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

[Mario2008]

I say the new rules are fair and necessary to keep out lazy people who would come to Thailand to live off of the state or its citizens. $1,150 a month income isn't much to westerners so if I didn't have it I would get back to work. There is no social security, etc. to take care of a destitute farang in Thailand and I can understand Thailand feels the farang should go back where they came from since its not their problem. I suppose they feel lazy farangs don't deserve to move to Thailand and waste Thai resources that should be spent on Thai people.

The ligitimate interrest of the Thai government to require that foreigners who wish to stay here should have sufficient means of living isn't the issued. Your argument is valid, but doesn't explain why the family income isn't taken in account and why there are different rules for man and woman.

[Mario2008]

…Anyone care to comment on what would be the reasoning behind the current rules on this relating to children?

This brings us to the question of the procedure for drafting these rules. We know that the Director General of the Police Department signs them, but who initiates them? First I thought it might be the Immigration Commission, composed of

– Under Secretary of Ministry of Foreign Affairs

– Director general , Police Department

– Director General , labor Department

– Director General , public Prosecution Department

– Secretary General , Board of Investment Committee

– Secretary General , National Security Council

– Director , Tourist Organization of Thailand

– Commander of Immigration Division as member and secretary

However, the Immigration Act appears to limit the jurisdiction of the Immigration Commission to Residence Certificates (Permanent Residence) and deportations. I am therefore inclined to think that a committee or subcommittee at the Immigration Bureau cooks up the ideas and the Commander of the Immigration Division submits them to the Director General of the Police Department for consideration.

It is evident that some thought goes into the drafting of these rules. Police Order 606/2549 that took effect on 1 October 2006, for example, brought the interesting change form support of Thai wife and children to living with them. The revised requirements of evidence of financial means in the new Police Order 777/2551 bring back the previous notion of financial support by the foreign husband and foreign parent. The interlude of "living with", without requirement of financial support, lasted exactly 25 months.

Therefore, I am led to think that the reasoning behind the current rules for the marriage and parent extensions are a return to the status quo ante, ie to the situation that was in effect before 1 October 2006.

--

Maestro

I agree with your notion on the procedure for drafting the rules.

Yes, there is a return to the status qua ante, but it doesn't explain why the rules are as they are. The return raises the question what was wrong with the rule of police order 606/2549.

One thing is of course a great improvement, the age requirement is no longer there.

[Mario2008]

Immigration Act

Section 5 : The Minister of Interior shall be in charge and have control for the executive of this Act and

shall have power to appoint competent officials , and Issue Minister Regulations ; to fix fees and other

expense not exceeding rates annexed to this Act and to fix other activities for the execution of this Act.

Such Ministerial Regulations shall become effective after having been published in the government

Gazette.

So it appears the minister of interior initiates the rules regarding extensions or delegates that to the immigration police.

Edit:

Section 35

Each time when applying for an extension of temporary stay in the Kingdom , the alien shall

submit an application and pay the fees as prescribed in the Ministerial Regulations. While waiting for

directives the alien may be permitted to stay.

Edited January 24, 2009 by Mario2008

[Rinrada]

Also i heard that when the thai woman has married with foreigner, she will lose her thai nationality. Whether is it true?

NO.. This is not true... She retains her Thai nationality, and her Children do also.

CS

The Foreign husband however who has probably provided everything for his Thai spouse and children (and saved the government any financial or social responsibility) will be treated like some mangy HIV infested rat who only wants to steal and run off with their precious country or maybe..... quietly live there.

One day....the sun will come up....

[Maestro]

In my previous post I did not address the question why the financial requirements for the marriage and parent extensions were made to begin with, ie written into the rules valid before 1 October 2006. I think this is an idle question because these reasons, probably recorded in the minutes of internal committee meetings at the Bureau orf Immigration, are not a public record.

Nevertheless, I cannot help thinking that there is an element of penalty or punishment involved, just like the curtailment of some legal rights of Thai women marrying foreigners until about 15 years ago, notably regarding land acquisition. With the extension rules, it is the denial of the right a foreigner’s Thai wife to live with her husband in Thailand unless her foreign husband meets certain requirements regarding income or cash assets. Perhaps it was not meant that way, as a punishment, but intended to discourage Thai women from marrying foreigners of limited financial means.

We shall never know the true reasons.

--

Maestro

[Mario2008]

The Foreign husband however who has probably provided everything for his Thai spouse and children (and saved the government any financial or social responsibility) will be treated like some mangy HIV infested rat who only wants to steal and run off with their precious country or maybe..... quietly live there.

One day....the sun will come up....

Well, the requirements seem indeed sometimes harsh. But keep in mind that the rules didn't only get thougher. There were some improvements also, like the money in the bank option and the droping of the age requirement for living with a Thai child.

[Mario2008]

In my previous post I did not address the question why the financial requirements for the marriage and parent extensions were made to begin with, ie written into the rules valid before 1 October 2006. I think this is an idle question because these reasons, probably recorded in the minutes of internal committee meetings at the Bureau orf Immigration, are not a public record.

Nevertheless, I cannot help thinking that there is an element of penalty or punishment involved, just like the curtailment of some legal rights of Thai women marrying foreigners until about 15 years ago, notably regarding land acquisition. With the extension rules, it is the denial of the right a foreigner's Thai wife to live with her husband in Thailand unless her foreign husband meets certain requirements regarding income or cash assets. Perhaps it was not meant that way, as a punishment, but intended to discourage Thai women from marrying foreigners of limited financial means.

We shall never know the true reasons.

--

Maestro

The curtailment of womans right married to a foreigner was not unheard off. It wasn't that long ago that womans rights were by definition curtailed as the law of most countries in the world considered the husband the head of the family. Thailand was a bit later then most European countries in correcting this.

The discouragement of Thai woman from marrying foreigners of limited financial means doesn't explain why Thai man are not discouraged to marry destitute foreign woman.

Paternalistic thinking is probably a major factor here. But as you say, we will probably never know.

[Maestro]

…Ministerial Regulations…

Good, correct thinking, which reminds me of a post made by Sunbelt, I believe in September 2007, stating that the extension rules signed by the Director General of the Police Department are issued on the authority of a Ministerial Regulation. That post gave the number and year of the Ministerial Regualation, if I remember correctly, but not its full text. From what I know about Ministerial Regualtions, that particular Regulation probably did not go into the details of finacial requirements for the marriage and parent extensions, as otherwise this part of the extension rules could not be changed at a stroke of the pen of the Director General.

The preamble of Police Orders 606/2549 and 777/2551, on the other hand, refer to Section 35 paragraph 3 of Immigration Act B.E.2522 and Section 11(4) of the Royal Thai Police Act B.E. 2547 as authority for the extension rules, but the Immigration Act's stipulation that “the alien shall submit an application and pay the fees as prescribed in the Ministerial Regulations” clearly indicates that there must be a Ministerial Regulation about this somewhere. Is there a legal eagle on this forum who can ferret out this regulation and post a copy of it?

--

Maestro

[Maestro]

…Paternalistic thinking is probably a major factor here…

Definitely. No question about it. The husband, the father is the provider.

--

Maestro

[Mario2008]

Good, correct thinking, which reminds me of a post made by Sunbelt, I believe in September 2007, stating that the extension rules signed by the Director General of the Police Department are issued on the authority of a Ministerial Regulation. That post gave the number and year of the Ministerial Regualation, if I remember correctly, but not its full text. From what I know about Ministerial Regualtions, that particular Regulation probably did not go into the details of finacial requirements for the marriage and parent extensions, as otherwise this part of the extension rules could not be changed at a stroke of the pen of the Director General.

--

Maestro

I think you mean this post: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Foreigners-E...&pid=894274

[Maestro]

I think you mean this post: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Foreigners-E...&pid=894274

It was this one, actually, which I dug up just now (was too busy yesterday):

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Consideratio...t&p=1533988

I remembered wrong: this post only gives the Ministerial Regulation’s year of publication, not the number.

Your link has been helpful just the same because it shows how officialdom cites Ministerial Regulations, namely by giving the volume number, year of publication and date of the Regulation. It has been years since I saw a Ministerial Regulation and thought that they had sequential numbers but apparently this is not always the case, although a web search shows some references to numbered Ministerial Regulations, for example on http://www.tisi.go.th/act/laws.html

With only the year of publication B.E. 2545 (2002) as a clue it will be difficult to trace the Ministerial Regulation on which Police Order 606/2549 was based and the new order 777/2551 indubitably is also based. An additional clue could be the ministry’s name and this is probably the Ministry of the Interior.

Then there is also the Royal Thai Police Act B.E. 2547, referenced in the preamble of Police Order 777/2551, that one would have to look at, I guess, to get a clearer picture.

--

Maestro

[Mario2008]

Will definately be the ministery of the interior, as that is the compatent ministry according to the Immigration Act.

Might be worthwhile to first start to search around 25 November 2008, as the new police order might be based on a new ministerial regulation.

[Maestro]

I found the police Act B.E. 2547, of which Section 11(4) is referred to in the preamble of Police Order 777/2551, at this web address:

http://www.lawreform.go.th/lawreform/image.../2004/11295.pdf

It is in Thai only and there have probably been several amendments to it since it was published in 2004. Section 11(4) reads as follows in Thai and is probably irrelevant to the quest for the motive behind the current rules for marriage and parent extensions:

--

Maestro

[Mario2008]

Probably irrelevant indeed, but apreciate the effort anyway

[CosmicSurfer]

I think you mean this post: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Foreigners-E...&pid=894274

It was this one, actually, which I dug up just now (was too busy yesterday):

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Consideratio...t&p=1533988

I remembered wrong: this post only gives the Ministerial Regulation’s year of publication, not the number.

Your link has been helpful just the same because it shows how officialdom cites Ministerial Regulations, namely by giving the volume number, year of publication and date of the Regulation. It has been years since I saw a Ministerial Regulation and thought that they had sequential numbers but apparently this is not always the case, although a web search shows some references to numbered Ministerial Regulations, for example on http://www.tisi.go.th/act/laws.html

With only the year of publication B.E. 2545 (2002) as a clue it will be difficult to trace the Ministerial Regulation on which Police Order 606/2549 was based and the new order 777/2551 indubitably is also based. An additional clue could be the ministry’s name and this is probably the Ministry of the Interior.

Then there is also the Royal Thai Police Act B.E. 2547, referenced in the preamble of Police Order 777/2551, that one would have to look at, I guess, to get a clearer picture.

--

Maestro

Just a Thought.....

Is it legal, under Thai Law, to issue a regulation, WITHOUT specifing the exact number of the Miniserial Order under which authority that regulation is issued????

Or am I confusing something?

CS

[Mario2008]

^ You need authorithy to issue regulations, but normaly the base of that authorithy is not mentioned in regulations. There will probably be no such requirement in Thai law.

[Maestro]

Might be worthwhile to first start to search around 25 November 2008, as the new police order might be based on a new ministerial regulation.

The way the regulatory process works I doubt very much that there is a new Ministerial Regulation every time before a new Police Order with extension rules is issued.

Hopefully, Sunbelt Asia will read this topic and be able to help us trace it.

--

Maestro

[Maestro]

…Is it legal, under Thai Law, to issue a regulation, WITHOUT specifing the exact number of the Miniserial Order under which authority that regulation is issued????...

It is probably not written into law but it is a common practice in the regulatory process for a subordinate level that issues a directive to cite the order, regulation, law, etc. of the higher level on which the directive is based.

In the case of Police Order 777/2551 it is, at this point, merely an assumption on my part that there must be a Ministerial Order as its basis. The Police Order cites the Immigration Act and the Police Act as the authorising basis and for all we know this may be the correct procedure, ie no need for a Ministerial Order in between. Since the Immigration Act was promulgated in 1979 there have very likely been several subsequent laws amending the original Immigration Act that we do not know about, or the original text as we know it from its English translation does in fact give the Director General of the Police Department direct authority in this matter and only the application form and fees are subject to a Ministerial Order. However, it is Sunbelt’s mention of a Ministerial Regulation that makes me believe that that there exists such Ministerial Regulation giving the Police Department the authority – and responsibility – to issue a Police Order about extension rules.

--

Maestro

[Mario2008]

The immigration act authorises the minister of interior to issue regulations, not the immigration police. So the authority of the immigration police must rest on a ministerial regulation, otherwise the immigration police is not authorised.

Edited January 25, 2009 by Mario2008

[Maestro]

I have now looked more closely at this and see that the Immigration Act does indeed give authority directly to the Director General of the Police Department to issue rules on certain matters, for example Section 35 regarding “the periods of time which one is authorized to stay in the Kingdom” (highlighting in bold is mine):

Section 35 : The Director General or the competent official deputized by the Director General shall have the authority to permit the alien , who entered to stay temporarily in the Kingdom under Section 34 , to remain in the Kingdom under any prescribed conditions. The periods of time which one is authorized to stay in the Kingdom are as Follows :

1. Not exceeding 30 days for a case under Section 34 (4) , (8) and ( 9 )

2. Not exceeding 90 days for a case under Section 34 (3)

3. Not exceeding one year for a case under Section 34 (5) , (10), (11) , (12), (13) , (14) and (15)

4. Not exceeding two years for a case under Section 34 (6)

5. As deemed necessary for a case under Section 34 (1) and (2)

6. As deemed appropriate by the Commission of Investment Promotion , for a case under Section 34 (7)

If it is deemed necessary that the aliens have to stay in the Kingdom Longer than the period of time prescribed in the paragraphs (1) (2) (3) and (4) the Director General shall consider granting the aliens extension of stay for a period not exceeding one year for each time. After granting permission , the Director General shall report to the Commission for their information , with the reason , within seven days from the date of granting.

Each time when applying for an extension of temporary stay in the Kingdom , the alien shall submit an application and pay the fees as prescribed in the Ministerial Regulations. While waiting for directives the alien may be permitted to stay.

This clearly reefers to the extensions of stay. Note that the Immigration Act defines the maximum period of stay but gives authority directly to the Director General to prescribe the conditions, without the need for a Ministerial Regulation as otherwise the Immigration Act would say so. Contracting the first paragraph to “The Director General…shall have the authority to permit the alien… to remain in the Kingdom under any prescribed conditions” we see that this allows no other interpretation but that the Director General is to prescribe the conditions (or deputise another official to do so). This is obviously why Police Order 777/2551 refers to “section 35 paragraph 3 of Immigration Act B.E.2522”. The ungrammatical sentence with a mention of a “Commissioner-General” having “issued the order concerning to the rules and conditions” is puzzling and perhaps a translation of Section 11(4) of the Royal Thai Police Act B.E. 2547, for which I have asked in the Thai language forum, will shed light on it.

The numbered items of Section 35 of the Immigration Act refer back to Section 34 of the same Act and this is where it gets interesting. Section 35(3) refers to Section 34(15) and this says that in addition to a number of specifically listed activities, “aliens entering into the kingdom for a temporary stay may enter for other activities as prescribed in the Ministerial Regulations”. There we have it: the Immigration Act lists the purposes for which an alien may enter Thailand and authorises the Ministry to define the purposes for which the non-O visa (other activities) may be issued, the Act also defines the maximum period of stay for each of the listed activities, and the Act authorizes the Director General or a deputised official to make set the conditions for the extensions of stay.

Therefore, that Ministerial Regulation mentioned by Sunbelt Asia which we are looking for is the Regulation issued on the strength of Section 34(15) and once we get it we will probably see that one of the activities listed there is visits to relatives, but without specifying the conditions for extension of stay.

--

Maestro

[torrenova]

OK, the husband cannot work for the wife to get an income (her income really) as he does not have a WP. However, the husband could enter into a contract with his wife which gave him an income (no need for it to be anything other than fictitious). I'm sure that you, as I, can think of loads of ways to do this with the net result that the husband passes the 40k threshold.

Are they accepting income just arriving in a Thai bank account ? or are they insisting on embassy verified proof ? OK for the good ol' US of A but some countries actually don't believe their citizens.

Still, with a box of beer and an evening to think things through, I'm sure a good fwe suggestions could be put in place as workarounds.

One just in. Two guys enter into a long term agreement to pay Bt50k a month to each other. The embassy sees the paperwork, immigration only sees the embassy letter.

[Maestro]

I have drawn the attached diagram to illustrate the “chain of command” that led to the issuance of Police Order 777/2551

--

Maestro

[Maestro]

OK, the husband cannot work for the wife to get an income (her income really) as he does not have a WP. However, the husband could enter into a contract with his wife which gave him an income (no need for it to be anything other than fictitious).

This could not work because the immigration office would want to see not only income tax receipts but also a work permit for the foreigner’s income.

--

Maestro

[Maestro]

…One just in. Two guys enter into a long term agreement to pay Bt50k a month to each other. The embassy sees the paperwork, immigration only sees the embassy letter.

This can work if the following two conditions are met:

1. The embassy does not want to see any documents for proof of income or it accepts credits made to your bank account as proof of income.
   
2. The immigration office does not ask for supporting documents for the income shown in the embassy letter (but after having read your post it might)
   

--

Maestro

[Mario2008]

I read the article as saying that the director general is te one who will issue the permision to stay, not that he will make the rules.

[NALAK]

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.

Does this mean i no longer have to show 800,000 in the bank for 3 months before i get my retirment visa. i am married. if its 400,000 for 2 months that is good news for me as i no longer have 800,000

[ubonjoe]

Does this mean i no longer have to show 800,000 in the bank for 3 months before i get my retirment visa. i am married. if its 400,000 for 2 months that is good news for me as i no longer have 800,000

Yes 400,000 baht in the bank for 60 days is in the new rules for getting an extension baed upon marriage.

[torrenova]

OK, the husband cannot work for the wife to get an income (her income really) as he does not have a WP. However, the husband could enter into a contract with his wife which gave him an income (no need for it to be anything other than fictitious).

This could not work because the immigration office would want to see not only income tax receipts but also a work permit for the foreigner’s income.

--

Maestro

A whole of life assurance policy is undated. When paid up, no more premiums are payable and the benefits are guaranteed. Against these guaranteed future benefits, it is possible using actuarial tables to derive an income in much the same way as an annuity i.e. a pension.

No embassy or immigration office is going to ask to see documentation showing how you paid for these benefits (the income stream) but merely that it exists.

Given the above, I see no reason whereby the "out of the box" thinker could not set up something similar with any third party.

As income for immigration purposes does not have to be net of tax or even in Thai baht, the possibilities are endless.

Now if we look only on a cost basis and assuming a trip to the home country (and 90 day visa runs) costs about Bt100,000 a year all in, then any cost to achieve the same would be beneficial. Bt100,000 is a lot of thinking outside of the box.

[Maestro]

The Thai translation of Section 11(4) of the Police Act has arrived, thanks to DavidHouston:

Section 11. The Office of the National Police has a Commander of the National Police as its Chief. The Commander has the following duties:

…

(4) to set forth rules and specific orders for civil service police officers and investigative personnel in their use of power in carrying out their functions in accordance with the Legal Codes and, (to set forth the rules and orders regarding) criminal investigative methods as well as other applicable laws.

--

Maestro

[Maestro]

I read the article as saying that the director general is te one who will issue the permision to stay, not that he will make the rules.

An ambiguous translation, possibly, but let’s not go down the road of questioning the authority of the Director General of the Police Department to sign the Police Order with the extension rules.

Whenever a law wants to have some details handled with a Ministerial Order it says so explicitly, and if the lawmakers had wanted a Ministerial Regulation for the “prescribed conditions” mentioned in Section 35 of the Immigration Act they would have written it there.

The Director General would be a very busy man if he had to deal with all applications for extension personally. This is done by his minions, in the Immigration Act referred to as “the competent official deputized by the Director General”, and don’t take the singular form of “official” in the English translation literally.

--

Maestro