canerandagio

2 minutes ago, OJAS said:

All very well if he is planning to settle in Bangkok. But if he is planning to settle in Pattaya he will, in practice, find it next to impossible to do a non-O conversion at the local immigration office there according to various reports on here.

 

If, however, he is in receipt of the State Pension and wishes to avoid the OA hoops to which you refer, he will be eligible for a non-O instead from the London Embassy.

Yes, all you said, including the bottom bit (I think that would require age 65+ perhaps) reflects my understanding too and I was not aware that in Pattaya they make it difficult to go the route I suggested.

2 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

Disregarding all the bickering/pedantic comments over visa/extensions and the terminology involved - please do not correct my terminology in this post - it is meaningless and shows a certain lack of other's knowledge, or need for it.

 

What do you do at the end of this two year "simple" process to avoid a straightforward 1 year (hopefully repeated) extension based on retirement.

 

I just don't get what this post is all about. 

 

I asked the Glasgow Consulate what I needed to do before coming here for "retirement visa" and was issued with the appropriate visa/stamp(s), came to BKK, transferred required money, did a couple of trips to renew "paperwork(visa)" and now have retirement paperwork(visa), which if I keep my nose clean should be OK for renewal each year. 

I also know nothing about police checks etc!  I have not done/paid for any.

Me neither, no police checks, no medical checks. I am legally here and it was cheap and simple. before June I will produce 3 letters from the bank, fill a form, pay 1900 baht and get permission to stay another year in the country (inshallah).

Just now, John V said:

I’m just going through all this now in the Pattaya office. I came in from China on a 30 day tourist stamp. I am told that I need to go to Laos to get a 90 day visa and then come back to Pattaya and start the application for a marriage visa. I asked if there were other way, or choices? She said, no.

If you are not planning to marry... then if you are 50+, can transfer 800k baht in a Thai account and can produce an address in BKK then you will be able to do this at the Chaeng Wattana immigration office in Bangkok.

13 minutes ago, Evilbaz said:

 

I have had two OA Visas now and with pre-planning everything was completed in a morning and mailed to Canberra.

Police report done beforehand online - 3 days and $40.

Medical report done with a prior appointment - $0 at bulk-billing clinic on the spot - only visual exam required.

Notarization of all - $0 by JP.

Mailed forthwith by certified mail and certified return envelope (for tracking).

Received 1 week later in the bush on my mates farm.

 

What's difficult?

Try to do it in London... it will take way longer and cost more.  Only police certificate takes 2 weeks and costs 80 AUD (45GBP) or pay double to get it in three days.  Add notary, medical and the time it takes and I think you would concede that for some people it's better - rather than waiting in Europe - to travel to Thailand on a tourist visa or visa exemption and sort things out from here with a couple of letters from the bank (100 baht) and a total of 4.5 hours at immigration (2000+3800+1900 baht = total 7700 baht) + taxi rides to Chaeng Wattana.

9 minutes ago, Suradit69 said:

 For a variety of reasons many people prefer to get the O-A, which isn't the hassle you seem to think it is. In fact it allows you more freedom to spend doing things in Thailand other than sitting in immigration offices numerous times during the first few months of your stay here or making an appointment at your embassy to get an income affidavit if needed for getting an extension.

 

 

You are making some value judgements here which are as valid as their alternatives, depending on the circumstances.

I prefer to come to BKK and spend a total of 4.5 hours over two months in the immigration office paying 100 GBP rather than staying in London waiting for police reports (takes weeks and costs), medical checks (takes time and costs), paperwork translation and certification (takes time and costs)  and paying 6 times the price. You may prefer the OA visa, but I am sure many don't.

5 minutes ago, Suradit69 said:

It's not a visa which is why you need to re-entry permit. If you had a valid visa (like a non-imm O-A), you wouldn't need a re-entry permit.

I am afraid you need to inform yourself a bit more. Have a look at the photo below and tell me if that's not a visa, it reads 'NON IMMIGRANT VISA', doesn't it?... It is a NON-IMMIGRANT VISA, valid visa, Issued on 29th March, granting stay until June and extended in May for 12 months from June.

Perhaps you are confusing Conversion with Extension. Conversion means you are converting a visa (i.e. Tourist) into another visa (Non-Immigrant O). This is exactly what I have done and I am afraid you will have to reconsider your certainties.

So I am afraid I will return to you the adjective of 'risible' and I will add 'interesting' in the sense of how some people are so attached to their certainties that they refuse to consider that there may be value in alternatives.

As for your the comment in your last post, which I just read:

"Getting a non-imm O to enter Thailand and then applying for an extension of stay based on retirement (without the unnecessary bother of doing a conversion from a tourist visa) is hardly some revolutionary idea that you alone know about. The process has been explained umpteen times in TV forums and elsewhere. "

It seems to confirm that you didn't get my point. I never advocated getting a non-O visa to enter Thailand but if as you said - it is not a revolutionary idea - then I bow to your superior knowledge and I wonder whether we should perhaps stop sharing our views and just rely on a model in which people who do not know ask questions to a panel of experts like you. Just a word of warning though, not all embassies do Non-O visa for retirement (see London) and not everyone may agree with your view on what is best. Good luck...

7 minutes ago, lopburi3 said:

If married to a Thai it is easy to obtain, and then use for retirement extension, but for retirement as stated reason not provided many places as they started to push the O-A a few years ago.  

Thanks. That would explain why in London they acted like they did, which led me to come on a tourist visa and then figure things out from here, which worked out really well: I landed on 19 March, transferred 800k and within two weeks I got my first 90 days. The only drawback was that I couldn't get a residence certificate until I had the first one year extension, which made my driving licence and vehicle purchase more troublesome (bought vehicle on someone else's name and used international licence).

http://www.thaiembassy.org/london/en/services/7742/84508-Non-Immigrant-visas.html

4 minutes ago, stevenl said:

What others have suggested, but it seems to have not gotten through, is that in stead of a tourist visa you could also apply for non-O from an embassy/consulate abroad, home country or neighbouring countries, thereby preventing the conversion from tourist to non-O.

OK, thanks. This is clear now. I didn't know of this possibility and when I enquired at London embassy they just gave me a long list of documents to produce for the OA visa.

7 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

That is the entry stamp after getting a non immigrant visa (category O) at immigration. The stamp the non-o retirement indicates that was reason for the visa being issued.

If he had posted a copy of his extension stamp it would not say non-o on it.

Guys, to help on this matter I am posting the follow-up picture. The first stamp (previous photo) is what I received 90 days as I converted my tourist visa into Non-O.

The second photo is what I received when I got the first 12 months extension. 12 months from the end of the 90 days.

The only point I have been making with this post - and I concur with the analysis put forward by Peterw42 - is that for some going the route of converting a tourist visa into a non-O is possibly the best option.

I was not aware that some immigration offices do not allow this route, but certainly Chaeng Wattana did it for me with no hassle and:

It costed - the whole process: 25 GBP tourist visa + 2000 baht (conversion) + 1900 baht (extension) + 3800 multiple entry reentry.

If I had done this in London the OA route I would have had to pay 125GBP + 80 GBP police report + 40 GBP medical certificate + translations and certifications (I had calculated 600 GBP I seem to remember). Moreover I would have had to wait for all this to take place, whilst for the O conversion took 3 visits averaging 1.5 hours each and taxi rides.

One can choose the route he/she prefers, but I do see some value in this one that seems not known to many probably because not duly advertised by embassies.

3 hours ago, Evilbaz said:

What don't you understand.?

Starting with any category of O Visa, as recommended by the MFA, allows a same day extension for one year based on retirement.

Try your method at Jomtien and see how you get on 555!

Listen mate... I put forward a suggestion which has some serious advantages for some people, it's not bullshit as you defined it, nor it deserves to be laughed at. I talked to you in a civilised manner and I asked for a clarification and if you want to laugh at someone look at yourself in the mirror and do it. Don't bother replying as I don't enjoy exchanges in these terms.

2 minutes ago, Evilbaz said:

Also, entering with an O from any Embassy/Consulate cuts out half  of the BS in the method promoted by the OP, which cannot be done at some Immi offices.

I don't get this, can you make it clearer please? :)

10 minutes ago, lopburi3 said:

 

It is called a one year extension of stay for retirement and a multi re-entry will only be valid for the period of that extension.  

 

The O-A is a process that does not require funds in Thailand and provides a new one year stay on any entry for the validity of visa (one year from issue) so good for almost 2 years before any extension required inside Thailand.  This fits many coming here for retirement.

We can give it any name, but it's a Non-Immigrant O visa (see photo) and with it you can stay one year in the country (going in and out as re-entry permit allows), and renew it year on year.

This said the substantial differences between OA and O are:

With an O-A visa you do not need to have money in Thailand, but you do need them anyway. A plus for some, less important for others.

With an O-A visa, if you leave the country during the validity of the visa you postpone the renewal date. A plus for some to save the trip to the immigration, potentially in your lifetime halving your trips to immigration.

This said, I think that there are a number of people who - were they properly informed on the possibility of coming in as tourists and getting the non-immigrant O visa in Bangkok - rather than going out of the country for a OA or applying for one at home with the extra costs and checks imposed on them... they would - as I did - opt for the non-immigrant O route.

It's this dual option they have which I cared to point out.

Cheers, have a good day.

straydog

2 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

The UK does not record peoples in's and out's, it's know as freedom of movement.

They only check incoming foreigners have the relevant Visa or permission to enter the UK.

 

You cannot compare the Immigration policies of one Country with another, it's apples and pears.

Of course, you cannot compare. My example was to show that there are indeed pears and apples. 

5 minutes ago, genericptr said:

So you could maybe trick the consulates in to giving you another visa but immigration at the border could then deny you? I was thinking of getting a new passport this summer when I go back home because I have 5 TV's from USA and this caused the so called visa service in Phnom Pen to not handle my passport for me.

 

Is that a good ideaI or does that make me look like a criminal trying to get away with something?

I have 'lost' red booklets many times... for many reasons related to too many visa stamps, or too much travelling. Yes, you do have to consider that your name, date of birth and nationality would allow some immigration officer to track your past movements, but it's not the case always.

In the UK for example I made a formal request to see what information they had on me (not that I was up to anything dodgy, just curious) and they had absolutely nothing about my travels...

You don't need to go through the b*s*t required for a OA visa in the UK, police reports, medical checks, 125 pounds, references and so on. Just get a tourist visa, convert it in Bangkok into a non-O for the purpose of retirement. It's much cheaper (2000 baht), no hassle and you can get multiple entries in and out of the country with a multiple re-entry permits.

https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/975064-tourist-visa-into-retirement-visa/?page=8&tab=comments#comment-11842333

4 hours ago, seancbk said:

 

Are you sure you are not confusing the O visa and the O-A visa ?

 

I am absolutely certain I am talking about non-Immigrant O visa, as I have one and I have obtained it converting a tourist visa into a non-O for the purpose of retirement. I had to provide bank statements, letters and pay 2000 baht to get the 90 day non-O which I then extended by a year at the cost of 1,900 baht.

If you have a firm interest in this I will go and fish out the thread where I posted all the information about 9 months ago.

4 hours ago, Russell17au said:

You are incorrect about this. A Non-Immigrant "O" visa will give you 90 days but you must apply for an extension at the end of the 90 days if you want to stay longer and there is only 2 extensions available 1: Retirement (he is under 50 so not apply) 2: Marriage (he needs to be married to a Thai National to be able to apply for this one).

Ubonjoe might correct me on this if I'm wrong but the original Non-Immigrant "O" 90 day visa must be applied for outside of Thailand (I was sent to Vientiane, Loas) but the renewals are done inside Thailand.

I don't think the OP qualifies for either the retirement or the marriage extensions.

Hi Russell,

I'll answer you point by point:

1 - You say I am incorrect and provide the amended version of what I said: 'A non-immigrant O visa will give you 90 days but you must apply for an extension."

It may not have come through clearly, but that's exactly what I had said: 'you pay 2000, you get 90 days and then you ask for an extension'.

2 - There is only 2 extensions available, you say, and neither apply to the OP. That's fine - assuming that the OP is under 50 - but my response was referring to a specific response to the OP,  not to the OP himself. The post said - and I quoted it - "spend some money and get a retirement visa". I replied saying... "you don't need money as the visa is only 2000 but you need to be 50, which may be a problem".

Clearly I wasn't clear :)

3 - You do not have to apply for the non-O outside of Thailand. I have done this myself converting a simple tourist visa in non-O. I don't have the slightest doubt about it, and UbonJoe might even recall the conversation about 9 months ago. If you are not convinced I will go and fish out the thread where all this is explained. It's a fact, which I have experienced directly... gone to immigration, paid 2000, produced the required forms and a 2 weeks later I had the visa.

Here it is:

https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/975064-tourist-visa-into-retirement-visa/?page=8&tab=comments#comment-11842333

Cheers,

straydog

19 minutes ago, seancbk said:

 

Don't you also need to be married to a Thai?

 

If you are married to a Thai you need 400,000 k in  your bank account and you can get a spouse visa at any age.  If you are over 50 you need 800,000k in your account (or a pension of 65k monthly) and you can get a retirement visa without being married.

2 hours ago, RichardColeman said:

Man up, spend some money and get a retirement visa with a 'helpful' company, probably the same cost a flight.

No need to spend money on retirement visa... it's the cheapest way I know of to get 1 year in the country. I mean the Non-Immigrant O, not the O-A. 2,000 baht plus extension 3 months later if you do a conversion of your tourist visa.

But - as someone said - you need to be 50, or you can abandon this option...

I don't know if this is a provocative question but I'll bait... I bet all Thai people would pay to have the costs, questioning, form filling, timelines to get a EU visa, not to mention a UK visa similar to those that farang need to fill to come to Thailand for a month.

7 hours ago, Suradit69 said:

Most countries' embassies would have different rules or apply them differently depending on the country in which they operate.

 

Certainly the US or German embassy in Australia would treat applications for visas differently from their embassies in Nigeria or in Venezuela or even Thailand, for example. Different circumstances require different rules. "In the logical way,"  politics, international relationships and economic conditions all come into play. There is no expectation that embassies or consulates deal with foreign nationals in a democratic, one-size-fits-all sort of way. It's not some game played on a level field.

LOVE THIS. A bit of wisdom among a bunch of Thailand bashing comments...

And... similarly, I would add that logic and rationality are expressed in all cultures in a different way, but each culture and system of belief categorises rational and irrational, logical and illogical according to their own standards which are not universal but culturally, geographically and temporally determined. Therefore, what is logical to us today may not be tomorrow, what is logical to us may be illogical to Thais and vice versa.

This comment explains just that: the behaviour of Thai embassies and US and German embassies alike is perfectly rational to pursue their only objective, which we assume being controlling who enters their country in some way.

Reading it as irrational or illogical is simply a misplaced judgement as it applies scientific principles to international relations, in which economic, geo-political, social and even emotional factors play a role.

5 hours ago, cyberfarang said:

The majority of Thai women know exactly what they are getting into when they apply for massage work abroad, it`s only when the job does not meet their expectations are then considered sex slaves.

 

Thai women are working in the sex industries all over S.E. Asia, Sri Lanka, India, the Middle East and many western countries. It could be said that one of Thailand`s biggest exports are Thai prostitutes, they even form into a category of their own.

Unpleasant generalisation. I reply only to defend the honour of those girls who accept low salary, working conditions which western people would consider slavery but still do not accept to engage in sex. There are many girls working abroad who do not do sex, I know it with reasonable certainty, there are many who go out looking for it, there are many who do not seek it but end up doing happy endings and only that, and there are girls who have no idea of what's going on in their life, just follow friends and it's only their luck if they are not exploited. I know this will debate is sterile so happy to leave my word here and give you a chance to reply but I won't reply further.

3 minutes ago, smotherb said:

You seem to want to use the knowledge of potential sexual abuse to justify your statements that not many knew. I don't follow that.  However, I too feel 99% is no more than exaggeration.

Hi Smotherb, I am just saying is that if somebody is ignorant then he/she can be easily manipulated. For those girls to whom this applies (many or most, whatever that is), it's unfair to say that they make a conscious decision to go there and do sex, some of them don't do it, and some of them don't know they will be forced into it (I think a minority will be forced), whilst others may be induced or tempted into it when they are there. Fundamentally though many are not armed with the same rational ability or life experience that we may assume. At least that's my view.

However, I think this is plenty for a forum conversation. Beyond this it should become verbal, so let's leave it there :)

Bye, have a good eve.

5 hours ago, smotherb said:

While I am willing to believe there are girls who have no idea of what may happen to them in a foreign country; I seriously doubt it is the majority or even a considerable number. A common fear held by girls and their parents throughout Thailand, Vietnam and the Philippines over 50 years ago was to not let your daughters leave country for work, vacation or even marriage; because they would be sold for sex. In the years since, some girls may have had fine experiences overseas, but far too many have been sexually used. I doubt the known potential for sexual abuse simply went away.

Oh, yes sure I agree with you. I experienced concerns on my girlfriends family, who knew me well, when I wanted to go on holiday with her in Myanmar, because they were afraid I may sell her away lol.

But this example only helps me to illustrate my point in a clearer way than i did before. It shows the ignorance (a relative term) of some/many of the girls and the families which educated them... the key to read this matter is therefore not to use our own informed judgement but rather using the less informed and devoid of reference points judgement of the girls. This then generates situations in which a girl is concerned of going on holiday with her boyfriend (near nonsense) but such a simple mind is easily manipulated and convinced to go there where the danger really is. So, my point is - there are yes prejudices, awareness and fear - of being sexually exploited abroad, but they are in the eyes of often naive and ignorant girls. This leads me to agree with you that most of the girls are aware that there is danger out there somewhere, but that 'many', I don't necessarily say 'most', once they make the step have been somehow convinced that it's ok to go, whatever that means in their mind.

Whether we are talking of 'many', or talking of 'most', I think both differ from the 99% which was mentioned above, a virtuous way to say 'virtually all girls', which I disagree with. :)