Sortapundit

And the pool of interesting international expats doing interesting things is on the decline.

You may very well be right, but I think it would be difficult to identify such a general, nationwide trend in a country that receives a huge number of long stay visitors, and any perceived trend would more likely be skewed by our own personal perspective. In the years since I started coming to Thailand I've made lots of close friends who were engaged in interesting business ventures, but on a long enough time scale most of these people will eventually leave. As a result it would be easy for me to look back on, say, 2011 as a golden age simply because I hung out with a lot of cool people who are no longer here, but any conclusion I drew from my personal experience would be flawed if I tried to apply it on a national scale.

If that makes any sense

It's much easier to draw such conclusions in smaller countries that receive only a fraction of the visitors. Mongolia, for instance, has in the last few years changed its foreign investment laws to make it a much less attractive prospect, and since there are only around 10,000 expats living in the country it's much easier to identify expat drain by looking at plummeting rental prices, vacant properties and empty expat-friendly bars. That can't really be seen in Thailand, because the numbers are just too high to draw any meaningful conclusions based on personal experience.

thailand doesnt need you to tell them how to run their country.

When a government has no clear, well-defined rules to govern who can enter the country, for how long and under what circumstances; when visitors with legitimate visas appropriate for the purpose of their visit are unsure if they will be allowed to cross a border, and when one immigration officer has the authority and lack of top-down guidance to interpret the rules differently to the officer working beside him, the argument that Thailand might need some help in this area isn't all that outlandish. Anyone who argues otherwise has failed to properly appreciate the problem.

because a country decides to manage its affairs in a way you dont like and feels no need to ask you for help, then perhaps it isnt the country for you. I have seen EXACTLY that same behaviour at the american border. spare me your western chauvinism

You know, not every criticism of a foreign nation's policies comes from a starting point of subtle racism and a misguided colonial attitude. Please don't fit me for a pith helmet. Sometimes it really is just a simple observation of 'Hey, these guys seem to be making a hash of things.'

As JLCrab said, it will take time to formulate a clear, workable visa policy, but in the meantime those in charge of building it might want to look for advice from other countries to help them find a good framework.

thailand doesnt need you to tell them how to run their country.

When a government has no clear, well-defined rules to govern who can enter the country, for how long and under what circumstances; when visitors with legitimate visas appropriate for the purpose of their visit are unsure if they will be allowed to cross a border, and when one immigration officer has the authority and lack of top-down guidance to interpret the rules differently to the officer working beside him, the argument that Thailand might need some help in this area isn't all that outlandish. Anyone who argues otherwise has failed to properly appreciate the problem.

The moment they give a clear indication is the moment I'll relax. Whatever the answer is, whether long term genuine (i.e. non-working) tourists will be limited to a single entry, a double entry or entirely unaffected by the crackdown

If you are a "long stay tourist" staying over 180 days in country in a calendar year, that seems to classify you as a "resident" for tax purposes. That means any money you bring into Thailand seems to be taxable, whether you work in Thailand or not.

I can see a problem of fairness (and revenue) making it clearer and easier for people to stay longer than 180 days, yet not classify them as residents and tax the money they bring in to the country.

If you're a "tourist" by the tax definition, staying less than 180 days, all you're taxed on is the money you've made in Thailand, which of course, is zero- since you can't work as a genuine tourist. So it seems that there is a problem defining anyone staying over 180 days a year as a tourist, even if they are non-working.

Yep, tax law is another thing that needs to be updated to reflect current realities. Digital nomads have been debating the tax implications of long term travel for a few years now, and there are no easy answers. For an example of the complexity, in 2012 I stayed in Thailand around 220 days. I earned my money through Amazon US, was paid through Amazon Luxembourg and was, at the time, subject to 30% withholding by the IRS because I had yet to file a W8-BEN in the States. I'm not sure if there is a double taxation agreement between Thailand and the US, but any attempt to pay Thai taxes for that period would no doubt be a costly nightmare that would have left me massively overpaying.

In 2011 and 2013, however, I didn't spend enough time in any one country to qualify as resident for tax purposes, and it becomes even more complex when you consider the fact that my income comes in the form of royalties for works created several years ago (so the actual work that generated the income took place in more than a dozen countries over a number of years). Since 2011 I've spent a grand total or around 10 days in the UK, but to keep things simple I pay my taxes there. I could probably get away with paying no taxes at all to anyone, but it might come back and bite me on the ass years from now.

 

Officially, I believe (though I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong), you need a return or onward ticket OR a valid visa to satisfy airline requirements to be allowed to board a flight to Thailand. If an airline allows a passenger to board without satisfying these requirements they can face fines from the country of arrival, and be stuck with the expense of removing the passenger from the country. I'm not au fait with the law, but I'd expect in the early days of the crackdown the airlines would foot the bill for the removal of a refused passenger who doesn't meet the requirements. 

 

For years the airlines have been fairly lax about these requirements with regards to Thailand, at least for passengers arriving from countries that are eligible for a visa exemption, as there was little risk of them being refused entry. If the worst case scenario occurs, and people start to be refused entry while holding a valid visa (or refused a visa exemption), you can probably expect the airlines to start screening passengers more closely, and maybe refusing to board those who haven't booked a return or forward flight, as they won't want to be left holding the bill when an IO decides Mr Smith has already enjoyed Thailand quite enough for this year. Again, this is a worst case scenario, and it's conjecture in any case. 

 

What I can tell you from experience is that airlines often follow whatever rules they please, regardless of the law, and there's really no way to know what will happen until you're in that situation. I was once refused entry to Mongolia while holding a valid tourist visa (I'd been blacklisted without being informed, and the issuing embassy hadn't checked the blacklist before issuing me the visa). I flew in from Beijing with Air China on a one way ticket, and I was returned to Beijing at my own expense. The flight crew literally walked me to the Air China desk at Beijing airport, told me to empty my pockets and took all my cash as payment for the flight. I was then put on a Lufthansa flight back to Frankfurt, which was paid for by Lufthansa. There's no rhyme or reason, so the best thing to do is have a contingency plan.

 

I am confused by your account of your deportation from Mongolia. You say you flew in from Beijing with Air China a and was returned to Beijing at your own expense. OK understood. You then say that you were taken to the Air China desk at Beijing airport and flown back to Frankfurt by Lufthansa?? How is that relevant and what has it got to do with being refused entry  to Mongolia? Am I missing something?

 

I skipped the first part of the story. My inward flight originated in Manchester, UK, with changes in Frankfurt and Beijing. When you're denied entry into a country you must be returned, either at your own expense or courtesy of the airline, back to a country for which you don't need a visa. Usually the airline will return you in the reverse of your incoming itinerary, so I was returned to Frankfurt and sent on my way. 

This is an important point for visitors to Thailand who have arrived on indirect flights. If you fly in on a UK passport from London via Moscow and you're denied entry or arrival in Thailand, by default you'll be returned all the way back to London rather than Moscow (unless you happen to have a valid Russian visa). 

So why not apply for a new passport? I have never done it from abroad so I guess it would be harder. It will cost a bit - but it wipes out all record of any past travels. This may not be the answer for OP but for some it may help - at least once.

If it was true that your passport is the only record of your travels I'd cut a potato into a stamp and make myself legal until 2020. I'd also delete my travel ban to Kazakhstan and notations from Uzbekistan and Mongolia.

In fact, they tend to write these things down these days. Often on computes, rather than just quill and parchment

 

I was one who responded to the semi-retired romance novel author only because he said why would he want to have 4 Thais sitting around doing nothing ... and I responded if you did have 4 Thais sitting around, if they were were media/journalism graduates, why would you not be able to do something with them? Maybe get some contract work instead of a company hiring some in-house copy editor.

 

maybe hire 4 good looking young ladies and employ them as "french maids" while your writing and let them dust and polish things in the house ?... but then again not sure how much writing you would get done, but he might get some new ideas for "romance" novels

 

"her bodice heaved, barely containing her sweat laden breasts"

 

you get the idea   

 

This is an attractive idea, but I'm not sure my girlfriend of four years would be all that impressed 

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

... and here I thought you would be writing suspense thrillers but if you write romance novels (which would maybe explain why 50 books at age 32) maybe you could get a job at the TV Thai soaps or lakhon thorathat

It's a nice idea, but I'm not a journalist. I write romance novels, and I'm entirely unqualified to write news or opinion. Novelists and journalists use the same alphabet, but we jumble it up in entirely different ways alt=tongue.png>

Well write a few Thai love short-stories and get them published in the English media local rags.

Man, for a novelist you're seriously short on imagination. alt=coffee1.gif width=32 height=24>

Ha! There's a reason I call myself retired. If I have to write one more bloody love story I'll lose my mind

It's a nice idea, but I'm not a journalist. I write romance novels, and I'm entirely unqualified to write news or opinion. Novelists and journalists use the same alphabet, but we jumble it up in entirely different ways

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

The best thing would be to obtain a work permit and a business visa permit. That way, just in case immigration decide you may be working, it will be okay because you have a work permit. And in case they think you might not be working but are in fact running a business then also have a business visa. The only problem i then see Is if they suspect you are actually a tourist then they may deny you entry. So maybe also obtain a tourist visa.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

This would be an inappropriate visa for our situation, as I don't work. In effect I'd be moving from one visa that underserves me to another that overserves me, with neither truly being the correct visa. It is also, surely, against the law to enter a country on a business visa if you intend to do no business. I'd just be breaking the law in the other direction.

.

OP, you are missing the whole point. It's BACK TO BACK NEVER GO ANYWHERE ELSE visa abusers they are weaning off the Thailand teat, so to speak. You are plainly touring. As long as you keep that up, I don't think they will be adding up your total days.

You MIGHT have to amend your plans a WEE bit in the "come and go as you bloody well please" department, but after all, it's not your country of origin.

'nuff said.

No, I see the point. My argument is that it would be useful to see some official guidelines, because as it stands long term, regular tourists like me and my partner run the risk of being caught in the dragnet designed to get rid of people who stay year round.

They'll have to clarify this...

Yep. Most countries have hard and fast rules that dictate how long a person in any given situation is legally allowed to stay (even countries as... casual about organisation as Thailand). It isn't too much to ask for clarification.

The situation is complicated since the the OP has a non-spousal partner but the following extension of stay and WP would be possibly available to a published author -- From Police Order 777/2551

2.12 In the case of mass media function:

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) Confirmation and request has been made by the Public Relations Department or the Information Department attached to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

I haven't looked into it, but I'm guessing this would be the media (Non-imm M) visa? If so, from the information I've seen it seems to be exclusively aimed at press (journalists, photographers, cameramen, etc.). The media visa requires a letter from a news agency and 'At least three examples of published news reports or other forms of news reports, especially those related to Thailand, that has been done in the past by the journalist in English (if it is not in English, the translation in English is necessary).' To further complicate matters I'm self published, so I couldn't rely on a publisher for any documentation of my job, and I doubt the authorities would be all that interested in a print out of my product pages on Amazon and a screenshot of my incoming royalties. It'd be a nice visa to have, but I don't think I qualify.

I have posted this on another thread but it might be better here.

It has not been mentioned that if you are refused entry into a country then you will not be admitted to any other country until you have returned to the country of your passport.

This could have huge implications for a visa runner because once you try to enter Thailand and are refused admittance you are in no man's land having signed out of the previous country- they will not readmit you; rather they will put you in detention until you can return to your home country.

So beware. If you are in danger of being refused entry then make sure you have the funds to return home other wise you might spend the rest of your life in detention.

This is a concern, but it isn't entirely true. I've been detained in no-man's-land between several countries in Central Asia, and in most cases you'll eventually be allowed either forward or back. The alternatives would be to 1) hold a person indefinitely in no-man's-land, which would be logistically impossible, or 2) arrest and hold a person in detention until they can be repatriated, which is both impractical and legally questionable, if they haven't committed a crime that warrants detention (and arriving at a border with a valid visa isn't a crime, even if the receiving country doesn't want to honour the visa).

As for the rule you mentioned about not being admitted to any other country until you have returned to the country of your passport, that isn't accurate. If you're refused entry into a country (let's take the example of an airport arrival rather than a land border), you must return to a country in which you're free to arrive without requiring a visa, or offers a visa on arrival.

In 2010 I flew into Mongolia from the UK, via Frankfurt and Beijing. On arrival in Ulaanbaatar it emerged that I had been blacklisted for a year (though I had not been informed, and I held a valid tourist visa). After much back and forth I was put on a plane back to Beijing and held in airport detention for 12 hours, at which point I was put on a plane back to Frankfurt, where I was handed my passport and allowed to go on my way. The reason for this is that I didn't have a visa for China, so I would not be permitted entry, and the procedure called for me to be returned in the reverse of my incoming itinerary to the first country I could legally enter (Germany).

So, in the case of Thailand if you arrive at a land border with a valid visa (or the hope of an exemption) and you're not allowed in you can simply cross back into the previous country (as Cambodia, Laos and Malaysia (not sure about Myanmar) all offer visa on arrival). If you arrive at an international airport and you're not allowed in, by default you will be returned to the last country in your travel itinerary for which you don't need a visa (and your ticket will be paid by you or the airline, depending on whatever international laws the airline feels like following that day). In the case of Thailand it should be possible to choose to book a new ticket to a neighbouring country and simply fly back out, since the priority of the immigration officers is to just get rid of you with the least hassle possible.

You are right -- there is no visa for the under age 50 lone proprietor and I would not expect there to be one soon. Thailand as I noted in several posts above has a priority to encourage companies that will invest in online services including online publishing services and hire Thai university graduates. If they provide incentive for the sole practitioner that is a dis-incentive to those who would make such investments and hirings.

 

I provided an ad hoc suggestion as to how one in K. Sortapundit's circumstances might comply with those priorities but he I guess is not interested and a few others came on to hoot.

 

Doesn't bother me but I deal with the world wide publishing industry on a daily basis but from the legal angle.

It's not so much that I'm not interested. Your suggestion was both good and valid, and would allow me to stay legally (though my partner would be a different story, and would require me to hire 8 Thais and put her on my payroll). My problem is simply that I'm pretty much retired, and I don't actually live full time in Thailand (depending on your definition of 'full time'). Setting up a company and hiring employees might be a solid option for a working author who lives here year round, but for me it would be an unreasonable investment simply to abide by the clunky laws of one of the countries in which I spend time, and, as anonymouse said, I'd still be in breach of the law if I wrote anything while on holiday in a neighbouring country. 

There's nothing that can be done about it, really. It just helps to grumble a little about the problem. 

 

Yes I agree with you and incidentally your first post in this thread was excellent.

 

 

Thank you very much :) Looks like I should have asked my proofreader to go over that post, though, as I just noticed my unforgivable their/there typo. My kingdom for an edit button.

To K. Surapundit -- Your notion that should you hire, say, 4 Thai media/journalism graduates for a newly formed company that they would be of no value to the prospering of that entity and would be paid to just "sit around an office and do nothing" shows a lack of imagination that I hope is not also lacking in your 50 published books.

I take your point, but I can't imagine how a staff of four (or even one) Thais, media graduates or not, could possibly provide enough added value to me to justify their employment. I write the novels and create my own cover art. I pay a native English speaker to proofread (naturally), I manage my own promotion, and have no need for any additional help outside the group of fellow authors around the world who work with me for mutual gain. My last novel sold enough copies to secure a place on the New York Times and USA Today bestseller lists (but wasn't eligible as Amazon locked me into an exclusive deal, and novels must be sold at more than one venue to qualify). I do fine, to the point at which I don't even need to work any more.

My point is that setting up a company and hiring a staff is a needless and wasteful expense, and the requirement to do so would satisfy the letter of the law but not the spirit. 

I'm currently in Thailand on the first entry of a double entry tourist visa, and last week I extended for 30 days at Chaeng Wattana. On August 3rd I'm leaving to spend 4 weeks in Mongolia, and will return to Thailand on August 31st. Unfortunately, since I extended my first entry and I'm planning a month-long trip, by the time I arrive back in Thailand I'll have passed the 'enter before' date marked on the visa (August 14th), so the second entry will be voided before I can use it.

My question is this: can a re-entry permit allow me to extend the validity of the visa, or does a permit have no effect on the 'enter before' deadline? If so, is it even possible to get a re-entry permit on a tourist visa?

Cheers

Oh dear, not good news for many people I'm sure.

I think this is far too much too quickly. I guess if you are working illegally and using back to back tourist visas, well you're not paying tax and it is illegal so the writing was on the wall anyway. If you are however using back to back visas and living on your own money and not working this is unfortunate.

Maybe there will be a sudden increase in student visa applications, not sure, but one thing is for sure a lot of people are going home.

I'm in the second group. My partner and I are nomads, and we support ourselves quite comfortably on the royalties of several novels I published back when I could be bothered to work. We're perpetual tourists, and have no interest in anything other than a life of leisure in whatever warm and pleasant country will have us. Unfortunately, if you were to look at our passports the pattern of tourist visas could easily be mistaken for that of the folk who come here to work illegally.

In the three years we've been coming to Thailand we've usually stayed no more than two or three months at a time before taking a break elsewhere (we've probably only had one actual back-to-back visa in that time, and one same day in-out exemption, if memory serves). We were here for the first few months of 2013, spent two months in Mongolia before coming back to Bangkok for another month, then went to tour Europe for seven months before coming back here for the last three. In two weeks we head back to Mongolia for August, and our plan (which is looking shakier by the day as reports of problems emerge) is to return to Thailand at the start of September for a long stay. I'm guessing our best option would be to enrol in a Thai language course and get an ED visa, but as those will become much more popular as a way for illegal workers to stay in-country I'm concerned they'll start cracking down on those soon enough (and I don't really care to learn another language right now).

Of course it's the prerogative of Thailand to tighten up visa rules, but it's a shame people like me will probably get caught in the dragnet. I don't believe it's the intention of the authorities to oust non-working, cash-rich layabouts, but that will be the effect. I just wish I hadn't recently signed a 12 month lease on an apartment. It'd be much easier if we could bail out and spend a little time elsewhere without losing a hefty deposit.

P.S. I also wish the gloating TV fools on long term visas would give the schadenfreude a rest. The new state of affairs may get rid of a few undesirables, but it will also hurt a lot of honest people who are a positive force for the Thai economy.

a triple entry tourist visa should get you almost 270 days. is that long enough stay?

A triple entry would be more than enough, but my concern is whether it would be issued and honoured at the border. We've already spent three months in Thailand this year on a double entry tourist visa (we've used one entry and its extension - the second entry will be void by the time we return, unfortunately). A three month stay followed by a one month break before returning doesn't really fit the profile of a legitimate tourist, so I'd expect we'd have an issue either at a consulate or the border, especially in the near future while the guys at the border are a little more zealous than usual.