On 29 Aug 2003 16:51:33 -0700, tchiowa2@hotmail.com (Tchiowa) wrote:
>Chris Blunt wrote in message news:...
>> On 28 Aug 2003 23:25:37 -0700, tchiowa2@hotmail.com (Tchiowa) wrote:
>>
>> >Chris Blunt wrote in message news:...
>> >> On 27 Aug 2003 19:23:21 -0700, tchiowa2@hotmail.com (Tchiowa) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >"My Post" wrote in message news:...
>> >> >> Hi:
>> >> >> My name is Mike and this is how I solved my retirement / limited income
>> >> >> problem!!
>> >> >
>> >> >You seem to have failed to notify people that the law in Thailand
>> >> >requires foreigners to have an income of around $1,600 a month to
>> >> >legally retire there.
>> >>
>> >> There's no legal definition of retirement. You can stay there without
>> >> that income as long as you comply with the visa requirement to leave
>> >> the country when required.
>> >
>> >There most definitely *IS* a legal definition of retirement for
>> >foreigners.
>> >
>> >http:\\www.thaiembdc.org will help you see the requirements for a
>> >foreigner to retire in Thailand.
>>
>> That's not a legal definition of retirement, its just a list of
>> requirement to obtain what they call a retirement visa. You can still
>> be 'retired' whether or not you meet those requirements.
>>
>> The point I was making is that if you can't prove the $1,600 a month
>> income you don't *have* to get that particular visa in order to retire
>> in Thailand. You can stay there on a tourist visa as long as you don't
>> mind leaving the country every 3 months and the accept the risks
>> associated with that.
>
>A foreigner cannot live in Thailand as a retiree without that visa. If
>you're saying that you can lie to the Immigration authorities and to
>the Consulate in order to get a visa under false pretenses and then go
>back and forth out of the country as each tourist entry expires every
>few months then, yes, you're right.
Of course he can, and many thousands do. It seems that hardly a single
discussion goes by without you labelling somebody a liar. Nobody is
lying to immigration about anything. All they are doing is asking to
stay in the country for the maximum of the 3 months they are allowed.
They are granted a visa on the basis that they will either leave the
country at the end of the time allowed or obtain an extension. What
they intend to do at the end of that time is irrelevant as long as
they comply with the conditions of the visa. If they then want to
return and do the same thing again its entirely up to the Thai
government whether they permit that.
>The original poster did not point out that you have to violate Thai
>Immigration law (by lying on your visa application) in order to do
>what he was saying.
He didn't say that because its not the case. Nobody is suggesting
anyone lies, and nobody is suggesting you break immigration laws.
>> >Further, there is no visa requirement to leave the country
>> >periodically. You are talking about the practice of getting a multiple
>> >entry tourist visa that only allows you in the country for 90 days at
>> >a time.
>>
>> Yes, that's exactly what I was saying, so holding that kind of visa
>> *does* carry a requirement to leave the country periodically.
>
>To be pedantic, it's actually 180 degrees the other way. You are only
>allowed to enter the country for a short period of time (usually 90
>days). The intent of the tourist visa is not for you to stay in the
>country and have to leave periodically. Just the opposite.
Who are you to interpret the intent of the Thai government? Where do
the conditions of a tourist visa state that you cannot return to the
country again at a later date?
|