UK visa and bond of controversy

An impending visa policy by the United
Kingdom, which compels Nigerians to pay
£3,000 bond, raises dust, SAMUEL
AWOYINFA writes
When many Nigerians woke up on
Monday, they were confronted with a
stinker from the British Government.
Nigerians travelling to the United Kingdom
from November will have to pay £3,000
(about N750,000) bond.
Apart from Nigerians, the pilot scheme of
the new policy affects citizens of India,
Pakistan, Ghana, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh,
who are visiting Britain on a six-month
visas arrangement. The UK Home Secretary,
Theresa May, was quoted as saying that
the bond would go a long way in
recovering costs incurred by foreign
nationals who enjoy public services in the
country when they overstay their visas.
The £3,000 bond, which must be paid in
cash, will also serve as a security against
foreigners living in the country illegally,
after the expiration of their visas. There is,
however, a proviso: Visitors will lose the
payment only when they overstretch their
stay.
It is reported in the Sunday Times that
those countries targeted were picked
based on their high number of visa
applications and what the British
Government sees as relatively high levels
of immigration abuse and fraud.
It is true that some immigrants from
Nigeria are, from time to time, deported
from the UK for immigration infractions.
Many people familiar with the UK terrain
also note that Nigerians may form the bulk
of illegal immigrants in the European
country. Besides, such people who tend to
understand the rationale behind the bond
note that some Nigerians that have been
part of crimes that include drug peddling
had painted Nigeria's image black.
Last Month, a Briton of Nigerian descent,
Michael Adebolajo, was for instance,
arrested for hacking a soldier, Lee Rigby, to
death in Woolwich. Although some have
also argued that Adebolajo is only a
Nigerian by name, he was a product of the
British system by birth and growth, still a
fact that no responsible government would
watch their countries
getting decimated by
foreign shenanigans. Stringent measures
are thus normally introduced to curtail
such excesses and infringements.
This is apart from the fact that insecurity is
becoming a global phenomenon; and even
the developed nations are not spared.
Some of them have been introducing some
panicky and discriminatory measures to
check the influx of immigrants, most
especially from the developing countries.
This can be deduced from May's statement,
which adds, "This 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.
"In the long run we're interested in a
system of bonds that deters overstaying
and recovers costs if a foreign national has
used our public services."
But there is also the thinking that there
may be an economic tone to the new rule.
A few people feel that UK may be so broke
that it does not mind generating cash from
visitors who are ready to pay. Another
way to look at this is that the development
may be an indictment upon UK security
system, if the signal it is sending out is that
it has no capacity to curtail illegal extension
of immigration within her territory.
At the end of the day, however, pundits
believe the fault fundamentally lies with
the Nigerian system, especially the
leadership, which has failed to make the
country habitable enough, and make
young Nigerians able to nurture their
dreams. Here is a country weighed down
by corruption, misrule, violence and other
kinds of negative issues. Incidentally, when
many
of the political office holders steal
the people's money, they take such to the
so-called developed countries, which, in
turn, treat visiting Nigerians with spite. If
the economy was good at home, no one
would have tied their destinies to a foreign
land, stakeholders say.
Unfortunately, many people who try to
enter the developed economies think that
all is well with them. They particularly think
that a city like London is a haven, if not a
paradise. Yet, apart from biting tax
regimes, many 'Londoners' are consigned
to odd jobs to make end meet. They note
that those who indulge in this have the
misconception of what the host country
offers, before setting out on journey to
'greener pastures.' It is not until they get
there that they are confronted with the
reality that-London Streets are not paved
with Pound Sterling.
Perhaps, these factors that have made
prominent Nigerians to come down heavily
on
Britain for planning to introduce the
discriminatory policy.
The policy is discriminatory -- Aturu
Reacting to the new development, human
rights lawyer, Mr. Bamidele Aturu, says the
policy is discriminatory and is thus
unacceptable.
According to him, it is wrong for the UK to
target only the Third World countries and
spare the developed ones. But he believes
that the policy may have a boomerang
effect on the UK's economy, since
Nigerians constitute a large chunk of
tourists who contribute to that country's
economy.
He says, "As far as I am concerned, what
the UK government has done is
unacceptable and discriminatory. Why
don't they join the developed countries?
Why target only the developing countries?
Nigerians boost their tourism and
ultimately this policy will affect their
economy."
Nigeria government should reciprocate --
Dabiri-Erewa
Member, House of Representatives, and
Chairperson House committee on Diaspora
Affairs, Mrs. Abike Dabiri-Erewa

Share on Google Plus

About mine4u