Is this true? New visa rules for foreign fathers of Thai children

**nidhogg** · 22-02-2012, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by DrB0b

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** · 22-02-2012, 01:21 PM

reckon it is a hoax

**nidhogg** · 22-02-2012, 01:28 PM

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.

**DrB0b** · 22-02-2012, 01:49 PM

Originally Posted by nidhogg

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

**good2bhappy** · 22-02-2012, 01:50 PM

not you
Hull message

**nidhogg** · 22-02-2012, 01:52 PM

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Originally Posted by nidhogg

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.

No hoax. The last 3 months have been some of the worst of my life. Just about getting back on an even keel now.

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

**robuzo** · 22-02-2012, 01:59 PM

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** · 22-02-2012, 02:46 PM

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

Originally Posted by robuzo

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** · 22-02-2012, 02:50 PM

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

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** · 22-02-2012, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by DrAndy

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

Originally Posted by robuzo

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

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** · 22-02-2012, 02:58 PM

Originally Posted by DrAndy

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

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

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

**can123** · 22-02-2012, 03:42 PM

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.

**robuzo** · 22-02-2012, 03:45 PM

^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** · 22-02-2012, 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by nidhogg

Originally Posted by chitown

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.

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** · 22-02-2012, 04:32 PM

Originally Posted by Looper

Originally Posted by nidhogg

Originally Posted by chitown

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.

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.

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** · 22-02-2012, 05:25 PM

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.

**thehighlander959** · 22-02-2012, 05:30 PM

Originally Posted by nidhogg

Originally Posted by Looper

Originally Posted by nidhogg

Originally Posted by chitown

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.

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.

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.

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** · 22-02-2012, 06:31 PM

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.

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

Win-win situation

**Ratchaburi** · 22-02-2012, 06:53 PM

Originally Posted by liveinlos

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.

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

Win-win situation

is your other nic Socal

**Lorenzo** · 22-02-2012, 08:10 PM

Originally Posted by nevets

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

Couldn't be more true

Originally Posted by Ceburat1

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

Originally Posted by rawlins

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

Good advise

Originally Posted by Jon Snow

"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** · 22-02-2012, 10:09 PM

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. 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** · 23-02-2012, 01:05 AM

Originally Posted by tomta

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** · 23-02-2012, 01:16 AM

Originally Posted by can123

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** · 23-02-2012, 01:58 AM

Originally Posted by tomta

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** · 23-02-2012, 05:55 AM

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.

Thread: Is this true? New visa rules for foreign fathers of Thai children

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions