« Prev Page 35 of 37 33 34 35 36 37 Next 918 replies to this topic

[Bagwan]

Can somebody please educate me? Who makes these rules? What passes for Parliament or some jumped up Civil Servant or top cop? I read the Post cover to cover every day and have never noticed anything about variation of visa and residence rules.

[Jingthing]

Bagwan, on 2007-09-16 00:46:29, said:

Can somebody please educate me? Who makes these rules? What passes for Parliament or some jumped up Civil Servant or top cop? I read the Post cover to cover every day and have never noticed anything about variation of visa and residence rules.

My impression is the Post and the Nation do not cover these issues.

[keemapoot]

My experience is that you will find out any current rule or its interpretation upon presenting yourself to immigration at your annual date.  At that time, you will find out if you have the right to remain another year or not.

Full stop.

[Martin]

"At that time, you will find out if you have the right to remain another year or not."

"Right"??????
My take on it is that Thai law gives no foreigner any "right to remain".

It is possible, when presenting yourself to the Royal Thai Immigration Police that, after examining the circumstances and exercising his/her discretion, the Immigration Pollice Officer may give you permission to remain.

No 'right', just 'discretionary permission'. And from prehistory to now, that is how virtually the totality of humankind have felt that their tribe should treat outsiders who present themselves at the boundaries of their tribe's lands and ask permission to enter, or who come in as visitors and then ask to stay.

Just because, for a short period, Britain, and then America, found it expedient (in their drive to become dominant over all other nations) to welcome in foreign immigrants and dangled 'right to remain' as a carrot, we should not think it exists here and now.

I find it ludicrous that so many couples tell me, when I visit the UK, "We are going to live abroad when we retire". There is a subconscious arrogance (or an over-optimism) in it that makes me wince.
What they should be saying is: "When we retire, we are going to ask for permission to stay in some country in a pleasanter climate."
If they ask me about Thailand, I say that they may be given permission to stay, for one year at a time, and with no guarantee of renewal, provided their financial circumstances meet the requirements then laid down and their behaviour is appropriate.
They raise their eyebrows at 'behaviour', so I tell them how the local Police where they have been staying (and are asking to stay on) will be asked for a report by the Immigration Police.

Nothing (except that it ends in Death) is certain in Life; and we have to accept that 'permission to remain' cannot be certain either.

[gdhm]

Martin, on 2007-09-16 05:53:56, said:

....Just because, for a short period, Britain, and then America, found it expedient (in their drive to become dominant over all other nations) to welcome in foreign immigrants and dangled 'right to remain' as a carrot, we should not think it exists here and now.

I find it ludicrous that so many couples tell me, when I visit the UK, "We are going to live abroad when we retire". There is a subconscious arrogance (or an over-optimism) in it that makes me wince.
What they should be saying is: "When we retire, we are going to ask for permission to stay in some country in a pleasanter climate."....

Actually I do not think your statement and view is correct.

For a start, now that the EU exists and has done so for many decades the UK citizen has every right to choose to retire to another EU country (even work) as part of the rules of the club (and vice versa).  In most cases when a UK citizen plans to retire abroad they are thinking the Spain, France, Portugal etc. etc. all in the EU, and not Thailand or Asia.

All of which they have a right to do so subject to some basic requirements (not being a major criminal) etc. and the it is pretty easy to do so.   If one is thinking that is ONLY in the EU do not forget how many countries exist in the EU a large amount of the European countries.

Additionally, there are many other countries that court foreigners or make it quite easy for foreigners to retire to them(Malaysia Philippines to name two).  

May I ask. When you you wince do you happen to know if the persons saying they plan to retire already know they can go to all these countries? If they do, then where is the arrogance? Its just knowledge of their acceptable and permissible options is it not?

I voluntarily retired to Spain 6 years ago (stayed 4), now I am in Thailand with my Thai Wife and stepson.  On both occasions I KNEW I was permitted to stay under the rules of each country at the time.  For Spain all I needed was an air ticket they even removed an already very small income requirement (EU rules of freedom of movement including to work).  

For Thailand it is much more complicated BUT Thailand (as at the present day) still caters for those wishing to retire (or live here) be it not very satisfactorily based on only a year at a time.   I say only a year, not out of arrogance, but because even if Thailand does not care a shit about me they should give my dependant Thai wife and Thai stepson some degree of security and control of their lives within their own country.  The possibility of us all being separated or uprooted or the Visa rules killing off the marriage due to the strains of relocation or being forced apart for months on end is no way to treat Thai citizens.  Already, the financial requirements are way above what an average or even comfortable THAI couple live on - why the selection against Thais married to foreigners (OK the foreigner needs a little more to cover possible medical cost not free to him/her).

It would seem Thais married to foreigners are considered less than Thais married to Thais AND from previous posts we know a Thai/foreign baby born in Thailand although a Thai citizen is not identical in its rights a sit can have its passport/citizenship removed form it under certain circumstances (be it rarely will these reveal themselves thank goodness) - how fair is that?.

Kind Regards, Dave

Edited by gdhm, 2007-09-16 08:25:25.

[PeaceBlondie]

In the mist of all this soul-searching I've been on since the 1st of September 2550, the fog rolls back and I recall that I didn't exactly come here to retire.  I came here to teach English, and the govt. schools would not take the simple steps to make me legal, so I quit teaching on a B visa without a work permit.  I took the so-called retirement visa, with its extensions, because it didn't require visa runs quarterly and annually.  

Now that retirement is much more of a reality than it was 9 years ago when I retired from civil service, I still wish to work at least part time, and legally.  And, eventually, I would like to live out my final years in a country where the likelihood of doing so is fairly certain.  Obviously, Thailand is not such a country where I can work or retire.

I'm going to be on pins and needles until I get my visa renewed next month, for another 366 days.  I suspect that will be the last renewal.

[Martin]

In post #856, 'gdhm' said:

"It would seem Thais married to foreigners are considered less than Thais married to Thais AND from previous posts we know a Thai/foreign baby born in Thailand although a Thai citizen is not identical in its rights a sit can have its passport/citizenship removed form it under certain circumstances (be it rarely will these reveal themselves thank goodness) - how fair is that?."

IMO. it is downright unfair, Dave.
But we are not talking about "What is fair?" here.
We are talking about people treat each other.
It would be nice if they were exactly the same, but they are not.
There is some overlap, and lots of good people try to get that to increase over time by reasoned debate and explanation of how it feels to be treated unfarly to their less good-hearted/less imaginative brethren. But there's still a way to go.

Put simply, I suppose one could say that there is a range from "Man's Inhumanity to Man" through to "Love Thy Neighbour" somewhere along which we find the 'fairness' that we will apply to a particular situation.

I am an eternal optimist about mankind, and cherish evidence that it does progress.
Obviously, the people that I know best are those that I was born among and have lived among (with forays elesewhere).
Those people are Northern Brits, as I was born in a little 'mill village' fifteen miles east of Manchester, where Lancashire met Yorkshire and the tip of Cheshire and the tip of Derbyshire. (I could cycle in four counties during an hour on the bike).
I remember my father once coming home and saying how some of the women at 'The Works' were disgusted with one of the village maidens who had announced her engagement. She was going to "Marry Away". The young man came from another, similar, village about 6 miles down the road!
Times have changed, because mankind has progressed in 70 years. That village has now even accepted the ingress of a Cantonese family, who operate a successful Chinese take-away.
But there will still be a lot in that village who would feel that I had in some way let the village down by marrying Thong.
Just as there will be some in Thong's village that will feel she has let the village down by marrying a farang.
In both villages, there'll be some feeling of: "Well, it may be OK for them, and we can live with cross-cultural marriage at the present level. But we don't want a lot of it. And we certainly would get upset if 'other culture' couples were allowed to start buying in".

The frustrating thing for me about this thread (and it is a general frustration that I have with Thailand) is that we are kept clueless about what led up to this proposal to change the guidelines to the Immigration Officers. Have the 'fingers upon the puses' sensed that a flood of Indian and/or Chinese families are seeing a future in Thailand as more attractive than a future in India or China and is this a way of blocking them out?? Or what??

[gdhm]

Martin, on 2007-09-16 13:36:59, said:

....The frustrating thing for me about this thread (and it is a general frustration that I have with Thailand) is that we are kept clueless about what led up to this proposal to change the guidelines to the Immigration Officers. Have the 'fingers upon the puses' sensed that a flood of Indian and/or Chinese families are seeing a future in Thailand as more attractive than a future in India or China and is this a way of blocking them out?? Or what??

Yes I agree with you Martin.  

If it is felt a rule(s) needs changing then so be it (even if we do not like or agree with it) but it would not hurt to announce it a reasonable time in advance.  Even if it was for no no other reason than to make sure their own regional Imm. Offices are aware and prepared for a new/amended rule so that they can brief or respond to Foreigners visiting them.

Additionally, an explanation regarding the basic reasoning at the time of announcement would certainly be courteous, appreciated by all AND would saves a lot of adverse speculation and sometimes incorrect reactions.  

Before anyone jumps on the "Thailand, or any country, does not need to justify its actions to anybody"  I agree, but I am saying explain NOT justify, there is a subtle but important difference.  Not providing any information on reasoning or any advance warning does not do much for the cultural courtesy and respect that Thais are considered famous for.

Regards, Dave

Edited by gdhm, 2007-09-16 17:01:20.

[ttthailand]

What is truly lacking in this country is PROFESSIONALISM. You can see the lack of it in every area of the govern... and business.

Make changes , no problem ! But do it in a professional manner and you will not lose people's respect. Be as fair as possible. Grandfathering should apply where seen fit. Rules should be followed the same way by all concerned parties. Etc etc.... Again lacking in Professionalism !

Fix this one area and good things will follow.

[Sunbelt Asia]

ttthailand, on 2007-09-16 17:52:26, said:

What is truly lacking in this country is PROFESSIONALISM. You can see the lack of it in every area of the govern... and business.

Make changes , no problem ! But do it in a professional manner and you will not lose people's respect. Be as fair as possible. Grandfathering should apply where seen fit. Rules should be followed the same way by all concerned parties. Etc etc.... Again lacking in Professionalism !

Fix this one area and good things will follow.

I felt the same as well when I heard that Bkk Immigration would not allow “grandfathering” This was quite stunning news because they always have allowed it before when they change an amendment..  Must of asked over a hundred times “ Are you sure? “

It does make sense to me now, however, why no grandfathering is allowed.  Because the dependent based on retirement, in their opinion is against the Immigration Act and Ministerial Regulations ( which is superior to the National Police Oder 606). Bkk Immigration feels  any permit granted before by them should never have been approved and the Police Order was wrong in allowing it. Immigration cannot allow someone to get a extension even if they have been granted one before as a dependent, as the superior law states they must not allow it. Immigration is not changing the law when they denied someone the permit,  in their opinion, they now are just using the correct interpretation of the Immigration Act and Ministerial Regulations  and ignoring in this case  the National Police Order in regards to dependents based on retirement.

www.sunbeltasiagroup.com

[JetsetBkk]

PeaceBlondie, on 2007-09-16 10:47:04, said:

Now that retirement is much more of a reality than it was 9 years ago when I retired from civil service, I still wish to work at least part time, and legally.  And, eventually, I would like to live out my final years in a country where the likelihood of doing so is fairly certain.  Obviously, Thailand is not such a country where I can work or retire.

I would like to work here too, not because I need the money, but because it would keep me active and I would actually enjoy giving some uneducated kids just a bit of my knowledge. I'm no genius, but I'm sure I could teach something - maths, English, computers - if only the Thai government would just relax their attitude. So many 50+ years old people here with so much they could give back. What a waste!

PeaceBlondie, on 2007-09-16 10:47:04, said:

I'm going to be on pins and needles until I get my visa renewed next month, for another 366 days.  I suspect that will be the last renewal.

Good luck - I'm sure you'll let us know what happens!

Edited by JetsetBkk, 2007-09-17 01:40:47.

[Sunbelt Asia]

Quote

I would like to work here too, not because I need the money, but because it would keep me active and I would actually enjoy giving some uneducated kids just a bit of my knowledge. I'm no genius, but I'm sure I could teach something - maths, English, computers - if only the Thai government would just relax their attitude. So many 50+ years old people here with so much they could give back. What a waste!

You can work here if you are over 50 years old. We have a Associate Russ Murray who is 80 years old and will be 81 years this month. Perhaps the oldest person with a work permit in Thailand so its possible.

You just need to find a employer who will sponsor you. A number of Ngo's out there that can use your skills.

www.sunbeltasiagroup.com

[Bagwan]

How very heartening that the response to my post has been informative and posts have been respectful. Well done and thank you to those who responded.

It would seem from the Sunbelt response that the law isn't being changed but is now being correctly applied. It follows that the Immigration Police have had their heads stuck up their fundamental orifice (no surprise there!) and we poor innocents are picking up the tab. I'm not at all sure that I would care to get into a discussion with the denizens of Soi 5, Jomtien about the correctness of their interpretation of Thai law.

I find the argument that large sums of money, by Thai standards, have to be held by, or available to, foreigners in case of sickness or injury more than a tad specious. Just after meeting my wife I was concerned for her health and consequently took her to hospital for a thorough check up. I, not she, was informed of her ailments and that the doctor was of the opinion that she had a life expectancy of about three months. The sole concern of the hospital authorities before treatment could commence was whether I was prepared to pay the costs. When I asked what the alternative was, and without batting an eyelid, the doctor bluntly told me that she would be sent away. Nobody disagreed with my interpretation of this as 'take her away and let her die quietly somewhere'. If the Thai authorities are so unconcerned  for their own, why the hel_l should they care about a foreigner?

Why is it that a foreigner with empty pockets but a certified income of 800,000 baht p.a. can obtain a 12 month visa renewal? Will a hospital treat a patient on the 'never never'? I wouldn't count on it.

[PeaceBlondie]

Thanks to Sunbelt Asia for reminding us of the reason that Immigration Police are unable to grandfather spouses of retirees.  If there is a parallel to Western law, imagine that a high appeals court declares illegal something that the government has authorized for years.  No matter how legal that seemed in the past, it now turns out that the govt. cannot authorize it, and really never 'should have' authorized it.  

Perhaps spouses of retirees never should have received those piggyback visa extensions based on the pension of the other spouse, and they were just 'lucky' to get them in the past.  

I encourage those who have the perseverance, to try to get legal to do the work you'd like to do.  I don't have the patience.

[Bagwan]

nemo38, on 2007-09-01 11:31:20, said:

Bagwan, on 2007-09-01 10:04:01, said:

I shall enjoy reading about the implosion of Pattaya.

But think about those foreigners who have settled there. Even blokes who have Thai wives and kids often rely on the business of other foreigners. If there are less foreign residents that is going to hit business. Not to mention the knock on effects of people world wide knowing Thais hate foreigners. What is going to happen to tourism? Enough people are wound up over this to flood travel message boards world wide with an anti Thai message. Lonely planet could mean lonely Thailand. Amazingly dumb Thailand.

I did settle in Pattaya. I do have a Thai wife who I am legally married to, recognised by both the Thai and UK governments.

I don't feel I have to think about, or for, other foreigners. I assume that they are sentient adults who can think for themselves.

If implosion does occur the blame should be clearly laid at the door of successive Thai governments. Those who are caught out by the disaster will be found to be wearing rose tinted glasses and/or have stupidly committed all their resources in furtherance of living in a mirage. Those not considering Plan 2 at this time may well regret it.

[Bagwan]

stephenearle2007, on 2007-09-01 11:02:11, said:

I think that all the countries that farangs come from should apply the same rules to all the Thai people living there. Only fair and just. They are there earning money most of which is sent back to Thailand to support their families. Which the Thai government do not do.

So let them put a stop to that! Use the same thought process of the Thai government that if you don't like it - GET OUT and GO HOME

Thai governments have thought processes?    

[BlackJack]

I am slowly reaching the tipping point with all this nonsense.

To park 800,000 in the bank for 3 months is a BAD INVESTMENT. Particularly when you are a retiree and you possibly own your own home (no rent).

One of my managed funds paid 80% last year, based on the CHina boom and commodities. So the choice for me is simple, keep the money off shore - dont bring it here.
OR
65,000 per month -even drinking a bottle of imported wine each day and running the aircon all day, internet, satellite TV, running bike, insurance, health i would not spend 65K per month.

So the question remains - who is doing the sums on how much is really needed for retirement in Thailand. It doesnt seem to add up.

Thais                   Farang
5580 Baht PM       65,000 baht PM

PLEASE the powers that be use some logic in working out the cost of living in Thailand -

OK start laughing now

[gdhm]

stephenearle2007, on 2007-09-01 11:02:11, said:

I think that all the countries that farangs come from should apply the same rules to all the Thai people living there. Only fair and just. They are there earning money most of which is sent back to Thailand to support their families. Which the Thai government do not do.

So let them put a stop to that! Use the same thought process of the Thai government that if you don't like it - GET OUT and GO HOME

Whilst I understand the frustration and sentiment, I do not agree with the concept of "Two wrongs make a right"

nor with the idea of "TIT for tat" (sorry could not resist )


Regards, Dave

[Naam]

BlackJack, on 2007-09-17 10:23:57, said:

To park 800,000 in the bank for 3 months is a BAD INVESTMENT

i think we all agree with you on this but what choice is there? those affected who can afford the 800k are still better off than those with a wife below retiring age who must go through the hassle obtaining a new visa every year, doing visa runs or whatever is required to stay till age 50.

[selftaopath]

BlackJack, on 2007-09-17 10:23:57, said:

I am slowly reaching the tipping point with all this nonsense.

To park 800,000 in the bank for 3 months is a BAD INVESTMENT. Particularly when you are a retiree and you possibly own your own home (no rent).

One of my managed funds paid 80% last year, based on the CHina boom and commodities. So the choice for me is simple, keep the money off shore - dont bring it here.
OR
65,000 per month -even drinking a bottle of imported wine each day and running the aircon all day, internet, satellite TV, running bike, insurance, health i would not spend 65K per month.

So the question remains - who is doing the sums on how much is really needed for retirement in Thailand. It doesnt seem to add up.

Thais Farang
5580 Baht PM 65,000 baht PM

PLEASE the powers that be use some logic in working out the cost of living in Thailand -

OK start laughing now

Oh man I am laughing - thanks BlackJack. I'll tell ya.. that was a good one. LOGIC- LOL
I have been desperately hoping to find logic in Thailand. But "it" seems so elusive. Please let me know if you or any other Western X pat finds it. I'd love to see what it looks like.
Keoki

[gdhm]

PeaceBlondie, on 2007-09-17 09:12:30, said:

Thanks to Sunbelt Asia for reminding us of the reason that Immigration Police are unable to grandfather spouses of retirees.  If there is a parallel to Western law, imagine that a high appeals court declares illegal something that the government has authorized for years.  No matter how legal that seemed in the past, it now turns out that the govt. cannot authorize it, and really never 'should have' authorized it.  

Perhaps spouses of retirees never should have received those piggyback visa extensions based on the pension of the other spouse, and they were just 'lucky' to get them in the past.  

I encourage those who have the perseverance, to try to get legal to do the work you'd like to do.  I don't have the patience.

True Peaceblondie, but in the West the reasoning and outcome would be well publicised in many areas, media, official bodies responsible etc. and all would have been able to find out the situation.

Mind you you did say an interesting point "High appeals court".  There does not seem to be similar processes with these latest rules.  Some unnamed persons have decided that previous rules have been enacted incorrectly and have changed them. What triggered the decision?  Even if there is good logic to these latest changes what about all the recent previous "tooing and throwing" with the Visa rules which have not been identified as incorrectly applied laws in the past.

At times I feel we play at interpreting Nostradamus.   Imm. make a change or new rule and instead of Imm. telling us their reasons everybody, on TV, other Forums and Visa seekers try to interpret and justify the reasoning ourselves.  We invariably accept a good logical reasoning supported by most until a better more likely interpretation is put forward.

In truth ONLY Imm. know and regretfully they seem happy to keep the reasoning mostly to themselves if not completely to themselves. Why? What is there to gain by either Visa Seekers OR Imm. Offices and Officers?  

I do not understand why every new Imm. rule or amendment requires Visa seekers to go though the equivalent of a major investigation.   Which seems necessary  nearly EVERY TIME in order to get information and to find out how it will be applied at each's own Local Imm. Office.  These Rules & Regs whether new or amened should be readily available and consistently applied.   It not exactly Rocket science.

All that MOST of us Visa seekers ask, is for a little understanding and courtesy from Imm. regarding new rules and amendments.  Maybe Imm. cannot make rules that will please us but it can inform us adequately and provide a little advance warning to allow applicants to adjust/obtain the new requirements, and make sure its local offices are up to date and know how to apply the changes uniformly.

Regards, Dave

Edited by gdhm, 2007-09-17 10:57:22.

[tim77]

Sunbelt Asia, on 2007-09-17 02:26:35, said:

Because the dependent based on retirement, in their opinion is against the Immigration Act and Ministerial Regulations ( which is superior to the National Police Oder 606). Bkk Immigration feels  any permit granted before by them should never have been approved and the Police Order was wrong in allowing it. Immigration cannot allow someone to get a extension even if they have been granted one before as a dependent, as the superior law states they must not allow it. Immigration is not changing the law when they denied someone the permit,  in their opinion, they now are just using the correct interpretation of the Immigration Act and Ministerial Regulations  and ignoring in this case  the National Police Order in regards to dependents based on retirement.

www.sunbeltasiagroup.com

But . . . unless I am reading the Ministerial Regulation incorrectly . . . the use of dependent visa based on retirement is not prohibited by the Ministerial Regulation . . .it is simply not addressed.  

And yes . . . I do notice that you correctly and diplomatically used the phrase "in their opinion" twice.  

Funny times in Thailand.

[Sunbelt Asia]

Quote

But . . . unless I am reading the Ministerial Regulation incorrectly . . . the use of dependent visa based on retirement is not prohibited by the Ministerial Regulation . . .it is simply not addressed.

It is prohibited because in the Ministerial Regulations and Immigration Act, the dependent on retirement is not stated as one of the ways a foreigner can stay in Thailand.

www.sunbeltasiagroup.com

[Thailand]

Sunbelt Asia, on 2007-09-17 06:42:02, said:

Quote

But . . . unless I am reading the Ministerial Regulation incorrectly . . . the use of dependent visa based on retirement is not prohibited by the Ministerial Regulation . . .it is simply not addressed.

It is prohibited because in the Ministerial Regulations and Immigration Act, the dependent on retirement is not stated as one of the ways a foreigner can stay in Thailand.

www.sunbeltasiagroup.com

Sunbelt

It was mentioned in an earlier post re a farang couple doing the split year renewals, at least three months apart  and simply transferring the 800K between one and others bank for renewal of retirement visa - is that viable for the future?

I know of one couple here that already do it, simply because they arrived at different times.