Stricter Requirements For Tourist Visa Applicants

[cardholder]

Rules are unfair? Um, how? Because you can't do as you please? "Lol".

Stupid reply

Yes some rules are very unfair.

This stupid rule will make me have to leave my kids which isnt going to be nice and return to my home country at a considerable cost to get a visa just to come back.

Its very unfair that i cant get the visa from here. You see!

Rules arent always fair.

Think before you say stupid things in future. doh

Why not apply for an "Extension of Stay" based on being a parent? Why not apply for a Non-immigrant "O" Visa at a neighboring country?

Anyway, "stupid" is people visitng or moving to a country without considering the immigration laws.

Why not go to the Immigration Bureau in Bangkok (or a local immigration office) to change your Tourist Visa into a Non-Immigrant 'O' visa ?

[samran]

Rules are unfair? Um, how? Because you can't do as you please? "Lol".

Stupid reply

Yes some rules are very unfair.

This stupid rule will make me have to leave my kids which isnt going to be nice and return to my home country at a considerable cost to get a visa just to come back.

Its very unfair that i cant get the visa from here. You see!

Rules arent always fair.

Think before you say stupid things in future. doh

Why not apply for an "Extension of Stay" based on being a parent? Why not apply for a Non-immigrant "O" Visa at a neighboring country?

Anyway, "stupid" is people visitng or moving to a country without considering the immigration laws.

Smart people understand the rules are constantly changing, so there is no security here. That fact should be taken into consideration along with existing rules. I know people who could have purchased property here but did not because of the rule changes (no security, why spend money here?). I know people who have moved their businesses abroad because of the constant rule changes. If you are not at retirement age, you have few visa options. This is a major problem. Not all of these people are poor criminals just waiting to cause havoc. There is a very easy solution to the non-problem they have created. If this is about "security" and "income," simply construct a new visa category based security and income. Call it a "long-stay/pre-retirement visa" or something like that. It could be issued for three months, six months, nine months or twelve months (renewable until age 50 at which point the person must shift to a new visa category, such as retirement). To get it, you have to pass a security background check (security issue taken care of) and pay the fee (money issue taken care of) based on desired length of stay. This is very simple and would all but eliminate the "perpetual tourist" non-problem.

Forget about a country's sovereign rights to control its borders. In essence what you say is: "I have enough money, I should be allowed to live anywhere I want".

Edited September 18, 2011 by samran

[Awohalitsiktoli]

Forget about a country's sovereign rights to control its borders. In essence what you say is: "I have enough money, I should be allowed to live anywhere I want".

That is not what "I say." It is what the Thai government is saying. If Thailand is going to engage in "social engineering" and wants to do something about "perpetual tourists" because they are a "security problem committing crimes all over the place" and are "low-life-poor scum of the earth" (that is not my opinion, but I think it is what officials think), then I just presented a solution to their crazy way of thinking about tourists. The solution will not work, however, if they raise the money bar too high for the new visa and only focus on rich tourists who can pay big money to stay. The cost of the "pay to stay" visa should be reasonable to meet the financial situation of most income levels., not only the rich.

[david555]

Forget about a country's sovereign rights to control its borders. In essence what you say is: "I have enough money, I should be allowed to live anywhere I want".

That is not what "I say." It is what the Thai government is saying. If Thailand is going to engage in "social engineering" and wants to do something about "perpetual tourists" because they are a "security problem committing crimes all over the place" and are "low-life-poor scum of the earth" (that is not my opinion, but I think it is what officials think), then I just presented a solution to their crazy way of thinking about tourists. The solution will not work, however, if they raise the money bar too high for the new visa and only focus on rich tourists who can pay big money to stay. The cost of the "pay to stay" visa should be reasonable to meet the financial situation of most income levels., not only the rich.

If the scum and criminal thing is their problem ..... they could solve it partially already by asking a criminal record or equal , even by entering on exemption rule

Because be honest Thailand can be a quick and incognito hiding place for some who skip bail or court proceeding big or small crime or financially cases

Such doc . are easy to obtain in western country's , and should solve already a part the problem....... if this is really their headache

A part of the very long type overstays are probably the reason for it (expiered Passports can not be renuwed if wanted for small or big "case", or can not fly home because that

Edited September 18, 2011 by david555

[rgs2001uk]

Forget about a country's sovereign rights to control its borders. In essence what you say is: "I have enough money, I should be allowed to live anywhere I want".

That is not what "I say." It is what the Thai government is saying. If Thailand is going to engage in "social engineering" and wants to do something about "perpetual tourists" because they are a "security problem committing crimes all over the place" and are "low-life-poor scum of the earth" (that is not my opinion, but I think it is what officials think), then I just presented a solution to their crazy way of thinking about tourists. The solution will not work, however, if they raise the money bar too high for the new visa and only focus on rich tourists who can pay big money to stay. The cost of the "pay to stay" visa should be reasonable to meet the financial situation of most income levels., not only the rich.

I remember a few years ago when the 30 day visa runners were stopped in their tracks, many of the merchants of doom were predicting the end of Pattaya.

Pattaya has improved beyond all recognition these past few years and goes from strength to strength.

Next time you are at the airport check out the luggage trolleys of these new socially engineered tourists for those who think they arent spending money here, every trolley has at least one top of the range tv on it, usually two and in some cases three.

Just because these new tourists arent pissing it up in some back street bar doesnt mean they arent spending money.

[ga3443]

i have lived in thai for 6 years now and for the most part been very happy here but now i find myself getting pretty p............d off with all these visa changes ..........its pretty obvious that the thais dont want anyone living here long term apart from thais but now they are even making it harder for tourists to get tourist visas ...........maybe all us farangs should just move to somewhere else in asia where they want us and just leave the thais to it !!!!..............

[rgs2001uk]

i have lived in thai for 6 years now and for the most part been very happy here but now i find myself getting pretty p............d off with all these visa changes ..........its pretty obvious that the thais dont want anyone living here long term apart from thais but now they are even making it harder for tourists to get tourist visas ...........maybe all us farangs should just move to somewhere else in asia where they want us and just leave the thais to it !!!!..............

Strange, thats the same length of time as me.

What are 'all these visa changes' you mention?

I go to immigration and submit the same paperwork I have submitted for the last 6 years, takes about 15 to 20 minutes, after everything is complete the lady tells me, see you again next year, what could be easier?

[Richard4849]

i have lived in thai for 6 years now and for the most part been very happy here but now i find myself getting pretty p............d off with all these visa changes ..........its pretty obvious that the thais dont want anyone living here long term apart from thais but now they are even making it harder for tourists to get tourist visas ...........maybe all us farangs should just move to somewhere else in asia where they want us and just leave the thais to it !!!!..............

Six years as a tourist? Therein the problem!

Anyway, bon voyage and happy trails!

[swisstouristpattaya]

they are replacing western tourist by russian tourists..because they bring sexy ladies, and thai like white skin.

they want power, that s all, and ready to put thailand in fire just to show to the entire world who is the boss.

abisit must have a big laugh now.pattaya is already empty, in 3 years, thailand will be empty with his fishermen, and farmers only. all dying of hunger.Ladies will move to cambodia to find customers...

[bifftastic]

Forget about a country's sovereign rights to control its borders. In essence what you say is: "I have enough money, I should be allowed to live anywhere I want".

That is not what "I say." It is what the Thai government is saying. If Thailand is going to engage in "social engineering" and wants to do something about "perpetual tourists" because they are a "security problem committing crimes all over the place" and are "low-life-poor scum of the earth" (that is not my opinion, but I think it is what officials think), then I just presented a solution to their crazy way of thinking about tourists. The solution will not work, however, if they raise the money bar too high for the new visa and only focus on rich tourists who can pay big money to stay. The cost of the "pay to stay" visa should be reasonable to meet the financial situation of most income levels., not only the rich.

The idea that a tourist is someone who remains in a country for along period of time is, in my opinion, not correct.

A tourist is someone who visits and then returns,whence they came. In the UK, if you apply for a Visit Visa (pretty much the equivalent of a Tourist Visa for Thailand), you will be expected to leave when it expires. Should you wish to apply for another one you will have to go back to your country of residence in order to do so. You will also not be expected to spend more than 6 months out of any 12 in the UK and would need to provide an explanation, and evidence to back it up, as to how you were going to support yourself during your visit. You will also have to explain, should you wish to stay for the entire 6 month validity of the visa, how come you can afford to have such a long holiday.

If the evidence or the explanation is deemed to be unsatisfactory, you don't get your visa (or your visa fee back!).

There are other visa categories for people who wish to stay more permanently, both in Thailand and in the UK.

Quite how a country's immigration laws lead you to the conclusion that, somehow, the Thai government believes tourists to be "low-life-poor scum of the earth" when the country encourages tourism by way of it's easy to obtain tourist visa system, (which were free up until April of this year) and provides options and face to face front line staff in offices throughout the country to help you through relatively straightforward longer term visa applications, for those who wish to remain for more than just a holiday, isn't clear.

If they indeed regarded tourists as you seem to think they do, they would have minimum income requirements, require proof of substantial funds etc. before they even issued a tourist visa!

The fact that they've tightened up the regulations on so-called tourists who live permanently in Thailand doesn't really suggest, to me anyway, that they have suddenly formed a low opinion of those people, just that they require them to be more honest about their intentions.

[poanoi]

Like i said before: when it was time for me to re-locate to a tropical paradise when i got medical retirement.

I asked the Thai Embassy for recommendation regarding citizenship, money transfer etc,

The Thai Embassy told me to just live here as a tourist and use ATM for money transfer

Edited September 18, 2011 by poanoi

[bifftastic]

Neither of which, it turns out, are the best way to proceed.

[CRUNCHER]

Forget about a country's sovereign rights to control its borders. In essence what you say is: "I have enough money, I should be allowed to live anywhere I want".

That is not what "I say." It is what the Thai government is saying. If Thailand is going to engage in "social engineering" and wants to do something about "perpetual tourists" because they are a "security problem committing crimes all over the place" and are "low-life-poor scum of the earth" (that is not my opinion, but I think it is what officials think), then I just presented a solution to their crazy way of thinking about tourists. The solution will not work, however, if they raise the money bar too high for the new visa and only focus on rich tourists who can pay big money to stay. The cost of the "pay to stay" visa should be reasonable to meet the financial situation of most income levels., not only the rich.

The idea that a tourist is someone who remains in a country for along period of time is, in my opinion, not correct.

A tourist is someone who visits and then returns,whence they came. In the UK, if you apply for a Visit Visa (pretty much the equivalent of a Tourist Visa for Thailand), you will be expected to leave when it expires. Should you wish to apply for another one you will have to go back to your country of residence in order to do so. You will also not be expected to spend more than 6 months out of any 12 in the UK and would need to provide an explanation, and evidence to back it up, as to how you were going to support yourself during your visit. You will also have to explain, should you wish to stay for the entire 6 month validity of the visa, how come you can afford to have such a long holiday.

If the evidence or the explanation is deemed to be unsatisfactory, you don't get your visa (or your visa fee back!).

There are other visa categories for people who wish to stay more permanently, both in Thailand and in the UK.

Quite how a country's immigration laws lead you to the conclusion that, somehow, the Thai government believes tourists to be "low-life-poor scum of the earth" when the country encourages tourism by way of it's easy to obtain tourist visa system, (which were free up until April of this year) and provides options and face to face front line staff in offices throughout the country to help you through relatively straightforward longer term visa applications, for those who wish to remain for more than just a holiday, isn't clear.

If they indeed regarded tourists as you seem to think they do, they would have minimum income requirements, require proof of substantial funds etc. before they even issued a tourist visa!

The fact that they've tightened up the regulations on so-called tourists who live permanently in Thailand doesn't really suggest, to me anyway, that they have suddenly formed a low opinion of those people, just that they require them to be more honest about their intentions.

Well said sir.

The World Tourism Organization defines tourists as people "traveling to and staying in places outside their usual environment for not more than one consecutive year for leisure, business and other purposes".

People whose usual environment is Thailand are clearly not tourist.

The Thai position has always been that there is no objections to foreigners living in Thailand as long as they have a visa appropriate to their stay. Nothing wrong with that. It is the position of most countries.

[cardholder]

they are replacing western tourist by russian tourists..because they bring sexy ladies, and thai like white skin.

they want power, that s all, and ready to put thailand in fire just to show to the entire world who is the boss.

abisit must have a big laugh now.pattaya is already empty, in 3 years, thailand will be empty with his fishermen, and farmers only. all dying of hunger.Ladies will move to cambodia to find customers...

A somewhat overly-dramatic post.

I would suggest that the girls save their bus fares as there is too much (better) competition in Cambodia.

[Awohalitsiktoli]

Forget about a country's sovereign rights to control its borders. In essence what you say is: "I have enough money, I should be allowed to live anywhere I want".

That is not what "I say." It is what the Thai government is saying. If Thailand is going to engage in "social engineering" and wants to do something about "perpetual tourists" because they are a "security problem committing crimes all over the place" and are "low-life-poor scum of the earth" (that is not my opinion, but I think it is what officials think), then I just presented a solution to their crazy way of thinking about tourists. The solution will not work, however, if they raise the money bar too high for the new visa and only focus on rich tourists who can pay big money to stay. The cost of the "pay to stay" visa should be reasonable to meet the financial situation of most income levels., not only the rich.

The idea that a tourist is someone who remains in a country for along period of time is, in my opinion, not correct.

A tourist is someone who visits and then returns,whence they came. In the UK, if you apply for a Visit Visa (pretty much the equivalent of a Tourist Visa for Thailand), you will be expected to leave when it expires. Should you wish to apply for another one you will have to go back to your country of residence in order to do so. You will also not be expected to spend more than 6 months out of any 12 in the UK and would need to provide an explanation, and evidence to back it up, as to how you were going to support yourself during your visit. You will also have to explain, should you wish to stay for the entire 6 month validity of the visa, how come you can afford to have such a long holiday.

If the evidence or the explanation is deemed to be unsatisfactory, you don't get your visa (or your visa fee back!).

There are other visa categories for people who wish to stay more permanently, both in Thailand and in the UK.

Quite how a country's immigration laws lead you to the conclusion that, somehow, the Thai government believes tourists to be "low-life-poor scum of the earth" when the country encourages tourism by way of it's easy to obtain tourist visa system, (which were free up until April of this year) and provides options and face to face front line staff in offices throughout the country to help you through relatively straightforward longer term visa applications, for those who wish to remain for more than just a holiday, isn't clear.

If they indeed regarded tourists as you seem to think they do, they would have minimum income requirements, require proof of substantial funds etc. before they even issued a tourist visa!

The fact that they've tightened up the regulations on so-called tourists who live permanently in Thailand doesn't really suggest, to me anyway, that they have suddenly formed a low opinion of those people, just that they require them to be more honest about their intentions.

Well said sir.

The World Tourism Organization defines tourists as people "traveling to and staying in places outside their usual environment for not more than one consecutive year for leisure, business and other purposes".

People whose usual environment is Thailand are clearly not tourist.

The Thai position has always been that there is no objections to foreigners living in Thailand as long as they have a visa appropriate to their stay. Nothing wrong with that. It is the position of most countries.

Actually, it was not "well said" because he totally missed my point. Having said that, let me make some final points. First, tourism and tourists are arbitrarily defined cultural concepts that are not universally shared (in other words, how the UN or UK defines them is not as relevant as you want people to believe). Second, if you embrace the UNWTO definition, then we do not know when tourism begins again; we only know that 12 months is the first limit. If you leave the country and return, could the tourism 12 month clock not be set again at zero? Third, all that crap aside, Thailand needs a new visa category to accommodate a large group of "tourists," especially those under age 50 who cannot retire and/or do not want to get married or start a business or learn Thai, etc. I do not know what it should be called (residence exploration visa?), but it probably should address what seems to be the obsession of the govt: money and security. I have already stated how that can easily be done. 3 month residence exploration visa: $ 6 month residence exploration visa: $$ 9 month residence exploration visa: $$$ 12 month residence exploration visa: $$$$ All renewable and based, only initially, on a security check. No security check would be needed for extensions. And for the person who said this would not allow THEM to control their borders, allow me to remind you that any visa can be denied by any immigration officer at any time, not just the tourist visa. They are always in control. What would this new visa category do for Thailand? It would virtually eliminate the so-called non-problem of long-stay tourists. It would help the real estate industry because it would introduce some "security" into the equation (many people refuse to purchase anything because of the current system....why buy if you can't live in it due to some crazy change in the visa rules?). It would increase the amount of foreign dollars circulating in the economy, helping businesses and creating jobs in the process. It has no down side.

[Leftfield1965]

Good post, it would make perfect sense to introduce a visa like this.

Unfortunately this would be far too logical tor the Thai government to even consider. Why solve a problem with ease when you can do it the hard way. It's not the Thai way of doing things.

[ignis]

I thought Thailand was looking for high end people to live here or visit ?

over 50's = 800k

under 50's = 10 million [up from 3 million a few years ago]

[beechguy]

Good post, it would make perfect sense to introduce a visa like this.

Unfortunately this would be far too logical tor the Thai government to even consider. Why solve a problem with ease when you can do it the hard way. It's not the Thai way of doing things.

The Thai's don't have a problem to solve, why should they change anything.

Edited September 19, 2011 by beechguy

[CRUNCHER]

Good post, it would make perfect sense to introduce a visa like this.

Unfortunately this would be far too logical tor the Thai government to even consider. Why solve a problem with ease when you can do it the hard way. It's not the Thai way of doing things.

The Thai's don't have a problem to solve, why should they change anything.

That's right. The people that have a problem are those who do not qualify for a full time visa You know the ones? The ones who think they have a God given right to live in Thailand and if they can't it is because the Thais are racist and xenophobic. The ones who expect Thailand to throw open its doors in a way few other countries in the world would do. Try living as a long term tourist for a few years in USA, Europe, Australia. Even closer to home, those who would qualify for Malaysia's MM2H would qualify in Thailand - the rest tough luck.

Sorry. Its a hard world, but if you want to live here you must respect the local people; their laws and customs. Thais do not have to bend to suit farang; it is the other way round.

The only people I feel sorry for are those genuinely married to a Thai, perhaps with a family. They need some relief before there is talk of a new visa.

[Phil Conners]

What's all the turf talk about. We're all earthlings....

[Richard4849]

Good post, it would make perfect sense to introduce a visa like this.

Unfortunately this would be far too logical tor the Thai government to even consider. Why solve a problem with ease when you can do it the hard way. It's not the Thai way of doing things.

The Thai's don't have a problem to solve, why should they change anything.

That's right. The people that have a problem are those who do not qualify for a full time visa You know the ones? The ones who think they have a God given right to live in Thailand and if they can't it is because the Thais are racist and xenophobic. The ones who expect Thailand to throw open its doors in a way few other countries in the world would do. Try living as a long term tourist for a few years in USA, Europe, Australia. Even closer to home, those who would qualify for Malaysia's MM2H would qualify in Thailand - the rest tough luck.

Sorry. Its a hard world, but if you want to live here you must respect the local people; their laws and customs. Thais do not have to bend to suit farang; it is the other way round.

The only people I feel sorry for are those genuinely married to a Thai, perhaps with a family. They need some relief before there is talk of a new visa.

Those people are well taken care of.

And, despite their claims, my research to date has failed to identify and US, UK, or EU tourist visas that allow young, financially independent individuals to come and go as they please, as many times as they want, and stay for as kong as they want.

How unfair that Thailand doesn't provide such a thing!

[tropo]

The only people I feel sorry for are those genuinely married to a Thai, perhaps with a family. They need some relief before there is talk of a new visa.

I don't understand why you should feel sorry for people "genuinely married" to a Thai. There's a non-O visa to take care of them. If they don't meet the financial requirements to get one of those then there is still the option of a multiple non-O to visit family. You would think that anyone deciding to marry a Thai and have children with one would investigate the visa situation first.

[george]

Forget about a country's sovereign rights to control its borders. In essence what you say is: "I have enough money, I should be allowed to live anywhere I want".

That is not what "I say." It is what the Thai government is saying. If Thailand is going to engage in "social engineering" and wants to do something about "perpetual tourists" because they are a "security problem committing crimes all over the place" and are "low-life-poor scum of the earth" (that is not my opinion, but I think it is what officials think), then I just presented a solution to their crazy way of thinking about tourists. The solution will not work, however, if they raise the money bar too high for the new visa and only focus on rich tourists who can pay big money to stay. The cost of the "pay to stay" visa should be reasonable to meet the financial situation of most income levels., not only the rich.

The idea that a tourist is someone who remains in a country for along period of time is, in my opinion, not correct.

A tourist is someone who visits and then returns,whence they came. In the UK, if you apply for a Visit Visa (pretty much the equivalent of a Tourist Visa for Thailand), you will be expected to leave when it expires. Should you wish to apply for another one you will have to go back to your country of residence in order to do so. You will also not be expected to spend more than 6 months out of any 12 in the UK and would need to provide an explanation, and evidence to back it up, as to how you were going to support yourself during your visit. You will also have to explain, should you wish to stay for the entire 6 month validity of the visa, how come you can afford to have such a long holiday.

If the evidence or the explanation is deemed to be unsatisfactory, you don't get your visa (or your visa fee back!).

There are other visa categories for people who wish to stay more permanently, both in Thailand and in the UK.

Quite how a country's immigration laws lead you to the conclusion that, somehow, the Thai government believes tourists to be "low-life-poor scum of the earth" when the country encourages tourism by way of it's easy to obtain tourist visa system, (which were free up until April of this year) and provides options and face to face front line staff in offices throughout the country to help you through relatively straightforward longer term visa applications, for those who wish to remain for more than just a holiday, isn't clear.

If they indeed regarded tourists as you seem to think they do, they would have minimum income requirements, require proof of substantial funds etc. before they even issued a tourist visa!

The fact that they've tightened up the regulations on so-called tourists who live permanently in Thailand doesn't really suggest, to me anyway, that they have suddenly formed a low opinion of those people, just that they require them to be more honest about their intentions.

UPDATE:

Good post!

Talked to MFA this afternoon, and without them going into details, they kindly advised me to inform our members, that for bona fide tourists it is not really a problem if applying for TR from your homeland. What they really want is that applicants that are more or less residing in Thailand should apply for a NON-Immigrant visa instead. They told me It *will* be stricter for people living here with tourist visas, as this is the wrong visa type. All according to MFA this afternoon.

Sorry guys, I don't have more info for now.

[CRUNCHER]

The only people I feel sorry for are those genuinely married to a Thai, perhaps with a family. They need some relief before there is talk of a new visa.

I don't understand why you should feel sorry for people "genuinely married" to a Thai. There's a non-O visa to take care of them. If they don't meet the financial requirements to get one of those then there is still the option of a multiple non-O to visit family. You would think that anyone deciding to marry a Thai and have children with one would investigate the visa situation first.

You have a point. It is just that quite a lot of these guys get quite stressed. These hard economic times have hit some of them hard and where meting visa financial requirements a few years ago was easy, it is now problematic. Perhaps they are not going about things the right way, but for some it seems to affect family life. "Tourists" can leave any time, but for a man with a family the future is (or seems to them to be) uncertain.

For the record my wife is a farang and I have no personal axe to grind.

[tropo]

The only people I feel sorry for are those genuinely married to a Thai, perhaps with a family. They need some relief before there is talk of a new visa.

I don't understand why you should feel sorry for people "genuinely married" to a Thai. There's a non-O visa to take care of them. If they don't meet the financial requirements to get one of those then there is still the option of a multiple non-O to visit family. You would think that anyone deciding to marry a Thai and have children with one would investigate the visa situation first.

You have a point. It is just that quite a lot of these guys get quite stressed. These hard economic times have hit some of them hard and where meting visa financial requirements a few years ago was easy, it is now problematic. Perhaps they are not going about things the right way, but for some it seems to affect family life. "Tourists" can leave any time, but for a man with a family the future is (or seems to them to be) uncertain.

For the record my wife is a farang and I have no personal axe to grind.

I feel that Immigration treats married foreigners (and their Thai wives) terribly here. They're not at all concerned about the family unit when times get tough - however, the foreigners choosing Thai wives should know this going in. It should be a good incentive for foreigners not to marry Thais.

[javel]

UPDATE:

Good post!

Talked to MFA this afternoon, and without them going into details, they kindly advised me to inform our members, that for bona fide tourists it is not really a problem if applying for TR from your homeland. What they really want is that applicants that are more or less residing in Thailand should apply for a NON-Immigrant visa instead. They told me It *will* be stricter for people living here with tourist visas, as this is the wrong visa type. All according to MFA this afternoon.

Sorry guys, I don't have more info for now.

If you talk to them, could you get them to explain why people under the age of 50 are not wanted to stay in Thailand?

What's with this "magical" age-separation?

I don't want to marry anyone to stay here, I don't want to take any bogus education to stay here, and I most certainly don't want to work in Thailand (or wherever) to stay here.

If they are so obsessed with financial security let us document a "double size" bank account (1.600.000 baht), or a 10X = 8.000.000, - account, or whatever needed .....

What's so much more attractive for Thailand with an old guy on a minimum UK state pension, compared to a 45 year old self-retired person with enough funds to spend a little money in this country?

[CRUNCHER]

If you talk to them, could you get them to explain why people under the age of 50 are not wanted to stay in Thailand?

What's with this "magical" age-separation?

I don't want to marry anyone to stay here, I don't want to take any bogus education to stay here, and I most certainly don't want to work in Thailand (or wherever) to stay here.

If they are so obsessed with financial security let us document a "double size" bank account (1.600.000 baht), or a 10X = 8.000.000, - account, or whatever needed .....

What's so much more attractive for Thailand with an old guy on a minimum UK state pension, compared to a 45 year old self-retired person with enough funds to spend a little money in this country?

An old guy on a minimum UK state pensions would not qualify for a retirement extension by a long way. It is people of this ilk (or one type at least) that want the continuous tourist visas. It is these people that the Thai Government want to stop living here before the become a liability to the state (and what this thread is about).

That apart you ask a fair question. I suppose it is a matter of drawing a line somewhere. How many 20 year-old people could afford to retire here? Almost none. By 30 there will be one or two and by 40 a few more. By 50 quite a lot of people have built up a bit of wealth or have occupational pensions to support themselves with.

Almost by definition immigration laws and rules throw up anomalies and unfairness, but it is difficult to legislate for every case. Indeed why should they? By allowing one or two genuine exceptions they will suffer hundreds of less desirable immigrants. Thai Immigration have learned this over the years. That is why the rules keep being tightened.

[poanoi]

I guess you didn't know, but americans don't need 65.000 in pension, they don't need to prove any income other than that they have a pension, i know several with a pension of just some 30.000 on retirement visa.

Edited September 19, 2011 by poanoi

[david555]

I guess you didn't know, but americans don't need 65.000 in pension, they don't need to prove any income other than that they have a pension, i know several with a pension of just some 30.000 on retirement visa.

i think you are mistaken , but they are required a sworn statement at their Embassy (unless i am wrong ) about the amount from their pension or income ......... maybe they are naughty boys

and exaggerate a little the amount just enough

ps ; and i even think they changed that possibility just lately

Edited September 19, 2011 by david555

[CRUNCHER]

I guess you didn't know, but americans don't need 65.000 in pension, they don't need to prove any income other than that they have a pension, i know several with a pension of just some 30.000 on retirement visa.

Yes I do. There was another thread recently about tightening up on that. So far it does not seem to have come to much, but it will in time. Immigration are not as stupid as some people think they are. They know what goes on.

They will keep on squeezing until everyone complies. Trouble is guilty and innocent alike sometimes get squeezed.