What a bunch of BS

[Brit Abroad 166]

I think it's great for the UK - as they are sick and tired of folk coming in on a tourist visa and overstaying, for years.

Not to mention the "health tourists" who arrive, get emergency care and leave.

How would you like to be presumed guilty until proven innocent, viewed with suspicion solely based on your nationality and forced to pay heavy fees for it? People are not statistics, they're human beings, just like you and me. Not chattel.

Correct. When they stay in their own countries and don't seek to immigrate into someone else's illegally. Where there is change, there is often a reason for it.

Edited August 4, 2013 by Brit Abroad

[*Snowdrop* 603]

So I can't find an official Home Office or government source which says that the bond is applicable to all visitors.

In June the UK High Commissioner for Nigeria said the following:

The details of a pilot scheme are still being worked out. No final decision has been made. If the pilot were to go ahead in Nigeria it would affect only a very small number of the highest risk visitors. The vast majority would not be required to pay a bond. Those paying bonds would receive the bond back, if they abided by the terms of their visa.

Let me put this in perspective. Over 180,000 Nigerians apply to visit the UK each year. About 70% or around 125,000, of those applicants are successful. Travel between our two countries is a key part of our strong cultural and business relationship. Financial bonds would be focussed on only a tiny minority of potential abusers. It would NOT be a “£3000 visa charge” as some media reporting has alleged.

https://www.gov.uk/government/world-location-news/uk-immigration-visa-bonds-for-nigerian-visa-applicants-to-the-uk

If the trial does go ahead in November then I guess it will become clear how big a pool of people that is. And also whether there is any transparency over how they apply the guidelines to identify the 'potential abusers'.

It seems the plan is to extend it to all countries after the trial.

Edited August 4, 2013 by *Lynne*

[del-2-5-2014 1,339]

Plan will not work and it's not because it will damage trade.

The reality is that the bond amount won't deter a determined traveler. The amount is actually quite small especially if it will guarantee a visa for a Nigerian (not sure if it's paid after a successful interview or not).

Perhaps the US should look into that. I know I will pay that for my Wife to wait out her processing time in the US.

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

So I can't find an official Home Office or government source which says that the bond is applicable to all visitors.

In June the UK High Commissioner for Nigeria said the following:

The details of a pilot scheme are still being worked out. No final decision has been made. If the pilot were to go ahead in Nigeria it would affect only a very small number of the highest risk visitors. The vast majority would not be required to pay a bond. Those paying bonds would receive the bond back, if they abided by the terms of their visa.

Let me put this in perspective. Over 180,000 Nigerians apply to visit the UK each year. About 70% or around 125,000, of those applicants are successful. Travel between our two countries is a key part of our strong cultural and business relationship. Financial bonds would be focussed on only a tiny minority of potential abusers. It would NOT be a “£3000 visa charge” as some media reporting has alleged.

https://www.gov.uk/government/world-location-news/uk-immigration-visa-bonds-for-nigerian-visa-applicants-to-the-uk

If the trial does go ahead in November then I guess it will become clear how big a pool of people that is. And also whether there is any transparency over how they apply the guidelines to identify the 'potential abusers'.

It seems the plan is to extend it to all countries after the trial.

In the article I posted it said the same thing, that not everyone would be affected according to the HC.

However all other news media report that the entire 6 countries will be involved.

Sounds like the HC is back paddling a bit from all the protests. We shall see what the final result will look like after they are out of beta mode

and we will see how many it will affect.

[*Snowdrop* 603]

I think it makes a better headline to imply that hundreds of thousands of people would be affected. Most of the reports I read were very speculative.

But it wouldn't make sense for it to apply to all visitors from all six countries. It would be crippling to business and the tourist economy.

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

Plan will not work and it's not because it will damage trade.

The reality is that the bond amount won't deter a determined traveler. The amount is actually quite small especially if it will guarantee a visa for a Nigerian (not sure if it's paid after a successful interview or not).

Perhaps the US should look into that. I know I will pay that for my Wife to wait out her processing time in the US.

Will you pay it for her parents and siblings to visit too ? That would make one heck of an expensive family reunion.

Disappointed that you want the US to look into this after all you have been through, I remember you were complaining about the expense of this journey.

I guess it was not expensive enough after all.

$4600 is a huge amount on top of all travel expense for the average third world country citizen ...what are you talking about it is quiet small to visit ? Seriously ?

You are talking $8-$10 grand as a visitor per person. Come one ! You complained about the refiling fee and expenses for traveling back and forth and now it is perfectly ok with you ?

[del-2-5-2014 1,339]

Will you pay it for her parents and siblings to visit too ? That would make one heck of an expensive family reunion.

Disappointed that you want the US to look into this after all you have been through, I remember you were complaining about the expense of this journey.

I guess it was not expensive enough after all.

$4600 is a huge amount on top of all travel expense for the average third world country citizen ...what are you talking about it is quiet small to visit ? Seriously ?

You are talking $8-$10 grand as a visitor per person. Come one ! You complained about the refiling fee and expenses for traveling back and forth and now it is perfectly ok with you ?

My Mother In Law and my Wife's siblings who wishes to travel can pay for themselves but we can help if asked but they're okay in their own right. Family reunions occurs in Nigeria where we're both from.

My opinion that the US should look into this is exactly based on my experience with this process. I have always advocated any steps that can be used in the process to sift the chaff from the wheat. I have always been a proponent of paying extra for expedient service and USCIS seems to do that for other visa classes already.

I've never once complained about the expense per see as I was aware of the posted fees by USCIS and DOS. I believe that the only fees I've complained about are the medical examination fees and only because we were charged by the examining clinic for vaccinations that we documented had been administered previously. But I have been steadfastly complaining about the length of time it takes for the process. So if they charge money perhaps this can reduce the number of applicants and thereby decrease the processing time.

I believe that the fee, which is refundable and we shouldn't forget this, is within reach of the Nigerians that I know that travels.

I understand that perhaps this is a sensitive subject for you but I assure you that I do not mean any harm. Just merely expressing my opinion and I agree with any step/process that helps identify a valid traveler.

Edited August 4, 2013 by Gowon

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

It is always, always about the wealthy on this planet. Valid as in wealthy. To hell with a valid visitor who can't afford it, is a mentality to which I say

let the powers that be evolve into a more creative solution to make it happen that any Mom and Pops can visit whomever they want to visit, well screened

and not discriminated against and without demanding such an high fee.

Thanks all for your opinions and input. With some I just have to agree to disagree.

[Darnell 8,478]

Where's the hurt, if it curbs illegal overstays, illegal workers, and illegal use of health care?

[del-2-5-2014 1,339]

Where's the hurt, if it curbs illegal overstays, illegal workers, and illegal use of health care?

And eventually bringing Nigeria into VWP.

Hey I can dream can't I?

[scienceworks 64]

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.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

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.

Show me the historical numbers.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Also it wasn't clear from the article whether it was for all tourist visas from those six countries or just for those applicants deemed 'high risk'.

The original talk was all applicants.

Edited August 5, 2013 by Rebecca Jo

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

It's hardly prejudice, It's the countries where the most people overstay their Visa's costing the UK millions yearly in extra medical costs and as illegals they don't pay taxes and once these people get here it's virtually impossible to make them leave! UK is only a small island you know....

Had you heard that you now have to pay to read the Daily Mail online?

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Not to mention the "health tourists" who arrive, get emergency care and leave.

Correct. When they stay in their own countries and don't seek to immigrate into someone else's illegally. Where there is change, there is often a reason for it.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2013/jul/03/health-tourism-cost-nhs-jeremy-hunt

Perhaps a better indication of the scale of the problem is the fact that the NHS is being asked to find 'efficiency savings' of £20bn of its £109bn budget. Those figures would mean that eliminating 'health tourism' equates to fulfilling 0.06% of the savings that need to be found and reducing the total NHS budget by 0.011%.