gioste

To the OP:

In case it was not already obvious: make sure she gets out with the UK passport, not with the Thai one just to get a departure card or a nice stamp (which would certainly avoid problems next time).

If they don't get an exit stamp on the UK pp, they are going to overstay their visa as long as they stay in the UK!

These races of dogs are not responsible. Their owner is responsible. These breeds don't kill.

You could say the same of guns: guns don't kill, it's the people who fire them who kill.

Yet, in most civilized countries guns are banned or at least you need a licence to carry them.

Let's make these owners really penally responsible for any damage/injury caused by their "pets". But first, let's test their skills in training/controlling these beasts.

I'm sure some pit bulls owners know how to handle them and how to keep them relatively innocuous, just like most people who carry guns will never kill anyone. Still they are both dangerous and should be closely regulated.

It takes criminal intent to kill with a gun; it's sufficient to be incompetent to kill with a pit bull.

Thanks again ubonjoe. You convinced me that I was wrong in the interpretation (wishful thinking, I guess...).

And how could I miss a 17-page long thread?? I've almost finished reading it

Thanks for the patience, sometimes we read what we would liketo read

Uhm, I think I have to disagree... I had long doubts about it as well, for the way it is phrased. But it says:

in the case of a child, adopted child or child of his/her spouse.

The "his/her" should be referred to me (i.e. "my own child, I child I adopted or a child of my spouse"), where the child is the Thai of whom I am a family member. I don't think it can be read the other way, if the alien asking for visa is the child (which is point 5, where the alien must have parents with enough money). Unfortunately, wife is not here now to triple check the Thai version ...

Am I badly wrong here?

Thanks a lot, ubonjoe for the fast reply and the link.

But that gave me another idea, as I'm personally short of THB

It seems to me, reading the order, that if I am the father of a Thai child of 8 I can stay and no question asked (notice that it doesn't mention money in sub-point 4 of point 2.18). I tracked down the original Thai version (http://www.immigration.go.th/nov2004/doc/RTP777_2551.pdf) and my Thai wife agrees with me. Naturally, this is illogical (how am I going to support my child?), yet that would not be surprising

Has anybody tried this way? does it work? or they'll say: "It's not in the rulebook but of course you need the money". Or are they applying to me the least favourable condition (i.e. being both father of a Thai and husband of a Thai, I must have the money). Last time I went there with all docs (child and wife).

I wonder if I can hijack this post for a further clarification on Marriage VISA?

Have they had another change of heart? I went to BKK immigration ~8 months ago asking for extension of stay based on Thai dependants. I had entered a few weeks before with a multi-entry Type O non-imm. visa obtained abroad based on children. I had all the money in the account but they said that that's not good any more (it worked for me a few years back). They said only proof of constant income was ok. She even told me to find a job even if the VISA says "Employment prohibited". So I've been doing the border hop every ~90 days and VISA expires in March...

Can anybody confirm with certainty? 400k is good? my own account or spouse's? (at the moment I'm a bit short, and it's wify holding the cash ).