- FAQ
- Login
- Register
- Call Workpermit.com for a paid service +44 (0)344-991-9222
ESC
Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Moderators: Casa, Amber, archigabe, batleykhan, ca.funke, ChetanOjha, EUsmileWEallsmile, JAJ, John, Obie, push, geriatrix, vinny, CR001, zimba, meself2, Administrator
Which means it is exactly about prices, the question being: Should we charge immigrants extra, and are the below good excuses for raising the fees?The consultation is not about prices, ...it asks whether applicants should contribute towards the costs of the whole immigration system from application to enforcement.
Standard fee for migration to Australia is typically AUD1,990. This covers a family unit. Some offshore family visas cost about AUD600 less. Citizenship costs AUD120 per adult applicant, children under 16 included for free.ppron747 wrote:I certainly would be, were I liable for it.....
How does it compare with Canada or Australia?
I'm not sure it is, but I would imagine that that's a decision for each individual to make. A key point in one of the consulting documents concerns the relative price inelasticity of demand of immigration fees. The Government feels that migrants will pay any price to attain leave. Alternatively, if demand was price elastic, a increase in price would result in a drop in applications or vice versa.JAJ wrote:Still a bargain price. Are you suggesting otherwise?tvt wrote:My sources indicated to me that ILR would cost £1,000 under the new charging regime.
I couldn't agree more. The idea that masses of poor people would come flooding into Britain if there were no immigration control is just wrong in my very humble opinion.rooi_ding wrote:The whole concept of migrant work is to go somewhere to improve your quality of life (the British empire was created through this concept), when the work dries up then the migrant worker will just go were the work is. Thus you would more then likely get a balance where poorer countries would benefit by sending money back to there countries of origin and the host country would benefit by having a labour force that would be more productive and except lower wages until there skills have improved and the the migrant would move onto a better prospect. There might be a big rush in the beginning and local labour might realise they have tough competition but this is a capitalistic market people will not go were they can not find work.
Dawie, I've always liked your signature message. It inspired a long and interesting discussion I recently had with some friends. That universal antipathy to immigration presumes immigration erodes personal wealth and quality of life. And based on that premise the conclusion is logical. However, the premise if flawed. Lower costs means lower prices and existing residents actually get richer (can afford more with the same money).If they just abolished immigration control there wouldn't be any need for any of this rubbish.
The general taxpayer doesn't subsidise the IND, he picks up the tab for IND failures. The cost of those failure range from crime caused by illegal immigrants ... to the tax revenue those immigrants don't pay. If the expectation is that the legal immigrants should pick up the costs of IND failures, where does that end? Would they be expected at some point in the future to pick up the tab for that lost tax revenue as well? My point is that immigrants should be charged the FULL costs of a competent handling of their application.... and no more.If the case before was that the general taxpayer was subsidising the immigration directorate...
That's not strictly true. If I qualify for UK ILR because my wife's British it means I've got grounds to get a UK ILR. There is no mobility there allowing me to choose Canada or Australia instead.the global migrant can just shop around for a "better" place to live
I agree. The short-sightedness of this government knows no bounds. Apart from taxes there are scores of good reasons to announce a limited amnesty. I listed several of them in this previous thread of yours. There hasn't been a rush of posters explaining why it's not a good idea (apart from the NIMBY sentiment)the government is just delaying the inevitable by not granting some sort of amnesty.
The average Australian migrant has only just over 1 dependent. Many are single, or are spouses of Australian citizens.OL7MAX wrote:JAJ, thanks for your figures. It shows that even if the HO Was remotely as efficient as other countries' immigration departments our HO is exhorbitant and poor value. If Australia charges £200 per applicant (1,990 AUD = approx £808 per family of - average - 4 members), and Canada charges £254 (550 CAD) why does the UK need £1000 per applicant? Maybe they need to outsource this.
Not quite right. The RPRF is not payable by every family member, but only by the principal applicant and his/her spouse. Dependents under 22 are free.JAJ wrote:Canada charges an application fee of CAD550 per adult applicant, and CAD150 for a dependent child PLUS a "Right of Permanent Residence" fee of CAD490 for every family member. Citizenship costs CAD200 for each adult, CAD100 for a child under 18.
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/applications/fees.html
Maybe you'll agree with me once you've read the bookppron747 wrote:I don't think you're a little mad, Dawie....
Neither do I think that your interlocutors necessarily need the book. Interlocutors are just people with whom you communicate. I think you want people who disagree with you to read it.
I happen to be one of them, and I deeply resent the implication in your final paragraph that anyone who disagrees with you does so because they have been influenced by dearly beloved anti-immigration propaganda. I disagree with you because I think you are wrong, not because someone else has told me what to think.