This would go into Cafe Society except that I have a question on British immigration laws.
We went to see “Dirty, Pretty Things” today, which I recommend highly and won’t spoil here. It comes out in the movie that if one is in England on a visa, one cannot get a job for the first six months. Can someone explain to me the logic behind that?
It would seem that if you don’t allow someone to get a job, then that person would have a higher likelihood of ending up on the dole. In addition, the manpower required to hunt down these ‘wrongdoers’ for merely trying to survive must cost the taxpayers quite a lot of money. Seems counterproductive and counter-intuitive. Any thoughts on this?
This seems to be borderline GD forum, but we’ll see where it goes.
postcards hints at the answer. There are different kinds of visa’s.
Firstly though, it’s worth noting an awful lot of Canadians (as well as Aussies, Kiwiwi’s and South Africans) by-pass the need for a visa on the Granparent rule.
Also, no one in the 15 memebr needs any kind of visa to live and/or work here.
In both of the above situations, you have a right.
Outside of that, the best option (as I understand it) is a student 6-month work visa.
After that, it gets trickier and others will know more than me - having particular or ‘special’ skills obviously helps.
The logic attaches to as desire to control who enters the work force, I presume - i.e. a toursit visa isn’t meant to be a working visa.
They can’t go on the dole, either. If they’re on a tourist visa, they’re expected to have saved enough money to support themselves for the time they’re in the country.
I guess the film didn’t make the situation clear enough. However, immigration agents were constantly hounding these people. This may have just been for film effect, of course.
My son is presently living in England with his English wife and is also prohibited from working, but I don’t know what kind of visa he is carrying. He intends to stay, and I think he has been told he must become a citizen in order to continue to stay and work.
This would seem to be unrealistic on the part of government. There must be thousands of people there who managed to wangle a tourist visa and arrived with zip in their pockets, hoping to make a go of it. Sure, they take chances on getting arrested and deported, but shear numbers would make it unlikely. So why have a law that is largely unenforceable? Does it really stem the tide of immigrants?
The law certainly isn’t unenforceable. Reputable companies would ask to see your visa, barring you from most jobs that you might like to take and leaving only the jobs that most legal workers wouldn’t really want anyway.
What’s the alternative? Allow anyone to have any job they want, any time?
America’s laws are just as strict, IIRC - probably even moreso, since EU citizens now have the right to work in any EU country.
*Originally posted by Chefguy * My son is presently living in England with his English wife and is also prohibited from working, but I don’t know what kind of visa he is carrying. He intends to stay, and I think he has been told he must become a citizen in order to continue to stay and work.
The laws must have changed. When I married a Brit in '86, I had to go to the immigration office in Croydon with my marriage license and other documentation. I then received a new stamp in my passport, “Given leave to enter the United Kingdom for an indefinite period.” I’m still an American citizen, but able to work in the UK, despite my divorce in '93.
Don’t most countries have quite strict restrictions on employment depending on the visa you hold? When I was in Australia in 1997 and 1998 I could not hold the same position for more than 3 months, since my working holiday visa was intended to help me support myself, but not start a career or use the visit as a moneymaking opportunity.
