jerrymahoney

I will put it again for you as I did page 6 this topic: And as per Section 35 of the Immigration Act (1979) as you roughly reference above, if a 'competent official' chooses to waive the nominal extension requirements, he or she is allowed to do so to the tune of 2000 baht as stipulated in item 3 of the Immigration Act (1979) fee schedule.

They were your words. No my words were: And just who uses mule accounts. Someone who deals with large amounts of unreported cash money that they would have a hard time explaining the source of that money. Like someone who receives large amounts of cash from a "reputable agent"

According to The Cleveland Clinic: How can I prevent kidney failure? Though kidney failure and CKD aren’t reversible, you can take steps to help preserve your kidney function. Healthy habits and routines may slow down how quickly your kidneys lose their ability to function. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/17689-kidney-failure So I will guess the Cleveland Clinic and Mayo Clinic would be greatly interested in anyone who has documented evidence of reversal of kidney damage as described above this topic.

You have not done your research -- you have not read the Immigration Act (1979) even though I have posted a screen shot this topic. Here is your fact From Section 35: Each application of an alien for extension of temporary stay shall be made in the form and with payment of fees as prescribed in the Ministerial Regulations. This is the ministerial regulation as in the Police Order: 5. In the case where an alien applicant does not meet the full qualifications stipulated by the criteria herein or in other cases not specified in this Order but a competent officer equivalent to or higher than inspector is of the opinion that the alien has legitimate reason for staying in the Kingdom of Thailand ... AND THIS IS THE PAYMENT OF FEES (AT 3.):

Foreigners Face New Hurdles in Opening Thai Bank Accounts MikeandDow replied to webfact's topic in Thailand News Yes sadly the law is the law, and you need to research the Law it is up to the immigration officer to grant the visa or not (with or with out money) and that is the Law !! Monday at 09:36 AM

But I have not questioned that. There are 2 parts to Section 35 and your" discretion comment is only related to the first instance.

You keep saying to do your research and the law is the law but you never state what the law really is. You are paraphrasing Section 35 of the Immigration act and I have have posted a screenshot directly from that Act and you have no comment on that.

Your 2 interrogatives are not what I wrote.

Yes I noted that. But sometimes there are a few casualties along the way.

Maybe the one who also told you: The people on the take will find new ways to do it.

I was just relaying a conversation with a US Consular official.

I had a 30 second chat with the US Consular official at the last-go-round Embassy Outreach - Khon Kaen before the letters stopped. He said the letters were being stopped by the US Embassy for mostly 2 reasons: The Embassy realizes that many US citizens falsely claim their 65K baht monthly income and, It came as great surprise to Thai Immigration when they realized that the US Embassy was not, in fact, certifying that the US citizen's sworn statement was true by some evidentiary method.

Judge Chutkan declined to issue a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) as in the above FOX link. This is the final paragraph of that ruling: Plaintiffs legitimately call into question what appears to be the unchecked authority of an unelected individual and an entity that was not created by Congress and over which it has no oversight. In these circumstances, it must be indisputable that this court acts within the bounds of its authority. Accordingly, it cannot issue a TRO, especially one as wide-ranging as Plaintiffs request, without clear evidence of imminent, irreparable harm to these Plaintiffs. The current record does not meet that standard.

It was so nice of him to let the older man have a seat:

It is relevant as in the OP to: the Bank of Thailand, targeting mule accounts linked to fraud and money laundering activities.

I made no reference to the account of a foreigner.

And just who uses mule accounts. Someone who deals with large amounts of unreported cash money that they would have a hard time explaining the source of that money. Like someone who receives large amounts of cash from a "reputable agent" which they certainly would not want to deposit in their own accounts. So who owns the account? As explained in 'The Shawshank Redemption': ... a phantom, an apparition. Second cousin to Harvey the Rabbit.

So now, just like with Americans before, the only real hassle is for persons who claimed to have 65K+ baht per month as sworn in their affidavit but do not have 65K+ per month to deposit.

And for the usual responders on here that is just Trump-being-Trump (TM)

The first Supreme Court challenge to one of Trump's firings may be coming up soon. Stay tuned.

At this point, it's only illegal when the Supreme Court says it is, if they so choose. But that deliberate distraction gambit is getting maybe a bit overplayed.

Trump: If it saves the country, it's not illegal WASHINGTON, Feb 15 (Reuters) - Echoing France's Napoleon Bonaparte, U.S. President Donald Trump on Saturday took to social media to signal continued resistance to limits on his executive authority in the face of multiple legal challenges. "He who saves his Country does not violate any Law," Trump, a Republican, proclaimed on his Truth Social network. The White House did not respond to a request for more details. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-if-it-saves-country-its-not-illegal-2025-02-16/

LINK: https://thehill.com/opinion/5148448-elon-musk-targeting-social-security/ NB this is an OPINION article.