Visitor bond scheme to be scrapped by government

Plans for a £3,000 "security bond" for some "high risk" overseas visitors to the UK are to be abandoned, the Home Office has confirmed, The visa bond scheme was announced by Home Secretary Theresa May in June and was set to be introduced this month.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24793092

Edited November 3, 201312 yr by Basil B

Does that mean that less Visitor Visas will be issued as a result?

Does that mean that less Visitor Visas will be issued as a result?

It means that it was an badly thought out policy that was going nowhere from the moment it was first mentioned.

Does that mean that less Visitor Visas will be issued as a result?

It means that it was an badly thought out policy that was going nowhere from the moment it was first mentioned.

In principle I like the idea if it would help with getting visitor visa, but as stated it was badly thought out.

In principle I like the idea if it would help with getting visitor visa, but as stated it was badly thought out.

I think that was the original idea Basil, as I understand it, Clegg suggested that a £1000 bond could be lodged for those who may not normally have been issued with a visa. May's team thought it a good idea and then completely remodelled it, coming up with a revised proposal which was, as you and Tony say, ill thought out and in that form was going nowhere.

This was discussed at length when first proposed, and I have not changed my views since then.

In essence; the problem is people entering the country illegally or illegally overstaying once here.

Most of these people do this for economic reasons; to work here.

Such a bond would not deter these people as they would expect to recoup the lost money.

Indeed, many of them already pay substantially more than this to people smugglers, ending up as virtual slaves in the employ of the smugglers associates until the money has been paid back as a result; but that's a different subject.

A large proportion of overstayers in the UK are young Americans or Australians; yet those countries weren't on the list.

Those in the UK illegally, whether they entered illegally or overstayed once here, would not have been deterred by this.

But genuine, honest visitors would have been.

Were I a (even rich) Pakistani wanting a European holiday with my wife and two children, having to fork out an additional £12,000 to visit the UK would have meant my going elsewhere.

Tourism makes up a substantial part of the UK economy. Could the country have afforded to lose many potential tourists? Would the damage caused to the UK economy by this have been compensated for by the savings from deterring some illegals? I doubt it.

Thailand was not on the initial list; but how long before it would have been added? If this measure were in force for Thailand when my step son and later my sister in law visited us in the UK, they would not have been able to come. Like many (most?) people, neither they nor I had (or have now) a spare £3000 to 'lend' to the government for up to 6 months.

Having said that, I can see some merit in offering the option of a bond to someone who would otherwise be refused on reason to return grounds; but such a system would be to the benefit of the applicant; it would not deter illegals.

Edited November 3, 201312 yr by 7by7

A large proportion of overstayers in the UK are young Americans or Australians; yet those countries weren't on the list.

Do you have any sort of a link to substantiate that a large number of over stayers are Americans and Australians?

I comes down to working illegally and the failure to have a meaningful sanction against employers who persist in employing illegal immigrants and over stayers. Until it becomes an offence that gets a prison sentence I think we will continue to see employers take the risk. I note that Nick Clegg threw the spanner in the works over this one but he has been silent on preventing British men and women sponsor settlement visas.

Come the next election there will be no votes in South Asian tourists.

To be honest, anecdotal evidence based mainly on posts on immigration boards seeking advice by American and Australian overstayers; of which there are many.

As passports are rarely checked on leaving the UK, overstayers are not counted unless caught. So obtaining accurate figures is, of course, impossible.

Off topic attempt to hijack this thread removed

Off topic attempt to hijack this thread removed

Not an attempt to hijack the thread but didn't see the point in starting a new thread. I'll start a new thread if you wish.

A large proportion of overstayers in the UK are young Americans or Australians; yet those countries weren't on the list.

Agree, those with white skin and speak English who enter illegally or overstay are illegal immigrants just the same as the others.

And there are probably a lot more of them than most people realize.

This report has just been published.

http://www.cream-migration.org/publ_uploads/CDP_22_13.pdf

In the decade since the millennium, the study found that between 1995 and 2011, immigrants from non-EEA countries claimed more in benefits than they paid in taxes, mainly because they tended to have more children than native Britons.

The costs are mind boggling. £100 billion more in benefits and services than they paid in taxes.

Edited November 5, 201312 yr by Jay Sata

This report has just been published.

http://www.cream-migration.org/publ_uploads/CDP_22_13.pdf

In the decade since the millennium, the study found that between 1995 and 2011, immigrants from non-EEA countries claimed more in benefits than they paid in taxes, mainly because they tended to have more children than native Britons.

The costs are mind boggling. £100 billion more in benefits and services than they paid in taxes.

Not exactly relative to this topic.

Seems other people have a better interpretation of this report:

Recent immigrants to UK 'make net contribution'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24813467

Edited November 5, 201312 yr by Basil B

This report has just been published.

http://www.cream-migration.org/publ_uploads/CDP_22_13.pdf

In the decade since the millennium, the study found that between 1995 and 2011, immigrants from non-EEA countries claimed more in benefits than they paid in taxes, mainly because they tended to have more children than native Britons.

The costs are mind boggling. £100 billion more in benefits and services than they paid in taxes.

You really should read the whole report, it is saying that NON EAA immigrants have had a positive effect on the UK. A quote take from your link, is saying that non-EEA immigrants have paid in more than they have taken out of the system, but as a person is not entitled to any means tested benefit or social housing before they have been granted ILR makes your statement misleading!

(At the same time recent immigrants from non-EEA countries made a net fiscal contribution of 2.9 billion GBP, thus paying in the system about 2% more than they took out)

(both those from EEA and non-EEA countries have made a positive net contribution to the UK fiscal system despite the UK’s running a budget deficit over most of the 2000s.)

Edited November 6, 201312 yr by theoldgit
Quote fixed