15 hours ago, CLS said:

Foreigners married to a Thai should get a settlement visa with no financial proof. Family reunification is a basic human right, granted in all civilized countries.

 

Did you ever ask yourself why a foreign woman married to a Thai man can reside in the country without any financial proof and can be naturalized as a Thai after one year without ever having worked in the country?

 

Gender equality is granted in Thai constitution but not respected by immigration laws.

 

Retirees are just tourists in most countries, unless they make huge investments and get a golden visa for the country they live in.

Not sure why you're asking these questions of me. This thread, and my posts here, relate to an unmarried overstayer.

However, I do believe that, in principal, marriage to a citizen should make PR just a formality in a perfect world.

Unfortunately, there are so many less than perfect people in this world that the act alone cannot guarantee a genuine marriage. There are so many marriage scams perpetrated everywhere, ranging from single monetary payouts to large scale criminal rackets involving scores of arranged unions. All purely designed to gain residence for people unable to enter a country within the rules.

As a result of these scams countries like Australia went from grant of residence immediately after processing, to a system where the marriage has to be proven genuine over a period of years. What's the percentage of genuine, loving marriages in Thailand compared to those of convenience? I do believe a marriage here that has stood the test of time should have a pathway to residence. The system in place here where you have to have worked and paid taxes for several years to be considered for PR, is flawed for obvious reasons.

 

To answer your other off topic question - I'm not in the habit of sharing my internal discussions on this forum, but will say that subject has not particularly piqued my senses. However, I do strongly believe in genuine, gender equality not one with a bias in either direction.

17 hours ago, fredwiggy said:

And why we have to being in a minimum of 40k while the average Thai makes under 12k. If they can live and survive with what they make, so can we. There is no legitimate reason.

For the authorities, Thais are the citizens so not much can be done about them. For the foreigners though, Thailand want those with better disposal income than just 12K. It is their country and their rules. They figure foreigners need a minimum of 60,000 baht a month for all foreseeable expenses including medical. They do not want cheap Charlies staying in their country contributing little to the economy and dragging down their medical services as age catches up. 

4 hours ago, Ctkong said:

For the authorities, Thais are the citizens so not much can be done about them. For the foreigners though, Thailand want those with better disposal income than just 12K. It is their country and their rules. They figure foreigners need a minimum of 60,000 baht a month for all foreseeable expenses including medical. They do not want cheap Charlies staying in their country contributing little to the economy and dragging down their medical services as age catches up. 

Making more than the average Thai and then some isn't cheap charlie by any means. Medical isn't free here for foreigners so you need insurance.Every baht we receive goes towards their economy besides those that buy things online.

On 6/23/2020 at 10:22 AM, Old Croc said:

Why did he stop extending in 2014? A lack of funds would be most likely.

How (or by whom) has he been supported in his years of overstay?

He could have used an agent if he could not show 800k in the bank.  
He could have handled this in many ways, instead he choose to break the law.  

On ‎6‎/‎23‎/‎2020 at 10:56 AM, KhunKenAP said:

I can sleep better now. Why he did not renew is a better question?

No money