The Thailand expat forum for Travel, Lifestyle and Fun.

can123

My understanding is that the retirement visa is determined only by reference to financial considerations and being over the age of fifty. Nothing else seems to matter.

Obviously, working in Thailand is totally forbidden for someone who had such a visa. The Thai authorities would have no way of knowing if the farang worked in another country nor do they seem to be the least bit interested whether he does or not. It doesn't seem logical to have a retirement visa, and commit funds to Thailand, if one is actually in employment elsewhere. Other types of visa might be more appropriate, especially in the case of a man married to a Thai woman. In reality, there seems to very little advantage in having a retirement visa if one is married. I appreciate that this is not the case for a single man who might be living with a Thai woman and, possibly, be the father of her child.

I haven't dealt with the multi-entry aspect. This is particularly complicated as it seems different criteria are used in granting visas outside of, and within, the Kingdom at present.

david44

Sadly Perth consul shut its Brisbane Hobart or I think Adelaide now

OhOh

The London Thai Embassy doesn't appear to have changed it's web site, not that the omission of changes on the web site means a great deal.

Category "O"
To visit Thai spouse, children, parents or voluntary job.

"Non-Immigrant Type O

Birth Certificate (applicant's child)
Certificate of Marriage or its equivalents (if married to Thai national)
An official recommendation letter from organization perform voluntary job in Thailand (for volunteer job)

Neither has the Hull Consulate changed their "requirements". So far.

Has anyone actually seen or received a pukka copy of this alleged change?

__________________
A tray full of money is not worth a mind full of knowledge.

sabang

A lot depends on how this is interpreted. Do they mean legally married? That would be bullshit- most weddings in Thailand are 'village marriages' anyway. If it comes down to living as a bona fide couple, I don't really have a problem with it.

benbaaa

I suggest we do an Arab spring and set up an independent state of Falangistan encompassing all the nice bits of Thailand. Can I be governor of Krabi?

OhOh

You don't need to be "retired/not working" just over 50 years of age and have either £900 per month income or £10,800 in a bank account, bond, cash etc. when you apply for the visa.

This income is accepted as proven if you have documentary evidence or a bank statement print out.

DrAndy

so this whole thread is based on an apparent contact from the Hull Embassy and no-one can find any corroboration

wind-up

chitown

Europe, the UK and the US, dish out citizenship and all sorts of visas (education, tourist) to all sorts of "scum" from around the world. So what is that all about?

To end this sort of double standard and sort it all out, the US, UK and other real countries need to mirror the immigration policy / land ownership rights etc of the country the person is applying from. If Thailand does this too foreigners, then Somchai or Pintong trying too go or live abroad should get the same same treatment. Not citizenship EVER, 90 day reports, visa runds, hoops, hoops, hoops and more hoops to jump through with ZERO benefits or chance to settle permanently. That would sort it out.

nidhogg

Absolutely agree.

__________________
sa souvraya niende misain ye

Rural Surin

Yep. Tha'll teach those third world heathens.

__________________
" Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: It transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology, it covers both the natural and the spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things......natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity."

DrAndy

do you think they do it out of benevolence

visas are issued for all sorts of reasons, not the least being cash

every country has the right to restrict entry to anyone they want

each country decides their own priorities

so what?

Bangyai

You'll have to submit a formal petition to King Loy Toy like everyone else. I suggest you get some of his favourite beers in.

Rural Surin

Don't bother.
It's difficult to reason with a culturally-centric and self-absorbed individual.

robuzo

It's a bit too much to expect developed countries to have matching, reciprocal immigration policies with developing countries. Rather than turn the discussion toward the rights and wrongs of US or UK immigration policies, I think the problem here is the way Thailand's policies, particularly in relation to marriage/family visas, discriminate against Thai nationals (the US and the UK also have something to answer for in this regard to their own nationals, albeit perhaps for different reasons than Thailand).

While the law concerning ownership of property by Thai female nationals was changed in 1998, it did not completely alleviate the discrimination against Thai women married to foreigners, because they still are required to state that the money used for property purchases did not come from the foreign spouse (aka her family member). This is a provision that obviously could cause serious trouble to the Thai spouse if at some point in the future she is required to offer definitive proof that the funds didn't come from the foreigner. It is tantamount to saying, "Go ahead and buy property, but we (the authorities) reserve the right to come back and contest the legality of your purchase if it serves our interest to do so in the future." That many or most Thais in that situation get away with offering a simple declaration is beside the point. Also, in the event of the Thai spouse's death, can her property go to the foreigner? Hardly, making the usual terms for property disposal under "wedlock" inapplicable in Thailand. In other words, the marriage of a Thai female to a foreign national is not viewed as having the same legitimacy as a Thai/Thai or Thai male/foreign female union (one might guess that is because of the prevailing view of "the kind of woman who marries a foreigner," but when it comes to equal treatment under the law that kind of prejudice should be beside the point). The above proviso does not, as far as I know, apply to the children of Thai/farang unions, and I suspect that if the rule about non-imm O visas has actually changed it is about eliminating "visiting with a Thai child" as a basis for visa application. If one is married to the mother then what is the point of applying on the basis of a relationship with the child? Only if there has been a divorce or she is dead, but apparently the question may not be the legitimacy of paternity. Maybe the genius in the Foreign Ministry who decided to change the rule hadn't really thought through the issue; nobody to answer to, anyway, except foreigners and their suspect Thai wives, so who cares?

As I pointed out in a previous post, other Asian countries, including Malaysia and Indonesia, as well as "racist, xenophobic" Japan, provide both long-term visas (not requiring stepping over the border every three months) and work permits to the spouses of their nationals. What some posters seem to fail to realize is that not doing so impinges upon the rights of the Thai nationals at least as much as it does upon the foreigner. It is the government essentially saying, "If you marry a foreign (male) person, go and live in their country, because they, despite now being members of your family, may not live here (unless they are Chinese or very wealthy)." Of course the Thai government will do what it will- it has the "right" as a sovereign government, "right" here meaning "the power to impose its will," but don't make the argument that it is not an affront against the human rights of the Thai spouse. It is incorrect to make this a farang-centric issue, since the other interested parties (family members) are Thais who want their husband/father to be with them.

To use another example from within Asia, Japan had very similar laws until about 20 years ago. The implicit assumption was that a Japanese female would go to live in her foreign husband's country (the rule did not apply to Japanese males marrying foreigners), and Japanese citizenship would not automatically be conveyed to the children of such unions. That law changed, against the wishes of the right-wing establishment, not because of pressure from foreigners, but because right-minded Japanese saw it as what it was- a sexist, racist policy. Thailand has a right, I suppose, to be as sexist and racist as it wants to until a sufficient number of Thais decide they want change, but let's call a spade a spade.

__________________
露武蔵

nidhogg

I disagree. There is something inherently just about saying "You are a sovereign nation, and you are perfectly within your rights to set whatever immigration or land ownership policies you want - BUT - we as an independent nation state have the right to mirror those policies where they significantly differ from our present policy".

It sigificantly annoys me that people in positions of setting policy here in Thailand are allowed to buy and fully own property in much of the world, while they ensure that foreigners will never be allowed to own property legally here.

The same applies to immigration. As I recall, Thaksin owned a buisness, was allowed to stay for a long time in UK - without reporting to the bloody immigration every 90 days and was allowed to buy property.

fair is fair...

On the point of "developing nations", Thailand has been playing that card for a looong time now. The western world should really get its shit together, and say you STOP being "developing" nation when you buy your first squadren of modern jet fighter aircraft, or aircraft carrier (or, in the case of other countries, develop your own nuclear weapons program)....

Rural Surin

So, your equating a civilised and developed standard with militarism?

Macabre.

robuzo

Been playing the "newly-formed democracy" card for a while, too. I'm referring to immigration policy rather than property ownership, but since I don't think the US one makes any sense either (the US will let your Thai spouse come and live in the States after many a flaming hoop has been lept through, but unless she is loaded or has a good job she can't just visit, because then she might stay). Racist old Japan makes it a lot easier for Thais to visit. My post wasn't really about visa reciprocity, though- any thoughts about my main point?

DrB0b

When he's 7 just go down to the Amphur office where his birth was registered. Tell them you want to legitimize him. If you have the support of your partner then you should have no problems. It will take a few weeks for the legitimation to come through. It's a painless and inexpensive procedure.

__________________

alwarner

Excellent. Cheers.

nidhogg

To difficult a concept for you RS?

I am saying that when a country choses to spend its dosh on advanced military hardware (rather than the welfare of its citizens), then it is no longer a "developing" nation (and thus should cease to benefit from the numerous advantages that that status carries).

thehighlander959

Any way how much more can Thailand be developed? They have had long enough to get it right. They are supposed to be one of the leading nations in ASEAN? although this is hard to see as their border issues with Cambodia and Burma seem to say that they are not any better than their undeveloped neighbours.

All the developed nations in the EU and America, have been making excuses for the Thai Government for years particularly the USA which has used Thailand as a special friend in the South East Asia region.Especially to the detriment of Laos,Cambodia, and Vietnam which they tried to bomb out of existence all those many years ago.

The Thai government are only ever interested in one thing. That is to ensure that they have 100% control of any person living,holidaying or stepping inside their border. And even if this system is wrong they will never loose face and tell anyone outside that it is.

Our governments at home are just as weak if not worse. They had a chance to step up to the plate when Abhisit authorized the systematic killing of the Rohingya (being towed out to sea). Again all of the western governments said absolutely nothing at all. They are not going to say anything to the Thai,s ever that is the bottom line here I am afraid.

Whilst here just remember whether you are on holiday or retirement you will be jumping through hoops for these people for the rest of your time on this planet.

__________________
"Don,t f*ck with the baldies*

robuzo

So, what are the Thais supposed to do when the Khmer forces overrun Sisaket?

Our countries like selling expensive hardware to "developing" countries- they'll even lend them the funds to do it- and are willing to overlook all sorts of hypocrisy and offensive behavior in order to so. Profits and expediency trump morality and consistency.

DrB0b

DNA evidence is the very last option. The courts consider it an intrusion on the childs rights and the mother, being the only one with parental powers, has the right to refuse a DNA test on her child.

This, from the Thai law code, is how I legitimized my child;

This was the basis for the petition:

This is the procedure:

Both quotes from Custody of a child

My case was based on Common Repute and the mother was hostile. I had to produce a large amount of documentation showing that I had supported the child, photographs showing that my ex and I lived together as spouses, photos showing all three of us together over the course of my sons life so far, and signed statements and testimony from reliable witnesses who had known me and my ex from at least the time my son was born.

nigelandjan

Thanks for clearing that up OO ,, so if you was on a retirement visa and got a bit fed up for example and fancied going back to the motherland to work for say 5 or 6 months then coming back it wouldn't be a prob on your next renewal ? I would have thought they would have a different interpretation of it. i.e. you was granted your last renewal on the grounds you are actually retired ? oh well more grey area I suppose.

Are you sure about the money mate ? I thought you had to have Bt 800000 which is about £17000

__________________
Banned from TV untill 1/11/2037

robuzo

^You also have to prove you have taken up either bridge or shuffleboard.