rockingrobin

7 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

The info only states return to where you live. That does not mean residence.

Having a proof of a address here will be enough for the embassy. As I wrote before others have done it.

The application process requires proof of residency.

The passport application requires proof of residential address

Under Thai immigration law ,the OP  does not have residency , but temporary permission of stay

5 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

It says this which is enough for the OP. He can use it for a trip to the consulate in Laos and get a visa and return to here. Even a single entry non-o visa would allow him a total stay of almost 5 months by getting a 60 day extension of the 90 day entry from it.

 

 

The issue I am trying to reconcile , is how can the UK issue a travel document to a British national , which terminates in a country that the UK cannot guarantee their right of residence

36 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

They look similar to a regular passport now and are valid for a year. The are only taken away if you arrive in the UK with one.

It can only be used once to travel to your destination

https://www.gov.uk/emergency-travel-document

25 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

It can be used for more than one trip. Five countries can be shown on it. It is valid for a year which indicates it is close to being equal to a regular passport.

No ,it is clearly spelt out in the T and C

It is good for 1 journey as specified in the documents observance page, with the possibility of 5 transit countries. On reaching the destination it is no longer useable. If after being produced alterations to the specified journey printed in the obsevance page are required then a new EDT is required. The exception to this is where the return journey is specified.

The validity for upto 1 year is to allow for certain countries requirements that travel documents should be valid x months beyond  entry into that country.

1 hour ago, BritTim said:

The emergency travel document is not intended as an alternative to a regular passport. It is intended to substitute for a regular passport until a replacement can reasonably be acquired. As long as application for a new regular passport is made promptly, the embassy will supply an emergency travel document for the same purposes where you would normally use your regular passport (as far as allowed by the countries you intend to visit). Endorsements will restrict use of the passport to those valid activities. Leaving the country to apply for a fresh visa when your permission to stay expires is a valid use, as is applying for an extension of your permission to stay.

The ETD is only valid for 1 single journey specified within the document. The itinery cannot be changed or altered. I fail to see how this is a substitute for a passport.

1 hour ago, ubonjoe said:

He only needs an address for here to prove residency. It is the same for applying for a new passport here.

Others have done the same thing when there passport was lost or stolen.

Up to 5 countries can be shown on the ETD. In his case they could be Laos, Thailand. Laos, Thailand and then the UK.

The decision maker will want to know why the journey being proposed is an emergency.

Why is Laos Thailand Laos Thailand and then the UK more of an emergency as opposed  Thailand to UK, considering the issue of any visa or entry into any of the countries mentioned is not guaranteed apart from the UK

13 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

They will issue it since he has less time than it requires to get a new passport.

The ETD will allow him to leave, get a new visa and then re-enter the country. Thailand will be his final destination.

The decision maker will require the purpose of journey.

Once the applicants states that they require the ETD to make a journey to obtain a visa for Thailand , it surely will be refused if Thailand is the final destination.The reason being  they cannot have residency otherwise a visa would not be required.

The ETD is for emergency travel where a passport replacement cannot be obtained in time, its purpose is not to allow the holder to gain residency in lieu of a passport.

I suspect that the British Embassy will require the UK to be the final destination

9 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

He only has 2 weeks left on his permit to stay. It would require a miracle to get a new passport before then.

At 500 baht a day for a overstay it does not take long for it to be equal to or greater than what the ETD costs. Plus the risk of being caught without a passport and being on an overstay.

 

In order to be eligible for the ETD , the person is required to prove that they have residency in the country of final destination, in this case Thailand. I am not sure how the British Embassy will view the application considering only 2 weeks left on the existing permit to stay.

10 hours ago, NanLaew said:

That is worded as an application for a ETD to be issued in the UK for someone urgently departing the UK to go overseas. Applying for an ETD to replace a lost-stolen passport overseas may be handled differently with possibly the local Embassy involved and typically is issued solely to get the person back to the UK, with limited international travel during its 1-year validity.

The process is no different if oversees.

The online application gives the British Embassy in Bangkok as the option available

The online application allows for returning to back to returning to Thailand

18 minutes ago, jimbob333 said:

Yeah that lasts 90 days? Also I'm guessing I would have to tell the British embassy is my plans are to go to Laos, then return to Thailand?

Sent from my LG-H870DS using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

You can apply for the ETD online, but will be required to provide travel details

https://www.apply-emergency-travel-document.service.gov.uk/

3 minutes ago, sandrabbit said:

I agree it's not a problem but an inconvenience for a Thai friend to hang around immigration for hours. For our marriage application we had a house visit and the officer was quite friendly and helpful to the point of telling us that his visit was a success, 1st renewal was actually quite painless as Rayong immigration had had a clear out of the deadwood with no house visit required so maybe I'm thinking too much as I'd had a few stressed out retirement extensions under the old regime.

Check with immigration if they want the witness to be present or a document signed by the witness.

My local immigration required a signed document, the person was not required to attend

11 minutes ago, nellyp said:

I agree...the pot is empty. Is it not equally true that i may have been paying in Lieu of my wife if I didn't have children thoug?. A pretty circular argument I suppose. If I have to pay more for my wife ( who has already paid 6 years worth) then so be it. I have no problem paying the contribution necessary as I believe we all should. Though it does make finance more difficult

2

The system does not function as you describe.

Everybody is paying for everybody else

5 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

Had a friend go down that route, cost him 40,000 baht, then his local Immigration office refused to do his 90 day reports.

Told him to go back to Bangkok, the agent, or whoever issued the extension.

 

He ended up having to do border runs every 90 days for a year.

What your friend should have done , is notify a change of residence in accordance to 37 (2), and then completed a 90 day report

4 hours ago, jackdd said:

When looking at razors one can see that not everything is getting better over time. The only reason these 1/2/3/4/5 blade disposable safety razors were made by the companies is to make money (For the genitals they are ok, but not for the face).

 

The best razor is the one that our grandpas used already and it looks like this:

You can get this in cheap made out of plastic in every Big C / Tesco, maybe even 7/11, if you want to try it. If you like it you can go for a better one. I bought mine many years ago in Germany (a Merkur 34C), still as good as new.

Then you can use standard disposable razor blades, the "expensive" ones cost maybe 10THB a piece. (I prefer razor blades from Feather, but there are many other brands, and other people might prefer other brands, so just give different brands a try)

 

And instead of using the shaving foam out of the bottle you should get a proper shaving brush

This should be made out of badger hair, if it's cheap or expensive is not important, as long is its badger hair. You use this together with shaving soap.

 

Using these things your shaving experience will be far superior and also much cheaper in the long run.

 

For more details you can just look it up on Google.

 

 

Have you found anywhere that stocks good shaving soap or sticks

15 minutes ago, bobrussell said:

On arrival immigrants have contributed nothing towards the cost of the NHS. I don't see anything wrong in a payment to partly cover the costs early in the settlement process. 

Some will work and pay tax/NI. Only a proportion of this will go to the NHS.

The 5 year timescale seems quite appropriate to me. Someone earning and paying a lot of tax can, presumably afford it easily. Those on low pay may well be contributing below 'cost'.

I question the amount being paid. I suspect that even at the new figure it is good value albeit an extra unwelcome cost.

Students have been able to use the NHS free of charge until a payment was introduced. In effect a subsidy by the tax payer.

There are still many benefits to settlement in the UK (free schooling for children for example) so as long as the NHS charge is proportionate to the cost I will give it my support. 

It is only for a five year period and it gives unlimited access to NHS services whatever the cost of treatment.

This fairness argument fails to evaluate that although the British citizen would have paid into the NHS longer than the immigrant, they have also benefitted longer.

The actual ratio of payment to benefited ratio  will be larger for the British citizen because they will have received the benefit of NHS throughout childhood and student life 

23 minutes ago, bluesofa said:

Being cynical, they will just find the weakest person willing to pay, as resurrecting this Wold regulation appears to be a money-making opportunity.

 

Under the immigration act the responsibility lies with the House Master, who by definition is the chief possessor. Which implies that the responsibility to inform is with one person.

1 hour ago, thaiclan said:

 

Same here.  In the 15 years of living here none of us have had to comply with registering of address (TM30).
The first we heard about it was when our 15 year old daughter did her 90 day reporting (at Jomtien) and was fined 1,600baht for not having done the address registration (she had spent a weekend in Singapore a month earlier).

Like Thailand J says it's never been enforced before other than for hotels but now it's another trip to immigration.
In fairness the staff at Jomtien seemed as pissed off and confused as many of the farangs queuing up outside!

What was the reasoning on apportioning liability on your 15yr old daughter? Is she the Housemaster, owner or possessor. I understand that she is resident at the address, but what criteria do immigration use to determine which person is liable for the fine, where the housemaster/owner is present but not the same person to the alien who is required to register.

23 minutes ago, oldlakey said:

My reasons are my justification, everything needs to be paid for

They are not  paying TWICE for anything where do you get the idea that the NI payment or tax is for the NHS only

The NHS is under a fair amount of pressure

Build up a reservoir of money then draw out of the pot, until such time insurance is the way to go as far as the NHS is concerned

Tax you get the use of the same benefits immediately as all other tax payers, security etc etc 

NI contributions will get you a pension if you make enough of them the minimum amount per year is not a tremendous amount of money even now

Everything has to be paid for even the local council services, which you will either pay via rent or direct to the local council

Move to a first world Nanny State and you can reap the benefits but at a price

 

Nobody suggested that NI or tax is hypothecated for the NHS.

To claim that they will not be paying twice is obviously false.

By providing barriers and disincentives to migrants receiving medical treatment is to put the population at risk. A migrant will pursue a course of self-treatment as opposed to seeking medical treatment, due to the financial and other restraints. Thus the dangers of any contagious disease will be detected late and proliferate its spread.

9 minutes ago, elviajero said:

The answer was no. You started by saying that "Inadmissible persons and deportation are 2 separate legal definitions.", which is not the case for Thai immigration law. 

 

The convention you quote is not Thai law, it defines "International Standards and Recommended Practices". Some countries have included the difference between "Deportation" and "Inadmissible person" within their immigration law, but as yet Thailand hasn't. Thai immigration law still considers anyone removed from the country as being deported. However, they as they don't process most people denied entry as deportees they seem to be following the recommended practice of the convention.

 

 

The Thai emergency decree in  BE2558 placed the Chicago convention in domestic law. As regards the Annexe 9  differences , the only AIP I can locate for Thailand is one issued in 2012, which stated Thailand does not acknowledge the costs associated with either Inadmissible or deported person and seeks to place the burden of expenses on either the individual or airline operator.

As a person who is denied entry at the immigration checkpoint is deemed not to have entered the country, they cannot be regarded as being deported.

7 hours ago, Air Smiles said:

 

I think you're tying yourself in knots with useless semantics ...if the person in question had a right to stay(in Ukraine) then why did Ukraine immigration deny him entry and force him to leave the country.  Does that sound in anyway shape or form like 'a right to stay' to you?????

 

The person in question as an American has, assuming all his paperwork is in order, an automatic 'right to stay' in Ukraine, he didn't even need a visa if staying less than 90 days, only a valid passport ....however, because he over stayed  his previous visa his right to enter, and yes, stay, was revoked.  This is the part you guys are failing to understand, they refused entry based on his previous visa overstay.

 

Right to stay just means you can legally be in that country ...nothing more nothing less.

An automatic right of stay is there are no restrictions or conditions placed on the individual.

What I do not know is whether on his previous stay in Ukraine ( one day overstay) if he left voluntarily or deported by the state.

The interpretation of Thai immigration law suggested, no difference between denied entry and deportation would be problematic at land borders

1 hour ago, Air Smiles said:

 

Did you forget the reason why he was refused entry to Ukraine?

 

From the OP:

 

Furthermore, Thai immigration law doesn't make any distinction between 'deported' and a 'revoked right of stay' in the foreign country you are coming from, this is plainly illustrated in the Thai immigration act, where it includes both in the same paragraph under the heading "Aliens which fall into any of the following categories are excluded from entering into the Kingdom".  The wording uses "or" which means the concepts of 'deported' or 'the right of stay in the Kingdom or in foreign countries having been revoked' are effectively the same thing under Thai immigration law:

 

 

As far as I understand, the person in question never obtained a right of stay. Thus  it could not be revoked, and since they did not actually enter Ukraine could not be deported from Ukraine.

34 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Can you show me where they are defined in Thai Immigration law.

 

I understand other countries like the UK and US make a legal distinction when dealing with the removal of people being ‘refused entry’ or ‘deported’, but we are discussing Thai immigration law.

 

Thai immigration law refers to anyone removed from the country as being deported, including “inadmissible persons”, even though they don’t remove “inadmissible persons” by formal deportation.

Its defined in the annexes to the Chicago convention which Thailand is part of, see earlier link 

The ICAO normally charge for their documents, however, Pakistan airlines have uploaded the relevant ICAO annexe 9, that deals with deportations and inadmissible persons

http://www.caapakistan.com.pk/upload/Annex 9 Facilitation - 14th edition Oct 2015.pdf

It is a large pdf around 92 pages

23 minutes ago, elviajero said:

That is simply not true. Section 12.11 may not use your preferred language, but it is clearly meant to deny anyone 'removed' from a foreign country. And if not, section 12.10 gives immigration the power, with ministerial approval, to deny anyone entry to the country. Denial under 12.10 cannot be appealed. They will, almost certainly, be using one of those sections to "lawfully" deny this person entry to Thailand.

 

You seem to be applying the immigration terminology of other countries to Thailand. Thailands immigration act refers to people being 'removed' from the country as being deported whether they are "forbidden from entry" and given notice to leave, have their permit to stay revoked, or are found in the country illegally.

Section 22 : In the instance where the competent official discovers that an alien is forbidden from entering into the Kingdom under the provisions of Section 12 , the competent official shall have authority to order said alien by written notification to leave the Kingdom. If said alien is not satisfied with the competent official’s order , he ( alien ) may appeal to the Minister. The order of the Minister shall be final. Appealling cases are not allowed under Section 12 (1) or (10) , ...  When appeal is submitted by the alien concerned , the competent official shall delay deportation of said alien until an order for said case is receive from the Minister. ...

 

However, like other countries, Thailand do not formally process someone being denied entry as being deported, even though that is in effect what is happening, because of 'deportations' association with illegal status or having permission revoked.

 

Deport

past tense: deported; past participle: deported

1. expel (a foreigner) from a country, typically on the grounds of illegal status or for having committed a crime.

Expel

force (someone) to leave a place.

synonyms: banish, exile, deport, evict, expatriate, ...

 

Immigration seem to have processed this "inadmissible" persons 'removal' (deportation) from the country under section 55. They could have let him fly directly to the US, but have decided to send him back from where he came via the airline that carried him to Thailand.

Section 55 : Aliens being deported under this Act shall be sent back by any conveyance or route as the competent official may consider appropriate.

The expense of deportation shall be charged to the owner or person in charge of the conveyance which brought the alien into the Kingdom. If there appears to be no owner or person in charge of the conveyance, the alien committing the act against the provisions of Section 63 or 64 will have to pay the expense of deportation. The competent official shall have power to ask for deportation expenses from one of the aliens committing the offense or from all of them. However , if the alien concerned wishes to go by and other conveyance or by an other route, at his own expense , the competent official may permit him to do so.

Inadmissible persons and deportation are 2 separate legal definitions. They determine who is responsible with regard to repatriation.

Deportation results in the state being fully responsible for the deportees to such an extent that the airline captain can refuse to fly the person being deported

13 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

I would understand if the traveler had no funds or ticket, and so he "became the airline's problem."  But I don't see a scenario where Thai-Immigration is powerless in their own airport/country regarding this, and why the airline would or could say, "Oh, no, we want to fly him back to the Ukraine, instead; you cannot let him go."  Something just doesn't add up, here.

Under ICAO rules, the passenger remains the responsibility of the airline operator until they have been admitted by the state.

The extent of that responsibility is determined by the reasons for denial. If the denial is due to improper documentation then the airline is responsible for the care and security of the inadmissible person. If the denial is for other reasons such as cash, then the state is responsible for care and security of the individual. This includes such items as risk assessments and the need for escorts