Shocked.

[lamyai3]

1 hour ago, lkv said:

So why state "rogue Embassies", when it's in fact "rogue Immigration"?

I used the word "rogue" as an adjective, meaning something that is out of the ordinary, out of step with the rest. If aspersions are being cast though, then a certain amount of blame can certainly be directed at these embassies for failing to stand up against immigration's demands. and in accepting more draconian measures for their own nationals than the rest. 

 

The meetings between immigration and the embassies appeared to be conducted privately, almost in cloak and dagger fashion. The British embassy was the first to announce the changes and they declared at the time (October 2018) that many other embassies would be following suit. I can only assume that they said this in good faith and were led to believe it by immigration. In that respect you can draw your own conclusions as to who the real rogues (noun) were.

Edited October 16, 2019 by lamyai3

[lkv]

7 minutes ago, lamyai3 said:

I used the word "rogue" as an adjective

I was not criticising your choice of words.

 

All I am saying is that people should take into account what an Embassy can and cannot do on foreign soil.

 

Embassies are required to respect and abide by local laws, and are expected to stay out of host nations' internal affairs.

 

Host nations do have the authority to revoke consular clearances for embassy staff and can revoke their diplomatic immunity, effectively forcing them to leave.

 

As of local Thai officials, we have enough reports over the years of "how they like to conduct business".

Edited October 16, 2019 by lkv

[chilly07]

UK Embassy asked for original documents and returned them after so they were clearly able to verify. There was an attempt at an 'agreement' with the 3 richest Embassies hoping the others would fall in line. One Embassy was going to follow the 3 others and reversed their decision. The USA UK and Australian Embassies should also restore income certification. It is wrong to accept an injustice just because it happened over a year ago.

[BritTim]

49 minutes ago, chilly07 said:

UK Embassy asked for original documents and returned them after so they were clearly able to verify. There was an attempt at an 'agreement' with the 3 richest Embassies hoping the others would fall in line. One Embassy was going to follow the 3 others and reversed their decision. The USA UK and Australian Embassies should also restore income certification. It is wrong to accept an injustice just because it happened over a year ago.

I believe the UK should just reverse, as they were already doing due diligence on the requests for an income letter (albeit, they were relying on the supporting documents not being forgeries).

 

There is a case for saying the attestations accepted by the US and Australian embassies (albeit a false attestation being a criminal offence) were insufficient as the embassy did absolutely no checking on the truthfulness of the attestations. One would think they could come up with an alternative that would help some of their citizens, such as endorsing the accuracy of tax declarations and/or social security payments. 

[wwest5829]

8 hours ago, robblok said:

Then it seems that only the embassies that did not verify stopped but those who did are still doing it. Seems that the embassies should just start checking documents to help their citizen. I really understand the Thais not liking it that there were no checks from those 3 embassies. 

I do recognize that Thailand wanted the documentation verification by the Embassies. I also agree that is not the role of the American Embassy to verify retirement income of their citizens required by a foreign government. It is easy enough to verify the American retirees Social Security monthly check (that is only 1/2 of my required 65,000 baht monthly transfer). The remaining balance, however, would require the US Embassy in Thailand to verify income from a multitude of private investments. A time consuming task at best and it does bring into question government investigating sources of private income. While the 65,000 baht monthly transfer of income has caused issues, it is the easiest way (aside from demanding an 800,000 baht bond be posted in a Thai bank) To verify these required funds for support.

[john thom]

On 10/15/2019 at 7:58 PM, lamyai3 said:

Idiotic comment. The three rogue embassies were directly responsible for increasing the income requirement for their own nationals when they yielded to immigration's insistence that 100% of it has to be brought into Thailand, incurring both transfer expenses, and a lack of option to keep some of that income in their home country where it may also be needed.

 

This has created a two tier system, with citizens of the remaining countries who continue to provide income letters enjoying considerable less onerous conditions around obtaining extensions. I don't know if the whole thing was a crackdown that fizzled out, or a deliberate targeting of certain embassies by immigration, but given the fact that it's a year later and no further embassies have followed suit, it's high time this matter got revisited. 

Well said

 

[john thom]

3 hours ago, wwest5829 said:

I do recognize that Thailand wanted the documentation verification by the Embassies. I also agree that is not the role of the American Embassy to verify retirement income of their citizens required by a foreign government. It is easy enough to verify the American retirees Social Security monthly check (that is only 1/2 of my required 65,000 baht monthly transfer). The remaining balance, however, would require the US Embassy in Thailand to verify income from a multitude of private investments. A time consuming task at best and it does bring into question government investigating sources of private income. While the 65,000 baht monthly transfer of income has caused issues, it is the easiest way (aside from demanding an 800,000 baht bond be posted in a Thai bank) To verify these required funds for support.

Why doesn't u.s embassy make us bring proof of income before they issue letters- They never once asked my for proof. seems like the right thing to do-

[jacko45k]

15 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Until Thailand decides to make you pay income tax on your pension.

I was asked about any pension when I submitted a tax return to reclaim with-holding tax. I may have to rethink when I turn 66!

[Misab]

On 10/15/2019 at 6:57 PM, onera1961 said:

I don't think embassies are responsible for finacial difficulties their citizens face in a foreign country. However, I do agree that thre three embassies abaondoned their citizens to the mercy of Thai immigration and they indeed stepped up and provided them refuge by allowing montlhly transfer of money method. So, kudos go to Thai immigration for this humanitarian acts to Wesstern people who fill up this forum with Thai bashing. 

There are not three embassies there have abandoned their citizens there are four. USA, England, Australia and Denmark.

 

[jacko45k]

Just now, Misab said:

There are not three embassies there have abandoned their citizens there are four. USA, England, Australia and Denmark.

 

There has been statements that Denmark has resumed issuing Embassy letters in support of Extension applications, albeit in a different format. 

[luckyluke]

3 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

There has been statements that Denmark has resumed issuing Embassy letters in support of Extension applications, albeit in a different format. 

Correct, they issue now a L.o.I., but only if the income is from a state pension. 

[wwest5829]

9 hours ago, john thom said:

Why doesn't u.s embassy make us bring proof of income before they issue letters- They never once asked my for proof. seems like the right thing to do-

Why does the Royal Thai Embassy, issuing the retirement Visa for Thailand verify my financial ability? Oh, that is right, they already did this and determined that I was the type of person welcomed in Thailand.

[ubonjoe]

9 hours ago, john thom said:

Why doesn't u.s embassy make us bring proof of income before they issue letters- They never once asked my for proof. seems like the right thing to do-

Because they are not allowed to verify anything. All they can do is witness your signature on a affidavit.

If you wanted a SSA statement or such authenticated you would have to follow the procedures by having it done by the Department of State.

See: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-legal-considerations/internl-judicial-asst/authentications-and-apostilles/office-of-authentications.html

All this was discussed a year ago and the embassy even explained the reasons they could not do it.