23 minutes ago, jackdd said:

37 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Someone entering without being given permission is illegal. An example would be someone entering for Asylum; its a legal entry but not on the list!

So you think somebody can show up at a Thai border, tell the IOs he is seeking asylum, and they will let him in? How many days will he get stamped in?

I’ve no idea what Thailands asylum policy is. But it could well be covered under 34.15. In which case it could be for up to a year. I’ll add it to my list of things to confirm with immigration.

31 minutes ago, jackdd said:

53 minutes ago, elviajero said:

You are wrong, and I've explained why. It is just badly worded. 

Well, fact is it says "cannot", so you might call it badly worded or whatever, but it's the law, and your interpretation is wrong, doesn't matter how often you claim that you are right.

It’s not my interpretation. It is fact based on immigration actions, and the clear intention of the law.

 

Explain to me your rationale that only people that “cannot” stay somewhere have to report a change of address, but someone choosing to change their address doesn’t. When the purpose of address reporting is to keep track of ALL foreigners?

 

31 minutes ago, jackdd said:

What do you think is more likely?

1) It's badly worded because the Thai people who wrote the Thai law can't write a proper sentence in Thai (as explained before, they specifically added "can" in the sentence, they could have just skipped this word and the sentence would say what you think it says)

2) They intended to write "cannot"

 

I think option 2) is "slightly" more probable than 1)

I think the intention of the reporting laws is crystal clear and it makes sense for anyone changing their address to inform the office in the catchment area of the new address. It is ridiculous to believe only people that “cannot” stay somewhere have to report.

 

The intention of the law is clear, the translation is badly worded, and the intention of the law is backed up by immigration policy.

On 7/6/2019 at 3:04 AM, elviajero said:

Thats wrong. 

 

A TM.30 is a report made by the manager/owner/house-master/possessor that you are staying at their property.

 

A TM.47 is a report by you updating your address for the next 90 day period.

 

It can be self reported by you...not necessarily the property owner. Best to check with local immigration office for their specific requirements.

On 7/6/2019 at 2:10 PM, CarlE said:

I will be facing my first 90 report which I plan to do on-line. Will I have a problem with simply reporting my fiancee's private house address, where I do live full-time?  It is a house she owns and is not a rental property.

Has she yet submitted a completed TM30 form to your local immigration office as your housemaster?

25 minutes ago, travelerjim said:

It can be self reported by you...not necessarily the property owner. Best to check with local immigration office for their specific requirements.

But in the OP's case, though, I think that the responsibility for providing a completed TM30 rests with his fiancee as housemaster - just as my wife (who owns the house in which we live) has done in my case.

1 hour ago, travelerjim said:

On 7/6/2019 at 9:04 AM, elviajero said:

Thats wrong. 

 

A TM.30 is a report made by the manager/owner/house-master/possessor that you are staying at their property.

 

A TM.47 is a report by you updating your address for the next 90 day period.

 

It can be self reported by you...not necessarily the property owner. Best to check with local immigration office for their specific requirements.

It can (at some offices) be self reported IF you are the "Owner" OR considered to be the "Possessor".

 

IMO the TM.30 report was always meant to be made by a third party, but as that is not specified in the law some offices will accept foreigners reporting themselves.

 

It gets messy because some offices insist that a TM.30 has been filed before issuing an extension of stay, and in some of those cases they will only accept a TM.30 from the "Owner".

 

As you say, it is best to ask at the local office.

I am quite interested in Thai language and someone has made a horlicks of understanding the Immigration Act. Section 37 (I think) lays down the rules for people given permission to stay temporarily, Section 34? Is a list of reasons  

, there are Sportmen, embassies, journalists etc. You will notice that there are No married people, no retirees, no refugees because they are all covered by No. 15 ‘others’!  

We are not allowed to write Thai so sounds like: “ Samart “. shows ability and is part of a sentence which contains the word ” hetpon “generally translated as reason. It should be read: “in the case of not being able to stay at the reported address for any reason... “

If anyone is interested in reading the original Thai I am happy to join you in the language forum. 

On 7/8/2019 at 3:01 AM, tgeezer said:

We are not allowed to write Thai

 

The Forum Rules state:

 

"Short Thai translation of technical terms is permitted in speciality forums"

 

In this case, I think it would be permissible to write/translate a word or a sentence as you are discussing the detail of a specific piece of immigration law.