1 minute ago, marcusarelus said:

We have not had a poll about how many have actually left because that would confirm that not many have left but that would really be the only way to get a real answer. 

Irrelevant how many have actually left. Regarding my hypothesis, that the majority of posters complaining bitterly about the visa changes are US citizens, no need for a poll, just troll through all the posts on TV, in the last 12 months and compile your own statistics.

2 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Irrelevant how many have actually left. Regarding my hypothesis, that the majority of posters complaining bitterly about the visa changes are US citizens, no need for a poll, just troll through all the posts on TV, in the last 12 months and compile your own statistics.

152 pages of complaints from mainly Brits. ????

 

Just now, marcusarelus said:

152 pages of complaints. 

 

Not the same. How many said that they would be leaving Thailand due to the changes?

 

I too complained about the change that the British Embassy made. Disgusting. I didn't say that I would reconsidering my residence in Thailand though.

 

Nice trolling but no cigar.

3 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Not the same. How many said that they would be leaving Thailand due to the changes?

 

I too complained about the change that the British Embassy made. Disgusting. I didn't say that I would reconsidering my residence in Thailand though.

 

Nice trolling but no cigar.

363 mentioned leaving. 

7 minutes ago, marcusarelus said:

363 mentioned leaving. 

Just trolled through the first 5 pages (my life is worth more than trolling through any more).

 

Only found one threatening to leave, Jingthing - an American.

2 hours ago, Spidey said:

 

The majority of people posting on TV, complaining that the changes in immigration rules are forcing them to leave Thailand, appear to be US citizens. Despite the excuses that they give in their posts, it's my firm belief that many US expats visited their embassy every year, put their hands in the air and swore that they received a totally fictitious income. Now that they are no longer able to do that, they're screwed. Only themselves to blame.

 

 

I know a couple of Americans who admitted they had inflated their income at the US Embassy.

I've only used the income method once several years ago, more out of curiosity than anything else.  I was quite shocked when I turned up with a completed Australian Statutory Declaration to be validated, plus proof of income in the form of my tax return for that year. The consulate official stamping the Stat Dec didn't even want to look at the tax return. I'm wondering how many Aussies have lied, and got away with it until now.

6 hours ago, Spidey said:

52% v. 48%? A Brexiteer would say that's overwhelming. All very subjective.

I made no reference to Brexit or those percentages, what makes you think that I was referring to them?  An accurate, statistical majority is not subjective, it's empirical fact.

3 hours ago, Lacessit said:

I know a couple of Americans who admitted they had inflated their income at the US Embassy.

I've only used the income method once several years ago, more out of curiosity than anything else.  I was quite shocked when I turned up with a completed Australian Statutory Declaration to be validated, plus proof of income in the form of my tax return for that year. The consulate official stamping the Stat Dec didn't even want to look at the tax return. I'm wondering how many Aussies have lied, and got away with it until now.

I have no doubt whatsoever that some Americans were not honest with the embassy and thus were not honest with Thai immigration.

I also have no doubt that in some cases the claims were more in the range of defensible GREY AREAS, such as claiming IRA retirement account withdrawals as income.

However, it does not follow that ALL or MOST Americans getting embassy letters were blatantly lying.

Some does not equal ALL or MOST.

Also, there has been a narrative repeated very often over the months since the "troubles" began. Yes, I reckon you all know what I mean by the troubles. That narrative is that everyone expressing objections to the multiple and major visa rule changes (including of course the severe impact on nationals that can no longer get letters) are from people that were previously LYING to their embassies.

No doubt there are SOME cases like that.

But to suggest that is the same as ALL or MOST -- that is obviously a false and very insulting narrative.

I am not defending people that did lie to their embassy.

Play games like that and you take your chances.

I also don't defend people that participate in the corruption of using agents without having qualifications, but somehow often the same people UNFAIRLY trashing rule abiding expats complaining about rules changes rarely have harsh word to say about the expat participants in agent corruption. Curious that? Double standard? 

In any case, I am defending all the people being ACCUSED of lying, being ASSUMED to be cheaters, that actually did no such thing.

Perhaps because I'm one of them, sure. One of the people that has always followed the rules to the letter. Being constantly accused of being a cheat and a liar and thrown into the same bag as those that actually are grates very much.

Cheers. 

Reported post and other troll comment removed.

On 4/26/2019 at 3:15 PM, Jingthing said:

I have no doubt whatsoever that some Americans were not honest with the embassy and thus were not honest with Thai immigration.

I also have no doubt that in some cases the claims were more in the range of defensible GREY AREAS, such as claiming IRA retirement account withdrawals as income.

However, it does not follow that ALL or MOST Americans getting embassy letters were blatantly lying.

Some does not equal ALL or MOST.

Also, there has been a narrative repeated very often over the months since the "troubles" began. Yes, I reckon you all know what I mean by the troubles. That narrative is that everyone expressing objections to the multiple and major visa rule changes (including of course the severe impact on nationals that can no longer get letters) are from people that were previously LYING to their embassies.

No doubt there are SOME cases like that.

But to suggest that is the same as ALL or MOST -- that is obviously a false and very insulting narrative.

I am not defending people that did lie to their embassy.

Play games like that and you take your chances.

I also don't defend people that participate in the corruption of using agents without having qualifications, but somehow often the same people UNFAIRLY trashing rule abiding expats complaining about rules changes rarely have harsh word to say about the expat participants in agent corruption. Curious that? Double standard? 

In any case, I am defending all the people being ACCUSED of lying, being ASSUMED to be cheaters, that actually did no such thing.

Perhaps because I'm one of them, sure. One of the people that has always followed the rules to the letter. Being constantly accused of being a cheat and a liar and thrown into the same bag as those that actually are grates very much.

Cheers. 

Fair enough. I do use an agent for convenience. However, it is for convenience alone, as all of my finances are squeaky clean. If people on TV want to accuse me of acting corruptly by using an agent, I don't care. Life's too short to worry about the opinions of people I will probably never meet.

2 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Fair enough. I do use an agent for convenience. However, it is for convenience alone, as all of my finances are squeaky clean. If people on TV want to accuse me of acting corruptly by using an agent, I don't care. Life's too short to worry about the opinions of people I will probably never meet.

There are two kinds of agent usage.

 

Convenience and corruption.

 

Corruption is obviously is you're applying based on a financial qualification such as 800K in the bank and the 800K in the bank is not actually your own bank account but somehow presented to immigration as your bank account.
 

On 4/27/2019 at 7:40 PM, Jingthing said:

Corruption is obviously is you're applying based on a financial qualification such as 800K in the bank and the 800K in the bank is not actually your own bank account but somehow presented to immigration as your bank account.

Just a small correction.  

It is your own bank account. You just borrow the money for a short time.

 

Then it's up to the immigration officials to accept it, and there's where the corruption comes in.  

Let’s imagine you’re a boxer in a big fight and ur getting hard punches Everywhere in each round then in the fifth round when u have already 2 black eyes and a bloody nose and blood in ur mouth and 2x 8 counts from the referee and luckily the bell rings than what would u say when ur coach asks how is it going?

Will his answer be a positive one ?