ESC
Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Moderators: Casa, Amber, archigabe, batleykhan, ca.funke, ChetanOjha, EUsmileWEallsmile, JAJ, John, Obie, push, geriatrix, vinny, CR001, zimba, meself2, Administrator
This idea was always a bit touchy. I think now that they just start refusing a lot more visitors out of those countries, even perfectly honest valid ones. There is clearly a problem with people coming from these regions and staying far beyond the original permission given, far too often settling here. I'm not sure what other options the UK has truly curb that.askmeplz82 wrote: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 aim of the scheme was to reduce the number of people from some "high risk" countries - including India, Pakistan, and Nigeria - staying in the UK once their short-term visas had expired.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24793092
Ok, they may refuse more applications. So what? You are talking as if it's only foreigners' loss. The legitimate tourists will just go and spend their money elsewhere, and illegals will find a way to come in regardless of the bond. In the end it will be Britain's loss, if it decides to reject many legitimate applicants.Maxwell wrote:I think so too. Some people think it is not humane to ask for bond. But it will be not more humane when they will refuse more applications, they will definitely do it. Nobody wants far right wing parties to gain support in UK and it may happen if too many illegals arrive from poor countries.
If I was applicant from those regions, I would prefer of they introduce bonds. If you can't save 3000 pounds, why bother going to UK. Well, some people could go to mafia to ask for this money but there are ways to check it too. Instead they will refuse many applications there now.
Ok, but what is the cost to the UK, and each of us legal tax payers - including legal immigrants who did it the right way, of all of the illegal immigrants who come in on temporary visas versus those hypothetical losses of legitimate tourists? Nobody knows ofcourse. Maybe the current levels of tourism from these countries is worth the costs of the hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants and covers that amount easily. Maybe it's break-even. And maybe the hundreds of thousands of illegals cost the UK far more than any tourism from these countries could ever hope to bring in. It is speculative. But there is no doubt which is more politically sensitive. From a political point of view, I think the UK sees these illegal immigrants as a far more obvious cost to the economy and culture of the UK. Considering that perspective, the UK might not mind if it blocks 90% of the legitimate tourists from the locations from ever coming to the UK just to stop the illegals from pouring in. That is the perspective that is going to shape future UK policy regarding visas. Frankly, I don't think the most people in the UK, and in the government, would mind at all if tourism from these locations dropped to zero. They perceive the costs of these of these illegal immigrants economically and especially politically as far outweighing any speculative losses of tourism.ukswus wrote: Ok, they may refuse more applications. So what? You are talking as if it's only foreigners' loss. The legitimate tourists will just go and spend their money elsewhere, and illegals will find a way to come in regardless of the bond. In the end it will be Britain's loss, if it decides to reject many legitimate applicants.
Well this point here is a bit more sound than just speculation. There is no doubt that all of the statistics show that people who have more genuine wealth, with easy access to that wealth are far less likely to become an illegal immigrant. I think that is obvious without even having to point to any supporting links. We all know that in countries like India, Nigeria, Pakistan, etc... that £3000 is massive amount of money, in some of these countries more than the average yearly earnings of a family. But really, if £3000 is so prohibitive a cost to an individual, is that person ever really going to be of much value to the UK as a tourist? What would the cost to the UK be if that person became an illegal immigrant? Is it more than £3000? Or less? The point is moot now as the bond idea has been scrapped. But that can only mean one thing: less visas for people from these countries... less tourist/visitor/family visas, less everything. They feel they have to do something (and I kind of agree that they do), so that's the option unless somebody can come up with an alternative.ukswus wrote:PS 3,000 is definitely not an insignificant amount of money even for average Britons. Given that many travel in families (eg husband, wife, and a child or two), the amount of money required for a bond would be quite astronomical by most peoples' standards.
you can have your own opinion and perception on this matter but why do you think that most people in the country and govt also think the same? had it been the case the policy should have been implemented and not scrapped.ouflak1 wrote:...Considering that perspective, the UK might not mind if it blocks 90% of the legitimate tourists from the locations from ever coming to the UK just to stop the illegals from pouring in. That is the perspective that is going to shape future UK policy regarding visas. Frankly, I don't think the most people in the UK, and in the government, would mind at all if tourism from these locations dropped to zero. They perceive the costs of these of these illegal immigrants economically and especially politically as far outweighing any speculative losses of tourism.
I think this because they aren't giving up on all this just because their questionable £3000 bond didn't go through. If most people, I believe the vast majority of politicians, didn't believe that illegal immigration was a serious problem, there wouldn't even have been a proposition of a bond in the first place and nobody would be talking about illegal immigration being a concern, the UKBA would still exist, and so on and so forth. You really believe that illegal immigration is supported by anybody in this country with any political aspirations, much less actual position, whatsoever? Can you name that politician(s)? Have they gone on record as saying anything to the effect that the UK ought to open up its borders to everybody and anybody, or that illegal immigration is not that big of a deal, or that we should scale back enforcement and visa regulation? The only person that comes to mind is Brodie Clark, former head of the Border Agency, who suggested the latter internally, and is now out of a job because of it. I can't even think of any people who not politically motivated who supports illegal immigration at its current levels!ban.s wrote:you can have your own opinion and perception on this matter but why do you think that most people in the country and govt also think the same? had it been the case the policy should have been implemented and not scrapped.ouflak1 wrote:...Considering that perspective, the UK might not mind if it blocks 90% of the legitimate tourists from the locations from ever coming to the UK just to stop the illegals from pouring in. That is the perspective that is going to shape future UK policy regarding visas. Frankly, I don't think the most people in the UK, and in the government, would mind at all if tourism from these locations dropped to zero. They perceive the costs of these of these illegal immigrants economically and especially politically as far outweighing any speculative losses of tourism.
What I'm saying is that a massive drop in tourism from India/Pakistan/Certain-African-countries is far less politically heated, debated, important, or even all that particularly interesting to politicians. Illegal immigration is always a hot-button at all times. You can get into an argument with just about anybody anywhere on the topic, no matter how knowledgeable they truly are. That means controversial bond propositions, retroactive visa policy changes and eradication of schemes... and it probably means that somehow, somewhere they are going to find a way to chop the legs out from under all of the people coming from high risk countries on temporary visas and never leaving. If you can think of another way of doing this without turning away tourist/family/other-temporary visitors on a large scale, post it here. There a lot of people who would like suggestions on the matter. I don't think any politician really wants to send back valid tourists and other valid temporary visitors. I just don't think they have an option, except perhaps do nothing, which could be political suicide. Otherwise, I can't see any other way to go about it. And I don't see that they won't do something now, especially since their little bond idea has died.ban.s wrote:I am not going to debate on the points that you raised above. That doesn’t mean I am supporting any illegal immigration.
My original objection was on the usage of most people in the hypothesis where you stated that these people won’t mind blocking 90% of legitimate tourism or bringing that to even zero.
Statistics to prove that illegal immigration is far far far more important to politicians and your average citizen/resident than how many tourists come from India/Pakistan/Africa????? Do I really need statistics to 'prove' that blatantly obvious point? (Are you joking around with me and I'm just not getting it?)ban.s wrote:again you are missing the point - you can say/believe/propose/suggest whatever you want.
all i am saying is not to assume that 'most people' also support your views/proposition unless you have statistics to prove that.
Nobody will waste a pence on useless study like that. It's unimportant and irrelevant. The UK wants less people coming from high risk countries temporarily staying forever after they get here. The Bond Boat has sailed. If tourism from poor high risk countries is anywhere near as important as cutting down illegal immigration via temporary visas from high risk countries, we are about to find soon....ban.s wrote:indeed, i would be interested to see any statistics in support of the 'blatantly obvious point'.