Thai Immigration Tightens Requirements For Retirement Visa Extensions

[moe666]

In reviewing the prior posts, I have come to the conclusion that most of the posters are confusing the legal requirements for an extension of stay (e.g., 800,000 THB in a Thai bank or 65,000 THB per month in income, or some combination equal to 800,000 THB) and the evidence necessary to prove compliance with the legal requirements (such as the embassy letter). As far as I can tell, the legal requirements themselves have not changed. See, e.g. Order of the Royal Thai Police 777/2552. For an extension based on retirement, you are still required to be 50 or over and have a monthly income of at least 65,000 THB, 800,000 THB in a Thai bank for at least 90 days, or some combination of income and money on deposit in a Thai bank equal to 800,000.

What seems to have changed, at least in some locations or with some people attempting to secure an extension of stay, is that Thai Immigration has started requiring more substantial proof than has been required in the past. As we all know (hopefully), Thai Immigration has the authority to require additional documentation at any time. Speaking as an U.S. citizen only since I have no experience with what is required from other countries, I can see where Thai Immigration might want to see additional proof to go with the embassy letter confirming income. In essence, the letter that the embassy provides is based on nothing more than the applicant swearing under oath that he or she has a certain amount of income per month. The embassy apparently makes no inquiry into the truthfulness or accuracy of the statements and I have found no information, anecdotal or otherwise, to indicate that any individual has ever been punished for "fudging the numbers" and swearing to a false amount of income. While I fully believe that most people making the declarations do so honestly, I am also sure that there is some small number of folks that are less than forthright in their declarations. That small number may well have been the impetus for the changes in the proof required by Thai Immigration.

As for the money required to come into the Kingdom, that only seems to be required for the 800,000 THB or the portion used to top up income to 800,000 THB which is required to be on deposit in a Thai bank in Thailand. None of the information I have found, including the Order linked above, show any requirement that the 65,000 THB income per month be brought into the Kingdom. If there is something that does specifically require the 65,000 THB per month be brought into the Kingdom, I would appreciate a reference to that material.

Just my $0.02 worth.

David

At last. A balanced and level headed assessment of the situation.

Great post but this point was made many times in this thread but people continue to ignore that fact. It's just human nature to make a mountain out of a molehill

[granuaile]

What does puzzle me is why a single retired person would need twice the income of a person married to a Thai and possibly with a family. That just doesn't make sense.

Let's think about that:

- because when married you get 2 salaries to pay about the same home rent

- because when single you need to pay an expensive health insurance; when married you use your wife's one

- because single falangs usually rent a 50m2 place for them alone but live more "thai style" when married : 4 person in 30 m2...

- because when married you buy nearly everything at Thai price, not the falang price in many double-pricing places...

- because singles like to live in the heart of the action/city (expensive) and when married prefer quieter suburb or campaign (cheaper)

- because when single many falangs spends a fortune in bars and ladies...

- because most singles pay at least one plane travel to their home country yearly but stay there when married...

... (add yours...)

Hmmm

All that said those are mostly extras that no one has to have... If they have less money they would simply have to settle for less... It doesn't take a lot to live rather comfortably here, compared to the states... I have never lived in the center of the city and would not - I like places like Bangplad or Chatujak. I have no desire to go back to the states. I don't spend a fortune on the ladies or spend every night in a club. Have rarely been overcharged, except by taxi drivers. Much of that is a choice, so you really don't need double to live here... Actually you can live on much less than 400,000 baht annually. So doesn't really explain it being a policy. I could see it more in Indonesia where they require you to live in specific areas and pay exorbitant rents....

I could see having the same financial requirement for both categories, but not the differing one. And marrying a Thai is not an option for me, I won't marry a man and I cannot marry a tom

[moe666]

Does it really matter why it's the rule.

[JimGant]

None of the information I have found, including the Order linked above, show any requirement that the 65,000 THB income per month be brought into the Kingdom.

Exactly. And as shown in previous posts, this is causing problems, either because they lied about having the income -- or, yes, they have the income -- but it's not available for use in Thailand.

Simple solution: show us the money. Ad hoc for now. But probably to be written in stone later.

No problem -- if you're legit.

[Genericnic]

I went back and started rereading the posts in this thread to see if there was a beginning to the issue of having to show the annual income being brought into Thailand. It wasn't until post #22, quoted here, that there was any mention of having to prove the 65,000 THB was brought into Thailand. That poster did not indicate if he was required to do so, only that he did not think it was a strange request. The OP of #1 did not say anything about that in the posting other than mentioning it in the title. Has anyone who has applied for the extension actually be required to supply proof that the 65,000 THB was actually being brought into the Kingdom? I haven't finished going through all 19 pages of posts again but my memory from the early reading does not seem to remember anyone actually having stated that they had to prove that the 65,000 THB of monthly income was actually brought into the Kingdom.

David

I don't understand what the commotion is all about. From now on immigration wants, once a year, to have proof that the stated pension of 65.000 baht/month is actually brought in to Thailand. Apparently there are people that show statements from the embassies of the required minimum income, whether pension or other and then do not bring in the money but most likely do work of some sort illegally in Thailand. I think this is not at all a strange request. For those that do not have an income or pension, the requirement to show proof of 800.000 baht in a Thai bank 3 months prior to the request for extension has been in force for many years. They have become more strict regarding the copy of the bank book. You must now have an entry in the book the same day as you ask for extension, meaning a small transaction must be done that same day.

Edited June 11, 2011 by Genericnic

[tropo]

Why is it that a simple informational post becomes a forum for panic and suppositions going way beyond what the post is trying to tell us. It simply states that the immigration office might require proof which substantiates the embassy letter. I doubt that Thai immigration gives a sh*t whether it is pension income, interest income, investment income, etc. You either have the funds/income to qualify or you don't. If you don't the post is warning you that you MAY have a problem as there seems to be a toughening of the attitude of the Immigration Office. There has probably been some incidents which brought to light that some individuals do NOT have the required income as shown on the embassy letter. What's the big deal here? 65,000/month or 800,000 in the bank is the requirement. Nothing was said in the post about the requirement to bring into Thailand all 65,000 per month just as there is no requirement that you cannot sent money back out of the country from the 800,000 Thai bank account. The Thai government is only trying to set some standards to prohibit farangs coming to Thailand and trying to live on the 8,000 baht per month someone suggested was general income for the Thai populace. Seems like the Thai government is actually quite reasonable with regard to income requirements.

Because for the past ten years the bar has been moving in the wrong direction. No, the govt. is not trying to stop farangs from living on 8000 baht per month. They are trying to stop farangs from living on 64,999 bhat per month or who only have 799,999 bhat in the bank. Both of those figures are set way too high. Guess what they were ten years ago? Next they will come for farangs with Thai wives. Eventually they will come for you and you will not be so complacent.

Wrong.... AGAIN...

1. The bar isn't moving at all - it has been 800K/65K for a long time. Hasn't changed in the nearly 6 years I've been here. They haven't moved it an inch to adjust for inflation.

2. It is not too high. I spend quite a bit more than 65K per month and I'm careful with my money. I would have to do some serious standard of living adjustments to chop my spending down to 65K per month. I'm in Thailand for a better standard of living that what I can afford in Australia, not to live cheaper. I thought that was the case with most retirees here.

[Jingthing]

Just because some posters are overly LITERAL minded and actually believe the only thing to be concerned about are the last OFFICIALLY published set of immigration requirements, doesn't mean that actually reflects that reality on the ground at the offices. There are published rules and there are current ENFORCEMENT POLICIES!

This current issue about both Americans (and some other nationalities) being required to show proof of pensions in addition to embassy letters and also POSSIBLY being required to prove at least some months of the actual pension monies being IMPORTED into Thailand at at least one office (Bangkok) is most certainly not a current officially published rule. It MAY be an enforcement policy. If it is real, it may STAY an enforcement policy for years and STILL be real. Immigration followers like me know this kind of thing is nothing new at all. Have fun complaining to your officer that it isn't in the rules; they generally won't care and if you say that the wrong way, you'll make things even worse for yourself.

Regarding the details on the OP. The thing about import (which of course I also agree is not yet properly documented or proven by actual reports) is there in both the headline and the text below. The text is vague and can be read different ways. However, I see reason to read it as being related to importation of pension because of the way immigration tends to operate (and also of course seen in CONTEXT of the headline). For them, the documents they value and accept are generally from THAILAND. Embassy letters from embassies in THAILAND. Bank books from THAI banks, etc. It is a predictable knee jerk reaction that Thai immigration if seeking proof of pensions is going to favor information form THAI banks over some online printout from your home bank's website, etc. Keep in mind most of the officers will never be Nobel Prize candidates. Whether this inflexibility is codified in an emerging ENFORCEMENT POLICY (not written for you to see) is yet to be seen.

"It has been reported that along with the statement the applicant has made at their embassy stating their monthly income, for the past month the Immigration Bureau has asked to see proof of at least two months of pension income. This requirement is not just for new applications but renewals as well", says Sunn Justubavornchai, legal advisor at Sunbelt Asia Co., Ltd.

Edited June 11, 2011 by Jingthing

[tropo]

Just my $0.02 worth.

David

At last. A balanced and level headed assessment of the situation.

...and worth about $0.02.

Just another analysis which offers nothing new and certainly no information of any use to applicants.

It's got to the stage now where all we need to hear are reports from people applying for extensions.

[Jingthing]

Yes, correct tropo, that's spot on. REPORTS (starting from NOW). Not one but the SUM of them will give the REAL truth about all this. Don't forget to give your nationality and office and other relevant details of your case.

Also note if you are NOT one of the targeted nationalities (embassies that don't verify income information to the satisfaction of immigration) then your report is completely IRRELEVANT to this thread issue UNLESS you are asked for proof (which could be random) and especially proof of IMPORT.

According the OP, the effected nationalities are

USA

CANADA

AUSTRALIA

Edited June 11, 2011 by Jingthing

[harrry]

I went back and started rereading the posts in this thread to see if there was a beginning to the issue of having to show the annual income being brought into Thailand. It wasn't until post #22, quoted here, that there was any mention of having to prove the 65,000 THB was brought into Thailand. That poster did not indicate if he was required to do so, only that he did not think it was a strange request. The OP of #1 did not say anything about that in the posting other than mentioning it in the title. Has anyone who has applied for the extension actually be required to supply proof that the 65,000 THB was actually being brought into the Kingdom? I haven't finished going through all 19 pages of posts again but my memory from the early reading does not seem to remember anyone actually having stated that they had to prove that the 65,000 THB of monthly income was actually brought into the Kingdom.

David

I don't understand what the commotion is all about. From now on immigration wants, once a year, to have proof that the stated pension of 65.000 baht/month is actually brought in to Thailand. Apparently there are people that show statements from the embassies of the required minimum income, whether pension or other and then do not bring in the money but most likely do work of some sort illegally in Thailand. I think this is not at all a strange request. For those that do not have an income or pension, the requirement to show proof of 800.000 baht in a Thai bank 3 months prior to the request for extension has been in force for many years. They have become more strict regarding the copy of the bank book. You must now have an entry in the book the same day as you ask for extension, meaning a small transaction must be done that same day.

David, if you read the topic heading and subheading yu will see that it states the money has to be brought here.

[Genericnic]

I went back and started rereading the posts in this thread to see if there was a beginning to the issue of having to show the annual income being brought into Thailand. It wasn't until post #22, quoted here, that there was any mention of having to prove the 65,000 THB was brought into Thailand. That poster did not indicate if he was required to do so, only that he did not think it was a strange request. The OP of #1 did not say anything about that in the posting other than mentioning it in the title. Has anyone who has applied for the extension actually be required to supply proof that the 65,000 THB was actually being brought into the Kingdom? I haven't finished going through all 19 pages of posts again but my memory from the early reading does not seem to remember anyone actually having stated that they had to prove that the 65,000 THB of monthly income was actually brought into the Kingdom.

David

David, if you read the topic heading and subheading yu will see that it states the money has to be brought here.

Harry,

Already noted.

David

Edited June 12, 2011 by metisdead
Fixed quote.

[moe666]

Just because some posters are overly LITERAL minded and actually believe the only thing to be concerned about are the last OFFICIALLY published set of immigration requirements, doesn't mean that actually reflects that reality on the ground at the offices. There are published rules and there are current ENFORCEMENT POLICIES!

This current issue about both Americans (and some other nationalities) being required to show proof of pensions in addition to embassy letters and also POSSIBLY being required to prove at least some months of the actual pension monies being IMPORTED into Thailand at at least one office (Bangkok) is most certainly not a current officially published rule. It MAY be an enforcement policy. If it is real, it may STAY an enforcement policy for years and STILL be real. Immigration followers like me know this kind of thing is nothing new at all. Have fun complaining to your officer that it isn't in the rules; they generally won't care and if you say that the wrong way, you'll make things even worse for yourself.

Regarding the details on the OP. The thing about import (which of course I also agree is not yet properly documented or proven by actual reports) is there in both the headline and the text below. The text is vague and can be read different ways. However, I see reason to read it as being related to importation of pension because of the way immigration tends to operate (and also of course seen in CONTEXT of the headline). For them, the documents they value and accept are generally from THAILAND. Embassy letters from embassies in THAILAND. Bank books from THAI banks, etc. It is a predictable knee jerk reaction that Thai immigration if seeking proof of pensions is going to favor information form THAI banks over some online printout from your home bank's website, etc. Keep in mind most of the officers will never be Nobel Prize candidates. Whether this inflexibility is codified in an emerging ENFORCEMENT POLICY (not written for you to see) is yet to be seen.

"It has been reported that along with the statement the applicant has made at their embassy stating their monthly income, for the past month the Immigration Bureau has asked to see proof of at least two months of pension income. This requirement is not just for new applications but renewals as well", says Sunn Justubavornchai, legal advisor at Sunbelt Asia Co., Ltd.

I read your post with interest until you felt a need to diaparage immigration officers. Your commit about becoming Nobel Prize candidates is totally uncalled for.

Edited June 11, 2011 by moe666

[tropo]

Yes, correct tropo, that's spot on. REPORTS (starting from NOW). Not one but the SUM of them will give the REAL truth about all this. Don't forget to give your nationality and office and other relevant details of your case.

Also note if you are NOT one of the targeted nationalities (embassies that don't verify income information to the satisfaction of immigration) then your report is completely IRRELEVANT to this thread issue UNLESS you are asked for proof (which could be random) and especially proof of IMPORT.

According the OP, the effected nationalities are

USA

CANADA

AUSTRALIA

Canadians need to show proof of income at Embassy and need not be included.

[Darrel]

I'm in Thailand for a better standard of living that what I can afford in Australia, not to live cheaper. I thought that was the case with most retirees here.

Certainly not for me. I live almost exactly the same way here as I did in Europe, and that is the same way I have lived for the last 35 years. My main reasons for being here are because it is cheaper to do it here (and why pay more for something if you can pay less?), there is less hassle here, it is less boring here, and I dont need heating in the winter here. If it was the same price here, or cold in the winter, or more hassle, or more boring then I would just go somewhere else.

Just because things are cheaper doesnt make me do more than I want to, I just spend less money to do what I want.

[tropo]

I'm in Thailand for a better standard of living that what I can afford in Australia, not to live cheaper. I thought that was the case with most retirees here.

Certainly not for me. I live almost exactly the same way here as I did in Europe, and that is the same way I have lived for the last 35 years. My main reasons for being here are because it is cheaper to do it here (and why pay more for something if you can pay less?), there is less hassle here, it is less boring here, and I dont need heating in the winter here. If it was the same price here, or cold in the winter, or more hassle, or more boring then I would just go somewhere else.

Just because things are cheaper doesnt make me do more than I want to, I just spend less money to do what I want.

Sorry, I didn't make it clear enough. By "not to live cheaper", I meant not to live a lower standard.

[Jingthing]

I read your post with interest until you felt a need to diaparage immigration officers. Your commit about becoming Nobel Prize candidates is totally uncalled for.

So is there one in particular you would like to send a nomination to Oslo?

Anyway, thanks for sharing but I stand by my comment based on personal experience.

If you want to reject the actual content of the thread based on one cheeky comment, it's a free country. Oh, scratch that, it's not really, but most of us still want to be here, bless our hearts.

On a more practical level, face it, the front line officers can't be expected to decipher a plethora of types of income/pension "proof" documents in numerous languages. The embassy letter method of course makes sense and provides an official document from an entity in Thailand. Also, of course THAI bank books/statements if you're lucky. Beyond that the policy makers know their staff better than we do, and I seriously doubt they are going to authorize them to make judgments on a variety of non-official foreign documents.

Edited June 11, 2011 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Yes, correct tropo, that's spot on. REPORTS (starting from NOW). Not one but the SUM of them will give the REAL truth about all this. Don't forget to give your nationality and office and other relevant details of your case.

Also note if you are NOT one of the targeted nationalities (embassies that don't verify income information to the satisfaction of immigration) then your report is completely IRRELEVANT to this thread issue UNLESS you are asked for proof (which could be random) and especially proof of IMPORT.

According the OP, the effected nationalities are

USA

CANADA

AUSTRALIA

Canadians need to show proof of income at Embassy and need not be included.

If you say so. I wouldn't know. I am only repeating the info in the OP which indicates Canadians ARE targeted for the extra special treatment.

[tropo]

Yes, correct tropo, that's spot on. REPORTS (starting from NOW). Not one but the SUM of them will give the REAL truth about all this. Don't forget to give your nationality and office and other relevant details of your case.

Also note if you are NOT one of the targeted nationalities (embassies that don't verify income information to the satisfaction of immigration) then your report is completely IRRELEVANT to this thread issue UNLESS you are asked for proof (which could be random) and especially proof of IMPORT.

According the OP, the effected nationalities are

USA

CANADA

AUSTRALIA

Canadians need to show proof of income at Embassy and need not be included.

If you say so. I wouldn't know. I am only repeating the info in the OP which indicates Canadians ARE targeted for the extra special treatment.

I'm saying so because I know it to be a fact - a fact I obtained from a Canadian friend - so now you know.

This is just another inaccuracy in the OP.

Edited June 11, 2011 by tropo

[Jingthing]

I'm saying so because I know it to be a fact - a fact I obtained from a Canadian friend - so now you know.

This is just another inaccuracy in the OP.

I hope you're not getting snitty with me because I repeat info from the OP. I have no reason not to believe you about what the Canadian embassy does. What I think or believe is totally irrelevant anyway. What matters is what immigration policy makers and enforcers think or are told to think. I listed Canada because the OP lists Canada, so in that regard, I still think REPORTS from Canadians might also be relevant to the issue in the OP, IF immigration actually does believe there is an issue with the process at the Canadian embassy. That said, I would say reports from Americans are likely the most on topic ...

[tropo]

I'm saying so because I know it to be a fact - a fact I obtained from a Canadian friend - so now you know.

This is just another inaccuracy in the OP.

I hope you're not getting snitty with me because I repeat info from the OP. I have no reason not to believe you about what the Canadian embassy does. What I think or believe is totally irrelevant anyway. What matters is what immigration policy makers and enforcers think or are told to think. I listed Canada because the OP lists Canada, so in that regard, I still think REPORTS from Canadians might also be relevant to the issue in the OP, IF immigration actually does believe there is an issue with the process at the Canadian embassy. That said, I would say reports from Americans are likely the most on topic ...

No, I just wanted to make it clear I have it on very good authority.

Perhaps the OP'ter thinks Canadians are in the same boat because they used to be until around 2009, before which no income proof was required at the Canadian Embassy.

[moe666]

I read your post with interest until you felt a need to diaparage immigration officers. Your commit about becoming Nobel Prize candidates is totally uncalled for.

So is there one in particular you would like to send a nomination to Oslo?

Anyway, thanks for sharing but I stand by my comment based on personal experience.

If you want to reject the actual content of the thread based on one cheeky comment, it's a free country. Oh, scratch that, it's not really, but most of us still want to be here, bless our hearts.

On a more practical level, face it, the front line officers can't be expected to decipher a plethora of types of income/pension "proof" documents in numerous languages. The embassy letter method of course makes sense and provides an official document from an entity in Thailand. Also, of course THAI bank books/statements if you're lucky. Beyond that the policy makers know their staff better than we do, and I seriously doubt they are going to authorize them to make judgments on a variety of non-official foreign documents.

Since most of the world is never nominated for the Nobel Prize including yourself your use of that discriptive is still out of line. I have read a few of your post over the years and you are the first to protest , i was actually suprised at your use of the disparanging remark.

[Jingthing]

Since most of the world is never nominated for the Nobel Prize including yourself your use of that discriptive is still out of line. I have read a few of your post over the years and you are the first to protest , i was actually suprised at your use of the disparanging remark.

OK, point taken. Let it go. Sarcasm doesn't always work on the net, and even when it does, not everyone's cup of Chang.

[moe666]

Since most of the world is never nominated for the Nobel Prize including yourself your use of that discriptive is still out of line. I have read a few of your post over the years and you are the first to protest , i was actually suprised at your use of the disparanging remark.

OK, point taken. Let it go. Sarcasm doesn't always work on the net, and even when it does, not everyone's cup of Chang.

Justify as you wish.

[jfchandler]

SilverHawk is correct below re the issue of the required 65,000 baht in monthly income option for retirement extensions.

It has never mattered where those funds were generated, or where they were deposited, in terms of meeting the extension qualification. And there is nothing in the OP information in this thread to suggest that has changed in any manner.

The required 65,000 baht per month can be kept in your home country bank or be kept in a Thai bank. The OP in this thread is only raising the issue that, apparently, now extension applicants will be required to show backup documentation for the income in addition to producing a consulate income letter.

Re: Number 3. Doubt all you want, but as more than one poster has stated, it (65k) does NOT have to be brought into Thailand. I have been here more than 8 years on a retirement visa. I do not keep the 800k in the bank but base my income on my pension. I use the affidavit from the U.S. Embassy and I CAN show supporting proof IF this is indeed needed.

In the last two years, I have not even provided, or been asked for, copies of my bank book by Chiang Mai Immigration. They have NEVER questioned how much money I did or did not bring into Thailand. It is not a requirement and never has been.

[samran]

Since most of the world is never nominated for the Nobel Prize including yourself your use of that discriptive is still out of line. I have read a few of your post over the years and you are the first to protest , i was actually suprised at your use of the disparanging remark.

OK, point taken. Let it go. Sarcasm doesn't always work on the net, and even when it does, not everyone's cup of Chang.

Justify as you wish.

I said at the start of this thread that this discussion would disintigrate into a bunch of old blokes moaning about not being able to scam the system any longer.

Turns out I was half right......

[Jingthing]

SilverHawk is correct below re the issue of the required 65,000 baht in monthly income option for retirement extensions.

It has never mattered where those funds were generated, or where they were deposited, in terms of meeting the extension qualification. And there is nothing in the OP information in this thread to suggest that has changed in any manner.

The required 65,000 baht per month can be kept in your home country bank or be kept in a Thai bank. The OP in this thread is only raising the issue that, apparently, now extension applicants will be required to show backup documentation for the income in addition to producing a consulate income letter.

Re: Number 3. Doubt all you want, but as more than one poster has stated, it (65k) does NOT have to be brought into Thailand. I have been here more than 8 years on a retirement visa. I do not keep the 800k in the bank but base my income on my pension. I use the affidavit from the U.S. Embassy and I CAN show supporting proof IF this is indeed needed.

In the last two years, I have not even provided, or been asked for, copies of my bank book by Chiang Mai Immigration. They have NEVER questioned how much money I did or did not bring into Thailand. It is not a requirement and never has been.

No, it is not, actually. The OP (READ THE HEADLINE) is clearly about requiring IMPORT of at least some claimed pension (as shown on the income letter) for some targeted nationalities (or perhaps Americans only ...). I agree 100 percent there is nothing in any official regulations about the need to IMPORT even one baht. You act like this is simple though. We may here have an ENFORCEMENT POLICY change happening, at least for Americans. You can't claim to really know this isn't happening. Now, we need REPORTS.

[jfchandler]

Jing, I'd certainly agree direct feedback from current applicants would be helpful here...

But, as for the OP, as best as I recall, the reference to "importing" funds was made in a headline and then not backed up or supported in the actual text of the report....

The 65,000 baht route is a main approach for people who DON'T want to keep their funds in Thai banks....

So if Thai immigration was suddenly beginning to require proof that those monthly income funds have been imported into Thailand, I'd imagine we'd already be hearing TONS of complaints and or mass extension denials coming out of Chaeng Wattana....

And as best as I can tell, we're not getting either of those thus far.

Edited June 12, 2011 by jfchandler

[Jingthing]

Jing, I'd certainly agree direct feedback from current applicants would be helpful here...

But, as for the OP, as best as I recall, the reference to "importing" funds was made in a headline and then not backed up or supported in the actual text of the report....

The 65,000 baht route is a main approach for people who DON'T want to keep their funds in Thai banks....

So if Thai immigration was suddenly beginning to require proof that those monthly income funds have been imported into Thailand, I'd imagine we'd already be hearing TONS of complaints and or mass extension denials coming out of Chaeng Wattana....

And as best as I can tell, we're not getting either of those thus far.

Like I said before there HAVE been some reports about this for months now. The proof anyway, for Americans, at Bangkok. As far as the import, there is no hard evidence yet. Keep in mind that sometimes they ease into new enforcement policies and also there have been reports of WARNINGS (be ready next year) to Americans at Bangkok and I think I recall some other offices. If this is mostly about Americans, if they are easing this in, etc. you are wrong actually, there wouldn't YET be massive rejections reported here. I am not saying there is proof there is happening (imports, already STRONG evidence about extra PROOF for Americans at Bangkok) but you don't have proof this isn't going to happen, or that it's not starting to happen either.

So there isn't more confusion, I am by no means arguing that this happening or going to happen (the import part at least for Americans). I am just into getting the facts CLEAR about this and not jumping to ANY conclusions about what this is. Some people seems predisposed to concluding what they WANT to conclude. I think that's irrational. Wait for lots more reports.

Edited June 12, 2011 by Jingthing

[jfchandler]

Jing, I too have seen some reports lately by members here indicating they had been told that next time round they will be asked to show documents/statements proving their monthly income, in addition to the normal consulate letter.

But I can't recall seeing any clear reports where Immigration was requiring someone to show that their monthly income funds for purposes of retirement extension had somehow been "imported" into Thailand or were on deposit here.... (apart from the entirely separate 800,000 baht Thai bank deposit route).

[trisailer]

The bottom line is that immigration just wants to know that we have sufficient income to support ourselves here and that Thailand doesn't end up having to care for farangs who are destitute.

When I did my extension (in Pattaya) I had the letter from the embassy, but they are not stupid. They know that we pay $50 for the letter and the income is NOT verified in any way. As it happened for me I brought my information showing what I had in my Thai bank account and had paperwork showing my income. They didn't even ask for it, but they did look up my history of living in Thailand and I think the woman that processed my application made the judgment that I was not going to become a burden.

This is the same process that the US follows. The customs and immigration people have the power to deny entry to ANYONE that they want to based upon their own judgment. The point is to try to keep out undesirables and we all know that alone is a huge challenge for Thai immigration.

The average retiree is not going to have a problem.

I will say that it is important to dress appropriately when going to a immigration office. I saw farangs showing up at immigration wearing tank tops and ratty shorts and they clearly state that appropriate dress is required.