The Thai Government Says I Must Go Away.

[oooooo]

no reply yet:

From: Andy Canfield <...@...>

To: "Pol. Lt. Gen. Suwat Thumrongsrisakul" <[email protected]>

Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 21:09:28 +0700

The Thai government says I must go away.

Ning is nine years old, she doing well in Catholic school, she danced in the Christmas pageant. I am the only father she has ever known. She runs to me and jumps into my arms. She will miss me when I leave; The Thai government says I must go away.

Lon is also nine years old; he is not doing so well in that school. He is a boy struggling to become a man. He has his pride. He calls me "Papa". He'll miss my care and respect; The Thai government says I must go away.

Richard is three years old, loves to jump and run and bonk people with balloons and swords. Richard has my chromosomes. His mother Aw divorced me so that she could go dance in a gogo bar. She's glad I am taking care of our children. Later Richard will ask "Where is Daddy?", and mommy will answer "The Thai government said he must go away."

Grandma Loy is over sixty years old, but inside she is a sweet sixteen year old girl. She likes to be hugged. She runs the household and watches over the children. She smiles when she sees me, but she will see me no more; The Thai government says I must go away.

Grandpa Noopy is over sixty years old. He lives in the village near his sons. If I gave him money once a month he'd spend it on whiskey, so I send him a bit every week to buy food. He'll be hungry; The Thai government says I must go away.

Chaliew is twenty-nine years old, finding new friends in Roiet. Chaliew is "smart on the inside, not smart on the outside". She is fat and has a very good heart. Chaliew loves me. She will cry when I am gone; The Thai government says I must go away.

These are my family. I support them, I feed them, I live with them. But I am a foreigner, I am a tourist; The Thai government says I must go away.

Shy is three years old; a sweet little girl. She comes to our shophouse and sits by my side and studies what she can do with a roll of tissue and a pair of dice and a box and a stick. She also likes to play with the balloons I have for the children. Everyone loves her. Shy will hardly notice when I'm not here any more; The Thai government says I must go away.

Ironically, although I feed six Thai people, I am not legally obligated to feed any of them, so The Thai government says I must go away.

I am Richard's father, but his mother and I are divorced. The immigration police officer says that the mother, not the father, has the 'right' to support Richard. I support him, but I am not required to support him, so the Thai government says I must go away.

I live with Chaliew. If we were married, I would be required to take care of her, and I could get a visa to allow me to take care of her. But we are not married, so I am not required to take care of her. Although I do indeed take care of her, the Thai government says I must go away.

I do not have hundreds of thousands of baht in the bank. I am not an employee; my money comes from overseas and goes out again as quickly as possible to buy food and toys and happiness for my family. My income is not guaranteed; my capital is the minds and hearts of my family. I do not know what will happen to them after I leave; The Thai government says I must go away.

I have no legal right to be in Thailand; I have never had any legal right to be in Thailand. But the past seventeen years I have been allowed to live in Thailand and love the Thai people. I learned to sing the nation anthem because the government allowed me to live here with the people I love. Now I must find a new song to sing; The Thai government says I must go away.

I am not a Thai citizen. My passport is blue, not brown; The Thai government says I must go away.

Please take care of my family after I'm gone.

- Andy Canfield

(Andrew Jay Canfield, US passport # **personal details edited out***

very sentimental post indeed. on one hand i feel sorry for u and ur dependants, on the other hand i must say that u dug this hole for urself by simply not being aware of the conditions that apply. i guess it's time to wake up and look at all available options to get out of this mess. and believe me there are quite a few available.

good luck.

[papakapbaan]

very sentimental post indeed. on one hand i feel sorry for u and ur dependants, on the other hand i must say that u dug this hole for urself by simply not being aware of the conditions that apply. i guess it's time to wake up and look at all available options to get out of this mess. and believe me there are quite a few available.

good luck.

OK. I can't resist...

No! There is basically ONLY ONE (long term).

Andy is lucky to be above 50.

The solution is: 7.17 (5) of the New Police Order of 01/10/2006 (606/2006).

Now that more information regarding Andy's situation was posted, I am confident in saying his case is solved/closed.

(We still have to make sure he has got the Thai birth certificate of his child with his name on it).

BUT MEANWHILE:

Thousands (no doubt) of "solo" or unmarried Farang parents under 50 have NO WAY to "get legal" since 01/10/2006.

Child custody does not matter.

Money in the bank does not matter.

Monthly income does not matter.

They must get married.

Saddly it's not possible in my case (I am married and can not get divorced) and saddly my own government requires the agreement of my wife to recognize my child.

I can not bring my child to my own country (not more than 3 months under a complicate procedure of "sponsoring" that would not even be considered as a "family case"!)

So basically I look like a pervert trying to bring a 2.5 years old with me in the plane.

Sorry but it's serious!!!

(Since the mother is working here, she can not easily accompany us)

On top of all this, we would lose a lot of my income (derived from property rented out) (and our purchasing power too) if we had to live in my home country anyway.

Also: I did not have 17 years to consider my options before the SURREAL (cf. fatehr must be above 50!) regulations of 01/10/2006 were implemented, please kindly note...

[chuchok]

no reply yet:

From: Andy Canfield <...@...>

To: "Pol. Lt. Gen. Suwat Thumrongsrisakul" <[email protected]>

Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 21:09:28 +0700

The Thai government says I must go away...

สมเพศ!

I didn't know that we were in the Thai language part of the forum?

[JacknDanny]

very sentimental post indeed. on one hand i feel sorry for u and ur dependants, on the other hand i must say that u dug this hole for urself by simply not being aware of the conditions that apply. i guess it's time to wake up and look at all available options to get out of this mess. and believe me there are quite a few available.

good luck.

OK. I can't resist...

No! There is basically ONLY ONE (long term).

Andy is lucky to be above 50.

The solution is: 7.17 (5) of the New Police Order of 01/10/2006 (606/2006).

Now that more information regarding Andy's situation was posted, I am confident in saying his case is solved/closed.

(We still have to make sure he has got the Thai birth certificate of his child with his name on it).

BUT MEANWHILE:

Thousands (no doubt) of "solo" or unmarried Farang parents under 50 have NO WAY to "get legal" since 01/10/2006.

Child custody does not matter.

Money in the bank does not matter.

Monthly income does not matter.

They must get married.

Saddly it's not possible in my case (I am married and can not get divorced) and saddly my own government requires the agreement of my wife to recognize my child.

I can not bring my child to my own country (not more than 3 months under a complicate procedure of "sponsoring" that would not even be considered as a "family case"!)

So basically I look like a pervert trying to bring a 2.5 years old with me in the plane.

Sorry but it's serious!!!

(Since the mother is working here, she can not easily accompany us)

On top of all this, we would lose a lot of my income (derived from property rented out) (and our purchasing power too) if we had to live in my home country anyway.

Also: I did not have 17 years to consider my options before the SURREAL (cf. fatehr must be above 50!) regulations of 01/10/2006 were implemented, please kindly note...

Although I sympathise with you and I have seen your posts in the past, what you have written above is misleading and incorrect.

I am under 5o with one child, unmarried. I have sole custody of my child gained via the Thai courts.

I have obtained VERY easily in Singapore an O visa single entry 90 days. All I had to show was the court papers showing me being sole custodian. No income/proof of, was required.

I can extend this in Bangkok.....this is a little more complicated but is do-able, or I can just hop over over to Singapore for 2 days every 3 months for a new O visa

[AndyCanfield]

As you have already written in to the Immigration, you would be receiving a reply soon. Ask for a personal interview, which would probably be granted, the rest is up to your skills in portraying a genuine situation. If you rehearse the answers to all the likely possible questions you might be surprised at the outcome. In my 30 yrs here, I have found the Thai’s to be though but sympathetic and fair. Rub them the wrong way, you meet a Concrete wall. In all fairness the Immigration officer needs a genuine reason to justify any action to assist you, without repercussion to him. They are more than human in this respect, try my approach, what can you lose.

PLEAD YOUR CASE WELL.

And good luck.

Thanks.

I waited a week from the time I sent the e-mail until I posted here. I am worried that the e-mail address is a dummy and nobody is reading it any more. I have received no reply, not even an automated "we received your message and we'll read it."

I hope I do get a reply; that's why I sent it. I hope I do get an interview. Since the interview will be in Bangkok, and my Thai ex-wife lives in Bangkok, I will probably ask her to come along. She can provide confirmation, background information, can ask questions in Thai, and can understand the officers responses better than I can.Trying to get a legal point translated in the officer's head from Thai to English, spoken into my head, stored in my head, then retranslated back into Thai in a small Isan town is asking for confusion.

She's on my side in this; my taking care of these people gives her the freedom to be what she wants to be. After all, it's mostly her family that I'm feeding.

[chuchok]

As you have already written in to the Immigration, you would be receiving a reply soon. Ask for a personal interview, which would probably be granted, the rest is up to your skills in portraying a genuine situation. If you rehearse the answers to all the likely possible questions you might be surprised at the outcome. In my 30 yrs here, I have found the Thai’s to be though but sympathetic and fair. Rub them the wrong way, you meet a Concrete wall. In all fairness the Immigration officer needs a genuine reason to justify any action to assist you, without repercussion to him. They are more than human in this respect, try my approach, what can you lose.

PLEAD YOUR CASE WELL.

And good luck.

Thanks.

I waited a week from the time I sent the e-mail until I posted here. I am worried that the e-mail address is a dummy and nobody is reading it any more. I have received no reply, not even an automated "we received your message and we'll read it."

I hope I do get a reply; that's why I sent it. I hope I do get an interview. Since the interview will be in Bangkok, and my Thai ex-wife lives in Bangkok, I will probably ask her to come along. She can provide confirmation, background information, can ask questions in Thai, and can understand the officers responses better than I can.Trying to get a legal point translated in the officer's head from Thai to English, spoken into my head, stored in my head, then retranslated back into Thai in a small Isan town is asking for confusion.

She's on my side in this; my taking care of these people gives her the freedom to be what she wants to be. After all, it's mostly her family that I'm feeding.

For goodness sake,why don't you just get legal custody of your children.If both you and your wife agree to this,it is a simple process.Problem solved.

[AndyCanfield]

Why am I getting the feeling that the only purpose behind your responses is to incite a bunch of follow-up, so your post will remain at the top and the "government officials that spy on thaivisa.com" will read the letter??

I suppose it's because if you were saying what I'm saying, that is why you would be saying it. That's not why I'm saying it. I do not know how thaivisa.com works. The concept of "top" doesn't make it with me; I suspect that the immigration police are reading every post on this site. Popularity probably doesn't factor into it.

Your apparent extreme honesty (i.e. Working for coorporations is yucky, owning your own business is yucky, etc. etc.) seems to me to be a purposeful string of baits to keep us arguing out your topic.

Thank you. I've always been high on honesty. And, to tell you the truth, there is now a strong sense of "I might as well be honest, since it's all crashing down on my head anyway."

I think it's great that people are talking about it. I think it's a situation that needs to be talked about.

There are two kinds of problems, those that have a solution and those that don't. If your problem has a solution, don't worry, solve it. If your problem doesn't have a solution, why worry?

My problem has a solution; many solutions. The e-mail that I posted was one path to solution.

Thailand's problems with it's immigration laws also have solutions, but the solutions will not be found unless we reach those who actually make the laws, make them aware of the Thai people's suffering, and encourage them to come up with new and creative solutions.

For example, how about this: a foreigner could live indefinitely in Thailand. Every ninety days he would report to his local police, and the local police chief would write a letter to the Immigration police in Bangkok confirming that he actually lives at that address and is self-supporting and is not a suspected criminal. That way the immigration police know where we are and what we're doing, the foreigner cannot forge the letter, the visa run money stays in Thailand, and we are encouraged to become responsible members of our local community.

Someone else asked how I can call myself a "tourist". Well, that's what my visa says. The people around here say I am a "farang lao". I have a tabian bahn; AFAIK that means my legal residence is in Roiet. Yeah, I live here.

[papakapbaan]

very sentimental post indeed. on one hand i feel sorry for u and ur dependants, on the other hand i must say that u dug this hole for urself by simply not being aware of the conditions that apply. i guess it's time to wake up and look at all available options to get out of this mess. and believe me there are quite a few available.

good luck.

OK. I can't resist...

No! There is basically ONLY ONE (long term).

Andy is lucky to be above 50.

The solution is: 7.17 (5) of the New Police Order of 01/10/2006 (606/2006).

Now that more information regarding Andy's situation was posted, I am confident in saying his case is solved/closed.

(We still have to make sure he has got the Thai birth certificate of his child with his name on it).

BUT MEANWHILE:

Thousands (no doubt) of "solo" or unmarried Farang parents under 50 have NO WAY to "get legal" since 01/10/2006.

Child custody does not matter.

Money in the bank does not matter.

Monthly income does not matter.

They must get married.

Saddly it's not possible in my case (I am married and can not get divorced) and saddly my own government requires the agreement of my wife to recognize my child.

I can not bring my child to my own country (not more than 3 months under a complicate procedure of "sponsoring" that would not even be considered as a "family case"!)

So basically I look like a pervert trying to bring a 2.5 years old with me in the plane.

Sorry but it's serious!!!

(Since the mother is working here, she can not easily accompany us)

On top of all this, we would lose a lot of my income (derived from property rented out) (and our purchasing power too) if we had to live in my home country anyway.

Also: I did not have 17 years to consider my options before the SURREAL (cf. fatehr must be above 50!) regulations of 01/10/2006 were implemented, please kindly note...

Although I sympathise with you and I have seen your posts in the past, what you have written above is misleading and incorrect.

I am under 5o with one child, unmarried. I have sole custody of my child gained via the Thai courts.

I have obtained VERY easily in Singapore an O visa single entry 90 days. All I had to show was the court papers showing me being sole custodian. No income/proof of, was required.

I can extend this in Bangkok.....this is a little more complicated but is do-able, or I can just hop over over to Singapore for 2 days every 3 months for a new O visa

Kindly!

Please tell me exactly what part of my posts above is misleading.

1) NON-O?

To make things clear:

I regard a NON-O visa, even a multiple entry, as a TEMPORARY SITUATION/SOLUTION.

It's not a satisfactory solution when you are raising a child!

I know I can easily get a NON-O visa (Single entry anywhere and multiple entry at friendly consulates).

And, as things stand now, I can get "back to back" NON-O visas.

I know a multiple entry gives me, practically, a 15 month hassle-free stay in Thailand (w/border runs every 3 months)

I am NOT happy with that, let's be clear!

2) ANNUAL EXTENSION? (The only valid long term solution).

The new regulations Police Order of 01/10/2006 (606/2006) are CLEAR: must be ABOVE 50.

But: You seem to say otherwise??

Please! I am EXTREMELY interested in your experience.

"I am under 5o with one child, unmarried. I have sole custody of my child gained via the Thai courts."

Please: WHERE did you receive the information that you would be able to extend your non-O in BKK? It's definitevely NOT in (the letter of) the new regulations!

3) Situation with Belgium: Saddly it's 100% accurate and it was just re-confirmed today by yet another email from the Belgian embassy in Bangkok!

I can not recognize my daughter in Belgium if I do not have the agreement of my wife!

I can not even bring her with me without her mother.

(They did not say it but it really is obvious: the case will never be accepted in Brussels. Sponsoring of a 2.5 y old child without any family link: no way)

[JacknDanny]

very sentimental post indeed. on one hand i feel sorry for u and ur dependants, on the other hand i must say that u dug this hole for urself by simply not being aware of the conditions that apply. i guess it's time to wake up and look at all available options to get out of this mess. and believe me there are quite a few available.

good luck.

OK. I can't resist...

No! There is basically ONLY ONE (long term).

Andy is lucky to be above 50.

The solution is: 7.17 (5) of the New Police Order of 01/10/2006 (606/2006).

Now that more information regarding Andy's situation was posted, I am confident in saying his case is solved/closed.

(We still have to make sure he has got the Thai birth certificate of his child with his name on it).

BUT MEANWHILE:

Thousands (no doubt) of "solo" or unmarried Farang parents under 50 have NO WAY to "get legal" since 01/10/2006.

Child custody does not matter.

Money in the bank does not matter.

Monthly income does not matter.

They must get married.

Saddly it's not possible in my case (I am married and can not get divorced) and saddly my own government requires the agreement of my wife to recognize my child.

I can not bring my child to my own country (not more than 3 months under a complicate procedure of "sponsoring" that would not even be considered as a "family case"!)

So basically I look like a pervert trying to bring a 2.5 years old with me in the plane.

Sorry but it's serious!!!

(Since the mother is working here, she can not easily accompany us)

On top of all this, we would lose a lot of my income (derived from property rented out) (and our purchasing power too) if we had to live in my home country anyway.

Also: I did not have 17 years to consider my options before the SURREAL (cf. fatehr must be above 50!) regulations of 01/10/2006 were implemented, please kindly note...

Although I sympathise with you and I have seen your posts in the past, what you have written above is misleading and incorrect.

I am under 5o with one child, unmarried. I have sole custody of my child gained via the Thai courts.

I have obtained VERY easily in Singapore an O visa single entry 90 days. All I had to show was the court papers showing me being sole custodian. No income/proof of, was required.

I can extend this in Bangkok.....this is a little more complicated but is do-able, or I can just hop over over to Singapore for 2 days every 3 months for a new O visa

Kindly!

Please tell me exactly what part of my posts above is misleading.

1) NON-O?

To make things clear:

I regard a NON-O visa, even a multiple entry, as a TEMPORARY SITUATION/SOLUTION.

It's not a satisfactory solution when you are raising a child!

I know I can easily get a NON-O visa (Single entry anywhere and multiple entry at friendly consulates).

And, as things stand now, I can get "back to back" NON-O visas.

I know a multiple entry gives me, practically, a 15 month hassle-free stay in Thailand (w/border runs every 3 months)

I am NOT happy with that, let's be clear!

2) ANNUAL EXTENSION? (The only valid long term solution).

The new regulations Police Order of 01/10/2006 (606/2006) are CLEAR: must be ABOVE 50.

But: You seem to say otherwise??

Please! I am EXTREMELY interested in your experience.

"I am under 5o with one child, unmarried. I have sole custody of my child gained via the Thai courts."

Please: WHERE did you receive the information that you would be able to extend your non-O in BKK? It's definitevely NOT in (the letter of) the new regulations!

3) Situation with Belgium: Saddly it's 100% accurate and it was just re-confirmed today by yet another email from the Belgian embassy in Bangkok!

I can not recognize my daughter in Belgium if I do not have the agreement of my wife!

I can not even bring her with me without her mother.

(They did not say it but it really is obvious: the case will never be accepted in Brussels. Sponsoring of a 2.5 y old child without any family link: no way)

The point I was making was that the original OP stated that he HAD to leave Thailand. Somebody answered and told him there were several options open to him. You responded there is only one way to be 'legal' and that is to marry.

There ARE several options, which you find to be unsatisfactory for your needs. Thats your choice. For me I dont see it as a problem leaving my son with his nanny for 2 days whilst I nip over to Singapore.

As for the extension in Bangkok....that is the information I have but who knows? I will keep you posted if and when I succeed

[Nawtilus]

I have not read it all, but just get married, you find it so heartbreaking that you write it the way you have, so just get married, I know marriage is heartbreaking, but do it for the child and get a visa, stop complaining.

Just dont' jump.

[AndyCanfield]

I am not casting any negative light on your post I am questioning your statement; "In November Savannakhet told me that that was not correct, and later Bangkok confirmed it was wrong."

I have been in and out of Thailand dozens of times on my Non-O visa's since starting my 3rd year here. I have never ever been questioned about the validity of my visa once it was in my passport. Nor have I ever heard of anyone having to prove HOW they were justified in having the type of visa they had already stamped into their passport at a border crossing. Did you have a single entry 90 day Non-O visa or am I not understanding your post??

I have been going in and out on '90 day' tourist visas. In April in Vientiane they were turing away people who had too many '90 day' tourist visas in their passports; me included. For some reason I do not know, the officer sympathised with me. Maybe I mentioned that I have a son who is a Thai citizen. Anyway, with a faxed copy of the birth certificate, and a photocopy of my tabian bahn, he gave me a non-O visa.

Ninety days later I did not have time to do a full visa run, so I just went over and came back quickly - two hours in fact. Thirty days.

Thirty days later I went back to Vientiane and gave them a photocopy of my son's birth certificate and my tabian bahn and they gave me another 90 day non-O visa.

Ninety days later, in November, I went to Savannakhet. I gave them a photocopy of my son's birth certificate and my tabian bahn. The consular officer asked how much I had paid for that visa. I forget; it's printed on the thing, but his clear suspicion was that I had bribed somene for it. Then he told me that he could not give me a non-O on that basis. He told me he could give me a '90 day' tourist visa. He told me that next year, 2007, he could give me two 90 day tourist visas. After that, he could do nothing for me.

In late December I was at immigration in Bangkok and went up to room 303 and asked about it. She explained that since my ex-wife and I are divorced, the ex-wife has "the right to take care of the child", not me, and so I cannot get a visa to take care of my son. She said that I had to get a court order giving me the right to take care of the child. What that means, how to translate that back into Thai, how to find a court in the small town we live in, whether that means his mother would lose custody of him, I don't know. But if I get a reply from my e-mail I will check it out.

Although I am far from a math major, his crossing a border at least every other month for 17 years is nearly 100 border runs! Even living in "Nahkon NoWhere" on the banks of the Mekong River, why would you do semi- monthly border crossings all that time, without ever pursuing another option to stay long term?

On the average, for seventeen years, I've crossed the border and come back once every three months, four times a year, between 50 and 100 times.

We have pursued alternatives at one time or another. Once we pursued a spousal visa, but the fee (bank balance requirement) was too much and four tourist visas a year was good enough. Now we're divorced so I suppose it was all for the best. Once I founded a company, but coping with Thai corporate regulations was beyond my hippie mentality.

Also, having to take a few days vaction every three months, visit another country, and come back, is not a bad deal at all. I have visited Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Malasia, Singapore, Hong Kong, and mainland China, each being one of my visa runs.

It is admirable he supports the people he does, I am NOT demeaning that fact in the least. It not as admirable (to me at least) that he can sing the national anthem. After being here for as long as he has, hearing it at 8am & 6pm every day, he's heard that song about 12,400+ times.

I deliberately learned it. I video taped the six PM play on Thai television, the channel that actually shows the words, and then copied them down. Then I memorized each word of it. At the time I also learned the English translation of each word, but I've forgotten those.

He then states in a later post; "My Thai is terrible". How have you survived here in the glorious "Land 'O Thais" the past 17 years speaking 'pidgin engrish' & two word thai sentences?

I said "my Thai is terrible" in the context of teaching at a college level. My Thai is practial and day-to-day. I said I'm supporting six Thai people. Well, none of them speak English. We get along. I can say "Let's go to the market and buy food". I can say "I went to Buriram yesterday". I certainly cannot say "If we were Swedish we would be rich." Simple statements I can handle, conditionals I can sort of handle, but admittedly false conditionals assumed to be true are beyond me.

I was in the hospital once, and every morning the nurse would ask me a question. I eventually figured out that she was using the polite words for bodily elimination functions, and I only know the gutter words.

If a Thai person talks Thai to another Thai person, I can understand one or two words per sentence. I do not have the vocabulary.

One of the first phrases you learn in Thai is "NEET-NOI-KRAP". when someone asks you if you can speak Thai, you say "NEET-NOI-KRAP", just a little. No matter how much Thai you can speak, you always say "NEET-NOI-KRAP", because you are always consious of how limited your Thai is compared to the people around you.

Your plight at immigrations during which you indicated the officer yelled at you & stormed out of the room is remarkable. I cannot even think of a situation in the time I've been here where a thai in an official capacity; Regular Police, Tourist Police, Immigrations Officials, Government Officials, EVER even raised their voice to me, let alone showed the slightest anger.

Yeah, that's why it stands out in my mind. I was being very nice and polite and sweet, but I just wasn't buying what she wanted to sell, and that seemed to be at right angles to the way she viewed the universe. Maybe she had a hard day.

I find it sad he has a child here. I would expect the child has rights from his father's country of origin if he is registered as the father and if indeed "The Thai government says he must go away".

The father's country of origin is the United States of America. The only reason why I carry a U.S. Passport is that the Thai government requires me to have one. Me and Homeland Security don't get along at all. FYI, I haven't been back to the USA since 1992.

Before my son is eighteen years old, he must decide if he wants Thai or US citizenship. When he's 16 or 17 I'll ask him. If he wants US citizenship I will help him get it. Until ten, he's better off being Thai.

I find it sadder still he's done nothing in all his 17 years here to straighten this out before breaking into the chorus; "The Thai government says I must go away".

Yeah, the chorus was a pretty good literary device, wasn't it.

It was straight, it was straight for seventeen years, it was four tourist visa runs per year, that was how it was straight. Now the Thai government has changed the rules. I don't put 'guilt' anywhere. But I do think that the new rules need a shakedown, that they aren't as good as they looked on paper, and certain aspects should be rethought.

[papakapbaan]

The point I was making was that the original OP stated that he HAD to leave Thailand. Somebody answered and told him there were several options open to him. You responded there is only one way to be 'legal' and that is to marry.

There ARE several options, which you find to be unsatisfactory for your needs. Thats your choice. For me I dont see it as a problem leaving my son with his nanny for 2 days whilst I nip over to Singapore.

As for the extension in Bangkok....that is the information I have but who knows? I will keep you posted if and when I succeed

Ok. Now it's more clear.

As I explained above (but everybody can see things differently of course), I would not use the terms "GET LEGAL" after 01/10/2006 with any other meaning than: BE ON ANNUAL EXTENSION OF STAY.

When I said there is only one way to "get legal" for Andy, I meant: to be granted an annual extension of stay.

And I repeat there is only one way: 7.17 (5) of the New Police Order of 01/10/2006 (606/2006).

Child custody and financial means are not required in Andy's case.

Being above 50 alone will qualify to LIVE with his children! (his only natural child, actually)

You can see the irony of this thread. The Thai authorities actually have a provision for people like Andy since the new rules of 01/10/2006.

(I swear it's true or SUNBELT is talking B.S. (And I don't imagine it could be the case for 1 second)

But unfortunatelly this very same rule 7.17 (5) is the way out for Andy and the WALL for us below 50.

----

I can understand that you are not too concerned about "status" (annual extension versus 3 months) or practically/financially bothered by visa runs.

It's the same for me to some extend, within certain limits.

But you should keep in mind the EXTREME PRECARITY of a situation where you basically depend on the goodwill of Thai embassies to issue "back to back" visas.

A lot of people (it's really amazing) seem to take it for granted that back to back visas will be issued forever.

I am ready to bet they won't be issued anymore in less than, say, 5 years, at best.

What are you going to do then?

----

Thinking about it again (and understanding your general point of view) I believe the extension of stay available in Bangkok (and at any local Immigration office) you mentioned above is for 2 MONTHS (7.23 of 606/2006)

(What a joke! Sorry. What a joke. And latest news says it's only available 1 time. Or possibly 1 time per year).

But really. If you meant the only meaningful extension (ANNUAL) then please, please let us know if and when you are successful. Thanks!

Edited January 9, 2007 by papakapbaan

[AndyCanfield]

I have family in Isaan; I know what conditions are like. Dependents should sort their own issues out for the most part; laziness and reliance on someone else (rich farang, social welfare, debt forgiveness, temple, family loans never to be paid back, etc) is a crutch.

These dependents should throw the crutch away, and do what most people do...get a job, work hard, save money, don't waste it all on booze/lottery/etc. Some people here would do well to stop regarding themselves as some sort of saint running a charity; a crutch is a prop which stops some people from learning to walk for themselves.

Of course there are exceptions, but then again, there are exceptions to everything; to arge that a few people (and it is a pretty small number) will lose anytherefore the law is wrong makes no sense. Just because I drive well when drunk, should they legalise drunk driving? Just because I like smoking crack and don't run around like a madman, should they legalise that?

I think you've forgotten who these dependent are. They are three children, ages three, nine, and nine, plus grandma and grandpa, both over sixty, plus a sweet lady who takes care of me.

No lazy drunken brothers-in-law in this bunch.

[AndyCanfield]

the family should get off their ass and stop making excuses and relying on some 'white knight' who in 17 years hasn't got legal.

Ah, but I have been legal. For seventeen years I've been legal. Then they changed the laws on me.

When they change the laws, a prudent lawmaker should consider all of the consequences of his change. I point out some of the consequences that they don't seem to have considered.

[papakapbaan]

In late December I was at immigration in Bangkok and went up to room 303 and asked about it. She explained that since my ex-wife and I are divorced, the ex-wife has "the right to take care of the child", not me, and so I cannot get a visa to take care of my son. She said that I had to get a court order giving me the right to take care of the child. What that means, how to translate that back into Thai, how to find a court in the small town we live in, whether that means his mother would lose custody of him, I don't know. But if I get a reply from my e-mail I will check it out.

Andy.

It seems either you or room 303 are not really clear about what they are talking about.

What is your "goal"? What status do you want to achieve here?

It is very correct that, unless you have child custody, it is the Thai mother who has the right to take care of the child.

But I don't think it's the point here. Since anyway she lets you take care of the child.

Officially, the Thai authorities will only give you the right to LIVE with your child.

(even more like "VISIT" your child in their xenophobic mind)

SUPPORT is not part of the new rules. Please get a copy ASAP and review 7.17 (5).

Simply because you are above 50, you can LIVE here with your child, on ANNUAL extension of stay.

No more back to back uncertain NON-O for you.

If on top of that, so to speak, you also SUPPORT your child(ren), it is your choice. Your ex-wife is not going to make any problem with this situation, so you don't have any problem.

CHEERS!

Edited January 9, 2007 by papakapbaan

[AndyCanfield]

1) Do you have the Thai birth certificate of your child with your name on it?

Yes.

Actually what BKK said about your NON-O being "unlegitimatelly" issued refers to the fact the visa could never be extended for 1 year by their services.

Actually I assumed that the unlegitimately means that the issuance was not in accordance with Thai visa regulations. Not only would they not extend it, but probably Vientiane will not give me another one after Bangkok hits them over the head. Vientiane gave me two; Savannakhet, presumably subsidary to Vientiane, refused.

- "Friendly" consulates in the western world are still issuing MULTIPLE entry in your case.

I personally received confirmation of this by email from Hull/UK on 20/10/2006.

(I am Belgian BTW. So you can surely go there as a US citizen. But several consulates in the US are likely to be as friendly as Hull).

One of the reasons I can afford to support so many people is that I don't fly halfway around the world. Where do you catch the orange bus for Belguim? ('>)=

2) How old are you? (Sorry again, I don't know anything about your story)

Fifty eight, if you're male. If you're young and female and pretty and single, I have a different version of the universe for you. (;>)=

So far the story is that you don't have to show financial ability to support your child if you're over fifty. I don't know why not, sounds flakey to me. Can't imagine why that exemption exists, or how long it will last.

A retirement visa requires a gazillion baht in a bank.

You can extend your stay in Thailand on the basis of clause 7.17 (5) of the New Police Order of 01/10/2006 (606/2006).

As simple as that. No "support" or whatever is required.

You are father and above 50: nothing else is required.

Contact SUNBELT. They process. Extension ARE granted in Bangkok.

(You or anybody concerned. Sorry Andy, I guess you are NOT above 50, he?)

I will read that; gotta find the link. But the immigration officer at room 303 definitely said that wasn't true, that because my wife and I are divorced I do not have the right to take care of my son.

[rainman]

Looks like you need to get custody of your children. Then get a visa. Problem solved.

[chuchok]

Looks like you need to get custody of your children. Then get a visa. Problem solved.

Exactly! Why can't he do this.Go to a lawyer.Get custody papers drawn up.lawyer takes to court.Done!

What is so difficult about that?Somebody please tell me...

Edited January 9, 2007 by chuchok

[AndyCanfield]

My honest opinion is you should get married to the woman you've been with for the last 17 years.

A quick answer: it hasn't been one woman for the past seventeen years. It has been different women.

Jen from 1994-1999. We never got legally married.

Aw from 1999-2006, we were married for a while but then she wanted a divorce and I gave it to her. Aw is the one whose children and parents I am still supporting. I made that commitment when we were together, and I still feel that way. They are my family.

Chaliew I've known for ten years, we've been living together recently but I'm definitely not ready to make her my life partner.

[jinjok]

first, i would say - i am sorry for you and your family. this is why i scoff at putting down roots when all my girlfriends ask me to marry them (for visa ;-) > this IS thailand.

next: alf, you have not been on this board long enough. it is nothing more than a bunch of arrogant, selfish middle aged men who indeed 'have theirs. further, many know little or nothing about the country and their idea of a visa run includes a plane or private car. they cannot speak more than five words of thai and include all the pat phrases. these guys have no respect for those who braved the thailand of old - living native/rustic, long plane flights, long bus rides, local food, living rough...no, its all about a/c, sat tv, fancy homes and tossing money about as if you are a loaded. all these things they were never in their home countries, they can be in thailand -including having a woman, because most of these guys married a lump -now they are freewheeling playboys critiquing go-go dancers. they come with lots of money and attitude, but no brains but remember the moto: i got mine.

for years they have bad mouthed visa runners. many as financially stable as they. maybe younger, maybe no inclination to get tied down and ripped off in a marriage - for this they get the stain, the mark - 'the visa runner'.

I cannot believe how self-satisfied and "I'm all right Jack" some people are. Especially the one with the moto "Sometimes I sit and think and sometimes I just sit." It seems also that sometimes you think with the part of your anatomy that you should be sitting on!!

The original post is obviously not about the rights of and consequences to the OP. It is about the rights and reasonable human expectations of the people he supports all of whom are Thai.

It doesn't matter a toss whether he is married or not etc. You don't have to be married to have a family and dependants. Those persons around him whom he has bonded with over many years are entitled to continue to share that bond (some admittedly more than others). But it is a Human Right that under International treaties cannot be taken away at the whim of politicians. It was the policies of successive Thai governments who permitted that to develop. He has a strong case.

I read in this week's Phuket Gazette about a Thai named Vasant Panich who is one of Thailands 11 National Human Rights Commissioners taking up the case of villagers who obect to alleged threats to their livelihood caused by the construction by developers of a pier and breakwater. Why don't you contact him Andy, or one of his colleagues. Don't argue on the basis of your right to stay but on the basis of your dependants' right to have you here. And good luck.

Also, I don't think that you have any obligation to stay on-line so that the poster with the anatomical function confusion can flame you.

years ago, albeit it was also a time when there were lots of dodgy guys, but few real criminals. we all watched each others back - now i dont even want to strike a conversation in a bar. everyone knows everything, has been in thailand one year longer than i and has more money than i shall ever dream.

spending less time in thailand gets me free from much - including selfish, prick farang who can live in a country for years and lack total empathy for the poor/native. they are indeed psychopathic in the literal sense.

GOOD LUCK ANDY and WRITE TO LATIMES AND NYTIMES!!

[rainman]

My honest opinion is you should get married to the woman you've been with for the last 17 years.

A quick answer: it hasn't been one woman for the past seventeen years. It has been different women.

Jen from 1994-1999. We never got legally married.

Aw from 1999-2006, we were married for a while but then she wanted a divorce and I gave it to her. Aw is the one whose children and parents I am still supporting. I made that commitment when we were together, and I still feel that way. They are my family.

Chaliew I've known for ten years, we've been living together recently but I'm definitely not ready to make her my life partner.

You have to face your options here. Get custody of your children, or at least one of the children. This shouldn't be so hard if you're the one paying everything for them. If you can't do this, get married. If you don't want to get married, well sorry to say, find another country to live in.

There's nothing anyone on this board can do for you but to give you all this advice. In the end, you're the one who needs to do it.

[lopburi3]

Believe Room 303 (change of visa) is still using old criteria for change of visa so have no knowledge of order 606/2549 - but at some time should adopt the same criteria. One lawyer at Sunbelt has processed these in Bangkok so it is available. You may have to exit to obtain the non immigrant visa due to room 303 being on another page but it should be your best answer.

17 In case of the foreign

national is the member of

the Thai national’s family

(Only for Father, Mother,

Husband or Wife, ordinary

child, adopted child or the

child of the marriage

couple.)

Each time of permission

shall be granted for the

period not exceeding 1

year.

(5) In case of Father or Mother, the

said father or mother shall be

not younger than 50 years old.

1. Application Form

2. Copy of the passport of the applicant

3. Copy of the proof of relationship

such as marriage evidences, birth

certificate, certificate of child

adoption registration, copy of census

registration, certificate of adopted

child adoption registration, or other

papers issued by the related official

organization or government

agencies.

4. The evidences of having Thai

nationality of the marriage couple,

father, mother, ordinary child, or

adopted child such as ID Card,

census registration, or other papers

issued by the related official

organization or government

[rainman]

So far the story is that you don't have to show financial ability to support your child if you're over fifty. I don't know why not, sounds flakey to me. Can't imagine why that exemption exists, or how long it will last.

because you don't know how long it will last you don't do it? nothing lasts forever. do we all shoot ourselves today because we'll die anyways one day?

But the immigration officer at room 303 definitely said that wasn't true, that because my wife and I are divorced I do not have the right to take care of my son.

get re-married to your wife. either she wants your money for her family and to support your children and this is the only way or that's it. whether you're just married on paper and each sleeping in different beds with different people doesn't matter.

[AndyCanfield]

Looks like you need to get custody of your children. Then get a visa. Problem solved.

Exactly! Why can't he do this.Go to a lawyer.Get custody papers drawn up.lawyer takes to court.Done!

What is so difficult about that?Somebody please tell me...

Should I reveal? I really don't want this to be another of these condemned "excuses". I will pursue the custody / take care / court / 7.17(5) bit, I really will. However, for your minor curiosity:

Nok and I had a daughter Alee. Nok ran away to Isan with Alee. I followed her with some friends. When it came time for a confrontation, I found that I could not steal my child from her mother.

When Nok was in prison for theft, some lawyers volunteered to fight a court case for me to win custody. Alee died, and the case was moot. Made me surperstitious, I guess.

I will pursue this only if the mother goes along with it.

[papakapbaan]

Looks like you need to get custody of your children. Then get a visa. Problem solved.

Exactly! Why can't he do this.Go to a lawyer.Get custody papers drawn up.lawyer takes to court.Done!

What is so difficult about that?Somebody please tell me...

No! It's even simpler! Child custody is not even required.

Child custody WAS required prior to 01/10/2006 to SUPPORT child.

Officially, the Thai authorities will only give Andy the right to LIVE with his child.

SUPPORT is not part of the new rules.

Simply because Andy is above 50, he can LIVE here with his child, on ANNUAL extension of stay.

Andy must get a copy of the new rules ASAP and and review 7.17 (5).

Then talk to SUNBELT (or another lawyer)!

(This type of extension is very new and it seems a lawyer is required)

So far the story is that you don't have to show financial ability to support your child if you're over fifty. I don't know why not, sounds flakey to me. Can't imagine why that exemption exists, or how long it will last.

A retirement visa requires a gazillion baht in a bank.

Andy. Stop musing over the obvious oddity of the rule (above all the fact that below 50 are simply excluded).

Again, it's NOT about SUPPORT, it's about LIVING with your child.

If on top of that, so to speak, you also SUPPORT your child(ren), it is your choice.

Your ex-wife is not going to make any problem with this situation, so you don't have any problem.

However odd the rule is, it IS currently applied.

Jump into the wagon now and later you will most probably be grantfathered anyway (in other words: if they ever come to their senses and introduce financial requirements) (and get rid of the above 50 requirement, please!)

No more back to back uncertain NON-O for you.

There are no orange buses for Belgium or the US indeed...

CHEERS!

Edited January 9, 2007 by papakapbaan

[Mid]

get re-married to your wife. either she wants your money for her family and to support your children and this is the only way or that's it. whether you're just married on paper and each sleeping in different beds with different people doesn't matter.

get re-married to your wife.

please tell me you wrote this advice tongue in cheek

from memory it takes two to get married

edit for spelling

Edited January 9, 2007 by Mid

[lopburi3]

You do not, repeat not, need custody. All you need is a non immigrant visa and a visit to Bangkok, and suggest you do use sponsor. The custody is the old support that is no longer an option for anything but visa change.

[Patex]

no reply yet:

From: Andy Canfield <...@...>

To: "Pol. Lt. Gen. Suwat Thumrongsrisakul" <[email protected]>

Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 21:09:28 +0700

The Thai government says I must go away...

สมเพศ!

I didn't know that we were in the Thai language part of the forum?

Yeah,

You didn't know...

but I couldn't memorize an English or German word (and than translate it to English...) for สมเพศ "somped" - and this after only a few years in Thailand... 17(!) years... and not able to communicate like an adult? ( insert a headshaking Emoticon), how braindead have one to be?

[astral]

Ah, but I have been legal. For seventeen years I've been legal. Then they changed the laws on me.

Skating on thin ice, and you got away with it.......

Now the ice has broken and it is time to swim.

[Robski]

Looks like you need to get custody of your children. Then get a visa. Problem solved.

Exactly! Why can't he do this.Go to a lawyer.Get custody papers drawn up.lawyer takes to court.Done!

What is so difficult about that?Somebody please tell me...

Andy wants to be the martyr to the cause of Thai immigration regulations. Quite vain really and selfish. He's had a lot of good advice, but he's more interested in a bit of self publicity, he knows the Thai authorities aren't going to change their minds, but he's too stubborn or lazy to admit it and do something about it. When they kick you out Andy will you still post us? are you going to champion the cause of people that have been kicked out and are now in other countries? Do you think anyone will care then? No it will be too late, all anyone will say is 'we told you so' So get off the computer, get off your arse and go and do something about it. Come back and tell us how your getting on, we do care, but please stop procrastinating for once in your life! It's not a game.

Edited January 9, 2007 by Robski