Jump to content

zaphod reborn

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    2,479
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by zaphod reborn

  1. 57 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

    Nonsense, do you realize how many digital nomads work here with no problem from the ministry of labor?

    How many Thais could work or retire in your country so easily, or come as a tourist with visa on entry?  

    Every country has archaic laws that are never enforced.

    What is nonsense?  Digital nomads are on shaky ground, but unless they flaunt their activities, compete with a Thai for a job, or piss off a politically-connected Thai, they don't have to worry.  There were 2 raids in Chiang Mai involving "digital nomads".

     

    In the PunSpace raid, Thai authorities were alerted that there were many foreigners in an internet cafe.  All were rounded up and questioned.  Only those who couldn't produce passports were held.  No charges were brought, after it was determined that the labor statute wasn't sufficiently current to deal with the digital nomad worker.

     

    In the Riverside Condo raid, Thai authorities responded to a complaint about possible spying by agents for the Chinese government.  It turns out that the first floor of the condo had been converted into an office used by online teachers for a company offering lessons to Chinese children.  The result was pretty much the same as PunSpace, except that the company owner was charged with business registration and illegal conversion of residential to business use.

     

    The bottom line is that digital nomads are technically in violation of the law, but MOL realizes the statute is too archaic to deal with their situation, and, as long as no public disturbance or complaint is made involving the foreigner, they will not be bothered.  Although not a digital nomad case, compare the sex coach from Belarus in Pattaya who is being held and will probably be deported for violating the terms of her visa (working while on a tourist visa).  

    • Confused 1
    • Haha 1
  2. 15 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

    So much confusion it's hard to know where to begin. 

    "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

    A treaty is the law of the land. Superseding the Constitution is not even an issue here.

    In fact, treaties aren't even an issue here.

    If Congress passes a law that allows the President to invoke national security to impose tariffs, then he can do that. And that is, in fact, what Congress has done.

    "To justify the tariffs, Trump is using a blunt instrument, namely Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows a president to act unilaterally if national security is at stake. The WTO can’t stop Trump because its charter includes a rarely used exemption for such cases. "

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-02/national-security-is-a-good-reason-for-protection-but-not-of-steel-and-aluminum

     

    Sorry, but I have to take you to law school on this one.  You are so wrong.  Although it's never been directly decided by the SCOTUS, there is a plethora of SCOTUS cases that have indicated that a treaty that violates the U.S. Consitution is void.  This is from the annotation for Article VI of the US Constitution.

     

     The treaty is . . . a law made by the proper authority, and the courts of justice have no right to annul or disregard any of its provisions, unless they violate the Constitution of the United States.” Doe v. Braden, 57 U.S. (16 How.) 635, 656 (1853). “It need hardly be said that a treaty cannot change the Constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of that instrument. The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.), 616, 620 (1871). See also Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267 (1890); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 700 (1898); Asakura v. City of Seattle, 265 U.S. 332, 341 (1924).

  3. 15 hours ago, Grumpy Duck said:

    Sounds like the US consulate

    I've never encountered an outsourced function of the US consulate.  Passport renewal, notarization, add pages to passport (discontinued) all were handled by the embassy.

     

    With the British embassy, all public functions are handled by VFS in the Trendy Office Tower.  VFS has improved their service quite a bit, but no British embassy worker can be arsed to deal with the public.

  4. 4 minutes ago, bkk_mike said:

    Wonder if the British Embassy would do something actually useful, like reduce the charge for the address letter that you need to get your licence. (The single most expensive part of getting a Thai licence if you can't get the letter from immigration instead.)

    I think the only thing the British Embassy knows to do is outsource the process so as to avoid their staff from having to deal with the public.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...