Why Do Single Farang Need To Show 65k?

[beechguy]

This whole thread is a smoke screen, obviously for those "in the know" that ran out of ammo in the original one.

Police order does not mention anything regards husband having to "support thai spouse". It's just for expenses, his or her's or whatever.

(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.

But your right, i leave you "in the know" to it for now....

................

I did not start this thread as a smokescreen for whatever thread you are referring to.

I started it because it struck me as strange that it's considered that a farang needs so much more to live on than a Thai.

I started it because of reading about a man who has ample income to take care of his family, but at the mercy of exchange rates doesn't have enough to qualify for an extension. In fact the only option left to him is to waste more of his diminishing income to exit the country to get a visa.

"Police order does not mention anything regards husband having to "support thai spouse"

On the immigration website.....

http://www.immigration.go.th/nov2004/en/ba...hp?page=service

Their words - not mine

Loong, there are three posters that follow stories on visas/immigration and then do what they can to turn an intelligent conversation into a shouting match. You can agree with them, disagree with them, or ignore them. One of the good things about ThaiVisa is the ignore button in the control panel.

Well, I guess one of them would be me. This is just to set the record straight, or I wouldn't bother. The fact is, you post inaccurate information, I and others simply try to inform people of the correct information. No shouting really, but astonished that someone can continually ignore the facts.

Edited June 14, 2009 by beechguy

[samran]

When I started this topic, I asked the question "why is it considered that a family can live on 40K, when a single person needs 65K"

You responded by saying that people here assume that the Thai wife has no income. So what was your point? That 40K isn't considered ample?

I pointed out that the immigration website actually uses the words "to support a wife who is a Thai citizen"

You then come back with the law that simply states that the husband has to have an income of 40K.

Correct me if I am wrong, I'm not an expert in extensions based on marriage.

Didn't the law used to state that the couple had to have a joint income of 40K ?

If so, then they certainly considered that a family income of 40K was sufficient.

Now the husband has to have an income of 40K, so he has to be capable of supporting the family just with his income.

To answer your question, I think it is a combination of a couple of things.

The Thai government probably considers there is some element of 'human rights' here for families to be together, hence make a concession, in terms of income, for families to stay together.

The government probably also thinks, chauvenistically(sp?), that it is the husbands duty to support the wife, hence some income level is required. I don't agree any income requirement if you have a Thai spouse, as it will quickly become apparent of a family can scrape enough money to live here (and for the husband to find work). If they can't, it is probably back to Farangland for them. So I'd rather see a system (for families) based on pure market mechanisms, and not goverment intervention.

You are right when there was a period for about a year where immigration considered joint income. At the time, I thought it was a step towards liberalising the rules, which it probably was.

But as became apparent from posters on this webste, enough people were reporting fictional incomes on their wives salary to the revenue department, paying tax on that (which is tiny anyway @ 40K per month - about 1000 baht) and then using this as proof for their immigration extension. Probably why they cracked down on it.

[soundman]

The Thai government probably considers there is some element of 'human rights' here for families to be together, hence make a concession, in terms of income, for families to stay together.

The government probably also thinks, chauvenistically(sp?), that it is the husbands duty to support the wife, hence some income level is required. I don't agree any income requirement if you have a Thai spouse, as it will quickly become apparent of a family can scrape enough money to live here (and for the husband to find work). If they can't, it is probably back to Farangland for them. So I'd rather see a system (for families) based on pure market mechanisms, and not goverment intervention.

You are right when there was a period for about a year where immigration considered joint income. At the time, I thought it was a step towards liberalising the rules, which it probably was.

There might be some element of "human rights" involved, however, IMO it is more window dressing than anything else.

I think (my theory only! ) the powers that decide these issues probably place more emphasis on foreigners who decide to have a family in Thailand becoming positive additions to the communities they live in.

By stipulating a minimum income they are in fact pruning the large influx of foreigners who marry/start a family down to those that can effectively operate within the Thai society on a day to day / year to year basis.

Lets face it, unless you are a specialist in your field, or an owner/operator of a (successful) business, there is very little chance that one could make the required 40k per month income in Thailand without having a substancial financial asset base, which the authorities are more than appy for you to bring into the country.

A "real" liberalisation of the rules would be to allow foreigners with Thai families access to work in the "restricted" fields of labour.

[loong]

Thanks to everyone who has actually managed to keep on topic.

Some replies make interesting reading.

Can a native English speaking teacher really get a work permit with a salary of only 23K/month? Maybe they considered better money managers.

"Why not go to Cambodia where you can stay more easily and are really wanted? "

Why do you make this irrelevant post in this topic?

"The alternative would be to meet the 400k in the bank requirement though. If any foreigner living in Thailand can't cough up $12k in a onshore Thai bank then it's probably better that the farang in question just move to a cheaper country to live in anyway"

A lot of people have income and no cash.

If I were to talk to a local Thai and say that I only have an income of 39K/month, cannot afford to stay in Thailand and support my family, they would definitely think that Farang are crazy. Most of them can only dream about such a high income.

In my case (not married), if I told them that I couldn't manage in Thailand because I don't have 65K/month, they'd be phoning the funny farm to take me away!

"But as became apparent from posters on this webste, enough people were reporting fictional incomes on their wives salary to the revenue department, paying tax on that (which is tiny anyway @ 40K per month - about 1000 baht) and then using this as proof for their immigration extension. Probably why they cracked down on it."

Is there really only 1000 Baht tax to pay on an income of 40,000 Baht/month???? Not having an income from Thailand, I've never known this. It seems wrong to me that people earning 4 times the national average wage pay such a small amount of income tax.

[MJo]

When I started this topic, I asked the question "why is it considered that a family can live on 40K, when a single person needs 65K"

You responded by saying that people here assume that the Thai wife has no income. So what was your point? That 40K isn't considered ample?

I pointed out that the immigration website actually uses the words "to support a wife who is a Thai citizen"

You then come back with the law that simply states that the husband has to have an income of 40K.

Correct me if I am wrong, I'm not an expert in extensions based on marriage.

Didn't the law used to state that the couple had to have a joint income of 40K ?

If so, then they certainly considered that a family income of 40K was sufficient.

Now the husband has to have an income of 40K, so he has to be capable of supporting the family just with his income.

Loong, Samran already gave you the answers. The same as i and many others have given earlier.

Samran put it more clearly though.

My first comment was due to the fact that most posters did ignore that lot of Thai wifes work nowdays. So the requirement for foreign husband is to bring 40k but in many cases joint family income is far more than the 65k for retirees. Even if the immigration dep web page has not translated it correctly they propably realize that also lot of wifes work. And that might be one reason for the lower requirement. Maybe they see that 65k is good to have but are sure that if the family can not make it for the 40k the wife can always provide the missing 25k... Or that 65k is needed but it is the wifes duty to provide 25k and husband to provide 40K ?

Being married to their citizen is a different reason to stay in thailand than retirement which is basicly long term tourism for thai government. Also note that in most cultures, including thailand, majority of girls marry when they are young and their husband is about the same age. Therefore it also could be that they want to make it easier for young couples with young kids and mortgage. Retirees are more likely to be seen as wealthy guys having worked all their life etc and coming here for long term holiday escaping the winter in europe or are after the lifestyle and cheaper prices but seen more as tourist by thais.

And i have to agree with Samran in the joint income issue, they wanted to make it even more easier but as it was heavily abused they could not continue. This forum has many threads giving detailed information how to make it appear your thai wife has 40k income and how much it costs in taxes and it was not much. Certainly a better option than visa runs every 90 days or tourist visas etc. So lot of this has to do with the thai bureacracy and systems. Looks like sometimes they do want to make it easier for all of us but then notice that it leaves the system open for abuse or that it can not be properly supervised and then they leave it or go back to previous requirements. So i do not believe they are out to get us and want us out.

Now could you give us your opinion on above and what Samran wrote ? And JR Texas, would like to hear yours as well. Just asking as these same points have been mentioned now few times but not addressed by you guys. You mainly seem to concentrate on "go home" type comments or repeating the list of issues that you would like to change in thai system.

Edited June 14, 2009 by MJo

[loong]

When I started this topic, I asked the question "why is it considered that a family can live on 40K, when a single person needs 65K"

You responded by saying that people here assume that the Thai wife has no income. So what was your point? That 40K isn't considered ample?

I pointed out that the immigration website actually uses the words "to support a wife who is a Thai citizen"

You then come back with the law that simply states that the husband has to have an income of 40K.

Correct me if I am wrong, I'm not an expert in extensions based on marriage.

Didn't the law used to state that the couple had to have a joint income of 40K ?

If so, then they certainly considered that a family income of 40K was sufficient.

Now the husband has to have an income of 40K, so he has to be capable of supporting the family just with his income.

Loong, Samran already gave you the answers. The same as i and many others have given earlier.

Samran put it more clearly though.

My first comment was due to the fact that most posters did ignore that lot of Thai wifes work nowdays. So the requirement for foreign husband is to bring 40k but in many cases joint family income is far more than the 65k for retirees. Even if the immigration dep web page has not translated it correctly they propably realize that also lot of wifes work. And that might be one reason for the lower requirement. Maybe they see that 65k is good to have but are sure that if the family can not make it for the 40k the wife can always provide the missing 25k... Or that 65k is needed but it is the wifes duty to provide 25k and husband to provide 40K ?

Being married to their citizen is a different reason to stay in thailand than retirement which is basicly long term tourism for thai government. Also note that in most cultures, including thailand, majority of girls marry when they are young and their husband is about the same age. Therefore it also could be that they want to make it easier for young couples with young kids and mortgage. Retirees are more likely to be seen as wealthy guys having worked all their life etc and coming here for long term holiday escaping the winter in europe or are after the lifestyle and cheaper prices but seen more as tourist by thais.

And i have to agree with Samran in the joint income issue, they wanted to make it even more easier but as it was heavily abused they could not continue. This forum has many threads giving detailed information how to make it appear your thai wife has 40k income and how much it costs in taxes and it was not much. Certainly a better option than visa runs every 90 days or tourist visas etc. So lot of this has to do with the thai bureacracy and systems. Looks like sometimes they do want to make it easier for all of us but then notice that it leaves the system open for abuse or that it can not be properly supervised and then they leave it or go back to previous requirements. So i do not believe they are out to get us and want us out.

Now could you give us your opinion on above and what Samran wrote ? And JR Texas, would like to hear yours as well. Just asking as these same points have been mentioned now few times but not addressed by you guys. You mainly seem to concentrate on "go home" type comments or repeating the list of issues that you would like to change in thai system.

Most of your post is waffle.

Until recently a joint income of 40k/month was enough to qualify for an extension based on marriage.

I interpret this as meaning that 40k was considered enough for a married couple to live on.

Do you interpret it any other way? Yes or No.

My only comment that I added on Samran's post was re the low amount of tax paid on 40k/month. Not to dispute it, just to express my surprise.

As for the rest of Samran's post, he gave his opinion, it was a worthwhile contribution to this thread, was well thought out and had good reasoning behind it. I had nothing to comment on for or against his post.

Your post, however, not only ignores the FACT that 40K was considered enough with joint income, you now consider yourself to be privy to inside knowledge that a wife is considered to be earning at least 25K. You can spout the law, but you have nothing to back up this assumption.

I made the point re supporting a Thai wife, because the actual words appear on the immigration and many legal website, but you won't accept this as the law does not use the words. Meanwhile you can pluck out of thin air, the assumption that Thai women married to Foreigners all earn or have the duty to earn 25k/month.

[MJo]

Most of your post is waffle.

Until recently a joint income of 40k/month was enough to qualify for an extension based on marriage.

I interpret this as meaning that 40k was considered enough for a married couple to live on.

Do you interpret it any other way? Yes or No.

My only comment that I added on Samran's post was re the low amount of tax paid on 40k/month. Not to dispute it, just to express my surprise.

As for the rest of Samran's post, he gave his opinion, it was a worthwhile contribution to this thread, was well thought out and had good reasoning behind it. I had nothing to comment on for or against his post.

Your post, however, not only ignores the FACT that 40K was considered enough with joint income, you now consider yourself to be privy to inside knowledge that a wife is considered to be earning at least 25K. You can spout the law, but you have nothing to back up this assumption.

I made the point re supporting a Thai wife, because the actual words appear on the immigration and many legal website, but you won't accept this as the law does not use the words. Meanwhile you can pluck out of thin air, the assumption that Thai women married to Foreigners all earn or have the duty to earn 25k/month.

You are entitled to disagree with my post.

And yes, i do consider 40k is enough to get by. I wish i never have to do it myself on 40k income but it is enough in my opinion. You can get by with 40k if you need to. Actually you can do it much less if you want to.

I never said i'm privy to any insider info. I said that it very well could be that Thai government wants to make it easier for married couples than retirees. And in my opinion they are entitled to do so.

To take something that immigration web page translation says as a fact that thai government requires you to support you spouse is bit silly as well. It's just a wording they have used. And if you look the translation it is not that good anyways. However there is no requirement in the law for foreign husband to support her wife or family. It just requires the husband to have certain level of income to get one year extension of stay. They require money so the limit has to be drawn somewhere.

What is your opinion on it? I take your take on it that the amounts are different only because Thai government wants deliberately discriminate foreigners and especially retirees ?

[loong]

Most of your post is waffle.

Until recently a joint income of 40k/month was enough to qualify for an extension based on marriage.

I interpret this as meaning that 40k was considered enough for a married couple to live on.

Do you interpret it any other way? Yes or No.

My only comment that I added on Samran's post was re the low amount of tax paid on 40k/month. Not to dispute it, just to express my surprise.

As for the rest of Samran's post, he gave his opinion, it was a worthwhile contribution to this thread, was well thought out and had good reasoning behind it. I had nothing to comment on for or against his post.

Your post, however, not only ignores the FACT that 40K was considered enough with joint income, you now consider yourself to be privy to inside knowledge that a wife is considered to be earning at least 25K. You can spout the law, but you have nothing to back up this assumption.

I made the point re supporting a Thai wife, because the actual words appear on the immigration and many legal website, but you won't accept this as the law does not use the words. Meanwhile you can pluck out of thin air, the assumption that Thai women married to Foreigners all earn or have the duty to earn 25k/month.

You are entitled to disagree with my post.

And yes, i do consider 40k is enough to get by. I wish i never have to do it myself on 40k income but it is enough in my opinion. You can get by with 40k if you need to. Actually you can do it much less if you want to.

I never said i'm privy to any insider info. I said that it very well could be that Thai government wants to make it easier for married couples than retirees. And in my opinion they are entitled to do so.

To take something that immigration web page translation says as a fact that thai government requires you to support you spouse is bit silly as well. It's just a wording they have used. And if you look the translation it is not that good anyways. However there is no requirement in the law for foreign husband to support her wife or family. It just requires the husband to have certain level of income to get one year extension of stay. They require money so the limit has to be drawn somewhere.

What is your opinion on it? I take your take on it that the amounts are different only because Thai government wants deliberately discriminate foreigners and especially retirees ?

"And yes, i do consider 40k is enough to get by. I wish i never have to do it myself on 40k income but it is enough in my opinion. You can get by with 40k if you need to. Actually you can do it much less if you want to."

Are you a politician?

Please can you answer the question - I didn't ask you if you considered 40k/month enough to live on, maybe I wasn't clear so will rephrase it..

Not so long ago, a joint income was required of 40k/month for an extension based on marriage. I interpret this as meaning that the authorities deemed 40k/month income the minimum amount necessary to support the Thai/Farang family unit.

Do you interpret it differently, Yes or No?

"It just requires the husband to have certain level of income to get one year extension of stay." Yes, an amount that exactly matches the joint income that was previously required.

To make you happy, I will accept that it is not a requirement that the Farang supports his family financially. It is, however a requirement that the Farang has to supply the minimum support level for the family that the authorities deem necessary.

As you are so keen on the letter of the law and regulations, you will see that there is absolutely no requirement for the wife to have an income, so immigration ignore the fact that some wives work.

So your original statement that "So many people here ignore the FACT that many wives work" has absolutely no relevance. It is irrelevant to the immigration dept when assessing an application, so is of course irrelevant in this topic.

"What is your opinion on it? I take your take on it that the amounts are different only because Thai government wants deliberately discriminate foreigners and especially retirees ?"

I don't know how you reached this assumption. Is this your opinion? Do you see this as discrimination?

No, being a foreigner, I do understand that most of us would find it very difficult, if not impossible to live on the average Thai wage. Absolute minimum comfort level for our family would cost 15,000 Baht/month. Realistically though, we couldn't manage with less than 20,000. Even, then, I wouldn't want to be in a position where I HAD to support the family limited to 20,000.

Yes, I understand that limits have to be set, but I just can't understand why they are so many times the average wage, especially for a retiree. I have lived as a single man in Thailand, I don't have an extravagant lifestyle and as a single person can easily live on less than 30K/month. I would actually find it difficult to spend 65K

[bkkmick]

Indeed, it used to be a combination of collective income -- 40K

Now it's farang only -- 40K

Not true. For the past three one year marriage visas my wife provided the documentation to prove that she earns more than 40k. They didn't ask me for anything.

[Mario2008]

Indeed, it used to be a combination of collective income -- 40K

Now it's farang only -- 40K

Not true. For the past three one year marriage visas my wife provided the documentation to prove that she earns more than 40k. They didn't ask me for anything.

The rules changed last November. Under the new rule you have the option of showing either 40,000 income OR 400,000 in a bankaccount in Thailand. But in both cases the money has to be the foreign husbands only. The wives income is no loger being counted.

[MJo]

Not so long ago, a joint income was required of 40k/month for an extension based on marriage. I interpret this as meaning that the authorities deemed 40k/month income the minimum amount necessary to support the Thai/Farang family unit.

Do you interpret it differently, Yes or No?

I do agree with you. For a brief period of time that was the requirement so you could assume they deemed it is enough for the family to live on joint income of 40K. However you could also assume that they wanted to make it easier for the family guys and that the amounts and changes have nothing to do what the immigration considers as sufficient amount to live.

My point is that we do not know for sure. Maybe it has nothing to do with being able to support yourself or your family. Maybe they just decided that this is what they want farangs to bring in annually. Or maybe they indeed have calculated that 40k is absolute minimum a family with foreigner can survive. Fact is that we do not know and can only speculate here on the forum.

As you are so keen on the letter of the law and regulations, you will see that there is absolutely no requirement for the wife to have an income, so immigration ignore the fact that some wives work.

So your original statement that "So many people here ignore the FACT that many wives work" has absolutely no relevance. It is irrelevant to the immigration dept when assessing an application, so is of course irrelevant in this topic.

In my opinion it is very relevant to this topic if you keep it in context with my post. If and i say if we now assume the amounts are considered as what one needs to live here on thailand it is very reasonable assumption that married couple has other income than just husbands salary. Yes, nothing to with applying extension and i never said it has.

No, being a foreigner, I do understand that most of us would find it very difficult, if not impossible to live on the average Thai wage. Absolute minimum comfort level for our family would cost 15,000 Baht/month. Realistically though, we couldn't manage with less than 20,000. Even, then, I wouldn't want to be in a position where I HAD to support the family limited to 20,000.

Yes, I understand that limits have to be set, but I just can't understand why they are so many times the average wage, especially for a retiree. I have lived as a single man in Thailand, I don't have an extravagant lifestyle and as a single person can easily live on less than 30K/month. I would actually find it difficult to spend 65K

Now this is fully agree, very difficult to do it even on 40k with a family. Standard of living would drop a lot for many. I have young kid reasonable job and wife works. To give up our present lifestyle would be very difficult. Same goes with retirees, many indeed live confortably below 65k a month and i know personally few of them.

You asked people to give their opinions why there is a difference in married 40k and retired 65k requirement. Again the fact is that no one here knows as i believe there is no one here who has the power to decide how much the requirements are. Nor they are ever explained by Thai government how they get the figures. So only one can give you is their opinion and speculate.

Mine is as i stated in my previous posts, but note it is only my opinion and speculation. Don't consider i claim them to be facts.

But one fact still remains, most countries it is easier to gain entry based on marriage with national than just migrate for retirement. So Thailand is no exception.

And Thai goverment is not forcing you to spend all 65k per month. You should keep some of it under your mattress as you never know when you gonna need bit extra for that bypass operation or broken hip

Edited June 14, 2009 by MJo

[bkkmick]

The rules changed last November. Under the new rule you have the option of showing either 40,000 income OR 400,000 in a bankaccount in Thailand. But in both cases the money has to be the foreign husbands only. The wives income is no loger being counted.

I think that's correct but I'm pretty sure (although I'll have to check) that our solicitor said that if you were already judged based the wife's income before the rules changed that they will still use that method next time you apply. Until the rules change again, of course.

Edited June 14, 2009 by bkkmick

[Mario2008]

The rules changed last November. Under the new rule you have the option of showing either 40,000 income OR 400,000 in a bankaccount in Thailand. But in both cases the money has to be the foreign husbands only. The wives income is no loger being counted.

I think that's correct but I'm pretty sure (although I'll have to check) that our solicitor said that if you were already judged based the wife's income before the rules changed that they will still use that method next time you apply. Until the rules change again, of course.

Not exactly, old cases are not grandfathered. The immigration officer has to descretion to use the old rule, and take into account the wife's income, in old cases. That is however only during the first year of the new rules. As of 25 november 2009 immigration will no longer have this descretion!

see:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/post-a70477-.html

6. If an alien who has entered Thailand before this order came into force and has been continuously granted temporary stay as clause 2.18(6), in case the marriage with Thai lady, is found to lack the qualifications as prescribed in this order, the Commissioner of the Immigration Bureau or competent official shall consider and decide on the particular case based on the prevailing reasons and circumstances within 1 year from the effective date hereof.

2.18 is the extension based on being a familymember of a Thai national

[JohnGotti]

Its the same everywhere. Singapore, for example. Hong Kong. You can stay there indefinitely on tourist visas (as far as I know) but any long term visa for someone who is not working and not married is VERY hard to come by. Its more or less a matter of principle, to control immigration. You are basically asking, why can't anyone live anywhere they want? Nations choose to control immigration. Thailand is just following everyone else's lead.

Everyone at once, give me a long deep sigh, and say "But that's not fair!"

[Maestro]

A post with quoted text only and the replies to it have been deleted.

--

Maestro

[Gaccha]

I too have wondered why a single retiree needs 65k a month but a married guy supporting a family needs a lesser amount. The longer I stay here, the less I understand the place

Because it's the heteronormative regime that most countries apply to immigration. If you can name a country that does not do this I would be keen to hear.

In the meantime, lets look at the US of A.

"in elevating family preferences to become the major mechanism for legal entry, Congress calculated that this would enable continued European dominance of the immigration stream, albeit through deniable means." (p.297)

"Approximately 75 per cent of all current legal immigrants enter the United States on the basis of family ties" (p.293)

"its assemblages attempt to transform legally admitted immirgants into "good" citizens" (p.290)

The Thai state sees you as a threat. Only if you can "mobilise high degrees of human or economic capital" (p.307) will it let you become legal.

Of course, you are to some degree on the receiving end now of this nonsense so you recognise the absurdity where "policymakers... tend to treat illegal immigration as a self-evident problem that is generated by and reflects undesirable individuals". (p.291) You can see it is not self-evident. That surely there is nothing wrong with the single man.

(all references to: "Sexuality, migration and the shifting line between legal and illegal status, Eithne Luibheid, GLQ journal")

This is very complex and is an interesting issue of transnational effects of neoliberalism in migration patterns. It is not an issue of "isn't Thailand crazy!". The patients long ago took over the asylum, right across the World.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Gaccha

[JR Texas]

I too have wondered why a single retiree needs 65k a month but a married guy supporting a family needs a lesser amount. The longer I stay here, the less I understand the place

Because it's the heteronormative regime that most countries apply to immigration. If you can name a country that does not do this I would be keen to hear.

In the meantime, lets look at the US of A.

"in elevating family preferences to become the major mechanism for legal entry, Congress calculated that this would enable continued European dominance of the immigration stream, albeit through deniable means." (p.297)

"Approximately 75 per cent of all current legal immigrants enter the United States on the basis of family ties" (p.293)

"its assemblages attempt to transform legally admitted immirgants into "good" citizens" (p.290)

The Thai state sees you as a threat. Only if you can "mobilise high degrees of human or economic capital" (p.307) will it let you become legal.

Of course, you are to some degree on the receiving end now of this nonsense so you recognise the absurdity where "policymakers... tend to treat illegal immigration as a self-evident problem that is generated by and reflects undesirable individuals". (p.291) You can see it is not self-evident. That surely there is nothing wrong with the single man.

(all references to: "Sexuality, migration and the shifting line between legal and illegal status, Eithne Luibheid, GLQ journal")

This is very complex and is an interesting issue of transnational effects of neoliberalism in migration patterns. It is not an issue of "isn't Thailand crazy!". The patients long ago took over the asylum, right across the World.

I don't doubt the accuracy of what you just said in what is a very informative post. From a legal standpoint it, the difference in perspective/treatment seems to be a cultural construct based on the belief that "family status" is better than or safer than "single status."

There is no cross-the-board validity to it........good people can be found in both single and married status categories, but the cultural belief is what matters most.

It is, however, well known that single males commit more crimes than married males.........that probably has to do with age (testosterone) and income factors........also sexual stability that "sometimes" comes with marriage.

I think Lopburi mentioned something similar using more down to earth words.

I can see this better now.......thanks for the posts. BUT, I still think that if security of young males is the issue, the way to deal with it is not to raise income requirements.........the way to deal with it is to use the security apparatus to weed out undesirables (e.g., a security check).

We should remember that singles males sometimes have and spend more money than married males........it does happen. Thailand needs their money.....at least the tourism sector needs their money.

[Garry9999]

Heteronormativity is a term describing the marginalization of non-heterosexual lifestyles and the view that heterosexuality is the normal sexual orientation. Instances of this include the idea that people fall into two distinct and complementary categories (male and female), that sexual and marital relations are normal only when between people of different sexes, and that each sex has certain natural roles in life. The heteronormative view is that physical sex, gender identity, and gender roles should, in any given person, align to either all-male or all-female cultural norms.[1]

Quote Wikipedia

[JR Texas]

Heteronormativity is a term describing the marginalization of non-heterosexual lifestyles and the view that heterosexuality is the normal sexual orientation. Instances of this include the idea that people fall into two distinct and complementary categories (male and female), that sexual and marital relations are normal only when between people of different sexes, and that each sex has certain natural roles in life. The heteronormative view is that physical sex, gender identity, and gender roles should, in any given person, align to either all-male or all-female cultural norms.[1]

Quote Wikipedia

Thanks for the definition. I think the main issue, from the perspective of immigration, is single heterosexual male vs married heterosexual male. It is the dominant cultural ethos that is the issue.

In most countries, correct me if I am wrong, non-heterosexuals account for 10 percent or less of the total male population. In Thailand, and with regard to Thai males, that figure is probably higher for cultural reasons.

I think Gaccha is really on to something here.........makes sense to me.