groovyc

5 hours ago, BritTim said:

You overstate the control a lack of a Thai passport would give you over your son.

Ok, now that you've let the cat out if the bag, I must admit you are right. Note however, that perceived control is sometimes more important than actual control...

On 10/12/2016 at 3:36 PM, ubonjoe said:

Not sure where you got the age on 18 from.

Ok, 20 then it is. Doesn't make a difference at this stage as he is only 5.

On 10/12/2016 at 3:36 PM, ubonjoe said:

Not sure why you don't want him to have a Thai passport.

The answer is (partly) in the post you quoted. No Thai passport -> not allowed to stay more than 30 days -> coming back to where his father is.

On 11/12/2016 at 0:58 AM, harrry said:

No.  It is the record of birth.  The law is framed that way to ensure that people do not have children in a host country and then claim rights for the child and to live with the child which would subvert normal immigration policies.  Personally I do not agree with it but it is not just Thailand this applies in.

This looks to me as a gross misinterpretation of what a Birth Certificate is (as opposed to a Citizenship Certificate). By "this", I don't mean your post, but this whole scenario. It may even be the law if you are right, or the Ampoe misinterpreted the law.

13 hours ago, Doiger said:

I would not like to think that I did something in his early life that may stop him from having his own choice when he is older.

More like "that may not let him pretend he wasn't a dual citizen" (noone knows unless you tell them; remember the Abhisit saga?), but I hear you

and am kind of inclined towards that solution.

10 minutes ago, SaintLouisBlues said:

And of course it will be impossible for him to get one while he is in Thailand to use on the next trip

That's correct! As long as he is under 18 and doesn't have my consent.

12 hours ago, IMA_FARANG said:

A Thai national can enter Thailand even on an expired Thai passport.

Good point. In fact, this is true for any country. A citizen only has to prove his citizenship to enter; having a passport is just the

easiest and streamlined way of doing it.

Exiting is less of a "right" issue, but more of making sure the passenger has the correct documents once he leaves, I guess.

Thus the expired passport might work if one can show they have a valid foreign passport for travel purposes...?

In Australia, for example, I am pretty sure it would work even though you might get into some trouble - because

its the person that leaves/enters the country, not the passport. Whether the Thai system sees it that way, is another way

to put the question that I'm asking.

13 hours ago, IMA_FARANG said:

Yes it would be wise to have some proof of his Thai identity in case h is asked.....

Actually his old expired Thai passport should be proof.

You're right. This proof was requested by immigration if using a foreign passport to exit.

(it was nothing to do with renewal, even though it would be needed for that, as well as the consent from both parents.)

12 hours ago, stevenl said:

If...
But he made the trips.

I know. In essence, that's the difference between the current situation and #2 in my original post.

I was just replying to this comment.

15 hours ago, stevenl said:

with therefore illegal entry.

ie. he never entered. He was born.

49 minutes ago, Doiger said:

I was advised by several people that he must use the Thai passport to leave Thailand as dual nationality is not recognized here in Thailand

Good point. I was hoping it may not be an issue for a minor, but letting the system "know" might mean he will have to make a choice when he turns 18...

52 minutes ago, Doiger said:

possibly in the future your son will need to use his Australian passport every time he enters the country 

To be honest, this is partly my intention. ie. whenever he visits Thailand, he'll be coming back in 30 days! Not because I think they'll strip him of his citizenship just like that, but just because he doesn't have a Thai passport.

4 minutes ago, stevenl said:

with therefore illegal entry.

He was born in Bangkok, mate. If he never made any of his trips in and out, he would have still been there.

(he would have needed a visa if he wasn't a Thai citizen though, which is why it's been advised to carry proof of citizenship.)

I remember a mate got "detained" for exactly this : having less than six months validity on arrival. This was back in 2006-7. A senior officer from a Thai govt dept managed to get him out.

6 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

That is the correct answer.

Thanks to both of you. I think there is a bit of a confusion here with farang travel (which my son is not).

I agree that if you are a foreigner, you are supposed to leave on the same passport as you entered.

(eg: I for one, have two foreign passports, but if I choose to use one on entering Thailand, I have to leave on the same)

The immigration, in fact, used to match the stamps when I used to live in Thailand a few years ago.

However, if you are a Thai citizen, you are by default "living in Thailand" and you start your journey when you leave

the country. Therefore, you have to enter on the same passport as you left.

I remember they used to match the stamps this way on my wife's passport.

It might seem a bit complicated if you are a Thai citizen born overseas, but in my son's case, he's got an even number

of stamps on his passport: ie. one entry for each exit (presumably next to each other).

This is based on the assumption that they don't (or can't) treat him as the same person despite carrying different passports.

Therefore, if you enter on a foreign passport the clock starts ticking even if you are actually a Thai national (consistent with advice #2).

My son has completed all his journeys on his Thai passport as mentioned above and back at square 1.

Therefore, specially if the above assumption is correct (he is treated as a different person), it follows from #2 that he should be

able to leave on the Aussie passport. This is my rationale, but I guess we need to call immigration again.

Hi,

My son was born in Thailand five years ago and has always travelled in and out of Thailand on a Thai passport,

which expired recently (just after he entered/returned to Thailand). He is due to travel back to Australia (where he lives)

soon, and I need some advice on the possibility of using his Aussie passport to leave Thailand.

(please don't suggest or give advise on renewing his Thai passport, as I know how to do that -

even though there is a consent issue as I am in Australia at the moment.)

Note: The advice that has been given by immigration on two separate occasions have been:

1. You have to leave on the same passport as you entered, so no :  This doesn't sound right for Thai citizens as they have effectively completed

their journey/s when they returned to Thailand.

2. If he was born in Thailand, and never left the country before, he can use the overseas passport to leave (provide proof of Thai citizenship to make sure his stay was legal),

but if he enters again on the Aussie passport, the 30day limit will apply for him for that visit.

Any constructive advice, opinions, or accounts of personal experience will be appreciated.

Taking Taksin's passport was "Illegal"

and he will eventually have it returned, just a matter of time, and life will go on. Go hide and watch.

There was nothing illegal about it. A government can cancel a passport.

And conversely they can reinstate it as well, if there was nothing illegal in the previous goverment revoking it, there is nothing to stop the current goverment reinstating it....

give it to him back by all means, it still doesnt make the fugitive status and prison sentence go away...

and obviously as a condition of getting his PP back, has to make full disclouse of how many different passports he actually has as well as giving up those citizenships

Just because it was legal to revoke it does not automatically mean that it is legal to issue a new one. Other laws, as implied in the OP, may make issuing the passport to Thaksin illegal.

Hahaha, classic bickering on TV by people who don't have a clue what they're talking about. at least some have the decency to admit that though. Keep up the entertainment.

I think technically you are not in transit. But immigration rarely checks tickets and it could be that your destination is in a neighbouring country, where you will travel to by land transport.

The airline might want to see your ticket, but I see no problems with that. I meant to say that if you have a visa, you don't need proof of onward travel, which you have in any case.

Ok, I get the point. I got a "dummy" ticket handy just in case. Thanks a lot for your help!

Thanks a lot for the quick reply!

>1. Proof of onward travel is required for entry into Thailand, not a return ticket to the point of origin.

I was worried I might be required to travel to any place other than the port of origin, since i had a Transit Visa.

(It's also cheaper than a tourist visa)

Do you mean "not necessarily a return ticket"? Would a return ticket do?

>2. With a valid visa it is not required.

So what you mean is it might be required at check-in?

I'm travelling on a Sri Lnakan passport.

I have a Transit Visa for Thailand issued in Osaka, valid for 30 days upon arrival. (I don't get visa on arrival for my passport)

1. Does my onward destination have to be somewhere other than my initial port of embarkation (Osaka)?

2. Do I have to show the onward ticket upon arrival in Thailand?

3. If the answers for both 1 and 2 are affirmative, and provided I satisfied the conditions at arrival,

would they again tally it when at departure? ie. could I change my plans and go back to Osaka after all?

Replies from anyone who has used the same visa before would be appreciated.

Even after the airport closures of 2008 they were still charging overstay at the airport once it was open so doubtful any lenancy will be shown for a few drops of rain...surely there must be a way to get to the airport and fly out and back

Not if you could show that you had a flight out of the country during the time the airport was closed. They wanted proof and if you had it no overstay was charged.

Interesting. However, it should be pointed out that this does not cover all genuine cases. One could planning to fly out without buying a ticket before the airport was closed.

May I take the liberty to slightly deviate from the topic:

Can anyone tell me (Don't get me wrong, I am not challenging here, just curious!) what stops the current government from

prosecuting everyone related to the 2006 coup (which is clearly treason) and invalidate everything that happened under

the military regime until the following election? Surely a court has to decide on the latter, but they even have the mandate to

make some new laws - albeit retrospectively - if needed!

Okay, one answer is that this may not be conducive towards "reconciliation". Anything other than that?

Again, I am not trying to pick a fight here, so serious replies only please!

How long does she plan to stay in Australia?

A tourist visa (subclass 676) or a sponsored family visit visa (subclass 679) will let her stay upto 12 months.

http://www.immi.gov.au/visitors/tourist/visa-options.htm

You will need to submit a consent form (Form 1229) signed by her parents.

If you have the documents in order, you should get the visa in a week or so.

If noone involved has any criminal records, I'd say your chances are very close to 100%!

btw, the visa is valid for entry from the date of issue, so you may not want to apply too early.

(However, the length of stay is counted from the date of entry, so all you need to do is enter before the visa expires)

Okay, while we're at it, let me explain what I am more interested about:

I am an Australian permanent resident, so is my wife (Thai national) who is going to give birth to our

first child in Thailand in a few months. We would like to lodge a subclass 101 child permanent visa in Bangkok.

Common sense says that this wouldn't take ages if all documents are in order, as the only thing they can 'evaluate'

about a one month old is his health. (Penal clearance for the parents obtained for our own PR application are still valid)

However, they say it will take up to 10 months! Does it take that long in reality?

Worse still, they say that we have to be in Bangkok when it is issued, while I was hoping to get it in Japan.

The mother and the baby plan to move back to Japan where we live at the moment, 2-3 months after the birth.

It seems that if we tell the embassy that the baby moved to Japan, they would transfer the application to Tokyo,

but it would go to the bottom of the queue there!

Why can't they just process the application and let us know when they have decided?

A visa label is not mandatory these days (I don't have one on my passport), and even if it is,

why can't we get it at the nearest embassy? That is how they do it for eVisa, so there is no

obvious reason why they couldn't do it for paper applications...

sorry about the rant!

' would love to hear from anyone who has been in a similar situation.

Groovyc,

With the utmost of respect family visas cover so many different subclasses all with differing standard processing times that this survey is pretty much meaningless. Sorry.

Bridge

Very good point! However, I was told that all applicants are put in the same queue (at least the PR visas?), which is why I wasn't more specific.

Please note that DIAC doesn't make any differentiation between them either.

Of course, all voters are encouraged to post more details about their specific cases...

I guess we have to wait a bit before anyone clicks on the last 2

That's why I said all applications from Jan2010.....

Or do you mean to say the average is way below 6 months??

Hi everyone,

I opened this thread to find out the actual processing times for all family visas lodged at the Australian embassy in Bangkok, Jan 2010 onwards.

Please vote first, and feel free to share anything else that might be useful to others.

Cheers!

Hi, I would love to know how long it actually took for you... thanks!

Question ... Are most Thais (Honda/Toyota drivers) who are driving new cars leasing or buying them?

When casually looking at new vehicles a year ago, the dealers had handouts with what your payment would be with X% down. I think these payment amounts were also in the manufacturer brochure. The payments seemed incredibly low to me and I never really got a straight answer regarding lease vs. buy but was told the car would be mine when paid off. I even think I did a quick total of the payments and they barely added up to the total vehicle cost but there seemed to be no mention of any kind of residual payment at the end as there would be for a lease if you wanted to keep the car.

Anyway, just curious if interest rates are incredibly low or if there are leases and there is a buyout option at the end.

I am sure you got something wrong there! I can't speak for current interest rates, but I know for a fact that you get charged more than they claim.

For example a 4% interest rate on a 1m loan paid in 5 yrs will cost you 1,000,000 * 4% * 5 = 200,000

Your monthly payment will be 1.2m/ (5*12) = 20,000 plus VAT

ie. you will be paying interest for the WHOLE capital for the ENTIRE period of time, giving an effective interest rate of more than double the 4% promised.

(I am not even sure if this is how it is done in other countries, coz I've never taken a lease elsewhere. Either way, I consider it a scam)