isn’t worth the bother and go to Prague instead. And what will the cost of that be to our tourism industry?

And then, there is the risk of retaliation. Proposals to tighten the visa regime for Brazilians coming to this country were shelved when it became abundantly clear that the Brazilian government would simply retaliate in kind. I can see expensive trade missions to these countries coming up to help build relationships, all paid for, by us the taxpayer. It may take some while for these bonds to merely pay off this mission.

[jrtmedic]

The "Daily Fail" is currently running a piece on this issue !

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2346756/Visitors-India-high-risk-countries-Asia-Africa-forced-pay-3-000-cash-bond-enter-UK.html#comments

Note in particular the popular "middle of the road " comments which range in content from increasing the bond to £20000+ to "BAN" all immigrants !

Edited June 24, 2013 by jrtmedic

[theoldgit]

The average Daily Mail reader doesn't understand the issue, but there are enough people out there who believe that the average tourist, family visitor or student go to the UK just to live there and claim benefits.

They don't realise that the vast majority return home, and if they didn't they wouldn't be able to claim benefits.

It's very sad to see people being brainwashed this way.