Jump to content
BANGKOK 21 July 2019 17:49
a977

My trip to Jomtien Immigration

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

Everything is done by documentation- sworn under oath and notarized.  The Embassies saw the request from Thai Imm as a way out of the income letters because they simply do not want to do them.

'Affidavit's' or 'Stat Decs' (US and Australia), never required documentary proof of income.

The Embassy letter was issued based on your 'statement' or sworn oath.

 

Do you believe the Embassies lied when they announced TI had requested 'verification' of incomes?

Why after the biggest 3 Embassies stopped the service, did other Embassies not follow suit?

 

The answer is within the new amended order;

Quote

Income certification certified by the Embassy or Consulate.

That is very different than what they asked the US, UK or Australian Embassies to comply with.

Someone at TI was left with brown trousers after the big 3 pulled out and changed the request.

If TI orders insisted 'Income certification 'verified' by the Embassy or Consulate', then I can assure you every EU Embassy would no longer be able to comply with that order, or issue income letters to that effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

Do you believe the Embassies lied when they announced TI had requested 'verification' of incomes?

Why after the biggest 3 Embassies stopped the service, did other Embassies not follow suit?

No- but I believe that due to differences in semantics and expectations that the  BE , USA and AUS Embassies saw this as an opportunity to get rid of something that they believed was becoming onerous and most citizens were complaining about having to pay  a hefty charge. By simply declining to do it any longer- they lessened their workload.

I find it strange that all 3 Embassies (US/UK/AU) announcements were quite similar and when you read the narratives -there is an indication that since there was 'another way' to  'prove income' and that the 'burden' would be eased the decision was made for the Embassies benefit.

 

If the Embassies really wanted to help its citizens- they could have easily explained to Thai Imm that no one could go back to the original source but they would continue the letters as such and Thai imm could then ask for added proof.  My instincts would tell me that Thai Imm would have continued to accept their letters since they are accepting  those from China; Russia; Germany; etc etc. into the future.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

No- but I believe that due to differences in semantics and expectations that the  BE , USA and AUS Embassies saw this as an opportunity to get rid of something that they believed was becoming onerous and most citizens were complaining about having to pay  a hefty charge. By simply declining to do it any longer- they lessened their workload.

Those semantics, verify and certify have very different meanings and legal implications.

They also lessen their income, which was money for old rope.

 

32 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

I find it strange that all 3 Embassies (US/UK/AU) announcements were quite similar and when you read the narratives -there is an indication that since there was 'another way' to  'prove income' and that the 'burden' would be eased the decision was made for the Embassies benefit.

The announcements were similar because TI requested the same requirement from those Embassies.

I believe they only withdrew the service after becoming frustrated with negotiations with TI and their failure to understand the request to verify incomes was an impossibility.

 

36 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

If the Embassies really wanted to help its citizens- they could have easily explained to Thai Imm that no one could go back to the original source but they would continue the letters as such and Thai imm could then ask for added proof.  My instincts would tell me that Thai Imm would have continued to accept their letters since they are accepting  those from China; Russia; Germany; etc etc. into the future.

You believe they didn't try to explain that. It was TI that requested and used the term 'verify'.

The decision to withdraw the service wasn't taken overnight, negotiation were over several months. 

They probably made plans in advance to relocate staff to other Embassies/Consulates before the final announcement.

You really expect them to redeploy staff back to restart the service after TI caused the problem by the wrong choice of word.

 

Other Embassies continue with the word 'certify' in their Income letters, which complies with the amended orders announced on 21st Dec 2018, several weeks after the UK and US Embassies decision to stop the service.

It's pointless putting a lock on the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tanoshi said:

That is very different than what they asked the US, UK or Australian Embassies to comply with. //

We don't have any proof on what may have been said or written by TI. That's just pure speculation :unsure:. One possibility among several.

 

1 hour ago, Tanoshi said:

If TI orders insisted 'Income certification 'verified' by the Embassy or Consulate', then I can assure you every EU Embassy would no longer be able to comply with that order, or issue income letters to that effect.

"Letter from the Embassy verifying the Income" is what is written in some Thai Immigration documents for many years...

 

test.jpg

Edited by Pattaya46
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Pattaya46 said:

You don't have any proof on what may have been said or written by TI. That's just pure speculation :unsure:. One possibility among several.

We have the written announcements and a video of an interview with TV and the BE.

If your opinion is that they lied, please state the reason.

 

5 minutes ago, Pattaya46 said:

"Letter from the Embassy verifying the Income" is what we find written in some Thai Immigration documents for many years...

test.jpg

And the new amended order clearly states 'certified' letter of Income from the Embassy.

 

This just reinforces my opinion that TI had no idea of the legal ramifications between the request to 'verify' or 'certify'.

I think they perfectly understand now, but not before causing turmoil and distress for many expats.

 

Most are aware for example an extension is not a Visa. But Immigration still persist with calling it a Visa.

It's term is misleading and causes confusion.

That in my opinion is exactly what happened with TI and the Embassies, before the penny finally dropped, unfortunately to late for many of us.

We will never know exactly what happened after the 4 Embassies withdrew the services, but TI appear to have had a change in their request and now only ask for 'certified' Embassy letters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

And the new amended order clearly states 'certified' letter of Income from the Embassy.

False. No word 'certified' as the document is written in Thai language. What about the translation ?

 

13 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

his just reinforces my opinion that TI had no idea of the legal ramifications between the request to 'verify' or 'certify'.

Same thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Pattaya46 said:

False. No word 'certified' as the document is written in Thai language. What about the translation ?

My wife confirmed the Thai states 'certified'.

The translation is accurate in that respect.

 

'Verify' and 'certify' are different in Thai and have different meanings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...