Immigration vows strictness on retirement visa requirements

[Carrerakiss]

_{Why is a "married to a Thai" visa only requiring 400,000? Makes no sense that it should be 400,000 when two people are being supported. Why not 1,600,000 baht for a married farang?}

Your thinking is so weird!

You should be asking why do we need to have anything in our bank accounts for the sake of a retirement or a marriage visa.

Can you tell me of any other country that stipulates this requirement?

Many countries have financial requirements to qualify for various permits to stay, buy houses etc. I don't know them all, but certainly Malaysia has some for its five year retirement visa ( must buy a house above a certain value I believe), Singapore requires a net worth of above USD5 mil or something similar for PR status based on wealth, Australia requires an investment in a local business I think etc etc.

I think the idea is that each country can decide what they want to do in terms of qualifications and people can then decide to meet them or F Off. It would be somewhat odd if intending retires decided what the regulations should be.

Bu keep on asking questions if that makes you happy.

[culicine]

The marriage visa also allows the husband to work. I guess that is why it's 400K, rather than 800K for retirees who are not allowed to work. Retirees may also have higher long run medical costs in the event they don't have full insurance.

There's nothing in the regulations in Arkady's post to suggest that both partners need 800K. Quite the opposite, in fact.

[thaigold]

_{Why is a "married to a Thai" visa only requiring 400,000? Makes no sense that it should be 400,000 when two people are being supported. Why not 1,600,000 baht for a married farang?}

One reason just might be a Farang couple just might have more disposable income than a Thai couple. 1.6 million baht is a huge amount for the average Thai. Case in point, Australia or New Zealand. If I and my wife want retire there we must be gold plated.

P.S. 400,000 baht is not a lot of money for a Farang couple to retire on..

[dartvidar]

Why should a falang married to a thai be treated any different from what i have seen thai woman seem to cost more to keep than a falang wife think it is time to move onto the next door neighbours Malaysia, Cambodia or even the Philippines.

Good buy

[IAMSOBAD]

This young colonel is a farang hater and it is he who is reading it wrong....Not the thousands before him who are reading it right.

He doesn't want to lose face so he explained everyone else is wrong.

Call your embassy and complain how they are changing the rules without cause.

[harrry]

I wish they would apply the Police Order stricltly. It would be nice if we could be confident that if we have complied with the requirements of the law the visa or extension would be issued. It should not be up to someone to make up their own requirements and if they try to they should be stopped.

Edited December 5, 2013 by harrry

[Rimbuman]

What's new? This is the way it has been for years. We have been coughing up with 800K each for 5-6 years by now. I wonder when they will raise it...

It really makes no difference...............People will still be buying the visas under the table, those who receive the bribes won't change. From officials to the bank managers who sign the papers when there's no money in an account. 40k in Pattaya, 25k in KK, and even as low as 10K in Buriram.

How much for a Thai passport?

[Pikeybkk]

because most the guys who are retired here and married to Thai girls are married to girls half their age and in no need of a retirement visa.

_{Why is a "married to a Thai" visa only requiring 400,000? Makes no sense that it should be 400,000 when two people are being supported. Why not 1,600,000 baht for a married farang?}

[ubonjoe]

Rant post removed

[PattayaPhom]

I think on about the third post was suggested stagger the applications, only 800k needed. Always a way.

Sent from my ST27a using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[hansnl]

Why should a falang married to a thai be treated any different from what i have seen thai woman seem to cost more to keep than a falang wife think it is time to move onto the next door neighbours Malaysia, Cambodia or even the Philippines.

And even don't forget Laos

[Rimbuman]

_{Why is a "married to a Thai" visa only requiring 400,000? Makes no sense that it should be 400,000 when two people are being supported. Why not 1,600,000 baht for a married farang?}

One reason just might be a Farang couple just might have more disposable income than a Thai couple. 1.6 million baht is a huge amount for the average Thai. Case in point, Australia or New Zealand. If I and my wife want retire there we must be gold plated.

P.S. 400,000 baht is not a lot of money for a Farang couple to retire on..

400K is not to be spend for retirement but held hostage otherwise you can't extend the year after.

[BradinAsia]

Why should a falang married to a thai be treated any different from what i have seen thai woman seem to cost more to keep than a falang wife think it is time to move onto the next door neighbours Malaysia, Cambodia or even the Philippines.

Before considering retirement in the Philippines, it would be a good idea to talk to a number of folks who have lived

there, and of course not to include those who has only visited for a few weeks.

I lived in six different areas of the Philippines over 6 years before coming to retire in Chiang Mai. Per my experience,

I could not recommend the Philippines for retirement to anyone, not even my worst enemy...

Obviously, every place has pros and cons, and the Philippines has some good points, such as wide use of English.

However, on balance, Thailand (outside the sex-tourist areas) is much more livable than anywhere in the P.I.

Even my filipina wife much prefers Chiang Mai and has no desire to return to the Philippines. She loves Thai food --

the greater variety and fabulous spicy dishes as low as 20 baht. Also, fabulous shopping, lower prices, kinder people,

well developed infrastructure, overall much cleaner, less scamming, far fewer beggars, and on and on.

For whatever that's worth...

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

First it was the PattayaToday report in the other thread, which lately has culminated in the supposed rule there not being enforced at least for the time being.

Now it's a follow-on report from the Phuket Gazette....

But still thru all this, no mention of any change coming from/being confirmed by Immigration HQ in BKK.

Phuket Immigration has some history of going their own way, but that doesn't necessarily mean the rest of the country's Immigration Offices are following them.

[tgeezer]

The rule uses the phrase 50 per cent per person to refer to the amount in the bank account, and this may have led people to believe that each person needed only 400,000 baht, Lt Col Napat said.

The published regulations don't explicitly refer to "50% per person". The relevant regulations in National Police order 777/2551 of 2008 actually say this:

2.22 In the case of a retiree: Permission will be granted for a period of not more

than 1 year at a time.

(1) The alien has obtained a temporary visa (NON-IM);

(2) The applicant is 50 years of age or over;

(3) Proof of income of not less than Baht 65,000 per month; or

(4) Account deposit with a bank in Thailand of not less than

800,000 Baht as shown in the bank account for the past 3 months at the filing date of the application. For the first year, the applicant should have that amount in his bank account for not less than 60 days or

(5) Annual income plus bank account deposit totaling not less

than Baht 800,000 as of the filing date of application

and for family members of the above:

2.20 In the case of a family

member of an alien who has been permitted temporary

stay under clauses 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.5, 2.6,2.7, 2.10, 2.12, 2.13,2.4, 2.15, 2.16, 2.17,

2.21, 2.22,2.26,6.29 of this Order (applicable only to parents, spouse, child, adopted child or child of

his/her spouse):

Permission will be

granted for a period of

not more than 1 year at a time.

(1) The alien has obtained a temporary visa (NON-IM);

(2) Proof of family relationship;

(3) In the case of a spouse, the marital relationship shall be de

jure (legitimate) and de facto;

This regulation 2.20 is identical to the regulation for family members of permanent residents who clearly don't need to present proof of savings or income. Family members can't be lumped into 2.22 because they may not be over 50.

There is a logic to saying that, if one person needs B800k, two people should need B1.6m, although they can presumably share accommodations, but that is clearly not what it says in the 2008 regulations. Why not amend the regulations, if that is what they want to do, rather indulging in this deceptive double talk?

Just to preserve my sanity; if what you have posted is a true translation of the law, how on earth can anyone come to the conclusion that a spouse needs 800,000 in the bank?

[RedBullHorn]

Why are people so unhappy, it's just ฿800'000.-

I'm happy, i can afford it.

It's their rules, if can't afford then just don't apply...Simple~

I think you miss the point. I was given the OA visa with 800000 in the bank and much more per year in pensions and other income. I can afford to stay under any changes. If I did not have the income what would I do with the auto I bought etc. - It would not be fair - simple, na ?

If you can afford, who cares ? I've a lot of property here too, a wife and family like others.

Point on point, we can afford... It is that simple. I can afford to walk away anytime... Too simple~

[hellodolly]

_{Why is a "married to a Thai" visa only requiring 400,000? Makes no sense that it should be 400,000 when two people are being supported. Why not 1,600,000 baht for a married farang?}

Absolute rubbish, It should be made easier for a Farang married to a Thai, it is not just the 400.000 Baht in a Thai bank, it is also all the unneccessary hassle you have to go through, and we are supposed to be "guests" in this country. Also, who says two people are being supported, what about the Thai wives who are working and supporting themselves? I try to respect other posters opinion, but I find it very hard to respect this.

I get a chuckle out of the cheaper married requirements. I will not liquidate my holdings just to put the money in a bank here. I use the guaranteed income system.

i more than qualify for the 65,000 a month and have the papers to prove it. I have a Thai wife and could just use the marriage system and only need 40,000 baht a month.

My big question is how does she save me 25,000 baht a month. More like costs me that much. I do admit that I save money by her going to the market and public transportation. but not that much.

I am not complaining I just chuckle when I think about it. I guess i could have let her keep working but it would be to big of an inconvenience to my life style.

[menorah]

Why should a falang married to a thai be treated any different from what i have seen thai woman seem to cost more to keep than a falang wife think it is time to move onto the next door neighbours Malaysia, Cambodia or even the Philippines.

You move 'next door' then and let us all know how you get on !

Like it or not, this is the rule since 2008 and the Thai government, or any government for that matter, aren't required to explain their reasoning to every Tom, Dick or Harry.

[Harleys]

_{Why is a "married to a Thai" visa only requiring 400,000? Makes no sense that it should be 400,000 when two people are being supported. Why not 1,600,000 baht for a married farang?}

Why is it requiring ANYTHING?

Why is a marriage between Thai and foreigner being discriminated?

Why not ask a Thai husband to show the same amount, each year?

Is a Thai/Farang family not a family?

It's a disgrace to humanity and the minimum humane interpretation of "family"

Thailand, in this matter, you are a disgrace to humanity!

Well, then, off back home and let's work on being fair. Everything should be based on a reciprocal level. Thailand, build more homes, a lot of Thai now enjoying "FAMILY LIFE" abroad, will arrive back home!

[RedBullHorn]

States can be sued and embarrassed in front of the world for breaching their international commitments to Human rights if they are unreasonably forcing married couples and families apart, ie by prohibitive and unreasonable financial requirements, 400k baht is pushing their luck.

I for one would like to see someone try it...It will be very interesting. Do keep me informed.

[hellodolly]

Yet more senseless idiotic ideas designed to disrupot and cause as much comfusion and uposet to foreign retirees. Think about it....retirees bring in foreign money to spend in Thailand and Thailand sees this as an issue?

If the couple are married and are living together then what the heck does it matter who has the money and in what account? If they are a genuine couple then the money would be theirs....not his or hers.

No problem put the 1,600.000 baht in a joint account. That way it is still yours and hers.

a joint account makes sense any how if you die the money is still assessable to the remaining partner. I have a joint account with my wife and she puts nothing into it. It is for her to have enough money to waste on barbequing me and still have some left over until the money from Canada gets to her.

[ubonjoe]

The rule uses the phrase 50 per cent per person to refer to the amount in the bank account, and this may have led people to believe that each person needed only 400,000 baht, Lt Col Napat said.

 

The published regulations don't explicitly refer to "50% per person". The relevant regulations in National Police order 777/2551 of 2008 actually say this:

 

2.22 In the case of a retiree: Permission will be granted for a period of not more

than 1 year at a time.

 

(1) The alien has obtained a temporary visa (NON-IM);

(2) The applicant is 50 years of age or over;

(3) Proof of income of not less than Baht 65,000 per month; or

(4) Account deposit with a bank in Thailand of not less than

800,000 Baht as shown in the bank account for the past 3 months at the filing date of the application. For the first year, the applicant should have that amount in his bank account for not less than 60 days or

(5) Annual income plus bank account deposit totaling not less

than Baht 800,000 as of the filing date of application

 

and for family members of the above:

 

2.20 In the case of a family

member of an alien who has been permitted temporary

stay under clauses 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.5, 2.6,2.7, 2.10, 2.12, 2.13,2.4, 2.15, 2.16, 2.17,

2.21, 2.22,2.26,6.29 of this Order (applicable only to parents, spouse, child, adopted child or child of

his/her spouse):

Permission will be

granted for a period of

not more than 1 year at a time.

 

(1) The alien has obtained a temporary visa (NON-IM);

(2) Proof of family relationship;

(3) In the case of a spouse, the marital relationship shall be de

jure (legitimate) and de facto;

 

This regulation 2.20 is identical to the regulation for family members of permanent residents who clearly don't need to present proof of savings or income.  Family members can't be lumped into 2.22 because they may not be over 50.

 

There is a logic to saying that, if one person needs B800k, two people should need B1.6m, although they can presumably share accommodations, but that is clearly not what it says in the 2008 regulations.  Why not amend the regulations, if that is what they want to do, rather indulging in this deceptive double talk?

 

Just to preserve my sanity; if what you have posted is a true translation of the law, how on earth can anyone come to the conclusion that a spouse needs 800,000 in the bank?

It is correct. It's the translation that can be found on immigrations website.

I have said the same thing as you.

What they should do is a strict enforcement of (3) of 2.20. The same as they do for extensions based on marriage to a Thai that has the same requirement.

[ajarnmarc]

_{Why is a "married to a Thai" visa only requiring 400,000? Makes no sense that it should be 400,000 when two people are being supported. Why not 1,600,000 baht for a married farang?}

Let's think about this one...

A marriage visa is 400,000.

If married to a Thai, only one visa is required.

Thais do not need a visa to stay in Thailand.

400,00 X 1 = 4000,000 total

A retirement visa is 800,000.

Two retired farangs need two visas.

800,000 X 2 = 1600,000 total

Could it be that a marriage visa is not a retirement visa?

Retirement is retirement and relaxation.

Marriage to a Thai is a lot of work! alt=cheesy.gif>

All lot of work...you stated that wright.

I'll be working till the day I die,

as Thai wives have no end to their greed...I mean needs.

So in actuality the requirement should be higher than 400k,

if married to a Thai, but what people seem to be missing is this came up from the all too popular,

Phuket Immigration.

What a fine job he's doing, making a name for himself.

Message here, if you have the extra money that you wish to show off to the immigration,

then by all means; move to Phuket.

The Immigration will be all to happy to look after you,

just the way you deserve to be.

Just hope your luck or fortune never runs below their own interpretation of the Immigration law,

from 08, and if new laws come into play, that their own interpretation favors on your side as well...

[aguy30]

aguy30, on 05 Dec 2013 - 16:08, said:

_{Why is a "married to a Thai" visa only requiring 400,000? Makes no sense that it should be 400,000 when two people are being supported. Why not 1,600,000 baht for a married farang?}

I will simplify what I said for those of you that can't understand. The names or types of visas is not the point.

A farang comes to Thailand and gets some sort of visa arrangement to stay. He must have 800,000 baht security deposit in the bank if it is a retirement extension. He is only supporting himself.

Another farang comes to Thailand and wants to stay. He gets married and is supporting a wife but only has to have 400,000 in the bank. That's two people being secured on half the money.

It is illogical to require half the funds to support two people (or more) when they will likely have close to double the expenses of single person. If the government is worried that the farang will have large expenses then that is more likely to happen when he is supporting two people and the extended family. Even more probable there will be emergencies and even more so when there are children. The 400,000 is completely inadequate in this situation. A working wife with a "really good" job might make 15,000 baht/month (180,000 per year) but not likely with a poorly educated Issan wife. That is still less the 800,000/year total. It is rare for a lucky farang to have a working wife and not one that expects to be taken care of. Makes perfect sense that someone supporting two or more people should have to have more SECURITY money in the bank. Well, that might not be true when Thainess and Thai logic are considered. Perhaps ThaiVisa members are acquiring Thai logic.

[hellodolly]

You only need 400k if married to a Thai because she is free to work and support herself, 800k for farang couples is an insurance policy that both have enough to support without working. The logic is to curb people trying to work illegally, if you both have 400k each then the chances of you needing to work are minimal.

Sorry I missed the logic in that.

If you both have 400,000 baht you still have to have an income to live on. Yes immigration dosen't care about that because next year you will not qualify having spent part of it for living expenses. The money in the bank is to assure the immigration that you have enough to survive for the year to come. All they are asking is a reassurance that you have enough money to live on for a year even if none comes in. That is next years problem.

I do think they could have made it sensible and meet all the requirements they are thinking of if they made it a joint venture of 1,200,000 baht. Or guaranteed income of 95 or 100 thousand baht,

[PeterSmiles]

.Retirement Visa ?

I thought there is no such thing. I learnt here that it is only an extention of stay.

Correct...there is not such thing as a "Retirement Visa" or a "Marriage Visa"

It is an Extension of Stay based on retirement or marriage to a Thai national.

yada yada hairsplit yakety-yak yawn yawwwwnnnnn....

He is correct. You would not believe how many times calling an extension a visa has created confusion on this forum. Or how many times I have had to ask the question do you have a visa or an extension of stay from immigration.

Which mean there IS in fact such a thing as a retirement visa, it's only a different thing from an extension of stay based on retirement.

Edited December 5, 2013 by PeterSmiles

[simon43]

Marriage to a Thai is a lot of work!

Indeed! I wish they would introduce a divorce visa - I am well-qualified...

Simon

[bigbamboo]

_{Why is a "married to a Thai" visa only requiring 400,000? Makes no sense that it should be 400,000 when two people are being supported. Why not 1,600,000 baht for a married farang?}

Two things.

First, that would mean a foreigner married to a Thai wife having show a disposable monthly income of 130,000 baht.... in excess 2500 STG or 4000US. Now I don't know about you but I don't know too many retirees with dependents here who could hack that. If we did we'd be living in another country in one of those high end resorts that TAT is always saying it wants to emulate. So to demand that amount would be self defeating.

Secondly, if you must give our hosts ideas like that please go somewhere else and do it.

[hellodolly]

Marriage to a Thai is a lot of work!

Marriage to a Thai is a lot of work???? I'm married to a Thai, and I don't do any work.

I bet she is like my Thai wife.

Defiantly costs me money. Not a big deal. when I got together with her I used the same criteria as I did with my ex back home. I did not demand money of them all though they did work and when they didn't I just continued to pay all the living expenses.

[tgeezer]

Just to preserve my sanity; if what you have posted is a true translation of the law, how on earth can anyone come to the conclusion that a spouse needs 800,000 in the bank?

It is correct. It's the translation that can be found on immigrations website.

I have said the same thing as you.

What they should do is a strict enforcement of (3) of 2.20. The same as they do for extensions based on marriage to a Thai that has the same requirement.

I think that you have nailed it with " strict enforcement" they must have reasons to believe that some couples are not genuine but strange that their solution is to abrogate (3) 2.20 completely instead of dealing with the problem.