Consideration For The Member Of Family Of The Foreigner Who Stays Temporarily In Case Of Retirement

[cclub75]

Sunbelt keeps repeating that Police Order october 2006 is void... Okay, now we all understand... But before ?

Just so its understood. Its not "us" saying its void but BKk Immigration.

Of course, we know. The problem is : what don't you give your opinion ? You're in the front line of visas situation if I may say since many years...

-was is possible to get a "dependant visa extension" ?

Yes it was possible. The only requirement for dependents of retirees then (husband / wife, children), the dependent applicant must provide evidence indicating their relationship. Evidence must be translated into Thai and be certified by the embassy or consulate of the non-Thai citizens. Also had to show proof of the extension of stay permit for the retiree.

I do remember though in real life, Immigration in a couple cases was not keen for the dependent. Immigration in a couple cases wanted the dependent to show 800K and not piggyback. I remember a post a couple years ago from CM who did not get the dependent extension. However we indeed had cases where dependent clients were approved before Oct 2006.

So you see that's the proof : Police Order October 2006 didn't change anything.

So why, now, do they say that this police order contradicts the regulation of 2002 ?

It doesn't make any sense.

However, one thing is sure : it's easier to say : "we've made a mistake from 2006 until now". Rather than : "we've made a mistake since... 2002 until now" !

Do you understand my point ?

In the first case, it can pass... In the second case, it's ridiculous even by thai standards... And people would understand that, indeed, Thai Immigration is trying now to change the regulations about extension.

From my point of view : it's a gross move of propaganda to justify what is not justifiable.

They want to follow their plan, without loosing face. They should say, clear and loud : "we have decided to reduce the total number of foreigners living in Thailand". Fair enough, it's their country.

But they should say it, instead of trying to bullshit everybody, with fallacious pretexts and surreal explanation.

Edited September 18, 2007 by cclub75

[Sunbelt Asia]

Of course, we know. The problem is : what don't you give your opinion ? You're in the front line of visas situation if I may say since many years...

I don't think this has come out about to have less foreigners in Thailand but to get it "right."

By bringing this mistake up with what the Immigration Act allows, many more foreigners will be able to stay in Thailand as they are a father with a Thai child than foreign dependents of a foreigner. Of course I understand they can make the criteria 65,000 Baht + per month of Thai income with the requirement of showing a work permit. Not to many foreign fathers will qualify. It will be interesting to see if it will be money in the bank, foreign or local income or Thai income only for the criteria.

www.sunbeltasiagroup.com

[papakapbaan]

Of course, we know. The problem is : what don't you give your opinion ? You're in the front line of visas situation if I may say since many years...

I don't think this has come out about to have less foreigners in Thailand but to get it "right."

By bringing this mistake up with what the Immigration Act allows, many more foreigners will be able to stay in Thailand as they are a father with a Thai child than foreign dependents of a foreigner. Of course I understand they can make the criteria 65,000 Baht + per month of Thai income with the requirement of showing a work permit. Not to many foreign fathers will qualify. It will be interesting to see if it will be money in the bank, foreign or local income or Thai income only for the criteria.

www.sunbeltasiagroup.com

"many more foreigners will be able to stay in Thailand as they are a father with a Thai child than foreign dependents of a foreigner"

Every expatriate should feel concerned (at least interested) by what is "happening" now to foreign spouses of retirees and unmarried foreign parents of Thai children.

A few remarks...

1) Will they ever edict new regulations to take into account unmarried foreign parents of Thai children???

We keep hearing about "imminent changes" for quite some time now.

2) Will they ever, indeed, discontinue/revoke yearly extensions of stay for foreign spouses of retirees?

I believe that 1 and 2 are/will be very TELLING MOMENTS.

HOW will spouses of retirees and unmarried parents of Thai children be "accepted/rejected"?

It may help many expatriates see the true colors of the Thai Immigration system!

Stay tuned everybody.

BTW. About unmaried foreign parents.

They may indeed come up with whatever criteria they want to grant annual "extensions of stay".

But it's unlikely to be 65K Thai income. Such a father/mother would qualify on "WP/Business" only/simply.

To ask for/hope for the same sets of rules as applied to spouses of Thai citizens: 40K monthly income (Thai or foreign) : is probably too... logical???

Or... Could the criteria used to grant 1 year extension to foreign parents of FOREIGN STUDENTS be applied??

500K in a Thai bank.

Again, probably too... logical!

Note: If I manage to get my Thai daughter the belgian nationality then I will seriously consider revoking/cancelling her Thai nationality in order to get her a NON-ED visa that will allow me, in turn, to support her/live with her here!

Currently *impossible* under the new regulations as an ummaried parent age below 50!

Can you be forgiven for thinking "Silly Thais!" (with their silly rules) when confronted with such a situation?

Just to note: even if they "fix" this one we are talking about here: you can bet we are not finished with contradictory/messy Immigration rules :-(

[cclub75]

I don't think this has come out about to have less foreigners in Thailand but to get it "right."

Okay. But why they have to lie to get it "right" ?

Actually you don't reply about the core of my message : the fact that when Immigration says "Police Order October 2006 contradicts Regulations 2002, therefore we stop giving extension" is a lie. A false explanation.

I could understand that you don't really want to upset them... after all it's one part of your business, right ?

But still, I'm surprised that very few people have noticed that their explanation is totally illogical...

But as we say : mai pen rai.

[Maestro]

...the fact that when Immigration says "Police Order October 2006 contradicts Regulations 2002, therefore we stop giving extension" is a lie. A false explanation.

I don’t see a lie there. The Ministerial Regulation of 2002 does not list the wife of a retiree as qualified for a dependent extension, the Police Order of October 2006 does. These are documented facts.

--

Maestro

[retiredusn]

...the fact that when Immigration says "Police Order October 2006 contradicts Regulations 2002, therefore we stop giving extension" is a lie. A false explanation.

I don’t see a lie there. The Ministerial Regulation of 2002 does not list the wife of a retiree as qualified for a dependent extension, the Police Order of October 2006 does. These are documented facts.

--

Maestro

Then what happened to the years in between ???And the OA/retirement/extension to stay were still issued ???? until 2007???

[JimGant]

I don’t see a lie there. The Ministerial Regulation of 2002 does not list the wife of a retiree as qualified for a dependent extension,

An obvious oversight. Dependents of all other classifications of visas are allowed to extend as long as their sponsor is granted an extension. Thailand is NOT anti-family. So, precluding a spouse because she's -- gasp -- not yet 50 (or independently wealthy) is ludicrous. And, thus, an obvious mistake in the Ministerial Regulation -- even more obvious because it's a mistake of omission.

And just what Ministry are we talking about? Is "Ministerial Regulation" a blanket phrase for a parliamentarian legal decree -- or is there a particular Ministry (like, Foreign Affairs) involved here?

Certainly, with the horsepower this subject has gotten, folks with the power to correct mistakes are, at this very moment, talking over cocktails about remedial solutions...........

But, geez, why do I keep hearing the phrase "TIT"...........

Insane.

[cclub75]

...the fact that when Immigration says "Police Order October 2006 contradicts Regulations 2002, therefore we stop giving extension" is a lie. A false explanation.

I don’t see a lie there. The Ministerial Regulation of 2002 does not list the wife of a retiree as qualified for a dependent extension, the Police Order of October 2006 does. These are documented facts.

--

Maestro

The lie is not there.

The lie is to say : Police Order 2006 contradicts Ministerial Regulation 2002, therefore we have to stop.

The point is Maestro : before Police Order 2006, extension visa dependant were granted.

So ?

Again and again, I repeat my question : what were the regulations before october 2006 for extension ?

They didn't want to say : we made a mistake since 2002. Therefore they served us this lie about Police Order October 2006.

Better to say : we were wrong since one year, than we were wrong (or we changed our mind....) since 2002.

Do we agree now ?

[Sunbelt Asia]

Everything is status quo as before Sept 1st 2007 at Bangkok Immigration. The higherups had a meeting yesterday and as no new Police Order has been issued in the Royal Gazette, they'll abide with the National Police Order 606 starting as of today.

Good news for the extension of stay dependents based on retirement as of today. Possibly bad news for parents under 50 years old, because everything is the same until a new police Order comes out( if it ever will ) As of today the window is back open for applicants of dependents and Bkk Immigration is going to follow Police Order 606 even if it is in conflict with the Immigration Act and Ministerial Regulations.

www.sunbeltasiagroup.com

[Jingthing]

Sunbelt, do you think all the squawking here made a difference? Or not?

[Naam]

do you think all the squawking here made a difference?

for sure! the "higher-ups" in Bangkok are still scared sh*tless by all the squawking.

[Sunbelt Asia]

Sunbelt, do you think all the squawking here made a difference? Or not?

Couple theory's...

No one ever talked before about a organized protest before with foreigners. This would not of looked good in the World newspapers. I'm positive they were aware of some of the comments.

Change the extension of stay for dependents based on retirement and you had to change the order allowing the fathers under 50 years old with Thai children, being allowed to stay. I have heard it more than once of the paranoia they have, that many foreigners would have a Thai child to stay and less children would be 100% Thai.

It was a power play and some other person/dept won for now.

You decide what happen. Bottom line, good day for the dependants based on retirement in BKk.

www.sunbeltasiagroup.com

[cclub75]

No one ever talked before about a organized protest before with foreigners. This would not of looked good in the World newspapers. I'm positive they were aware of some of the comments.

It was a power play and some other person/dept won for now.

You decide what happen. Bottom line, good day for the dependants based on retirement in BKk.

Well, I guess it's a small victory.

But for how long ?

The point is : someone at the Immigration has eventually understood that their official explanation was totally surreal.

I tried myself to explain it, many times, in this thread. Even by thai standards, it was ridiculous.

But as you said : it's a power play. Therefore, it could changes. Again.

And this is the main problem : we can't trust them anymore.

Those Z-Turn's or S-Turn's, in less than 3 weeks are hurting a lot their credibility...

And I really don't believe the story about their fear of a "farangs protest"... Come on... Let's be straight for once... They just understood that their position was impossible, with the wordings they used. That's all.

Edited September 20, 2007 by cclub75

[PeaceBlondie]

Perhaps it wasn't one single item posted here on ThaiVisa, like the possibility of a mass public protest, or whatever letters our members sent to their embassies, MP's, the media, etc. Maybe this forum was a mass public protest, they read our comments, saw the problems, thought about it, and then did what their most powerful bureaucrat wanted to do, whether or not he reads ThaiVisa.

I feel like ccclub75 wrote, "Therefore, it could change. Again.And this is the main problem : we can't trust them anymore.Those Z-Turn's or S-Turn's, in less than 3 weeks are hurting a lot their credibility..."

I'm sure they are nice folks to have lunch with; almost all the IRS employees were, too. But as for credibility, regarding national policy toward immigrants, no. Nope. Nada, zilch, soon.