JimGant

For leg men, winter is very depressing....

"Admitted" date is day one of your 45 day permission of stay; "until" date is day 45.

Not if he hasn't worked 40 quarters for SS covered employment. Or, if he's qualified for SSI, that's not payable unless he physically resides in the US.

That was to thwart face recognition by the Imm Police https://thethaiger.com/hot-news/visa/overstay-crackdown-uses-facial-recognition-tech

No, I'm saying there's no active dragnet in the US for overstayers; keep your nose clean, and you're probably home free. But, in this case, Thailand had an active dragnet: Apparently, this dragnet was to roll up everything they came upon, including elderly white farangs with no criminal records. Historically, Thai dragnets have concentrated on criminal overstaying elements, with Africans often of interest. The US has never targeted certain groups for random checks on overstay. It has, recently, identified which groups are more likely to overstay, and has then attempted to pass laws tightening up on visa requirements for these populations. However, this effort under Trump, ended with the Democrats, who are more emotional than pragmatic.

Eh?

How many more like him are out there -- but maybe in their eighties, and needing multiple assistant help, and in wheel chairs......? Should Thailand load him on a plane, with his wheelchair, and send him to an empty address in the US (or EU, OZ)? Or, should they just not try to uncover overstay recluses, doing no one any harm -- particularly if these recluses are financially stable. (A more difficult question if such folks become a drain on the Thai medical system...) Hey, Thailand, why not a quid pro quo for our old, sick overstayers -- for all your illegal Thais working in restaurants in Los Angeles. A little compassion and common sense go a long way, in spite of what US Republicans spout off.... If no harm, no foul -- why dig in?

The ordinary farang in Thailand should not perceive that this episode has anything to do with them. The wealthy in all countries in the world get a leg up over the less well-to-do, whether this is because they can afford better lawyers -- or the system affords them an outright bribe situation, as this case represents. Absolutely nothing that should alarm the ordinary farang in Thailand. In fact, that corruption is so naked, as this episode represents, actually shows the other side of the coin, namely, a bribe can smooth over some bureaucratic road bumps, like certain Immigration requirements. And everyone can end happily: You get the extension you need; the agent gets a fat fee; and the Imm officer gets part of that fee, so that he's now getting paid what he should be -- and the Thai taxpayer is NOT funding that pay raise. What's so bad about this form of corruption...... Why do you still live here, if they "inevitably" will try and do you over? Paranoia is a terrible disease to live with. Using this example as a warning to farang visitors *against* Thailand is baloney. Corruption has been with Asia for eons. It probably will never ever affect you here in Thailand -- and if it does, as pointed out, might be in your favor. No, corruption should not be on any visitor's radar. But, being much less likely to be mugged in the streets of a Thai city, verses the streets of Chicago or Wash DC -- might be a topic of discussion for future visitors/retirees. Corruption in Thailand will never go away. It's the way things have been done for ages -- and it greases more skids than not. Judging it by Western standards is a non starter.

Air Force in Thailand during Vietnam, at NKP, the Thai restaurant near the front gate -- site of many farewell parties and other get togethers -- every table had a bottle of Worcester sauce. Don't recall brand, but this was the preferred sauce to put on our 'cow pad.' I guess fish sauce was a non starter. Today, I still like Worcester sauce on my Thai food, at some times. Fresh fish sauce, at other times. I would imagine other US bases in Thailand during Vietnam had a similar Worcester sauce experience.

Or, adopt what the new BoI LTR visa has as an option, namely, $100k in your home country bank account, i.e., no need to bring that money to Thailand for self-insurance purposes. And no need to show proof of insurance denial to use this self-insure option. BoI's approach is rational, namely, self-insurance requirements are purely to protect Thailand from dead beats. Unlike with Police and Insurance Mafia requirements, that force buying a Thai issued insurance policy; but if somehow you can't, then you must park your money in a Thai financial institution. Either way, the emphasis is NOT on precluding health dead beats -- but on making sure the foreigner pads the wallets of self-promoting Thai entities. But, this is Thailand -- and Asia -- land of individual 'rice bowls.' You're not going to merge rice bowls in the interest of efficiency and fairness -- not if one or more of those rice bowls get broken.

But, when the machine jammed, did you hear a faint laughing? Pulling money from an ATM is one thing. Dropping my hard earned money into a slot on a wall has always spooked me (and I'm sure others). I would do it, if required -- but only at my home bank, where I could demand immediate remedy.

I've been with USAA for 55 years, and, yes, the service has shown some noticeable deterioration in the last few years. But, I've used them for international wire transfers for years, and the price has been $45 for as long as I can remember ($20wire, $25 international transfer fee). And, yes, you've always had to do it by phone -- online wire transfers are only for domestic transfers. And part of the questioning drill is "purpose of wire." This is required by anti-laundering laws -- but easy enough to state "living expenses." (Stating "funding international drug cartel" may slow down your transfer.) I haven't sent a wire in several years, as Wise is cheaper for amounts below around $25k. If they've tightened up their questioning for transfers, this would be understandable, since they were recently hit with a $140M fine for sloppy anti-laundering policies. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/17/business/usaa-fine-money-laundering.html My address with USAA is my Thai address, and when credit/debit cards renew, they automatically send by regular post to my Thai address. This, historically, proved slow -- but sure. However, last time I asked to have the card "expedited" via FedEx. No problem -- just pay a $6 fee. And card arrived in a couple of days. Last month I had a fraudulent credit card charge -- discovered, interestingly, because that online purchase attempt used the wrong expiration date of the card. Anyway, USAA security dep't was called, and they sent a new card right away -- via FedEx (by request), for no charge, being a fraud replacement. Got card in three days, and could track all the way. Fortunately, FedEx, unlike the local post office, is well aware of my location out in the boondocks, so I never have delivery hickups with them. I used to feel kinda special with USAA, being retired military (they even address you by rank -- a little corny, but reminds me of when I didn't have arthritis and other aches.) But, yeah, the last few years have shown deterioration in service. And I'm afraid that anti-laundering fine may tighten up on expats with foreign addresses. And even those with mail forwarding addresses, which they had no problem with when I used one a few years back, designating the address as both mail and physical address. No questions asked.

Which stall is Micha in?

Going to your second 5 year visa chunk, which expires on 5 Oct 2032 -- if you reenter Thailand on 2 Sep 2032, you should get stamped in until visa/permission expiration date of 5 Oct 2032 -- a 32 day permission, not a new 5 year permission. But, as we've seen, airport Imm are going (erroneously) the 5 year stamp route. So, say this still happens in 2032 for you, your airport permission of stay stamp will have a validity "until" date of 1 Sep 2037. I guess you could not renew your LTR visa in Oct 2032, but pretend your latest permission of stay stamp, until 1 Sep 2037, will get you back into the country. But, without an accompanying reentry permit for that period, doubt you'd get by even the sleepiest of IO's. Anyway, purely hypothetical, as all this will be sorted out long before you renew your LTR visa.

Another error by airport Imm, I believe. The LTR is one situation where visa validity and permission of stay validity coincide -- you do NOT get a new 5 year permission of stay every time you reenter Thailand. In your current reentry, your permission of stay stamp at the airport should have reflected an "until" date of of 24Oct27 (or maybe 23Oct27 -- not sure how they're figuring in leap year). Fast forward to when you travel and reenter Thailand on, say, Sept 3, 2027. Based on your current experience with airport Imm, if they're still using the OA example mind set of floating time period, they'd crank that stamp up to 5 years, and stamp you in for 5 years, until Sept 2, 2032. But the correct "until" date on your permission of stay stamp at the airport should reflect 24Oct27; thus no 5 year permission, only what's remaining on your 5 year visa partition, and related permission of stay, namely: about 50 days ("admitted" Sept 3, 2027, "until" Oct 24 2027.) If embassies/consulates are issuing LTR visas without accompanying permission of stay and re-entry stamps, certainly a problem for airport Imm, at least in the near term.

If you do your report online, you'll never have an "original" receipt. Feel free to print out as many copies of that 90 day receipt that come as a pdf attachment to your notification email. If they ask for an "original," ask to speak to someone with a full deck.

His question is valid. When you got your visa, you got the 10 year visa stamp, valid 7Oct22 to 5Oct32. Plus you got a permission of stay stamp, "from" 7Oct22 "until" 6Oct27. Plus you got a reentry stamp, valid "until" 6Oct27. All understandable -- you've got a 10 year visa, with two 5 year permission of stay periods. You were advised that, two months prior to the end of your first 5 year permission of stay, you're to go back to BoI and reaffirm your bonafides to receive your second 5 year permission of stay. Straightforward (except, what happens if you're out of the country during that 2 month reaffirmation renewal period?). Now, today when you travel, when you reenter Thailand, they'll look at your visa and reentry permit, and stamp you in "until" 6Oct27. And this is a fixed period, always ending on 6Oct27 (until your next 5 year period, ending on 5Oct32). Thus, there's no floating permission of stay, like when you reenter on a unexpired OA visa, and get a new one year permission of stay, irrespective of the OA visa's expiration date. LTR visa has two fixed permissions of stay -- and they *do* depend on the visa's expiration date. But I can see where JJJ's question comes from. Aublumberg got his LTR visa in Hong Kong, applied in his passport on 20Oct22. Then, on 29Oct22, he traveled to Thailand, where he met a head scratching Imm officer at the airport, unfamiliar with the LTR visa. I can only assume the Hong Kong Thai consulate didn't enter a permission of stay stamp, nor a reentry permit in his passport, unlike with Ryan's example above, which was obtained here at BoI (aublumberg, can you verify?). Thus, the Imm officer, briefed that LTR permissions of stay are for 5 years, followed the example of the OA visa 1 year stamps and stamped him in for 5 years, from the today's date (the "admitted" date), less one day (in this case, two days -- I guess for leap year), "until" 27Oct27. But, the correct stamp should have read: "Admitted," 29Oct22, "until" 19Oct27 -- commensurate with the visa's expiration date of 20Oct32, divided by 2. Again, there's no floating permission period -- with the LTR visa, the visa's expiration date determines the "until" permission of stay date. Certainly can understand how this went astray at airport Imm. Sure we'll see more of this until at least the supervisors get adequately briefed.

And you don't even need the Kindle machine. Kindle books can be downloaded to your favorite tablet.

Fubar. Sure would be nice if my OA extension could use LTR's $100k in a US bank medical self-insure route. If so, I wouldn't bother with this LTR option, as wasting two days, time, traffic, and money to go to Bangkok for the visa -- then again in five years -- sucks. I still may not, even if things sort out, as spending 36000 baht for the throwaway insurance policy isn't prohibitive, as spending two hours at Imm every year isn't. And, online 90 reports, which take five minutes, may prove superior to whatever they come up with re the one year reporting. Did they really think this LTR route for wealthy pensioners would be so attractive as to get fence sitters to retire in Thailand? Christ, existing options aren't any more burdensome -- and in some cases, less burdensome. The only possible advantage is for frequent retiree travelers. And even here, spending another half hour at Imm per year to get a reentry permit, is not prohibitive. No, at age 78, in five years I probably will have problems to travel to Bangkok to renew. And they've already told me they have no plans to open satellite offices outside Bangkok, particularly in Chiang Mai. So, I guess I'll stick with my current system, which for the past two years hasn't required a hand holding agent to jump the queue. But, previously, for 3000 baht I used this option. Guess I could again, if needed.

Good grief, you think the Embassy knows where you bank, and if not, that they would inquire of every bank in town? Of course not. So, unless you get run over in front of the bank, and its manager witnesses your death, your account is still active, as the bank has no legal obligation to freeze it -- if it's NOT notified of your death. And nobody, including a joint account holder, is legally required to notify the bank. Let's review. First, have a Will, even if written in long hand. Lawyer not needed, just follow some basics, like witnesses cannot be beneficiaries. If you currently don't have a Will, take 10 minutes to now write out one, with your beneficiary (s) clearly stated. No witnesses required for long hand Will, but recommended. Probably not needed, if you follow the next instructions. But, it does show your intent on where you want your assets to go. And if somehow things are directed to probate, at least the court knows where you want things to go, thus no intestate BS. But, hey, have your Imm account as a co-signatory account (with co signatory's name and signature hidden, except to the bank). Now, the co-signatory is like a power of attorney, meaning, that power is supposed to evaporate upon the death of the primary. But, again, practicality over law says your co-signatory can march into the bank with your passbook, after your death, and clean out (most) of that account, but do not attempt to close it. But even better, have your Imm account as an online account, with transfer privileges to your partner. Easy peasy. First instruction in your death do list is have that money (most) transferred before you're even cold. If the bank finds out that all this was done after your death, what are they going to do? First off, they're not legally liable, if they were not informed of your death. So why would they care, especially if you can flash the Will showing the account holder's intent was for you to have the money. Christ, some reporting on the forum has bank managers allowing transfers based on a Will, thus avoiding probate (wouldn't bank totally on that possibility). Anyway, if no one is contesting the fact that you want your money to go to your partner, who's going to legally push the issue? Again, your Will shows your intent. And, should it go to probate, your partner will still eventually get the money, less maybe 50000 in lawyer fees, and several months. So, be practical; the illegality of all of this is something only the lawyer mafia would get excited about. Just too bad Thailand doesn't have Pay On Death beneficiary procedures, like the West. Then all these shenanigans could be avoided. A bird in the hand sure beats two or more in the bush. And nobody is going to come after you for that bird (assuming there's no po'd ex-spouse stalking you, along with a smiling lawyer mafia).

I send the wife shopping.

You think it was a coincidence that Roe got torpedoed only after the Supreme Court became overly Catholic.......

Pretty scary, especially combined with an overly-Christian Supreme Court more concerned with interpreting their version of god, rather than interpreting the Constitution. Guess it's time to re-read Bertrand Russell's excellent essay: 'Why I am not a Christian.'

Bingo. Stir the pot so that morons get elected in the Republican primaries, then in the general election, independents and normal Republicans would be enticed by the Democratic candidate. What a great Democratic tactic -- and it worked. Probably little risk, when you realize MAGA doesn't represent the average American, nor even the average Republican -- at least in the privacy of the voting booth. Some, like hanaguma, just don't get it. That the Democratic Party tacticians realized most voters can think outside the cult-following box, was a winner. Yeah, doesn't quite pass the sniff test. Neither did Tammany Hall. But, if the end justifies the means, go for it.

Sadly, the following years will have a disproportionate Catholic court deciphering, not what the Constitution means, but what god means. Suggests the SC should have term limits. Won't hold my breath.