thaibeachlovers

I'd wager that it'll be an option between showing either proof of a job OR proof of X amount of funds, not both. Similar to how retirement extensions can be obtained by showing either 800k in the bank, or 40k per month coming in to your account. Plenty of people are self-employed with an online business so have no 'boss' (that 1900s paradigm) to type up a letter saying where they work (how archaic).

Plus I can't see consulates wanting to deal with that much paperwork, i.e. chasing up someone who has more than enough money in their bank account but didn't send in a piece of paper from their employer.

I think you're missing the point as to why they would ask for details of the job/occupation. It's about demonstrating a reason to return to their home country. Because tourism is about travel and leisure during vacation from work.

How many jobs allow 6 month vacations?

Of course one could work in Macs for a week and use that to get the visa, then leave.

It's like the mandatory hotel bookings- there will just be a rise in hotel cancellations once visas are obtained.

This new diktat has not been thought through, and is not based in reality.

If you stay in the friend's place he should have sent in a form when you moved in. Better to stay in an hotel for a few days till all sorted and no one will be in trouble.

please have mercy Humph! when i arrived in Saudi Arabia in 1974 a Saudi channel existed which broadcasted news, religious bla-bla, masri and lebnani soap operas, the bionic woman, the six million dollar man, a western series and every thursday evening a Bollywood film.

these kind of ridiculous fairy tales don't die of course. the same applies to Raytheon (one of my company's top clients) which is firmly established in Saudi Arabia since end of 1969 and was never thrown out. Raytheon is one of the pillars of the Saudi air defense system!

I arrived in Saudi for the first time in early 1979 - after fleeing Iran at roughly the same time as the Shah. We were in Tabuk, where we had a cinema on our compound, but no TV. My second tour was in the early 1990s, when I was based in Khobar whilst working on an upgrade to the East-West pipeline - I was housed in an apartment belonging to our client, again without TV. Evidently there was TV available, but nothing worth watching - as with most TV. I had, between these postings, been in Libya, where our compound had an internal cable network for TV, and Hong Kong, where I had TV in my apartment.

With regard to Raytheon, I may have been misled, but I am sure that in my latter days in Tabuk (I left the day Anwar Sadat was assassinated) the BAe guys told me that they were in trouble - as were Westinghouse. But then so was Lockheed for a time, and in Iran we were all deep in it.

In 92 they had tv in all the patient rooms in Riyadh hospital, showing lots of Egyptian soaps that always involved women getting beaten by men.The men's building had recorded tv programs for the first year I was there ( I got to see Twin Peaks again ), and then they got a satellite dish, but it had to be hidden from the mutawa.

Not much on it for westerners, just BBC, and V ( used to be MTV, but that got banned as being too sexual ).

Most bizarre programme was the one where they showed little girls ( uncovered ) playing for a long time.

At prayer time they cut into all the channels to show Mecca.

When the president of the US was inaugurated and the female singer was on, they ( Saudi tv ) only showed her back from a very long way off and no sound. BBC showed her up close and with sound. Quite mind boggling cutting back and forth between the two channels.

confirmed on these Embassy's sites, only in if ur a national of:

Norway

Italy

Germany

Finland

Cambodia $200

Singapore $180

Thats not what is important

what is is;

1. u need anywhere from 6,000 euro (Italy) to $8,000 ( Singapore/Cambodia) in ur bank an must show 6 months of bank statements

2. a JOB

3. confirmed hotel reservations

Multiple-Entry Tourist Visa will only be granted to Singaporean nationals or Long-Term Pass Holder of Singapore.

4. Evidence of adequate finance

Single-Entry Tourist Visa: $1000 per person and $2000 per family

Multiple-Entry Tourist Visa: $8,000 per person (6 months of financial statements)

5. Letter of Employment (compulsory for Multiple-Entry Tourist Visa applicants)

6. Evidence of accommodation booking (compulsory for Multiple-Entry Tourist Visa applicants)

Single-Entry Tourist Visa: S$50

Multiple-Entry Tourist Visa: S$250 $180 US

http://www.thaiembassy.sg/visa-matte...s/tourist-visa

Confirmed hotel reservations, for the entire trip??????????

If so, they are barking.

Who in their right mind is going to book hotels for the entire time before setting foot in LOS ( or should I say Land of smiles no more )? Besides, the hotels I stay at don't take internet bookings, only walk in.

A JOB????????

If you are going for a long time chances are you won't have a job. Retired people?

As usual, not thought through for the unintended consequences.

Good point.

I think while for many legitimate tourists, it may not be such a big deal to show proof of job, some money in the bank etc. but these requirements are going way overboard, especially the hotel booking. Not even developed, western countries require Thais to show a particular amount in the bank (although the more, the better) and they certainly don't require hotel bookings, although if a Thai arrives at say Sydney airport and looks like they are at the end of the road, they may be asked to show proof of a hotel booking or that they are staying with someone.

I agree that not many companies will give 6 months leave unless long service leave has been granted (this will apply only to a very tiny number of applicants mostly from western countries where there is even such an option).

Since there is no problem for a tourist to stay at any residence they wish in Thailand, surely accommodation at a private residence should be acceptable in lieu of a hotel booking. However, what will actually happen will only be known once the consulates and embassies start issuing this visa.

For most travellers, the numerous requirements to obtain this visa, which are more numerous than even getting a non-O or non-B, are too cumbersome to even bother with. So if you were intending on spending 6 months in Thailand on a tourist visa, the best option will be to get a single entry, extend that, do a visa run, get another one, extend that and voila, you have 6 months in Thailand with one visa run. Since the new visa will require a visa run anyway (it isn't clear if each 60-day stay can still be extended or not), it largely comes to the same thing.

For anyone wanting to visit say Laos, Cambodia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Myanmar etc. in between Thailand visits (most likely if you are travelling overland) as long as you don't do a one day border run, you can just use visa exemptions.

Most travellers from countries like Japan and South Korea will never apply for this visa. For Japanese, they have no time to spend 6 months in Thailand as they get very little time off work. Retirees probably already have the right visa anyway. South Koreans get 90-days visa free hence they would be stupid to spend money on a visa when they can enter much more easily for free.

I meant retired tourists, not retirees living in LOS.

I don't know about you, but I have seen many business closing in Thailand. in tesco by example, lot of booths are empty. I have heard that many Thai are now very worry because they have no more customers.

some have tried to open restaurant and now are back at the night market.

I see less foreigners, it means less customers, and less jobs for thai.

Chinese don't spend a lot in Thailand rich Chinese go UK or Paris.

if I understand, only one entry visa will be given in Lao now . instead to cross the bridge after 90 days for second entry, we will have now to go to the embassy every 90 days to get a new tourist visa. multi entry visa not worth. normal 1 entry visa will take only one night in lao. the real pain is in your farangland, they will ask for a return ticket within 3 months.

- Chinese bring a lot of money to designated areas, tourists spots, on a 2 weeks holidays group tour,they wont do a stop over at Tesco.

- Beside tourism, the rest of the economy is not as sluggish as you might see. They have built Tescos and BiG C right left and center, the economy is is indeed growing, but not as fast as some would like, that's all.

- True there are indeed much less foreigners in Thai places, but Thailand is not worried about the ones going to Tesco (low budget) but rather the higher end, Villa Market types which are expanding.

They are just getting rid of the poorer ones, thats all.

I take it u do not live here ( a Chinese holiday is not 2 weeks)

Chinese pre pay everything before they leave China

they shop alot at Tesco/big C, box the purchases up and mail them home

the country is falling apart up north, people out of work, cant grow rice, factories closing everywhere an many returning to the village.

Car sales WAY down, shops closing everywhere

Do you live up north?

I do not recognise what you say up there, where I live. Too many cars on the road now and more all the time. No evidence of lack of money, given the way there are so many people driving around. No one my wife knows can't get a job. No factories closing in my town, restaurants busy and bars/ clubs full of young people buying expensive booze, plenty of building going on, new Makros opening, Big C booming with people, new 7 11 near where I live full of customers, Central in C M full of shoppers and new malls opening.

Down in the village, plenty of rice being grown.

Thailand has those too. Or they did.

Where are they then I want to have a read about it

Not that I would do it what if u hated her

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

So long as prostitution is illegal in LOS it's not possible to have sex hotel vacations paid up front like Venezuela.

Is it illegal here? Tolerated? I thought just public solicitation is illegal, but if it's done privately it's ok.

No, it's illegal, but no one is ever prosecuted for it that I know of. However, blatently selling sex holidays is definitely a no no. The good thing is that it stops pimping, like used to happen back during the Vietnam war era.

I've never heard of having to show bank statements for a tourist visa before. Not in any country, anywhere.

Countries around the world are reducing the amount of red tape required to visit and make things easier for tourists whilst Thailand is doing the exact opposite.

I suspect this new visa is going to fail and backfire in a big and embarrassing way. Also if they stop issuing double and triple entry visas it will result in just one thing - less people will come and those who do come will stay for less time.

It's either a badly thought out and irrational idea or a deliberate attempt to reduce visitors. Then again, I'm reminded of something known as 'Hanlons Razor' so it's probably just plain idiocy.

The UK is one of those that make you show bank statements....

Being from the UK I've never dealt with them.

I guess Thailand now regards itself as an equal to the European countries.

When I was getting TVs twice a year in UK, NEVER had to produce bank statements. I guess they really don't want farang tourists, just those nice Chinese ones.

So Mr Lostboy, you raised some good points. Sorry to be on the defensive so quickly but I was expecting a response similar to Up2u2. Your response however showed a good degree of professional knowledge.

To clarify, I have never been a "denier" of climate change. I have seen professionally the effect of pollution both aqueous and terrestrial. My experience of aerial pollution is limited, but if mankind can cause such damage to the 2 former it would be expected that we can damage, or change the latter. My worry is that the GW debate is featuring people with a rather more political agenda than an environmentalist one. Of course man is pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, but my contention is, in a dynamic atmosphere how can you actually quantify it and then predict what the Earth's climate will be in 100 years. Furthermore by using wild claims (or more correctly, what are seen by lots of people as wild claims) the GW lobby is actually having a negative effect on the environmental professionals trying to combat pollution in all its facets.

What I do have issue with you is over the increasing population. You state it was a 70s scare, now defunct. I point you to that article I mentioned to Up2u2 in the Guardian last year that said the scientific consensus that the Earth's population would peak in 2050 looks like being wrong and the population will keep increasing to 12 Billion or more by 2100. No mention of thereafter. Your mention of falling birthrates when GDP increases has happened in 1st world countries, but when a country has no social security or old age pension then having a large family is a way of ensuring you will be taken care of in old age. This has always been the case in 3rd world countries and even if they could raise their GDP it would take several generations for the benefit to be realised, then too late 12 billion have arrived. But the elephant in the room of your argument is all the major religions are opposed to family planning and that is where the Pope came in.

The problem with food technologies is there is a big public resistance to GM food and we are yet to see the long term effects of such technology. Furthermore all it would need is something similar to potato blight to occur to a major food source to see a replay of the Irish famine multiplied by x.

I have dealt with the USEPA on several occasions and found them so helpful on specific matters, much more so than the UK's EA. I have also dealt with big multinational corporations and know profit is everything and the environment is pretty way down on their list, but they do wish to look "green" even when they are most certainly not. The latest problem for them is "Corporate Social Responsibility" - there's an ISO standard for that, which is so important for the world's population and if applied worldwide would be a real game changer.

So call me a conservative, OK, but I am in neither "camp" but I am worried when science is used as a political weapon. Predicting what will happen over the next century can be given a qualified judgement, but when someone says "it's true, the science is proven" when it's a prediction based on computer modelling then my scientific background says "woo wait a minute !". You can disagree with me, your choice, but that is my view and it will take "road to Damascus" moment to change it.

On climate change, you can really only be a Denier or an Alarmist. That is the nature of ideological disputes. As a socialist, I am automatically aligned to the Alarmists. Half the fun of hanging around on TVF World News is poking the eye of the opponent.

I do not subscribe to your views on population. There will always be technological solutions. Food technology does not only mean GMO. I am quite agnostic on that issue. Besides, while earth remains a closed eco-system, there will be natural methods of population control. Technology too will contribute to the lifting of the living standards of people in emerging economies. Old models of infrastructure based on mega-projects, huge capex and lots of cement and other resources are already being overturned by technology. It has been happening i the communications industry for decades. It is now happening in the energy industry. I am very bullish on economic progress and the impact of wealth generation on poverty alleviation and, ultimately, reduced population growth.

I do not worry too much about religious views on birth control. Most people, including the 'faithful' ignore such silliness. The more societies move towards agnosticism and find alternatives for spiritual well being, the less influence these archaic institutions will have. Again, more economic development and higher standards of living will accelerate this process.

Much of your rationale is based on existing models e.g. the need for large families in under developed agrarian economies, the exploitation of the genetics of food crops for corporate wealth generation etc. If you try to apply these models to problems of the future, they won't work. I am a strong believer in social progress - look it up, it is actually a 'thing' - not in the imperialist sense but in the optimistic sense.

I do not subscribe to your views on population. There will always be technological solutions.

Once population passed 3 billion it was already too big. Simply the sheer numbers ensure everything will be exploited.

How many species are becoming extinct all the time because of humans?

The rain forest is being destroyed rapidly.

Fish are at the tipping point of extinction.

The world's oceans are completely polluted.

There is clearly only room for one species in the brave new world of the future. So congested, that we will have to live on floating cities and eat harvested seaweed ( only farmed fish will survive )

You appear to come at the problem from a belief in the "goodness" of humanity, when the driving force of everything humans do is greed ( second only to sex ). Without greed ( greed is good as the man said ) humans would never have evolved out of the caves, but the world is becoming run by corporations and they care only about profit, which is very bad for the environment.

So, unless you get rid of capitalism and put the Kumbaya singers into government the future looks bleak

Yes, we could support an almost infinite number of people on the planet, but would you want to live in that world- I don't?

Technology will not be available to the teeming masses. Most of them will be unemployed and dirt poor- technology can replace every manual job on the planet, and it will, or at least the corporations will try to.

Have you not seen the hordes invading Europe in the hope of a better life? Their own countries are a living example of what overpopulation causes, but they will still breed uncontrollably, even if they get to live in Europe- it's what they do.

I too read science fiction and the future is well known.

BYW I used to be an optimist when I was young, but now I am a pessimist ( or as I like to think of it, a realist ).

You might just get lucky. A retirement village/old peoples home.

Meet a new teeruk - age 80+yo.

Busy everyday singing old songs by the piano; line dancing; secret rendezvous with the tea lady.

When can I go?

80+ teelak no thanks. Being married to one that will never look old before I die has ruined me for any idea of being romantic with one that looks like my granny.

Line dancing- I should be so lucky. The only home I could afford will just park me in front of the telly all day. Understaffed and overworked.

Like it or not, the 1948 borders are the only legal ones, until the UN changes them, and there is no chance of them doing that.

I will not be replying to that particular topic again, as it's just you say/ I say now.

BTW Egypt and Jordan have signed peace treaties with Israel, so other than Syria, who is threatening Israel now, that it requires more space for security? I have no problem with Israel occupying the Golan Heights as the previous situation was indeed intolerable.

The 1948 lines may be the only legal ones as far as Israel goes, that's for sure. The Palestinians and neighboring Arab countries initially rejecting the resolution could have raised some legal doubts as to ownership issues (this surfaced a bit later on, when Egypt and Jordan took over Palestinian territories), but this is water over the bridge by now.

Most of the world acknowledges that for various practical reasons, a return to the 1948 lines is no longer possible. This would have been different had there been serious peace negotiations right after the war. The Palestinian tragedy is that due to poor leadership and Arab countries meddling this did not come about. There are doubts regard peace being kept, but the Palestinians would have been better poised either way.

I am not sure if there is a relevant precedent for keeping control of conquered territory - post 1948, the Palestinians were still rejecting the partition and lacked any effective leadership. Israel withdrawing from conquered areas would not have resulted in a Palestinian state, but in relevant neighboring Arab countries take over. Or, good old fashioned anarchy. Post 1967 was pretty similar in that regard.

With the current accepted norm being the 1967 lines (or an approximation of), most 1948 lines references are futile.

Discounting the Palestinians as a potential threat, there is Hezbollah in Lebanon. If Syria keels over - who knows? (but then that goes for every country in the Middle East). Doubt that potential territorial expansion offers the security buffer it did years ago, what with rocket range and such. Granted true peace being the best defense, but solutions involving demilitarization might be a more realistic path.

I think most sensible people agree with that summary.

There are some points to add, though.

It's not futile. It's important to keep in mind the 1947 lines and that the 1967 lines are already way above and beyond what the 1947 Zionists and "Founders of Israel" accepted. Negotiations need to start at the 1967 lines but with "Well, you've already got that much more than you started with, so.....".

It's important to not allow a mindset of "We've got the 1967 lines, it's ours, but we want more, so lets talk about that...". This is where the settlement expansion is heading. Just as the 1967 lines have come to be ".... acknowledge(ed) that for various practical reasons, a return to the 1948 lines is no longer possible.", the settlements are likely to be treated the same way. There is little doubt that this is what the Zionists want and are proactively trying to achieve. And when you look at the map of aquifers in the region, and compare it to where the settlements are being built, there would be little or no water left for the Palestinians....they would have to leave....and thus the "river to the sea" would be achieved.

There is also this attitude of "Well, our neighbours are nasty, and we need to defend ourselves...so we'll have this lot of land, and this lot too....". This is just illegal and immoral. Nobody has the right to take what is not theirs just because they want it. Israel should be negotiating from a point of gratefulness that the 1967 lines are granted, not from a point of haughty "We've captured it, we're not letting it go, so stop harping on about it.".

Israel's defence is Israel's problem. They wanted to establish their state where it is knowing full well the dangers. It's not up to the Palestinians to sacrifice more for Israel's comfort.

If the world allows Israel to continue the way it is going, a lot of awful precedents will be set (awful precedents are already being set). What argument would there be against China deciding it wants all the water from the upper Mekong? Or Ethiopia the same with the Nile? What argument would there be against S. Korea deciding it wants that mountain range just north of the DMZ, "for our defence"? The US might decide (and if Trump gets in it's possible, lol) that parts of the Rio Grande are not a good enough barrier, but some hills south of the river are better..so just take them as their own. Dozens of countries could just decide that for survival they need to encroach on neighbour's property or rights and take it as their own.

If one country is let off the rules, all countries should be let off the rules. Without international law and enforcement of it, global anarchy will ensue. We don't want that, do we?

Good point about the Nile water. The only "right" Egypt has to stop the up river countries taking the water is an old treaty signed back when Britain ruled Egypt.

you can do tourist visa extensions here, correct? and when do you suppose is the best time to come? early in the morning or afternoon when the place has cleared of many people. When do they stop taking visa extension applications?

and finally, i am reading people talking of agencies and tourist visas. does this mean i can pay an agent to get a new tourist visa for me?

You can only get a new TV outside Thailand, so doubtful. Some used to, but it was a scam using fake stamps- not a good idea.

I have had a very smooth re extension of O-A - retirement visa - or whatever the correct term is to date.

This year I am succumbing to the pressure. I am joining the expats who hire the services of a visa agent.

I resent it but that is the part of the price of being an expat.

If they have indeed cancelled on line booking, I will be joining you. Not for me hanging around from 4am in hope of obtaining one of the few tickets.

I wonder though how they are able to do so many on the same day when only 20 appointments are possible?

Is there a requirement to provide proof of residence when using an agent- anyone?

Yes ts part of being an expat in CM, and only in Chiang Mai, and still no explanation why ???????????.Phuket,Hua Hin,Bangkok,Pattaya no hassle.CM is the chosen one.

A retirement extension,if correct paper work is provided, is a 10 minute exercise for an officer.I've previously done 7 of them.never took any longer.

You would think that some one on this forum has a contact in Immigation to get the real reason but dont hold your breath.

Maybe the visa agent sponsor could give us the drum.

I've been waiting for a visa agent to answer my question, but I'm not holding my breath any longer.

Well not sure if your 'straw poll' stands the test of data. Unless the world has completely turned on it's head from November 2012, the numbers from the Asian American Legal Defense & Education Fund don't support your theory:

Koreans are going to love Trump. They received the majority of the heat in the '92 LA Riots and are fed-up with what the left is doing in the west coast, threatening their business and right to protect themselves. I know many Koreans and they will support a strong leader like him, it resonates in their blood. And as he says, he loves China, people in China love him, and he understands the tools the US has to actually negotiate, not bend over and polish the dictators' leather knickers like Obama does. And as I understood the deportation part is negotiation - he won't deport illegals that are currently law-abiding, but will use tighter control as part of the negotiations with the government of Mexico.

A fellow conference attendee who walked by Choe joked, "You're gonna have to show him your birth certificate, man!"

Choe laughed it off. But questioning where someone is from can be loaded for Asian-Americans, said Jennifer Lee, a sociology professor at the University of California, Irvine who studies race, immigration and culture.

There's an implied sense of foreignness in how Trump treated Choe, Lee said.

"It seems like this innocuous question, like people are just asking your identity," Lee said, "but they're really challenging this idea of who is American, which is, at the core, an offensive question. It's this persistent perception that Asian-Americans are not American, that they are perpetual foreigners."

My biggest concern about a Trump presidency is that the hot head will get us into a war with China. He'll never get the Mexicans to build a wall and he'll never deport tens of millions of Latinos.

New Findings: 78% Korean Americans Voted for Obama; Many Faced Barriers at the Polls

Wednesday, Mar 27, 2013

Today, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF) released detailed findings from its multilingual exit poll of 998 Korean American voters in the November 2012 elections, the largest survey of its kind in the nation. The results indicated that Korean Americans showed strong support for comprehensive immigration reform and the Democratic party candidates for President and Congress.

78% of Korean Americans polled voted for President Obama, compared to 77% of those polled nationally. Of those surveyed, 60% were enrolled in the Democratic party, while only 14% were enrolled in the Republican party, and 24% indicated that they were not enrolled in any party. The majority of Korean Americans (72%) supported immigration reform, including a path to citizenship.

Full story:

http://aaldef.org/press-releases/press-release/new-findings-78-korean-americans-voted-for-obama-many-faced-barriers-at-the-polls.html

Polls are pretty meaningless. The desired answers can be obtained by choosing the target population, the questions and the numbers. 998 voters is so statistically small that the results are meaningless in a real world.

I, and no one I know have ever been asked to participate in a political poll.

Polls are meaningless, unlike....

Koreans are going to love Trump. They received the majority of the heat in the '92 LA Riots and are fed-up with what the left is doing in the west coast, threatening their business and right to protect themselves. I know many Koreans and they will support a strong leader like him, it resonates in their blood.

And, by your new logic that 'polls are meaningless" maybe the whole premiss of this thread is meaningless...since it's based on a 'poll'

True. However, it is clear that Trump is very popular based on the numbers that go to his meetings.

Important to remember though, that he is also disliked by more people than like him ( based on polls, LOL ).

In the end, the only poll that matters is the election.

I just remembered Venezuela has all inclusive resorts where your room comes with girlfriend of your choice. you pay one price for a week or 2 and everything food,beer,room and GF.

Thailand has those too. Or they did.

Where are they then I want to have a read about it

Not that I would do it what if u hated her

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

So long as prostitution is illegal in LOS it's not possible to have sex hotel vacations paid up front like Venezuela.

Couldn't you guys (both sides of this off topic argument) simply agree that some criticism comes with antisemitic motivations and some do not?

Not all criticism of Israel denotes antisemitism,but obviously, some does. Rejecting all criticism as hidden antisemitism is absurd. Not all claims that criticism on Israel indicates antisemitism are wrong. Denouncing every instance where this is raised as deflection, is ridicules.

You are wasting your pixels. That point has been noted on these pages many times, to ZERO effect.

Some posters clearly support Israel right or wrong ( or see no wrong at all ) while to others, Israel can do no right. I like to think that better heads will rule eventually.

It is worth remembering that one can only make peace with an enemy.

Now Trump has managed to offend Asian-Americans as well!

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/15/448718726/south-korea-trumps-where-are-you-from-moment

A fellow conference attendee who walked by Choe joked, "You're gonna have to show him your birth certificate, man!"

Choe laughed it off. But questioning where someone is from can be loaded for Asian-Americans, said Jennifer Lee, a sociology professor at the University of California, Irvine who studies race, immigration and culture.

There's an implied sense of foreignness in how Trump treated Choe, Lee said.

"It seems like this innocuous question, like people are just asking your identity," Lee said, "but they're really challenging this idea of who is American, which is, at the core, an offensive question. It's this persistent perception that Asian-Americans are not American, that they are perpetual foreigners."

My biggest concern about a Trump presidency is that the hot head will get us into a war with China. He'll never get the Mexicans to build a wall and he'll never deport tens of millions of Latinos.

Koreans are going to love Trump. They received the majority of the heat in the '92 LA Riots and are fed-up with what the left is doing in the west coast, threatening their business and right to protect themselves. I know many Koreans and they will support a strong leader like him, it resonates in their blood. And as he says, he loves China, people in China love him, and he understands the tools the US has to actually negotiate, not bend over and polish the dictators' leather knickers like Obama does. And as I understood the deportation part is negotiation - he won't deport illegals that are currently law-abiding, but will use tighter control as part of the negotiations with the government of Mexico.

According to Trump's own words, he wants all illegals to go back home and then apply for a work visa of some sort. This will be done very quickly, but only for those that have not been in trouble- they will not be allowed back in.

Presumably, once that was done, he would bring in stringent controls on aliens in America.

Now Trump has managed to offend Asian-Americans as well!

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/15/448718726/south-korea-trumps-where-are-you-from-moment

A fellow conference attendee who walked by Choe joked, "You're gonna have to show him your birth certificate, man!"

Choe laughed it off. But questioning where someone is from can be loaded for Asian-Americans, said Jennifer Lee, a sociology professor at the University of California, Irvine who studies race, immigration and culture.

There's an implied sense of foreignness in how Trump treated Choe, Lee said.

"It seems like this innocuous question, like people are just asking your identity," Lee said, "but they're really challenging this idea of who is American, which is, at the core, an offensive question. It's this persistent perception that Asian-Americans are not American, that they are perpetual foreigners."

My biggest concern about a Trump presidency is that the hot head will get us into a war with China. He'll never get the Mexicans to build a wall and he'll never deport tens of millions of Latinos.

Koreans are going to love Trump. They received the majority of the heat in the '92 LA Riots and are fed-up with what the left is doing in the west coast, threatening their business and right to protect themselves. I know many Koreans and they will support a strong leader like him, it resonates in their blood. And as he says, he loves China, people in China love him, and he understands the tools the US has to actually negotiate, not bend over and polish the dictators' leather knickers like Obama does. And as I understood the deportation part is negotiation - he won't deport illegals that are currently law-abiding, but will use tighter control as part of the negotiations with the government of Mexico.

Well not sure if your 'straw poll' stands the test of data. Unless the world has completely turned on it's head from November 2012, the numbers from the Asian American Legal Defense & Education Fund don't support your theory:

New Findings: 78% Korean Americans Voted for Obama; Many Faced Barriers at the Polls

Wednesday, Mar 27, 2013

Today, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF) released detailed findings from its multilingual exit poll of 998 Korean American voters in the November 2012 elections, the largest survey of its kind in the nation. The results indicated that Korean Americans showed strong support for comprehensive immigration reform and the Democratic party candidates for President and Congress.

78% of Korean Americans polled voted for President Obama, compared to 77% of those polled nationally. Of those surveyed, 60% were enrolled in the Democratic party, while only 14% were enrolled in the Republican party, and 24% indicated that they were not enrolled in any party. The majority of Korean Americans (72%) supported immigration reform, including a path to citizenship.

Full story:

http://aaldef.org/press-releases/press-release/new-findings-78-korean-americans-voted-for-obama-many-faced-barriers-at-the-polls.html

Polls are pretty meaningless. The desired answers can be obtained by choosing the target population, the questions and the numbers. 998 voters is so statistically small that the results are meaningless in a real world.

I, and no one I know have ever been asked to participate in a political poll.

Your wife, or her family, will look after you. If your wife is scared that she won't be able to do this (e.g. she may die before you) she will make some arrangement for a relative to look after you.

Thai hospitals generally allow family members to stay and sleep in your hospital room to look after you. My wife is scared I might want to go back to Australia if I have a serious illness because she will not be able to stay at the hospital and look after me. She says it is better for me to be sick in Thailand so she can stay with me until the end (or I get better)!

If she gets a terminal illness while I remain healthy and (relatively) young, she will find a replacement wife to our mutual satisfaction.

That is the Thai way.

Lucky you. My Thai family ( the in laws from hell ) would never look after me, nor would I expect them to, nor would I want them to.

Your wife may want to stay in hospital with you, but you may not necessarily enjoy the hospital experience. Having had a few days in one, I'd rather not be in a Thai one, but then I know how it should be, and ignorance is bliss.

ggt

You will get over it?

Maybe

I wouldn't, but such is life. Bummer.

I'm a little confused. Why would anyone marry someone, or into a family, that they suspect would cast them aside in their later years, let alone arrange for them to meet with an accident? The members expressing these concerns really need to have a word with themselves about their motivations for marriage in the first place. It's also a very disturbing indication of their perception of Thai people. Creepy stuff. There's a documentary in this somewhere.

Before I got married, I had no idea that my future in laws were the family from hell. That all happened after I signed.

another one found out the truth about marriage after it was too late

True, but a distance of several hours away from them and a one room apartment solves the problem.

I'm a little confused. Why would anyone marry someone, or into a family, that they suspect would cast them aside in their later years, let alone arrange for them to meet with an accident? The members expressing these concerns really need to have a word with themselves about their motivations for marriage in the first place. It's also a very disturbing indication of their perception of Thai people. Creepy stuff. There's a documentary in this somewhere.

Before I got married, I had no idea that my future in laws were the family from hell. That all happened after I signed.

My lovely wife cared for her father in his final years, after he had developed senility and various illnesses. She will be my car-giver in my old age.

I sincerely hope then that you will not weigh more than her father did when she was looking after him. As a nurse, I know full well the perils of humping an obese patient around, and it's possible a heavy farang would make her a patient as well as yourself.

This thread shows up the difference in marriage expectancy between farangland and LOS. Few wives in farangland expect to be looking after an aged and infirm husband while they are still middle aged or less.

That is not an attack on you as I am in that position myself.

Good topic,, i ask myself the same question.

The older i get the louder the question gets

but,,,, i entered this world alone, i will go the

same way the question is w-h-e-r-e and the

arrows always point back to my home country.

As much as i don't want to i must face reality

and start the relocation process, bye bye.

That's fine as long as you have friends/ family that will support you in those final years. A nursing home is not a happy place for those that are alone, regardless of the advertising BS. Stuck in front of telly all day anyone?

I have to agree with you though, that if I bottle the final solution in LOS, home country is all that's left. My wife has to work, no way she can take years off to look after me, even if she could physically move my overweight carcass around.

There are nursing homes in Thailand...just Google to find them.

I have looked into these.

The problems are that these care homes are like full time hotels for old people that are still mobile and can still look after themselves to a point. What worries me is; if I became completely immobile and needed 24 hour care. Hope I would die before reaching that level.

Either you can afford to hire some care attendants to look after you 24/7, or my solution is a razor blade in my wallet ( I can't afford to hire anyone ). I wouldn't wish my petite wife to have to look after my 100kg body if I can no longer function like a normal human being.