Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
cashinmattress

£3000 Bond For Uk Visa

Recommended Posts

link

London: Britain 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 newspaper 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 ($4,600, 3,500 euros) from November for a six-month visit visa.

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

Initially the scheme will target hundreds of visitors, but the plan is to extend it to several thousand, according to the broadsheet's front-page report.

The weekly paper said the move by Home Secretary Theresa May is designed to show that Prime Minister David Cameron's Conservative Party is serious about cutting immigration and abuses of the system.

The populist United Kingdom Independence Party has been encroaching on the Conservatives' traditional core vote in recent months.

Cameron wants annual net migration down below 100,000 by 2015.

"This is the next step in making sure our immigration system is more selective, bringing down net migration from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands while still welcoming the brightest and the best to Britain," May was quoted as saying.

"In the long run we're interested in a system of bonds that deters overstaying and recovers costs if a foreign national has used our public services."

A Home Office official said the six countries highlighted were those with "the most significant risk of abuse".

Last year 296,000 people granted six-month visas were from India, 101,000 from Nigeria, 53,000 from Pakistan and 14,000 each were from Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.

Hmmm... What's the motive here.

Edited by cashinmattress

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About 25 years too late, and it will probably be canned before going live because it is a 'racist policy'.

Was considered under Labour iirc. Was canned due to substantial opposition. Presume opposition was from Bum's on Seats Polyversity PLC, as no local can possibly afford to hold up the burgeoning ponzi that is further education - student debt serfdom til death or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sensible idea.

It must cost far more than £3,000 to find and throw out overstayers.

Of course, like any government 'tax', it will eventually be extended to cover all countries, and the amount deposited will increase with every budget.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind of a coincidence that all these 'blacklisted' countries primarily practice Islam or have it as a strong secondary most populous faith.

Not sure what point or which way you are cocking your snark. :)

Pretty sure its like the black youth stop and search issue. e.g. Police argue that its not racist to recognise that most street crime in certain areas is carried out by X racial type and age group so expect proportionally more targetting of that group. Its not 'cos they is black', but being black is a factor that is related to both the causal and resulting factors. e.g. dysfunctional background and criminal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

£3,000 is surely cheaper than using a people smuggler?

And the government would get 100% of revenue too as I doubt people smugglers pay that much tax...

Yes illegal activity is simply where the mafia bosses aren't getting their cut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

£3,000 is surely cheaper than using a people smuggler?

And the government would get 100% of revenue too as I doubt people smugglers pay that much tax...

Spot on. I imagine this is why they are proposing this figure; too high and the smugglers get the revenue, too low and it's no deterrent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind of a coincidence that all these 'blacklisted' countries primarily practice Islam or have it as a strong secondary most populous faith.

This is just nonsense. Nigeria is a perdominantly Christian/traditional religion country and India is, well, a predominantly Hindu country.

Qatar, Saudi, UAE are the close to 100% muslim countries and they are not on the list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just nonsense. Nigeria is a perdominantly Christian/traditional religion country and India is, well, a predominantly Hindu country.

Qatar, Saudi, UAE are the close to 100% muslim countries and they are not on the list.

10% of India... 125 million muslims, and growing. Nigeria has 50% of its population as following Islam and growing.

Islam is also the fastest growing religion on the planet, not that I have formal opinion of this religion or any other. Just stating facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Islam is also the fastest growing religion on the planet, not that I have formal opinion of this religion or any other. Just stating facts.

Yes it is and sticking to fact and fact alone is cool.

The reason India, Pakistan, Nigeria etc are on the list is simply because those are fairly poor country with many visitors falls into the high risk overstayer category...

Edited by easy2012

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't the potential dishonest six month applicants just opt for a shorter timespan visa?

Six months is the minimum (and standard) length of UK tourist visa.

But the UK visa, immigration and nationality system is ridiculous on several counts the DM doesn't care to talk about....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm... What's the motive here.

If illegal immigrants are going to come to the UK, then it makes sense to collect some cash from them on the way in. Make the bond too big and they'll just come in without paying it anyway and, also, the vast bulk of legitimate visitors will be preventing from coming and spending their cash. This won't make one bit of difference to the number of illegal immigrants but it will raise a bit of extra money from them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UKIP afaik.

Also suggest that all non EU temporary migrants pay a bond and they lose it upon being found guilty of any jailable offence.

frankly ANYONE coming here from wherever should be on 5 year probation befeore citizenship

ie get caught doing serious enough crime to warrant a custodial sentence of 12 months+

if found guilty...IMMEDIATE deportation within probationary period.no second chances or bleeding heart brigade.

if these people come from a hellhole from the outset, then they will know to keep their nose clean.

funnily enough i would advocate similar reciprocal deals for any of our nationals doing likewise in their host country.

Edited by oracle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

frankly ANYONE coming here from wherever should be on 5 year probation befeore citizenship

ie get caught doing serious enough crime to warrant a custodial sentence of 12 months+

if found guilty...IMMEDIATE deportation within probationary period.no second chances or bleeding heart brigade.

if these people come from a hellhole from the outset, then they will know to keep their nose clean.

funnily enough i would advocate similar reciprocal deals for any of our nationals doing likewise in their host country.

We need these sort of measures, the country is horribly overcrowded as it is.

People on this forum demand a huge housebuilding programme...directly as a result of over immigration.

The question is, can we build enough houses, fast enough?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

frankly ANYONE coming here from wherever should be on 5 year probation befeore citizenship

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/newsarticles/2012/july/15-family-mig:

"A number of changes to the Immigration Rules come into effect on 9 July 2012:

- extending the minimum probationary period for settlement for non-EEA spouses and partners from two years to five years"

Note at the end of the 5 year period Indefinite Leave to Remain may be applied for, not citizenship. That requires a further 5 year wait i.e. 10 years total.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need these sort of measures, the country is horribly overcrowded as it is.

People on this forum demand a huge housebuilding programme...directly as a result of over immigration.

The question is, can we build enough houses, fast enough?

house-building-uk-lowest-since-1924_0.jpg?itok=v5ss4i52

We built 300k+ per year homes in the 1930s and 350k+ per year in the 1960s. Now down to just over 100k+ per year - the lowest level since the 1920s. I'd say there was room for growth...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.standard.co.uk/business/markets/anthony-hilton-government-ought-to-help-not-hinder-8672844.html

"It is quite impossible to say credibly that the UK is open for business, and then enforce the immigration controls the way we do. The present policy is doing harm to business in denying it access to skilled workers from overseas. It is doing huge damage to tourism, health and higher education, three of our best invisible exports, and it destroys our image abroad because it humiliates and alienates thousands of influential people we ought to be cultivating."

There are less crude ways to achieve the goal of reduced immigration. The phrase "cutting off one's nose to spite one's face" comes to mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is plenty of opinion and plenty of claims on various subjects in the "standard"s article and some of the opinions and claims might even have some justification (benefit of the doubt) but there's little or nothing in the way of facts or evidence in the article to substantiate any of it.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is plenty of opinion and plenty of claims on various subjects in the "standard"s article and some of the opinions and claims might even have some justification (benefit of the doubt) but there's little or nothing in the way of facts or evidence in the article to substantiate any of it.

It was an opinion piece, but there have been recent reports, such as http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2013/may/29/uk-visa-policy-india-students:

"Britain's attempts to restrain immigration has caused serious problems for student recruitment in countries such as India, and led to a "substantial" reduction in the number of applicants from the subcontinent, the business secretary said on Wednesday.

Vince Cable, speaking at an international conference of university leaders, said there had been "quite vigorous criticism of the UK" in the south Asian country, which he said was based on an incorrect reading of reports in the British press, treating what was written in the media "as if it was objective reality".

Continuing, the business secretary said: "In some of the Indian provincial newspapers the message has gone out that the British no longer want Indian students, which is wrong. But that's the message that has gone out.

When, as last week, the number declines, this is [seen as] a great triumph for immigration control – which is quite absurd and unfortunately is seriously distorting the debate on sensible university policy and sensible immigration policy."

Official figures show that 190,000 people arrived from overseas to study in the UK in the 12 months to September 2012, 56,000 fewer than in the previous year, a fall of 22%.

(Boris) Johnson said: "I looked at the recent figures for foreign students coming to this country, and I do not regard what seemed to me to be a reduction in those numbers as necessarily a positive economic indicator. I think we need to push higher education as a great, great international export."

I think the "message" is pretty accurate Vince.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was an opinion piece, but there have been recent reports, such as http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2013/may/29/uk-visa-policy-india-students:

"Britain's attempts to restrain immigration has caused serious problems for student recruitment in countries such as India, and led to a "substantial" reduction in the number of applicants from the subcontinent, the business secretary said on Wednesday.

Er, isnt that the idea?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We built 300k+ per year homes in the 1930s and 350k+ per year in the 1960s. Now down to just over 100k+ per year - the lowest level since the 1920s. I'd say there was room for growth...

Is that the net number of homes built? In the 1960s they were demolishing old terraced housing and chucking up hideous tower blocks as fast as they could. In any case it's logistically and financially impossible to maintain a city building program that would accommodate the 1.5 to 2 million immigrants,decade after decade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 239 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.