#  >  > Living And Legal Affairs In Thailand >  >  > Thai Visas and Visa Runs >  >  Is this true? New visa rules for foreign fathers of Thai children

## chitown

I just had this forwarded to me and wondered if it was true or not. If is, is yet another example, of what the Thai government really thinks of farangs. I guess you can't live here and support and care for your Thai children.  :Sad:  

Or am I getting this wrong? 

It is being talked about on the Nazi channel at the moment too. 

Please note that it is no longer possible to obtain a non immigrant visa from the Royal Thai Embassy or from any of the Royal Thai Consulates in the UK on the basis that you are the father of a child living in Thailand even if you possess the child's birth certificate which shows you as the father. To be eligible to apply for this type of visa you must also be married to the mother of the child and have an official marriage certificate." Alan P Taylor Hon Consul Royal Thai Consulate

----------


## sityparamount

I really dislike these w@nkers now.

Last year i got refused an o Visa because i only had our child`s passports and not her birth certificate.I am flying back to blighty in 3 weeks to reapply for an o visa.Well it looks like i am screwed again.Time to sell the house here and move the money out of Thailand.
I hope this is a joke,but i also saw it on the other forum.

Scum bags

----------


## rawlins

What the fuck?

I got that visa based on being a father here in Thailand a few months ago. We live together as a family and I am spending all my money earned in pounds in Thailand.

Marriage should be made illegal. And religion... Anybody found practising religion should be shot.

----------


## Bung

Oh well, I can get my retirement visa in 11 months.

Or will they move those goal posts as well??

----------


## nevets

They dont want the non Thai here have you not worked it out yet people , just send the money.

----------


## Ceburat1

I think that law/rule, if it is real, was made because many men get  their name put on a birth certificate just so they can get a visa to live in Thailand and remain single. They  don't support the child and don't care who the father really was.  Just another loophole being closed by Thai Immigration.

However, if you are the common law husband of a Thai woman and the child is yours, sounds to me likes it's time to get married.  On the other hand maybe you can't get legally married because you are married to someone else - this new rule could cause  complications.

----------


## rawlins

^ What if you dont believe in marriage?

Sounds like it is time to consider moving to a country that would be more inviting to spending my money there.

Actually just means that I will have to start doing visa trips to PP once every time I am back from work .... Quite a good night out to be had in PP so it might not be a bad thing.

----------


## Jon Snow

I was talking to a Thai the other day about this kind of thing.
I told him I was in Cambodia the other week talking to a guy who 
had been there 20 years, and who had said how easy the visa process 
was there compared to Thailand.
I added that the process in the Philippines was pretty painless also.

He said, (and I'm paraphrasing here) - 
"You Farangs  think that the immigration issues are all about you.
Cambodia and the Philippines, dont have Nigerians selling drugs on 
their streets, Russian hookers, mad Iranian bombers, hordes of foreigners
waiting to buy up all of Thailand
We cant make special rules just for you guys.
Everybody wants to come to Thailand".

I couldnt be bothered debating it with him, I could see he felt like 
he and his beloved Thailand where under siege.

----------


## chitown

> What the fuck?I got that visa based on being a father here in Thailand a few months ago. We live together as a family and I am spending all my money earned in pounds in Thailand.


The Thai xenophobes do not care. You and I are scummy outsiders. Farang mai dee!

----------


## chitown

> Oh well, I can get my retirement visa in 11 months.
> 
> Or will they move those goal posts as well??


Is the pope catholic?

----------


## chitown

> They dont want the non Thai here have you not worked it out yet people , just send the money.


Insecure Thai men making the rules. For obvious reasons (that they can't see), their women do not want them and it drives them bananas. I am constantly asked by Thai men why "Thai lady like farang?"

----------


## Jesus Jones

I agree with the rules, and if the UK enforced similar regarding foreigners, it wouldn't be as fucked up as it is and i wouldn't be living in Thailand!

----------


## Bung

what if you have a child but are divorced from the mother?

----------


## good2bhappy

> Is the pope catholic?


No, he is Roman Catholic.
Catholic means universal.

----------


## Marmite the Dog

> He said, (and I'm paraphrasing here) - "You Farangs think that the immigration issues are all about you. Cambodia and the Philippines, don’t have Nigerians selling drugs on their streets, Russian hookers, mad Iranian bombers, hordes of foreigners waiting to buy up all of Thailand We can’t make special rules just for you guys. Everybody wants to come to Thailand".


A fair point (unless you're blinkered).

----------


## robuzo

> "Everybody wants to come to Thailand".


Do they ever pause and wonder why that is? Oh, the temples and the lovely beaches and national parks. Right.

Thanks for starting the thread here, Chi. A friend of mine forwarded me the post from the Nazi Channel and I started posting there, because I thought the only way it made sense would be to post content from that god-awful forum. I see I was wrong.

I think this is mostly a minor tempest in a teapot, and enforcement will be consulate-specific, as usual.

----------


## dirtydog

> I guess you can't live here and support and care for your Thai children.


Maybe doing it the Thai way, your parents can get a non immigrant visa to look after your child  :Smile:

----------


## robuzo

^ :rofl:

----------


## Davis Knowlton

Even though I was on a visa here in the Philippines that only required me to leave once a year, this is precisely why I decided to go through the hassle of getting Permanent Resident status - with the stroke of a pen they can change the rules and screw your entire life.

----------


## Seekingasylum

The fundamental difference between the Thai and most other western immigration policies is that irrespective of category only a miniscule number of those who settle here actually obtain permanent residence. It's therefore a little illogical to foist even more obstacles upon farang who had previously qualified for a visa simply to close a loophole. A loophole into what? There is no material or social benefit to be gained by choosing to live in Thailand and certainly very few, if any, acquire any rights as a consequence. Farang don't compete with the Thai and their interests aren't threatened by our presence.

The sad thing about this state of affairs is that had the Thai permitted true inward migration, free competition etc perhaps the foolishness of the place might not be so pronounced.  But then, look at Greece? 

Actually, I know of no other country that permits a long stay on the basis of the care of a child born out of wedlock, unless it was in the most exceptional of circumstances, so I suppose Thailand is just getting in step. Perhaps the Thai are having a problem and their statistics are showing many undesirables they are encountering had gained temporary settlement on the basis of caring for a bastard?

----------


## robuzo

"I know of no other country that permits a long stay on the basis of the care of a child born out of wedlock. . ." The problem isn't so much that as the Thai government not only doesn't confer any rights upon the foreign spouse, it also imposes a burden upon the Thai national if she wishes to purchase property. There is no incentive to marry a Thai in the event a child is conceived, but rather it makes more sense not to, even, perhaps particularly, if one wants to buy a house for the mother and child to live in.

----------


## The Master Cool

Thailand is for Thais.


And 2 week tourists spending lots of cash then going home to tell everyone how wonderful Thailand is.


They don't like you, and they don't want you living here.

----------


## Bangyai

The OP from TV.



*We have received this message from The Hon Consul at the Royal Thai Consulate Hull.*

Dear News Editor

I would be obliged if you would post the following message from the Royal Thai Consulate, Hull UK regarding the Expat Forum Topic "Non Imm Visa When You Have Thai Child":-

"Message from the Royal Thai Consulate in Hull (UK).
Please note that it is no longer possible to obtain a non immigrant visa from the Royal Thai Embassy or from any of the Royal Thai Consulates in the UK on the basis that you are the father of a child living in Thailand even if you possess the child's birth certificate which shows you as the father. To be eligible to apply for this type of visa you must also be married to the mother of the child and have an official marriage certificate." 

Can you also please inform your readers that they must never post their passport from Thailand to any other country for any reason because there will not be any evidence in their passport to show that they exited Thailand. 

Thank you and kind regards

Alan P Taylor
Hon Consul
Royal Thai consulate
4 Priory Cour
Saxon Way
Hessle
HULL
HU13 9PB

----------


## Bangyai

So if this directive is from the Hull Consulate it is not so surprising. People are always bragging on TV about what a soft touch Hull is and how easy it is to get a non imm visa from them , bending the rules if necessary. It was inevitable that one day the gravy train would run in to molasses and now it seems it has a bit.

If you are onto a good thing , don't brag about it on the net  :Confused: 

PS 

It might just be an innitiative of the Hull embassy and not the official immigration line ?

----------


## robuzo

^In other words, Hull might be covering their asses.

One odd twist to this situation is that the foreign father's name can be on the hospital notice of birth and the birth certificate, and the foreign father's last name can be legally conferred upon his Thai offspring (kind of strange to call a child a "bastard" when he has his father's last name, but of course it's safe to use such quaint expressions on Internet forum, if not in person), but unless the parents have registered the marriage legal paternity is not established. The child can have a Thai passport and ID card with his or her farang father's last name, but paternity is not officially established unless the parents are married, despite the fact that a child born to a married woman is often not the offspring of her husband (in the West as well as in Thailand).

----------


## Seekingasylum

Bastard is quite acceptable but, increasingly, as successive waves of scarcely educated folk leave school the original meaning is becoming lost.

Certainly, if I used the term " born out of wedlock " most wouldn't have a clue.

Illegitimate birth in terms of officialdom has always discriminated against the father not least because in the case of the mother there cannot be any doubt as to parentage whereas proving paternity beyond all reasonable doubt ultimately requires DNA testing. It was only in 2005 that the British authorities finally permitted equal rights to the father passing on nationality to their bastard, sorry, illegitmate children.

----------


## robuzo

When there are not only no incentives but actually disincentives to marry than it is the practical course, especially where there is a certain level of trust.

----------


## robuzo

So now will I have to prove that I am actually retired to get a retirement visa? That the legitimacy of anyone staying here must be proven in the eyes of this meretricious state is risible.

----------


## nigelandjan

> So now will I have to prove that I am actually retired to get a retirement visa?


  Surely that would be par for the course ? If you are living permanently in Thaiand i.e. not going back and forth to your mother country for months at a time , surely you would be deemed to be retired.

----------


## robuzo

> Originally Posted by robuzo
> 
> So now will I have to prove that I am actually retired to get a retirement visa?
> 
> 
>   Surely that would be par for the course ? If you are living permanently in Thaiand i.e. not going back and forth to your mother country for months at a time , surely you would be deemed to be retired.


What if most of my work was not in my mother country? Is there a requirement that a person on retirement actually be physically in Thailand a certain number of days?

Good thing they've never heard of Skype.

----------


## rawlins

So now I have to choose between the the Mia and the Mia Noi.

----------


## DrB0b

What if the child has been legitimized? That confers legal paternity without marriage.

----------


## Seekingasylum

> When there are not only no incentives but actually disincentives to marry than it is the practical course, especially where there is a certain level of trust.


Apart from the obvious eternal reasons for eschewing matrimony, what is the disincentive to marry one's Thai partner? The prohibition on Thai wives, married to non Thai, owning property in their own right was removed in 1997.

----------


## sityparamount

When the mother of my child applied for a tourist visa to the uk,she got 6 months without having to leave the country every 2 weeks or nip down to immigration and pay them.

I am sure the number of foreigners getting their name on a Thais birth certificate,just so they can get an o visa,can not be that high.
This new rule f@cks everyone and is so badly thought out.But that is no real surprise is it.

Can any one suggest a nice place to live in Malaysia.

----------


## Seekingasylum

> What if the child has been legitimized? That confers legal paternity without marriage.


Huh?

Wedlock is what legitimates the birth. Without it, the child will always be illegitimate.

----------


## DrB0b

> Originally Posted by DrB0b
> 
> 
> What if the child has been legitimized? That confers legal paternity without marriage.
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> Wedlock is what legitimates the birth. Without it, the child will always be illegitimate.


Not true under Thai law. Wedlock is only one way way of legitimizing a child in Thailand. A child can also be legitimized at the Amphur office once he/she is over the age of seven. A child under the age of 7 can be legitimized by a court order or by the marriage of the parents. This is all covered in Section 1555 and below of the Thai Civil and Criminal code.

I know this from direct experience. I have very recently been through the expensive and lengthy court procedure (one reason for my dearth of posts over the last few months) and now possess a certificate of paternity which gives me the legal status and the duties and responsibilities of a father and which makes the child my legitimate child.

The reason for my question is that the OP specifically mentions marriage and not legitimacy.

----------


## The Master Cool

Can't people just go to Perth, or even a neighbouring country to get one instead of the UK?

It is a change in policy in UK consulates, particularly Hull, that has been announced, not a change in the Thai immigration law.

----------


## alwarner

Well this certainly puts a spanner in the works...

----------


## Seekingasylum

> Originally Posted by thegent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by DrB0b
> ...


Thank you for that.

----------


## nidhogg

> Originally Posted by thegent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by DrB0b
> ...


Do you have any more info on this?

I ask, because I read somewhere that the issue (of paternity) in some way gets clouded if the actual father did not report the birth himself?  The "presumptive" father is the person who did the reporting?  Sounds "off", as I am named in the birth cert, but did not do the reporting?

----------


## rawlins

> When the mother of my child applied for a tourist visa to the uk,she got 6 months without having to leave the country every 2 weeks or nip down to immigration and pay them.
> 
> I am sure the number of foreigners getting their name on a Thais birth certificate,just so they can get an o visa,can not be that high.
> This new rule f@cks everyone and is so badly thought out.But that is no real surprise is it.
> 
> Can any one suggest a nice place to live in Malaysia.


I bet there are loads of good places to live in Malaysia... They may be a Muslim country but they are better developed than Thailand.

Anyway, I couldn't give a fuck.

----------


## sunsetter

> any one suggest a nice place to live in Malaysia


mallaca, langkawi, penang

----------


## DrB0b

> Originally Posted by DrB0b
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by thegent
> ...


That is correct. Your name on the birth certificate as father is meaningless, it gives no legal standing. Many people, particularly Thais, will tell that if you are named as the father on the birth cert then you are the legal father. You are not. I have been subjected to many inaccurate lectures on this but the whole thing was clearly explained to me on the first day I went to the Juvenile Observation and Family Service Center to sign the papers to start the case. It was also explained again and again over the many subsequent meetings before the case got to the court.

The only ways to become the legal father are the methods I mentioned above.

----------


## VocalNeal

> If you are onto a good thing , don't brag about it on the net


+1 

Social networking in action combined with the need for some to tell everyone how smart they are, combined with the naivety that only guys looking for loopholes read these forums. 

If someone asks you tell them personally, oops too late..

----------


## alwarner

> Originally Posted by nidhogg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by DrB0b
> ...


Bob my son is 7 going on 8 (June), how would I go about legitimizing him?  His mother and i are together, no plans to marry though.  Although I guess in the light of this thread I might have to do that to be able to live here.

----------


## Khun Custard

> Quote:    
> 					Originally Posted by sityparamount  any one suggest a nice place to live in Malaysia    mallaca, langkawi, penang


Kota Kintabalu and, with Singapore just a short drive over the creek,  Johor Baru is becoming popular.  Malaysia just loves us retirees and have done so with out any problems or goal post moving (that I am aware of) for over 10 years.

The irony in this thread and the _"fair enough reactions and comments raised"_ is that for all us Non Imm. Visa holders here, what percentage of us have or would seek Thai nationality to confirm commitment to their new found home, country and their spouse?

Looking at most other countries (but specifically thinking of Australia) ... security checks, minimum language standards (written and spoken) and swearing allegiance to ??  to get a Cert. of Citizenship (that's before the passport is issued) to find a well paid job to get on with the almost impossible task of finding/ financing affordable housing (at our age), higher cost of living and an ever-shrinking medical benefits catch net.

*Don't you think our Thai hosts are actually doing us a favour by keeping us here but at a distance??........*     Well, until the money and the wife  run out and then it's a row boat home to get on social security until we snuff it??

Having one of those days when I can't determine if the glass is half empty or full... so I'll just fill it up again  :Smile:   :Smile:  :Smile: 

*It's full!!*

----------


## mingmong

''Can't people just go to Perth, or even a neighbouring country to get one instead of the UK?''

Perth Consulate closed down 2 year ago, Darwin has never had a consulate. in fact its Harder to fly to the closest point in Oz [Darwin] then Melbourne, I work Melbourne have Home Darwin, Im stumped !

----------


## DrAndy

> Although I guess in the light of this thread I might have to do that to be able to live here.


I am not sure that the whole thing is not just a nonsense from Hull

----------


## alwarner

^Fingers crossed it is.  I used Cardiff when I got my Non Imm visa in August.  I'll email them / give them a ring.  

All I needed at the time was a copy of the birth certificate and a covering letter from the other half, really simple and quite a pleasant experience.

The only issue there is that the couple who run the consulate are retiring soon (possibly already) and the next person could be a ball breaker!!

----------


## larvidchr

I'm sorry for the Foreign genuine guys/girls taking their responsibilities as fathers/parents serious and actually caring and providing for their children out here, they should not be having obstacles put in their way more the opposite in fact.

I know it would be one more bureaucratic thing to go through, but a mandatory one off simple blood-test could disperse any doubts about parenthood, if that is one of the problems the Thai authorities want to adress with this rumored new rule.

I just can't see how the relatively few foreign parents to half Thai children in anyway could become any kind of problem to Thai "supremacy" in Thailand.

Lets hope this one is just a rumor, fluke or very short-lived.

----------


## alwarner

^Me too, I've missed a lot of my son growing up to provide for them, and now (albeit potentially) I'm in a position to stay here I won't be able to unless I get married.  Like DrAndy says lets hope it's just sabre rattling from the consulate in Hull.  Otherwise I guess there will be lots of people being forced to get married, which surely makes a mockery of marriage.

----------


## Rural Surin

> I was talking to a Thai the other day about this kind of thing.
> I told him I was in Cambodia the other week talking to a guy who 
> had been there 20 years, and who had said how easy the visa process 
> was there compared to Thailand.
> I added that the process in the Philippines was pretty painless also.
> 
> He said, (and I'm paraphrasing here) - 
> "You Farangs think that the immigration issues are all about you.
> Cambodia and the Philippines, dont have Nigerians selling drugs on 
> ...


Perhaps some Thai circles feel they are [being besieged].
Different reasoning can often be perplexing if we don't view all sides.

Sure, Thailand has a recent history of illogical frustrating immigration and visa practices. These allowances are set into place as protection. Just as regulations are looked upon throughout numerous countries. Some immigration policies are draconian in comparison to Thailand.....it could be worse.

Naturally, we'll interpret all the unmitigated suppressive policies negitavely, because all affects us personally and familiarly.

----------


## harrybarracuda

> I was talking to a Thai the other day about this kind of thing.
> I told him I was in Cambodia the other week talking to a guy who 
> had been there 20 years, and who had said how easy the visa process 
> was there compared to Thailand.
> I added that the process in the Philippines was pretty painless also.
> 
> He said, (and I'm paraphrasing here) - 
> "You Farangs  think that the immigration issues are all about you.
> Cambodia and the Philippines, dont have Nigerians selling drugs on 
> ...


You forgot about the Indians selling watches and shit.

But seriously, how many of the c**ts above are legal?

----------


## nostromo

Good points made here, but some a bit off the track while meaning is good, I presume. The sad truth is that while many good people are coming to live in Thailand, many bad ones are coming as well  already mentioned Nigerians, Russians and the lot (including criminals of every  other country as well). So what is Thailand to do? They(or some of us as well) fear that their culture and way of life is eroded by Russian mafia, etc, which in my eyes is natural reaction. So they make limits. Unfortunately these limits limit everyone, even the good people. 

If someone found a way to differentiate between scum  and real typical good farang who takes care of his family, and make a presentation of that to Thai government I would nominate him for Nobel right away.

I understand current extremist hardline approach to Non Imm visas (which I find... extreme) was put into motion during military government, and as foreign office takes time, became real in early 2011. Hopefully it has been reversed with the new government, but any changes will take time this way as well.

----------


## Orroz

So, as I see it, you can get a non-imm visa if you can prove that the child is legitimately yours. Your name on the child's birth cert is not enough so it has to be done through the courts as Dr Bob experienced. But none of this is written in the Hull consulate letter. It's just saying no visa unless you are married to the mother. So I'm confused...

----------


## Happy As Larry

> Not true under Thai law. Wedlock is only one way way of legitimizing a child in Thailand. A child can also be legitimized at the Amphur office once he/she is over the age of seven. A child under the age of 7 can be legitimized by a court order or by the marriage of the parents. This is all covered in Section 1555 and below of the Thai Civil and Criminal code.
> 
> I know this from direct experience. I have very recently been through the expensive and lengthy court procedure (one reason for my dearth of posts over the last few months) and now possess a certificate of paternity which gives me the legal status and the duties and responsibilities of a father and which makes the child my legitimate child.
> 
> The reason for my question is that the OP specifically mentions marriage and not legitimacy.


Bob I would be interested in the "expensive and lengthy court procedure". I am considering such an action at the moment and was under the impression that there were 2 possibilities other than marriage.
One would be to go to the amphur with a willing mother and have the child given a certain age 7 + state that the father was his indeed his/her father. That this could be done without recourse to the courts and was  inexpensive.
The alternative for a child under the age of 7 was to go to the family court with dna evidence. Again I was under the impression that this was neither too complex or expensive provided that the mother was a willing partner and that only if the mother was resistant to the idea would it prove difficult and expensive.

----------


## dirtydog

It's all quite obvious to me, all these half chats/half breeds are cutting into the purity of Thai blood, time to get them out of the country with their fathers and make Thailand more pure and more THAILAND......

----------


## sunsetter

anyone actually checked the hull website?

----------


## superman

> It's all quite obvious to me, all these half chats/half breeds are cutting into the purity of Thai blood, time to get them out of the country with their fathers and make Thailand more pure and more THAILAND......


Does that include the higher levels of Thai society ?

----------


## dirtydog

^Nothing that they can do about the Issanites, so they have learnt to live with them  :Smile:

----------


## Rural Surin

> It's all quite obvious to me, all these half chats/half breeds are cutting into the purity of Thai blood, time to get them out of the country with their fathers and make Thailand more pure and more THAILAND......


Indeed. Since the _Thai_ bloodline is clearly a minority.

This would include all Khmer, Lao, Chinese, Burman, Malay, Vietnamese, Mon, Indian, Persian, and assorted hilltribe types. All....born and bred "Thai".

And what of those luk kreung generations....???
What do we do with them?

----------


## Jon Snow

> You forgot about the Indians selling watches and shit.
> 
> But seriously, how many of the c**ts above are legal?


*Legal or not Harry, this guy was in real Enemy at the gates, Wolf at the door type mode.* 
*Which took me aback a little because Ive known him for years and he never gave me the impression that he was anti-foreigner at all.*
*His last statement, Everybody wants to come to Thailand was said with a roll of the eyes and with a, why dont they all just fcuk off back to where they came from tone.*
*Hes an old guy, who probably thought of foreigners as a novelty and now thinks were just a fuckin aggravation.* 
*He qualified that last statement by saying, Im not talking about you Khun Jon, and gave me a big false Thai smile.*
*Maybe hes right, maybe theres too many scum bags coming to Thailand or maybe he feels his culture is being eroded or changed or maybe hes just getting old and grumpy.*
*(He did have a point about Farangs thinking immigration grief was only directed at them).*
* Anyway, made me sad.* 
*I have see a lot of changes since 92 when I first came here and not all for the better, but thats life I guess, nothing stays the same.*

----------


## Orroz

> anyone actually checked the hull website?


Yes and I can't find anything about this new rule there. Not been updated maybe

----------


## alwarner

> anyone actually checked the hull website?


 Nothing under news, but, I'm having trouble opening the .pdf file for Additional Information for Visas  Visas & Downloads :: The Royal Thai Consulate  Third one down if anyone can have a look.

----------


## Aussie Tigger

The reason most Countries put these rules in place is because leniency is exploited by many.To easy to get your name on a birth certificate as many ladies for a few baht would be happy to have you on the certificate if the actual sperm donor does not even know he has planted this or simply could not care less.
If you want to live here why not put your 800,000 baht in the bank and apply.
The reason Australia has become so tight and restrictive is because so many falsify documents which makes it hard of course for the legitimate applicant.
What is the problem in marrying your lady if you have a child with her and do your best to give the kid a chance in life?

----------


## alwarner

I wonder how many farangs would put their name on a birth certificate to get a 12month visa?  My guess is virtually none. However I bet there are plenty more that would get married for the same reason.  Wouldn't it make more sense to make it tougher for people _without_ kids to reside here? But then you'd lose out on "the grey baht" I suppose.  I'm very much live and let live but why should I be forced to get married to be able to live with my son in the country of his birth AT?

----------


## thehighlander959

Its a bit of a pisser really. I have nearly 18 month old twins and I am the natural father we have the DNA documentaion which we requested from the hospital, we also have their Thai Birth Certificates (also in English) and their Thai and UK Passports.
I spoke to my girlfriend about getting married and she said she did not fancy it. Something about when her last marriage went pear-shaped, and she likes this arrangement as it is.
I work in Qatar on a 28/28 basis, so at present this is not going to have any real effect on me. When I decide to rap this offshore game, its going to put a completely different slant on our relationship.
In Thailand you know how it feels to be like a circus animal with all the hoops you have to jump through. Maybe time to move somewhere else in the Orient....

----------


## rawlins

Hong King Kong is nice.

----------


## Rural Surin

> Hong King Kong is nice.


Cambodia is better......
If it comes to that.

----------


## Bangyai

> Originally Posted by sunsetter
> 
> 
> anyone actually checked the hull website?
> 
> 
> Nothing under news, but, I'm having trouble opening the .pdf file for Additional Information for Visas Visas & Downloads :: The Royal Thai Consulate Third one down if anyone can have a look.


Nothing in there yet.  So what can you infer ? That the Royal Thai Consulate Hull now prefers TV as its news outlet over its own website ?

A bit tough on TZ SZ and all the rest. :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Bangyai

> Wouldn't it make more sense to make it tougher for people _without_ kids to reside here?


If it was a question of sense , most _Thais_ wouldn't be allowed to live here !  :mid:

----------


## Troy

> Can you also please inform your readers that they must never post their passport from Thailand to any other country for any reason because there will not be any evidence in their passport to show that they exited Thailand.


WTF??...UK no longer renews passports in Thailand...thought they needed to be sent to Hong Kong now for renewal...and how do you exit Thailand without your passport? Something lost in the translation?

----------


## alwarner

^ha ha, hopefully its all a load of bollocks or if not there will be a reasonable work around for the problem.  I've got 9 or so months to wait and see so it's not too pressing.  It's definitely be a kick in the teeth if it is true though.  I really don't want to get married.

----------


## klong toey

> Originally Posted by Bangyai
> 
> Can you also please inform your readers that they must never post their passport from Thailand to any other country for any reason because there will not be any evidence in their passport to show that they exited Thailand.
> 
> 
> WTF??...UK no longer renews passports in Thailand...thought they needed to be sent to Hong Kong now for renewal...and how do you exit Thailand without your passport? Something lost in the translation?


Specific requirements from Thailand

ORIGINAL PASSPORT: Thailand is an exception to the main guidance given on our primary website.  It is not advised to be without your original passport in Thailand and we recognise this. You may therefore submit a clear photocopy of your passport (just the page with your personal details and photograph).  Please note that the passport being renewed will be electronically cancelled and is therefore not valid for use as a travel document from the moment you submit your application.  On receipt of your new passport, you must physically cancel your old passport by cutting the corners of the photo page and the front and back covers.  Failure to do so may leave your replaced passport open to abuse.  Alternatively, you should visit the British Embassy in Bangkok to have your replaced passport physically cancelled.

----------


## nigelandjan

> What if most of my work was not in my mother country? Is there a requirement that a person on retirement actually be physically in Thailand a certain number of days?


  It was my understanding if you were granted a retirement visa and subsequent renewals that was granted / renewed wholly on the understanding you were retired and not working anywhere .

----------


## can123

> Originally Posted by robuzo
> 
> What if most of my work was not in my mother country? Is there a requirement that a person on retirement actually be physically in Thailand a certain number of days?
> 
> 
>   It was my understanding if you were granted a retirement visa and subsequent renewals that was granted / renewed wholly on the understanding you were retired and not working anywhere .


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

> Can't people just go to Perth, or even a neighbouring country to get one instead of the UK?
> 
> It is a change in policy in UK consulates, particularly Hull, that has been announced, not a change in the Thai immigration law.


 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?

----------


## sabang

> you must also be married to the mother of the child and have an official marriage certificate."


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

> Originally Posted by robuzo
> 
> What if most of my work was not in my mother country? Is there a requirement that a person on retirement actually be physically in Thailand a certain number of days?
> 
> 
>   It was my understanding if you were granted a retirement visa and subsequent renewals that was granted / renewed wholly on the understanding you were retired and not working anywhere .


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

> *Maybe hes right, maybe theres too many scum bags coming to Thailand or maybe he feels his culture is being eroded or changed or maybe hes just getting old and grumpy.*


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

> Originally Posted by Jon Snow
> 
> 
> *Maybe hes right, maybe theres too many scum bags coming to Thailand or maybe he feels his culture is being eroded or changed or maybe hes just getting old and grumpy.*
> 
> 
> 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.


Absolutely agree.

----------


## Rural Surin

> Originally Posted by Jon Snow
> 
> 
> *Maybe hes right, maybe theres too many scum bags coming to Thailand or maybe he feels his culture is being eroded or changed or maybe hes just getting old and grumpy.*
> 
> 
> 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.


Yep. Tha'll teach those third world heathens. :Scratchchin:

----------


## DrAndy

> 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?


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

> 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?


 
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

> Originally Posted by 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?
> 
> 
> do you think they do it out of benevolence
> 
> visas are issued for all sorts of reasons, not the least being cash
> 
> ...


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

----------


## robuzo

> Originally Posted by chitown
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by Jon Snow
> ...


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.

----------


## nidhogg

> Originally Posted by nidhogg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by chitown
> ...


 
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

> 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)....


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

Macabre. :durh: 

 :poo:  :poo:

----------


## robuzo

> 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)....


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

> Originally Posted by DrB0b
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by nidhogg
> ...


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

> Originally Posted by nidhogg
> 
> 
>  
> 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)....
> 
> 
> So, your equating a civilised and developed standard with militarism?
> 
> Macabre.


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.

----------


## robuzo

> 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).


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

> Originally Posted by DrB0b
> 
> 
> Not true under Thai law. Wedlock is only one way way of legitimizing a child in Thailand. A child can also be legitimized at the Amphur office once he/she is over the age of seven. A child under the age of 7 can be legitimized by a court order or by the marriage of the parents. This is all covered in Section 1555 and below of the Thai Civil and Criminal code.
> 
> I know this from direct experience. I have very recently been through the expensive and lengthy court procedure (one reason for my dearth of posts over the last few months) and now possess a certificate of paternity which gives me the legal status and the duties and responsibilities of a father and which makes the child my legitimate child.
> 
> The reason for my question is that the OP specifically mentions marriage and not legitimacy.
> 
> ...


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:




> (6) Where the Father  had sexual intercourse with the Mother during the period when  conception could have taken place, and there are grounds to believe that  he or she is not the child of another man;
> (7) Where there has been continuous common repute of being a legitimate child. The status resulting for common  continuous repute of being a legitimate child is established by means of  facts showing the relationship of Father and child, as evidenced by the  child's connection with the family to which he claims to belong, such  as the fact that the Father has provided the child's education and  maintenance, or that he has allowed the child to use his family name or  other facts.
> In any case, if the man is found unable to be a father, the case shall be dismissed."


This is the procedure:




> 1.A petition should be given to the Court
> 2 A kind of social worker  will examine the background of both spouses, separately, to make a  report for the Court. This report is filed with what is called the  'juvenile division', it is NOT presented in front of the Court, and  lawyers are normally not allowed to be present.
> 3.A negotiation  session between the parties will be the first step in Court before a  trial. It's normally done in front of a mediator and if the parties  agree, this agreement will be signed by a judge and will have the same  value as a judgment.
> 4.If parties can't agree, there is a trial in front of the judge.
> 5.The judge will rend a decision.
> 6.Rights will be registered at the local authority following an agreement or a judgment.


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

> 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.


   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

----------


## robuzo

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

----------


## nidhogg

> My case was based on Common Repute and the mother was hostile. .


Sorry to hear that Bob.  Do I recall you also had a bad accident recently?  Sounds like a tough time.

----------


## good2bhappy

reckon it is a hoax

----------


## nidhogg

> reckon it is a hoax


Really?  Bob and I seldom agree, but I don't think that would fit with that portion of his character he shows on the board.

----------


## DrB0b

> Originally Posted by good2bhappy
> 
> 
> reckon it is a hoax
> 
> 
> Really?  Bob and I seldom agree, but I don't think that would fit with that portion of his character he shows on the board.


Think he's talking about the OP, but thanks  :Smile:

----------


## good2bhappy

not you
Hull message

----------


## nidhogg

> Originally Posted by nidhogg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by good2bhappy
> ...


I wish you well bob.  Let us know when you are back to "fighting fit"

----------


## robuzo

One of the constants in discussions of applications for visas to Thailand is the lack of consistency among Thai consulates not only throughout the world, but even within individual countries where multiple consulates exist. It seems to me that normally directives such as this would not be issued by an individual consulate (along with, strangely enough, a warning about not shipping one's passport off without being attached to it), but by the Foreign Ministry itself, perhaps with a memo then relayed by individual consulates. Only someone with experience dealing with Thai authority would find the Hull memo to be within the bounds of normality for an organ of the foreign ministry of a country that purportedly seeks to be taken seriously.

----------


## DrAndy

> 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


I think you have that arse about face

the foreigner is required to state that his money was not used so that he/she cannot have any rights to the land - it does not affect the wife's rights at all




> 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."


so that is not the case

----------


## DrAndy

> (along with, strangely enough, a warning about not shipping one's passport off without being attached to it


this was because some wily Brits have been sending their passports back to the UK, probably to friends, who then send them to Hull for a visa. This saved the chap the hassle of going out of the country and home

those clever Thais, however, have things called computers which showed that the passport may have left the country but the owner did not

the Brits should have gone to Cambodia/laos etc and sent the passport home

so the consulate in hull must have got a telling off

----------


## robuzo

> Originally Posted by robuzo
> 
>  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
> 
> 
> I think you have that arse about face
> 
> the foreigner is required to state that his money was not used so that he/she cannot have any rights to the land - it does not affect the wife's rights at all
> 
> ...


So if it turns out at some future point that it can't be proven, beyond an affidavit from the foreign spouse, that the money didn't come from the foreigner, there will be no effect on the wife's title? OK. Which of the couple files a statement that the money was the better half's all along seems to me a distinction without a difference, although in any case the farang would still be making that statement on the wife's behalf. Not exactly arse backwards, is it?

----------


## robuzo

> Originally Posted by robuzo
> 
> (along with, strangely enough, a warning about not shipping one's passport off without being attached to it
> 
> 
> this was because some wily Brits have been sending their passports back to the UK, probably to friends, who then send them to Hull for a visa. This saved the chap the hassle of going out of the country and home
> 
> those clever Thais, however, have things called computers which showed that the passport may have left the country but the owner did not
> 
> ...


Probably close enough to what happened, so who knows if there has been any actual change in policy (in practical terms)?

----------


## can123

> I wonder how many farangs would put their name on a birth certificate to get a 12month visa?  My guess is virtually none. However I bet there are plenty more that would get married for the same reason.  Wouldn't it make more sense to make it tougher for people _without_ kids to reside here? But then you'd lose out on "the grey baht" I suppose.  I'm very much live and let live but why should I be forced to get married to be able to live with my son in the country of his birth AT?


Why do you have children out of wedlock and think that your totally irresponsible behaviour should be rewarded ? No country really wants men like you.

----------


## robuzo

^Wait a minute, making sure that the world knows you are the kid's father is irresponsible behavior? Wouldn't that be running off and denying paternity?

----------


## Looper

> Originally Posted by chitown
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by Jon Snow
> ...


Surely it is economically inevitable that poor countries will restrict foreigners buying land because foreign individuals have so much more buying power. It would be unfair to their citizens to have them priced out of their own market by long stay tourists.

It even represents a threat to national sovereignty - what if a rich country decided to buy all the real estste in a poor country - does the poor country even still exist in any real sense?

The reverse is not true in richer countries since the threat does not exist.

I think laws evolve locally to reflect economic realities.

----------


## nidhogg

> Originally Posted by nidhogg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by chitown
> ...


 
I get your point, but most foreigners would like the ability to legally own a piece of land with a house on it - not an amphur.

----------


## can123

> ^Wait a minute, making sure that the world knows you are the kid's father is irresponsible behavior? Wouldn't that be running off and denying paternity?


To deny paternity would be even worse behaviour. I could not deny a child and I could not treat a woman like dirt either.Some of us have standards of decency which we do not lower.

----------


## thehighlander959

> Originally Posted by Looper
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by nidhogg
> ...


 


The law her in Thailand is made to suit the HISO here in Thailand and only to suit their agenda.

*I think the law evolves here to reflect the needs of the rich and not those who live by the governments sufficiency economy. There fixed that for you.....*

----------


## liveinlos

> 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?


All the farangs need to get together and block a major highway into Bangkok until the Thai government relaxes all visa requirements. 

It worked for the protesters that did not get their 5,000 thb flood reporations.

100 cops will show up and stand around bullshitting, afraid of confrontation and no one will be arrested.

Win-win situation

----------


## Ratchaburi

> Originally Posted by 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?
> 
> 
> All the farangs need to get together and block a major highway into Bangkok until the Thai government relaxes all visa requirements. 
> 
> It worked for the protesters that did not get their 5,000 thb flood reporations.
> ...


is your other nic Socal   :smiley laughing:  :smiley laughing:  :smiley laughing:

----------


## Lorenzo

> They dont want the non Thai here have you not worked it out yet people , just send the money.


Couldn't be more true




> However, if you are the common law husband of a Thai woman and the child is yours, sounds to me likes it's time to get married.


Bad advise




> Sounds like it is time to consider moving to a country that would be more inviting to spending my money there.


Good advise




> "You Farangs think that the immigration issues are all about you. Cambodia and the Philippines, dont have Nigerians selling drugs on their streets, Russian hookers, mad Iranian bombers, hordes of foreigners waiting to buy up all of Thailand We cant make special rules just for you guys. Everybody wants to come to Thailand".


Tell him you agree totally, Thailand is enjoyable shithole

----------


## tomta

> Surely it is economically inevitable that poor countries will restrict foreigners buying land because foreign individuals have so much more buying power. It would be unfair to their citizens to have them priced out of their own market by long stay tourists.


Not at all inevitable. I don't think that this policy is at all designed to protect the poor or the general masses of citizens. What it does instead is allow the local elite to control the property market and to keep the prices at levels which suit them. Put it this way, foreigners are graciously allowed to buy condos which means that they're buying in an artificially restricted market.  This means that the prices are higher than they might otherwise be. On the other hand, this same foreigner is excluded from bidding for the foreclosed land of some Isaan peasant. Or a simple Bangkok house. This allows the local despot a free and clear run at getting that land at an artificially cheap price. 

Your argument assumes that a poor country is composed entirely of poor people. This is patently not the case.

Speaking personally,  my wife and I and my small son live in a pretty standard 3 storey shophouse in a pretty standard neighbourhood. The rent's good so it's quite satisfactory. If I was allowed to buy it, it would probably cost about a million baht. But I can't buy it in my own name and actually own it which are the only terms I'd want to buy property with. I could buy a condo with 1/5 of the space and amenity for 2-3 million baht. I'll keep renting. But if the laws changed (unlikely, I know), I'd buy something like this in a flash, do it up, make it really comfortable and all that investment would not take something away from Thailand but contribute to it - I'd employ painters and plasterers, electricians and plumbers and all the rest of it. I'd be improving the infrastucture and enjoying it.

----------


## nigelandjan

> Speaking personally, my wife and I and my small son live in a pretty standard 3 storey shophouse in a pretty standard neighbourhood. The rent's good so it's quite satisfactory. If I was allowed to buy it, it would probably cost about a million baht. But I can't buy it in my own name and actually own it which are the only terms I'd want to buy property with. I could buy a condo with 1/5 of the space and amenity for 2-3 million baht. I'll keep renting. But if the laws changed (unlikely, I know), I'd buy something like this in a flash, do it up, make it really comfortable and all that investment would not take something away from Thailand but contribute to it - I'd employ painters and plasterers, electricians and plumbers and all the rest of it. I'd be improving the infrastucture and enjoying it.


  Have to agree with the sentiments mate , I am/ will be in the same boat ,, BUT  the Thais have got this one right I am afraid ,, if we was allow to buy and own land / freehold you know where the price would go ,, through the roof. 

     As much as it pains me I hope they keep hold of this law , I am sure they will

----------


## nigelandjan

> Why do you have children out of wedlock and think that your totally irresponsible behaviour should be rewarded ? No country really wants men like you.


  I'ts not often I can agree with the old tin can but I'm with him on this one I am afraid , why anyone would not want the full responsibility of marrying  the mother of their kids is beyond me , what else would you be looking for ? another bit on the side ? then another perhaps while your kids don't know whether your coming or going .

       The UK is full of single mothers bringing kids up on benefits ( that twatts like me are paying tax for) in the meantime the father swans around to find some other floosy to land on and bounce up and down on for a week or so and possibly pregnate it then move on , again leaving the tax payer to pick up the bill

----------


## Looper

> Originally Posted by Looper
> 
> Surely it is economically inevitable that poor countries will restrict foreigners buying land because foreign individuals have so much more buying power. It would be unfair to their citizens to have them priced out of their own market by long stay tourists.
> 
> 
> Not at all inevitable. I don't think that this policy is at all designed to protect the poor or the general masses of citizens. What it does instead is allow the local elite to control the property market and to keep the prices at levels which suit them.


Presumably the richest 20% of Thai society currently owns perhaps 80% of the real estate (by current market value). If the laws were changed to allow cashed up foreigners to buy land then median real estate price would surely go up. So the richest tier of Thai society would stand to benefit most from a change in the law because they currently own most of the property.

----------


## chitown

All I want is ONE small piece of land with a house on that my wife AND I own. If we divorce, then I want half of the sale price EVEN if I paid for every baht of it. Not too much to ask, is it?

Also, I would not care if they move the goal posts every week, as long as I am grandfathered into the rules that were in place when I got my VISA.

Reporting every 90 days, cost me a few baht and some time. I imagine it costs the Thai government a whole lot more. If they had more that 2 brain cells bumping around in that container on their shoulder, they would have us report ONLY if we change the locale of our residence.

----------


## peterpan

> All I want is ONE small piece of land with a house on that my wife AND I own. If we divorce, then I want half of the sale price EVEN if I paid for every baht of it.


If you have proof that the funds have come from your resources, you can.
A guy here brought a house, put it in his GF's name, when they split she went to sell, he contested it in court was awarded half of the proceeds.

----------


## chitown

I do not want to have to contest it. It should be law that if we buy a house together, we split the proceeds if we divorce and sell. If my name was on the deed, it could not be sold until I signed off on it.

----------


## DrAndy

you can get your name on the Chanot, no problem

your wife will not be able to sell without your signature

----------


## DrAndy

> I don't think that this policy is at all designed to protect the poor or the general masses of citizens. What it does instead is allow the local elite to control the property market and to keep the prices at levels which suit them. Put it this way, foreigners are graciously allowed to buy condos which means that they're buying in an artificially restricted market. This means that the prices are higher than they might otherwise be. On the other hand, this same foreigner is excluded from bidding for the foreclosed land of some Isaan peasant. Or a simple Bangkok house. This allows the local despot a free and clear run at getting that land at an artificially cheap price.


I don't think that it is anything to do with either, it is just plain nationalism

The Uk used to have a similar law but decided to let foreigners buy into the market. Prices did not go up because of that, except possibly in some more expensive areas

----------


## thehighlander959

They are brainwashed from kindergarten school all the way through their education and beyond that Thailand is for Thais.
Not to mention the xenophobic out look of their governments past and present, and I mean all their governments, all Thai political parties have the same plan concerning keeping falang/foreigners from having any rights in Thailand.

*The saying in Thailand don,t spend any more than you would consider walking away from is very apt.*

I cannot see anything concerning land or house ownership changing, it will certainly not change to suit the foreigner living in Thailand. As for a foreigner owning one small piece of land to build your house for you and your family. Its not going to happen as the Thais will have then lost control.

Its not a bad place to live,the big problem is that they can change the rules whenever they like, and as far as the Thai government is concerned all falang are the same..

----------


## OhOh

> The Uk used to have a similar law but decided to let foreigners buy into the market. Prices did not go up because of that, except possibly in some more expensive areas


You fail to account for the back fill underneath all the "foreigners" purchases. The whole market was driven beyond sanity by the "assumed" never ending bank of bricks and mortar.

The bread and butter of the UK housing market has been cut off at the knees by the prices being pushed further away from the new buyers due to high prices, high deposit requirements and accumulated education debts.

I suspect the US market is equally neutered.

The opening up of land sales to foreign investors would cause a similar inflation to the detriment of the local Thai population.

If you want to "invest" in land and property speculation in Thailand, start a company and pay the taxes. I believe you can achieve the near 50/50 split that way. I am not sure of the "returns" but others here may have some data on the levels achieved.

----------


## alwarner

> Originally Posted by alwarner
> 
> 
> I wonder how many farangs would put their name on a birth certificate to get a 12month visa?  My guess is virtually none. However I bet there are plenty more that would get married for the same reason.  Wouldn't it make more sense to make it tougher for people _without_ kids to reside here? But then you'd lose out on "the grey baht" I suppose.  I'm very much live and let live but why should I be forced to get married to be able to live with my son in the country of his birth AT?
> 
> 
> Why do you have children out of wedlock and think that your totally irresponsible behaviour should be rewarded ? No country really wants men like you.



Ha ha I wondered if you might turn up in this thead.  Didn't have you down as a bible basher, probably explains your ignorance though.  

"No country really wants men like you"

What men of working age who provide for their families?  I guess they'd rather have your baht, what have you got left to live another 5 or 10 years?  Then you get to be burnt here and all your money from teaching English grammar can remain in the country.

----------


## alwarner

> Originally Posted by robuzo
> 
> 
> ^Wait a minute, making sure that the world knows you are the kid's father is irresponsible behavior? Wouldn't that be running off and denying paternity?
> 
> 
> To deny paternity would be even worse behaviour. I could not deny a child and I could not treat a woman like dirt either.Some of us have standards of decency which we do not lower.


Why is being in a relationship but not being married treating either the child or the woman like shit?

And nigelandjan I'm surprised at you, equating my Mrs. to a single mother because we aren't married.  I bet you read the Daily Mail and nearly marry women after visiting them twice which is ever so responsible, eh?

----------


## benbaaa

> The opening up of land sales to foreign investors...


I don't give a flying one about foreign investors.  But for people who've put down deep roots here, y'know like getting married, starting a family and buying land for their spouses and kids to live on, being a legal owner of that land is not too much to ask for, is it?

----------


## Rural Surin

> you can get your name on the Chanot, no problem
> 
> your wife will not be able to sell without your signature


Correct. I believe many are truly unaware of this.
Depending on each situation, one can be named on multi-chanotes....land-holdings and principle properties.

Retaining a decent and knowledgeable Thai lawyer would be suggested if their is sizeable properties involved.

----------


## Rural Surin

> Originally Posted by OhOh
> 
> The opening up of land sales to foreign investors...
> 
> 
> I don't give a flying one about foreign investors. But for people who've put down deep roots here, y'know like getting married, starting a family and buying land for their spouses and kids to live on, being a legal owner of that land is not too much to ask for, is it?


Agreed. Yet, the authorities won't find these simple things in a social and familial manner - in which they are.

It all comes down to politics and suppressive bureaucracy which has become a cornerstone of existences.....most everywhere.

Empathies extended. As most relate and understand.

----------


## nigelandjan

> And nigelandjan I'm surprised at you, equating my Mrs. to a single mother because we aren't married. I bet you read the Daily Mail and nearly marry women after visiting them twice which is ever so responsible, eh?


That was not aimed at your wife ,, I was making remarks about how it is in the UK , what I see on a daily basis as I travel round earning more money to pay more tax to keep em.

    BTW there was a program on radio 4 last week about the length of survivable marriages as opposed to people meeting a couple of times being happy with their lot and going off to the register office , and those having year after year engagements huge expensive show weddings ,, and yes the cheap and cheerful ones came out tops.

   As I said before my first marriage lasted nearly 30 years after a couple of meets ,, if your happy  and it feels right go for it , ( if you want to ) if not keep looking for your nirvana

----------


## DrAndy

> it will certainly not change to suit the foreigner living in Thailand.


no but the government may suddenly realise that foreigners investing in Thai land is a good thing - they will realise the money comes in and the land stays put

win win



> The bread and butter of the UK housing market has been cut off at the knees by the prices being pushed further away from the new buyers due to high prices, high deposit requirements and accumulated education debts.


sure, but nothing to do with foreign investment in housing, that is so minimal by comparison

----------

