Acquired 1 Year Extension Living With Child

[pschef]

I would just like to pass on my experience, regard this subject. I have read many conflicting posts, I can assure you all it is possible.

I go back to October when the rules were issued, and all the stuff hit the fans Ouch.

Firstly a little about myself, have lived in Thailand on and off for more than 10 years, married for 15 years.

Previously, I always made my 1 year based on marriage ( show 400k) Always in Chiang Mai, Never any hassle. First ouch, last year the officer convinced me it would be far easier to change on retirement. Quote: (can you find more money to show 800k) I said yes I could. She gave me 1 week extension to do just that, I transferred the extra cash. (Made the visa in 1 day at Chiang Mai) I was quite happy with this system, only one visit. Not as before waiting for Bangkok to return the marriage visa to Chiang Mai 3 months.

Ok Next Ouch, new regulations. I went sometime in November to check with Chiang Mai, what they required. Same Officer was completely different in her attitude. Kept pointing at this hand written sign, money must be in the bank 3 months before application. I asked her how that is possible, my Visa expires next month. Quote:

(Oh well maybe in your case we can help) Just say you didn’t know. Can you imagine, the way I felt? I don’t want help, I want to follow the rules.

Now the Story begins, I get advice from Sunbelt. To apply in Bangkok, based on

Rule 7.17 (5).

The original advice was wrong, that I should only need documentation. That I could apply on my own. So off I go to Bangkok first trip fully loaded with all documents.

Sunbelt lawyers Kate god bless her, argued for almost the whole day with various officers. Only to get rejected at every stage, until the last minute before the gates closed she saw the highest ranking guy in that section. He approved but, yes but he want to see my wife and child.

Oh I plead with him that my wife and son are in Chiang Mai that it will be very inconvenient to take my son out of school. No he is adamant, so here starts the second part of the story.

Few days later we all travel to Bangkok, very lucky to even get the flights just around the Christmas Holidays.

We meet with Kate at Suan Plu 10am, they hardly even look at my Son. But the officer really upset my wife with her questions. She was asked to sign a statement, content still really unknown. But almost like they told her don’t complain to us later if you have a problem. Almost like they are telling her, she gives up her rights to our child. BTW we are trying to keep a family together, not break it up.

I would have thought only a judge could make that kind off ruling, the fact is they want to save face. After all the heads shaking, they needed some way to put some pressure on the applicant. Actually I firmly believe they don’t understand the rule 7.17 5 at all, its content is very clear. But it doesn’t serve them well.

Anyway alls well that ends well, I got a call from my Lawyer Kate today the Extension has been approved and 1 year stamped in my passport. The cost was more than we had hoped for, due to messing around 2 trips to Bangkok. But all I can say is Thanks god for Sunbelt and Especially Kate, Immigration Lawyer.

I hope this post will help people in my situation in the future, but never take anything for granted when it comes to Thai Immigration.

[wolfmanjack]

Thanks for letting us know. I may switch from my "B" visa to this visa. One question though. Since you did this in bangkok do you have to travel to bangkok every 90 days ? And do you have to take your wife and kid every 90 days ?

[buriramboy]

even though i have lived in Thailand for over 7 years , i never found this web-site till October last year and it was only then i found out about the new visa rules, i have been married about 5 years and have 3 1/2 year old daughter, and always used to go to Penang and get a 1 year non-O multi entry visa based on marriage, anyway this year i went to Pattaya immigration first (about 15 October) and they refused me for not having the 40k a month requirement (plenty money in bank but would not accept that) but they did suggest i went to BKK, which i did the next day with Wife and daughter in tow and the same refusal, althouh i must admit the staff in BKK were freindly and helpful, they continually said there was no way they could give me a 1 year visa, even with a dependant wife and daughter. The woman in BKK seemed genuinely apologetic and gave me 7 days said go back to England and you will have no problem, so thats what i did. Obviously i would have prefered not to have had to go back to England and don't see why i had to, buts thats the only way i could do it. Not being 50 or anywhere close to it, i suppose unless they rethink their laws that is what i will have to continue to do.

[COBBER]

I'm still a little bit confused about the criteria for this. Can anyone confirm if this is correct.

Applicant must be over 50 years of age.

Married to a Thai.

Shown as a parent on thai childs birth certificate.

Are there any other requirments apart from the document that the op mentioned his wife having to sign.

Thanks.

Edited February 2, 2007 by COBBER

[papakapbaan]

even though i have lived in Thailand for over 7 years , i never found this web-site till October last year and it was only then i found out about the new visa rules, i have been married about 5 years and have 3 1/2 year old daughter, and always used to go to Penang and get a 1 year non-O multi entry visa based on marriage, anyway this year i went to Pattaya immigration first (about 15 October) and they refused me for not having the 40k a month requirement (plenty money in bank but would not accept that) but they did suggest i went to BKK, which i did the next day with Wife and daughter in tow and the same refusal, althouh i must admit the staff in BKK were freindly and helpful, they continually said there was no way they could give me a 1 year visa, even with a dependant wife and daughter. The woman in BKK seemed genuinely apologetic and gave me 7 days said go back to England and you will have no problem, so thats what i did. Obviously i would have prefered not to have had to go back to England and don't see why i had to, buts thats the only way i could do it. Not being 50 or anywhere close to it, i suppose unless they rethink their laws that is what i will have to continue to do.

Yes everybody (concerned).

Please do your mind.

PSCHEF is ABOVE 50.

It is the ONLY reason why he could get his annual extension based on 7.17 (5).

I wish he said it himself in his post BTW. (But I understand some people want to be "positive", fine ;-0)

Meanwhile, we umarried parents below 50 HAVE A SERIOUS ISSUE to deal with.

And also married parents with financial means but no regular income, below 50, like Buriramboy above. (Who can not apply as anything, neither as spouse (40 K/m) nor parent (above 50)! In other words)

COBBER: 7.17 (5) is for PARENTS NOT SPOUSE (does not hurt to be spouse as well of course)

-Applicant must be over 50 years of age.

YES MUST BE. ABOVE FOURTY NINE exactly. ("Not younger than 50", they say)

-Married to a Thai.

NO, you do NOT need to be married to a Thai. Sure.

-Shown as a parent on thai childs birth certificate.

YES, your name must be on BC.

-You also need: Tabian Baan with name of child on it.

-And NOTE: for 7.17 (5) you do NOT need to prove financial means.

However, the document they asked PSCHEF's wife to sign is not required in 606/2006 Police Order. So of course you never know what else they may ask you to show/sign; what other criteria you must meet.

But this document could have been signed by PSCHEF's "partner"/GF he she was the mother, I am sure.

No need to be married.

MUST BE ABOVE FOURTY NINE, though.

[talatnat]

I'm still a little bit confused about the criteria for this. Can anyone confirm if this is correct.

Applicant must be over 50 years of age.

Married to a Thai.

Shown as a parent on thai childs birth certificate.

Are there any other requirments apart from the document that the op mentioned his wife having to sign.

Thanks.

That's right, Cobber, just those three qualifiers, or just one and three, according to Sunbelt. There have been many differing interpretations on TV about 7.17 (5), but Sunbelt's explanation seems to hold for now. On the other hand, a few people (including me) have enquired about this in provincial IM offices, and they've been clueless. Going to BKK and getting Sunbelt (or another IM lawyer) seems to be way to go; there don't seem to be any do-it-yourself success stories on TV to date.

Edited February 2, 2007 by talatnat

[COBBER]

Thanks papakapbaan and talatnat.

talatnat, we'll have to catch up for a chang at the night market.

[pschef]

However, the document they asked PSCHEF's wife to sign is not required in 606/2006 Police Order. So of course you never know what else they may ask you to show/sign; what other criteria you must meet.

But this document could have been signed by PSCHEF's "partner"/GF he she was the mother, I am sure.

No need to be married.

You Are right, nowhere do they say, the wife must sign any document. She is my wife and mother to my son, complete bull on the part of IM. They have no leg to stand on, if you follow the law.

My lawyer is following it with the highest commader in BKK, However they cant refuse u if u are over 50. Love to read your comments. Mine is done, dont hesitate to PM me on this subjecy

[pschef]

wolfmanjack'

Thanks for letting us know. I may switch from my "B" visa to this visa. One question though. Since you did this in bangkok do you have to travel to bangkok every 90 days ? And do you have to take your wife and kid every 90 days ?

They told me I can report 90 days at any Immigration, and no you dont even need to go in person. Can be done by post.

Edited February 3, 2007 by pschef

[Maestro]

nowhere do they say, the wife must sign any document.

Of course it says so, right there in the Police Order 606/2006: ”...other papers issued by the related official organization or government agencies.”

That document written by the immigration official was a paper issued by a related government agency. Just be glad they did not ask for the death certificates of the great-grandmothers on your wife’s mother’s side

They have no leg to stand on, if you follow the law.

If they really wanted to deny an application they could ask the applicant for documents that he cannot possibly provide. It would be the Thai way of not saying no. However, as your experience shows this was not their intention, nor would I have expected them to use such tactics.

--

Maestro

[jing jing]

I would just like to pass on my experience, regard this subject. I have read many conflicting posts, I can assure you all it is possible.

I go back to October when the rules were issued, and all the stuff hit the fans Ouch.

Firstly a little about myself, have lived in Thailand on and off for more than 10 years, married for 15 years.

Previously, I always made my 1 year based on marriage ( show 400k) Always in Chiang Mai, Never any hassle. First ouch, last year the officer convinced me it would be far easier to change on retirement. Quote: (can you find more money to show 800k) I said yes I could. She gave me 1 week extension to do just that, I transferred the extra cash. (Made the visa in 1 day at Chiang Mai) I was quite happy with this system, only one visit. Not as before waiting for Bangkok to return the marriage visa to Chiang Mai 3 months.

Ok Next Ouch, new regulations. I went sometime in November to check with Chiang Mai, what they required. Same Officer was completely different in her attitude. Kept pointing at this hand written sign, money must be in the bank 3 months before application. I asked her how that is possible, my Visa expires next month. Quote:

(Oh well maybe in your case we can help) Just say you didn’t know. Can you imagine, the way I felt? I don’t want help, I want to follow the rules.

Now the Story begins, I get advice from Sunbelt. To apply in Bangkok, based on

Rule 7.17 (5).

The original advice was wrong, that I should only need documentation. That I could apply on my own. So off I go to Bangkok first trip fully loaded with all documents.

Sunbelt lawyers Kate god bless her, argued for almost the whole day with various officers. Only to get rejected at every stage, until the last minute before the gates closed she saw the highest ranking guy in that section. He approved but, yes but he want to see my wife and child.

Oh I plead with him that my wife and son are in Chiang Mai that it will be very inconvenient to take my son out of school. No he is adamant, so here starts the second part of the story.

Few days later we all travel to Bangkok, very lucky to even get the flights just around the Christmas Holidays.

We meet with Kate at Suan Plu 10am, they hardly even look at my Son. But the officer really upset my wife with her questions. She was asked to sign a statement, content still really unknown. But almost like they told her don’t complain to us later if you have a problem. Almost like they are telling her, she gives up her rights to our child. BTW we are trying to keep a family together, not break it up.

I would have thought only a judge could make that kind off ruling, the fact is they want to save face. After all the heads shaking, they needed some way to put some pressure on the applicant. Actually I firmly believe they don’t understand the rule 7.17 5 at all, its content is very clear. But it doesn’t serve them well.

Anyway alls well that ends well, I got a call from my Lawyer Kate today the Extension has been approved and 1 year stamped in my passport. The cost was more than we had hoped for, due to messing around 2 trips to Bangkok. But all I can say is Thanks god for Sunbelt and Especially Kate, Immigration Lawyer.

I hope this post will help people in my situation in the future, but never take anything for granted when it comes to Thai Immigration.

I can't even begin to express how disappointed I am that a seemingly clear-cut law has become so ass-backwardly misinterpreted by certain folks who make money dispensing legal advice -- and once misinterpreted, has now set a precedent for the rest of us who would like to use the correct (and obvious) interpretation of the immigration law in our own case.

This misinterpretation has been discussed already on this forum ad infinitum... apparently, due to the repeated "efforts" of the aforementioned legal "professionals," the erroneous reading of section 7.17 has already become ingrained in the minds of the immigration officers who see all of our cases. Without belaboring the point, it should be easy enough to understand AFTER READING THE ENTIRE SECTION (including the part which proscribes what documentation is required) that the "over 50" clause pertains to the parent BEING supported, not the parent DOING the supporting.

Unfortunately, the foreign legal professionals who handle these matters on peoples' behalfs (and why anyone really needs a lawyer just to assemble and submit a few documents I am at a total loss to understand) have perpetuated a misconception, and now it may be well and truly impossible for parents under 50 to stay in Thailand to support their young children as they should by all rights (and by the properly interpreted wording of the Thai immigration law) be allowed to do.

Alrighty then... probably best to quit while I'm behind.

[papakapbaan]

Alas! No, No, No, Jing Jing.

SUNBELT is right and the text, precisely if you read the ENTIRE SECTION, as you say, is actually clear (although I agree with you: it defies common sense).

7.17 (4) concerns foreign CHILDREN.

The annual extension of stay if granted to FOREIGN children

Foreign child of foreigners must be BELOW 20.

7.17 (5) concerns foreign PARENTS.

As a parent, you must be OVER 50. Period.

Yes, 7.17 (5) pertains to parents, indeed, being supported not doing the supporting. Alas!

There is no more child support provision. (support of a THAI child)

In other words:

-Thai children can support Farang parents above 50. (!)

-Foreign parents can support FOREIGN children below 20. (But foreign parents must be here on another basis: 7.17 (4) is a dependant visa extension for a FOREIGN child).

Yes, however strange this may sound, the clause (4) about "in case of CHILD" concerns a FOREIGN child.

(Strange because they mix foreign parents with foreign children in the same 7.17 rules. But logical in a "THAI <-> ALIEN" logic).

---> Do your mind (I'm telling myself). This is Thailand. They used to recognize the status of foreign parent of a Thai national before 01/10/2006. After this date, not anymore if the parent is "younger than 50 years old".

------

Maestro:

The ”... (OR) other papers issued by the related official organization or government agencies.” are indeed mentinoed in Police Order 606/2006 and are, as I read, a sub-category of possible documents required to prove Thai Nationality.

But anyway it's typical to leave doors open for additional documents/criteria in any text of Thai Immigration regulations. Again here.

So: What I meant in my post above is: this documents PSCHEF's wife had to sign is not specifically required, named if you prefer, anywhere in 606/2006.

Edited February 4, 2007 by papakapbaan

[pschef]

Papakapbaan Alas! No, No, No, Jing Jing SUNBELT is right and the text, precisely if you read the ENTIRE SECTION, as you say, is actually clear (although I agree with you: it defies common sense).

Maestro:

The ”... (OR) other papers issued by the related official organization or government agencies.” are indeed mentinoed in Police Order 606/2006 and are, as I read, a sub-category of possible documents required to prove Thai Nationality.

But anyway it's typical to leave doors open for additional documents/criteria in any text of Thai Immigration regulations. Again here.

So: What I meant in my post above is: this documents PSCHEF's wife had to sign is not specifically required, named if you prefer, anywhere in 606/2006

Maestro

I think your understanding of the wording

(OR) other papers issued by the related official organization or government agencies.”

Could be interpreted as being Pedantic in the least very ambiguous, I think Papakapbaan is more on the mark.

However I do agree, they could ask almost any document, if the intention was to refuse.

To Jing Jing

The reason I employed Sunbelt was because of the ambiguous statements made by Immigration. I’m sorry for your case, but please don’t blame over 50s everyone has there own way to interpret this rule. I just want to keep my family together; Sunbelt is only following the immigrations interpretation. Greg did say he didn’t understand why?

[charlesfrith]

I would just like to pass on my experience, regard this subject. I have read many conflicting posts, I can assure you all it is possible.

I go back to October when the rules were issued, and all the stuff hit the fans Ouch.

Firstly a little about myself, have lived in Thailand on and off for more than 10 years, married for 15 years.

Previously, I always made my 1 year based on marriage ( show 400k) Always in Chiang Mai, Never any hassle. First ouch, last year the officer convinced me it would be far easier to change on retirement. Quote: (can you find more money to show 800k) I said yes I could. She gave me 1 week extension to do just that, I transferred the extra cash. (Made the visa in 1 day at Chiang Mai) I was quite happy with this system, only one visit. Not as before waiting for Bangkok to return the marriage visa to Chiang Mai 3 months.

Ok Next Ouch, new regulations. I went sometime in November to check with Chiang Mai, what they required. Same Officer was completely different in her attitude. Kept pointing at this hand written sign, money must be in the bank 3 months before application. I asked her how that is possible, my Visa expires next month. Quote:

(Oh well maybe in your case we can help) Just say you didn’t know. Can you imagine, the way I felt? I don’t want help, I want to follow the rules.

Now the Story begins, I get advice from Sunbelt. To apply in Bangkok, based on

Rule 7.17 (5).

The original advice was wrong, that I should only need documentation. That I could apply on my own. So off I go to Bangkok first trip fully loaded with all documents.

Sunbelt lawyers Kate god bless her, argued for almost the whole day with various officers. Only to get rejected at every stage, until the last minute before the gates closed she saw the highest ranking guy in that section. He approved but, yes but he want to see my wife and child.

Oh I plead with him that my wife and son are in Chiang Mai that it will be very inconvenient to take my son out of school. No he is adamant, so here starts the second part of the story.

Few days later we all travel to Bangkok, very lucky to even get the flights just around the Christmas Holidays.

We meet with Kate at Suan Plu 10am, they hardly even look at my Son. But the officer really upset my wife with her questions. She was asked to sign a statement, content still really unknown. But almost like they told her don’t complain to us later if you have a problem. Almost like they are telling her, she gives up her rights to our child. BTW we are trying to keep a family together, not break it up.

I would have thought only a judge could make that kind off ruling, the fact is they want to save face. After all the heads shaking, they needed some way to put some pressure on the applicant. Actually I firmly believe they don’t understand the rule 7.17 5 at all, its content is very clear. But it doesn’t serve them well.

Anyway alls well that ends well, I got a call from my Lawyer Kate today the Extension has been approved and 1 year stamped in my passport. The cost was more than we had hoped for, due to messing around 2 trips to Bangkok. But all I can say is Thanks god for Sunbelt and Especially Kate, Immigration Lawyer.

I hope this post will help people in my situation in the future, but never take anything for granted when it comes to Thai Immigration.

I want to follow the rules.

erm... OK.

[gpt]

I have no children here, my wife and I don't want any and I am over 50 so why am I wasting my time posting on this topic?

Maestro, papakapbaan and Sunbelt have set themselves up as 'experts' and that their interpretation is right and correct. Papakapbaan stated in post number 12 that

"Yes, 7.17 (5) pertains to parents, indeed, being supported not doing the supporting. Alas!

There is no more child support provision. (support of a THAI child)

In other words:

Thai children can support Farang parents above 50. (!)"

The left hand column is for who can apply for a visa and the middle column states conditions Papakapbaan's quote in bold looks as if his interpretation of the law means that the Thai who is supporting an over 50 parent needs a visa! Thais do not need visas for Thailand. There are other avenues for the over 50's. He also states that the provisions in 7/17 refer to a foreign child - please see 7/19.

Has anyone under 50 and with a Thai child received (or been refused) an extension based on 7/1? Are you all taking the advice of Maestro, papakapbaan and Sunbelt as the only interpretation?

[Maestro]

...it's typical to leave doors open for additional documents/criteria in any text of Thai Immigration regulations. Again here.

So: What I meant in my post above is: this documents PSCHEF's wife had to sign is not specifically required, named if you prefer, anywhere in 606/2006.

Agreed. “...or other papers...” is how the system works.

--

Maestro

[Sunbelt Asia]

I have no children here, my wife and I don't want any and I am over 50 so why am I wasting my time posting on this topic?

Maestro, papakapbaan and Sunbelt have set themselves up as 'experts' and that their interpretation is right and correct. Papakapbaan stated in post number 12 that

"Yes, 7.17 (5) pertains to parents, indeed, being supported not doing the supporting. Alas!

There is no more child support provision. (support of a THAI child)

In other words:

Thai children can support Farang parents above 50. (!)"

The left hand column is for who can apply for a visa and the middle column states conditions Papakapbaan's quote in bold looks as if his interpretation of the law means that the Thai who is supporting an over 50 parent needs a visa! Thais do not need visas for Thailand. There are other avenues for the over 50's. He also states that the provisions in 7/17 refer to a foreign child - please see 7/19.

Has anyone under 50 and with a Thai child received (or been refused) an extension based on 7/1? Are you all taking the advice of Maestro, papakapbaan and Sunbelt as the only interpretation?

The bottom line, I'm aware of only one case of a foreigner under 50 years old who had a Thai child get a extension of stay. This has been the interpretation of Immigration since day one. Their has been no confusion, they have been quite clear" We don't want foreigners having children so they can stay in Thailand" They have told the foreigner to his face, get a job or leave Thailand. You cannot stay because you had a child. "

Of course the grandfather clause gave the rights to parents to get the extension of stay based on support before Oct 1st but only those parents were accepted and only one case of someone under 50 years old with a Thai parent getting approved, which was a exemption based on provision 13. This person lived in Thailand 16 years, spoke Thai and helped him get the waiver. The Commander even told him, it would certainly be much easier if you were a father and over 50 years old. Check the posts and see if one person under 50 years old has been approved. Only parents over 50 years old and we have done quite a number of these extensions.

I suggest you go down to Immigration. You won't have to wait long to see a foreigner losing his temper. after he starts to leave the building ask him if he is a father under 50 years old? Odds are very high he is. He was in most cases granted 60 days to visit his child. Thats it and been the only way since Oct 1st.

When we started to see this the first week in Oct. I stated this is nuts but this was what Immigration has been saying and continues to say" No more one year extension if you are a parent" to parents under 50 years old.

Why do you think, it is so hard to get a one year extension as a father with a Thai child even if you are over 50 years old? Its because Immigration knows having a Thai child is no longer a reason to get a one year extension. ( This is why the clause has to be pointed out....Unless you are over 50 years old or have been grandfathered before Oct 1st)

www.sunbeltasiagroup.com

[Maestro]

Without belaboring the point, it should be easy enough to understand AFTER READING THE ENTIRE SECTION (including the part which proscribes what documentation is required) that the "over 50" clause pertains to the parent BEING supported, not the parent DOING the supporting.

I’m afraid you are wrong on both points, and so are others who talk about “support”. Nowhere at all in the whole text of both translations of National Police Order 606/2006 is there any mention of one person supporting another. I know, I searched both texts again just now. It is all about a foreigner living with a family member of Thai nationality. Of course, this does not necessarily stop some immigration officials from talking about support, like in my case, with a son over 25 years old, where the immigration officer told my lawyer that “purpose of Law want thai child to live and take care his foreigner father”.

I know a lot of people who have an aversion towards lawyers but I feel that you are wrong in your diatribe against “a foreign legal professional”, particularly considering that, if it is Greg of Sunbelt you mean, the very same foreign lawyer dispenses free advice on this forum on how to obtain annual extensions without the help of a lawyer. If I personally nevertheless chose to use a lawyer it was because I easily get impatient in the face of ignorance or plain stupidity and just didn’t feel like dealing with immigration in this case.

At the same time, I must say that I have some sympathy with the immigration officials who apparently never were instructed properly on the new rules and to whom particularly 7.17(5) is an entirely new situation and must be rather perplexing. As I remember saying in another topic, if learned minds on this forum have had initial difficulties understanding 7.17(5) – I know I did – how can we find fault with an immigration official who has the same difficulty. “They should know, it is their job”, you may say, but I see clearly that they received insufficient instruction on the new rules or none at all, which means that the fault lies with their superiors, right to the top. It is wrong, but that’s what the situation is, and you find it not only in government agencies but also in private business (banks come to my mind)

--

Maestro

[dominique355]

At the same time, I must say that I have some sympathy with the immigration officials who apparently never were instructed properly on the new rules and to whom particularly 7.17(5) is an entirely new situation and must be rather perplexing. As I remember saying in another topic, if learned minds on this forum have had initial difficulties understanding 7.17(5) – I know I did – how can we find fault with an immigration official who has the same difficulty. “They should know, it is their job”, you may say, but I see clearly that they received insufficient instruction on the new rules or none at all, which means that the fault lies with their superiors, right to the top. It is wrong, but that’s what the situation is, and you find it not only in government agencies but also in private business (banks come to my mind)

--

Maestro

Yes, indeed, Banks. I was trying to do what is necessary to get a visa extension under the "retirement" rule for people over 50. As we know, you need to show sufficient funds in a Thai bank, 800'000 THB to be precise. I went to Bangkok Bank to open an account for this purpose and I was told that without a working permit, I cannot open an account. I tried to explain to the banker, what was the purpose of the account, but she played dumb, "No working permit, no account!". The visa extension under the retirement rule does not allow you to work, she knew that, but she couldn't care less.

What can I do? I tried my luck at Kasikorn Bank (Thai Farmer), and nobody even mentioned a working permit. My account was opened in 30 min, very friendly, very efficient.

Sometimes it is hard, indeed, to keep your temper in face of stupidity and stubbornness.

[papakapbaan]

Thai children can support Farang parents above 50. (!)"

The left hand column is for who can apply for a visa and the middle column states conditions Papakapbaan's quote in bold looks as if his interpretation of the law means that the Thai who is supporting an over 50 parent needs a visa!

Sorry - Not at all!

An over 50 Farang can be supported by his/her Thai child. Period. The Farang needs the visa. Not the Thai, of course not.

It's a revolutionary concept for you GPT maybe (for me it is) but in the eyes of the Immigration: The supporter here is THAI.

It is not because you are the "supporter" that you are the one in need of a visa.

In fact with the new rules, you can be in need of a visa for BEING SUPPORTED.

(Just like it uses to be the case often for Thai "tourists" in the West...)

IMHO, the problem with 7.17 (5) of Police Order 206/2006 is that from a WESTERN perpective, it COMPLETELY defies common sense.

(In Thailand children support parents. For most people coming from a Welfare state, parents support children).

So people are unable to read its contents.

(I realize we are looking at a translation and I am sure the Thai text is more clear BTW)

---

1) FIRST COLUMN "Reason of Necessity" (SIC):

Here are listed the situations (or persons concerned if your prefer).

THIS COLUMN IS ONLY FOREIGNERS of course. (All this is only for FOREIGNERS).

Father, Mother, Husband, Wife, Child (and adopted child).

Of course CHILD means FOREIGN child as well. (From previous marriage or adopted)

2) NOW SECOND COLUMN: "Consideration Criterions" (SIC again...)

Here are listed the conditions (in simple terms)

I pass (1), (2) and (3)

(4) "In case of Child"

In case of: The Immigration officer has to consider granting annual extension to a foreign child, in other words: CHILD MUST BE BELOW 21. (Text says "not older than 20")

(5) "In case of Father or Mother" (seems they can not say Parent in Thai)

In case of: The Immigration officer has to consider granting annual extension to a foreign parent, in other words: PARENT MUST BE ABOVE 49. (Text says "not younger than 50").

(I am sadly sure).

BTW! I visited 2 Immigration offices recently (as I already posted here) and it is the same story: NO WAY JOSE! No 7.17 (5) for you!

One of the two Immigration offices is indeed (cf.Sunbelt) ready to give me A 60 DAY EXTENSION (7.23) , provided I can show 400,000 in a Thai Bank and some "certifying letter" from Amphur that, from what I understood, is supposed to certify the Birth Certificate.

[samran]

So, what are we saying here?

Me, a male Thai national earning good money, can support my over 50 Australian father if he and my Thai national mum ever decided to come to Thailand?

More or less, it sounds like the process be done in the same way that I support my non-Thai wife at the moment for her to get visa extensions. Dad gets the non-immigrant O visa, comes to Thailand, and near the end of the 3 months we trot down to immigration, prove our relationship and the extension is granted like that? Would there be any income requirements on my part, or are they waived?

[gpt]

papakapbaan, you seem to do more somersaults than a Chinese acrobat, you say one thing and in your next post deny it and do a complete 360. You did say that 7/17 was for a thai supporting a non-Thai parent, the Thai does not need a visa. You did not answer the point about a foreign child is in a different section and still insist that 7/17 covers this. You have posted on numerous occassions that there is no provision for any kind of support in the new regulations but your last post was peppered with the word 'support'.

As I said, i have axe to grind but, I think, unless you have definitive proof that you should not be spreading mis-information.That is my last word on the subject and I will leave this forum to those who think that they are always right even when they are wrong. I now go into self-imposed exile.

[Maestro]

Yes, indeed, Banks.

Don’t get me started on it, or I’ll never stop, and I would be off topic here. But you did the right thing, walked along the street and gave your business to another bank, following, no doubt, advice you read on this forum. Good on you! I did the same, 200 metres down the road, same bank, different branch.

Well, perhaps not too much off topic. The OP’s foreign husband will need to open a bank account in his own name and this advice may come in handy for him.

--

Maestro

[papakapbaan]

papakapbaan, you seem to do more somersaults than a Chinese acrobat, you say one thing and in your next post deny it and do a complete 360. You did say that 7/17 was for a thai supporting a non-Thai parent, the Thai does not need a visa. You did not answer the point about a foreign child is in a different section and still insist that 7/17 covers this. You have posted on numerous occassions that there is no provision for any kind of support in the new regulations but your last post was peppered with the word 'support'.

As I said, i have axe to grind but, I think, unless you have definitive proof that you should not be spreading mis-information.That is my last word on the subject and I will leave this forum to those who think that they are always right even when they are wrong. I now go into self-imposed exile.

Communication may not always be clear on a forum.

But nowhere did I contradict myself or said anything contradictory.

And yes, there is still "support".

A Thai supporting a Farang.

And a Farang supporting another Farang (dependant visa).

But not a Farang supporting a Thai. NO MORE.

In case there was any confusion:

My "Sorry - Not at all!" above is in reply to your:

"Papakapbaan's quote in bold looks as if his interpretation of the law means that the Thai who is supporting an over 50 parent needs a visa!"

I never said such a thing. From the beginning I say that 7.17 concerns both FOREIGN PARENTS and FOREIGN CHILDREN. Thai logically are nowhere as applicants for a visa (a yearly extension actually)!

(Yes, Samran, I believe you are right about the possibility to support your father for a yearly extension of stay. Good news for you? ;-0)

Edited February 4, 2007 by maestro
Corrected 7.15 to read 7.17

[pschef]

Seems I cooked up a storm, sorry guys I’m just trying to help. We are in the same boat if you like it or not. Maestro and Pakkakapbaan seem to have the right idea.

But I suggest you contact Sunbelt, they can tell You what are your options, no charge unless you employ them. Obviously I advise that, not expensive and very professional.

[frankthetank]

papakapbaan, you seem to do more somersaults than a Chinese acrobat, you say one thing and in your next post deny it and do a complete 360. You did say that 7/17 was for a thai supporting a non-Thai parent, the Thai does not need a visa.

just a small point......surely a 360 would put him straight back on course in the original direction??

[roamer]

Theoretically both sides have an argument.

Realistically there is only one winner.

Wake up & smell the coffee, the intent is all that matters, does anyone seriously believe the intent was to create an almost open door for those who want to stay in Thailand ?

Clutching at straws is one thing, thin air another.

Edited February 4, 2007 by roamer

[Thai Chi]

Sunbelt wrote

"Why do you think, it is so hard to get a one year extension as a father with a Thai child even if you are over 50 years old? Its because Immigration knows having a Thai child is no longer a reason to get a one year extension. ( This is why the clause has to be pointed out....Unless you are over 50 years old or have been grandfathered before Oct 1st) "

When you (and others) talk about "grandfathering" does it relate to only the type of extension you where on at the time of any changes where those changes effect that type of extension, or to any type of extension if you where here at the time of any changes???

An example to clarify (make sense of) the above.

48 yo male married to Thai wife, no children, given first 12 months (9months actually as first time) extension based on support of wife. 1st extension.

49 yo male married to Thai wife, now has 1 child, given 12 months extension based on support of wife. 2nd extension.

AFTER OCTOBER 1ST CHANGES KICK IN

Can the then 50 yo male married to Thai wife, with 1 child, then change the type of extension from support of Thai wife to 7.17 (5) ???

I do not want to open a can of worms on this one (i think that has been done already) I just need to sort out the Grandfathering side of it

[lopburi3]

You are always free to change the type/reason for extension of stay - but if you leave a grandfathered provision there will be no return without meeting the current requirements.

[Sunbelt Asia]

Can the then 50 yo male married to Thai wife, with 1 child, then change the type of extension from support of Thai wife to 7.17 (5) ???

Yes

www.sunbeltasiagroup.com