People Leaving Due To Visa Restriction

[samran]

Samran, good point and I am sure thats a factor, but extremely simplistic to assert its the only factor.

Hey, good economists don't do detail. We generalise and simplify and make it understandable to the masses.

We also have our head up our own <deleted> most of the time as well...

[Heng]

Yes, your point is well taken, as I acknowledged in my last reply, this bureaucracy seems hostile to "outsiders" of whatever stripe. Well, possibly not the rich ones providing that they spend their money and then go home! In any event, mistreatment of Thais "without roots here", as you put it, is hardly surprising nor is it an exception to what I was arguing. Thailand is not the only country that behaves xenophobically and racist toward it's "half breeds." Even in Hawaii, "hapa haole" ("half white") may have difficulty achieving acceptance in some segments of Hawaiian society.

Finally, No, no, no! My question is NOT "Why is there an immigration policy?"

That's silly. Of course countries must have immigration policies. My questions is, what horrible things would result from the immigration policy I described last post about issuing expats a "smart card" at the airport which operates as I described, and after that, as long as they are behaving themselves, leave them the futz alone?

Of course, I recognize that as a rhetorical question. The answer is NOTHING would happen except that a lot of bureaucrats might be employed elsewhere, possibly even doing something useful.

Aloha,

Rex

While many half Thais fall into that situation, I was referring to "whole breed" Thais who have this issue. Born abroad to two Thai parents but both parents away long enough not to have a family home in Thailand (and thus no house registry for the child to be attached to). If said child doesn't establish his/her Thai citizenship before his/her parents pass away, he/she will have to jump through all kinds of "foreign" type immigration hoops, the same as any other foreigner.

A smart card immigration system would/could be an effective way to keep try of immigrants and local citizens in ALL countries. You're right about that. If I ever had my own political party, I'd go one further and make it an unremovable GPS tracking bracelet/smart card type system. No need for passports, atm cards, driver licenses, any kind of licenses. Everywhere you are allowed and not allowed is preprogrammed.

[Heng]

So your question is really 'why is there an immigration policy?' Well, all countries have them, some more stringent than others. Thailand's is hardly the most stringent.

Its by far the most stringent of any I have encountered in the 3rd world..

And carrying the passport I do, its worse for me than any in Europe, when I asked to go to the USA I got a 10 year visa first request, its not difficult to go to NZ or OZ and easy to work there too..

So 'most stringent'.. Possibly not, but certainly WAY out of line with countries of comparable economic standing.

I don't have a list of all the "third world" countries (IMO the third world label is along the same lines of the wounded ego thing in the "I can't immigrate to Thailand" school of thought/whinge; not saying this is true in your case of course), but the first that come to mind are:

Turkmenistan

Zimbabwe

Burma

Cuba

Libya

North Korea

Somalia

Sudan

Uzbekistan

Chechnya

Tibet

Cote d’Ivoire

Equatorial Guinea

Eritrea

Laos

I assume these qualify as third world places that you feel are easier to immigrate to? And how would Thailand compare with other third world countries of comparable economic standing in terms of economic success? While Thailand's immigration polices wouldn't necessarily have a clear and direct impact, it'd be interesting to see a comparison by the numbers. IMO all opening that can of worms would reveal is that a cracked door (as opposed to close or wide open) immigration policy is actually good for business. You know those Cubans have a booming cigar rolling industry. And don't get me started on the gold mine that is the Eritrean wine business.

[gdhm]

Anyway this is my take on the situation.

And very interesting and considered.

There is one aspect to Retiree Visa that I feel was not not covered however.

Many on retirement Visa are actually married to Thai Nationals of which a reasonable proportion have children born in Thailand. In recent years it has been suggested to us to go for the retirement Visa in preference to the marriage Visa. Additionally, if obeying Visa regulations Retirees are NOT working or competing with Thais for jobs in Thailand but are supposed to be self sufficient hence the high financial requirements (when compared to the average Thai monthly wage)

Consequently, there is a substantial percentage of Retirees supporting/partly supporting Thai dependant families. This is a whole different aspect to valuation of Retirees in Thailand I feel.

Regarding builders. In Spain builders liked nothing more than huge demand and I suspect Thailand is no different. If the builders are finding a Thai National market for almost ALL the homes they are building then capitalist logic says that if Foreigners ALSO require home then the builders will hire more workers and build more homes whilst there is a demand and "make hay whilst the sun shines".

May I ask what percentage of Thais are Middle class earners, and what is assumed to be a middle class monthly take home net salary. Even if Farangs do not make up such a a high income percentage nowadays compared to the past, I am sure their spending power is STILL of interest to the the huge majority of low paid workers in the retail and catering industries especially in the poorer areas of Thailand such as the North East where I live.

At the end of the day, are the Farangs and foreigners living in Thailand damaging or beneficial to Thailand as a whole.

Does it matter if the benefits are not as great as in past decades if the benefits are still on the plus side. Supermarkets understand this sort of logic. Sell enough low items (be they low profit) and these all add up to desirable profits.

One final question.

Just because Foreigners may not be very profitable (or even slightly profitable) financially to Thailand, why is it assumed they should go or not be wanted anymore IF they are causing no problems, loss of jobs or costs to Thailand.

Regards, Dave

[PhiPhi]

Let us not forget MANY of us have Thai wives and children.

Does Immigration not feel it has a duty to ALSO protect its Thai citizens married and often dependent upon Foreign husbands (occasionally foreign wives) provided Thailand is not adversely affected or at risk.

I certainly sympathize with those who met their Thai significant others abroad, started families, and are having trouble getting the entire family moved over here, but those who started families on 30 day tourist visas are no different than illegal aliens in the west sneaking in, having babies, and claiming that they should be able to stay forever because their babies are there.

Heng,

I think you missed the point here, GDHM was making a point about the rights of Thai citizens to reside in Thailand with their chosen partner or the Thai national offspring's right to be brought up in Thailand by one or both of their parents. Assuming that a marraige of convenience is not the case it should be a citizens basic human right in any civilised country.

You obviously have issues with anybody who meets a potential Thai partner on a tourist visa,<Sarcasm> how dare they meet the love of their life on holiday and get married, whatever next and god forbid they should want to start a family!</Sarcasm>

I maintain that any foreigner regardless of their initial visa type should have the right to stay together with their family and the Thai family has the right to have the foreign wife/husband/child reside with them in Thailand. By all means scrutinise the legitamacy of the visa application but to make remarks like

those who started families on 30 day tourist visas are no different than illegal aliens in the west sneaking in, having babies, and claiming that they should be able to stay forever because their babies are there

are at best ingnorant and at worst insulting to the mixed Thai/Falang families who have built a life and struggled hard to raise a family.

Immigration policy is a contentious issue in any country, a mix of bureaucratic comprimises, economics, political pandering, xenophobia and vested interests but within that framework compassion and basic human rights should be accomodated.

PP

[gdhm]

Let us not forget MANY of us have Thai wives and children.

Does Immigration not feel it has a duty to ALSO protect its Thai citizens married and often dependent upon Foreign husbands (occasionally foreign wives) provided Thailand is not adversely affected or at risk.

I certainly sympathize with those who met their Thai significant others abroad, started families, and are having trouble getting the entire family moved over here, but those who started families on 30 day tourist visas are no different than illegal aliens in the west sneaking in, having babies, and claiming that they should be able to stay forever because their babies are there.

Heng,

I think you missed the point here, GDHM was making a point about the rights of Thai citizens to reside in Thailand with their chosen partner or the Thai national offspring's right to be brought up in Thailand by one or both of their parents. Assuming that a marraige of convenience is not the case it should be a citizens basic human right in any civilised country.

You obviously have issues with anybody who meets a potential Thai partner on a tourist visa,<Sarcasm> how dare they meet the love of their life on holiday and get married, whatever next and god forbid they should want to start a family!</Sarcasm>

I maintain that any foreigner regardless of their initial visa type should have the right to stay together with their family and the Thai family has the right to have the foreign wife/husband/child reside with them in Thailand. By all means scrutinise the legitamacy of the visa application but to make remarks like

those who started families on 30 day tourist visas are no different than illegal aliens in the west sneaking in, having babies, and claiming that they should be able to stay forever because their babies are there

are at best ingnorant and at worst insulting to the mixed Thai/Falang families who have built a life and struggled hard to raise a family.

Immigration policy is a contentious issue in any country, a mix of bureaucratic comprimises, economics, political pandering, xenophobia and vested interests but within that framework compassion and basic human rights should be accomodated.

PP

Thank you PP. You have expressed what I was trying to say perfectly.

Kindest Regards,

Dave

[Heng]

Let us not forget MANY of us have Thai wives and children.

Does Immigration not feel it has a duty to ALSO protect its Thai citizens married and often dependent upon Foreign husbands (occasionally foreign wives) provided Thailand is not adversely affected or at risk.

I certainly sympathize with those who met their Thai significant others abroad, started families, and are having trouble getting the entire family moved over here, but those who started families on 30 day tourist visas are no different than illegal aliens in the west sneaking in, having babies, and claiming that they should be able to stay forever because their babies are there.

Heng,

I think you missed the point here, GDHM was making a point about the rights of Thai citizens to reside in Thailand with their chosen partner or the Thai national offspring's right to be brought up in Thailand by one or both of their parents. Assuming that a marraige of convenience is not the case it should be a citizens basic human right in any civilised country.

You obviously have issues with anybody who meets a potential Thai partner on a tourist visa,<Sarcasm> how dare they meet the love of their life on holiday and get married, whatever next and god forbid they should want to start a family!</Sarcasm>

I maintain that any foreigner regardless of their initial visa type should have the right to stay together with their family and the Thai family has the right to have the foreign wife/husband/child reside with them in Thailand. By all means scrutinise the legitamacy of the visa application but to make remarks like

those who started families on 30 day tourist visas are no different than illegal aliens in the west sneaking in, having babies, and claiming that they should be able to stay forever because their babies are there

are at best ingnorant and at worst insulting to the mixed Thai/Falang families who have built a life and struggled hard to raise a family.

Immigration policy is a contentious issue in any country, a mix of bureaucratic comprimises, economics, political pandering, xenophobia and vested interests but within that framework compassion and basic human rights should be accomodated.

PP

I have nothing against any particular individuals who love each other, who want to start a family, etc. What I disagree with is doing those things without planning and with disregard to whatever the laws are. It makes for a good (not really) romance novel but it's also irresponsible (let's try to live here even though mom or dad will have to leave the country every 90 days and might one day be forced to leave forever). It's along the same lines of those who have children but cannot really afford to (I know I'll need to feed them and send them to school, but despite not having a chance in a thousand in being able to do so, let's make babies anyway!).

It's just a discussion, and I understand how some folks might feel rather emotional about it, but if we take emotion out of the equation, I think you'd see the reasoning behind the analogy. I do feel it's a child's right to be raised by one or more of their parents, however IMO it's not their parent's right to choose anywhere on the planet as that particular place (along the same lines as many people believe that not everyone should have a right to have unlimited children).

[Heng]

Regarding builders. In Spain builders liked nothing more than huge demand and I suspect Thailand is no different. If the builders are finding a Thai National market for almost ALL the homes they are building then capitalist logic says that if Foreigners ALSO require home then the builders will hire more workers and build more homes whilst there is a demand and "make hay whilst the sun shines".

At the end of the day, are the Farangs and foreigners living in Thailand damaging or beneficial to Thailand as a whole.

One of our family businesses is real estate development, with one neighborhood development having half of its homes sold out to foreigners of various nationalities. Despite this though, I'm not of the opinion of 'throw the door open, the more the merrier.' Controlled squeezing of the trigger is much better, not to mention orderly, just like at the shooting range.

It's not black and white (damaging or beneficial) and neither are the immigration policies. Some are good, but more doesn't always mean better, just like with most things in life. And again, surely there is nothing racist or xenophobic in practicing that. The problem is that no matter where you draw the line (and surely there must be some lines drawn), you can't make everyone happy. Someone is always going complain that the bar is a little too high or too low.... or that it should be 'just a little looser' so me and my family can squeeze in.

[gdhm]

I have nothing against any particular individuals who love each other, who want to start a family, etc. What I disagree with is doing those things without planning and with disregard to whatever the laws are. It makes for a good (not really) romance novel but it's also irresponsible (let's try to live here even though mom or dad will have to leave the country every 90 days and might one day be forced to leave forever). It's along the same lines of those who have children but cannot really afford to (I know I'll need to feed them and send them to school, but despite not having a chance in a thousand in being able to do so, let's make babies anyway!).

It's just a discussion, and I understand how some folks might feel rather emotional about it, but if we take emotion out of the equation, I think you'd see the reasoning behind the analogy. I do feel it's a child's right to be raised by one or more of their parents, however IMO it's not their parent's right to choose anywhere on the planet as that particular place (along the same lines as many people believe that not everyone should have a right to have unlimited children).

So Heng if I understand you correctly. If a Foreigner marries a Thai in Thailand has children and then in the future should Thailand bring in rules that would essentially force the foreigner out (originally permitted to stay, maybe for years). And IF his/her own country decided similar immigration rules. Then what do the husband and wife do? where does the child live? They ar eforcably separated (unless another more humane country is happy to take both foreign husband and wife and maybe children too. Thay is assumin gthe family can meet their immigration requirements.

I have to ask Heng how can you seriously remove emotion out of the equation. We ar enot robots. This scenario would do exactly what you say is undesirable "force the child to live with only one parent" AND also force one parent to visit every so many months (something else you disagree with).

You seem to assume what defines a true relationship. Namely if I undersatn you correctly, Not those who marry in haste, (especially if the foreigner was on a 30 day VOA).

A scernaio Heng: Maybe the couple decided to get a Visa to live in the foreigner's country but it was not permitted. Maybe the couple changed their minds about leaving Thailand and decided to live in Thailand legally and then applied for Visa.

I feel you are much to black and white and fail to consider the many individual scenarios.

My situation may not match EXACTLY the scenario your give BUT its close enough to the gist of what you are saying and your apparent views.

Well exposing my personal stupidity to make a point to you that the world is not black and white I offer you may story (greatly summarised of course)

I stupidly and naively fell in love over the Internet and came over without having seen my wife, and as you would expect it was a disaster and divorce ensued after 3 months. This would tend to prove you point.

I was physically with my nasty wife from hel_l for 6 weeks only (nothing personal against Thai Ladies but she was just an evil person who was selfish, money grabbing, violent, drinking, liar of the first magnitude). During that time I met her friend and interpreter (yes my wife lied about the English too until quite late on). She also had been duped and manipulated by my first wife.

During the 6 weeks this lady did everything in her power to help us but of course my wife was on her own agenda (and was only interested in her Thai boyfriend). When I came back 6 weeks later to divorce my first wife I met up with the lady as a friend I had come to know (via my first wife) who had been so nice and who had tried to help me so much. (We had communicated whilst I was in Spain (many times on behalf of my first wife who needed a "middle man" but we also spoke as friends).

We got on tremendously, and went on holiday (NO SEX) and fell in love very quickly and married two months after I had come to Thailand for my divorce. I was still on VOAs as my life up till then was uncertain and moving fast in an initially unexpected direction

Well no doubt by your assessment Heng I qualify for the type of person you have no sympathy for if forced to leave at as future date . Well after 18 months we are still tremendously in love and I love my stepson. I love my Thai extended family and have helped them as best I can despite not being well off.

Neither my Thai wife or I can see into the future but in our opinion we will be together when I (55) or she (43) dies.

I am sorry Heng, but like it or not, sometimes love comes very quickly, is genuine and lasts and the risks taken proved to be the best decision some take in their lives. It does not always follow the 12 month courtship, massive planning on every for for the future for ones life.

Of course by your views we should not be together now, and so happy and my wife would be a struggling teacher at the orphan/poor religious school that she taught at. My stepson would have no father and not great prospects of a good future. He has a bit better prospects now hopefully.

Take out the emotion you suggest . Sorry Heng NO WAY and NEVER!!! Emotions (which true love is one of the most powerful, and fulfilling and meaningful) is what makes us all human beings and you cannot categorize circumstance and love as easily as you seem to be able to. Yes my risk of remarrying so quickly again was very high risk. BUT it was the best risk and decision I have ever taken in my life and my wife feels the same

You say

It makes for a good (not really) romance novel but it's also irresponsible (let's try to live here even though mom or dad will have to leave the country every 90 days and might one day be forced to leave forever). /color]

...and might one day be forced to leave forever..

Oh so by you assessment never marry anybody not of your own country if you are not going to live in your own country, because although you are perfectly welcome to live in a country for many years you or your spouse may in 10,20 or 30 years be forced out by an Immigration rule change.

Ok then never marry a foreigner EVER and never live in another country other than your own. Are you seriously suggesting we all live for what may never happen in decades time and stay in our own countries (IF marriage is intended).

When I married my wife I was permitted to live in Thailand, my wife is Thai, my stepson is Thai, if we had children they would be Thai. They will always be permitted to live in Thailand I am still at present fully permitted to live in Thailand with my Thai National family.

and YES Heng (like it or not) I do feel I have a right to live with my Thai wife in this country that allowed me to marry and stay initially 100% legally. I obey ALL the rules, and I do NOT expect rules to later changed to trap me into parting with my family from their own country or else forcing me out of my wife's country and having to visit her and my stepson every few months (if I could afford that and afford running two homes).

Visiting like this is what you consider "irresponsible" but once again you have only envisaged that possibility from one scenario (marry without love or planning and husband and Thai wife see each other ever few months). I feel I and many others have seen the genuine dangers for the future as in my example I have given above.

I consider Thais to be humans and humane and yes I expect them to be humane as well.

I and many are not here incorrectly. We are here legally and its all too easy for ANY country (not only Thailand) to change the goal posts at some future date and tell us to get us, split our families or cause hardship NOT ONLY TO THE FOREIGNER but to the THAI NATIONALS AS WELL -maybe more so .

Possibly you may feel it acceptable to change rules that can cause this, without "grandfathering" but and many others DO NOT. Hopefully you feel the same way that Thailand (and any country) has the right and power to do so but that does not make such actions correct or justifiable without VERY GOOD REASON.

We foreigners never made the Thai Immigration rules. Thailand rightly did. Thailand made the loopholes (accidentally) but do NOT for one minute Heng kid yourself that Thailand raced to correct and plug those loopholes. The VOA was used for years in FULL knowledge of Thai Immigration. The law is the law and if there are loopholes then until the law is amended, use of those loopholes is 100% legal (if not moral) be they in Thailand or other countries .

Many people were eligible for Visas but found the VOAs an easier option and during those days found love and married. When Thailand eventually decided to close the loopholes most switched to VISAs (and were able to do so). At all time they were operating within Thai law.

Well I have had my "emotional" rant but that does not mean I would think differently if I removed my emotions. Maybe you can pull apart snippets of what I have said (fair enough and you ar every welcome I am not a World expert) but I feel the gist is sound and a valid point of views just as you feel yours is.

We beg to differ Heng.

Kind Regards,

Dave

[gdhm]

Regarding builders. In Spain builders liked nothing more than huge demand and I suspect Thailand is no different. If the builders are finding a Thai National market for almost ALL the homes they are building then capitalist logic says that if Foreigners ALSO require home then the builders will hire more workers and build more homes whilst there is a demand and "make hay whilst the sun shines".

At the end of the day, are the Farangs and foreigners living in Thailand damaging or beneficial to Thailand as a whole.

One of our family businesses is real estate development, with one neighborhood development having half of its homes sold out to foreigners of various nationalities. Despite this though, I'm not of the opinion of 'throw the door open, the more the merrier.' Controlled squeezing of the trigger is much better, not to mention orderly, just like at the shooting range.

It's not black and white (damaging or beneficial) and neither are the immigration policies. Some are good, but more doesn't always mean better, just like with most things in life. And again, surely there is nothing racist or xenophobic in practicing that. The problem is that no matter where you draw the line (and surely there must be some lines drawn), you can't make everyone happy. Someone is always going complain that the bar is a little too high or too low.... or that it should be 'just a little looser' so me and my family can squeeze in.

True but SOME can also say (out of equal self interest)

"I'm alright jack",

I'm not affected so it's OK, or

"I am happy I got in but now I don't want any others like me to get in"

These views may not necessarily equate with what's best for Thailand and its people

Of course you are correct that you do not want rampant building. That was Spain's error, concrete jungles, and now a down turn has left house prices tumbling and small demand. mass loss of jobs in the Estate Agency and building market even lawyers are feeling the pinch due to lost business of buying and selling houses My house in Spain that I have been trying to sell for 18 months is caught up in that scenario.

In MY previous message I was ONLY trying to address the assessment; words to effect "that there are now enough middle class Thais to buy up the Houses available and Farang purchasers were not needed now". I am sorry if I did not make myself clear on that point when I said that builders could easily expand to build more and get richer and supply more jobs.

Of course as I said Heng, they must not get carried away or when the bubble bursts, and it would for whatever reason ( maybe harsh Visa restrictions - he says mischievously ) and of course ALL would lose, especially Thais working for the builders and associated industries.

Kind regards, Dave

[Heng]

So Heng if I understand you correctly. If a Foreigner marries a Thai in Thailand has children and then in the future should Thailand bring in rules that would essentially force the foreigner out (originally permitted to stay, maybe for years). And IF his/her own country decided similar immigration rules. Then what do the husband and wife do? where does the child live? They ar eforcably separated (unless another more humane country is happy to take both foreign husband and wife and maybe children too. Thay is assumin gthe family can meet their immigration requirements.

Sounds like a b*tch of a situation. Don't have a solution for you, sorry. But yeah, there may be hoops and hurdles to immigrating to other countries as well.

I have to ask Heng how can you seriously remove emotion out of the equation. We ar enot robots. This scenario would do exactly what you say is undesirable "force the child to live with only one parent" AND also force one parent to visit every so many months (something else you disagree with).

Well, it's a discussion on an anonymous web forum. I don't think the emotion helps much (when the result of such discussions when emotion gets involved is often: they hate us! we hate them! they're racist! they're dooming themselves because they won't let me in!).

You seem to assume what defines a true relationship. Namely if I undersatn you correctly, Not those who marry in haste, (especially if the foreigner was on a 30 day VOA).

I'm not judging the relationship. I'm judging the poor decision making.

A scernaio Heng: Maybe the couple decided to get a Visa to live in the foreigner's country but it was not permitted. Maybe the couple changed their minds about leaving Thailand and decided to live in Thailand legally and then applied for Visa.

I stupidly and naively fell in love over the Internet and came over without having seen my wife, and as you would expect it was a disaster and divorce ensued after 3 months. This would tend to prove you point.

I am sorry Heng, but like it or not, sometimes love comes very quickly, is genuine and lasts and the risks taken proved to be the best decision some take in their lives. It does not always follow the 12 month courtship, massive planning on every for for the future for ones life.

Of course by your views we should not be together now, and so happy and my wife would be a struggling teacher at the orphan/poor religious school that she taught at. My stepson would have no father and not great prospects of a good future. He has a bit better prospects now hopefully.

Take out the emotion you suggest . Sorry Heng NO WAY and NEVER!!! Emotions (which true love is one of the most powerful, and fulfilling and meaningful) is what makes us all human beings and you cannot categorize circumstance and love as easily as you seem to be able to. Yes my risk of remarrying so quickly again was very high risk. BUT it was the best risk and decision I have ever taken in my life and my wife feels the same

You say

It makes for a good (not really) romance novel but it's also irresponsible (let's try to live here even though mom or dad will have to leave the country every 90 days and might one day be forced to leave forever). /color]

...and might one day be forced to leave forever..

Oh so by you assessment never marry anybody not of your own country if you are not going to live in your own country, because although you are perfectly welcome to live in a country for many years you or your spouse may in 10,20 or 30 years be forced out by an Immigration rule change.

and YES Heng (like it or not) I do feel I have a right to live with my Thai wife in this country that allowed me to marry and stay initially 100% legally. I obey ALL the rules, and I do NOT expect rules to later changed to trap me into parting with my family from their own country or else forcing me out of my wife's country and having to visit her and my stepson every few months (if I could afford that and afford running two homes).

Visiting like this is what you consider "irresponsible" but once again you have only envisaged that possibility from one scenario (marry without love or planning and husband and Thai wife see each other ever few months). I feel I and many others have seen the genuine dangers for the future as in my example I have given above.

I consider Thais to be humans and humane and yes I expect them to be humane as well.

I and many are not here incorrectly. We are here legally and its all too easy for ANY country (not only Thailand) to change the goal posts at some future date and tell us to get us, split our families or cause hardship NOT ONLY TO THE FOREIGNER but to the THAI NATIONALS AS WELL -maybe more so .

Possibly you may feel it acceptable to change rules that can cause this, without "grandfathering" but and many others DO NOT. Hopefully you feel the same way that Thailand (and any country) has the right and power to do so but that does not make such actions correct or justifiable without VERY GOOD REASON.

We foreigners never made the Thai Immigration rules. Thailand rightly did. Thailand made the loopholes (accidentally) but do NOT for one minute Heng kid yourself that Thailand raced to correct and plug those loopholes. The VOA was used for years in FULL knowledge of Thai Immigration. The law is the law and if there are loopholes then until the law is amended, use of those loopholes is 100% legal (if not moral) be they in Thailand or other countries .

Many people were eligible for Visas but found the VOAs an easier option and during those days found love and married. When Thailand eventually decided to close the loopholes most switched to VISAs (and were able to do so). At all time they were operating within Thai law.

Well I have had my "emotional" rant but that does not mean I would think differently if I removed my emotions. Maybe you can pull apart snippets of what I have said (fair enough and you ar every welcome I am not a World expert) but I feel the gist is sound and a valid point of views just as you feel yours is.

We beg to differ Heng.

Kind Regards,

Dave

Thank you for the detailed field report Dave. After reading the rest of your story, all I can say is again, I'm not judging the relationship. I'm judging the poor decision making (and before emotion kicks in again... let's say I'm not judging YOUR decision making but that of others like you who may have followed similar paths).

I do feel there should indeed be grandfathering of rules and requirements for permanent residents and naturalized citizens. It would indeed be unfair and immoral (in many cases) to change those rules and expect for folks to follow them. I've of course not had to go through any of this myself, but other TV members could possibly comment as to whether those particular goal posts are regularly moved or not (and those already in expected to update themselves to the new requirements.... I would suspect not, and would be surprised if that were the case). As for 'grandfathering' of particular loopholes, naturally I don't think this is viable nor do I think that anyone should feel they should have a right to continue to use a particular loophole once it's closed. It's like complaining that there "has never been a speed trap on this stretch of highway before!"

Good luck to you, Dave. More often than not, there's a solution out there somewhere.

[Heng]

Regarding builders. In Spain builders liked nothing more than huge demand and I suspect Thailand is no different. If the builders are finding a Thai National market for almost ALL the homes they are building then capitalist logic says that if Foreigners ALSO require home then the builders will hire more workers and build more homes whilst there is a demand and "make hay whilst the sun shines".

At the end of the day, are the Farangs and foreigners living in Thailand damaging or beneficial to Thailand as a whole.

One of our family businesses is real estate development, with one neighborhood development having half of its homes sold out to foreigners of various nationalities. Despite this though, I'm not of the opinion of 'throw the door open, the more the merrier.' Controlled squeezing of the trigger is much better, not to mention orderly, just like at the shooting range.

It's not black and white (damaging or beneficial) and neither are the immigration policies. Some are good, but more doesn't always mean better, just like with most things in life. And again, surely there is nothing racist or xenophobic in practicing that. The problem is that no matter where you draw the line (and surely there must be some lines drawn), you can't make everyone happy. Someone is always going complain that the bar is a little too high or too low.... or that it should be 'just a little looser' so me and my family can squeeze in.

True but SOME can also say (out of equal self interest)

"I'm alright jack",

I'm not affected so it's OK, or

"I am happy I got in but now I don't want any others like me to get in"

These views may not necessarily equate with what's best for Thailand and its people

Of course you are correct that you do not want rampant building. That was Spain's error, concrete jungles, and now a down turn has left house prices tumbling and small demand. mass loss of jobs in the Estate Agency and building market even lawyers are feeling the pinch due to lost business of buying and selling houses My house in Spain that I have been trying to sell for 18 months is caught up in that scenario.

In MY previous message I was ONLY trying to address the assessment; words to effect "that there are now enough middle class Thais to buy up the Houses available and Farang purchasers were not needed now". I am sorry if I did not make myself clear on that point when I said that builders could easily expand to build more and get richer and supply more jobs.

I wasn't saying 'I'm not affected so it's OK.' I am happy but I'm not saying there wouldn't be an effect. Our home sales and rental income would take a rather serious hit.

I'm saying, without getting emotionally involved at the loss of income and potential loss of work hours/daily wages/extras for our construction crews, it's not all about the money.

I'm saying it's simplistic and irrational to say things like: "that there are now enough middle class Thais to buy up the Houses available and Farang purchasers were not needed now" OR "without foreigners and falangs the economy will likely grind to a halt." It's not black and white and again, a controlled take of the situation is IMO the best approach.

[rexall]

<snip>Well, it's a discussion on an anonymous web forum. I don't think the emotion helps much (when the result of such discussions when emotion gets involved is often: they hate us! we hate them! they're racist! they're dooming themselves because they won't let me in!). <snip>

Thank you for the detailed field report Dave. After reading the rest of your story, all I can say is again, I'm not judging the relationship. I'm judging the poor decision making (and before emotion kicks in again... let's say I'm not judging YOUR decision making but that of others like you who may have followed similar paths). <snip>

Fri 21 Sep 07, 8:49 a.m.

Your obvious discomfort with emotions is noted, and I applaud your desire to be rational, but I also agree with Dave that these issues are often emotional, and only Mr. Spoke of Star Trek would find it healthy or desirable to be so entirely cerebral in the face of issues of such consequence. Also note that this stylistic preference of yours may make you appear a "cold fish", as aloof and unsympathetic to your peers. I am sure that you are not really that way, but one could easily get that impression from the way you express yourself.

You apparently have no problem giving yourself permission to judge the member's "poor decision making" (your opinion), but but find it specious when I make a similar judgment about the behavior of the bureaucracy (racist, xenophobic). BTW, for the record, I did not call anyone "racist" or "xenophobic", I was judging behavior. I would never presume to know what goes on in anyone's head or heart. You may find the terms xenophobic and particularly racist stark, but they are really quite straight-forward descriptions of behavior. Your previous argument that it couldn't be racist because the imm. policy applies to all races is . . . ah . . . I can't even find an appropriate adjective! What is so difficult about imagining someone to be prejudiced against all "races" other than their own, or xenophobic toward all people whom they deem to be outsiders. . Xenophobia and racism involve singling out a particular group(s) for special treatment, usually meaning mistreatment.

Racism and xenophobia is alive and well in Asia, and Thailand is no exception. The Chinese say, "If you see an Indian and a cobra, kill the Indian!" I go go on considerably with amusing and no-so-amusing examples. The only ones who seem to have made some headway are the Singaporeans who have constructed a society where people live in relative harmony because they make so much money from each other on a relatively level playing field. Profitable trade always takes the edge of racism. But I digress.

Bottom line, unless someone can provide a rational explanation for the oft irrational policies, I am sticking to my story! It's better that way, really. Otherwise, you just chase your tale around-and-around trying to make sense of something that makes no sense.

Aloha,

Rex

[Heng]

Your obvious discomfort with emotions is noted, and I applaud your desire to be rational, but I also agree with Dave that these issues are often emotional, and only Mr. Spoke of Star Trek would find it healthy or desirable to be so entirely cerebral in the face of issues of such consequence. Also note that this stylistic preference of yours may make you appear a "cold fish", as aloof and unsympathetic to your peers. I am sure that you are not really that way, but one could easily get that impression from the way you express yourself.

You apparently have no problem giving yourself permission to judge the member's "poor decision making" (your opinion), but but find it specious when I make a similar judgment about the behavior of the bureaucracy (racist, xenophobic). BTW, for the record, I did not call anyone "racist" or "xenophobic", I was judging behavior. I would never presume to know what goes on in anyone's head or heart. You may find the terms xenophobic and particularly racist stark, but they are really quite straight-forward descriptions of behavior. Your previous argument that it couldn't be racist because the imm. policy applies to all races is . . . ah . . . I can't even find an appropriate adjective! What is so difficult about imagining someone to be prejudiced against all "races" other than their own, or xenophobic toward all people whom they deem to be outsiders. . Xenophobia and racism involve singling out a particular group(s) for special treatment, usually meaning mistreatment.

Racism and xenophobia is alive and well in Asia, and Thailand is no exception. The Chinese say, "If you see an Indian and a cobra, kill the Indian!" I go go on considerably with amusing and no-so-amusing examples. The only ones who seem to have made some headway are the Singaporeans who have constructed a society where people live in relative harmony because they make so much money from each other on a relatively level playing field. Profitable trade always takes the edge of racism. But I digress.

Bottom line, unless someone can provide a rational explanation for the oft irrational policies, I am sticking to my story! It's better that way, really. Otherwise, you just chase your tale around-and-around trying to make sense of something that makes no sense.

Aloha,

Rex

aloha Rex,

No discomfort here... just trying to converse without folks getting all emotional. And again, I am simply disagreeing with your conclusions or opinions that the current immigration policy is racist or xenophobic... as it applies to all races, nationalities, and even Thais. Although, yes, I suppose it's possible that people of the same race and nationality can be racist and xenophobic towards each other AND/OR all others, if that's what you're trying to get technical about.

And yes, I certainly agree that it's alive and well in Asia, Thailand, and the world over. And I am familiar with the saying, it's a Chinese saying for Hokkien and Teochiu Chinese in Thailand, Malaysia, AND Singapore. It's a 'meant for humor' warning that arose from thousands of business dealings between Indians and Chinese that went awry. Some work out, some don't. Even our family lost out quite a bit to Pakistani family in a joint venture that went south in Texas. I certainly still have friends of Indian/Pakistani descent, although they might not be my first choice in business partner in the future.

[Spaniel]

I have lived here for many years and i dont know anyone who is considering leaving because of the visa regulations. I have been on a retirement visa for 8 years now and have never had a problem renewing.

[rexall]

And yes, I certainly agree that it's alive and well in Asia, Thailand, and the world over. And I am familiar with the saying, it's a Chinese saying for Hokkien and Teochiu Chinese in Thailand, Malaysia, AND Singapore. It's a 'meant for humor' warning that arose from thousands of business dealings between Indians and Chinese that went awry. Some work out, some don't. Even our family lost out quite a bit to Pakistani family in a joint venture that went south in Texas. I certainly still have friends of Indian/Pakistani descent, although they might not be my first choice in business partner in the future.

Fri 21 Sep 07, 10:16 a.m.

Heng,

You make some good points here. And for those tuning in who may not be familiar with the Asian brand of racism, although one can certainly point to plenty of instances of sheer horror that was racist in nature, for the most part, it is not that bad, certainly not like the old apartheid in the U.S. and South Africa, or what happend in the Belgium Congo and elsewhere in Africa, not to mention Nazi Germany. As you suggest, it can be almost good natured sometimes. In my opinion, I think that almost everyone probably has some racist thoughts, feelings and tendencies. I know I certainly do, but I also try to be aware of and to dispute them when I catch myself. At the same time, I also firmly support a level playing field, fair treatment and racial equality, and suspension of all the other "ists" "isms" and "ics".

However, for anyone to to pull a Casablanca "I am shocked, shocked to discover there is racism going on here!" (With apologies for misquoting Capt. Renault) is, as you would say, unhelpful. But true, some reading this may assume I am making more of a boogie man out of it than I actually am. I think it is fairly normal behavior of human beans.

However, whatever drives it, many of the imm. policies are very inconvenient, to say the least, and would seem to have no absolutely rational or useful basis. To in essence penalize people for no good reason (or even for the slightly more sinister reason of xenophobia, et al) is . . . yes . . . unhelpful.

Aloha,

Rex

Edited September 21, 2007 by rexall

[LivinLOS]

I don't have a list of all the "third world" countries (IMO the third world label is along the same lines of the wounded ego thing in the "I can't immigrate to Thailand" school of thought/whinge; not saying this is true in your case of course), but the first that come to mind are:

Turkmenistan

Zimbabwe

Burma

Cuba

Libya

North Korea

Somalia

Sudan

Uzbekistan

Chechnya

Tibet

Cote d’Ivoire

Equatorial Guinea

Eritrea

Laos

Are you really comparing Thailand immgration desirability with N Koreas ?? Or Sudan and Eritrea ???

Oddly enough I have family living and lived in Zim since it was Smiths Rhodesia, my auntie was the first woman to ever be issued a liquir license and ran a crazy honkytonk in Bullawayo.. My favorite (female) cousin went out and easily (tho I dont know the details) lived there until the troubles got too bad for her and her new family..

Your really reaching at straws.. Lets compare Thailand to countries of a similar economic and tourism based status ?? Much of central America, Asia (outside of military controlled or communist closed societies)..

As I said even comparing Thailand to many first world countries, where the infrastructure and benefits system has something to lose, its immigration polices are far harsher for me and harder to become stable there long term. That seems incredible to me.

All in all it doesnt bother me.. I know I can buy my visa's (20k for a non imm O here ATM) or fly to go get one, of form a loss making company, pay for a language course, even have a marriage, or 'get around' loose laws as thats seems to be how Thailand like to play them, Thailand like the grey and not the black and white.. But I also wont bring in real money.. I rent instead of buy (I would have put 20 - 40 mil into a villa if I could own it) I keep myself liquid and dont trust anything I am told by authority as they have proven to be unreliable. That lack of commitment has cost Thailand financially as much as >1 million USD from me alone.. How many more like me ??

[gdhm]

I wasn't saying 'I'm not affected so it's OK.' I am happy but I'm not saying there wouldn't be an effect. Our home sales and rental income would take a rather serious hit.

I'm saying, without getting emotionally involved at the loss of income and potential loss of work hours/daily wages/extras for our construction crews, it's not all about the money.

I'm saying it's simplistic and irrational to say things like: "that there are now enough middle class Thais to buy up the Houses available and Farang purchasers were not needed now" OR "without foreigners and falangs the economy will likely grind to a halt." It's not black and white and again, a controlled take of the situation is IMO the best approach.

Hi Heng

Sorry Heng, I was not suggesting for a moment that YOU were saying "you are not affected so thats OK".

I was throwing in a few other alternative views as samples of different attitudes and reasoning. I was targeting or referring to anybody in particular at all.

I have read many posts where individuals seem to be going down some of these lines. I fully appreciated that your comments on this subject were observations and considered opinions and NOT I'm OK

By the way I appreciate the way you respond to different opinions or thoughts to your own with reasoning of your viewpoint.

I personally have no problem at all with views (whether I agree with them or not) if backed up with some thought process so I and others can understand where writer is coming from and why.

With regard to

"I'm saying, without getting emotionally involved at the loss of income and potential loss of work hours/daily wages/extras for our construction crews, it's not all about the money".

I accept that is your view. Regretfully in my 18 months in Thailand IF I have one criticism it is that that for too many it IS all about money. I see poor Thais buying amulets and making merit often in order to have luck with or more money and not for other things.

I see young ladies of friends and acquaintances (sometimes pushed by parents) hunting loveless marriages with Farangs with the only real motive being their money, comfort and security. Such a terrible shame that so many of these ladies are Nice people binded to the fact that money is not everything and certainly money does not equate BY ITSELF with "being a good man"

I know a 27 year member of my wife's family at this very moment. She has a US fiancée (who to be honest does not seems very responsive or untested in her or willing to get on with things it and has been aways from Thailand for 5 months. She most of the 5 months has been chatting on the dating sites and went to meet a man for 3 days in Bangkok only last week.

My wife tells me that her sister (married to a US man) said and I quote "xxxxx told me that both men are nice and have a lot of money. I will marry the first one who comes to Thailand and to marry me". As I said one of these mane she met for 3 days. He supposedly came all the way from UK to see her FOR 3 DAYS).

I told my wife that she should somehow subtly suggest to her family member that coming all that way for 3 days is HIGHLY unlikely and more likely several Ladies are being visited and 3 day meeting "does not a marriage make" I SHOULD KNOW with my errors with my first wife.

I know the girl and that she will honour any marriage and stay with her husband and look after him BUT WHERE IS THE LOVE.

By the way the sister that spoke to my wife, married a US man and has a child by him. Motivation was parents and she wanted her to marry a rich US man (not English as they are Khi Nok according to the mother - as an Englishman thanks or that). She have a 2 year old son and the husband has been away working 12 months non stop Hmmmm...

Don't see much love either way, but actually more from her than him.

Once again very sad. These Ladies come from a nice family and are University educated.

I know of so many others men and ladies where money seems to be nearly everything(including my first wife - it was her god together with Gold. She told one of her friends (cam back to me) she did not care who got hurt as she must look after herself, and I quote "Farangs are rich they can easily earn more money if they lose it to a Thai Lady").

Very sad all too often things DO seem to be about money. I understand the pressures in such a poor country of course

. I also know a large amount of poor Thai by anybodies standards where money thankfully is not their God.

Sorry this is off subject everybody

Kind regards, Dave

[gdhm]

...Thank you for the detailed field report Dave. After reading the rest of your story, all I can say is again, I'm not judging the relationship. I'm judging the poor decision making (and before emotion kicks in again... let's say I'm not judging YOUR decision making but that of others like you who may have followed similar paths).

I do feel there should indeed be grandfathering of rules and requirements for permanent residents and naturalized citizens. It would indeed be unfair and immoral (in many cases) to change those rules and expect for folks to follow them. I've of course not had to go through any of this myself, but other TV members could possibly comment as to whether those particular goal posts are regularly moved or not (and those already in expected to update themselves to the new requirements.... I would suspect not, and would be surprised if that were the case). As for 'grandfathering' of particular loopholes, naturally I don't think this is viable nor do I think that anyone should feel they should have a right to continue to use a particular loophole once it's closed. It's like complaining that there "has never been a speed trap on this stretch of highway before!"

Good luck to you, Dave. More often than not, there's a solution out there somewhere....

Thank you Heng and thanks for taking the time to respond in details.

Thankfully I am not affected at present and am able to make the Visa requirements.

I of course fear one or two of the scenarios I have previously raised. I know I am not rich and I know I can give my wonderful family a good life IN THAILAND on the money I do have BUT if forced back to the EU (be it Spain or UK) things would be VERY different and I feel my family would suffer badly both not just financially). I am not sure it would be fair or loving to ask them to go with me if I had to leave.

In addition to my wife and stepson I have a 10 year old niece of my wife to care for on behalf of her "currently out of work" single mum in Bangkok (employer closed down). The little lass has been like a sister to my stepson for 2.5 years of his 4 year old life (living with my wife and Aunt where I lived for me first 14 months of marriage). The mum only gets enough money to see her daughter for a week once a year. The mum was dumped by a Thai man after several years of an unmarried relationship. For the niece my wife and I are like "foster" parents.

3 would suffer if I could not stay here (well 4 including me). Hopefully it will never happen.

My biggest regret with the current situation of VISA uncertainty is home building.

When I married my wife I promised her that when my house in Spain sold I would buy us a house and car. My wife (no money grabber) has been content without either now for 18 months. Now with all the VISA uncertainties I am saying to her it may be the biggest mistake of my life (and hers) for me to buy a house in Thailand in the present climate because if I was forced to leave due to future Visa rules then we could not afford to do so without the income from the house sale (which may take years). Equally, if I alone left, then I would not have enough money to support myself abroad and my family and our house in Thailand with most of my assets tied up in our Thai home.

I may well risk it. I love my wife too much to deny her for the rest of her life on what might never happen. Nasty dilemma.

Renting is a reasonable and logical solution (as many have said) but Rental houses never really feel like your own home and you are so restricted with what you are allowed to do or change.

Kindest Regards Heng

Dave

[Heng]

I don't have a list of all the "third world" countries (IMO the third world label is along the same lines of the wounded ego thing in the "I can't immigrate to Thailand" school of thought/whinge; not saying this is true in your case of course), but the first that come to mind are:

Turkmenistan

Zimbabwe

Burma

Cuba

Libya

North Korea

Somalia

Sudan

Uzbekistan

Chechnya

Tibet

Cote d’Ivoire

Equatorial Guinea

Eritrea

Laos

Are you really comparing Thailand immgration desirability with N Koreas ?? Or Sudan and Eritrea ???

Oddly enough I have family living and lived in Zim since it was Smiths Rhodesia, my auntie was the first woman to ever be issued a liquir license and ran a crazy honkytonk in Bullawayo.. My favorite (female) cousin went out and easily (tho I dont know the details) lived there until the troubles got too bad for her and her new family..

Your really reaching at straws.. Lets compare Thailand to countries of a similar economic and tourism based status ?? Much of central America, Asia (outside of military controlled or communist closed societies)..

As I said even comparing Thailand to many first world countries, where the infrastructure and benefits system has something to lose, its immigration polices are far harsher for me and harder to become stable there long term. That seems incredible to me.

All in all it doesnt bother me.. I know I can buy my visa's (20k for a non imm O here ATM) or fly to go get one, of form a loss making company, pay for a language course, even have a marriage, or 'get around' loose laws as thats seems to be how Thailand like to play them, Thailand like the grey and not the black and white.. But I also wont bring in real money.. I rent instead of buy (I would have put 20 - 40 mil into a villa if I could own it) I keep myself liquid and dont trust anything I am told by authority as they have proven to be unreliable. That lack of commitment has cost Thailand financially as much as >1 million USD from me alone.. How many more like me ??

Not talking about desireability at all. I asked you a question based on your comment:

"Its by far the most stringent of any I have encountered in the 3rd world.. "

I presume you're were going to then mention a few or perhaps dozens of 3rd world countries that are easier to immigrate to.

I'm with you though, all in all it doesn't bother me either.

[PhiPhi]

I have nothing against any particular individuals who love each other, who want to start a family, etc. What I disagree with is doing those things without planning and with disregard to whatever the laws are.

Up until very recently the laws recognized and protected the rights of Thai citizens and it was perfectly legal for a foreigner to stay with his Thai family. So what's your point exactly?

It makes for a good (not really) romance novel but it's also irresponsible (let's try to live here even though mom or dad will have to leave the country every 90 days and might one day be forced to leave forever).

To the contrary, it is irresponsible to implement retroactive immigration policies which split mixed families apart.

It's along the same lines of those who have children but cannot really afford to (I know I'll need to feed them and send them to school, but despite not having a chance in a thousand in being able to do so, let's make babies anyway!).

Procreation is hard wired into every living creature and if that drive was not strong none of us would be here today. If the poor did not have babies where would all that cheap labor to build your housing developments come from?

It's just a discussion, and I understand how some folks might feel rather emotional about it, but if we take emotion out of the equation, I think you'd see the reasoning behind the analogy.

I don't see any reasoning behind the analogy and it appears that perhaps unknowingly you are taking a rather irrational and emotional stance. As I understand it you are of the opinion that anybody caught in the immigration law change trap are getting what they justly deserve for being so irresponsible to marry a Thai, reside with their family in Thailand and expect basic humane treatment from the powers that be.

I do feel it's a child's right to be raised by one or more of their parents, however IMO it's not their parent's right to choose anywhere on the planet as that particular place (along the same lines as many people believe that not everyone should have a right to have unlimited children).

The parents are not choosing anywhere on the planet they are trying to choose one of their countries of origin, where do you expect them to live? Should we expect so little freedom in our lives that we can only partner with our own countrymen or women, last century there were a group of German fellows who thought that was the way to go however, thankfully the rest of the world thought differently.

PP

[PeaceBlondie]

Finally I'll comment on Heng's statement. Originally, back one or two pages, , "QUOTE(Heng @ 2007-09-18 15:05:57) those who started families on 30 day tourist visas are no different than illegal aliens in the west sneaking in, having babies, and claiming that they should be able to stay forever because their babies are there."

That's right! The mere fact that you were in Thailand (or Texas or wherever) and deposited sperm while you were in that country on less than a reasonably long term (five to twenty year) visa, does not give you the right to live in that country forever, or indefinitely.

"Retroactive" is not the same as a lack of grandfathering, or fathering. Virtually nobody except those who have jumped through hoops to get PR status deserves to be here for more than the next 30 or 366 days, by law. There's no law against falling in love with a lovely Thai lady and depositing sperm, but if it fertilizes, you have never had a guarantee or promise from the immigration authorities, that you can stay long enough to see that kid in anuban school.

Come to think of it, my youngest son impregnated a lovely Irish lass in Dallas, Texas, and as soon as she was on overstay and pregnant, they moved permanently to Ireland, where the baby will soon start kindergarten. But my son is lucky that he gets to live in Ireland, and my daughter-in-law knew she wasn't guaranteed a place to stay in the USA forever.

I doubt that farang who impregnated their Thai girlfriends or wives will be forced to leave this lovely kingdom. But if they are forced, it won't be because some clause in the law got grandfathered. It will be proof that they were never guaranteed to see their kid grow up. And that will be a crying shame, but it won't be entirely the fault of Thailand's immigration law.

[Heng]

Thanks for showing up, dad. That's pretty much a summary of what I was saying, although in a nicer way. I still have to work on that 'nice' part.

[Heng]

I have nothing against any particular individuals who love each other, who want to start a family, etc. What I disagree with is doing those things without planning and with disregard to whatever the laws are.

Up until very recently the laws recognized and protected the rights of Thai citizens and it was perfectly legal for a foreigner to stay with his Thai family. So what's your point exactly?

Exactly what I said above.

To the contrary, it is irresponsible to implement retroactive immigration policies which split mixed families apart.

To the contrary, it's irresponsible to start a family without plans/arrangement for permanent shelter.

It's along the same lines of those who have children but cannot really afford to (I know I'll need to feed them and send them to school, but despite not having a chance in a thousand in being able to do so, let's make babies anyway!).

Procreation is hard wired into every living creature and if that drive was not strong none of us would be here today. If the poor did not have babies where would all that cheap labor to build your housing developments come from?

You're right about that. And some people have more forethought and better timing than others. If the poor did not have babies, I'd probably have to break out the wicked set of tools hanging on the wall of my storage shed and build things myself.

It's just a discussion, and I understand how some folks might feel rather emotional about it, but if we take emotion out of the equation, I think you'd see the reasoning behind the analogy.

I don't see any reasoning behind the analogy and it appears that perhaps unknowingly you are taking a rather irrational and emotional stance. As I understand it you are of the opinion that anybody caught in the immigration law change trap are getting what they justly deserve for being so irresponsible to marry a Thai, reside with their family in Thailand and expect basic humane treatment from the powers that be.

Again, I'm not judging the decision to marry or have children... I'm judging the lack of planning beforehand.

I do feel it's a child's right to be raised by one or more of their parents, however IMO it's not their parent's right to choose anywhere on the planet as that particular place (along the same lines as many people believe that not everyone should have a right to have unlimited children).

The parents are not choosing anywhere on the planet they are trying to choose one of their countries of origin, where do you expect them to live? Should we expect so little freedom in our lives that we can only partner with our own countrymen or women, last century there were a group of German fellows who thought that was the way to go however, thankfully the rest of the world thought differently.

Not at all. Again, people should marry who they wish to marry. But they should choose a country where they are BOTH legally allowed to permanently reside (whether automatically or by way of getting legal). And yes, some thought should be given to this before they head over to the county courthouse or local district office and certainly before they start pumping out babies.

(Heng)

[Khun ?]

Regarding builders. In Spain builders liked nothing more than huge demand and I suspect Thailand is no different. If the builders are finding a Thai National market for almost ALL the homes they are building then capitalist logic says that if Foreigners ALSO require home then the builders will hire more workers and build more homes whilst there is a demand and "make hay whilst the sun shines".

At the end of the day, are the Farangs and foreigners living in Thailand damaging or beneficial to Thailand as a whole.

One of our family businesses is real estate development, with one neighborhood development having half of its homes sold out to foreigners of various nationalities. Despite this though, I'm not of the opinion of 'throw the door open, the more the merrier.' Controlled squeezing of the trigger is much better, not to mention orderly, just like at the shooting range.

It's not black and white (damaging or beneficial) and neither are the immigration policies. Some are good, but more doesn't always mean better, just like with most things in life. And again, surely there is nothing racist or xenophobic in practicing that. The problem is that no matter where you draw the line (and surely there must be some lines drawn), you can't make everyone happy. Someone is always going complain that the bar is a little too high or too low.... or that it should be 'just a little looser' so me and my family can squeeze in.

Just in case it was not asked before. Is your prices for foreigners the same as a local being that you provide a commodity to both.

[Macx]

.... I keep myself liquid and dont trust anything I am told by authority as they have proven to be unreliable. That lack of commitment has cost Thailand financially as much as >1 million USD from me alone.. How many more like me ??

+1

[Khun ?]

...Thank you for the detailed field report Dave. After reading the rest of your story, all I can say is again, I'm not judging the relationship. I'm judging the poor decision making (and before emotion kicks in again... let's say I'm not judging YOUR decision making but that of others like you who may have followed similar paths).

I do feel there should indeed be grandfathering of rules and requirements for permanent residents and naturalized citizens. It would indeed be unfair and immoral (in many cases) to change those rules and expect for folks to follow them. I've of course not had to go through any of this myself, but other TV members could possibly comment as to whether those particular goal posts are regularly moved or not (and those already in expected to update themselves to the new requirements.... I would suspect not, and would be surprised if that were the case). As for 'grandfathering' of particular loopholes, naturally I don't think this is viable nor do I think that anyone should feel they should have a right to continue to use a particular loophole once it's closed. It's like complaining that there "has never been a speed trap on this stretch of highway before!"

Good luck to you, Dave. More often than not, there's a solution out there somewhere....

Thank you Heng and thanks for taking the time to respond in details.

Thankfully I am not affected at present and am able to make the Visa requirements.

I of course fear one or two of the scenarios I have previously raised. I know I am not rich and I know I can give my wonderful family a good life IN THAILAND on the money I do have BUT if forced back to the EU (be it Spain or UK) things would be VERY different and I feel my family would suffer badly both not just financially). I am not sure it would be fair or loving to ask them to go with me if I had to leave.

In addition to my wife and stepson I have a 10 year old niece of my wife to care for on behalf of her "currently out of work" single mum in Bangkok (employer closed down). The little lass has been like a sister to my stepson for 2.5 years of his 4 year old life (living with my wife and Aunt where I lived for me first 14 months of marriage). The mum only gets enough money to see her daughter for a week once a year. The mum was dumped by a Thai man after several years of an unmarried relationship. For the niece my wife and I are like "foster" parents.

3 would suffer if I could not stay here (well 4 including me). Hopefully it will never happen.

My biggest regret with the current situation of VISA uncertainty is home building.

When I married my wife I promised her that when my house in Spain sold I would buy us a house and car. My wife (no money grabber) has been content without either now for 18 months. Now with all the VISA uncertainties I am saying to her it may be the biggest mistake of my life (and hers) for me to buy a house in Thailand in the present climate because if I was forced to leave due to future Visa rules then we could not afford to do so without the income from the house sale (which may take years). Equally, if I alone left, then I would not have enough money to support myself abroad and my family and our house in Thailand with most of my assets tied up in our Thai home.

I may well risk it. I love my wife too much to deny her for the rest of her life on what might never happen. Nasty dilemma.

Renting is a reasonable and logical solution (as many have said) but Rental houses never really feel like your own home and you are so restricted with what you are allowed to do or change.

Kindest Regards Heng

Dave

And money grubbing thais and foreiners alike will make sure it never feels like your home country also.

Edited September 22, 2007 by Khun ?

[gdhm]

Not at all. Again, people should marry who they wish to marry. But they should choose a country where they are BOTH legally allowed to permanently reside (whether automatically or by way of getting legal). And yes, some thought should be given to this before they head over to the county courthouse or local district office and certainly before they start pumping out babies.

(Heng)

True Heng,

BUT then what exactly is "a country where they are BOTH legally allowed to permanently reside (whether automatically or by way of getting legal)".

Even if able to qualify and being granted PR or Nationalisation, that can be removed at the will of a Countries future (or even rules within existing laws).

Also, I do not know of ANY country in the World that would commit itself to NEVER being able to change or reverse a previously granted "Permanent Right of Residency" to foreigners forever. Do you?

If you live in the EU you seem to have a permanent right of residence in another EU country - but do you??

What happens IF say, the UK withdrew form the EU . Then UK citizens rights would be lost immediately is ended.

I feel in reality the only certain Permanent Residency is in your OWN country which eliminates ALL "mixed country marriages", because nothing else is certain.

Coming to think of it, even that is not certain. I can think of some highly undesirable countries who have forced out their own Nationals and citizens (probable death if they do not "choose to leave")

So I suppose with complete safety planning in mind. Do NOT marry or have children at all, even in your own country.

a few generations = end of the human race on Earth, end of the need for Immigration Police and rules

PROBLEMS SOLVED

Regards, Dave

Edited September 22, 2007 by gdhm

[Kaojai]

For every one that leaves, four come in to take their place.

That is absolute Crap !

Have you sen the latest TAT figures................obviously not.

Then who is it filling up all the new condos in Pattaya (and presumably elsewhere)? They keep building them and refurbishing older ones and they keep selling them, and not just to Thais. I only wish View Talay and that other humungous place planned to start soon would stop building. In January the beaches used to be crowded and in August they were almost empty. Now in January it's just about SRO and even in August there are loads of farang.

Everytime something happens, whether it's early closing for bars or stricter rules about "entertainment" or the strengthening baht or visa rule changes or the tsunami or the military coup ... the usual suspects proclaim that property values will plunge and that no one will ever come to Thailand again and that the economy is in tatters and everyone who is already here is leaving.

You don't need TAT figures to see that the number of farangs on the ground, whether tourists or long-term residents, is increasing. And from the looks of them, the ones you see are better off financially than were their earlier counterparts and they're not the sort who park on a barstool 12 hours a day.

[gdhm]

....Then who is it filling up all the new condos in Pattaya (and presumably elsewhere)? They keep building them and refurbishing older ones and they keep selling them, and not just to Thais. I only wish View Talay and that other humungous place planned to start soon would stop building. In January the beaches used to be crowded and in August they were almost empty. Now in January it's just about SRO and even in August there are loads of farang.

Everytime something happens, whether it's early closing for bars or stricter rules about "entertainment" or the strengthening baht or visa rule changes or the tsunami or the military coup ... the usual suspects proclaim that property values will plunge and that no one will ever come to Thailand again and that the economy is in tatters and everyone who is already here is leaving.

You don't need TAT figures to see that the number of farangs on the ground, whether tourists or long-term residents, is increasing. And from the looks of them, the ones you see are better off financially than were their earlier counterparts and they're not the sort who park on a barstool 12 hours a day.

And you don't need to live in Pattaya and base the figures purely on condo sales in Pattay which is a known hot spot for tourists (especially for certain groups of tourists and long term stayers).

Pattaya is not the only part of thailand where tourists come and go or where Foreigners choose or wish to live.

Regards, Dave

Edited September 22, 2007 by gdhm