low risk students - UKBA begins open discrimination

[marionsan]

Under the new Tier 4 guidance changes which came into effect 4 July 2011, the government body in charge of immigration - UK Border Agency - begun doing officially what it have been doing 'unofficially' for decades - discriminating on the basis of nationality.

So we have learned that if you hold passport of Argentina, Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Croatia, Hong Kong, Japan, NZ, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Trinidad & Tobago and USA you are a low risk for the immigration purposes as a student when coming to UK.

This is a highly discriminative legislation and it is difficult to comprehend how UKBA came to a conclusion that e.g. a student from Taiwan, Singapore or Japan is lower risk than a student from Mainland China or that a student from Argentina is lower risk than a student from Brazil.

I am sure UKBA used their own ''non-existent'' statistics and would argue that they see lowest number of overstayers from those countries, however, is benefit fraud, illegal work and other factors also tak;n into consideration when compiling such list?

I am pretty certain there is more Australians and Americans claiming benefits in UK than Chinese; more Austrlian and Americans taking full-time permanent jobs than Chinese etc...finally, UKBA do not monitor migrants leaving UK hence there are no reliable numbers on overstayers and therefore such lists are inacurate and unreliable, but rather they are based on prejudices and to satisfy the electorate.

There should be a legal challenge to this...

[mulderpf]

These rules are not based on a history of overstayers and breaching of rules after obtaining entry clearance. The rules are based on a long history of immigration fraud and based on statistics to which applicants are most likely to try and enter the UK on deception.

I fully agree and support this take on immigration changes as it can speed up the process and focus on places which pose issues (I am also from one of the countries "discriminated" against).

It is simply unfair for prospective students from one country to have an administrative burden, because a high number of incidences of deception from another country.

That is just how immigration law works. When certain nationalities are exempt of visas, is that also discrimination? Why not take on the UK government because some nationalities need visit visas and others don't? What about other countries which have different rules for different nationalities?

If you are going to take on "the system", you can't just do it for an isolated part of it - it has to be the whole thing.

[madona587]

These rules are not based on a history of overstayers and breaching of rules after obtaining entry clearance. The rules are based on a long history of immigration fraud and based on statistics to which applicants are most likely to try and enter the UK on deception.

I fully agree and support this take on immigration changes as it can speed up the process and focus on places which pose issues (I am also from one of the countries "discriminated" against).

It is simply unfair for prospective students from one country to have an administrative burden, because a high number of incidences of deception from another country.

That is just how immigration law works. When certain nationalities are exempt of visas, is that also discrimination? Why not take on the UK government because some nationalities need visit visas and others don't? What about other countries which have different rules for different nationalities?

If you are going to take on "the system", you can't just do it for an isolated part of it - it has to be the whole thing.

One word : Revolution !

[marionsan]

Every history of immigration shows that in Britain each new group of arrivals has been regarded with suspicion and hostility. First the Jews, then West Indians, people from Asian subcontinent, then asylum seekers and most recently the ‘East Europeans’ – each group was liable to be pronounced unconventional, unclean, unprincipled and generally unwelcome. In case of the East European migrants – they have been branded as benefits-cheats and at the same time taking jobs of native British people too.

[mulderpf]

Every history of immigration shows that in Britain each new group of arrivals has been regarded with suspicion and hostility. First the Jews, then West Indians, people from Asian subcontinent, then asylum seekers and most recently the ‘East Europeans’ – each group was liable to be pronounced unconventional, unclean, unprincipled and generally unwelcome. In case of the East European migrants – they have been branded as benefits-cheats and at the same time taking jobs of native British people too.

Mmm...I seem to have read those exact words elsewhere too...I hope you don't do the same thing when doing uni assignments...

[marionsan]

yes, you might have. I use this phrase often because I think it very well summarize the position of majority of white British towards immigration.

The views on immigration in the UK go hand-in-hand with facial differentiation. No one seems to have problem with immigration from Australia or United States or even 'Western' Europe (read France, Germany, Italy etc...) but all immigrants of other color are often pictured as lazy, benefits cheats, taking british jobs, milking the system etc...which is not based on facts but on prejudices.

[mulderpf]

The views on immigration in the UK go hand-in-hand with facial differentiation.

It's not an issue with race!!! You are simply trying to draw a comparison to something which isn't there. It's a question of developed nations versus developing nations more than it is race. It's about which countries have people who are so desperate to get out, that they would do anything to get a UK visa. The UK is a lucrative place to be - other countries are less lucrative.

If it was really a question of race, why is Argentina, Brunei, Chile, Croatia (as in Eastern Europe as you distinguished between Eastern and Western Europe), Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Trinidad & Tobago???

If it's an issue of race, why is South Korea on the list of low risk countries, but North Korea is not? What about Taiwan and Hong Kong, but China is not?

There's no facial discrimination here - you are simply choosing the facts to suit an argument on race which is completely based on nothing.

[SSEF]

The views on immigration in the UK go hand-in-hand with facial differentiation.

It's not an issue with race!!! You are simply trying to draw a comparison to something which isn't there. It's a question of developed nations versus developing nations more than it is race. It's about which countries have people who are so desperate to get out, that they would do anything to get a UK visa. The UK is a lucrative place to be - other countries are less lucrative.

If it was really a question of race, why is Argentina, Brunei, Chile, Croatia (as in Eastern Europe as you distinguished between Eastern and Western Europe), Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Trinidad & Tobago???

If it's an issue of race, why is South Korea on the list of low risk countries, but North Korea is not? What about Taiwan and Hong Kong, but China is not?

There's no facial discrimination here - you are simply choosing the facts to suit an argument on race which is completely based on nothing.

The voice of reason once again (I do like your posts). The OP might like to take a look at the UKBA site and see which migrants use fake documents and over stay their visas and work in breach of their student visas.. He may not also not know that a large amount of Brazillians in the UK have fake Portuges IDs..The list is endless...its not dearly beloved, its fact.

As to his point of Eastern Europeans, I think if his country had millions of migrants come in vast numbers in a short time (driving down wages and putting a burden on public facilties and infrastructure), he might not like it either.

German and French people have never arrived in these numbers (apart from when the occupied us ) hence the reason we really dont talk about migrants from these countries.

The rules have changed because we all live on a small Island and the changes will be benefit those (immigrants included) who intend to live and settle here in the long run, mass immigration isnt sustainable or good for a country in any form - good controlled immigration is.

You cant please all of the people all of the time!

[marionsan]

A: UKBA website - you can not honestly believe that anything UKBA produce is correct. There have not been exit checks for years now, resulting in unreliable statistics based on guesses and the need to please the electorate.

B: The Germans and French did not arrive in large numbers. Well, they did. Perhaps not all at once (but then the EU economies were stronger than in 2004) but little by little resulting in more Germans and French living in UK than Poles, Slovakians and Czechs.

C: Brazilians and fake passports: again this is based on media reporting few cases upon which the opinion has been formed about majority of Brazilians in UK. There are no reliable statistics again about this, just guesswork and prejudice based on few individual cases.

[mulderpf]

You can twist and turn these facts any way you want to, facts are facts.

Could it be that an entire organisation is conspiring and making up false stories, simply for the sake of discriminating? What does the UKBA as an entire organisation have to gain from discrediting certain nations and not others? If these stories are really untrue and made up, simply for the sake of conspiring against entire nations, do you really believe that there is not a single whistle-blower to say it's not true?

What I am trying to understand is what benefit there would be for the UKBA to make up stories that there are high incidences of deception from India, that there are high numbers of fake passports from South Africa or that there are many Brazilians who have tried to gain access to the UK using Portuguese ID cards?

What is the gain from this conspiracy? I simply don't see why they would choose to conspire against certain nations only, based on zero facts?

I find it absolutely amazing that anyone would believe that a whole organisation would make up this stuff and nobody has ever come forward to say its untrue.

EDIT: After all that, I think this thread might need locking as it is clear that different people have different opinions and this is not really achieving anything. (I will refrain from posting anything further on this...)

[marionsan]

OK, last post to this topic and NO more

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... quate.html

http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/articles.aspx ... =156535737



http://news.migrationwatch.org.uk/2008/ ... -figu.html



and the best one is:

http://jcwi.wordpress.com/2011/06/01/a- ... e-figures/

[mymcs]

But my experience is these days UK facing financial difficulties.

Every one struggling to paying rent,food ,etc.etc.etc.

Lot of immigrant taking British peoples jobs. other way British unable to find

the jobs.so they try to make a cap. due to saturation.

One think more when UK needs more skill peoples specially in IT field they

open HSMP and makes soft policies.

they knows every thing happen in their country but they close eyes.

for example Before lots of college open in the name of study but u knows

better now they crack down.why not before they did. beacuse before UK

was stable economy wise now going to down .

Hope after 2012 will be fine.lots of jobs comes again

i m not british BUT Britain is Greate best country in the world.