to think coming to UK

[neverfear]

is not easy and certainly not cheap. The most expensive visa I've had to pay to enter any country is £50. I'm that a visa for an adopted child is £810. Perhaps I haven't travelled enough to come across a visa that its nearly £1000

www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/visas-immigration/general-info/fees/#resultTableAnchor

BTW this thread is not about how you feel about immigration. Its a discussion about visa fees

Yanbu, visas are expensive.

YANBU
£500 for DH's settlement visa, £40 4 times to pass life in uk test and £800 for ilr- will be another almost £1k if he wants citizenship

The ukba was set up by labour to be self funding. So the more costs due to increased applications means everyone pays more.

I don't have a huge issue with it I just wish it was applied consistently across all non eu countries. Former commonwealth nationals can get fake student Id so easily whereas my ILs can't even get a 2 week holiday visa :(

I absolutely agree UK settlement visas are expensive, but I'm not sure your comparison is a fair one. I am presuming that a £50 visa for you to enter another country is as a short term tourist, not for permanent settlement? There's a huge difference. Most tourist visits to the UK do not even require a visa and are therefore free.

Fanny all non eu non commonwealth residents need a tourist visa to enter the uk. I have no idea how much they cost now but they are not free.

all non eu non commonwealth residents need a tourist visa to enter the uk

that is not true. I don;t need one.

It was quite pricy for me to come to the UK. About 10 years ago it was nearly $300 for a fiance visa and then a year after that around £300 for temporary leave to remain and same again a year later for permanent leave to remain. I can't remember how much it was to become a citizen two years ago, but it was cheaper than getting a new visa for my new foreign passport!

Is it because we are an island?

Fanny all non eu non commonwealth residents need a tourist visa to enter the uk.

Actually, that isn't correct - nationals of some non-commonwealth countries don't need tourist visas (eg the Japanese), and nationals of many commonwealth countries do need tourist visas regardless (eg India).

Visa requirements are usually based on reciprocal arrangements between countries.

Oh ok well that proves my point about countries being treated differently :)

The prices also went up as biometric technology was introduced for longer-stay visas, and as pointed out above the fee is related to actual cost.

Yes and no, Edith. I have seen statistics that demonstrate that the actual cost of processing many categories of visa are considerably lower than the fees that are levied for those visas. However, the surplus is used to subsidise the areas of UKBA work which don't pay for themselves.

For example, a new UK passport is now what, about £80? It cost me just $70 (£44) to renew my US passport with full biometric data and I only had to send it to the embassy in London and I got it back in less than 2 weeks!

I take it you work in Government then, as that would be the only way of being sure about both the origin of the figures and the assumptions which underpin how costs are allocated.

How would you do it differently, preferably without increasing cost to taxpayer?

The data was produced by the UKBA, so might be accurate.

But actually, I am not suggesting that it should be changed. There is an argument that some immigrants are being charged more to subsidise others, but this happens across the board with government spending. The fees are very expensive, but I think it is our prerogative to charge whatever we think fit, and those who want a visa will just have to suck it up - that's what I did when I lived overseas, and I just accepted it as an inevitable cost.

Having said that, I do think we should take care not to let fees become too uncompetitive, as we could end up deterring visitors and students from bringing valuable income into the country.