I am happy with rigid and clear-cut laws and little space for interpretation, so everyone knows where they stand, but I wish they could accommodate a broader range of situations.
May, that's exactly it, and I def agree with the last part of what you said. But when you start talking about 'accommodating' a variety of situations, you're talking about the opposite of 'rigid and clear-cut laws and little space for interpretation.' There needs to be some room for human judgment, otherwise we are left baffled and perplexed by the lack of common sense in immigration decisions. The problem is that I think the human judgment in these instances tends to be not very human at all.
I could understand if the OP's gf went to a computerized IO and did the whole friend/boyfriend bit, admitting to babysitting, and was refused on the grounds of 'computer says no'. But for there to be no subjective leniency in the IO as a thinking (well....), feeling human means either a) the otherwise magnanimous IO feels that they have no power to maneuver within their prescribed instructions, or b) the somewhat malevolent IO is looking for the tiniest reason to apply their refusal formulae to. I suspect it is a mixture of both, with the majority of IOs being somewhere on the spectrum.
While I do share the views of most people here to a large extent, ie that the rules are harsh, yes, but we only empower ourselves by knowing them like the back of our hands and playing them to the t, I do disagree with internalizing these rules to the point of condemning others who break them.
I think it is a misconception to think that we are dealing with a fair system, which is only made unfair and tough for 'the rest of us' by those naughty ones who break its rules and cause a 'stereotype.' Even if there wasn't a stereotype, we would still be treated unfairly because if the only criteria for keeping people out (the admitted goal of most people who take up posts in UKBA, according to contrex) were that they either followed the rules or didn't, then Britain would be overflowing. It's easy to follow the rules, after all.
Two words: population control. And the preservation of Britain's cultural homogeneity (or whatever's left of it). How many entry refusals happen to girls who have bank balances, return tickets, and to the letter of the law fulfill all qualifications of being a visitor, but when they admit to visiting a boyfriend, they are bounced on the 'intent to return' clause? I don't think the IOs always necessarily believe the reason they are sending these girls home is true, ie intent to overstay. I believe the greater point is to stop them from being in the country long enough to form a close enough relationship with their British partner that will lead to eventual settlement.
I don't believe bounces are, for the most part, fair. I believe that the spirit of the bounce is to cut relationships off at the pass that will eventually increase the surplus (foreign) population.
And I'm not even going to get started about the pathetic reams of excuses generated by ECOs for visa refusals from non-US foreign consulates. Ask Vicky.
Despite my somewhat radical opinions which I know plenty of people probably disagree with, the point I was trying to make is that this forum exists both to share our individual opinions and to support each other, right? We all, in one way or another, face a common obstacle, whether we see it as a common challenge or a common threat, this government has power over us and our British partners that would be an out-and-out human rights violation if we were citizens, and the best way to navigate its ever-changing murky waters is to share our stories, share information and support. Not condemn people who had no way of knowing how severe their punishment would be, or who, being reasonable human beings, expected the IOs to be reasonable and understanding as well.
Diana (sorry for the length).
