New visitor visa bonds

[sustento]

Those who enter Thailand and who get a 30 day stamp are being given a tourist visa exemption which is not a visa. To get a tourist visa requires that you apply in your country of residence and pay for it. And there are plenty of countries with good universities that are cheaper than those in the UK.

Edited June 24, 2013 by sustento

[Jay Sata]

I did make a lengthy submission to the Parliamentary review, whether May and her department pay any attention to the recommendations of that review we will have to wait and see.

Public sentiment?

Well, she is certainly pandering to the extreme right wing, but, to be frank, I doubt if the majority give a toss on this issue one way or another!

She is not pandering to the extreme right wing and it's nonsense to suggest that.

She is aware of the general perception in the UK that immigration law has been too lax in the past. This issue will be a key component in election manifesto's next time around.

The idea has been kicking around for a long time.

Former Labour party immigration Liam Byrne was championing the idea back in 2007.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/dec/17/immigration.immigrationpolicy

[theoldgit]

All visitors to Thailand require a visa. Most holidaymakers are granted a visa on arrival.

Sorry but that is not correct, some nationalities require a visa to travel to Thailand, some need to purchase a visa on arrival, most tourists are admitted for a certain length of stay without the need for any visa, whilst many nationals require a visa depending on the purpose and duration of their visit.

Many countries reciprocate visa costs, and will charge the same for nationals to visit their country as their own citizens are charged for that country, China is a prime example.

It has certainly been said that the UK is concerned British Citizens could face reciprical visa fees.

[Kevin1908]

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

For the life of me I don't understand why there aren't checks on departure. I always used to get annoyed at getting the third degree every time I entered the UK with own kids travelling on UK passports as if I was I some sort of sex pervert trafficking in children.

They never gave a t**s when I lest the country.

[theoldgit]

For the life of me I don't understand why there aren't checks on departure.

Embarkation controls were done away with years ago with the purpose of meeting budget reductions.

Passports are occasionally swiped on departure to check against the warnings index.

[7by7]

All visitors to Thailand require a visa. Most holidaymakers are granted a visa on arrival.

Sorry but that is not correct,..................

Indeed.

Jay Sata, the more you post the more it becomes obvious that you haven't got a clue what you are talking about.

I have no problem with anyone holding a different opinion to mine and will happily exchange arguments with them, but having to correct their lack of knowledge all the time does get a bit wearisome.

A suggestion for you. Before posting something as fact; check that it is!

[bobrussell]

Presumably if this is introduced it will also mean reinstating the monitoring of arrivals and departures as commented on in other posts. Who is going to finance the IT system to do this and would it work properly anyway?

The first priority should be to get the UKBA functioning adequately before adding to their workload!

[Tony M]

Presumably if this is introduced it will also mean reinstating the monitoring of arrivals and departures as commented on in other posts. Who is going to finance the IT system to do this and would it work properly anyway?

The first priority should be to get the UKBA functioning adequately before adding to their workload!

I guess they might just rely on the " if you don't come back to collect the bond, then you probably overstayed" theory.

[Waterloo]

For the life of me I don't understand why there aren't checks on departure.

Embarkation controls were done away with years ago with the purpose of meeting budget reductions.

Passports are occasionally swiped on departure to check against the warnings index.

agreed but a false economy in my opinion

[Waterloo]

Presumably if this is introduced it will also mean reinstating the monitoring of arrivals and departures as commented on in other posts. Who is going to finance the IT system to do this and would it work properly anyway?

The first priority should be to get the UKBA functioning adequately before adding to their workload!

I know what you are saying Bob & agree with the last bit, but if Thailand can manage it surely we can.

If we want to really inforce our system rather than playing to the gallery with gestures that affect the innocent surely having an accurate way of assesing the number of over stayers is an effective starting point for enforcement.

[theoldgit]

Maybe they could redesign the boarding cards and make the carriers collect them on departure, would still need to upgrade and integrate the IT systems.

Whatever happened to the much heralded e-borders, weren't they supposed to have been immune to budget cuts?

[Waterloo]

Maybe they could redesign the boarding cards and make the carriers collect them on departure, would still need to upgrade and integrate the IT systems.

Whatever happened to the much heralded e-borders, weren't they supposed to have been immune to budget cuts?

and at the risk of contradicting myself the UK goverment does not have a steller record in this department

[7by7]

Indeed, it sometimes appears that a man with an abacus would be better than some of the IT systems the government, of all persuasions, have purchased!

[Waterloo]

Turning this question around, how many people hand on heart would be prepared to deposit £3000 per family member to visit a country?

I can't think of anywere in the world I want to see enough to put £12,000 in anyone's bank account no matter how tempory.

In fact I would go so far to suggest anyone who is prepared too should be viewed with the suspicion abd there reasons for wanting to visit that country questioned.

A good example of catch 22

[Jay Sata]

Or to look at it another way maybe the intention is for the visitors from the countries concerned to holiday somewhere else.

If I wanted to see relatives abroad then I'd fly out there with my family rather than get them over here.

In all honesty why would you want to come to a cold wet expensive country such as the UK?

A friends mother in law came over from Thailand a few years ago on a six month visa.

She was back home a couple of weeks later complaining about how cold and dark it was here.

[7by7]

Or to look at it another way maybe the intention is for the visitors from the countries concerned to holiday somewhere else.

I'm sure the English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish tourist boards will love that!

Lots of people want to visit the UK, most as tourists rather then to visit family.

But why shouldn't people from, say, Thailand be able to visit the UK to see their family members who live here?

You often boast about your world travels; why is it ok for you to travel where you want, when you want but not, in your opinion, ok for others to do the same unless they are wealthy?

Edited June 24, 2013 by 7by7

[bobrussell]

This country has always been a great holiday destination. The UK has made a fortune out of visitors. It is bonkers to put up a 'closed for business" sign.

We should be making visits easier, not harder. However we should be monitoring visitors more closely!

If you travel to The Netherlands (and many other countries) you have to register with the Police within a few days of arrival. Hotel visitors have this done for them by the hotel.

It quickly identifies the possible problem visitors. Perhaps we can buy their IT system 'off the peg'.

Not going to deal with the hardcore overstayers but being realistic about it nor are the alternative options. The benefits of more tourist revenue will help the country and the 'strict' registration process will keep the average Daily Mail reader happy!!

This can be extended to EU nationals as well. My younger son is at Maastricht University and he had to register within a few days. Keeps the public 'happy' and helps keep better records!

[geriatrickid]

The bond requirement in Australian and Canada does have a success rate at discouraging visitors from countries that have demonstrated a chronic abuse of the visitor provisions of the respective countries. The amount set is reasonable. The intent is to recoup some of the costs associated with the abusers. . Appreciably, some people may not be able to post the minimal amounts requested, but that is the point. The people without the means to support themselves during their stay should be discouraged from arriving. It protects these "visitors" as well as they are likely to be exploited. Some people will say, but we'll take care of the visitors, they are family etc. Unfortunately, the financial costs associated with visitors seeking assistance or abusing the immigration system show otherwise. The costs are such, that decent, honest people are inconvenienced and do suffer. Anger should be directed at those visitors who abuse the system and the large number of friends, families and social groups that both support and assist in the abuse.

The use of a financial guarantee is more cost effective than setting up another layer of bureaucracy to verify people departing.

I note the comments about using the Thai model of overstay fines. Again, not a very cost effective means of dealing with the problem. Unlike Thailand, the UK will not incarcerate someone who can't pay the overstay fine as it would cost too much to do so. The cost of staffing and enforcing the UK immigration desks at ports of entry is high. The goal should be to reduce the costs, not to add to them.

[Jay Sata]

The bond requirement in Australian and Canada does have a success rate at discouraging visitors from countries that have demonstrated a chronic abuse of the visitor provisions of the respective countries. The amount set is reasonable. The intent is to recoup some of the costs associated with the abusers. . Appreciably, some people may not be able to post the minimal amounts requested, but that is the point. The people without the means to support themselves during their stay should be discouraged from arriving. It protects these "visitors" as well as they are likely to be exploited. Some people will say, but we'll take care of the visitors, they are family etc. Unfortunately, the financial costs associated with visitors seeking assistance or abusing the immigration system show otherwise. The costs are such, that decent, honest people are inconvenienced and do suffer. Anger should be directed at those visitors who abuse the system and the large number of friends, families and social groups that both support and assist in the abuse.

I agree 100%. If you've ever been to Bangladesh or Nigeria you'll ask the question why someone from there would want to spend a fortune coming to the UK? There are much nicer and cheaper places to go.

The air ticket alone costs a small fortune.

It makes more sense for UK family to visit relatives there.

If a UK visitor cannot post a £3k bond on his credit card for a two or three week holiday then he ain't going to be spending much here.

As for a six month 'holiday'?

How many normal people can take that sort of time out?

Edited June 24, 2013 by Jay Sata

[7by7]

In the late 1970's/early 1980's I visited Poland and Hungary several times; each time having to complete a detailed visa form with proof of where I would be staying (private households) to get entry clearance and then once there register with the police and prove I would be staying where I said I would be.

I thought that with the fall of communism that such draconian requirements had disappeared from Europe.

Apparently not.

I'd be very interested in seeing any figures which show how much, if any, the bond system in other countries has reduced overstayers and other illegals. As said before, someone entering a country for an illegal purpose would have no problem with losing this amount.

It will penalise the genuine visitor with very little, even no, effect on the criminal.

I fail to see how re introducing the checking of passports on exit would be much more expensive than administrating a bond system.

A bond system will require extra staff and a complex system of collecting, holding and refunding payments has got to be just as, if not more, expensive than simply checking the visa in someone's passport as they leave the country.

Jay Sata may not wish to come to the UK (so one wonders why he is here!) but plenty of people do; for a variety of purposes including visiting family. Why should they be denied?

He also forgets that it is not £3000, it is £3000 each visitor.

Were I someone with a wife and two children contemplating a foreign holiday and discovered that in order to visit the UK for a couple of weeks the British government demanded I give them an interest free loan of £12,000 for an undefined period, possibly at least 6 months, then I would have my holiday in a country that actually welcomed visitors!

[Stanaris]

Turning this question around, how many people hand on heart would be prepared to deposit £3000 per family member to visit a country?

I can't think of anywere in the world I want to see enough to put £12,000 in anyone's bank account no matter how tempory.

In fact I would go so far to suggest anyone who is prepared too should be viewed with the suspicion abd there reasons for wanting to visit that country questioned.

A good example of catch 22

Are we losing the plot here?

My understanding is that this "bond" is with regards to a 6 month Visitor Visa where the applications are from 6 countries that have a bad record of overstays.

Where does it state that you have to pay a bond for a 2-3 week tourist visa?

The government is planning to force visitors from India, Pakistan, Nigeria and other countries whose nationals are deemed to pose a "high risk" of immigration abuse to provide a cash bond before they can enter the country, a report said Sunday.

The Sunday Times said that from November, a pilot scheme would target visitors from those three countries plus Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Ghana.

Visitors aged 18 and over would be forced to hand over £3,000 from November for a six-month visit visa.

They will forfeit the money if they overstay after their visa has expired.

I am sure if I could afford to "visit" any country for 6 months then another £3000.00 would not bother me

[Jay Sata]

I think you are living in cloud cuckoo land 7by7.

Let me ask you this question.

Why would anyone want to travel from Bangladesh to the UK as a tourist?

The average wage is less than £500 a year.

[sustento]

Turning this question around, how many people hand on heart would be prepared to deposit £3000 per family member to visit a country?

I can't think of anywere in the world I want to see enough to put £12,000 in anyone's bank account no matter how tempory.

In fact I would go so far to suggest anyone who is prepared too should be viewed with the suspicion abd there reasons for wanting to visit that country questioned.

A good example of catch 22

Are we losing the plot here?

My understanding is that this "bond" is with regards to a 6 month Visitor Visa where the applications are from 6 countries that have a bad record of overstays.

Where does it state that you have to pay a bond for a 2-3 week tourist visa?

The UK doesn't have 2 week 'tourist' visas. If you want to visit the UK as a tourist you have to apply for a visitor visa which is valid for a maximum of 6 months so if you want to visit as a tourist for 2 weeks you still have to apply for a 6 month visitor visa and pay the bond. You really ought to read up a little on the UK visa rules.

[Jay Sata]

It's a bit crazy giving any tourist anywhere in the world a standard visa in excess of 2 weeks. Maybe a month is OK but let's be honest here.

How many people have a job and funds that support more than four weeks?.

[sustento]

It's a bit crazy giving any tourist anywhere in the world a standard visa in excess of 2 weeks. Maybe a month is OK but let's be honest here.

How many people have a job and funds that support more than four weeks?.

Thailand gives tourist visas that are valid for 60 days and are extendable by another 30 days. They also give multiple tourist visas which are valid by the multiple that they're granted for. Why do you assume that no-one can afford to spend more than 4 weeks on holiday? The more you post about visas in general the more it becomes obvious that you know very little about them.

[ava15]

Daily mail "in the middle" - almost choked on my coffee. Good one!

A truly abhorrent newspaper and readership

[Somtamme]

Clearly, Nick Clegg wants to be zero-tolerant of abuse (speech made 22 March 2013; see hyperlink below). In this speech he refers to the 'challenge isn’t just stopping people coming into Britain illegally, it’s about dealing with individuals who come over legitimately but then become illegal once they’re already here.'

In this speech he is quoted as saying 'one idea, which appeals to me, is a system of security bonds. And so I’ve asked the Home Office to do some work on it with a view to running a pilot before the end of the year.' It is this visa come jail bond pilot which is ready for take-off from affected countries later this year

The reason for this intervention, as reported by this ring wing incompetent, is from advice from 'various Select Committees' he's apparently read. He understands 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.' These visa overstayers from the high risk countries are according to Clegg 'clogging up the UKBA enforcement caseload'.

According to his reasoning and which is reflected by many of the ring wing is of a presumption to overstay, hence the need for a bail bond. The only reason for clogging up the enforcement caseload, is not the seven different immigration Bills; nor the six different Home Secretaries and neither just the 114 prosecutions for employing illegal immigrants in the last 10 years, put simply it is to do with ensuring visitors have a return plane ticket, which will be subject to as always potential enforcement. Enforcement should target the few not the many.

http://www.libdems.org.uk/latest_news_detail.aspx?pPK=e3347217-1fa7-4f09-9a5c-bfb4a716b9df&title=Nick_Clegg_speech_on_immigration

[geriatrickid]

It's a bit crazy giving any tourist anywhere in the world a standard visa in excess of 2 weeks. Maybe a month is OK but let's be honest here.

How many people have a job and funds that support more than four weeks?.

Thailand gives tourist visas that are valid for 60 days and are extendable by another 30 days. They also give multiple tourist visas which are valid by the multiple that they're granted for. Why do you assume that no-one can afford to spend more than 4 weeks on holiday? The more you post about visas in general the more it becomes obvious that you know very little about them.

Demographics

If you look at the foreigners who obtain the 60 day Thai visas and then take the 30 day extensions, a large component is comprised of people who have the financial means to support themselves. Many of these people are gainfully employed such as offshore workers or are people that are too young for the retirement visa. They typically pay for their health care and do not claim refugee status or seek assistance from social services. This is quite different from the UK experience from the 6 targeted countries. The people abusing the UK system are typically under the age of 40 and are seeking work, legal or otherwise.

Thailand's immigration approach relies on an ability to toss people in jail and to enforce fines. Thailand for the most part does not provide generous benefits as does the UK. It would be next to impossible to collect fines from UK overstayers. Nor would the UK throw any overstayer in a Thai like prison cell which would encourage compliance.

It is much easier to manage an automated surety bond system than it would be to check departing visitors. When you rent a car, the rental car agency puts a reserve on the credit card as he damage deposit. The surety bond system would work the same way. The credit card would be presented and swiped, and the form signed. All of this could be done electronically. The onus would be on the visitor to show up at the desk to sign out. The numbers of visitors from the 6 countries is easily managed and would not inconvenience those visitors from countries where the UK immigration laws are respected. Note that family reunification and work visa holders from the 6 countries would not be subject to the visa surety requirement.

[7by7]

The prime principle of UK law is that one is innocent until proven guilty.

Any bond system reverses that as all visitors from the so called high risk countries are automatically deemed guilty until they have proven themselves innocent.

The countries the government want to apply it to may be 'high risk' but how does one define high risk?

As already pointed out earlier in this topic, a significant proportion of overstayers are young Americans and Australians; I don't see either of those countries on this so called high risk list. I don't see that the government intends to apply this bond to citizens of those two countries!

It is much easier to manage an automated surety bond system than it would be to check departing visitors. When you rent a car, the rental car agency puts a reserve on the credit card as he damage deposit. The surety bond system would work the same way. The credit card would be presented and swiped, and the form signed. All of this could be done electronically. The onus would be on the visitor to show up at the desk to sign out.

Please explain how having a departing visitor present their credit card and sign a form on exiting the UK is easier to manage, and cheaper, than simply checking their passport on exit.

No one is denying that overstaying and illegal entry is a problem, but none of those in favour of this proposed bond system have yet explained how it would stop those whose intention is to remain in the UK and work illegally.

For such as them, £3000 would be an affordable amount to lose. Many illegals already pay far more than that to people smugglers!

This bond will penalise those who wish to visit friends and family in the UK unless either they or their UK based friends or family can stump up £3000 per visitor, that's £6000 for a visit by mum and dad! (How many people have sufficiently high enough limit on their credit card to do that?)

But it will do very little, if anything at all, to stop those entering the UK with the intention to remain illegally.

If this bond system is implemented the government is sending out a clear signal: only the rich are welcome to visit the UK; if you come from a poor country we don't want you; even if you have family here.

I, for one, find that attitude appalling.

And those of you who don't care because Thailand is not on the list should care; it wont be long before it is.

[Jay Sata]

Here are a couple of your 'tourists' 7by7

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/newsarticles/2013/june/54-eastlondon-raid

Acting on intelligence, officers visited Bangla Town Cash & Carry, Hanbury Street, at 12:00 on 14 June 2013

They arrested three Bangladeshi men. Two aged 23 and 27 had overstayed their visas while a 31-year-old was found to be working in breach of his visa conditions.