Basil B Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 I would favour the bond as an option for those who have be turned down, but £3k does seem low, I would also like to see this as like with the bail system the money does not have to be paid up front but in default, that would mean the persons standing surety would need to prove they could and will pay, maybe there is a market for providing bonds and bounty hunters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7by7 Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 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. No one is denying that overstaying and illegal entry is a problem....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Sata Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 If you take a look at http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/news-and-updates/?area=Enforcingthelaw you'll see plenty of evidence the problem is widespread and the culprits are all economic migrants from the list of countries facing the new bond. Every illegal worker is depriving a UK jobseeker of work and giving their employer an unfair commercial advantage of neighbouring business's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7by7 Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 (edited) This is interesting!The British illegal immigrants British backpackers make up the largest nationality of illegal workers in Australia. So when will Australia introduce a bond for British visitors? How many people here will be happy to pay it if they do? (Edited as hit post button by mistake before adding link! ) Edited June 25, 2013 by 7by7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Sata Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 That's an old story from 2005. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4226949.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7by7 Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 Yes, but Has Australia introduced a bond for British visitors? You claim to be a regular and seasoned traveller there, so you tell us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrtmedic Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 This is interesting! The British illegal immigrants British backpackers make up the largest nationality of illegal workers in Australia. Just so ---- but when caught they are unceremoniously chucked out ---deported and "blacklisted" ! No claims for "asylum" or plea's related to "human" rights are entertained or permitted. An old fashioned and well placed Aussie boot helps these characters on their way ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7by7 Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 If you take a look at http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/news-and-updates/?area=Enforcingthelaw you'll see plenty of evidence the problem is widespread and the culprits are all economic migrants from the list of countries facing the new bond. Every illegal worker is depriving a UK jobseeker of work and giving their employer an unfair commercial advantage of neighbouring business's. Someone who is coming to the UK to work illegally obviously expects to make more money and be able to live better than if they were not working or if they stayed at home. Enough money to make losing their £3000 bond worth it. So how will making innocent, genuine visitors deposit what is to most of us a considerable sum going to deter illegal workers? I have asked that question before; no one has answered it. As one of the leading advocates here of this bond, will you now do so? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post jrtmedic Posted June 25, 2013 Popular Post Share Posted June 25, 2013 7by7 Clearly Jay Sata enjoys circular argument ----he is a troll -----------Stop feeding it ! From my point of view visa applications from "high risk" countries should be subject to very close scrutiny -------- Not demonstrating a "reason to return" has resulted in many Thai applicants being refused visas. Imposing a bond is an attempt to excuse poorly performing ECO.s . It is the ECO's who should be "fined" if an applicant fails to return ! 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrtmedic Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 7by7 Clearly Jay Sata enjoys circular argument ----he is a troll -----------Stop feeding it ! Worked that out a long time ago; his posts in different topics are so contradictory and it is obvious that he is nowhere near as well off and as well travelled as he claims to be. But winding him up and watching him contradict himself is such fun! I agree Troll baiting can be a source of great amusement but there come a point when they have to be silenced ! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony M Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 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. I thought the Canadian bond was a bail bond for those in immigration detention ? We have had that in the UK for many years. Have they now introduced a visa bond ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waterloo Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 7by7 Clearly Jay Sata enjoys circular argument ----he is a troll -----------Stop feeding it ! Worked that out a long time ago; his posts in different topics are so contradictory and it is obvious that he is nowhere near as well off and as well travelled as he claims to be. But winding him up and watching him contradict himself is such fun! I agree Troll baiting can be a source of great amusement but there come a point when they have to be silenced ! you have admire his shear bravado at simultaneously deriding life in the UK whilst at the same time argueing for tougher rules to keep others out! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geriatrickid Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 7by7 Clearly Jay Sata enjoys circular argument ----he is a troll -----------Stop feeding it ! From my point of view visa applications from "high risk" countries should be subject to very close scrutiny -------- Not demonstrating a "reason to return" has resulted in many Thai applicants being refused visas. Imposing a bond is an attempt to excuse poorly performing ECO.s . It is the ECO's who should be "fined" if an applicant fails to return ! I believe that your explanation is a simplistic approach. The fact of the matter is that the immigration officers apply the laws in accordance with their directives. Those laws allow for significant leeway as a draconian approach would clog the system. One need only look at the backlog on the Australian and Canadian refugee systems. A more extensive verification at ports of entry would result in lines that stretched for days, not hours. There is an erroneous assumption that a surety bond is a presumption of guilt. It is not. a surety bond is a financial guarantee that an agreement will be honoured. It is a "performance" bond. When contractors post labour and material bonds or performance bond, no one says the contractors are guilty. Rather the bonds are posted to ensure that the suppliers and tradespeople will be paid. The performance bond guarantees that the project will be completed. All that the UK surety bond plan will do is defray part of the costs associated with the overstayers. I note the reference to American and Australian overstayers. These people do not claim benefits. Nor do they clog up the system. Australians and americans cannot claim refugee status, nor are they likely to launch appeal after appeal of rulings. On the other hand, it is an expensive and time consuming process to remove an overstayer from Bangladesh. The UK can count on the assistance of the Australian and US governments when it has to identify and to trace their nationals. The UK, receives little or no cooperation from Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh etc. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7by7 Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 The bond requirement in Australian and Canada ............... I thought the Canadian bond was a bail bond for those in immigration detention ? We have had that in the UK for many years. Have they now introduced a visa bond ? Having searched the official Canadian government sites, I can find no reference to a bond of any kind. I did a find a question about this on a Canadian visa forum similar to this one. The answer was that a bond was not required. A similar search of Australian sites produced Visitor Visa (Subclass 600) Sponsored Family stream: for people traveling to Australia to visit their family. You must have a sponsor who might be asked to provide a bond. (My emphasis) Note that it only seems to apply to family visits. If any of our Australian friends read this, maybe they could tell us how often such a request is made and whether it is country specific or more dependent upon the applicant's circumstances? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7by7 Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 geriatrickid, Whilst what you say in your last post (142) has some merit, I would disagree that a bond of this type has no assumption of guilt. Basically, by imposing such a bond the government are saying "We don't believe you are a genuine visitor who intends to leave the UK after your visit; but we can't prove it. So we'll take £3000 of off you so at least we make a bit of money if we are right." Furthermore, many people who want to enter the UK illegally already pay much more than £3000 to people smugglers or to obtain a visa under false pretences. So, as I have repeatedly asked, how would such a bond discourage those desirous of entering the UK for an illegal purpose when they expect to easily and quickly recover the amount lost by working illegally? No one in favour of this bond has yet answered that question. Will you? There is much that needs to be done to prevent people entering the UK illegally and to trace and remove those illegals who are here already. But this bond is a quick fix designed to appeal to the anti immigration lobby. Like all quick fixes it is not suited to purpose. That other countries may already have such a system does not change that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Sata Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 Excellent post Geiatrickid. 7by7 you seem to have a problem with anyone who challenges your view that immigration controls and rules should be wound back. As a former Australian resident ( Kalamunda,Perth) I can assure you that their immigration process is a lot tighter than ours. http://www.skillclear.co.uk/australia/familySpouseVisas.asp You must apply for the relevant visa, and be sponsored by the person who is a permanent resident or citizen of Australia. Most Family Visas also require an Assurance of Support from an Australian permanent resident or citizen - meaning that the assurer must: Lodge a bond with The Commonwealth Bank of Australia Pay a Migration Health Services Charge Undertake to provide sufficient direct or indirect financial assistance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobrussell Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 There is another option and this seems to be the one adopted by some other countries. This would involve certain visit visas being granted subject to a bond. Visas that sail through on merit (affordable, good reasons to return etc)are granted as now but some of the ones that are refused could be offered subject to this bond. The bond could also be variable depending on the perceived risk. Clearly adequate training and facilities would have to be in place for this. Not sure I have that much confidence in the UKBA/Home Office systems to get this right. Most of the new restrictions are coming in for political rather than financial reasons. The changes can easily be made to appeal to the voter even if they don't keep people out! A lousy system only becomes a problem for government when it loses votes! (Oh what a cynic I am!) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldgit Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 This thread has served it's purpose, to inform us the the UKBA are proposing to levy a bond on certain visa applicants from countries deemed to be a high risk, Thailand wasn't named. After the initial debate it has gone rapidly gone down hill and is now just petty bickering between a few members, so I believe it's now time to close the thread. If and when the bond actually happens and Thailand is regarded as one of the high risk countries, then maybe we can start a new thread. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
.thumb.png.76be522b3b43e7458166b9dac9e422ed.png)
Recommended Posts