The New Rules For People Married To A Thai National. Are They Fair?

[Mario2008]

The new immigration rules rules regarding yearly extension for foreign man* married to a Thai wife are as follows:- have an income of 40,000 baht a month

or

- show savings of at least 400,000 baht in a Thai bank account for at least 2 months prior to applying for the extension.*For foreign woman married to Thai husbands there are no rules in the regulations and they can get an extension of stay much easier. The reintroduction of the possibility of showing savings is a good thing, which should make it easier for a lot of couples to meet the immigration rules. However, with the new rules the possibility of a family income has disapeared. Now it has to be the sole income (or savings) of the foreign husbands. It is this rule that is causing a lot of problems for some foreign/Thai couples, as they don't know if they can meet this new requirement.

This raises the question if the new immigration rules are fair and necesarry. Is it fair to disregard the income of the Thai wife and only consider the income of the foreign husband? Is it fair that different rules apply to foreign man with a Thai wife than to foreign woman with a Thai husband? Is it fair to require an income of 40,000 baht when many, if not most, Thai nationals earn well below 10,000 baht? Anyone care to comment on this?

Don't forget we have the rights of the foreign husband, the Thai wife and the possible children against the legitimate interests of the Thai state. Peope have the right to get married and should be able to live together as a family. On the otherhand a state has to take the interest of the country into consideration and can therefor place limitations on foreigners coming to their country to live there.

Edited January 15, 2009 by Mario2008

[Crossy]

Do you ever get that feeling of deja-vu???

[Lite Beer]

I do not really understand why they took away the Family Income rule. If you are living together as a family it should not matter who has the income. This is causing a lot of problems to married couples. Surely the Wife has a right to live with her Husband providing they have the nessesary income / savings.

[Crossy]

I do not really understand why they took away the Family Income rule.

Agreed, but IIRC the family income rule only appeared when they took away the 400k option, now 400k is back family income is gone.

Edited January 15, 2009 by Crossy

[Mario2008]

Why not have a 40,000 income or 400,000 at the bank or combination of both rule, just like for an extension based on retirement.

But just like Lite Beer, what is the most puzzeling is the abolishment of the family income. What is the sense behind that?

Edited January 15, 2009 by Mario2008

[Lite Beer]

Why not have a 40,000 income or 400,000 at the bank or combination of both rule, just like for an extension based on retirement.

But just like Lite Beer, what is the most puzzeling is the abolishment of the family income. What is the sense behind that?

The only thing I can think of is this. Wives were going to the tax office and declaring incomes they did not have just to get the Tax Receipts. It may not have been that but it would have been pretty easy to get that practice stopped.

When I applied last year they looked at my Wife's bank books as well as mine. This year it will probably be only mine.With the plummeting Pound this will not be easy.

[mijan24]

I do not really understand why they took away the Family Income rule. If you are living together as a family it should not matter who has the income. This is causing a lot of problems to married couples. Surely the Wife has a right to live with her Husband providing they have the nessesary income / savings.

Only my own thoughts but the previous rule "joint income" legitimized income from Beer Bars without hubby having to have WP (wife earns 40000 for the pair - eg BB in wifes name financed by farang Husband/BF or whatever he is called. This simple change has taken the income from that same BB out of the equation unless there is a company with x (4) Thais employed etc hence WP for hubby maybe just making it more correct and that is hard to argue against surely?

[Mario2008]

@ Lite Beer. That could be one reason, although they could have tighten the tax rules. It also raises the question if this practise was so wide spread and that I doubt.

Edited January 15, 2009 by Mario2008

[Mario2008]

I do not really understand why they took away the Family Income rule. If you are living together as a family it should not matter who has the income. This is causing a lot of problems to married couples. Surely the Wife has a right to live with her Husband providing they have the nessesary income / savings.

Only my own thoughts but the previous rule "joint income" legitimized income from Beer Bars without hubby having to have WP (wife earns 40000 for the pair - eg BB in wifes name financed by farang Husband/BF or whatever he is called. This simple change has taken the income from that same BB out of the equation unless there is a company with x (4) Thais employed etc hence WP for hubby maybe just making it more correct and that is hard to argue against surely?

There won't be that many cases to justify the rule changes. Also, it won't stop this practise. All they now would have to do is put 400,000 in a bankaccount.

Edited January 15, 2009 by Mario2008

[InterestedObserver]

Thailand would like foreign residents, speaking primarily of men, to contribute financially to the economy. To put it bluntly, the government wants your money invested (spent) in Thailand, not left sitting in some bank or brokerage in country XYZ. Foreigners are welcome as long as they can afford to be here and pay their own way. Living off the income of your wife does not fit that vision. Just my humble opinion.

[opalhort]

Haven't we all seen posts here on TV about how to declare 40K income of a Thai wife running a grocery shop etc. without her actually having the income? Tax receipts was all that was needed.

How can IMM verify the true income if so-called income payments are made in cash?

It is much easier for IMM to verify the real income of a foreigner (either WP or embassy letter).

Somehow I can understand why IMM removed the combined income option.

The removal hurts many families, it also removed a back-up option for me. We do have a true over 40K combined income but never used it since the Bank deposit worked.

I think we should know who we should thank for the removal of this option.

opalhort

[Lite Beer]

I think we should know who we should thank for the removal of this option.

opalhort

Probably the same people who got the 3 month money in the bank rule introduced, by borrowing the money one day and taking it out after they got their extension.

[Mario2008]

Good points form Interested Observer and opalhort. But Thai law chooses for the protection of family live and they should make that possible. Indeed foreigners should not be a burden to the host state, but that is not the case when a family can provide for it's own income.

It also raises the question how high that income must be. 40,000 a month seems a bit on the high side.

Edited January 15, 2009 by Mario2008

[Lite Beer]

It also raises the question how high that income must be. 40,000 a month seems a bit on the high side.

Yes it is. I guess they are thinking about having enough money in case of emergencies, medical etc.

[opalhort]

The way I see it is that Imm has problems distinguishing between ...... and ..... (you know what).

As a result they brush everybody over the same comb and many suffer. The case of the 30 vs. 15 day visa free entry may also be a case in point.

Here in TH is no real information infrastructure to share info between the various government departments.

If Imm would have access to databases of Labor, Revenue and Khets(marriage/births registrations) things could be made much easier for everybody.

One thing what I find interesting is that the latest rules (777/2551) mention more often that a decission can be made at the discretion of the officer on a case by case basis. This indicates to me that the human judgement factor gets more weight than in the past rather than sticking 100% to the written rules.

opalhort

[Briggsy]

Why not have a 40,000 income or 400,000 at the bank or combination of both rule, just like for an extension based on retirement.

But just like Lite Beer, what is the most puzzeling is the abolishment of the family income. What is the sense behind that?

The only thing I can think of is this. Wives were going to the tax office and declaring incomes they did not have just to get the Tax Receipts. It may not have been that but it would have been pretty easy to get that practice stopped.

When I applied last year they looked at my Wife's bank books as well as mine. This year it will probably be only mine.With the plummeting Pound this will not be easy.

I think this is definitely the reason.

Mate of mine married with child tried to jump through all the hoops to get the one-year extension until he realised all he had to do was to get his missus to declare an income she didn't have. At the Revenue, she found she graduated from the same Uni as the Revenue Officer. They had a right old laugh about all the "mia farang" declaring 40,000 a month. Cost 'em 2,000 Baht a year in tax payments. Job done.

Will he be stuffed next year or will he be grandfathered?

[Mario2008]

It also raises the question how high that income must be. 40,000 a month seems a bit on the high side.

Yes it is. I guess they are thinking about having enough money in case of emergencies, medical etc.

If that would be the case they could insist on medical insurence. Also, many Thai people don't have that income. Or what to think of for instance a Burmese national, who only needs an income of 25,000 bath to be allowed to stay in Thailand.

[Mario2008]

The way I see it is that Imm has problems distinguishing between ...... and ..... (you know what).

As a result they brush everybody over the same comb and many suffer. The case of the 30 vs. 15 day visa free entry may also be a case in point.

Here in TH is no real information infrastructure to share info between the various government departments.

If Imm would have access to databases of Labor, Revenue and Khets(marriage/births registrations) things could be made much easier for everybody.

One thing what I find interesting is that the latest rules (777/2551) mention more often that a decission can be made at the discretion of the officer on a case by case basis. This indicates to me that the human judgement factor gets more weight than in the past rather than sticking 100% to the written rules.

opalhort

Yes, sharing of information is a problem in Thailand and could be improved. I think the government is slowly working on it.

Your other point I find less true. The rules are laid down, only regarding the supporting documents the individual officer seems to have more discretion. So yes, it can make it easier or more difficult to convince an immigration officer.

The discretion of the officer only comes into play when applying for an extension based on marriage under the old rules. I have seen a post confirming that the old rules will only be applied during the first year. (or untill 25 nov. 2009).

[Mario2008]

I think this is definitely the reason.

Mate of mine married with child tried to jump through all the hoops to get the one-year extension until he realised all he had to do was to get his missus to declare an income she didn't have. At the Revenue, she found she graduated from the same Uni as the Revenue Officer. They had a right old laugh about all the "mia farang" declaring 40,000 a month. Cost 'em 2,000 Baht a year in tax payments. Job done.

Will he be stuffed next year or will he be grandfathered?

I agree that this practise is wrong and against the interest of the state. But that would require a thightening of tax rules, not immigration rules.

As to your question, no he will not be grandfathered. Only for the first year is he grandfatherd. After that he will need to show an income or 400,000 at the bank.

Edited January 15, 2009 by Mario2008

[Briggsy]

As to your question, no he will not be grandfathered. Only for the first year is he grandfatherd. After that he will need to show an income or 400,000 at the bank.

So if I understand you correctly, this year [July 2009] he will be able to get an extension of one year based on his wife's income of 40,000 Baht per month but next year [July 2010] he will not be able to. I'd better let him know at some point or he'll get a rude shock.

[Mario2008]

As to your question, no he will not be grandfathered. Only for the first year is he grandfatherd. After that he will need to show an income or 400,000 at the bank.

So if I understand you correctly, this year [July 2009] he will be able to get an extension of one year based on his wife's income of 40,000 Baht per month but next year [July 2010] he will not be able to. I'd better let him know at some point or he'll get a rude shock.

Correct.

[Lite Beer]

Ok. We are going to have to accept that in Thailand the man is the breadwinner and provides for his family.

What I cannot understand is that the Alien Husband has to show 40,000 Baht a month to provide for his Thai family.

Yet the Thai Husband has to show a lot less to provide for his family including a western Wife who will still need medical treatment if sick etc.

[Mario2008]

Well, nationals from some countries only have to provide an income of 25,000 baht. They won't get an extension of stay based on marriage but on employment. Still the government thinks that is enough to live on so they won't be a burden.

The fact is indeed that a difference is being made between Thai man and Thai woman with a foreign spouse. The reasoning might indeed be that a Thai man is considered to be the bread winner. The problem with that is however that such an approach is against the Thai law, which calls for equal treatment of man and woman.

[opalhort]

The fact is indeed that a difference is being made between Thai man and Thai woman with a foreign spouse. The reasoning might indeed be that a Thai man is considered to be the bread winner. The problem with that is however that such an approach is against the Thai law, which calls for equal treatment of man and woman.

Mario,

you do have a point, but as I recall this has been discussed in a thread here not to long ago.

the point is that THAI men and THAI women are equal under THAI law, which is true.

until recently a Thai wife could support a foreign husband - this has now been revoked.

WHY? ask the foreign husbands without any real means of financial support (or working here illegaly) who tried to circumvent the rules in order to obtain extensions of stay.

opalhort

[Lite Beer]

the point is that THAI men and THAI women are equal under THAI law, which is true.

until recently a Thai wife could support a foreign husband - this has now been revoked.

WHY? ask the foreign husbands without any real means of financial support (or working here illegaly) who tried to circumvent the rules in order to obtain extensions of stay.

opalhort

Agree, but a foreign Wife can stay here with little means of support.

[Mario2008]

The point is, you can't say Thai man and Thai woman are equal, and next make a distinction as who can support a foreign man. That means they are not treated equal.

Why make that distinction, when the Thai law is aimed at eliminating that distinction? I have seem some good explanations so far, which are probably true. But the problem is, none of them are in line with Thai law.

[pothai]

Do Thailand have an Asylum Policy, if so what is it....only for former residents of Asian countries or if you are from Europe etc

[Mario2008]

Do Thailand have an Asylum Policy, if so what is it....only for former residents of Asian countries or if you are from Europe etc

Bit of topic. Only thing I know is that Thailand is not a member of international treaties regarding refugees. However they try to follow the guidelines in those treaties. About an asylum policy I have no knowledge.

[CosmicSurfer]

the point is that THAI men and THAI women are equal under THAI law, which is true.

until recently a Thai wife could support a foreign husband - this has now been revoked.

WHY? ask the foreign husbands without any real means of financial support (or working here illegaly) who tried to circumvent the rules in order to obtain extensions of stay.

opalhort

There is a legal distinction between "De Jure" and "De Facto".

"THAI men and THAI women are equal under THAI law"... This is DeJure... that is according to the law.... But this doesn't mean it always exists in reality... For example the "Right to Vote" as enshrined in the USA Constitution.. a "Right" that has been fought over for the last 100 plus years... and still fought over today in the last US election.

Unfortunately....

De facto.. or the situation as it Really exists..., is that Thai Women are NOT equal to men in all things in Thai society. anymore than they are in Western Countries. A case in point is the refusal to accept the fact of their ability to act as Bread Winners in a Thai Family.

The difference between "US" and "THEM" is that in Western countries, De facto situations that circumscribe the law can be rectified by taking legal action resulting in a Court Order to bring the De Facto situation into compliance with De Jure Law. In Thailand, this recourse doesn't seem to exist in any verifiable or accountable way. The lack of oversight, accountability and APPEAL, being the direct result of the legal shortcomings inherent to the Legal System here in Thailand.

As to the second point refered to... I fail to understand how the husbands supposed lack of financial resources has any impact in the ability of the family to take care of itself. It has already been established by Thai Immigration that 40,000 baht is the amount required by a Farang/Thai mixed couple to live and raise a family in Thailand... Just why does it matter how the family internally accounts for this income as long as it is legally aquired. What business is it of ANYBODY to tell any married couple how to divide up the family responsibilities or labour. Nor does anyone have the moral authority to judge or dictate the hows and whys of Love or family arrangements for financial support....

As far as those Farangs that "arrange" for income to be aquired by simply paying the Tax for their spouses, this is not difficult to regulate and control by demanding verifiable proof of that income,.. ie... monthly income payment stubs, letter from employer, monthly deposits and withdrawals in a bank account demonstrating a normal living situation and not suspicious activity... or bookkeeping records for those self employed. If this stuff is good enough to prove income for the USA, Canada and UK embassys when processing Visa applications, why is it not acceptable for Thai Immigration who can more easily verify the veracity of the documentation submitted.

I'll try and control my Rants,

CS

[wolfmanjack]

in order to comply with thai law the wording should be changed to spouse instead of using husband or wife.

I just went to immigration to apply for an extension. I have an "O" visa now and wanted to change it to a "B" visa extension. They would not let me even though I had all of the listed documents. They said that an "O" extension is easier so I had to do an "O". What they really meant is that an "O" is easier for them to process so I had to do an "O". Any way I had to have work permit, the letter from my employer, tax documents for myself and company, and bank records to back up my tax documents. So just paying the tax did not work in my case.