Ooh Yes!!! Ghanaians Are Highly Risky: The New UK Immigration Bond Policy

In the wake of praise attributed to the substantial growth in Ghana's gross domestic product, it only came as a big surprise when Ghana was enlisted as a highly risky country by the British Government. For this reason, Ghanaian migrant visitors to Britain on six-month visitor visas will be charged a £3,000 "bond" on arrival in the UK as a pledge to return when due; failure to, results in the forfeiture of the bond.

The question making the round is 'where do they expect us to raise 90 million old Ghana cedis from?' Although businessmen have expressed concern, the majority of Ghanaians vilifying this 'hostile' move by the British are the people who are convinced of only succeeding in life by sojourning abroad. As the evidence shows, countries affected were identified based on high visitor visa application rates as well as high rates of overstaying. In fact, this has rekindle memories of the chunk of gold the British stole from the Gold Coast as evident from the superfluous sentiments on social media platforms.

Beyond the sentiments, answering the question above requires an understanding of the concept of 'RISK', which is indispensable for the formulation of theory as an evidence-based necessitating this decision; as is the culture of the colonial masters. In this article, I seek to confirm that Ghana and for that matter most Ghanaians desiring to travel are highly risky. This leads to a discussion of the policy objectives of the bond requirement; which in my opinion transcends preventing risky Ghanaians from entering the UK. Finally, I open the investment opportunity it breeds and raise further argumentation.

Risk simply denotes a deviation of an outcome from the expectation; statistically measured as the standard deviation about the mean (expectation) of a set of data. Therefore any outcome below or above the expectation is risk, which is technically referred to as the downside and upside respectively. Contextually, the expectation is for visitors to return to their domicile latest by the expiration of their visas. Returning before or after the due date (expectation) is risk. However, it is worthy of note that the upside which in this case is 'returning before the due date' is favourable to the UK; and immigration risk managers (UK Home Office) strive to maximize it. Conversely, overstaying your welcome usually without permission is adverse; the downside the UK seeks to curtail.

The downside inures 'unpriced' free lunch to these Ghanaians; which in my unwavering parlance is 'immigration stowaway' - illegal migration. These unwarranted benefit is two prompt; evident in the procedural lax enjoyed as compared to applying for permanent residence and the secret enjoyment of the UK's better infrastructure. The latter introduces unplanned stress on infrastructure and likely inefficiencies into the system; which will be borne by the UK government.

Besides, most reneging Ghanaian visitors and those having permanent residence are either illiterates or semi-literates and are uncompetitive at the strategic level which Britain needs to stay on top. By deduction, they are not the 'brightest and the best', to borrow the words of UK Home Secretary Theresa May. Those already in the system are gradually becoming uncompetitive also at the unskilled level been unseated by highly favoured light-skinned people from the less developed European countries. Thus, they have little or nothing to contribute to the UK. Consequently, they would not contribute to tax and surviving in the UK jobless imminently will be by indulging in social vices; which is unwelcomed. Oh yes, there are also decent and hardworking Ghanaians in the UK.

More so, the better social welfare services mandatorily provided by law including accommodation and allowances to people with children and the jobless are encouraging many more people within this risk classification to give birth. The British are concerned that strangers are taking over their land. These undesired manifestations are connotative of the downside risk warranting mitigation by the bond policy. The few people who may not be affected much are businessmen and the affluent with a job, business and a career to return to.

This logic goes against the grain of assertion by the Secretary of the British Home Office, that only a few people will be affected, as the majority of people from these risky countries cannot afford to raise the bond without selling an asset. They are the uncompetitive illiterates or semi-literates who constitute the majority of people desiring to visit the UK, with an intention to stay on without permission. Thus, the condolence of just a few people been affected is ironic and deceitful. The logical question then is whether this is all that the policy seeks to achieve 'on the face of the pink sheet'?

Does Britain Need Investible Funds to Recovery from the Financial Crisis?

The devastating vampire of the global economic crunch has deeply sucked Britain's investible funds. With an unsettled confidence, most investors including private and institutional lenders have coiled into the risk-free investment hole while the government pursues austerity. In a neoliberal economy propelled mainly by a strong private sector, the restrain by the latter to invest in the economy's recovery has necessitated a strong government action in similar fashion to the 1930 depression as advised by Keynes to reverse the double-dip recession.

Practising austerity means cutting back expenditure and maximizing revenue. Could the bond policy be a shrewd financial engineering to raise investible funds? A bond is a security with a promise to pay interest during the term of the investment and return of principal at maturity. In the first place, where would this money be deposited or who manages it? If Ghanaian visitors to the UK deposit £3,000 and returns to Ghana as promised, would they be paid this interest on the bond, as the opportunity cost for non-consumption? If no, then who enjoys this benefit as this would be a financial loss to the visitor if this money is not invested over the period of travel to earn interest? In a typical British accent; 'there is no free lunch'.

Otherwise, the British government would be enjoying a free lunch, a non-existent opportunity in Britain. The same principle of risk is applicable as return (interest) is the outcome of taking risk, as Britain is implicitly saying 'pay us for bearing the risk you pose'. On the contrary, Ghanaian visitors who provide these bonds are taking a risk and should enjoy the bond return to ensure equilibrium. Now both Britain and Ghanaian visitors are taking a risk but who will benefit from the return? It is this other benefit in my candid opinion, the Bond policy seeks to achieve. Unless properly negotiated, Britain would be killing two birds with one stone; a quintessence of risk-return maximization without appearing needy. This is a typical scenario of using policy to achieve other benefits.

In fact, Britain stands to gain substantially from the highly probable many forfeitures of these bonds from illegal migrants, interest on bonds and also the default prevention of the uncompetitive illiterates and semi-literates from entry. These are Ghanaians who will do anything to travel. Evidently demonstrating an inelastic demand for sojourning in the UK - 'the so-called land of greener pastures', it is only rational that Britain takes advantage of the inevitably financial benefits behind an obvious streamlining emigration policy.

UK Bond Policy: An Investment Vista for Ghanaian Financial Institutions

Raising £3000 is no joke and the majority of Ghanaians cannot afford it, but for the few businessmen with good credit who can secure a bond from the financial institutions at a cost. Financial institutions in Ghana could earn a good return by financing these bonds for safe businessmen. To ensure that the British government is not enjoying a free lunch, the 'redemption' principal of mortgage transactions should be negotiated for by the Ghanaian government. Bonds should be written in favour of prospective visitors, deposited in a local bank to be forfeited and remitted to the UK government upon reneging to return on the expiration of visas. In this case, the British government would be estopped from benefiting from accrued interests unjustifiably as Britain needs investible funds badly to recover fully from the crisis.

Kenneth Appiah Donkor-Hyiaman
MPhil Planning Growth and Regeneration
University of Cambridge