Just read this article - the reasons you may be refused a visa...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6768405.stm

Don't worry if you don't obtain a visa. Just hide in the back of a truck or walk through the Channel Tunnel and you'll be given a nice house and loads of state handouts. You don't even need a return ticket.

The point that isn't explained is that this applies only to countries whose citizens are required to have a visa to enter the UK: which means, the system supposes that those are countries whose citizens are more likely than not to want to immigrate by the back door if they can.

But every border control system has its jobsworths and idiots.

Reason for denying a visa"
>"you wish to go to the UK for a holiday. You have never previously undertaken any foreign travel before and I can see little reason for this trip".<

Sounds good to me, especially if the applicant is a 27 year old Saudi traveling on an Iranian passport.

<<< The point that isn't explained is that this applies only to countries whose citizens are required to have a visa to enter the UK >>>

Nope it applies to everyone who doesn't have an automatic right of entry to the UK

Lots of "westerners" get refused entry - mainly because their plans are vague, they can't show proof of funds, they don't have a job back home, no obvious committments back home or - the killer - they announce they are going to be shacking up with their British BF/GF. If nothing else THAT will get at least additional questioning

Good grief, AR, you should try dealing with the asylum applicants I have as clients who have been here for years (in some cases, decades) waiting to to have their cases dealt with. Or the ones who came in after 2002, who are not allowed to work and are desparate to.

I think there's a difference between what happens when you have to apply for a visa in your home country before you leave (which is what I think this article is about), and what happens to people from other countries, like the US, who arrive as tourists. The latter <i>might</i> find themselves questioned as AR says, but this is exceptional (if it weren't, I'm sure we should be hearing about it here).

Where a visa requirement is in force, it gives the ECOs in the country a heavy hint as to the attitude to adopt, so to speak.

The point I'm making is that people who don't need visas to get into the UK ARE turned back at UK immigration.

If anything people who do have a visa should normally have an easier time as they've already been through the mill

But the article isn't about reviews of decisions made at British ports.

It's about the Independent Monitor, whose job is to review the workings of the Entry Clearance scheme - which means the decisions made by diplomatic missions, and the underlying system.

All the stories quoted were given on visa applications made abroad.

No Sheila. I deal with the ones that come to my hospital time and again and get priority treatment which causes taxpayers on the waiting lists to wait a little longer.

Just as an extreme example, we had one case recently that had a porcine heart valve replacement, and because they walked into casualty, unable to show any means of allowable access to the NHS but was permitted treatment anyway (as we tend not to want to kill people unless they really annoy us) and as a consequence our ITU became full so a gentleman had his op cancelled and was sent home for a week. He died in the swimming pool in that time (swimming was part of his &quot;treatment&quot. The inquest found that the cause of death was exacerbated by the fact that he didn't have the treatment which would have had a chance of success of 80%.
These kinds of things kind of give you a jaundiced view of things. OK, I admit that there are two sides to every story but perhaps that is something others should keep in mind as well. Not everything is black and white.

I have to agree with AR. If you're scum of the Earth, Britain will welcome you with open arms. Free accommodation, free food, education, healthcare, the lot. Just tell them your life has been threatened back home (pick any Eastern European country) and you're in.

I think you ought to be more concerned with the immigrants from Muslim countries rather than &quot;any Eastern European countries&quot;.

Anya, I think you'll find that the danger to the UK from radical muslims come from British born and bred and not from recent immigrants. And thereby rests the problem.

6,445 failed asylum applicants were given governmental support in 2006 because it was impossible to deport them (due to an apparent danger to their return home) with a further 1,895 this year already.

What I can't understand is why, if it's considered dangerous to send people home, the application for asylum was refused in the first place.