What a bunch of BS

[bigdog 376]

In Britain those immigrating are not assimilating into their culture and it has turned into a big problem. I think a deposit is a good idea, obviously they think so also.

[Grace & Irfan 6]

I also don't see any issue with this practice.,and I must admit I would GLADLY pay any bond if I thought I could get a visitor visa for my fiance to visit me in the USA .

Me? Feel? Really?

OK - I'll bite.

I feel that if I have to pay a bond to do something that I always wanted to do, then I'm going to pay a bond to be granted the priviledge to do it.

However, with the supposed thousands of folk from those 6 countries historically abusing the system in the UK - it makes perfect sense (to me) to have the bonds posted.

Who's to blame? The fellas that gamed the system, prior.

[Operator 1,927]

Those that can't afford the bond aren't going to be contributing to the local economy to any extent that will make a difference. To suggest trade will suffer is bollocks.

To also think that it will curb illegal immigration is nuts. If people want to break the law paying a fee will just make it seem more justifiable, it'll only slow down those to lazy to raise the money.

[nobbie 105]

Only 6 countries, make it all of them then no-one can complain of discrimination . Put it up to £10k as well, keep more people out.

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

They're free to set the rules to enter their country whatever way their want. It is their country... No one was forcing sons kids and grand kids to move there.... Also, they didn't say they can't come, just set the rules. Fair in my mind.

US has VWP for some countries, others have to go through B2 visa process. Why that doesn't bother you ?

Because filling out some forms is not equivalent to posting a $ 4600 bond each for a family to visit.

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

Any country has the right to set their own immigration policies. If they decide to let no one in at all, it is their right. Venting is one thing, but bringing up past colonialism, morals, and justice, over this is really making a mountain out of a molehill. Requiring a deposit from high risk applicants, is not all that extreme, or unprecidented. It's less stringent than many other countries' policies. I really see nothing to howl about here. I also doubt any dip in tourists from those 6 countires is going to cripple the UK's international trade and tourism industries as some suggest - that's the reason for the proposal. They are comparing numbers to numbers.

If someone travels for the first time and his documents are in order what makes him a high risk applicant other than the country he lives in ?

How will it be defined ? What makes you a non high risk versus grandma and grandpa from a third world country who wouldn't want to immigrate

anywhere else if their life depended on it ? Are you less brown and have a little more money ? Could that be it ? You are among the brightest and best as defined by .....whom really ?

I immigrated and 10 horses couldn't convince my mother to leave her country permanently. I sure did enjoy her visits though over the years

and without any silly posted bond before she died.

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

f they Any country has the right to set their own immigration policies. Idecide to let no one in at all, it is their right. Venting is one thing, but bringing up past colonialism, morals, and justice, over this is really making a mountain out of a molehill. Requiring a deposit from high risk applicants, is not all that extreme, or unprecidented. It's less stringent than many other countries' policies. I really see nothing to howl about here. I also doubt any dip in tourists from those 6 countires is going to cripple the UK's international trade and tourism industries as some suggest - that's the reason for the proposal. They are comparing numbers to numbers.

Absolutely. It is also their right to suffer the consequences of stupid policies. Yep, their sovereign right.

[Morningmist 76]

I don't see how $4600 will deter someone who has no intention of coming back from the UK to whatever country they were before then. For someone trying to immigrate illegally, that's a small price to pay. they've already paid thousands to illegal agents to fake papers to get a tourist visa to UK, to show they have funds in their account when they don't. Another few thousands wont make a difference. They'll beg borrow or steal it somehow. As a potential tourist however, the $4600 will deter me and make me reconsider . Why? Because even if I were getting it back, I don't want the hassle of having to go back to the UK embassy either in India or US and collecting back what is my money to begin with for a 3 day trip or even a week. With that kind of money, I can stay longer somewhere else. Like the Caribbean or Canada or other parts of Europe. Or even use it to travel around the US. Plenty to see here.

If they really want to deter frauds, they need to start looking at family history and asking where the money is coming from for their 3 day trip and looking at bank statements closely. They shouldn't just accept a statement noting the amount in the account, but showing a systematic savings over the years. Not to mention earnings.

[NikLR 13,232]

Didn't miss a beat, much less the major points. Seems you did though.

1) The HC back paddled the "not everyone" due to protests and pressure from the countries involved.

Fact is we aren't sure what they will decide. The initial reports said all 6 countries without specifying any particular citizen exemption.

How to sort through people that have not gone yet ? Ah...yes, the rich and famous.

2) How many third world people have it to bond ? Not many. That was what my previous post was about, tired of regurgitating it again.

One has to have it first before they can get it back !

3) That is still an assumption not a fact.

As for the rest of your post, refer to the battle cry !

This topic was not meant as my master thesis on how to curb overstays and drain on the health care system. Only to point out the ridiculous

non creative means to an end that can be solved by a fairer process than sock it to everyone. It remains to be seen who if anyone

will be exempt and how they define "only some high risk applicants" in the HC's latest "clarification". Bet you it will be the same stereotypical mess and cover the entire countries as initially intended in the news releases.

Last but not least, nope your comment does not make me feel better about the bond, to drag an honest applicant through a $4600 demand because he is from a specific country. Innocent until proven guilty still means something to me. Discrimination and oppression of the west to third countries does not make me say whip out the bond. Not at all.

I find it interesting that innocent until proven guilty when the USA does the exactly opposite. The USA and actually most countries in the world, assume you are trying to move there until you prove otherwise. In the case of border control, everyone is deemed guilty until they prove innocence. Heck look at the battle cry over famous trials in the USA, the public assumes guilt and is quite angry when the jury of their peers deems innocent.

While this obviously prevents the poor from visiting, the cost of simply visiting to begin with was beyond their reach. Only middle class would be affected but said countries have few and far between middle class. Not sure how a $4600 bond would change that in either direction. If anything it may help the 3rd world countries because family will now go to visit them vs the opposite direction bringing more tourist dollars to the 3rd world country.

[Jeikun 65]

If someone travels for the first time and his documents are in order what makes him a high risk applicant other than the country he lives in ?

How will it be defined ? What makes you a non high risk versus grandma and grandpa from a third world country who wouldn't want to immigrate

anywhere else if their life depended on it ? Are you less brown and have a little more money ? Could that be it ? You are among the brightest and best as defined by .....whom really ?

I immigrated and 10 horses couldn't convince my mother to leave her country permanently. I sure did enjoy her visits though over the years

and without any silly posted bond before she died.

It has nothing to do with "best and brightest". Nor is it post colonialism or rascism. Why is vehicle insurance more expensive when you are under 25 years old? There are plenty of safe 23 year old drivers and plenty of unsafe 27 year old drivers. Why do some people get better interest rates on loans? Statistics. If you are from a country that is rife with visa fraud, you will be scrutinized more. That is the fault of your countrymen who previously abused the system, not for anyone being brown or not. The form that takes is up to the country. If the policy hurts them, they will alter it. I can tell you are personally angered by it, and that is fine. We all get to hold our own opinions. But I honestly believe that you are taking this as far more personal than it truly is.

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

So they countries this list are not the ones exploiting the UK? Because going on a visitor visa and then not leaving when you say you will is actually the definition of exploit:

"Defines to take advantage of something (a person, situation, etc.), especially unethically or unjustifly for one's own end."

And trying to fight exploitation of the apples with exploitation of the good apples is ok why ? Two wrongs don't make a right.

'Creative and fair limits' is not even close to the lame idea of the bond scheme. It is a very lazy thought and superficial gate to curb

overstays.

I am quite sure they can come up with a little more brilliant policy than a bond scheme if they tried outside of the box called Xenophobia.

[kzielu 1,149]

Because filling out some forms is not equivalent to posting a $ 4600 bond each for a family to visit.

How about filing some forms, paying $150, getting denied and then 5 times over and over again ? There are people that are effectively unable to come to US because they will never get a visa (and it has nothing to do with inadmissibilities). Again - why that doesn't bother you ?

Referring to the thread topic - BS is complaining about somebody setting up the rules of entry to its own country. They can do whatever they want - which is what they've done and this thread is not going to change it a bit...

[Hotter Otter 1,211]

I get those red-top rags mixed up.

My point is this. What your countries leaders are "doing" isn't "something about the problem" of health tourism. Or the "problem" of overstayers. Or anything remotely like that at all. What they are "doing" is sh*tting their pants over Nigel Farage and his gang. And in the process, they are willing to do any discriminatory, racist thing to get the vote. Including picking people off of buses and trains (based upon their skin color) and asking them to see their papers. Or putting rolling billboards on the streets of London displaying the slogan "Go Home or Face Arrest".

It is one thing for a country to address legitimate migration problems. It is quite another to whip up public anger on the street.

Well yes you are right in that the government doesn't care about immigration and that these policies are to stop UKIP taking support from them. What this shows of course is that immigration is a huge issue. 75% of people polled in the UK think that immigration is in the top three issues that they are concerned about and that is legal immigration. Even among foreign-born UK residents responding to the Citizenship Survey on immigration, 49% express a preference for reductions and only 15% advocate an increase. Dividing the sample into white and non-white sub-groups yields similar results to the UK-born/foreign-born split, with about half of British minority ethnic respondents favouring reduced migration. So half of migrants and non whites themselves think that immigration needs to be reduced, it's hardly a racial keep the none whites out issue. It's more of the fact that the UK is one of the most crowded countries in the world and is not growing much economically therefore the workforce does not need to increase.

These points relate to legal migration of course, illegal immigration is even less popular. Before you start pointing the finger of racism at the government remind yourself that these people overstaying their visas and coming to the country with no right to be here are illegal immigrants. They know that they are breaking the law, as in any country deportation is a risk that comes with that. I myself want to migrate to the US, it is a time consuming and expensive process but I want to do things the right way and legally. These people do not contribute to the tax coffers (they can't as they have no NI number or tax code) and generally send a lot of wages back to their home countries while still using services such as the NHS. We don't even have any idea who these people are which is not good for national security. The billboards are nasty and pointless I agree but targeting areas to check for illegals where there are known to be a lot of illegal immigrants is not racist, it's basic common sense. They are hardly pulling ethnic minorities off trains and buses as you (and some left wing figures) allege, they are targeting individuals based on intelligence they receive; often home owners concerned that the greedy landlord next door has built an illegal annexe and is housing lots of immigrants there.

I can't stand racism and the far right, but I also can't understand why in one of the most crowded countries in the world people think that it's racist to have a firm grip on immigration. If the policies that the UK is pursuing deters even a few thousand illegal immigrants then it's the right thing to do.

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

In Britain those immigrating are not assimilating into their culture and it has turned into a big problem. I think a deposit is a good idea, obviously they think so also.

You mean into British culture ? You said 'their' culture.

This post is about tourist and family visits not immigrants.

Having an immigrant culture such as little Bosnia, the Asian corner market or African restaurants....what is wrong with someone grooming

their own culture ? Integrating to a certain degree of course is important but so are some of the customs of the immigrants that they chose not to abandon or integrate. Do large networks and customs of immigrants frighten you ?

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

Those that can't afford the bond aren't going to be contributing to the local economy to any extent that will make a difference. To suggest trade will suffer is bollocks.

To also think that it will curb illegal immigration is nuts. If people want to break the law paying a fee will just make it seem more justifiable, it'll only slow down those to lazy to raise the money.

Here are some of your bollocks :

Nigeria's government made a formal demand last month that Britain renounce the proposal. Foreign Affairs Minister Olugbenga Ashiru called in the British high commissioner to express "the strong displeasure of the government and people of Nigeria" over the "discriminatory" policy.

Ashiru warned the move would "definitely negate" the two country's commitment to double trade by 2014. Figures from Nigeria's Ministry of Trade and Commerce show trade between the two countries increased nearly five-fold from $2.35 billion in 2010 to $11.57 billion last year, with the value of Nigerian imports of British goods doubling in that time.

Nigeria is Africa's most populous nation and a huge market with its more than 160 million people.