Equality For Thai Wives

[CosmicSurfer]

When you vote please make a post to go with it as it will enable the OP to contact you.

If you do not want to make a public post you can PM "ubonjoe". Or the OP . Put "Equal" in the subject line.

In order to understand how many people are interested in their wives participating in a Equal Rights Anti-Discrimination Law suit against Thai Immigration, it would be helpful to understand just where the possible litigants live.

This would also be helpful towards organizing future meetings.

As has been pointed out in the other companion Thread - "Is A Class Action Suit Possible Against Thai Immigration?"

it is crucial that this be a Thai Wife organized action... with Only Thai Wives actually participating....

Which doesn't preclude Husbands from adding their support and counsel, as is only appropriate in an equal and loving relationship.

People that are interested in supporting getting their wives together, or having their wives contibute to the costs and or participating in the organization, or those that have legal, secretarial and other skills, please add your support by posting here, or by sending me a PM.

Power to our Thai Wives...

CS

[CosmicSurfer]

To all interested in this Thread....

Please participate in Companion Poll at this Thread.

Thanks,

CS

[CWMcMurray]

What about the issue of conferment of Thai nationality... if this was brought and it was found that Thai females were in fact being treated unequally what could the remedy be?

If they just removed the right for Thai males to confer Thai Nationality, then what about all of the Foreign ladies that have already received nationality. I don't believe that Thai nationality could be taken back, but if they are allowed to keep Thai Nationality then in order for Thai females to be "made whole" they should have the option to infer Thai nationality on their Foreign husbands as long as they were married before the date of the new ruling and rule change.

Otherwise wouldn't any Thai woman who was married before the ruling and the changing of the rules still have a case???

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Like wise if we are talking about visa extensions and they tightened the visa regulations for Thai husband wouldn't it be difficult for them to do that without grandfathering all of the foreign ladies who are getting extensions under the current system. (if they don't grandfather them in then the Thai males with foreign wives may have a case)

And then the same argument would apply... in order for Thai females to be "made whole" they should have the option to have their foreign husbands grandfathered under the same rules as the foreign wives as long as they were married before the date of the new ruling and rule change.

Otherwise wouldn't any Thai woman who was married before the ruling and the changing of the rules still have a case???

Edited December 13, 2008 by CWMcMurray

[CosmicSurfer]

…Furthermore, remember that this 40K income must come from Outside Thailand…

I know you wrote the whole post in jest but lest there be any misunderstanding about the above, there is nothing about that in the extension rules although some misguided immigration officers apparently have been asking for evidence that where an application was based on money in the bank (not on income) that money had to come from abroad.

--

Maestro

This wasn't a jest... It's the law.

Under the new current rules... a Farang husband can no longer use his wife's income as the financial qualification.

He needs his own.

Therefore the income can only come from one of two places.. Inside or outside Thailand.

If from outside Thailand, no problem.

But if from inside Thailand, then he needs a Work Permit to legally earn it....

And he needs to be earning it BEFORE he applies for the "O" Extension....

How does he Get the work permit so he can legally work???

He first gets a "B" Visa.. Then a Job.. then the Work Permit.... and the Associated extension to allow him to work for the contracted period...

Which begs the question as to why he would need an "O" Extension of stay, when he already has a "B" extension... where is the Benifit.. there is none.

He can't get the "O" Extension without the 40k, which he can't get legally without a Work Permit, for which he needs a "B", which also qualifies him for the extension...

And... even if he then changes his "B" into an "O", his extension is by virtue of the 40K salary earned under hiis Work Permit in Thailand, NOT as a right of being Married to his wife...

Ergo.. cancel workpermit under "B", also means Cancelled Work Permit under "O"...

and when a Work permit gets cancelled, then the associated extension given to support it is also cancelled..

No Job.. No Work Permit... No Visa... No Life in Thailand with your Wife.

The only way around this "Catch 22" is to have the income come from outside Thailand.

If my Logic has a hole, I'm open to correction.

CS

[CosmicSurfer]

I see we are moving away from the original topic of a lawsuit to contest the unequal treatment of a Thai male and a Thai female in the requirements for his/her foreign spouse to allow the Thai national the benefit and enjoyment of having his/her foreign spouse live with him/her in Thailand.

The unequal treatment of a Thai male and a Thai female in being allowed to confer Thai nationality to the foreign spouse would appear to be a different can of worms. Perhaps in the case of the court ruling cited in this topic the case was not presented correctly; we do not know.

In the case of the conferment of Thai nationality it would have been a direct test of the Nationality Act's conformity with the constitution. In the case of the extension of stay, various things need to be tested step by step:

1. Does the Police Order conform with the Ministerial Regulation on which it is based?
   
2. If yes, does the Ministerial Regulation conform with the Immigration Act on which it is based?
   
3. If yes, does the Immigration Act conform with the Constitution?
   

Perhaps step 1 above can be skipped unless one of the Police Orders cited in the preamble of 777/2551 is based on a Ministerial Regulation, in which case it would be good if somebody could, for a start, get hold of the relevant Ministerial Regulation and post it in this topic as an attachment. Before, that, however, you need to get hold of the earlier Police Orders on which 777/2551 claims to be based, ie 543/2549 dated on August 15, B.E. 2549 and 56/2551 dated on January 21, B.E.2551. Order No. 606/2549 we already have.

--

Maestro

I think the Issue of Inequality in the issuing of Thai Nationality for Farang Husbands, has been addressed in a Post 358 on Page 2 of this thread... Click Here

The Supreme Couret has already Ruled in Favour of Thai Government. (See post)

This issue is now moot...

But the Inequality between Thai Men and Thai Women is a different Case...

and this is the Issue we should be pursuing.

Equality for ALL Thai Wives

CS

[CWMcMurray]

I fully support your idea for the case, but I believe it would still be possible without a non-B (if my understanding is correct)

Option 1: 400,000 thb in the bank (can this be a joint account?)

Option 2: Get a non O visa (3 mo validity), then get a work permit and then get an extension for purpose of living with Thai wife. (No need for a non-B )

Not certain, but it is my understanding that if you loose your jobyour work permit would be canceled but not your extension of visa. Then you would simply need to be gainfully employed before your next extension.

Edited December 13, 2008 by CWMcMurray

[CosmicSurfer]

I fully support your idea for the case, but I believe it would still be possible without a non-B (if my understanding is correct)

Option 1: 400,000 thb in the bank (can this be a joint account?)

Option 2: Get a non O visa (3 mo validity), then get a work permit and then get an extension for purpose of living with Thai wife. (No need for a non-B )

Not certain, but it is my understanding that if you loose your jobyour work permit would be canceled but not your extension of visa. Then you would simply need to be gainfully employed before your next extension.

Option 1 is True... But not helpful to those of us that Don't have 400K to put in the bank, and have Visas based on their Thai wives income.

But Option 2 is not correct.... a work permit that is issued even under an "O" Visa is and then used to qualify for an Extension is still subject to the same Rules of cancellation as for a "B".. being as the extension was only qualified for by Virtue of the Income you made under the Permit.. so they are still linked.. No Work... No Permit... No Extension.

The only way around this Rule is to qualiify for an extension based on another criteria... ie. Wife's Income.

So if your Work Permit is cancelled the Extension remains valid under the original issuing conditions... There is No Link!

The focus here is about the Inequality of not allowing Thai Women the right to Support their families as Thai men have today.

This is the Basic Issue...

Is the Government saying that Thai Women are lesser people then men in their abilities to care for their families, or are they Equal?

If they are Equal as garaunteed by the Thai constitution, why are they being singled out by the insistance That Farang men MUST have an Income, when the Thai Woman makes adequate income to care for both members of her Family. (Adequate Income as defined by Thai immigration is 40,000 Baht per month.)

Hmmm... I've just realized Immigration's "OUT"...

Revert back to the previous equitable rule.... and Raise the "Combined" Income to 100k.

No Problem for Hi-So Thai Husbands... But a Real Issue for most Thai Wives.

Hmmmmm.... Bummer....

CS

Edited December 13, 2008 by CosmicSurfer

[Mario2008]

Under human rights treaties protection of family live is a requirement for governments. There should be no unnecesarry strain on the family live. It can be argued that the continous uncertainty if one can stay together as a family puts an unnecesarry strain on the family live. permanent residency should for that purpose be a real option.

Edited December 13, 2008 by Mario2008

[samran]

So how does this ruling below affect things?

http://www.concourt.or.th/download/Summary..._eng/e37_46.pdf

[Maestro]

…But if from inside Thailand, then he needs a Work Permit to legally earn it....

And he needs to be earning it BEFORE he applies for the "O" Extension....

How does he Get the work permit so he can legally work???

He first gets a "B" Visa.. Then a Job.. then the Work Permit.... and the Associated extension to allow him to work for the contracted period...

Which begs the question as to why he would need an "O" Extension of stay, when he already has a "B" extension... where is the Benifit.. there is none.

He can't get the "O" Extension without the 40k, which he can't get legally without a Work Permit, for which he needs a "B", which also qualifies him for the extension...

And... even if he then changes his "B" into an "O", his extension is by virtue of the 40K salary earned under hiis Work Permit in Thailand, NOT as a right of being Married to his wife...

Ergo.. cancel workpermit under "B", also means Cancelled Work Permit under "O"...

and when a Work permit gets cancelled, then the associated extension given to support it is also cancelled..

No Job.. No Work Permit... No Visa... No Life in Thailand with your Wife.

The only way around this "Catch 22" is to have the income come from outside Thailand…

Let’s take what I consider to be a realistic example and look at the timeline and the extension options.

1. A foreign man comes to Thailand to take up a position in a company. It doesn’t matter with what visa he arrives but after he has his work permit and the qualifying minimum salary he can get annual extensions for employment.
   
2. After some time he meets the love of his life, a Thai national, and they marry.
   
3. When the time comes for his next extension of stay, he writes “to live with Thai wife” in the space for “reason for application”. There is no change from “O” to “B”, simply a different reason for his new application for extension.
   
4. After some years he quits his job or he resigns, it does not matter which. His permission to stay based on his last extension remains valid.
   
5. The time for his next extension of stay arrives. He has not taken a new job in the meantime. He can again apply for the reason of living with his Thai wife but this time he has to show evidence of 400k in the bank or foreign income of minimum 40k monthly. (If he can’t do either of the two, it would seem time for him to start working again)
   

--

Maestro

[CosmicSurfer]

Let’s take what I consider to be a realistic example and look at the timeline and the extension options.

1. A foreign man comes to Thailand to take up a position in a company. It doesn’t matter with what visa he arrives but after he has his work permit and the qualifying minimum salary he can get annual extensions for employment.
   
2. After some time he meets the love of his life, a Thai national, and they marry.
   
3. When the time comes for his next extension of stay, he writes “to live with Thai wife” in the space for “reason for application”. There is no change from “O” to “B”, simply a different reason for his new application for extension.
   
4. After some years he quits his job or he resigns, it does not matter which. His permission to stay based on his last extension remains valid.
   
5. The time for his next extension of stay arrives. He has not taken a new job in the meantime. He can again apply for the reason of living with his Thai wife but this time he has to show evidence of 400k in the bank or foreign income of minimum 40k monthly. (If he can’t do either of the two, it would seem time for him to start working again)
   

--

Maestro

Same scenerio as you suggest... But lets add a few more mitigating factors....

The man has beeen in Thailand many years, and has now (Choose 1 or even multiples)

A ) The Economic situation has tightened the Job market, and hiring non-Thais are not a priority.

B ) Reached an age when finding a new Job is difficult, if at all possible.

C ) Has suffered some disabling malady.. ie. stroke

D ) Relies on Income from his home country, only to find he has lost his shirt in the Current economic downturn (recession)

E ) Finds that qualifications that were acceptable for his job a few years ago, are no longer considered enough, and he is too old to retrain.

... If I think longer, I'm sure that I can come up with more....

Oh... I really like this one... Adds to our case....

F ) He's a Stay-at-Home Dad... His wife earns more than He does, and someone has to raise and ensure a proper education for his kids, being that the Thai Education system is disfunctional.

Enough????

CS

[Maestro]

…Is the Government saying that Thai Women are lesser people then men in their abilities to care for their families, or are they Equal?

If they are Equal as garaunteed by the Thai constitution, why are they being singled out by the insistance That Farang men MUST have an Income, when the Thai Woman makes adequate income to care for both members of her Family. (Adequate Income as defined by Thai immigration is 40,000 Baht per month.)

I believe we are all agreed that there is inequality with the present rules. If and when this inequality gets eliminated it remains to be seen how it is done but whichever way it will be done we can be sure that it will not satisfy everybody.

--

Maestro

[CosmicSurfer]

So how does this ruling below affect things?

http://www.concourt.or.th/download/Summary..._eng/e37_46.pdf

This Ruling has been discussed in the Other Thread on This Page.

Bottom line.. The above Ruling addresses the Rights of Farang man married to Thai Women, to the right to aquire Thai Nationality in equality to the application of this Right to Farang Women married to Thai Men.

Our basis is that the application of the Current new Rule denies Thai Women the Right to raise their families as they see fit, and does not deal with any request for nationality, or even any longer Stay than the one-year Extension that is/was available to all under the current rules, but is still de-facto discriminatory as it is inequitably applied To Thai men and their Farang wives, who are not specificaly mentioned in this restriction, whereas Thai wives are.

It is also our position that whereas Thai men are considered able to raise and support their families without any monetary minimum standard impossed by Immigration, Thai women are being treated as less competent, even if they make More than a Thai man in the same situation.

Not Same Same as the other Ruling...

And I think a Stronger case on our part.

CS

[Maestro]

Because of that court decision it has been suggested in the topic "Is A Class Action Suit Possible Against Thai Immigration?, Why can't a Thai wife sue for Discrimination against her?" that if a suit were to be brought to contest the inequality in the extension rule for a foreign spouse of a Thai national it would have to be not about the foreigners but about the Thai nationals who do not have equal rights in having their foreign spouses live with them. Perhaps only semantics, but it might have an effect on the judges, who knows.

Personally, I see little chance of success. Under the current rules both the Thai man and the Thai woman have the legal right to have the spouse live with them, only one detail of the requirements for the extension of stay differs, ie the need to show evidence of financial means (income or money in the bank) for the Thai woman’s spouse but not for the Thai man’s spouse.

--

Maestro

[monty]

Additionally (or maybe discussed in the other thread) they just took away the earning capability of a Thai spouse to support a marriage 1 year extension, i.e. the 40,000 Baht income is not family income anymore but has to be earned entirely by the foreign husband....

My missus told me literally not to wake sleeping dogs .... (I'm the breadwinner anyways with plenty enough earned on my work permit, although my better half makes more then me, and I might want to stop work sometime )

[Maestro]

Another difference is that whilst the cited court ruling was about the constitutionality of a section of a law (Nationality Act) in the case of the extension of stay it would have to be only about the constitutionality of a Ministerial Order and/or a Royal Thai Police Order. In the latter case it should perhaps be easier to rule in favour of an unconstituionality as the inequality would be much easier to remedy.

--

Maestro

[Maestro]

Same scenerio as you suggest... But lets add a few more mitigating factors....

In other words, with the exception of F) in the various scenarios you have given: destitution. Based on the same patriarchal philosophy as so many other laws and regulations, the extension rules would force the foreign husband to bring his family to his home country to live on the social security of that country.

In scenario F) – wife is the breadwinner – it has to be considered that with the option of 400k in the bank there is nothing in rules that this money that had to be earned and saved by the foreign husband himself, only that it must be “his money”, ie in a bank account in his name. Still not quite right but it would let them stay in Thailand, although 400k is perhaps a lot of money for a Thai employee to save up and keep in ready cash in the bank.

--

Maestro

[Mario2008]

There are other issues as well. Take the fact that nationals of some countries require less salary to get a WP. This makes it more difficult for mixed foreigner/Thai national families to provide in their lively hood, depending on the nationality of the foreign spouse. It is after all easier to get a job with a salary of 25,000 then a job with a salary of 50,000.

[CosmicSurfer]

Same scenerio as you suggest... But lets add a few more mitigating factors....

In other words, with the exception of F) in the various scenarios you have given: destitution. Based on the same patriarchal philosophy as so many other laws and regulations, the extension rules would force the foreign husband to bring his family to his home country to live on the social security of that country.

In scenario F) – wife is the breadwinner – it has to be considered that with the option of 400k in the bank there is nothing in rules that this money that had to be earned and saved by the foreign husband himself, only that it must be “his money”, ie in a bank account in his name. Still not quite right but it would let them stay in Thailand, although 400k is perhaps a lot of money for a Thai employee to save up and keep in ready cash in the bank.

--

Maestro

Sorry that not everyone can meet your stringent financial standards.. But I would say that in Thailand, a "Family" income of 40K or more can easily support 2 people.... and is FAR from Destitute... and what makes a Farang Male destitute when his spouse makes 40K or more... while a Farang Female is not when in the same situation.

Furthermore, Nowhere under the "O" Visa or extension provisions does ANY farang spouse ever qualify for Social Assistance... No matter how destitute they are.. so I really have a problem equating your comment with the present situation...

Beside which, If you were destitute, there would be no way to bring a Thai wife back to your Home country.. They wouldn't qualify for a Visa...

or Social Assistance.

Which leads to why so many choose Thailand as their home in the First Place... It's Cheaper to live here....

And Finally... Not having a "Reportable" income, doesn't neccesarily mean that a person is not contributing financially to the Family Kitty... There are many ways to be of financial help.

Including have a Pension or Foreign source of funds that is Under 40K, so therefore not helpful to get an extension .

Scenerio G )... The Husband has a pension of 25-30K.. Thai wife earns 50K... Combined Family Income... 75K...

Now 75,000 Baht is a pretty good Family income in Thailand.... More then most Immigration officers make (Over the table) anyway... But does it get the husband the right to live without stress with his Wife...... NO.

CS

[AussieFarang]

In order to understand how many people are interested in their wives participating in a Equal Rights Anti-Discrimination Law suit against Thai Immigration, it would be helpful to understand just where the possible litigants live.

This would also be helpful towards organizing future meetings.

As has been pointed out in the other companion Thread - "Is A Class Action Suit Possible Against Thai Immigration?"

it is crucial that this be a Thai Wife organized action... with Only Thai Wives actually participating....

Which doesn't preclude Husbands from adding their support and counsel, as is only appropriate in an equal and loving relationship.

People that are interested in supporting getting their wives together, or having their wives contibute to the costs and or participating in the organization, or those that have legal, secretarial and other skills, please add your support by posting here, or by sending me a PM.

Power to our Thai Wives...

CS

Why not try to approach this through a respected expat organization like the Joint Chambers of Commence and see if the informal approach may achieve equal too or better results than the legal process. Still make take some though.

[eggomaniac]

I was thinking the along the same lines, little chance of success. To make it 'equal', the court could rule that Thai men and their farang wives have to meet the 'same' standards as the Thai women, instead of lowering the bar for farang husbands, <.

When you think about it, you might get a bunch of Thai women to change legislation that would save farang women from ending up stuck in Thailand and broke. < read it twice, you will get it

Thailand, like any country, has a right to put measures of ability on new residents. Yes, it should be equal, so farang women should have the same criteria.

It's way tougher getting a Thai wife into Canada than it is to get a farang husband into Thailand. Can we start a lawsuit?

If they relaxed the standards, as this Forum is seems to be expounding, you will end with a bunch of farang selling those flowers at the intersections. Next thing you know the country would be over run with English teachers and sex tourists.

It's no longer a Lonely Planet. The mentality of wanting a 'great' life on the backs of the 3rd World workers has to end.

--------------------

Maestro - """Personally, I see little chance of success. Under the current rules both the Thai man and the Thai woman have the legal right to have the spouse live with them, only one detail of the requirements for the extension of stay differs, ie the need to show evidence of financial means (income or money in the bank) for the Thai woman's spouse but not for the Thai man's spouse."""

--

Maestro

[CosmicSurfer]

As has been pointed out above, This Thread is for Polling Purposes and to get a "Count of" and "Disbursement for" those interested in joining in a possible action.

To keep this poll on the front page, Please post a Comment of Support , or rejection only in this Thread.

In order to keeep discussion about the viability of any court action in one Thread, please post your comments in THIS THREAD ONLY >

"Is A Class Action Suit Possible Against Thai Immigration?"

Thank you from the Original Poster,

CS

Edited December 14, 2008 by CosmicSurfer

[eggomaniac]

Has anybody made sure the Thai version of the law has sex discrimination in it, before getting too excited? Every once in awhile the English translation is not very accurate.

If there is discrimination, I agree that farang women should be subject to the same standards that farang men face for residency in Thailand. I do NOT believe the bar should be lowered for farang men. Every developed country in the world attempts to set standards to keep out [how to say?] low lifers.

Though I am a Canadian, I feel supportive of my wife and daughter's country. It's kind of sad when Farang husbands say, 'my wife was teacher, or accountant, NOT a bar girl. <that says it all. sheesh [not a prostitute, actually]

I do not know all the details of Thaksin, his not paying taxes, and killing alleged drug pushers and bystanders; but I did like that he was trying to move Thailand away from the image of a back packer and sex tourist mecca.

What he SHOULD have done is followed the European model of legalisation, instead of the crack down, which got him in trouble the whole industry. Over here, 1/2 the massage parlors in this city are run by Thai women. My wife, who was not a bar girl, finds it strange that in the Thai Community in Canada, at all public events the prostitutes are in the inner circle, front and center, because they have bags of money. Once I figured this out, we stopped attending the Thai 'events'. I don't want my daughter bouncing on their knees, and calling them 'aunty'.

I have wondered what they would think if I hired 1/2 dozen street walkers to show up at some 'gathering.' sheesh

[CWMcMurray]

I think the Issue of Inequality in the issuing of Thai Nationality for Farang Husbands, has been addressed in a Post 358 on Page 2 of this thread... Click Here

The Supreme Couret has already Ruled in Favour of Thai Government. (See post)

This issue is now moot...

But the Inequality between Thai Men and Thai Women is a different Case...

and this is the Issue we should be pursuing.

Equality for ALL Thai Wives

CS

I agree with you that these are two separate cases and I believe you are right in saying that the case you laid out may in fact be a stronger case, but I disagree that the nationality question has been decided definitively and is moot.

First off, unlike in western courts precedent is not as binding. Also, some of the elements may have changed since the case in 2003...

1. There is a new Constitution, some of the wording changes in the new Constitution may leave openings for this case to be revisited.

2. Not sure if this point was argued or not in the original case, but could it be argued that the original decision that section 9 of the Nationality Act, B.E. 2508 (1965) is in fact Constitutional but is in contradiction with CEDAW that was signed in 1985? In that case the Nationality Act itself is in violation of an International Treaty signed 20 years later and will need to be revised accordingly? (different cause of action, but would have the same result as the original if won)

Edited December 14, 2008 by CWMcMurray

[CosmicSurfer]

I think the Issue of Inequality in the issuing of Thai Nationality for Farang Husbands, has been addressed in a Post 358 on Page 2 of this thread... Click Here

The Supreme Couret has already Ruled in Favour of Thai Government. (See post)

This issue is now moot...

But the Inequality between Thai Men and Thai Women is a different Case...

and this is the Issue we should be pursuing.

Equality for ALL Thai Wives

CS

I agree with you that these are two separate cases and I believe you are right in saying that the case you laid out may in fact be a stronger case, but I disagree that the nationality question has been decided definitively and is moot.

First off, unlike in western courts precedent is not as binding. Also, some of the elements may have changed since the case in 2003...

1. There is a new Constitution, some of the wording changes in the new Constitution may leave openings for this case to be revisited.

2. Not sure if this point was argued or not in the original case, but could it be argued that the original decision that section 9 of the Nationality Act, B.E. 2508 (1965) is in fact Constitutional but is in contradiction with CEDAW that was signed in 1985? In that case the Nationality Act itself is in violation of an International Treaty signed 20 years later and will need to be revised accordingly? (different cause of action, but would have the same result as the original if won)

Baby Steps... Walk Before you Run.... Don't Bite off more than you can chew...

First Things First....

A direct attack on the question of Thai nationality for Farangs would bring all the big guns to bear...

And it's way down the chain..

Let's Start with the Question about the Extension.. First link in the Chain.

If we have success with this, we could think about whether it was worth pursuing Residency Status... the next step.

Etc.

One thing leads to another,

CS

[CosmicSurfer]

Has anybody made sure the Thai version of the law has sex discrimination in it, before getting too excited? Every once in awhile the English translation is not very accurate.

If there is discrimination, I agree that farang women should be subject to the same standards that farang men face for residency in Thailand. I do NOT believe the bar should be lowered for farang men. Every developed country in the world attempts to set standards to keep out [how to say?] low lifers.

Though I am a Canadian, I feel supportive of my wife and daughter's country. It's kind of sad when Farang husbands say, 'my wife was teacher, or accountant, NOT a bar girl. <that says it all. sheesh [not a prostitute, actually]

I do not know all the details of Thaksin, his not paying taxes, and killing alleged drug pushers and bystanders; but I did like that he was trying to move Thailand away from the image of a back packer and sex tourist mecca.

What he SHOULD have done is followed the European model of legalisation, instead of the crack down, which got him in trouble the whole industry. Over here, 1/2 the massage parlors in this city are run by Thai women. My wife, who was not a bar girl, finds it strange that in the Thai Community in Canada, at all public events the prostitutes are in the inner circle, front and center, because they have bags of money. Once I figured this out, we stopped attending the Thai 'events'. I don't want my daughter bouncing on their knees, and calling them 'aunty'.

I have wondered what they would think if I hired 1/2 dozen street walkers to show up at some 'gathering.' sheesh

This Thread is for Polling support and locations of interested participants in a future action

Please post your comments in the Companion Thread linked to above ^.

This isssue has already been addressed there.

Thank you,

CS

[CWMcMurray]

I completely agree with you... just making a point.

The plan you propose make more sense and is more likely to be successful.

The difficulty will be finding the perfect test case. If the husband of the Thai woman who files the case qualifies under the current system for a visa extension, then no damage caused and they may not even hear the case. I don't think just the fact that the regulations are unequal is enough, I believe that you would have to find someone who was actually damaged by this dual policy

So it will most likely need to be someone whose family is likely to be or has already been broken up over this. I also believe a lot more people would be willing to help to prevent a family from being torn apart rather than just some people saying that the rules aren't fair.

Anyone out there in this position?

Edited December 14, 2008 by CWMcMurray

[eggomaniac]

Did you notice in 2.18 it says his/her spouse?

From previous legal experience I seem to remember that (6) can be claimed to be only an example and that the main section, 2.18, means that the same law applies equally to any spouse, regardless of sex. I am not sure of this, but it is worth checking before organising a big action. 2.18 makes it clear the family visa applies to spouses of either sex and is in a hiearchy that might be used for farang women seeking a family visa.

Now they could add a (7) to cover this off, or say that (6) is an 'example' that the farang wife must conform to as well.

-------

If I am right about the above, (6) is just an example, there is no INequality.

If the inequality actually does exist, the REMEDY is apply the same standard to farang wives, NOT apply the lack of standards to farang husbands.

These standards protect the Immigrant as mucn as they do Thailand! What is the push of this thread, anyway? that any farang man, with no means, can get in?

Didn't one Thai wife say of this Post, "let sleeping dogs lie" <good idea, listen to her !

Why deprive some farang woman the 'possible' right to marry the Thai tuk tuk driver of her dreams? Why deny her the right of living in poverty?

2.18 In the case of a family

member of a Thai(applicable only to parents, spouse, child, adopted child or child of his/her spouse):

Permission will be

granted for a period of

not more than 1 year at a time.

(1) The alien has obtained a temporary visa (NON-IM)

(2) Proof of family relationship

(3) In the case of a spouse, the marital relationship shall be de jure (legitimate) and de facto;

(4) In the case of a child, adopted child or child of his/her spouse, the said person must not be married, must be living with the family, and must be less than 20 years of age; or

(5) In the case of a parent, one of parents must have an average annual income of not less than 40,000 baht per month or a money deposit of not less than 400,000 baht for expenses within a year.

In other necessary circumstances, The Immigration Commissioner or Deputy of Immigration Commissioner may approve on case to case basis.

(6) In case of marriage with a Thai lady, the husband who is an alien must have an average annual income of not less than 40,000 baht per month or a money deposit in a local Thai bank of not less than 400,000 baht for the past 2 months for expenses within a year.

Edited December 15, 2008 by eggomaniac

[Maestro]

You are reading that wrong. In the left column “his/her spouse” applies if the applicant is a child. In that column, you want to look at spouse in this context: “2.18 In the case of a family member of a Thai(applicable only to parents, spouse…” and this is indeed not discriminating based on gender.

The discrimination is in the middle column: “(6) In case of marriage with a Thai lady, the husband who is an alien must have…”. This means that in all other cases of a foreigner married with a Thai national, this requirement does not apply.

--

Maestro

[skippybangkok]

Again, you are still missing the point....

The perception is like wise......

I have no doubt in the correctness of the premise, but have many doubts about the powers that be taking it seriously. Just looking around the bars in Pattaya, can imagine the powers that be saying "&lt;deleted&gt;, do we really want to let these dregs have a thai passport". You'll have the russian maffia getting married at the drop of a hat.

Anyway, either which way its a win for me