BritTim

Here is a link to a translation of the most recent version of the Thai Immigration Act (provided as a convenience to foreigners by the government Council of State): http://web.krisdika.go.th/data/outsitedata/outsite21/file/Immigration_Act_B.E._2522.pdf Please review Chapter 2 (Sections 11-22) Entering and Exiting the Kingdom and indicate which Section gives officials this "discretion". As an alternative, indicate why the applicable law does not apply. Those drafting the law made the decision that the grounds for admitting or excluding foreigners from Thailand should be clearcut, with no "competent official" given the power to depart from those criteria. Indeed, the drafters of the Act even tried to facilitate an appeal process, making clear that any denial of entry would automatically be void unless the Minister endorsed the official's decision within a limited period of time. [As an aside, note that the objective of these clear rules was to make corruption by Immigration Officials appointed to enforce the law as difficult as possible, and this was almost always successful for over 30 years.] You can state that officials have the right to exclude people for reasons not specified in the Act, as well as deny the right of appeal specified in the Act, but your assertion is not supported by the clear language of the Immigration Act.

I have read the whole Act multiple times, and carefully evaluated the meaning of all the important sections. Have you? If I gave you a link to one of the many translations of the Immigration Act, you would still not read it, continuing to rely on your preconceived ideas of the powers of officials. Where do immigration officials acquire the power to deny entry to foreigners? Is it from Thai law; or from US law; or from some kind of natural law related purely to job title; or other (please specify)?

You will remain confused as you do not understand: Immigration officials acquire powers to admit or deny entry to travellers based on the law. There is no natural law that gives people with the title of "immigration official", "border control officer" or any other title an automatic right to determine whether someone should be admitted. Thailand made the decision to take "discretion" out of the hands of officials at entry points into Thailand. This is atypical. In most countries, officials (at least at a senior level) are permitted to deny entry that, for any reason they consider sufficient, justifies such a denial. You have no willingness to suspend your preconceived ideas about what power an official "ought" to have, and actually read the Immigration Act to see what powers they "actually" have. Let's see if I can get you to, at least, read the most relevant sections. Section 12 Aliens falling into any of the following categories are excluded from entering the Kingdom — ... snip [various conditions under which the official should deny entry, including...] ... (10) Being prohibited from entering the Kingdom by the Minister under Section 16; Section 16 If, in the interests of the country or for reason of public order, good morals or culture, or for the happiness of the people, the Minister considers that any alien or group of aliens should not be permitted to enter the Kingdom, the Minister shall have power to not permit such alien or group of aliens to enter the Kingdom. Note, in reading the Act that the Minister is the only person empowered to admit or deny entry to foreigners other than pursuant to specific criteria laid out in the Act. Indeed, under the Act, even the Minister's powers are not absolute.

Unless in hospital, or using an agent, it is very difficult in practice to get medical extensions. Phoning the local immigration office, or (better) having someone visit the office on your behalf to explain the situation cannot hurt. However, in most cases, it will not lead to a solution.

The current law is that officials should only deny entry according to specific reasons laid out in Section 12 of the Immigration Act. The officials are directly told they have no discretion, either to admit those that should be excluded under Section 12, or to deny entry for any reason not specified in Section 12. That includes cases where the immigration official believes a consular official was in error. They cannot admit people who were refused visas because the consular official wrongly denied the application; nor can they endeavour to invalidate officially issued visas (you will note that they never mark a visa as cancelled because they lack the power to do so under any circumstances; they can only deny entry and then, legally, only pursuant to Section 12). An argument can be made that it is time for the law to be updated. However, I am not in sympathy with local groups of immigration officials (or sometimes individual officials) deciding to change the law on the fly without a decision by parliament/the government.

Every country has a right to set rules that govern the rights of foreigners to enter into their country. Thailand (for pretty good reasons) decided that the rules at entry points should be clearcut, with officials not being allowed to create their own arbitrary reasons for denying entry to those with visas. Those laws were broadly followed for over 30 years following the passage of the most recent iteration of the Immigration Act. Now, at some entry points (and the Bangkok airports are a key example) officials have decided they do not like the restrictions on their power imposed by the law, and elected to ignore the law. The two main reasons are (i) the opportunities for corruption that greater power provides them; and (ii) a feeling that the current law is too liberal, giving individual embassies/consulates the right to issue visas to people that immigration officials feel should not have been given them. Thailand is not really a democracy, so cliques of officials ignoring the law with impunity is not a great surprise. However, generally, the law ought to be changed by parliament, or at least a gazetted decision by the government. I accept the way Thailand is, and live here in spite of the limited rule of law. That does not mean I approve of it.

Also, for what it is worth, it is no harder now (actually, slightly easier) for a Thai to get a tourist visa to enter the UK than it was 40 years ago. Of course, 40 years ago (even 20 years ago) spending as much time as you liked in Thailand was very easy. [Though, when spending more than 180 days a year here, there used at one time to be extremely tiresome tax reporting before you could leave.] Meanwhile, the procedure for a Westerner to get a tourist visa is more robust for every nearby country (Laos, Cambodia, Malaysia, Vietnam, even Myanmar) than for Thailand. It constantly amazes me that a determination to avoid losing face does not lead the Thai authorities to fix the system.

OK, I am paying attention. What is the reason for providing a service only available to those who enter Thailand with a tourist visa or visa exempt? If you must apply before coming to Thailand, who can use this service?

There are specific regulations governing this. Immigration is, in most cases, supposed to prevent this, though the policy in disallowing it is supposed to be enforced flexibly (which, I think, means allowed if there are special reasons for believing it is justified).

Quite, and the reason for this is clear. According to the law, officials at your local immigration office have broad discretion on whether to give you an extension. Immigration officials at land borders and airports are not given that power. Until about five years ago, the law denying discretion to Immigration at entry points was always followed. Indeed, the law is still followed at most entry points.

Presumably, your definition of "discretion" is "not required to follow the law as written". It is worth noting, by the way, that most airports do follow the law regarding people entering with visas. Also, where visa exempt entry is concerned, there are specific regulations that do give officials discretion on whether to deny entry (though the officials use the wrong reason from Section 12 in doing so).

... and that is one of the main reasons Thai Immigration officials can get away with this. People assume that Thai law on this is the same as in almost all other countries. In a third world country like Thailand, giving officials discretion to extort money from those trying to enter is a bad idea. That is why the Thai Immigration Act was specifically written to make decisions on admitting or denying entry clearcut, not giving officials the kind of power they have, for instance, at US airports.

Presumably, you are basing this view on the fact that the plain language of Thailand's laws as written are not the real law of the land. In a sense you are correct. Officials are often allowed to disregard the law as written with impunity. However, it is reasonable, in my view, to point out that they are doing so. Also, whether the laws as written are appropriate, those who are basing their actions on the written laws are not those "trying to abuse the system". There were good reasons for making the grounds for admitting or denying entry to those with visas clearcut. As soon as you give officials discretion to decide whether someone is admitted or not, you are encouraging corruption amongst rogue officials: something we have recently observed at some airports as officials are allowed to ignore the law.

With visa exempt, Immigration have pretty much full discretion on whether to grant you entry. They take the place of consular officials in deciding whether you satisfy the appropriate conditions. On the other hand, Immigration is not supposed to have discretion over whether people should be admitted if they have a visa. When they invent their own reasons for denying entry to those with tourist visas, they are specifically violating Section 12 of the Immigration Act.

No. I believe I read a few weeks ago that it was. However, I cannot remember where I saw this. Googling recent reports, it is probably not possible at the current time due to instability on the Myanmar side.

This is an absurd argument. You can theoretically be refused any visa at any time, wherever you apply for it. In practice, if you can meet the requirements, it is very rare for a visa to be denied, especially Non Immigrant visas. The more onerous the requirements (a perfect example being insurance) the more likely it is that you will be unable to meet them. Is needing to arrange otherwise unnecessary insurance really the easiest way to get your Non O visa as you imply? What abuse are you referring to? The authorities have specifically created a system that allows you to apply for Non Immigrant visas under certain conditions after entering Thailand with a tourist visa or visa exempt entry. How is using that service "an abuse"? Are you suggesting that, when creating the system, the authorities did not expect it to be used? Note that, having applied for, and received a visa, it is still possible for you to be denied boarding for your flight to Thailand (if you want to look for unlikely issues). It is possible for Immigration to give the airline a DNB ("do not board") instruction when they receive the passenger list from the airline via APIS (Advance Passenger Information System). Unlike a denied visa application, you are given no ability to argue your case should this happen.

I said that Malaysia is the only country exempt from the two per calendar year limit for standard visa exempt entries. I was very clear that the rules are very different for those using visa exempt entries under negotiated bilateral agreements. Besides lower or greater limits on allowed entries by land, visa exempt entries under bilateral agreement vary in the number of days you get on entry, and they do not qualify for the 30-day extension given to those using the standard visa exempt entries. When discussing standard visa exempt entries, other than stressing that bilateral agreements are excluded, it is not practical to specify all the different individual exceptions where countries have negotiated their own special agreements.

As mentioned, all the major crossings to Laos are open. Mostly, crossings to Myanmar are closed, but the excellent crossing at Maesot is open if you are fully vaccinated.

See https://www.tratimmigration.com/thailand-visa-overstay-regulations/ It is mildly frowned upon, but there are no significant repercussions in practice. There are a number of similar references online that contain the same information. Anyway, you can almost always trust what @ubonjoe tells you about anything to do with Thai immigration.

You are correct that it has that benefit. However, that is not why the option exists. You are lucky. Indeed, at most embassies/consulates, financial proof is required. Savannakhet and Ho Chi Minh City are the only nearby locations where you can get a multiple Non O without financials.

If your visa expires 4 Feb 2023, do a border bounce just before you leave for your business trip (getting a fresh one-year permission to stay) and then get a re-entry permit. If your Non O-A visa has already expired, and it is your permission to stay that expires 4 Feb 2023, it will depend on your immigration office whether they will accept an early application for an extension of your permission to stay. I do not think many will be willing to do it four months early. If your business trip is taking you to your home country, perhaps get a fresh Non O-A visa while there if you cannot rescue your current permission to stay. Alternatively, if from a country that is entitled to visa exempt entry to Thailand, you could come back visa exempt and apply for a Non O visa from Immigration after arrival, on the basis of an intention to retire in Thailand.

It is true for everyone using the regular visa exempt entries (i.e. not those that have been negotiated pursuant to bilateral agreements) with the single exception that Malaysians crossing the Malaysia/Thailand border are not subject to the limit.

Sort of. You need to purchase a visa for the Laos side. You can get a visa-on-arrival (in which case, make sure you have a photo and US$40 as paying for the visa with baht costs a lot more) or, a bit more expensive, get a Lao e-visa. The Lao e-visa saves space in your passport, and (at Savannakhet) may be prudent if planning to cross early morning or in the evening. At Savannakhet, the visa-on-arrival desk is not always open at odd hours. I have always bought the visa-on-arrival, but there are certainly decent arguments for the e-visa. There is no problem with an immediate return to Thailand. However, if you want a visa exempt entry, be aware that you can only get two of those per calendar year when entering by land.

It is a valid concern. The LTR visa. in itself, is not a factor. However, the rules for one-year extensions on the basis of retirement have not changed for a long time. Meanwhile, the Non O-A (long stay) visa has drastically changed its requirements (including adding health insurance) and a Non O visa from some embassies also has updated requirements. We can only hope the authorities will leave us alone. If the requirements for extensions of stay are changed, the authorities might give those already here grandfather rights to continue under the current rules. They did something similar to that many years ago when the bank deposit requirement was increased to the current 800,000 baht. For now, we can just wait and hope.

You are correct that insurance is not a "what if" when applying for a Non O on the basis of retirement in the UK. That is a good reason not to do that. An "appropriate visa" to use to enter Thailand is whatever the most convenient legal option might be based on your current plans. If the objective is long term residence in Thailand as a retiree, in most cases (as has already been explained) the most appropriate plan is to enter Thailand visa exempt, and apply for the Non O visa on the basis of retirement once here. In that way, you avoid the insurance requirement. Of course, those that prefer the extra cost of insurance (and a slightly more expensive visa) are welcome to get their visa while still in the UK. To me, that is not very logical, and those over age 75, or with pre-existing conditions, may have extreme difficulty getting the necessary insurance at any cost.