People Leaving Due To Visa Restriction

[Heng]

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.

Of course they are. This isn't a minimart or national park we're running here.

[Heng]

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

Point taken, of course nothing is certain in life.

IMO if you have established or at least qualified/well on the way for permanent residency (in the LOS... being a resident alien/green card holder in the US... and whatever it's called elsewhere), and actually I have don't have a particular issue with visa runners in some cases: if you're already old or if you're perhaps terminally ill but have the illness under control or are managing it with treatment.... an X year or X month type long/medium term visas (still of course subject to whatever changes in the future... since none of those are meant to be immigration visas) and simply want to be with your family; you've taken the necessary steps within reason to start a family.

With retirees for example (including young folks who can prove their investment income), I believe they SHOULD be afforded long term 5-10-15 year visas -subject to periodic inspection- even if they don't qualify for permanent residency if they can prove they can support their families and that their relationships are in fact legitimate (in order to not just protect the local but also the immigrant him/herself) on a case by case basis. Sometimes you see 70-80 year old foreigners at Suan Phlu immigration, obviously not in the best of health, trying to make futile stands "no no no no I will not stand for this!" and you can't help but feel sorry for them. IMO some cases border on senior abuse. So yes, there should be case by case exceptions made for those caught in the broad brush immigration rule nets. I'm just saying I don't agree with those who believe more/less foreigners = bad or good.

Edited September 23, 2007 by Heng

[LivinLOS]

With retirees for example (including young folks who can prove their investment income), I believe they SHOULD be afforded long term 5-10-15 year visas -subject to periodic inspection- even if they don't qualify for permanent residency if they can prove they can support their families and that their relationships are in fact legitimate (in order to not just protect the local but also the immigrant him/herself) on a case by case basis. Sometimes you see 70-80 year old foreigners at Suan Phlu immigration, obviously not in the best of health, trying to make futile stands "no no no no I will not stand for this!" and you can't help but feel sorry for them. IMO some cases border on senior abuse. So yes, there should be case by case exceptions made for those caught in the broad brush immigration rule nets. I'm just saying I don't agree with those who believe more/less foreigners = bad or good.

Actually heres something I do firmly agree with you about (and not only as I am a young retiree who doesnty have a real visa option and is still nearly 2 decades from the geezer visa)..

I certainly agree its not a simple case of more or less = good or bad.. But I do find it hard to see where the draw back is in genuinely self supporting people who cannot impose a financial drain on Thailand being given some kind of longer stay (subject to continuing checks to make sure that hey are still self supportable etc).. How many people who have long stay visa ARE still working here ?? How many are claiming to be retired or existing purely on marriage visas without work really have a sideline.. Possibly even a majority. I would suggest they would be far better off if they either made the process of legitimately paying taxes less difficult (self employed, telecommute, etc) and created a framework where it was less desirable to fly under the radar. The penalties of trying to exist in the grey area of not working by 'managing your investment' etc are foolish and dont help Thailand IMO. It also encourages people to be law breakers, encourages those who cant afford to really exist without working to attempt to do so.

But for the life of me I cannot understand why Thailand doesnt want to attract the genuinely affluent by giving them some way to live with a little more security.

[rexall]

<snip>But for the life of me I cannot understand why Thailand doesnt want to attract the genuinely affluent by giving them some way to live with a little more security.

Sun 23 Sep 07, 11:24 a.m.

Not that difficult to understand, LivinLOS. I don't want generalize too broadly, however much policy seems to be driven by a perception of foreigners, falang, outsiders--to one degree or another--as suspicious, potentially dangerous, disruptive, unruly, somehow a corrupting influence on Thailand, the Thai people and the Thai culture. Therefore, as such, the presence of foreigners and their activity (personal, familial, commercial and professional) must be carefully monitored, controlled and regulated lest all manner of mischief and even chaos break out and cause terrible problems for the country. To that end, there is a huge, unnecessary bureaucracy, a mountain of complex, often ambiguous legislation and regulations, often inconsistently applied, which in effect makes if difficult for falang (et al) be logistically, financially, emotionally and psychologically committed to being here. "Know your place! Don't get too comfortable" Don't think of Thailand as a long-term situation." They feel safer and more in control as long as you feel confused and insecure.

When you have that clear in your head from the beginning, it becomes easier to make rational, dispassionate decisions when dealing with irrational policy.

Of course, for the record, I do not mean to single out Thailand. And without resorting to the dreaded "X" word, and the (Oy my gawd!) "R" word, many people in the U.S., UK and EU maintain this same very conservative perception of immigration and migrations patters as something that demands strict control and regulation lest it run amok and rain chaos. Many falang who post to this forum express that viewpoint.

Fortunately, there are others who take a 180 degree opposite view. "Outsiders" are not dangerous until and unless they prove themselves to be so. And if and when they do, ought to be dealt with the same as any citizen.

Aloha,

Rex

Edited September 23, 2007 by rexall

[LivinLOS]

Oh I am fully aware of the reality.. I just still wonder why its the reality..

Of course, for the record, I do not mean to single out Thailand. And without resorting to the dreaded "X" word, and the (Oy my gawd!) "R" word, many people in the U.S., UK and EU maintain this same very conservative perception of immigration and migrations patters as something that demands strict control and regulation lest it run amok and rain chaos. Many falang who post to this forum express that viewpoint.

I personally dont take that view at all.. Some of the best places are the most culturally diverse.. The afro caribean community in England of the windrush days added to the melting pot and culture we enjoy, the music and the times people have lived through..

I once had a long discussion with a intelligent Euro (but borderline racist / bigot) about immigration and the problems of it.. I would think that policy could be drafted in such a way to allow visit and residency of only the best and brightest (or hardest working and honest) simply by restricting all advantages down to near nil. Anyone coming into the country would have no right to claim any benefit whatsoever, they must have sufficient funds for medical / insurance, they would on first infraction of any serious crime (including 'minor' street crime like dealing drugs or prostitution and no homeless tolerated) be immediately repatriated, thier only 'benefit' would be access to the work environment and that could even be limited to some sectors for the first few years to protect the local labour pool. Once someone had spent 5 years, working, paying taxes, not ever committing a crime (with some guidelines like speeding tickets or stuff thats super petty) then give them thier right of stay. The host country gets honest hard working people, the people get a chance at the west and any failure is purely on thier shoulders.. The immigrant would actually be paying taxes for the residents for that period as a payback.

Its the fact that housing and medical is handed out on arrival that causes so many problems. Its the reduction of these benefit schemes to arrivals that is a better way to deal with the issue IMO.

Very OT tho.. Sorry.

[TIT]

Yeah I know of a fair few people who are at the point of seriously considering leaving. Some have business's and some are just here for the lifestyle on TVisas. The main thing that both groups are sick of is the constant moving of goalposts and lack of any clarity regarding the Visa rules. They also dont think much will change after the 'election'. It seems that the Generals will have a grip on things from behind the scenes. A Democraship is on the cards by the looks of it.

Myself, I think I would already have left if I didnt have a girlfriend here. I mean I love Thailand but eventually the ongoing feeling of bitterness you have as a farang for feeling your not welcome (unless for a 2 week holiday) does start to get at you. Or should I say at me. I have to keep reminding myself its not the normal Thai's its the Thai 'Elite' (funny that) who are calling these shots. Interesting times for sure.

[Heng]

I personally dont take that view at all.. Some of the best places are the most culturally diverse..

True, but IMO integration doesn't always make a place "better" either, whether on a country level or even on a company, school, team, or family level.

[Heng]

But for the life of me I cannot understand why Thailand doesnt want to attract the genuinely affluent by giving them some way to live with a little more security.

I assume they do for the older crowd then? What's the cutoff or start age for the "geezer" visa?

The only option for the young retiree at the moment is either visa runs or the "grey" BOI route, yes?

[rexall]

Oh I am fully aware of the reality.. I just still wonder why its the reality..<snip>

Sun 23 Sep 07, 2:56 p.m.

I don't think anyone understands, precisely. It's complex. Human behavior is complex. Much of it, however, I reckon is evolutionary. When tribes and cultures developed in close proximity and had to compete for food and other resources, it was a survival dynamic to have a highly developed racial-ethnic-tribal sensitivity to who you were, and that the tribe over the hill (who want to steal your goats and your women) are NOT you, not of your tribe. In some Polynesia cultures (possibly also the Caribbean that you refer to) where food and resources were more abundant, xenophobia and racism may have not have develped such a virulent strain as in the European cultures.

Aloha,

Rex

[gdhm]

Point taken, of course nothing is certain in life.

IMO if you have established or at least qualified/well on the way for permanent residency (in the LOS... being a resident alien/green card holder in the US... and whatever it's called elsewhere), and actually I have don't have a particular issue with visa runners in some cases: if you're already old or if you're perhaps terminally ill but have the illness under control or are managing it with treatment.... an X year or X month type long/medium term visas (still of course subject to whatever changes in the future... since none of those are meant to be immigration visas) and simply want to be with your family; you've taken the necessary steps within reason to start a family.

With retirees for example (including young folks who can prove their investment income), I believe they SHOULD be afforded long term 5-10-15 year visas -subject to periodic inspection- even if they don't qualify for permanent residency if they can prove they can support their families and that their relationships are in fact legitimate (in order to not just protect the local but also the immigrant him/herself) on a case by case basis. Sometimes you see 70-80 year old foreigners at Suan Phlu immigration, obviously not in the best of health, trying to make futile stands "no no no no I will not stand for this!" and you can't help but feel sorry for them. IMO some cases border on senior abuse. So yes, there should be case by case exceptions made for those caught in the broad brush immigration rule nets. I'm just saying I don't agree with those who believe more/less foreigners = bad or good.

Thanks for the very well put and in my view correct opinions.

I 100% agree and ALWAYS will with "I'm just saying I don't agree with those who believe more/less foreigners = bad or good."

To be honest Heng I would seriously look into PR, but my understanding by reading many different views on the Forum is that most of the benefits are considered limited and PR hard to get.

of course if PR allowed you remain in Thailand when a new future Imm. rule would not, then its benefits are unquestionable: protection of you, your family (if you have one) and your lifestyle (little more important in life than that, is there?)

My understanding with PR which to me reduces its attraction is:

1) You still have to report every 90 days (I am told)

2) you still cannot own the land with you wife that your OWN house stands on

3) a lot of hard work for little "real life" benefit

4) a small quota system (100) that means you MAY be eliminated for number reasons ONLY. BUT the application fees are NOT refundable

5) Considered difficult to obtain (bearing in mind the Visa difficulties and inconsistencies this has to be a major concern)

6) I cannot apply until here 3 years I think.

7) I cannot speak any Thai and I understand speaking or understanding Thai is part of the requirement or important in gaining PR (If i am mistaken I would love to know).

OK I accept the view some share that not speaking some Thai means I am not committed and cannot be bothered. Maybe on the Language front that would b fair comment BUT I promise I am 100% committed to my family and Thailand and I do not expect any Thai to compensate or adjust 1% due to MY lack of understanding of the Thia language which it is very hard for me (unlike Spanish which I did learn to a degree)

For me PERSONALLY if 7) above is imperative or almost imperative then I cannot achieve PR, no matter what, without a major shift in my Thai language abilities.

Yes Heng I do believe 5 or 10 year Retirement or Marriage Visas would be fair and appropriate (with necessary provisos and safe guards for Thailand in place).

I DO regret the frequency of 90 day reporting. Especially as we all know that the address is very seldom checked out and can easily be incorrect. Consequently, it seems to me to be mostly meaningless.

The 100% law abiding persons will give a true up to date address ALWAYS, others (for whatever reason partly justifiable or not) will get round the true address quoted issue. As a result I feel this rule is mostly superficial "gloss" taking up a lot of peoples time (especially the Local Imm. Offices or where some Visa holders are required to personally attend at particular Local offices.).

With regard to "border on Senior abuse" something comes to mind.

I have had cause to visit my main Khon Kaen Public local hospital several times when two of my family have needed to be admitted, one (my wife's mother) is 75 years old and frail. The obvious lack of doctors, nurses, beds and funding is very sad to see. In the main, if relatives did not look after and feed the patients then they are attended to by a doctor or nurse only one or two times a day (due to over work and funding).

I felt in the case of my wife's mother due to the poverty in the country the hospital was not a lot better than being at home for treatment (and being at home better for love an emotionally) and her comments (believing she would die in there on on occasion thankfully did not) "were please don't leave me in this place to to die". VERY VERY SAD.

It seems through no fault of Thailand, that THAI Senior citizens AS WELL are very exposed if their families cannot cope or cater for them in later life especially if unhealthy. I feel we in the West really do not often appreciate what we have that really matters (mostly reasonable or good welfare, state pensions and healthcare systems (EVEN if not as much as we wish). Compare them to that of most Thais.

I can see why Thailand places so much value on the family looking after and being responsible for parents in their old age. Those who criticise the UK and other countries similar Healthcare systems should take a look at what a poor (but not as poor as some) country can only afford to offer, such as Thailand.

Kindest Regards Heng ,

Dave

Edited September 23, 2007 by gdhm

[baanthale]

No, it is NOT easy to get a PR for normal people . I lived here for soon to be 2 decades, have work permit for 12 years, yearly extensions for 8 years. I can speak/understand Thai well, have children in school etc etc. I can't get a PR because I do not pay tax enough, my salary is to low! Have seen different lawyers, spoke with different imm.people, and they all say you need to have a salary on min. 100,000THB and pay tax on that to have any chance! Just redicoulus, if a guy stays in Thailand for 3 years and have a good expat salary to pay tax on that, he can get a PR without to much problem, even if he do not have any family here or speaks and understands the lingo. This guy maybe spends all his spare time on nana or pong, and thats his only insight in thai culture . I seems that Thailand wants people like that, but don´t care about family people. If applying right now, it seems they do not care anything about who you are, and family situation, only on how much money you pay in tax! If me and my wife decided to go and stay in my home country, it woul take to years for her to get citizen ship, fair? Not at all!

regards

[lazeeboy]

thailand is only expensive if you dont have any money ,visa's again are only a problem if you dont have any money ,if you dont have enough money to live in thailand then you,re in trouble anywhere in the world ,work a bit longer till you can afford to live off your savings ,its that simple........

They should make a big sign with the above (complete with the odd spacing and incorrect punctuation use to make it authentic) in all AOT airport arrival halls.

Heng, Heng - once an English teacher, always an English teacher!

agree with heng ,if you dont have money in thailand your in trouble anywhere you live .........

[LivinLOS]

I personally dont take that view at all.. Some of the best places are the most culturally diverse..

True, but IMO integration doesn't always make a place "better" either, whether on a country level or even on a company, school, team, or family level.

But isnt that the 'job' of social governance ?? to manage and hopefully improve society ??

I am a bit of an oddball in that I am fairly strongly libertarian and small government.. The social states of Europe, where everyone claims so much and those claims are wastefully supplied by the taxes on the majority annoy me greatly, the big brother systems of speed traps and road controls, little things that add up to a feeling of not being free.. Hence why I like the looser 3rd world where while there may be petty and strange rules and laws, they dont often mean much..

[LivinLOS]

But for the life of me I cannot understand why Thailand doesnt want to attract the genuinely affluent by giving them some way to live with a little more security.

I assume they do for the older crowd then? What's the cutoff or start age for the "geezer" visa?

The only option for the young retiree at the moment is either visa runs or the "grey" BOI route, yes?

Yes sorry the 'geezer visa' is my slang for retirement, even that is still annually extension but the under 50's have nothing.. Its tourist visa's etc (elite card not counted)..

Retirement is obviously 50 years old and with just 800k.. I personally would think that if someone can display verified assets of 20 - 30 mil or even 1 mil USD (not brought into Thailand, money needs to work for you effectively) then they should at least get a 1 year permit to stay ?? I mean most people with a mil or two USD are not going to be squeaking under the 65k a month limit, these are the people who spend >200k per month into the Thai system.. Lots of nice foriegn exchange.. I just think hindering the really affluent is not helping 'Thailand PLC' and these people are the most likely to be turned away by 'inconvenient' issues like the Thai clerical paper chases.

I dont know where the bar should be set.. Perhaps proof of spending (bringing in) 2 mil per year, or an assets outside level or similar. But these people are a boon for local economies.

I also realise that money isnt everything, and that purely fiscal limits should not replace social connections, marriage, chiuldren, etc.. But it does provide one way to create a greater stream of revenue for little cost.

[LivinLOS]

Oh I am fully aware of the reality.. I just still wonder why its the reality..<snip>

Sun 23 Sep 07, 2:56 p.m.

I don't think anyone understands, precisely. It's complex. Human behavior is complex. Much of it, however, I reckon is evolutionary. When tribes and cultures developed in close proximity and had to compete for food and other resources, it was a survival dynamic to have a highly developed racial-ethnic-tribal sensitivity to who you were, and that the tribe over the hill (who want to steal your goats and your women) are NOT you, not of your tribe. In some Polynesia cultures (possibly also the Caribbean that you refer to) where food and resources were more abundant, xenophobia and racism may have not have develped such a virulent strain as in the European cultures.

Aloha,

Rex

If your interested theres a wealth of interesting (to a geek like me) of social science.. I would recommended looking at "Can Asians Think ?" (written by an asian) and perhaps even "IQ and the wealth of Nations" or "Race Differences in Intelligence". The latter has been criticised with good reason for some shoddy data and assumptions but has some interesting analysis.

Another one thats applicable here would be "the geography of thought" where the author argues that some of these regional differences shaped lasting cultural traits, such as the collectivism required by our local hosts rice irrigation, compared with the individualism of ancient Greek herding, maritime mercantilism, and money crops wine and olive oil. The group verses the individual etc.

Its futile to pretend we are all the same, sadly under the necessary issues of defeating racism there has been a push to pretend that all humans are essentially the same rather than being able to celebrate our small differences as part of the global mixture and that doesnt take into account great differences in IQ, social structures and conventions etc etc..

Sorry for again going OT.. Its just I find this quite an interesting line of thought.

[john_bkk919]

Just curious, Heng, but what kind of visa were your parents on when they had you in the US?

Do you think they were treated better or worse, in terms of immigration, legal rights, and general acceptance than expats here in Thailand?

Do you think you were treated better or worse than a child born to two foreign nationals in Thailand?

What particular skills or knowledge did your parents bring to the US that were necessary to that country's development? Were they able to obtain permission to work in a field of their choosing, to own property or businesses in their name, to be free from racial or country of origin discrimination in seeking loans, mortgages, or entrance to a national park?

Were your parents required to 'justify' their decision to remain in the US on a yearly basis, or report to an immigration officer every 90 days? Did this justification encompass more than presenting evidence to prove sufficent means to meet their financial obligations, or gainful employment in any legally recognized endeavor?

Do you feel that parity should exist in immigration policies, that reciprocal rights should be extended based on the treatment of nationals while abroad in either country?

Edited September 26, 2007 by john_bkk919