Parker2100

No, there is no 180 -writen- rule but it is a metric Immigration uses to decide if you are living in Thailand in tourist status. It is real tool that Immigration uses. Ignore it, and you will be hear whining in a few months. They didn't enforce it in the COVID years, but I have read many accounts where they are now. That was kinda my point, Immigration does not need written rules to boot you. You could be following all the rules you know about and still get in trouble. As you said, the OP had what he needed and he still had problems. I suspect you will see many more of post like this in the coming months or maybe even years.

Since IOs have discretion, someone could have a Retirement Visa or even an Elite Visa and Immigration could subjectively decide they are working. In your case, you had two suspicious IOs because you had an expiring work permit. You wanted to enter on your Elite Visa. Presumably, the first two IOs thought you would continue to work without a valid permit on the Elite Visa. They had no evidence to think this but they don't need any. The senior IO could have easily sided with the first two subordinates based on suspicion alone. I know, from experience, you can be following all the rules and still get turned away on suspicion alone. You were just lucky. Probably, your "Elite Visa" status meant to the superior officer that you have resources and they want people like that in Thailand. Even with that, you almost got booted. What does that say about how the average Joe (who visits less than 180 days a year) is treated by immigration when coming in on a Visa or just a stamp? Your case is NOT a good example for the original post. If anything, it serves to show how arbitrary Immigration is with repeat visitors.

I don't need to support anything. People who read this and know Thailand know exactly what I am talking about. And they know you are deluded or a shill. You cannot argue against peoples personal experiences.

You think Thailand is governed by logic and written rules? Ahahahaha! Who do you complain to that speaks English? Or french, as you like to spice your posts with? And you were satisfied that you had to go to all that trouble and were lucky enough to get IOs that speak English? And you were one unreasonable officer away from a lot of trouble. I think you were just really lucky.

Wish immigration thought of it like that. If they have proof positive someone does not work in Thailand, it does not change their behavior one bit.

I was thinking the same thing.

Yes, in the que I was in last time, it was a female IO and almost everyone who came to her counter was sent to secondary screening. I was so sure that I was doing everything correctly, that I stayed in that que even though it was going very slowly. Oddly, a husband and wife were just before me. She let the wife in but was having problems with the Husband. She did eventually let him in though. I thought about changing ques just because it was so slow, but I thought that would make me look suspicious. Sure enough, I was sent to a 2nd and 3rd screening and -almost- got denied entry. Only thing that saved me was rapid firing documents (financial, travel, etc.) at them. It was very hard to get them to reverse course on what they already decided to do.

All my problems (3) have been at Don Muang. I have not experienced them being abusive but I have had them get hard-headed and jump to conclusions even though they cannot speak English enough for me explain something. Then, if you get through to them, they want to stick to their original opinion and they get angry the closer they get to having to reverse course. Basically, there are 3 levels. You have the counter IO who sometimes sends you to the second IO who speaks a little English and that is your best chance to talk your way out of it. Then, he sends you to the office of 2-3 IOs. Their job is to dot the I's and cross the T's because at that point they have already decided they are turning you back. BUT not all hope is lost! Because, even though they don't speak English, they are trying to work on their official reason. Which is usually lack of funds if you don't show them cash. The law does not say you have to show cash so if you keep shoveling documents at them, like Bank Statements, showing them credit cards, or anything, it throws them off their game. They may have to concoct a different reason and they have to try to translate and understand what you are showing them. They will try to play dumb for as long as they can. But if you just keep shoveling documents at them, they may just decide you are to much work and let you in (but scribble something in your passport to bias any future IO who looks at it. As happened with me) If you get to the 3rd level and are quiet, or worse angry, you are going back to wherever you came from. You need to push back, but respectfully.

That establishes TAT but it does not give them effective control of Thai Immigration. Countless times, in my experience, TAT says one thing and Thai Immigration ignores them.

Whenever TAT says something you can usually believe the opposite

Sounds like the same lady I dealt with.

Yes, I did the same as you, as a tourist. I would sometimes spend 2 months out. And I was told by an Attorney in Thailand that I was ok as long as in Thailand less than 180 days in a -Calandar Year-. But Immigration twisted the rules to say that I was 11 days over (191 days) in the last 365 days. Over 2 -Calandar- years! Technically, there isn't even a Law or writen policy limiting a tourist to 6 months a year but it is a metric that Immigration uses to determine if you are a real tourist. Being even close to 6 months will trigger further screening by Immigration. Or least it did before COVID and, apparently, they are going back to doing that. In my cases, I was let in but the Immigration Officer entered, by hand, that I was trying to live in Thailand. They didn't speak much English so I couldn't explain the situation to them very well. Apparently, I got through to them because they let me in. But they could not admit they were wrong so they had to scribble in my passport a prejudicial comment. But they did try to make hard for me to come back for an undisclosed period of time. That was the last time I was in Thailand and I had to close my PO Box, my Storage Unit, and break the shared lease of the seasonal apartment I rented. I also, had to abandon many of the larger things I stored in Thailand. Because I had to break the seasonal lease. The Thai person I shared the lease with (Roommate but was elsewhere most of the time) could not afford to keep the Apartmentand was Homeless just going into the COVID situation. He was homeless for about 6 months.

It is my understanding that iTV ceased operations in 2007 (March 7 to be more precise). So even if it does have some operations, currently, it is not media related. Even if it was founded as a media company. Trying to get it back in operation is business related but it it is still not an operational source of media. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITV_(Thailand)

They do the minimum they need to do to look like they are enforcing the law. It also does not help that there was a Westerner involved. Wouldn't look as good if the establishment was 100% local owned.

It was only a few years ago that Thailand was considered to be one of the most dangerous places to visit. I visited Thailand, for the first time, on the tail end of that. and I don't think it was on the "Most Dangerous" list because of crime. Easy to get hurt, or killed, in other ways. I seem to remember "falling" from balconies was very common at the time.

Only 180? Good then! Yeah, a lot of roudy Draft Dodgers, eh?

Keep dreaming. Wealthy Asians can only eat a few times a day and stay in one hotel room a night. Now, there are fewer rich Asians after COVID. The Thailand Elites are looking for any excuse to limit Western tourists. Thailand will NEVER be Singapore! As I said, keep dreaming and the poor Thais will be poorer and angry!

Just means that Immigration will return to the policy of picking and choosing who can enter Thailand with a preference for rich Chinese. (Which there are fewer of, these days)

I would like to know what the injury was. If it didn't get better, then how so? Was it grangenous? If so, not removing it would have lead to Sepsis and to death. He may have been under medicine for pain and does not remember or just plain miscommunication. If the leg didn't need to be removed, then he has a case. If it did and they miscommunicated it, then I am not sure the fault lies with the doctors. It is very common for people to be in denial getting news like that. It may be that his brain wouldn't except it. My uncle died of Sepsis because he refused to have his leg amputated. He just refused to believe it was necessary. You could say the real cause of death was denial.