50 foreigners arrested in weekly crackdowns

[bristolgeoff]

thailand has the tea money issue ,but at lest they do something about illegals and they kick them out.like other comments other countries should look at what they do

[yellowboat]

2 hours ago, Wake Up said:

You do realize the Thais are not crying out for more road enforcement —-only expats are complaining who come from nanny states. So you can have an opinion but thankfully your opinion does not matter here. Only the Thai opinions matter as we choose to live in their country and they don’t need me or you telling them how to govern or what to do. 

 

Whenever illegals are caught it is a good thing. Most of us only want legal people living here. 

I beg to differ.  Over the years, I have dated at least five women whose husbands or fathers died in car crashes.  That is five to ten children growing up without a father figure and financial support.  Like many people around the world, Thais are in denial about some things.  Traffic safety is one of those things.   If a tourist is in Thailand for a day, he has the right to demand to be safe on Thai roads, as does anybody.  Sorry, it is not that crap about being a guest.  You are legally in the country and you have a right to complain if you feel that there is a lack of safety.  Things do not change unless people say something.  Thailand's neighbors seem to get along just fine.  Why does Thailand have so much trouble?

 

As for most illegals, the crimes they commit seem to be rather petty, yet the news obsessed with their antics.  It would just seem better if their focus was on more urgent matters. 

[quadperfect]

Project foreign x ray a great success once again.

[Cereal]

Some posters seem to be ignoring the operative word here: illegal.

 

No sympathy from me whatsoever. I'm an immigrant, nice and legal and it was a pain jumping through all the hoops, especially the red tape and time to get married. 

[stanleycoin]

On 6/16/2018 at 6:37 PM, Rally123 said:

Hows about throwing those thieving immigration officers in jail who take money for under the table extensions due to no monies in the bank? We all know the immigration officers are more corrupt that the local plod. 20,000 Baht under the table for ones annual extension. Immigration are the real offenders. Clean them up first.
Someone in this country has to stand strong against corruption. 

Exactly. 

Bet there are loads on this very forum that fall into this category,  one way or an other.

But, But,  Wait, wait,  that don't count !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

All the bad boys , will always get a visa and stay here with the correct paper work.

nothing changes untill there is change at the top.

Same same , but more of the same. !!!!!!!!!!!

Tv posters, flag waving,  getting  excited about the capture of the easy low hanging fruit.  big yawn,  

 

 

Edited June 18, 2018 by stanleycoin

[overherebc]

On 6/16/2018 at 11:31 AM, CGW said:

So they should just remain in the squalor poverty and filth where they come from? " ba....tards" empathy for your fellow humans is commendable 

Canada and America and all of Europe do not have a policy against illegals, have you not noticed they encourage them, ever bothered to think why?

Do you actively do anything yourself to help them?  If you do, then good on you.

Or, like most who are vocal about it just use the 'somebody, the government, should do something to help them.  ????

[Wake Up]

19 hours ago, Father Fintan Stack said:

Every single Thai I speak to has a concern about the state of the roads here. 

 

You are talking out of your rectum yet again.

 

As to whether they need foreigners telling them what to do there would be no roads, malls, railways, mass transit, oil and gas industry, renewable energy etc. without foreign expertise and know-how and without foreigners "telling them what to do". 

 

Without foreign investment Thailand would be worse off than certain countries in Africa. There would be no industry here aside from rice farming and perhaps a few other basic industries run into the ground by cronyism and corruption. 

 

So I think we should have a say, after all, we paid for it all and had a hand in building it all too.  

 

So stick that in your narrow-minded pipe and ram it. 

Spoken like a true catholic Father.  You must me proud. But IMO reading your opinions you are way to biased to be credible for anything thai. You should have left long ago for yourself and the rest of us. Peace Father peace 

[BangkokReady]

On ‎6‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 9:05 AM, Bluespunk said:

Not really as traffickers are on both ends of the journey undertaken by those trafficked.

 

Yes, really.  It is not automatically trafficking just for "sheltering" them.

 

Quote

That includes those “sheltering” the trafficked at their destination. 

 

No.  As I said previously, this is dependent on a number of factors.

 

"Article 3, paragraph (a) of the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons defines Trafficking in Persons as the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons"

 

The above explains that a certain number of actions are defined as human trafficking, but, the below explains exactly how those actions need to be carried out:

 

"by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability"

 

The above outlines the direct ways you need to be exerting control over the person being trafficked in order for you to be guilty of human trafficking, then:

 

"or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation."

 

The above outlines the indirect ways that you need to be exerting control over the person being trafficked in order to be guilty of human trafficking.

 

So, just to recap, just "sheltering" them is not enough.  You need to be somehow involved in their control and/or exploitation.  Which is the original point that I made.

 

Quote

That would be the “harbouring” or even, indeed, “receipt” parts of your quote. 

As you can do doubt now see by now, this is incorrect, as there are a number of conditions that need to be met re. control and exploitation of the person.

 

Essentially, if someone was trafficked, then you simply offer them a place to stay, you are not involved in their trafficking unless the above conditions are met.

 

Quote

The devil is indeed in the detail. 

You've certainly leaned that today.

 

Hope that's a little clearer for you now. ?

[Bluespunk]

2 hours ago, BangkokReady said:

 

Yes, really.  It is not automatically trafficking just for "sheltering" them.

 

 

No.  As I said previously, this is dependent on a number of factors.

 

"Article 3, paragraph (a) of the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons defines Trafficking in Persons as the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons"

 

The above explains that a certain number of actions are defined as human trafficking, but, the below explains exactly how those actions need to be carried out:

 

"by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability"

 

The above outlines the direct ways you need to be exerting control over the person being trafficked in order for you to be guilty of human trafficking, then:

 

"or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation."

 

The above outlines the indirect ways that you need to be exerting control over the person being trafficked in order to be guilty of human trafficking.

 

So, just to recap, just "sheltering" them is not enough.  You need to be somehow involved in their control and/or exploitation.  Which is the original point that I made.

 

As you can do doubt now see by now, this is incorrect, as there are a number of conditions that need to be met re. control and exploitation of the person.

 

Essentially, if someone was trafficked, then you simply offer them a place to stay, you are not involved in their trafficking unless the above conditions are met.

 

You've certainly leaned that today.

 

Hope that's a little clearer for you now. ?

It was clear from the beginning. 

 

I still want to know if this person who was “sheltering” was trafficking people. 

 

Nothing you have said helps answer this.