This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/03/ai-weiwei-visa-system-chinese-artist
The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Previous version
1
Next version
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| If even Ai Weiwei can’t trust the UK's visa system, who can? | |
| (about 14 hours later) | |
| Thanks to some adroit footwork on the part of the home secretary, the Chinese artist Ai Weiwei will receive the six-month UK visa he applied for, and the government has largely avoided the battering it would otherwise have sustained from that potent alliance of human rights campaigners and global glitterati. The scandal left the headlines almost as soon as it had landed there. | Thanks to some adroit footwork on the part of the home secretary, the Chinese artist Ai Weiwei will receive the six-month UK visa he applied for, and the government has largely avoided the battering it would otherwise have sustained from that potent alliance of human rights campaigners and global glitterati. The scandal left the headlines almost as soon as it had landed there. |
| In a way, though, the speedy resolution of this incipient quarrel is a pity. For the initial refusal that the artist received, and made public via social media, is a symptom of the much bigger problems that afflict our visa system. It is impersonal, inflexible and at times slipshod. It keeps too many of the right people out and lets some of the wrong ones in. The result is the appearance of a fortress that is nonetheless porous. Why are there doctors trying to jump on Channel trains at Calais? Why is the government suddenly threatening landlords with five years in prison for accommodating illegal migrants? The system for entering the country is not trusted. | In a way, though, the speedy resolution of this incipient quarrel is a pity. For the initial refusal that the artist received, and made public via social media, is a symptom of the much bigger problems that afflict our visa system. It is impersonal, inflexible and at times slipshod. It keeps too many of the right people out and lets some of the wrong ones in. The result is the appearance of a fortress that is nonetheless porous. Why are there doctors trying to jump on Channel trains at Calais? Why is the government suddenly threatening landlords with five years in prison for accommodating illegal migrants? The system for entering the country is not trusted. |
| Related: Ai Weiwei given extended visa to visit Britain after Theresa May intervenes | Related: Ai Weiwei given extended visa to visit Britain after Theresa May intervenes |
| Ai’s case is exceptional, but instructive. It is a reasonable bet that without the profile and elite backing he enjoys, he would still be dangling on the British bureaucratic string. He would be considering whether to risk an appeal, or affect gratitude for what the UK government had deigned to grant. | Ai’s case is exceptional, but instructive. It is a reasonable bet that without the profile and elite backing he enjoys, he would still be dangling on the British bureaucratic string. He would be considering whether to risk an appeal, or affect gratitude for what the UK government had deigned to grant. |
| You can argue, too, that he was a special case in another way, and that the real reason for the initial three-week time limit on his visa was to prevent him from swanning around Britain at the same time as China’s president is here on what will inevitably be a controversial state visit. If diplomatic expedience was a consideration, then it goes without saying that it was a very bad idea – the sort of idea that deserves to be boxed up with the half-meetings that are afforded to other diplomatically awkward individuals, such as the Dalai Lama, so as not to offend powerful countries. | You can argue, too, that he was a special case in another way, and that the real reason for the initial three-week time limit on his visa was to prevent him from swanning around Britain at the same time as China’s president is here on what will inevitably be a controversial state visit. If diplomatic expedience was a consideration, then it goes without saying that it was a very bad idea – the sort of idea that deserves to be boxed up with the half-meetings that are afforded to other diplomatically awkward individuals, such as the Dalai Lama, so as not to offend powerful countries. |
| At least that would have indicated some informed thinking on the side of the Home Office. The difficulty is that this cannot be taken for granted. The wording of the letter sent to Ai – by turns wooden and weaselly – will be familiar to many of those who have ever dealt with the UK visa authorities and been refused. As will the error of fact. | At least that would have indicated some informed thinking on the side of the Home Office. The difficulty is that this cannot be taken for granted. The wording of the letter sent to Ai – by turns wooden and weaselly – will be familiar to many of those who have ever dealt with the UK visa authorities and been refused. As will the error of fact. |
| Here is a flavour. “On this occasion,” the entry clearance officer at the Beijing Embassy says, “your visa has been restricted.” In other words, we don’t want to be held responsible for issuing a blanket ban on someone of your distinction. The letter refers to the small print of regulations, which the recipient is invited to consult. If Ai makes a mistake in any future application, he is threatened with “a 10-year ban in line with paragraphs V3.7-V3.10 of Appendix of the Immigration Rules”; a web reference to the appropriate section of said Rules is helpfully offered. | Here is a flavour. “On this occasion,” the entry clearance officer at the Beijing Embassy says, “your visa has been restricted.” In other words, we don’t want to be held responsible for issuing a blanket ban on someone of your distinction. The letter refers to the small print of regulations, which the recipient is invited to consult. If Ai makes a mistake in any future application, he is threatened with “a 10-year ban in line with paragraphs V3.7-V3.10 of Appendix of the Immigration Rules”; a web reference to the appropriate section of said Rules is helpfully offered. |
| Applicants feel that honesty is penalised, while those versed in the ‘correct’ formulas get through | Applicants feel that honesty is penalised, while those versed in the ‘correct’ formulas get through |
| The greatest flaw, though, was the statement: “It is a matter of public record that you have previously received a criminal conviction in China, and you have not declared this.” | The greatest flaw, though, was the statement: “It is a matter of public record that you have previously received a criminal conviction in China, and you have not declared this.” |
| In other words, I am doing you an extraordinary favour by granting you any visa at all. As the artist pointed out, however, he had been detained, but never convicted, and the distinction is as crucial as it would be here. No one representing the UK government should get such a detail wrong. | In other words, I am doing you an extraordinary favour by granting you any visa at all. As the artist pointed out, however, he had been detained, but never convicted, and the distinction is as crucial as it would be here. No one representing the UK government should get such a detail wrong. |
| Fortunately for him, Ai has a profile that enabled him to put this right and backers whose outrage can make news. Together, they threw the ball back, very publicly, into Britain’s court. Most visa applicants, though, do not. They understand that they are essentially supplicants, dependent on the competence, or the favour, of the visa staff or agency. If something goes wrong, they can do little but nurse their grudges – or contact lawyers and journalists in an effort to get their cases heard. | Fortunately for him, Ai has a profile that enabled him to put this right and backers whose outrage can make news. Together, they threw the ball back, very publicly, into Britain’s court. Most visa applicants, though, do not. They understand that they are essentially supplicants, dependent on the competence, or the favour, of the visa staff or agency. If something goes wrong, they can do little but nurse their grudges – or contact lawyers and journalists in an effort to get their cases heard. |
| And much does go wrong. Replies are delayed, so flights, family events, lectures or concert dates are missed. Supporting documents go missing – far more often, so say applicants, than with most other developed countries. Applicants have to travel long distances to appear in person, or commit papers to an unreliable postal system. Applications are expensive and each resubmission requires a new fee. Tick-box questions leave no room for nuance or genuine misunderstanding. When, as is increasingly the case, the visa function is delegated to an agency or the visa office is staffed not by Britons, but by so-called “local hires”, applicants lack confidence in the integrity and confidentiality of the process. | And much does go wrong. Replies are delayed, so flights, family events, lectures or concert dates are missed. Supporting documents go missing – far more often, so say applicants, than with most other developed countries. Applicants have to travel long distances to appear in person, or commit papers to an unreliable postal system. Applications are expensive and each resubmission requires a new fee. Tick-box questions leave no room for nuance or genuine misunderstanding. When, as is increasingly the case, the visa function is delegated to an agency or the visa office is staffed not by Britons, but by so-called “local hires”, applicants lack confidence in the integrity and confidentiality of the process. |
| All this is especially frustrating for professionals, who can feel that their innocence and honesty is penalised, while those better versed in the “correct” formulas get through. If you want to come as a shopper with money to spend or as a student with fees to pay, the UK will find reasons to let you in. For others, it too often seems closed. | All this is especially frustrating for professionals, who can feel that their innocence and honesty is penalised, while those better versed in the “correct” formulas get through. If you want to come as a shopper with money to spend or as a student with fees to pay, the UK will find reasons to let you in. For others, it too often seems closed. |
| Perhaps if our visa system carried more conviction, both with those who want to come to this country and with those of us who live here, illegal routes would be less viable and less attractive. The home secretary’s rapid about-turn on Ai was politically astute. Unfortunately, though, it leaves the scrutiny of our visa system and how it really functions for another day. | Perhaps if our visa system carried more conviction, both with those who want to come to this country and with those of us who live here, illegal routes would be less viable and less attractive. The home secretary’s rapid about-turn on Ai was politically astute. Unfortunately, though, it leaves the scrutiny of our visa system and how it really functions for another day. |
Previous version
1
Next version