Illogical thai immigration requirements

[YetAnother]

spouse-support visa: 400,000 baht or 40,000 baht monthly income (but we cant work in any high income job)
retirement visa: 800,000 baht or 65.000 baht monthly income ((but we cant work in any high income job))

so the support 2person visa, the spouse support, requires half what the one person (retirement) visa does 
? that is backwards
the 65000 monthy for one person would qualify that person for upper middle class; why is the money so high ?
the new 10 year visa, the 'permanent resident' is not 10, it is 5 and it isnt permanent and the financial requirements
 including insurance are preposterous; shows the current immigration law-makers are as foolish as the old ones

last year the then new number 1 immigration guy (remember they are all police) introduced a new odious form saying it's purpose was for tourist safety;
1) tourists do not fill it out
2) the interview and his 'logic' were in thai; the form is in english ;only
3) if that official thinks we are tourists living here all these years and never leaving, then we are all in trouble

[wobalt]

spouse-support visa: 400,000 baht or 40,000 baht monthly income (but we cant work in any high income job)

Why we can't work in any high income job?? (If you have a WP)

[ubonjoe]

There is no spouse support visa or extension stay. It is an extension of stay based upon marriage to a Thai. You can get a work permit and work to meet the 40k income requirement for an extension of stay application. It is lower than an extension based upon retirement because it is assumed the wife could earn an income to support he family plus it is done on a humanitarian basis not for convenience.

 

 

[Boycie]

You need double the amount of finances on a retirement extension because you'll be having double the fun.

 

With extensions of stay based on marriage, immigration expect that you will not be allowed out to play so much 

 

[elviajero]

The amount required for an extension of stay based on retirement is not just about the affordability to support yourself during the year. It is also as a way to control/limit the number of foreigners staying long term. The higher they set the bar the less expats they have. It's the same reason they set the minimum age to 50. Plenty of under 50's could meet the 800K/65K, but they aren't wanted.

[Crossy]

What would you define as a high-income job?

 

I and many other have jobs earning USD xx.000 per month and have marriage extensions.

[arithai12]

Speaking of illogical: when asking for "money in the bank", there is no mention of whether the applicant owns or rents his/her accomodation - a big difference when it comes to actual cost of living.

[Rhys]

49 minutes ago, elviajero said:

The amount required for an extension of stay based on retirement is not just about the affordability to support yourself during the year. It is also as a way to control/limit the number of foreigners staying long term. The higher they set the bar the less expats they have. It's the same reason they set the minimum age to 50. Plenty of under 50's could meet the 800K/65K, but they aren't wanted.

 

....and many would agree that the immigration officers are some of the most interesting interpreters of the rules and regs, who are under extreme influence.

[JackThompson]

As to the marriage system - if they wanted to do the "right thing" - there would be no "income requirement", a work-permit would be automatic within a month of marriage, and permanent-residence would be automatic after 5+ years of marriage.  From what I can see, this system as just another way to pull in foreign funds, with "marriage" strings attached.  Staying here without being married "costs more" in provable income, because there are fewer strings attached. 

 

For singles, one would think that the goal would to get the maximum number of foreign-income streams coming in, so as to maximize the number of Thais employed from that revenue, while covering any potential liabilities of the foreigners, so they do not become a problem for the locals / govt.  In some countries with 'expat long-stay' systems, you have to freeze some investments during your permission-of-stay - so they know if your life goes badly, the money is there to pay your debts and send you off. 

 

A "3 month seasoned money" system does not ensure the funds will be available in the future, to cover potential-liabilities.  Trying to determine "income" is futile, and also doesn't ensure a foreigner's potential-liabilities would be covered even if genuine.  I cannot figure why they don't just move to a 1M Baht Investment-style visa, essentially a "lien" on those while you are here, which covers them if you go broke / get sick. 

 

I do understand the "limiting the number of foreigners" angle from a cultural-preservation perspective.  But it would seem to make more sense to simply limit where foreigners can live in Thailand rather than lock out most, as they are now, and lose out on Billions of Baht in foreign funds that would otherwise pour in. 

[A1Str8]

Thais and illogic? Are you sure? I have never heard of anything like that before.

[the guest]

The definition of a tourist, is a foreigner which doesn't have permanent residency rights in the form of a 5 year book. If you dont have this document regardless how long you lived in Thailand, the you are still regarded as a tourist. 

[YetAnother]

ah yes and lest i forget : the quota system practiced in thailand regarding acquired citizenship; as i understand it , there is an annual quota by country;
each country is given a pro-rata share ; example if there are 1680 openings and 168 countries , then each get a share of 10;
that puts india, china, usa on the exact same footing as Grenada and The Maldives; that makes sense ? i understand it is administrative 
convenience but it lacks thought

[Bsd]

4 minutes ago, YetAnother said:

ah yes and lest i forget : the quota system practiced in thailand regarding acquired citizenship; as i understand it , there is an annual quota by country;
each country is given a pro-rata share ; example if there are 1680 openings and 168 countries , then each get a share of 10;
that puts india, china, usa on the exact same footing as Grenada and The Maldives; that makes sense ? i understand it is administrative 
convenience but it lacks thought

My understanding is that there is a limit of 20/50 ,something like that, on each country for citizenship in a year but not a total quota.

 

In saying that they normally grant less that 100 applications each year.

[irwinfc]

illogical is normal here. get used to it.

[ExpatOilWorker]

17 hours ago, Crossy said:

What would you define as a high-income job?

 

I and many other have jobs earning USD xx.000 per month and have marriage extensions.

 

Why would you have both a WP and marriage extension?

Surely you could just stay here on your WP while working and then switch to the marriage extension when you retire or are out of work.  

[Crossy]

Just now, ExpatOilWorker said:

Why would you have both a WP and marriage extension?

Surely you could just stay here on your WP while working and then switch to the marriage extension when you retire or are out of work.  

 

A Work Permit (from the ministry of Labour) does not permit one to stay in country, that needs an extension of stay (from Immigration). The extension can be either on the back of the WP or as the spouse of a Thai.

 

[Sheryl]

 
Why would you have both a WP and marriage extension?
Surely you could just stay here on your WP while working and then switch to the marriage extension when you retire or are out of work.  

A WP is not a visa or visa extension. It is just permission to work and to get it, one must have visa status that permits one to work. Business visa is one such, but so is extension of stay based on marriage.

[JackThompson]

1 minute ago, Sheryl said:

A WP is not a visa or visa extension. It is just permission to work and to get it, one must have visa status that permits one to work. Business visa is one such, but so is extension of stay based on marriage.

As well, if your job ends, and you lose your work-permit, your permission to stay on a "B" (business) extension, based on your work-permit, ends the same day.  If you are on a Marriage-based extension, your permission to stay in Thailand is not affected.

[allane]

At least not until the day that your wife tells you, that with you having no job, she has no reason to keep you around any longer.

[The Man Who Sold the World]

yet another:

 

We understand your frustration - but, the truth of the matter is the immigration rules exist, are enforced, and must be complied with. You will need to develop a tolerance for accepting these rules or you will die a slow death from frustration if you intend to live here. 

 

Good luck to you. 

[Thaidream]

Agree completely- have had every type of Visa and extension to stay except PR over a 50 year period. Constant reporting every 90 days. Married to a Thai. Spent millions in Thailand over the years in support of family and purchases. Every year I have to request an extension. Tired of it but accept it as I have no other choice except to leave. Thailand is extremely xenophobic and will remain so..

[dentonian]

38 minutes ago, allane said:

At least not until the day that your wife tells you, that with you having no job, she has no reason to keep you around any longer.

 

You picked the wrong wife then!

[Falcon]

18 hours ago, Crossy said:

What would you define as a high-income job?

 

I and many other have jobs earning USD xx.000 per month and have marriage extensions.

Not in Thailand you haven't!! The OP is obviously trying to say  something about the restricted occupations when he's talking about high paying jobs (for thailand) and not about people working overseas, for example in the oil industry or other higher salary paying jobs outside of the country. Having a job, or no job either inside thailand or outside is not a stipulation to having a marriage extension as long as the 400k is shown.

[Thaidream]

There are very  few foreigners who have worked in thailand and risen to high salaried positions in a Thai Company or started a business that has made them wealthy.  Most positions are held for Thai only.  

Most people married to a Thai are working offshore or in other countries are the ones making large salaries.

[Suradit69]

19 hours ago, YetAnother said:

so the support 2person visa, the spouse support, requires half what the one person (retirement) visa does 

It's a concession for someone who marries a Thai.

 

The Baht 65,000 a month is not meant to allow you to live in luxury. It's meant to make sure you have the ability to be of benefit to the Thai economy.

 

Thailand isn't meant to be a refugee camp for farang who can't afford to live in their own countries.

[Crossy]

5 minutes ago, Falcon said:

Not in Thailand you haven't!!

 

Are you quite sure about that? I work for a Thai company, not in O&G, and the majority of my work is inside Thailand.

 

Anyway, I was confused about our Op stating that one cannot work in a high-income job.

[Thaidream]

For most people- it's not the current requirements that are a big issue- it is the fact that the Immigration law is not being administered in an equitable manner and in some case an unfair manner.  Many offices make their own interpretation-with added requirements which sometimes changes from year to year. This causes uncertainty and stress amongst expats who are simply trying to live by the rules and take care of their family or simply live a quiet life.

 

[YetAnother]

very slightly off the main topic ...we all know there are asset-based and income-based financial requirements; 800K in bank and 65000/month for example; over the years i have heard that some immigration offices will entertain a 'hybrid' of the two; so a pension qualifies for some part and money in the bank qualifies for a part; anyone know how all that really works ? 50 % each ?  

[rickudon]

Any combination allowed. But will want 800,000 total for the year, not the 780,000 if income only. Obviously, TIT, and immigration make there own rules, but that is the way it usually works.

[JackThompson]

1 hour ago, Suradit69 said:

...

The Baht 65,000 a month is not meant to allow you to live in luxury. It's meant to make sure you have the ability to be of benefit to the Thai economy.

Thailand isn't meant to be a refugee camp for farang who can't afford to live in their own countries.

I would think the goal would be to maximize foreign-sourced capital flows into Thailand to benefit the Thai people.  What it costs to "live in another country" would not be relevant.  There are many countries an expat could live in for less than Thailand.  Ensuring foreigners do not cost Thailand / Thais money which would otherwise be spent on their own people/nation is perfectly reasonable, as that would defeat the purpose of the scheme. 

 

The 40K / mo level (currently used with marriage extensions) is more than sufficient relative to the cost of living in Thailand, but the key is some sort of fund that can be tapped if the foreigner falls on hard-times, to cover any Thai-liabilities plus a plane-ticket home.  If a govt-bank account were used, a cashier's check could be presented for the remaining-balance upon departure.  Alternatively, some sort of insurance policy could work, acting as a "bond" to protect Thailand from a foreigner's misfortune and/or mismanagement of their financial affairs.

Edited March 27, 2017 by JackThompson