BritTim

There have been several recent threads to the effect that the situation in Savannakhet remains as it was pre Covid.

I cannot fully answer your question. Any time there is any doubt on your reception when returning to Thailand, having a tourist visa in hand definitely improves your chances compared with relying on visa exemption.

If you were only in Thailand since March (after years away) I concur that you will be fine. Those who recently spent over two years in Thailand on Covid extensions would need to worry if returning visa exempt, especially through the Bangkok airports.

That is exactly the reason ... and those using Covid extensions were using them as the authorities hoped they would: to stay longer in Thailand than they otherwise would have. I find it truly absurd to say that people were abusing Covid extensions by using them as the government intended.

I would just note (although I am not gay myself) that those in a long term relationship with a same sex partner have a lot of trouble finding a way to stay together. Thailand does not recognise same sex marriage, and for many years has not provided Non Immigrant social visas that facilitate extended stay in Thailand for those with close connections that fall short of heterosexual marriage contracts.

I hope your contact with your grandfather is not too distressing. Good luck with immigration on your return.

Try to enter by land. You are only allowed two visa exempt entries per calendar year by land, but there are no limitations on entry with a visa, and you will not face any problems at almost all land crossings. Just avoid the rogue crossing at Poipet/Aranyaprathet coming from Cambodia.

No, what is important is how long the funds have been lying undisturbed in your Thai bank account.

You will not need to leave the passport, but will not receive the visa itself on the day you apply. The application is taken under consideration, and they stamp your passport with a stamp that indicates when you must come back to get the actual visa and new 90-day permission to stay.

I have heard of an agent arranged escort through Immigration, and I believe it is a reliable service. That is not based on first hand experience though. I do not think there will be much difference between two months and 100 days as far as Immigration's assessment of the situation is concerned. With many officials, anything over a month will be difficult to explain to their satisfaction. I honestly do not know how great your risk would be of a denied entry. I do believe an appropriately worded letter from the school that this is a planned absence that does not affect your status as a student there would be very helpful. Try hard to get it.

I can answer this, but will ignore the replies telling me I am totally wrong. With visa exemption, Immigration has the responsibility of qualifying arrivals to determine if their request for visa exempt entry is appropriate. There are no objective criteria, really, only individual opinions, though Police Orders at various times have used vague terms like "consistent with regular tourism". Those denied a visa exemption can grumble, but as with denied visa applications at consulates, the officials have discretion. With visas, the situation is different. The job of determining whether you qualify for a visa lies with the embassy/consulate. When you arrive with a visa, officials are not supposed to make arbitrary decisions on whether they like the fact that you were issued the visa. The Immigration Act is very clear on the reasons under which you must be denied entry, and equally clear that they have no right to deny entry for any reason not explicitly specified in the Act. As a result, officials at all airports have the explicit right to deny you a visa exemption, and will sometimes do so. Since the rules are unclear on what constitutes appropriate versus inappropriate use of visa exempt entry, some airports and some individual officials are less tolerant than others, but they have discretion and (as with consular officials processing visas) their decision is final. As stated above, the rules on entry with visas are supposed to be clear cut. You must be denied entry or must be admitted, according to the Immigration Act. Up until about 10 years ago, this policy was followed at all entry points (certainly as far as airport arrivals from first world countries was concerned). Increasingly, however, and especially in the last five years, officials at some airports have decided to give themselves powers that the law does not grant them, and refuse to honour some visas. The overall effect is that denied entry when arriving without a visa is much more common than if you have a valid visa. In most cases (the main exceptions being blacklisted persons or those with no money) denial of entry is improper if you have a visa.

They kept Covid extensions for tourists but not those on Non Immigrant visas/permissions to stay. Why did they feel a need to facilitate long stay tourism with Covid extensions because people could not be long stay tourists by border hops? Not everyone in authority was (and is) in agreement, but most of the decision makers want to save the economy and tourism sector. That temporarily outweighs emotional desire to throw the foreign bums out.

Unfortunately, based on my experience with young Asian women (and taking the lady's account as factual) about 80% of comparable women in her position would have caved immediately to the demand to buy a ticket and leave. I feel really sorry for those that have been thus affected.

Because they were desperately looking for a good excuse to deny entry, and she resisted their initial attempts to pressure her into buying a new ticket and leaving immediately.

Why do you think Covid extensions continued for tourists long after it was easy for people to leave? Why do you think the authorities are lengthening initial stays for people entering visa exempt or with visas on arrival? I would argue it is because they want to maximise tourism revenue until the tourism sector recovers. Sure, they were trying to deter long stay tourism in 2019, and certainly there are some in Immigration who want to do so even in the current climate. However, I do not think that is the feeling among most in authority.

True, but it is pretty strong evidence that the lady does not work illegally (likely as a whore) which is the purported reason you and others feel she should be denied entry. Immigration can deny a visa exemption based on their own prejudices, but it is unjust to do so.

This is my answer to that. First, the Nigerian male will not be eligible for a visa exemption, so he is entering with a visa. I believe it is the job of the embassy in Lagos to decide if the visa should be issued, and they are known to be pretty tough in qualifying Nigerian citizens for Thai visas. Under those circumstances, unless a valid reason under Section 12 can be found to deny entry, Immigration has no business deciding to requalify the Nigerian's right to his visa (although they might well do so). Taking a more comparable case of a young Filipino male trying to enter visa exempt, polite questioning is appropriate. As with a young female, attempting to pressure the male into leaving, prior to questioning, because the official did not like the fact that he had spent a lot of time here already would be legal, but unjust. Having discovered that the male was in a long term relationship with a mature Thai woman who was well able to support him ought to be enough to allow him to enter. (In practice, that might just make them more determined to get rid of him.)

Some in Thailand have stated this. The consensus, I believe is that they want to have a limit on the number of tourists in the country, and to maximise revenue from those that are here. In times where the tourism sector is strong, that is achieved by encouraging generally shorter stays by more people from wealthy countries, while discouraging longer stays by people who are less wealthy. During the current circumstances where they cannot reach targeted tourism numbers, the consensus is to make it as easy as possible for most tourists to arrive and stay for as long as they like. Eventually, as the sector strengthens, this will change. Further, even now, there are those in positions of power in Thailand who are exceptions to this consensus.

I am actually curious. Do you think the lady broke any immigration rules? If not, under what circumstances should people be punished because some officials do not like the way the people leverage the system to their advantage? My own view is that denying visa exemption in this case, if done in an appropriate way, would have been defensible. However, the lady followed the rules, and her decision, following advice from local immigration, of proceeding with the original plan is a correct use of the system as it exists.

Indeed, Covid extensions are in a sense a win-win for Thailand and for those taking advantage of the deliberate policy of making it easy to stay. However, it gives xenophobes and racists a feeling of grievance. How dare people stay just because it is good for both them and Thailand.

Clear cut rules that allowed people to know where they stand before travel would be very helpful. With visa exemption, this is difficult to achieve. Certainly, with visa exemption, it is up to Immigration to determine if the person satisfy the conditions for the exemption. Questioning is perfectly appropriate. What I find unreasonable (and I might be unfair to immigration as we only have the lady's account) is trying to pressure the lady into departing before ascertaining the facts. What might eventually happen is a system of visa exemption that is closer to that of many other countries, where use is more restricted by law than at present, but much less scrutiny necessary where visa exemptions are used. The trouble with that is it would affect some tourists. Perhaps, multiple entry tourist visas should be easier to get alongside more limited visa exemptions.

She may or may not have intended to use her return at the point Immigration let her in. Following advice from local immigration, she decided to go ahead with a Non Ed visa. It may or may not have been a perfectly reasonable change of mind. Regardless, I do not see that she is committing any immigration offence.

^^^this Whatever explanation you give, Immigration will be sceptical of a professed student who skips classes for over three months. Agreeing a 100-day suspension of your studies with the school before leaving will go a long way to satisfying immigration that you really are a student. That said, your immigration history does not look good, and few people would regard the illness of a grandfather as sufficient grounds to put your whole life on hold for over three months. Taking your post at face value, it is clear that you are very close to your grandfather, and you have my sympathy during this difficult time.

They eventually let her in because she was a strong character who stood up for herself. Based on my experience of young Asian women, I suspect 80% or so would have buckled to the pressure and departed in tears.

If possible, have the hospital apply for the extension on your behalf. The hospital will typically only do this once you have been admitted. If you turn up to Immigration just with a doctor's letter, you may get a very sceptical reaction. Requests made in person for medical extensions are refused more often than not, even if you can make a good case that you are unfit to travel.