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

**chitown** · 22-02-2012, 08:26 AM

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.

**nidhogg** · 22-02-2012, 08:49 AM

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.

**robuzo** · 22-02-2012, 10:37 AM

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.

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** · 22-02-2012, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by robuzo

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.

It's a bit too much to expect developed countries to have matching, reciprocal immigration policies with developing countries. .

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** · 22-02-2012, 11:06 AM

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.

**nidhogg** · 22-02-2012, 11:26 AM

Originally Posted by Rural Surin

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).

**robuzo** · 22-02-2012, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by nidhogg

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.

**robuzo** · 22-02-2012, 11:06 AM

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)....

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?

**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.

**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.....

**Rural Surin** · 22-02-2012, 09:06 AM

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. 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.

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

Thread Tools

Display

Hybrid View

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions