Whats really going on with Thailand immigration?

[Pilotman]

20 minutes ago, possum1931 said:

How many countries force retirees to report every 90 days? How many countries have the TM30 nonsense?

How many countries will not allow you to buy a house in your name?

I rest my case.

Maybe not as many as should impose such laws.  I would fully support such a set of rules in the UK, it would atop all the Chinese billionaires and Russian oligarch criminals buying up half of London and more than half of the UK football world. so I can hardly complain at them here. Actually, the rules/restrictions don't bother me much at all.  Not my country, so their gig, their rules. 

[Issannative]

You do realise that the stopping of the letters was instagated by Thai they basically said we don't belive what you saying. So it <deleted> off some embassy rightly soo. Soo yes it's all Thai blame

[Issannative]

Yes they spat the dummy but remember this is a junta should you bend to it

[Issannative]

This letter thing is getting screwed the wrong way

[Max69xl]

8 hours ago, lamyai3 said:

The British embassy in their initial comments actually mentioned that other embassies would be following suit, and that they were pretty much placed in a position where they had no choice by immigration. It seems unusual and unprofessional to comment on the policies of other embassies, but this is exactly what they did. 

The UK embassy in BKK said they were not experts in verifying documents handed over by people.

They said nothing about other embassies would be following suit.

I do understand why immigration had worries about the "sworn affidavits" from the US embassy. Almost every country in western Europe issues income letters based on retirement if the documents they get are stamped and signed and comes from reliable sources. Immigration offices have no problem what so ever if the income letters are trustworthy.

[Sheryl]

11 hours ago, lamyai3 said:

The British embassy in their initial comments actually mentioned that other embassies would be following suit, and that they were pretty much placed in a position where they had no choice by immigration. It seems unusual and unprofessional to comment on the policies of other embassies, but this is exactly what they did. 

 

The British Embassy decision never made any sense to me at all, since as I understand it they did check documentation.

 

I recall hearing that it was a decision made make in the UK based on a rather draconian and western-legalistic interpretation of what TI meant by verification.

 

Other embassies which checked documentation did not stop issuing letters and there is no indication that TI has any problem with hwo they proceed.

 

US and Oz could have issued letters too had they been willing to start doing  so based on a review of documentation but they were not, and what they had been doing was clearly (an understandably) not acceptable to TI.

 

The whole idea was that, since sources of retirement income and associated documentation vary greatly by country to country and are hard for outsiders to understand let alone vet, the respective Embassies were best placed to determine if a person had the required income. And that is what TI wanted them to do. Some always were doing this. But a few large ones were not and declined to, forcing TI to come up with another basis for documenting income, one that would be feasible for Thai IOs to apply. Which led to the current mess.

 

TI would much, much rather have had all the Embassies issue letters based on an informed review of documentation. The result has increased workload for them and sown much confusion...so much so that there have been reports of some IOs refusing to accept the income method from nationals who can't get an Embassy letter.

 

 

[Sheryl]

4 hours ago, Issannative said:

You do realise that the stopping of the letters was instagated by Thai they basically said we don't belive what you saying. So it <deleted> off some embassy rightly soo. Soo yes it's all Thai blame

 

What they said was that they expected letters to be based on some sort of evidence that was reviewed by the Embassy, that they expected (had always expected, otherwise using these letters makes no sense)  an Embassy guarantee/certification that this person had the stated income.  Many embassies were already doing this and there is no report or indication at all that TI said they did not believe them. TI continues to this day to accept Embassy letters gladly from all Embassies which issue them, and most Embassies still do. unfortunately the few whio stopped represent the bulk of expat retirees.

 

US and Oz explained that they check nothing at all, and this of course was not acceptable. TI requested that they do what most other Embassies already did. They declined.
 

It was not the Embassies that TI did not believe it was their nationals making sworn statements without having to show any supporting documentation. And indeed some people were doing this falsely.This forum has been filled with posts from people who are unable to bring in 65K a month and used to rely on Embassy letters.

 

The Brits for some reason decided that their Embassy staff were not capable of making a reasonable income determination even given supporting documents to review.  I have no idea why but from the number of Brits coming online saying they don't have anywhere near 65K a month income and used to get Embassy letters there may in fact have been some rather large loopholes in their processes.

[Issannative]

So why did tit instigate the current problem it was t that did it do not try to blame others

[Sheryl]

15 hours ago, Salerno said:

Sorry, but how many decades did it take TI to figure that out? 

 

Apparently it took until they finally sat down with the Embassies and asked them what their process was.

[Issannative]

It's all tits doing

[Issannative]

Hammer mosquito comes to mind again patten maybe and sympersyser some maybe 1939 again

[55Jay]

13 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

I have no idea why but from the number of Brits coming online saying they don't have anywhere near 65K a month income and used to get Embassy letters there may in fact have been some rather large loopholes in their processes.

Loopholes.  That's putting lipstick on a pig.  

 

In other words, those Brits submitted fraudulent dox and lied about it.  And their embassy rubber stamped it.  Garbage in, Garbage out.   So much for the gold standard which, not without irony, was the first one to fall. 

 

I wouldn't waste my dip/admin staff's time and effort pretending to verify the veracity of bits of paper from random people off the street, pretty much on-demand.  And then tell the Host Nation government, officially, in writing, that we did verify.   Certainly not for a low-level requirement like this, for some nit noy ministerial paper tiger, with zero signficance to the diplomatic mission's objectives.

 

[Sheryl]

The Danish Embassy has set up a system whereby people authorize having a government pension statement mailed directly to the Embassy. They then go and get it and the Embassy certifies it, which they are able to do as it came directly to them from the concerned government agency.

 

Can't see why other Embassies could nto do something similiar if so inclined.  And even do so for non-governmental pension sources.

 

As I said, I don't know exactly how the British system was working before but I find it a little hard to  believe that many elderly resident expats  were preparing convincing looking counterfeit official banking documents and the like.

 

 

[Salerno]

2 hours ago, Sheryl said:

Apparently it took until they finally sat down with the Embassies and asked them what their process was.

So you're claiming that Thais in government departments are that stupid they didn't know what legal documents they where accepting until someone in the Aussie embassy said "Nah mate, we don't actually check, we just witness a legal document that if found to contain false information, the holder can get up to 4 years jail in Australia" at which point the TI decided it wasn't acceptable?

 

We all have a laugh at what we see as "dumb" things in Thailand but personally I give them a hell of a lot more credit than the average TV BM. 

 

 

 

[sunnyboy2018]

On 8/22/2019 at 9:31 PM, yogi100 said:

Do you mean Cafe Racer opposite Billabong. If so it's closed down.

Yes. But I havent been there for 5 weeks. im surprised it closed....usually busy

[sunnyboy2018]

Why the obsession with pensions? Rather than income stream  wealth or net worth? My pension only equals 25% of my income and 1% of my net worth.

[Sheryl]

1 hour ago, sunnyboy2018 said:

Why the obsession with pensions? Rather than income stream  wealth or net worth? My pension only equals 25% of my income and 1% of my net worth.

 

I don't think there is any such obsession. TI tends to use the term "pension: as shorthand for "retirement income". But they are concerned to see guaranteed, regular income, which not all non-pension sources are.

 

The problem for Embassies in issuing letters for income that is inclusive of non-govt sources is that, these other income streams may involve multiple documents from multiple sources. Whereas for an Embassy to confirm government pension income or equivalent, if they are so inclined, should be pretty straightfoward, this could involve having to look over many documents some of which the Embassy official might not be familiar with.

 

For those whose Embassies no longer issue letters, it doesn't matter what the income course is, TI after hearing from Embassies about all the multiple sources a retired person might have, decided there was no way they were going to look at all that and opted instead just on proof of bringing funds in from abroad.

 

And of coiurse for those using the money in the bank method, makes no difference at all how they finance their retirement.

[lamyai3]

9 hours ago, Max69xl said:

They said nothing about other embassies would be following suit.

If you followed the voluminous threads on this last year (one of which alone racked up close to 200 pages) you'd know this is untrue. The UK were wailing from the very beginning it's not just us, wait and see, the others will be stopping them too, and they even said so in writing regarding the US. And in fact posters reported of being told by other embassy staff that the letters would be stopping (Canada being one), and then nothing happened. After meting out some initial punishment to those countries they felt deserved it, immigration did a volte face.

 

Your comments about income affidavits don't stand up to scrutiny either, otherwise all embassies would have been banned from using statutory declarations. Why for instance was the Australian embassy told to stop issuing them when the New Zealand embassy wasn't?

Edited August 23, 2019 by lamyai3

[lamyai3]

6 hours ago, Sheryl said:

The British Embassy decision never made any sense to me at all, since as I understand it they did check documentation.

 

I recall hearing that it was a decision made make in the UK based on a rather draconian and western-legalistic interpretation of what TI meant by verification.

There's a word that's come into common parlance in the UK in recent decades "jobsworth", as in "sorry I can't do that, it's more than my job's worth." The phrase is often applied to low ranking officials and ineffectual middle management. Listening to interviews with the embassy staff, it's clear that the long suffering British expat has run into exactly that attitude on the income letters issue. Much of the handwashing was blamed on cost cutting and streamlining of procedures, but it was evident that in the documents that were no longer being accepted, the UK embassy were either being held to a higher set of standards than other countries or they were leaned on much more heavily than most. This is why I say they were hoodwinked by immigration, who most certainly led them to believe they would be the first in a long line of of embassies that would be stopping the letters, something that never materialised. 

[Max69xl]

2 hours ago, lamyai3 said:

If you followed the voluminous threads on this last year (one of which alone racked up close to 200 pages) you'd know this is untrue. The UK were wailing from the very beginning it's not just us, wait and see, the others will be stopping them too, and they even said so in writing regarding the US. And in fact posters reported of being told by other embassy staff that the letters would be stopping (Canada being one), and then nothing happened. After meting out some initial punishment to those countries they felt deserved it, immigration did a volte face.

 

Your comments about income affidavits don't stand up to scrutiny either, otherwise all embassies would have been banned from using statutory declarations. Why for instance was the Australian embassy told to stop issuing them when the New Zealand embassy wasn't?

I read every article when the UK announced they would stop issuing income letters, and they said several times (true or not) that the main reason was their inability to verify documents.

No one really knows why they stopped issuing income letters, but so called sworn affidavits should never be allowed. I don't know the difference between Australia and New Zealand,but I know for sure there are no sworn affidavits in the EU regarding income. Don't believe every thread you read here, better read a trustworthy newspaper. 

[Max69xl]

8 hours ago, Sheryl said:

 

The British Embassy decision never made any sense to me at all, since as I understand it they did check documentation.

 

I recall hearing that it was a decision made make in the UK based on a rather draconian and western-legalistic interpretation of what TI meant by verification.

 

Other embassies which checked documentation did not stop issuing letters and there is no indication that TI has any problem with hwo they proceed.

 

US and Oz could have issued letters too had they been willing to start doing  so based on a review of documentation but they were not, and what they had been doing was clearly (an understandably) not acceptable to TI.

 

The whole idea was that, since sources of retirement income and associated documentation vary greatly by country to country and are hard for outsiders to understand let alone vet, the respective Embassies were best placed to determine if a person had the required income. And that is what TI wanted them to do. Some always were doing this. But a few large ones were not and declined to, forcing TI to come up with another basis for documenting income, one that would be feasible for Thai IOs to apply. Which led to the current mess.

 

TI would much, much rather have had all the Embassies issue letters based on an informed review of documentation. The result has increased workload for them and sown much confusion...so much so that there have been reports of some IOs refusing to accept the income method from nationals who can't get an Embassy letter.

 

 

I agree with you 100%. Immigration wants trustworthy reliable affidavits,and who can disagree? 

[luckyluke]

13 minutes ago, Max69xl said:

but I know for sure there are no sworn affidavits in the EU regarding income.

Belgian embassy has always issuing an Affidavit and still do.

[EricTh]

6 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

Belgian embassy has always issuing an Affidavit and still do.

The problem is that all these affidavits aren't reliable enough.

 

That's why you see a lot of people complain their visas can't be renewed this year after the embassies stop issuing them.

 

 

[Max69xl]

8 hours ago, Issannative said:

Wow so basically you saying all bits are lying bastards not to be trusted wow

Don't you understand that an income letter has be a trustworthy document showing your actual income/pension, not a false document based on lies? 

[luckyluke]

1 minute ago, EricTh said:

The problem is that all these affidavits aren't reliable enough.

So far Immigration Jomtien accept it, sometimes complementary documents are requested by some officers.

As always it vary from one office to another, from one officer to another in the same office, from the same officer according to his mood or other circumstance.

[Max69xl]

7 minutes ago, EricTh said:

The problem is that all these affidavits aren't reliable enough.

 

That's why you see a lot of people complain their visas can't be renewed this year after the embassies stop issuing them.

 

 

Just 3 embassies, the Danish Embassy started issuing them again,but just based on government pension. Which can be a huge problem if they get a big chunk of pension from an insurance company or bank.

[Max69xl]

4 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

So far Immigration Jomtien accept it, sometimes complementary documents are requested by some officers.

As always it vary from one office to another, from one officer to another in the same office, from the same officer according to his mood or other circumstance.

The officers at Jomtien immigration knows very well which income letter to trust,based on the embassy. Some extra documents for a few, nothing else for the rest.

[Max69xl]

25 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

Belgian embassy has always issuing an Affidavit and still do.

Same with all the rest as long as the income letter is correct.

[looplaw]

This thread has morphed into a rehash of the Embassy Income Affidavit . That's history, old news.

[luckyluke]

1 minute ago, Max69xl said:

which income letter to trust,based on the embassy.

In my opinion there is a difference between an Affidavit and a Letter of Income.

 

Again my experience as belgian :

My embassy issue an Affidavit, they only confirm my signature, not my pension amount, they even don't want to see any supporting document.

 

The Austrian Consulate in Pattaya, which deal with Austrians, Belgians, Duch, Germans, French, is checking, in my case, my tax letter, my list of monthly income from my office of pension with the amount and reference on my belgian bank book.

 

They issue and undersign than a letter with the words : " we hereby certify " with my monthly income in Euro and ThB ( according to the value of the day.

 

Quite a difference in my opinion.