Caldera

Just get another SETV in London while you're there, or ideally a METV if you can meet their requirements and plan to visit frequently in the near future.

Point (3) of that list is a bit funny when you know about Section 44 of the interim constitution. Does Thailand believe that other countries don't know about the coup and the legal framework it created? Hard to believe they could be that delusional.

3 hours ago, LivinLOS said:

Schools are paid for from Thailands budget.. Thailands budgets are paid for with taxes.. 

If you choose this as your home, and choose to work here, do you not see any need to contribute to the tax system as the law demands ??

Education sadly doesn't rank highly in Thailand's budget and I'd rather not pay for the next aircraft carrier that doesn't even have any aircraft, useless submarines, more armored vehicles for the army to suppress dissent, the next round of populist handouts... you get the picture.

That said, I'm not a digital nomad, I have never worked in any shape and form while staying in Thailand and I'm not required to pay tax in Thailand on income from abroad not brought in within the same year. That's a loophole alright, but as things stand, Thailand will have to make do with collecting VAT and the likes from me.

10 hours ago, sleepy99 said:

How so? 200K in the bank should qualify him. Which he will have in time 3 months prior to his next extension. Again, please note that he has been here on a retirement visa since before 1998.

Personally, I'd guess (!) that you are only grandfathered in if you used the "money in the bank" method with that lower amount back when that amount was still the prescribed requirement.

As he has been using the "income letter" method so far instead, I don't think they will apply the old rules if and when he decides to switch methods.

But you've mentioned a Thai wife; maybe switching to an extension based on marriage would help him meet the current requirements.

15 hours ago, LivinLOS said:

I guess poor brown kids dont need to go to good schools hey ?? 

With all due respect, this part is nonsense. Even if Thailand's tax income miraculously doubled overnight, I doubt that even a single baht would go towards better schools for regular (poor) people.

19 hours ago, canopus1969 said:

That is why it is called a Detention Centre  amd not the Amari  ????

That's a silly and disgusting thing to say. There's no excuse for treating detainees inhumanely.

Did you have previous SETVs in your passport, or was this one the first you applied for? I'm asking because your "history" seems (or seemed) to matter quite a bit in Penang.

58 minutes ago, jayci said:

How days visa exempt do NZ passport holders get at land border crossings?
I'm considering crossing at O'smach.

30 days, which can be extended within Thailand at an immigration office by another 30 days. You can enter visa exempt at a land border twice per calendar year.

Based on recent reports, I think you are taking a risk, having 3 SETVs in your passport already. That might make you a target for the "void without prejudice" stamp.

As for re-entering Thailand from Cambodia, any land border except for Poipet should be fine. Personally, I like Koh Kong (Hat Lek on the Thai side) and have never had any issues when entering Thailand there.

While I'm not married and have no plans to get married, I must say that I find the process for an extension based on marriage as per reports here and elsewhere unnecessarily intrusive and - depending on the immigration office - sometimes outright denigrating to the applicant and his wife.

For this reason, even if it were an alternative for me (at least on paper), I would have a hard time to submit myself to that nonsense. Photos taken in the bedroom, clothes in the wardrobe being checked, neighbors being questioned about my marriage? Count me out!

I'm not of retirement age yet, but I could cope with the new requirements. As things stand now, my plan to go for the retirement extension as soon as I qualify age-wise remains unchanged.

14 hours ago, rogerpilly said:

Do I need to carry some cash to re enter Thailand?

In case you are asked, you need to have it. Since nobody can tell you if they will want to see it, better play it safe and carry the cash.

I'd make things much simpler. I'd replace the retirement visa by a generic "long stay for leisure" visa. No minimum age, but the foreigner has to post a bond for the duration of their stay that could match the current 800,000 baht. No yearly immigration visits, no silly 90 days reporting. Just report when you actually move to another residence.

That should free up valuable police resources that can be used to investigate those who violate the terms of their visa, while all the others should be left alone as much as possible.

Unfortunately, it will also require a professional police force. So most current police officers, immigration or otherwise, will need to be gone. Otherwise they'll just keep accepting bribes from those who shouldn't be allowed to stay, while making life difficult for others. No change in the visa rules alone can address this.

Amazing Thailand - in most countries his ambitions would have ended at the village clown level, here he was able to rise through the ranks all the way up to four star general. I really can't wait to see how many people will vote for this imbecile and his cronies.

3 hours ago, Caliguy said:

Another update from their facebook.

 

Important Update !

Please be informed that the official website for the Visa Application Appointment System (will be activated online from 30 January 2019 onwards) is http://thaivisavientiane.com

The Embassy will no longer use http://thaivisavientiane.org

Too dumb to get even the most basic things done without last-minute hiccups. Oh joy.

19 hours ago, elviajero said:

As a start explain how someone denied entry under 12.9 for not have 20K baht on them is unlawful.

You still don't get it; I'm not claiming that each and every denial is unlawful, but you need to look at each individual case. If someone is asked to show 20,000 baht and cannot do as asked, the denial is lawful. But that's a big IF, as the interaction doesn't always seem to follow that pattern - when someone offers to show the money and they're unwilling to even look at it, clearly listing 12.9 as the sole reason or as one of the reasons for denial is dishonest.