Tourist visa times 'to be halved'

krish.venugopal · Post by **krish.venugopal** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 7:16 am

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7146527.stm

I guess this is going to have an impact on many of us belong to non EU countries, who bring in our parents to stay with us as visitors for 6 months of the year

olisun · Post by **olisun** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 8:00 am

How long before there is a JR against this ruling???... All these JR's seem to finally piss off the govt.

I had this last option of getting my mom here for 6 months on tourist visa to stay with me and even that is being tightened....

Dawie · Post by **Dawie** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 9:58 am

To be fair, 6 months is a rather long time to be a tourist in a country. Most countries would be quite suspicious of someone who was visiting for 6 months! 3 months is the international norm, as well as being the norm in Schengen countries too.

I would imagine this rule wouldn't affect genuine tourists who seldom stay longer than a month. If you want someone to come over for 6 months then perhaps a tourist visa is not the correct visa.

Post by **John** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 10:07 am

I have checked on the Parliament website and a Written Ministerial Statement on "Immigration : Visitors" is going to be issued today. However as I write this the text of that statement is not yet available on the Parliament webiste, nor on the BIA one nor the Home Office main website.

Hopefully it will be available soon, after which it someone has not already posted it, I shall put a link to the text in this topic.

Post by **John** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 11:13 am

OK, a consultation paper has now been published. Click here to download a copy.

And more on this BIA webpage.

Mr Rusty · Post by **Mr Rusty** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 11:18 am

Yertiz:-

http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/6353/6 ... tation.pdf

I agree with Dawie, 3 months max is the right length for a genuine visit. I was interested to hear the BBC Today interview this morning, where the best they could come up with was a woman complaining because she wouldn't have her parents here to act as childminders for 6 months of the year - or that's how it came across.

There's no mention of Â£1000 as the figure for a sponsorship bond, so who knows what the amount will be. I wonder about the bureaucracy of administering and repaying these deposits. Blacklisting sponsors of defaulting visitors would be neater and more effective.

Wanderer · Post by **Wanderer** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 11:39 am

I agree too, 90 days is well enough.

Nice to see the Gov has listened to me and is looking at implementing a bond scheme!

VictoriaS · Post by **VictoriaS** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 11:39 am

I think there are lots of positives in this document. Not least is a standard document list for sponsors, which may stop the issue of family visit visas being so arbitrary.

I also don't see how bonds would work. I think they are unfair, and I agree that barring sponsors from sponsoring again if the applicant breaks the rules is a much better idea.

Victoria

Wanderer · Post by **Wanderer** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 11:42 am

VictoriaS wrote:I think there are lots of positives in this document. Not least is a standard document list for sponsors, which may stop the issue of family visit visas being so arbitrary.

I also don't see how bonds would work. I think they are unfair, and I agree that barring sponsors from sponsoring again if the applicant breaks the rules is a much better idea.

Victoria

I was thinking of bonds for marriage/fiancee visas, stop idiots on marriage sites bringing over girls they hardly know, belive me I've known a few, one of which has disappeared into the UK underworld...

VictoriaS · Post by **VictoriaS** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 11:48 am

The thing is that bonds will only stop genuine applicants. Those determined to play the system will not be put off by having to pay some money. How much do traffickers get paid? And extra bond will be a minor inconvenience.

Victoria

Markie · Post by **Markie** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 11:57 am

The bond serves as a premium for those who can afford it...a premium to have the luxury or rather shall we say 'priority on the list' to visit the country...sad plight for those who can't afford it!

VictoriaS wrote:The thing is that bonds will only stop genuine applicants. Those determined to play the system will not be put off by having to pay some money. How much do traffickers get paid? And extra bond will be a minor inconvenience.

Victoria

Wanderer · Post by **Wanderer** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 12:03 pm

Markie wrote:The bond serves as a premium for those who can afford it...a premium to have the luxury or rather shall we say 'priority on the list' to visit the country...sad plight for those who can't afford it!

VictoriaS wrote:The thing is that bonds will only stop genuine applicants. Those determined to play the system will not be put off by having to pay some money. How much do traffickers get paid? And extra bond will be a minor inconvenience.

Victoria

That's my point, knowing so many Anglo-russian couples are I do I know most could only afford to go to Russia once or twice and so married on 10 days face time. Result - they married someone they don't know, basing their 'love' on MSN transcripts and stilted three way telecons through an interpreter.

It's an expensive game.

nonothing · Post by **nonothing** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 1:35 pm

just read through the official BIA visitor visa consultation paper. it seems the BIA is consulting if they should create a brand new separate category called 'SPONSORED FAMILY VISITORS' which might be different from the normal visitor visa.

here's the consultation question:
'Do you think a separate category for those wishing to visit family in the UK should be created?' (page 21 of the consultation paper)

it's not mentioned if the proposed 3 month limit will apply to the 'SPONSORED FAMILY VISITORS'.

Post by **John** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 1:40 pm

VictoriaS wrote:The thing is that bonds will only stop genuine applicants. Those determined to play the system will not be put off by having to pay some money. How much do traffickers get paid? And extra bond will be a minor inconvenience.

All true, but suspect that there is another angle to this, namely, if someone has sponsored someone who has then failed to return, suspect the sponsor will find it very difficult, if not impossible, ever to sponsor anyone again.

olisun · Post by **olisun** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:28 pm

Dawie wrote:To be fair, 6 months is a rather long time to be a tourist in a country. Most countries would be quite suspicious of someone who was visiting for 6 months! 3 months is the international norm, as well as being the norm in Schengen countries too.

My mom is currently in Australia on a 11 months visit visa and previously she had stayed in Australia on a 7 month visit visa.

Well don't ask about how she got them, but the HC in Bombay issued it without any questions asked.

Chess · Post by **Chess** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 4:41 pm

Where there is a WILL - there is a WAY, I am sure people will find a way around the system

I think Labour are trying to gain some browny points - the so called mass immigration is actually coming from Eastern Europe and clamping down on non - EU visitors will not solve matters

Markie · Post by **Markie** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 5:41 pm

well spoken Chess. The government just can't clamp dqwn on EU immigrants....they would face the consequence - the impact is that the non-EU migrants get the whip!... Caesar is at fault...blame Charles!

Chess wrote:Where there is a WILL - there is a WAY, I am sure people will find a way around the system

I think Labour are trying to gain some browny points - the so called mass immigration is actually coming from Eastern Europe and clamping down on non - EU visitors will not solve matters

Markie · Post by **Markie** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 5:43 pm

One more thing...I thought they are simplying things and removing ambiguity...why create another section called special visitors...

Post by **archigabe** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 8:14 pm

Mr Rusty wrote: I was interested to hear the BBC Today interview this morning, where the best they could come up with was a woman complaining because she wouldn't have her parents here to act as childminders for 6 months of the year - or that's how it came across.

Here's the actual story!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7149731.stm

Families oppose visitor visa reform

Sukitha Karthik is from Tamil Nadu in southern India. She's an IT consultant and came to the UK two and a half years ago as a highly skilled migrant.

Her daughter is four years old and she wants her to know more about her Indian heritage.

So her parents visit every year for six months.

"They help out with my daughter. She goes to nursery and to the child minder where she only speaks English. We want her to know her Indian side too."

Sukitha has already bought a house here but admits the government's plans could have some bearing on whether she stays.

"I'm trying to understand the government's position. But my parents need to show return tickets when they arrive at the airport, so the rules are already in place. People acting illegally would find loopholes anyway.

pinkuk · Post by **pinkuk** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 11:57 pm

one loophole is not to mention you are going to see your family.
book somewhere at a cheap hotel and that will be it.
thats one way round the 1000 pound deposit.
just dont declare the fact ur visiting family members.
i find it pure discrimination.... why wouldnt other visitors (not coming to see family)be exempt from paying this 1000 pounds eh?

olisun · Post by **olisun** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 7:15 am

pinkuk wrote:one loophole is not to mention you are going to see your family.
book somewhere at a cheap hotel and that will be it.
thats one way round the 1000 pound deposit.
just dont declare the fact ur visiting family members.
i find it pure discrimination.... why wouldnt other visitors (not coming to see family)be exempt from paying this 1000 pounds eh?

If it was that easy everybody would have been successful in getting tourist visa's.

Post by **John** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 7:51 am

But if you are not visiting family, you are coming as a normal tourist, why would you need anything more than a couple of weeks visa? That is, just as 6 months is the maximum at the moment, as I understand it, that maximum will simply be reduced to just 3 months.

Nothing to stop a British Mission issuing a visitor visa for just one month, or less!

arsenalsri · Post by **arsenalsri** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 8:53 am

If somebody needs to disappear in the crowd they can do it the moment they get out of Heathrow, what difference does a 3-month or 6-month visa makes. Why doesn't the government have a database when people enter with their visa expiry date that gets updated when the person leaves or throws up an alert when the visa expires and the person hasn't left.

VictoriaS · Post by **VictoriaS** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 9:26 am

I think people are getting a bit carried away here. You need to read the consultation document. There are some really good things proposed, along with the not so good as well, but by making family visitors a different category with a set document list it might mean fewer refusals.

Victoria

nonothing · Post by **nonothing** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 10:43 am

VictoriaS wrote:making family visitors a different category with a set document list it might mean fewer refusals.

that's also what i thought. i'm hoping they can grant longer stay for 'SPONSORED FAMILY VISITORS' than 3 months for the normal visitors as well. a return ticket from asia can easily cost you hundreds pounds, surely 3 months are a bit short for many of the family visitors. another thing is, according to the current practice, the visitor visa's valid date starts from when it's issued, not when people arrive in the UK, so visitors can only stay in the UK for 2-2.5 months or so at the longest.

Immigrationboards.com: Immigration, work visa and work permit discussion board

Tourist visa times 'to be halved'

Tourist visa times 'to be halved'