BritTim

Everyone is guessing about what will be happening a couple of months from now. My own view is that border runs are likely to remain problematic for a long time, even when borders are technically open. I cannot imagine any countries neighbouring Thailand having extensive testing facilities for Covid-19 (allowing people to enter following rapid result tests at the border) and countries will remain extremely concerned about the prospect of imported cases. If you find a nearby country with relaxed entry requirements, you are likely to find it tough returning to Thailand.

1 hour ago, bbi1 said:

Why the hell would anyone go to CW? You do know there's a visa anmesty now until the 30th then they will keep extending it after that.

The PM, cabinet, TAT and foreign embassies were assured that there was a comprehensive amnesty. However, senior immigration officials did not want this. They induced the PM to sign off on an order with convoluted wording that allows immigration to claim that extensions frequently needing agent assistance were not covered. It seems they will be allowed to get away with such subterfuge, as there has been little blow back from people put at risk. Immigration retained plausible deniability. The Order was deliberately ambiguous, and they could have given in, saying it covered everyone legally in Thailand as of March 26th, but it appears this will be unnecessary, and their normal income from agent assisted extensions will continue (indeed, possibly even slightly increased).

4 minutes ago, DrJack54 said:

You could have avoided overstay. Chose not to and now want refund. Nup

In fairness, he could have overstayed without penalty had he known what the eventual Ministerial Order was going to contain. It was his hard luck that he guessed wrong.

2 hours ago, DrJack54 said:

So what's with latest spike in Singapore.

This is almost entirely an issue with poor migrant workers who live in basically dormitory conditions. A single infection can rapidly infect hundreds. Migrant workers have, until recently, frequently crossed from Malaysia and Indonesia. It was a problem waiting to happen. Singapore can likely prevent it from spreading into the larger Singapore population, but I would expect most of the workers in those dormitories to be infected over the next few weeks or months. They are mostly young, so the death toll will probably not be too bad.

It is fortunate that Thailand does not have the very large slum areas that were in its cities and large towns 20 years ago. That lessens the risk of huge clusters of infections somewhat. However, there are still large families living in small houses and apartments. An infection of one family member will likely result in the other family members all becoming sick.

4 hours ago, Mattd said:

I tend to disagree, currently a COVID test shows that you are clear of the virus at the time of testing only, actually getting the results of the test differ from a few hours to 48 hours +, unfortunately there are no guarantees that the tested person hasn't contracted the disease after the testing and getting the results / travelling.

If and when they manage to get instant testing, then this would help enormously, it would then be a matter of cost and who pays.

There is no Covid-19 test that will reliably detect those very recently infected. In the early stages, the infection is not widely dispersed throughout the body. The swab taken may not contain any of the virus, or might have it in such minimal quantities that even the most sensitive PCR tests may not detect it. On the other hand, people who were infected, but have recovered, may test positive as fragments of DNA from the original infection can persist for a while after the virus is 100% deactivated.

Once you have symptoms, the better tests are 100% reliable. However, for those who are asymptomatic, tests are just one indication that need to be considered in addition to other factors.

In my view, at the current time, quarantine with a test at the end of the quarantine period is the only almost foolproof way of preventing imported infections escaping into the local population.

2 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

Surat Thani.

 

A general list will do.  Do you have a link to one?

It should be mostly the same as last year. The only possible issue is the altered financial proof. Since income letters from the embassy are no longer available for UK passport holders, you need to qualify under the rules for 400,000 baht in the bank, or 12 months of transfers into your Thai bank account. It is always wise to check with your local office to see if they have added any new roadblocks.

2 hours ago, thaimacky said:

- Do I have to leave the country or can I go to the local immigration and apply based on the Elite Visa directly?

My understanding is that an entry on an Elite visa operates like a glorified tourist entry so far as this situation is concerned. I will bet your local immigration office has never seen this, but the rules allow you to apply to convert your "tourist" entry to a Non O based on marriage.

2 hours ago, thaimacky said:

- Do I need to apply for a 60-day extension of stay for reason of marriage at the local immigration first?

No. You have that option, but it is not a requirement.

2 hours ago, thaimacky said:

- Do I need to leave the country in August and apply for a new Visa first. If yes, can I do that in one of the neighboring countries?

No, Indeed, it is quite likely that you would still find it difficult to return to Thailand should you do so.

4 hours ago, Tanoshi said:

If they can't provide Embassy income letters they can as an alternative provide proof of transfers.

Although the revised Police Order on extensions for retirement states that either a letter from your embassy or proof of transfers can be used, I have seen several reports that immigration offices will not accept the proof of transfers from nationals whose embassies still issue income letters. Possibly, in view of the current changed circumstances, proof of transfers will be allowed. However, I would not count on it, even if people have shown sufficient foresight to ensure that they have transfers for the last 12 months, every month, with the right transfer codes just in case their embassy was closed at the time they needed an income letter.

2 hours ago, DrJack54 said:

Your typing past tense.

What future holds who knows. 

Agreed. Both your previous post and mine were based on the past which is definitely likely to be a poor guide to the situation for many months if not indefinitely.

1 hour ago, DrJack54 said:

I'm hard pressed to think of border countries that provide visa exempt

The obvious immediate neighbour that provides visa exempt entry (to more nationals than does Thailand) is Malaysia. If short plane journeys away are included, you have Singapore, Hong Kong and (for some nationalities) Vietnam. The majority of nearby countries provide visa on arrival when they do not allow visa exemption, which I consider acceptable.

11 minutes ago, RaduAlex said:

I'm on METV and would have normally done a border run on the last validity date of the visa to extend it for 60 days this week. So I asked my embassy (Germany) if there will be extension letters again once the amnesty on April 30th is through and they said no. "The embassy will no longer issue confirmations for the extension of your Thai visa until further notice. This also applies if your Thai visa expires after April 30th. Therefore refer to the respective Thai authorities with questions on how to extend your visa". Does that mean everyone on an expiring METV will have to leave immediately after the borders open? Because immigration said last week they will only do extensions if they get a confirmation from the embassy. 

Right now, you get an automatic extension of your existing permission to stay with no need to visit Immigration. Once the current state of emergency ends, I would expect you would need to leave Thailand within some specified period of time. That could possibly even be true while land borders are closed if it is deemed easy to leave by air. Unless you plan to return to your home country, my guess is that your options will be limited, with most countries having strict rules to try to keep out visitors with Covid-19.

11 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

19 minutes ago, BritTim said:

Can you explain why the suspension of the need to submit 90-day reports was put under 2. in the order, which supposedly does not apply to anyone who needs to do 90-day reports? Do those not covered by 2. still need to do 90-day reports?

Because both of them are under "Chapter 4 Temporary Stay in the Kingdom" of the immigration act.

So, my question is still, do those not covered by 2. still need to do 90-day reports? Your interpretation is that 2. does not refer to everyone covered under "Temporary Stay in the Kingdom", but only a subset of those granted a permission to stay.

2 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

The intent was to reduce the crowds at immigration due the high number of people showing up for extensions due to them not being able to leave the country.

The 90 day report being dropped was to further reduce the crowds to do something not related to staying in the country.

Now that the crowds have been reduced it lowers the chance of getting corvid 19 for those doing annual extensions.

Can you explain why the suspension of the need to submit 90-day reports was put under 2. in the order, which supposedly does not apply to anyone who needs to do 90-day reports? Do those not covered by 2. still need to do 90-day reports?

1 hour ago, Tanoshi said:

Yesterday I had a rather prolonged debate with my Immigration office about the amnesty notification.

It appeared clear the amnesty was intended for those who could not leave the Country to do border runs or obtain new Visas, thereby freeing up the masses at Immigration offices applying for further extensions with Embassy letters.

 

However due to certain replies and questions posed by other members of the forum, I had a further debate with my local office, but asked slightly differing questions and received some remarkable answers which make sense and actually concur with many members differing opinions.

This is however the opinion of just one office, if in doubt contact your local office.

 

Today I asked specifically about annual extensions, O-A, retirement, marriage and these are the answers I received to varying circumstances of these types of permission of stay.

 

I posed the question if someone on an existing annual extension who's permission of stay ended tomorrow (15/4) but intended to leave Thailand rather than extend again, but couldn't due to the virus, would his extension be automatically extended under the amnesty.

 

The reply was yes, currently until 30th April and thereafter subject to further announcements extending the amnesty period, but they would need to visit the office to apply and receive the extension stamp.

 

However if you intended to extended on 15th, but thought you were automatically extended until 30th April, you would be on overstay.

 

In short if your annual extension is due for renewal but you didn't renew your application, instead opting for automatic extension based on the amnesty, you couldn't then apply for an annual extension when the amnesty ceases, you would have to leave the Country after any remaining permission of stay expired.

In any event you would be required to submit applications for either reason.

 

So this would confirm the opinions of certain members, namely @Jackd and @BritTim that indeed 'all foreigners' are entitled to automatic extensions one way or another.

But it also confirms the opinions of other members such as myself and @ubonjoe that for those on annual extensions these extensions are not automatically extended, rather you need to continue to apply for your annual extension in the normal manner, or if unable, or unwilling, or perhaps if it was your intention to leave, then you need to apply for an initial temporary extension under the amnesty, then receive automatic extensions under any further announcements extending the amnesty period.

 

There reply makes sense.

Would other members agree.

Please shoot the sheriff, not the deputy.

 

I understand the points you are making, but do not think everything makes total sense.

The most interesting theory is that you must choose whether to apply for a standard extension or take advantage of the automatic extension but, having taken advantage of the automatic extension, cannot switch to a standard extension later. In my view, logic would state that you could only apply for a standard extension if it would run from the original expiry of your permission to stay past the date of the automatic extension. I would absolutely accept that a reasonable limitation is that you should not be able to apply for a standard extension that runs from the end of the automatic extension.

I believe the intent of the PM and the cabinet is that those legally in Thailand should not be obliged to leave the country, or apply for extensions, until non essential trips outside the home were again allowed. I believe it is not sensible to say that you can postpone your 90-day report for safety reasons, but must risk death to apply for your extension of stay on time. If that is the government's intention, the Order should at least say so.

2 minutes ago, JohnBZ said:

I got under consideration till April 23rd for my 30 day extension application at Sa Kaeo.  I do plan to get in on 23rd to get another 10 days to May 3rd or in other word the rest of 30 days extension.  Thai granting visa relief decision is kind of slow judging for the relief decision on people with March 26 expiration: ideally, that auto extension decision should have made before 26th of March not in early April. I play safe to get my extra fews days in case decision to extend relief beyond April 30 is not made before April 30. 

I believe it is technically necessary to attend on April 23 because you have not yet been given leave to stay. Once your permission to stay is confirmed, you will be covered by any automatic extensions that are provided thereafter.

2 hours ago, Tanoshi said:

Agree the notification is about 'permission of stay'.

All foreigners are granted temporary  'permissions of stay' be it 30 days or 365 days.

 

The notification clearly refers to 'Permission for Certain Groups of Aliens to Remain in the Kingdom as a Special Case' (not all Groups). The debate has centred around which groups are defined as special cases.

 

In particular this statement;

2. For an alien who has been permitted a temporary stay in the Kingdom according to their type of visa (including Visa on Arrival) and an alien who has been permitted a temporary stay in the Kingdom according to their visa exemption privileges (P. 30/PP. 14/ PP. 30/PP. 90) whose specified period of time permitted for stay in the Kingdom expires as from 26 March B.E. 2563 (2020)

 

This appears to define the special cases as defined by their Visa type as being limited to granted 'permission of stay' up to a maximum of 90 days. 

That appears to therefore exclude those who have been granted temporary permission of stay for 1 year.

To me, the "P. 30/PP. 14/ PP. 30/PP. 90" are specifically referring to visa exemption, not those with visas, including visa on arrival). If visas are included, where is the 15-day permission to stay from visas on arrival?

Further, one of the amnesties provided to those under 2. is postponement of 90-day reporting. Can you identify any special cases under which those with permissions to stay of 90 days or less who need to submit 90-day reports? Are those with permissions to stay of greater than 90 days still required to do them?

The more I think about it, the more I believe that the Order was deliberately worded to meet two separate objectives:

1. satisfy the PM and the cabinet and overseas embassies that everyone who is legally in Thailand is covered; but
2. deliberately obfuscate the situation with respect to those on extensions (particularly extensions that frequently involve special payments to immigration officials) in order to protect the income of senior immigration officials.

6 minutes ago, HandsomeTallFarang said:

Does anyone know if I can extend it for another 30 days without doing a border run? I really would prefer not to fly to Malaysia.

 

i wonder if the extension ministerial order counts as the 30 day extension for 1900 baht that I’ve done a few times.

1. Doing an in/out is completely impossible right now. If you were able to leave (difficult, and not possible to Malaysia) you would be unable to return.
2. Assuming you are not already on a long overstay, your permission to stay is automatically extended to April 30 without any need to attend immigration. Most likely, this automatic extension will be extended further.

1 minute ago, DrJack54 said:

If my yearly extension (retirement) was due in April, I would be 100% off to immigration this month. 

... and that is clearly what those who drafted the order hoped.

However, there are good reasons for concluding that was not the intent of the cabinet and the prime minister. Leaving aside the fact that the embassies have been assured that embassy letters are not required any more, let's look at part of the English translation (my logical point is not relying on fine points of translation)

Quote

2. For an alien who has been permitted a temporary stay in the Kingdom according to their type of visa (including Visa on Arrival) and an alien who has been permitted a temporary stay in the Kingdom according to their visa exemption privileges (P. 30/PP. 14/ PP. 30/PP. 90) whose specified period of time permitted for stay in the Kingdom expires as from 26 March B.E. 2563 (2020):

 

(1) the period of time permitted for stay in the Kingdom under Section 35 of the Immigration Act B.E. 2522 (1979) (including under the Petroleum Act B.E. 2514 (1971) and its Amendments, the Investment Promotion Act B.E. 2520 (1977) and its Amendments, and the Industrial Estate Authority of Thailand Act B.E. 2522 (1979) and its Amendments) or in accordance with the relevant notifications of the Ministry of Interior, shall be temporarily extended as from 26 March B.E. 2563 (2020) to 30 April B.E. 2563 (2020);

 

(2) the period of time for the notification of residence under Section 37 (5) of the Immigration Act B.E. 2522 (1979) or in accordance with the relevant notifications of the Ministry of Interior, upon the completion of the period of time for the notification of residence for such alien, shall be extended as from 26 March B.E. 2563 (2020) to 30 April B.E. 2563 (2020);

Can we agree that (i) those permitted temporary stay are accorded the amnesties under both (1) and (2); and (ii) the need to file 90-day reports would only apply to those on long term extensions or one-year permissions to stay? To me, it is clear this shows that those on long term extensions are included.

As others have pointed out, if those on long term extensions were really to be deliberately excluded, the order would say so unless the whole intent was to deceive.

What the PM intended was that this apply both to those who entered with visas, and those who entered visa exempt with no exceptions. Frankly, the officials who deliberately obfuscated this in the order are playing a dangerous game.

In my opinion, the embassies and prime minister were assured that this was to be a blanket amnesty for everyone who was legally in Thailand as of March 26. The appalling wording of the order was deliberately intended to give a superficial impression that all categories of those given temporary leave to be in Thailand were included, while leaving the situation with respect to those on some extensions of stay (most important for senior immigration officials those on retirement extensions and those on Non Ed extensions of stay) ambiguous. The intention is to protect the income of senior immigration officials that comes from agent assisted extensions of those categories of extensions. Whether this is successful will depend on the blow back Immigration receives. If the PM asks whether the order defeated his intentions, Immigration will backtrack and claim everyone is, indeed, included. The wording gives them plausible deniability for their trickery.

1 hour ago, TigerandDog said:

Not according to the Prime Minister. During an interview on  television last week, which my partner translated, he stressed that those who were receiving automatic extensions or extensions using embassy letters would have 7 days from when their extensions expire to leave the country once the state of emergency was declared over. e.g. if you have received an extension to 10th May and the state of emergency terminates on 30th April those affected would have until 17th May to leave the country. I am yet to see, read or hear anything contrary to that.

Based on that interpretation, everyone who received at automatic extension (so far until April 30) would be obliged to leave at nearly the same time. Assuming the automatic extensions really did end April 30, that would imply that those on automatic extensions would leave between May 1 and May 7. Did the PM have in mind that even those without automatic extensions would be forced out of the country as soon as their regular permission to stay ended? I strongly suspect that something was lost in the translation here. Certainly, the Ministry announcement did not suggest any such thing.

4 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

The implicit thinking behind the exclusion is that those foreigners on long-stay Non Imm O or O-A Visa or extensions of those, do not need to exit the country at the end of their permission to stay, as they can apply for a 1-year extension based on their present Visa.  And so they are excluded from the amnesty, and are required to apply for their 'normal' 1-year extension of stay at their local IO at the end of their permission to stay.

That may well be the logic, but it is deeply flawed. Someone who entered on a Non O, without any previous extensions, can often more easily apply for a one-year extension than someone who decided to extend the previous year but had planned to leave this year.

3 hours ago, Maestro said:

 

The problem is that there does not yet seem to be an English translation of the full text of the Ministerial Announcement of 7 April available yet, only a short English summary on the website of the Immigration Bureau. Is every mention of visa in this English summary really a correct translation of the Thai text for visa (การตรวจลงตรา) on the Ministerial Announcement?

There is an unofficial translation available at http://www.mfa.go.th/main/contents/files/news3-20200410-172909-334229.pdf.