JackThompson

... I do indeed want to learn Thai so that would be important for me. I will give it all some consideration.

If you truly want to learn the Thai Language ... I would look at the universities such as Payap Intensive Thai course where you go to school all week and get homework...

Important point in this option - a "real university" can get you a Full 1-year ED-Visa without all the immigration-hassles that the "Language School" obtained visas involve. If you have the time to put into the course, this could be an even better option than a Multi-ED from your home-country consulate.

Only so called umbrella company i have heard is iglu,,

http://iglu.in.th/work/

No personal experience though,, Maby somebody here has?

Last I checked, you need to put ~$2K USD through them a month, and they take 30% of that in exchange for obtaining your visa and work-permit. So $600 USD / mo for the visa. See if you can perhaps use bilateral tax laws to offset some of that.

The Elilte is a better deal for most (you can get almost 6 years out of it), though it's a significant up-front cost. Unlike many countries (Malaysia, Philippines), you don't just hold that money in a bank account to quality - you "spend" it for the visa. And, you are technically still in violation of the law, lacking a work-permit. So far, those working for overseas entities are not being prosecuted, but enforcement of old laws can start at any time (see the TM-30 discussions, or the requirement to register your phone-SIM).

The other alternative is the Single-Entry-Tourist-Visa Consulate Hop, which requires obtaining a new visa every 90 days. Starting with a fresh passport, you go to the somewhat more "difficult" consulates first (Vietnam, Cambodia, HongKong), then to the "easier" ones (both in Laos and Penang). The more "difficult" ones may not issue you a visa if you have several other stamps, and often require you show booked air-tickets (in or out or both). The "easier" consulates do not require showing air-fare, and may give you 3 or 4 SETVs before they say "no more." At that point, you apply at your local home-country embassy for a new passport and start over.

When double and triple entry visas were available, the passport-renewal step might be years apart. Now, it is likely to be more frequent, though we do not have new data as to whether the "easy" consulates will permit more singles than they previously offered doubles. As there are no actual "written rules" on the policies of the consulates (sometimes there are various things written down, but that doesn't mean they actually "apply to reality"), one must keep a close eye on this board to find out when/if their policies change.

Slightly better is the METV, though you likely have to go home to get it (some long-shot workarounds are yet untested). How difficult it is to get varies by the consulate, unfortunately. You can read the last few pages of the METV thread to see how far apart the enforcement is from one country / consulate to the next - though we still do not have a lot of data there. One of those gets you almost 9 months in-country, then add another locally-obtained SETV, and hopefully repeat the process (if your home-country consulate will issue another).

I am in the planning stages of doing a trip this year to learn Thai. I intend to check out some language schools when I come in March for a regular vacation and get the ball rolling on a school and ED Visa at that time. I know I have to leave and come back but sounds like this might be more complicated than I was thinking. Hopefully it all works out for me because I will likely arrange an apartment, pay for the school etc in March. Would really suck if I was still denied entry after all of that.

If you have not already been staying here for an extended period, your first go-round should not be a problem. For those staying here long-term, it is another story. The "leave and come back" need only be a trip to Laos or Penang**, returning on the ED. If you have the 20K Baht in hand upon entry, and do not have a history of living in Thailand long-term prior, you would not be denied entry.

Someone currently staying on an ED in the area where you intend to live (Pattaya, as with the OP?) can give you the best information about what the local Immigration office will put you through to get your extensions during that year - though this process can, and has, changed. Perhaps, the $100 "fee" per extension, allowing one to comply with the rules in peace, is still an option in some areas. Its a small price for peace of mind.

**Check to see if the Consulate(s) in your home-country will give you a 1-Year Multi-Entry ED visa, which avoids the need to go to immigration, as you just do border-runs every 3 months - far superior if you can go that route. This type cannot be obtained nearby. You will need to supply them with the paperwork from the school.

Well, it is not only about Thai consulate in DC. I got only a double entry tourist visa in early 2015 from LA, CA. At the same time I learned that Thai consulate in portland,OR has issued triple entry tourist visa, however their website just mentioned about "each entry $40".

Recently they have added METV to their menu, but nothing else has changed. Chicago office as well. Basically non of consulates mentions clearly what can be obtained by visa applier. Only their applications show :

Number of Entries:

Single..... Double..... Multiple..... Number of Entries ....

http://www.thaiconsulatechicago.org/images/Visa_Form_2015.pdf

I was wondering if anyone got any triple entry from any of Thai consulates in US.

Many consulate websites were not updated until after the METV was launched, and many of those which have been updated still have old information on them. The status of websites aside (though I understand your frustration), the Thai Authorities have removed double and triple entries from the menu (unfortunately).

"When your course of study is over, you may need to obtain a new passport to be able to get Tourist Visas easily from many nearby consulates, as consulate-personnel have been told that those on ED visas are "up to no good" / working illegally. How they are expected to know the difference between the 90%+ not working, and the "bad apples" is not clear, given only catching a violator at work would answer the question (and solve the problem). "

Hearsay or you have proof of this ?

There are many posts here of those attempting to get visas and having consulate personnel see their ED visa and say, "You are working in Thailand...". The last I recall was just a few weeks ago in Vientiene - where the OP was refused a Double-Entry (this was just before those were ended). This was at the "most friendly" of local consulates:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/868794-double-tv-still-available-in-vientiane-before-13-november/#entry10068480

Another fellow arrived on a valid ED, and was refused entry at the airport for "insufficient funds" - though he clearly had access to those funds, as he purchased an expensive air-ticket home to avoid imi-jail. This was at the very beginning of the "crackdown" on ED-Visas.

Of those reported here on this forum, how many more cases are not?

Having a return ticket in no way indicates that a person has enough funds to live here for however long.

He needed to show 20K baht, though the IO did not disclose that as the reason for the denial of entry during their conversations. He later discovered the "reason" after having what the rejection-notice, written in his passport, translated. Under these conditions, one may not have access to an ATM machine - but he did not even know that was the reason, initially. In other words, the money was just the 'excuse'.

He did not have a return ticket at the time of arrival - his ticket back to Paris was purchased to avoid going to jail, and surely cost more than 20K baht. He was not permitted to purchase a ticket to another destination. Being French, he was stuck away from his home here for 3 months before he could re-apply for a new visa (the arbitrary rule at Thai consulates in France). I do not know if he lost all his personal belongings in the process. He certainly lost his tuition paid for school.

The issue was/is not about "having enough money to live here" - it was/is about arriving on an ED Visa, which has a strong "taint of illegality" now - not only at the border, but at Immigration offices across the country and at neighboring consulates. His story is the worst-nightmare all of us under 50s live with every time we leave the country - being denied entry, even with a "proper visa" in hand.

I am not saying people should not go the "ED-Visa" route if that will work for them. I am saying they should be prepared for these attitudes, and to get a fresh passport if they decide to go the "Tourist-Visas from neighboring consulates" route, later. That is what I would do - plus always carry 20K Baht in cash and travelers checks when crossing the border, and have documented proof that your money comes from overseas (his came from a Hong Kong business, which was also the reason for his trip).

Imagine the money lost on proper visas.

Yes, it is curious why the policy is not changed to allow foreigners on tourist-visas to show up at immigration every 2 or 3 months and pay a fee (as in the Philippines). This would would increase fee-revenues, foreign-capital spending into the economy, and simultaneously make overstay less appealing.

Plus the Philippines simply makes overstayers pay the exact cost of all the visas they missed, whether it's less or more than 20k. Fair and logical system.

Plus a processing fee of 500 pesos (380 baht) per month.

It reaches the equivalent of 20k Baht after about 1 year of overstay.

The Philippines doesn't have anywhere near the number of visitors Thailand has or the growing 'it's ok to overstay' culture.

As the 20k fine hasn't been increased in over 30 years, and isn't fully applied until 40 days, I think it's already more than fair. There is no logic to only fine someone the same as it would cost them getting a visa as there is no incentive to get the visa, Penalties are meant to penalise. 380 baht per month is hardly a penalty. Following the Philippine model would just lead to more overstayers.

The logical system is to have a daily fine with a cap and to impose a ban. The new proposal seems reasonable except they should also ban those overstaying under 90 days for the time they overstayed otherwise people will just overstay <=90 days and repeat. And or penalise repeat offenders based on their combined overstays.

I don't know where the "ok to overstay" culture idea comes in - living day-to-day with the very real threat of being thrown in jail when/if caught and frog-marched to an airplaine (days or weeks later) is not at all tempting to me. But if they want to increase the fines or blacklist those who overstay for several months, that's ok by me.

But I also see no reason they could not adopt an in-country visa system for tourists under 50, similar too the PI, which would also discourage overstaying - In Conjuction with increasing the fines and/or blacklisting. Virtually automatic Permanent Residence if married and living in the country for a few years, like most (all?) Western and Latin American countries, would be nice, too. But, no, I won't hold my breath.

... Particularly WRT to long overstays, I don't believe anyone can say with certainty just how an IO will handle you at some future date when you show up wanting to enter with that in your record (and contrary to what some might tell you, I don't actually bet the farm on an IO not being able to access your history, even if you've renewed your passport, and the new one is clean)

To be very clear on this - renewing your passport only helps with dealing with consulates, who do not have access to the Police/Immigration database (i.e. when obtaining tourist visas).

When you enter the country, you are dealing with IOs who DO have access to that information. Therefore, I completely agree that overstaying - most especially for more than a couple days - is utterly foolish if one intends to stay here long-term.

What I dont understand about this issue is ............................................

if you are from a country that is eligible for a 30 day visa exempt entry ..........................why does the airline care about a visa or return ticket.

<snip>

I understand what you are saying, but the airlines are playing it safe aka they don't wanna lose money and possibly risk a Fine

Suppose, a passenger just got banned from Thailand flies back to his Home Country, gets a New passport and boards a plane to Thailand (thinking getting a new passport would go unnoticed). After arriving in Thailand it's the airline's responsibility to transport him back if he gets refused entry, and if the passenger only has a One Way ticket the Airline has to pay for it.

This is a myth. You should read Article 14, in particular paras 3 & 4, of the IATA General Conditions of Carriage.

So maybe some airlines do this just to sell tickets, then?

When traveling from Vancouver to the Philippines (avoiding the USSA's airports, en-route from Latin America), I was required to show a ticket-out before boarding (I had one dated several months in the future - Manila to Hong Kong). When I entered the Philippines, where a 14-month stay is possible as a tourist before the 1st visa run, I again was required to show my outgoing ticket, to pass their immigration.

That ticket was never used, of course - just a cost of "jumping through hoops" to pass immigration regulations.

I apologize for not having read the entire thread. I recently read the requirements for METV according to Thai Embassy Stockholm Sweden homepage.

I am retired and can therefore not produce an Employment Certificate. So I guess I just can't get the METV?

I am 50+ and have a bank account in Sweden with the equivalent of over B.800 K.

My only possibility to get more than an ordinary 2+1 months tourist visa at the Embassy in Sweden, lies in getting a retirement visa. Is that correct?

I am in Thailand since a year now, on repeated TV, I will soon go back to Sweden and hopefully return to Thailand again, soon after that.

I have no fixed address in Thailand. I just stay in guesthouses. This is a considerable limitation for me when I apply for visa. But if I apply for a Non-O visa in Sweden I think I can renew this for one year in Thailand by making visa runs every 90 days. I will NOT have to report a permanent address in Thailand every 90 days. Is that correct?

Thanks for any guidance.

Edit

I also understand that the Non-O visa will be multi entry. If I wish to make trips to other countries (in addition to the visa runs) that will be OK. Is that correct?

As you have reached the "magic" age of 50 (and are not British, where the "magic" age is arbitrarily higher), an O-A Long Stay visa from your home country would provide a good Multi-Entry solution, during its year of validity. An entry just before the end of the 1st year gains you a 2nd year of "permitted stay" - but during that 2nd year, you would need to purchase re-entry permits to keep that stay valid, as the "visa" itself, will have expired (as specified by its "enter by" date printed thereon).

More detail is here:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/659730-non-immigrant-visa-o-a-long-stay/#entry6701999

I can think of few advantages of the METV for those over 50, unless the particular set of requirements, as enforced in the consulate in your home-country (varies wildly), fit your circumstances. According to current reports, Sweeden is not friendly with METVs, so you were born in the wrong country to get one easily. A few kilometers West, in Norway - no problem. But these are all early reports, and conditions can change without notice at any consulate.

"When your course of study is over, you may need to obtain a new passport to be able to get Tourist Visas easily from many nearby consulates, as consulate-personnel have been told that those on ED visas are "up to no good" / working illegally. How they are expected to know the difference between the 90%+ not working, and the "bad apples" is not clear, given only catching a violator at work would answer the question (and solve the problem). "

Hearsay or you have proof of this ?

There are many posts here of those attempting to get visas and having consulate personnel see their ED visa and say, "You are working in Thailand...". The last I recall was just a few weeks ago in Vientiene - where the OP was refused a Double-Entry (this was just before those were ended). This was at the "most friendly" of local consulates:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/868794-double-tv-still-available-in-vientiane-before-13-november/#entry10068480

Another fellow arrived on a valid ED, and was refused entry at the airport for "insufficient funds" - though he clearly had access to those funds, as he purchased an expensive air-ticket home to avoid imi-jail. This was at the very beginning of the "crackdown" on ED-Visas.

Of those reported here on this forum, how many more cases are not?

Imagine the money lost on proper visas.

Yes, it is curious why the policy is not changed to allow foreigners on tourist-visas to show up at immigration every 2 or 3 months and pay a fee (as in the Philippines). This would would increase fee-revenues, foreign-capital spending into the economy, and simultaneously make overstay less appealing.

Didnt they change the rules regarding hours of study?

I think youve got to study quite regularly to qualify.

I also remember reading many times on here: 'the education visa's days are numbered in Thailand'

Looks an expensive option anyway.

Requirements are purported to be 4 days/ wk - more than the attendence at any class at a normal university (usually 2 or 3 days / wk in the USA). So if you wanted to combine your ED with touring around and seeing Thailand (the point, for many), that is out. Supposedly, they are spot-checking at schools to verify attendence records are accurate. Perhaps some schools have made "arrangements" to minimize and/or receive advance notifications of these.

As to whether one actually gets 90 days, or has to show up at Immi twice in that 90 days - for a while, a "fee" system to avoid the 2nd visit existed. The "fee" used to be about 3000 Baht for a "hassle-free" full 90-day stamp. But I read at least one report here that this had ended, along with the "language tests" given by officers. Instead, attendence records seem to be the focus. But, of course, as with all Immi-matters, all policies may vary by what Region / Immi-office one's school falls under.

When your course of study is over, you may need to obtain a new passport to be able to get Tourist Visas easily from many nearby consulates, as consulate-personnel have been told that those on ED visas are "up to no good" / working illegally. How they are expected to know the difference between the 90%+ not working, and the "bad apples" is not clear, given only catching a violator at work would answer the question (and solve the problem).

Imagine if all the IOs being sent to Language Schools, to verify who showed up for class that day (instead of visiting a Wat or island), were instead sent to where Farangs are purported to be working? Imagine if a paid-tipline was used to help root out the violators? Food for thought.

I used to take the train to the Nong Khai train station. How would I get from the train station to the bridge? Walk.

At the Nong Khai train station, one can catch another train which crosses the bridge. These are not frequent, however, and the queues for VOA on the Lao side can take a while.

He didn't had enough money to get back to Thailand from the consulate (50 for the Tuk tuk and 50 for the bus) and had to borrow... he had been drinking all day ...

Yep - I know the type, from back in my home-country. Beer cans piled high, just got fired for not showing up for work, but asking me for a "loan" when I get home from my job.

He was an overstayer as well? You don't say. I would never have guessed. It is hard not to feel pity for these types - but their destructive life-pattern relies on the pity of the self-sufficient, preventing them from becoming responsible people.

I continue to be surprised that some members question the reasoning behind the METV when they have no information or statistics to justify the criticism. I am pretty sure the decision on the METV was not taken lightly, and that the people making the decision had all the relevant information to make an informed decision.

We have no evidence of exactly what they considered, but I envision competing groups / agendas, with a compromise result. This would explain the odd (nearly impossible to meet, for most) collection of restrictions. It is unlikely a coincidence, that at about the same time as the Doubles and Triples were eliminated for the METV, more earnest enforcement of the rule requiring reporting addresses began (TM-28 / TM-30).

And, no, I don't think "illegal workers" (English teachers, who could be eliminated in a day, with the real threat of jail-time to both the worker and the boss) had much to do with this - though it provides a convenient cover-story and rationale for IOs, at the enforcement-end of the chain of command.

At least two of the competing agendas would be the "maximize-tourism" group vs a "security / international-relations" group - the latter advancing a "Pivot to China" strategy, in light of the West providing direct material support to groups allied with separatists in both nations.

Rather than write country-specific rules that would ruffle feathers, they opted to make it harder for all those of "fighting age" to stay here as easily. This move stems the growth / training of a 5th column internally, and eschews participation in an active plot against her neighbour, China.

My own frustration with the rules, aside, I cannot fault Thailand's leaders, who have in impressive history of resisting grave threats to their sovereignty, and must deal with a larger geo-political picture.

What you need is a report on Yangoon specifically. Each consulate applies its own rules as to when they think you have "too many." For some, the equation seems to be based on "how many from consulates in this country" more than "how many total."

I got blue-stamped at Vientiene on visa #2 after a 7 month break out of Thailand. Granted, I had several from them earlier - each pair broken up by several months out of country. All was well when I returned with a new passport - which sounds as though is your plan, as well.

Given on what you have now, Penang would be the best bet based on my reading of the recent tea-leaves, but perhaps someone with experience with Yangoon can provide better odds on their policy.

... The idea of her to be a business owner and me to be as employee is just a formal fact ...

That business will require at least 2 Thai employees to qualify to hire one foreigner. In many cases, 4 Thai employees per one foreinger. See other threads on that topic. Bottom line, you cannot get a work-permit if you and she are the only ones working for the business.

If doing online work, perhaps you can find 2 (or 4) Thais who can do your type of work and at least cover their own cost? This is something my GF and I have discussed, but the start-up costs for a business here (capitalization, etc) must be considered.

Local limits are not meant to make life hard for genuine tourists but for people working in Thailand using tourist visas.

But consulate personnel have no way of knowing the difference, hence the problem. To stop illegal-working, you throw those who hire them, and those who are caught working, in prison - for a year or more. No one would risk it - and the problem is solved.

But then Thai companies would not be able to talk foreigners into working illegally during "probation periods," and schools would not be able to hire teachers illegally. Some do not want their "flexibility" restricted, so this does not happen.

As per my post here - http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/875379-single-entry-visas-in-malaysia/#entry10209257 (same OP and story) - it is similar in my country. In that case, illegal workers are allowed to wipe out our shrinking middle-class, and move to a more profitable labor system, more similar to that in China, etc.

I think it's transparent already. There is no limit. Embassies/consulates have the right to issue or decline a visa to anyone. It's better for tourists if the embassies and consulates have this flexibility.

Transparent, IMO, would be "You may stay in Thailand up to X months per year on Tourist Visas," or "You can obtain only Y tourist visas from this consulate over a Z-month period," or "You must show $X in funds to qualify." Those are published, and then everyone at the consulate follows those rules precisely. As it is, applicants who wish to follow the rules are left feeling like criminals trying to "get away with something," in many cases, due to uncertainty.

I decided to let them take care of it, then come the problem, she went through my passport and reminded me on how many entries I had already had for Thailand which was nine.

... they have become pretty strict now mentioning the new government and telling me that the rules are being more firmly applied and three visas are the limit.

She told me if i pay 250 ringgit she would guarantee my visa and if for some reason they didn't she would refund. also if i did go and they refused that they would no longer be able to help.

...

So the new government clamping down on stop people staying long time on tourist visas and suppose to be clamping down on corruption.. How corrupt is that pay the immigrations and you defy both their policies.. When they going to realize that they have made a big mistake and this is not the way forward. As i found today it only makes bigger corruption in the tourist Industry.

Seems you actually paid a "visa agent" not "immigrations" (who do not have officers in Embassy's/Consulates.) You also have no idea what the outcome may have been had a personal application been made but I have no doubt the "agent' is happy !

Anyone want to hazard a "just maybe," that a piece of that "extra fee" went to someone official? Maybe not, but if we could make a bet and had a way of finding out the truth ... I didn't make it to 9 entries, even with multi-month breaks outside Thailand between them, before I had to get a new passport to keep even Laos happy.

Not to pick on Thailand - this system is the same everywhere - the only difference is the cost and process. In "developed" nations - for example, the USA, you pay a lawyer who graduated from the "right school," and is in the same fraternity / social club scene as the judges or dept-personnel who make the decisions - i.e. "legal corruption." In a hard case, you make donations to "The Clinton Foundation" or a politician's re-election campaign fund, and then the US State Dept fixes things up for you no matter what the "problem" was. Even presidential "pardons" for criminal convictions are on the table, with the right connections and cash.

In any case, glad you (OP) avoided the "red stamp" (it is blue in Laos now), which would further reduce your chances of getting a Thai visa anywhere in the future. Still, you might want to consider a new passport if planning to stay longer than the current visa allows.

There are "stated requirements"; then there are the "actual in practice requirements"; then there are the variations on "stated requirements" at each consulate - even varying within the same country; then there are the variations on the "actual in practice requirements" depending on the person you deal with at a particular consulate.

You mentioned Cebu, but I do not find any recent reports of anyone having success there. The last report I found indicated that their hours of operation are variable. If you try this, we would very much appreciate what you discover (I go to Cebu, occasionally).

In general, you can CYA (cover your a__) by having proof of funds, a ticket entering and leaving Thailand within the visa period (60 days), and a hotel booking covering at least the first few days in Thailand. Those are not necessary in all cases (both consulates in Laos, Penang, and some in other countries do not require them), but only the most difficult consulates (Kuala Lumpur) *might* deny a visa, even if you have those.

If involving the USA, be sure to interview the citizens whose careers / lives were destroyed by mass-immigration - and not only the construction, food-packing, and other formerly high-paying union blue-collar jobs, now converted to "hand-to-mouth" barely-survive jobs - also the legal visas into the IT / Tech. See this case:

www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/last-task-after-layoff-at-disney-train-foreign-replacements.html

There are 2x more USA college graduates in Sci-Tech-Enginering-Math than jobs, but they claim they can't find any. Just a coincidence the foreign workers earn 1/2 what the Americans they replaced earned the year before.

Many Americans living overseas are expats for this reason - which is one reason they seek visas in places like Thailand - see Chang Mai's "digital nomads" for more on that. Many more in Cambodia and far more still in Latin America.

Gotta disagree with you some. Typical expats go overseas to make money. Im currently in the ME from Thailand for that very reason. There are 2 expats one who does it for money, one for adventure. The adventure seekers just care about day to day and enjoying life.

The OPs article is not about us but about the thais immigration problems. Lets not convolute it with our own feelings about jobs or economy.

It is true that those married with children rarely escape to greener pastures when they are "replaced" by cheaper imported (or outsourced) labor - they often end up divorced and homeless or, at best, living hand-to-mouth. But those stores don't go into the mainstream news, because the 5 media companies that control 90%+ of all tv, radio, film, newspapers, and publishing in the USA (see story above - Disney is one of them), do not want people to see what they are doing.

Single guys like me with tech ability find our job-opportunities gone, take our savings and run to Central America, build up a client-list, turn that into an online business, then retire to Asia. But most of my old friends from back home with families could not run, so went down with the ship.

Let's hope he makes a documentary that tells both sides of the story - like how a foreigner can marry a Westerner, move there, and get a green card to work in a few months (with no restriction on what kind of job), then permanent residence automatically after a few years. Contrast that to us marrying here. Should make an interesting tale.

If involving the USA, be sure to interview the citizens whose careers / lives were destroyed by mass-immigration - and not only the construction, food-packing, and other formerly high-paying union blue-collar jobs, now converted to "hand-to-mouth" barely-survive jobs - also the legal visas into the IT / Tech. See this case:

www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/last-task-after-layoff-at-disney-train-foreign-replacements.html

There are 2x more USA college graduates in Sci-Tech-Enginering-Math than jobs, but they claim they can't find any. Just a coincidence the foreign workers earn 1/2 what the Americans they replaced earned the year before.

Many Americans living overseas are expats for this reason - which is one reason they seek visas in places like Thailand - see Chang Mai's "digital nomads" for more on that. Many more in Cambodia and far more still in Latin America.

I guess you did not notice I was specific when I wrote crossing at a land border. No mention of flying someplace.

Why would Thailand be interested in people having to pay for a visa for another country.

Agree completely that one is supposed to get a stamp from the neighboring country, before returning at a land-border. Some report getting away with out it, others turned back around. I would not try it.

Airports are different - why one can "switch passports" and enter on one without an exit stamp from the last country.

There seems to be some level of cooperation between the immigration depts. For instance, Lao Customs at the border once questioned for awhile about "if I was working in Thailand". I don't, and when I offered to present bank statements to prove it, they backed off and stamped me in. Something motivated that guy to ask, and he seemed to be seeking a "reward" of some kind.

I would guess the policy is "we collect from your tourists on their border-runs, and you collect from ours," among other things.