What a bunch of BS

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

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 .

Posting the bond will NOT guarantee you are accepted automatically.

[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.

What's with the bollocks today ? Are you in the tourist business to assert that opinion first hand ?

I have often heard and read that tourism to the US has suffered because of the stringent requirements. Vacationers rather go elsewhere.

And we don't even have a bond.

From the article:

In the southern Pakistani city of Karachi, computer businessman Syed Shahid Ali said the "painful and unbearable" new policy would have a negative impact on British tourism and business.

"How can someone who wants to visit the U.K. for a couple of days for business meetings or something else afford to set aside 3,000 pounds" said Ali, who travels there frequently. "He will simply prefer to go and do business elsewhere in Europe instead of getting into this problem of giving a bond and getting reimbursed."

Haider Abbas Rizvi, a former Pakistani lawmaker, said the British government should review its decision because it would hurt a lot of Pakistanis who have family members living in Britain and who cannot afford the bond.

As to calling those who can't raise the money 'too lazy' is very condescending and without empathy and understanding of reality.

I do agree that it will not curb illegal immigration.

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.

Sure wall yourself in. Build a fortress surrounded by alligators. Let the evil foreigners keep out. Yep.

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

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.

Now that makes sense.

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

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.

It has everything to do with the best and brightest.

The Home Office statement said the visa bond “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.”

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

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...

Why are you making the false assumption is does not bother me ?

As I said they do can do what they want and suffer the consequences. Sure.

Am not lobbying to change anything in the UK. I am expressing my opinion. Freely. Because I can.

[GandD 5,966]

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.

So a few people ruin it for everyone. That's like 90% of all laws. Most likely this is a dog and pony show to begin with. Its just pandering to the crowd that blame England's decline on the surge of immigrants. It will most likely accomplish nothing of its desired effect. But to say people from countries with high fraud rates shouldn't be looked at more heavily is like saying we don't need more police in crime ridden areas.

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

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.

It is not all that personal to me. I have no ties or family whatsoever in the UK. If I wanted to visit to see certain sights they are now definitely

changed, I will vacation elsewhere just because I can.

However having said that, stupid policies do bother me when they involve needless hardship on families. I am not angry, but I admit it does

bother me. I don't care what country goes over the top with ridiculous policies trying to do what will not even touch the real problem and causes unfair hardship.

Be it the UK, the USA ...fill in the blank. I am not on a UK hunt. I merely am expressing my distaste for stupid policies. I came across the article and posted it. That is all.

[RGinWA 816]

Every country should require a two drink minimum.

At $2000 a drink...lol

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

So a few people ruin it for everyone. That's like 90% of all laws. Most likely this is a dog and pony show to begin with. Its just pandering to the crowd that blame England's decline on the surge of immigrants. It will most likely accomplish nothing of its desired effect. But to say people from countries with high fraud rates shouldn't be looked at more heavily is like saying we don't need more police in crime ridden areas.

Looked at more heavenly to see their intentions such as ties and bank account activity yes, I have no problem with that. Problem is they are not just "looking". Bond schemes of $4600 is oppressive. It's a lazy and unfair policy. That is the whole point of my topic. THE BOND.

Every country should require a two drink minimum.

At $2000 a drink...lol

From the interviewing officer to the visitor...as a welcoming gesture. But the host country has to pay !

Edited August 5, 2013 by Ebunoluwa

[GandD 5,966]

Looked at more heavenly to see their intentions such as ties and bank account activity yes, I have no problem with that. Problem is they are not just "looking". Bond schemes of $4600 is oppressive. It's a lazy and unfair policy. That is the whole point of my topic. THE BOND.

From the interviewing officer to the visitor...as a welcoming gesture. But the host country has to pay !

Oppressive? Why does a country not have the right to determine its own immigration policies. People have the right to travel elsewhere. There is not an inherent right for people to be able to visit another country.

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

Oppressive? Why does a country not have the right to determine its own immigration policies. People have the right to travel elsewhere. There is not an inherent right for people to be able to visit another country.

What is right and wrong lies in the mind of the thinker. Be on the track you want to be on. I will be on mine. I am not going to debate

with you on whether a country can set their own requirements or not. It is irrelevant to my opinion that I have about the scheme bond policy.

If you think oppression is justified and how you define it that is your interpretation but I do not have to agree with it and that is my right to voice my opinion of monetary oppression of third world countries...hence the thread.

To say people have the right to travel elsewhere when they have family and loved ones in the country they want to visit then get a demand

for a bond scheme that to me is lack of empathy and superficial thinking. If they travel elsewhere they wouldn't be visiting family now would they?

Perhaps they can go see the great wall of China rather than their grandchild in the UK ?

Edited August 5, 2013 by Ebunoluwa

[Morningmist 76]

I wonder how Indians felt when the British entered Illegally and OverStayed 200 years, plundered all the wealth and killed innocent people who just wanted their country back. Just a thought. History has a spherical symmetry. No beginning and no end. It just keeps rotating.

As an Indian, I have no idea why India is even part of the commonwealth. It's not like we are getting any benefits out of it. In fact it almost seems like we are being singled out for every restriction in the book. USA did it right. Didn't join any dumb organization recognizing the queen as head. India should have done the same.

[Operator 1,925]

What's with the bollocks today ? Are you in the tourist business to assert that opinion first hand ?

I have often heard and read that tourism to the US has suffered because of the stringent requirements. Vacationers rather go elsewhere.

And we don't even have a bond.

From the article:

In the southern Pakistani city of Karachi, computer businessman Syed Shahid Ali said the "painful and unbearable" new policy would have a negative impact on British tourism and business.

"How can someone who wants to visit the U.K. for a couple of days for business meetings or something else afford to set aside 3,000 pounds" said Ali, who travels there frequently. "He will simply prefer to go and do business elsewhere in Europe instead of getting into this problem of giving a bond and getting reimbursed."

Haider Abbas Rizvi, a former Pakistani lawmaker, said the British government should review its decision because it would hurt a lot of Pakistanis who have family members living in Britain and who cannot afford the bond.

As to calling those who can't raise the money 'too lazy' is very condescending and without empathy and understanding of reality.

I do agree that it will not curb illegal immigration.

Sure wall yourself in. Build a fortress surrounded by alligators. Let the evil foreigners keep out. Yep.

I'm not in the tourist business but I have been a tourist. I know well enough that a country want's to attract people of means to visit as they are the ones most likely to spend. so my point is that it will likely only inhibit those of lesser economic resources and thus not have much of an economic impact.

As far as trade is concerned Nigeria made up 0.5% of the UK's total export in 2012 and at the end of the day I doubt Lagos will cut of it's nose for a few tourist visas. India however is a larger trade partner and could have an impact.

The job of any government is to do what's best for it's citizenry not what is best for people who want to visit their families who have chosen to live abroad.

As for my comment about being "too lazy" that was directed at those inclined to illegally immigrate and no, I don't have much empathy or understanding of that reality.

[GandD 5,966]

What is right and wrong lies in the mind of the thinker. Be on the track you want to be on. I will be on mine. I am not going to debate

with you on whether a country can set their own requirements or not. It is irrelevant to my opinion that I have about the scheme bond policy.

If you think oppression is justified and how you define it that is your interpretation but I do not have to agree with it and that is my right to voice my opinion of monetary oppression of third world countries...hence the thread.

For sure. I don't mean to take away your rights, just discuss.

To say people have the right to travel elsewhere when they have family and loved ones in the country they want to visit then get a demand

for a bond scheme that to me is lack of empathy and superficial thinking. If they travel elsewhere they wouldn't be visiting family now would they?

Perhaps they can go see the great wall of China rather than their grandchild in the UK ?

A good point. But still, another example of the jerks ruining it for all of us.

I think we both agree that this bond deal is not likely to help any situation in the UK.

[pddp 240]

So you are saying that because the British colonised other countries we now have no right to control illegal immigration? You and the other UK haters do realise that exploiting others and gaining resources at the expense of others is not just a British or Northern European trait right? Aztecs, Zulu's, Mongols, Romans, Persians, Moors, Egyptians et al all took what they wanted from their weaker neighbours when they were dominant whether the wealth stolen was in slaves, cattle or gold etc. It's a human trait unfortunately and it continues today more in the form of corporations and big business than via nation states. I'm not proud of my country's role in extracting wealth from others but I am proud that we outlawed slavery first and made other countries outlaw it too and that we bankrupted ourselves stopping Hitler in WW2 when countries like Russia and the US did nothing until attacked. There are far worse countries in the world than the UK and if some of you looked at the world without bias you would realise that.

UK hater??? Where do you get that from???

I stand for justice, fairness and equality of all human beings. I could care less which country violates any of those, I condemn them all equally. And I could care less about ranking countries by their "goodness" or "badness", that's just stupid and counterproductive. People, and the wellbeing of all people on the planet is far more important than some arbitrary creations we call "countries". Don't put words into someone's mouth when you clearly have no clue where they're coming from.