Matzzon

1 hour ago, tinca tinca said:

thanks very much.....as you will know the language thing is a big problem... many of the cashiers not speak english and if they do not very well.....or understand ones problems

Oh dear, just go to the office and cancel. That´s the advise you´ve got numerous times now.

So, the problem is that it´s to easy to buy silencers. Naturally, everybody knows it´s the silencer that kills and not the gun.

51 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

I know he'll be able to enter the UK; my query was whether he would be able to check in at Heathrow to return home, with only 4 months on his passport.

 

 

That will never be an issue, due to that it would just be silly to not renew the passport in time. Why is it that so many must have issues with expiring passports. Just renew it wherever you are before it even might be too late.

I guess that´s one reason why they call it off season, but understanding the meaning of things is out of the question. When it comes to analysing something and see if it has a possibility to succeed before doing it, is an alien concept. After that comes the problem solving in minimizing the damage before it´s too late. They never heard about that either.

Yes, he will be able to enter UK with a UK passport as long as it has not expired. that´s like the thing with expiring dates and why they are printed in the passport.

Looks to me it´s better to renew it in UK.

17 hours ago, scottiddled said:

Most people in the world can't afford (money and/or time) to hop on a plane and come to Thailand for one week of tourism. Of those who can afford it, a smaller number are fortunate enough to be able to afford longer. When I read the TV Salty Squad moaning about what is/isn't tourism, I'm simultaneously saddened and amused (I have a dark sense of humor). Many members of the Salty Squad are darned privileged in their own lives. For some reason, they think they should be able to live their privileged life on B, O, O-A, etc. (and their relevant extensions), but that someone who has the luxury of exploring Thailand (and themselves)--whether it's on a gap year or because they're just independently "wealthy" (relatively speaking)--stops being a tourist on Day 31, or Day 61, or Day 185.

According to the wealthy, releatively speaking, what in the world now that can be. Then the wealthy ones have the choice to be over 50, married, have children, working or buy an Elite visa. That´s a lot of choices instead of violating the tourist visas, so other genuine tourist get more scrutinized.

7 hours ago, jackdd said:

There is also no limitation in the immigration law for how long somebody can be considered tourist.

Let's not forget the Thailand Elite visa, which is advertised as tourist visa, but allows the person to stay as long as they want. This shows that the time somebody can be considered a tourist is not limited.

There is a limitation, but that one is only visible to the ones that do not do all they can to stay in a country on the wrong type of visa. Yes, Elite is an exeption. That´s why you have to pay a bigger amount of money to be considered as a tourist longer time. Why do you think that is? Can it be out of the simple reason that the other visas do not give you that opportunity. When there is a right visa, and people try and use the wrong one that is called stupid and can be seen as overuse. it simply do not work. Actually same as trying to put the wrong key in the door. It just wont open, right?

6 hours ago, BritTim said:

It seems the main reason people like you give for being unable to visit Thailand for pleasure for more than 179 days a year in that possible tax liabilities preclude your being a tourist. Let's examine some consequences of that guideline:

• I reside in Thailand from 1 January 2020 until 28 June 2020 (180 days) spending the rest of the year in Vietnam. I am a tax resident under Thai law and, thus, according to you can no longer be spending time in Thailand for pleasure.
• I reside in Thailand from 1 January 2020 until 27 June 2020 (179 days), spending the rest of the year in Vietnam. I am OK as I am not a tax resident.
• I reside in Thailand from 5 July 2019 until 27 June 2020 (358 days) continuously in Thailand, and the rest of 2019 and 2020 in Vietnam. I am not considered tax resident in Thailand for either 2019 or 2020. Does that mean I can validly enjoy spending time here?

The simple fact is that "tourist" is not defined anywhere in Thai law, except sometimes in very vague terms. Regulations have been promulgated from time to time limiting use of visa exempt entry. Further, embassies/consulates have discretion to decide whether you should qualify for visas (including tourist visas). When Immigration decides to abrogate validly issued visas, and deny entry according to their opinion of whether you should have been issued the visa, they are acting outside Thai law as written. This is true even if they abuse an existing valid reason for denied entry under Section 12 of the Immigration Act, twisting it to mean something that was never intended.

6 hours ago, scottiddled said:

Very well said, all around.

 

I'd take it a step further. They aren't just acting outside of Thai law even if they cite an existing, valid reason for denial of entry. When they cite an inapplicable basis for denial, they're engaging in fraudulent, criminal behavior. If the real reason for denial is "too many entries" but they're listing "insufficient means of support" (and from the reliable reports I've read, not even giving folks the opportunity to show the cash), they're lying on a government form and using that to throw someone in a detention cell. Sure, nothing will (likely) ever happen to them because they're acting on orders from someone, somewhere. But this just reinforces the culture of lawlessness.

 

It's maddening how the Salty Squad and its allies can bemoan those who work within the tourist visa/exemption system for "abusing" that system, all on some pretext that a person with X# of entries or X# of days spent has magically crossed some line into non-touristdom, while simultaneously cheering on IOs who flat-out break the law.

The part where they deny for the wrong reason and are therefore engaging in a wrongful, to criminal, behaviour is unfortunately right. That does not have anything to do with the true definition of a tourist vs an expat, though. They should of course have been given the right tools for denial of entry before such order was given.

6 hours ago, Caldera said:

That is simply not true, not in general at least. For example, I spent significantly more than 6 months in Thailand last year AS A TOURIST, and not a single Thai official I dealt with (immigration and consular officers) told me at any point that I'm not a tourist. Others would have, no doubt, but I've encountered none of them.

 

I do realize that there's a shift in attitude towards long-term tourism within the Thai officialdom, so before you point out the obvious, yes I'm aware of this and that's one reason for spending less time in Thailand this year (as I'm writing this, air pollution in Bangkok would have to be my #1 reason, however).

 

In the absence of clear rules, each official makes up his own - and each tourist can shop around while it lasts.

A tourist visits Thailand, while an expat resides there the bigger part of the year. That´s just plain fact, and that´s why there is different visas.

42 minutes ago, jackdd said:

According to Thai law people on a tourist, non-immigrant or any other temporary visa or extension are considered "temporary visitors". So even somebody who may have spent many years uninterrupted in Thailand is considered to be visiting the country, and somebody who spent "the bigger part of the year" in Thailand on tourist visas is still considered a visitor to this country.

Everybody is called visitors, as long as they are not residing in Thailand om PR. The fact is that you have something called tourist visas for tourists, and other visas for the other part of all the visitors in the country for other reasons. In other words a visitor is not always a tourist, according to the Thai immigration law, which is the one relevant here.
 

42 minutes ago, jackdd said:

 

This topic is about Thailand, it is completely irrelevant what other countries do, every country can make its own laws and rules.

You might think it´s irrelevant. The fact is that it´s very relevant, due to that makes you understand a wider perspective. As for example, that Thailand do not stand alone as a country that has taken this stance. It´s rather more common than uncommon.

19 minutes ago, scottiddled said:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading

 

This is approaching the realm of the incoherent. 

 

Jack is right that most of the goalpost-moving requests for non-Thai examples is off-topic, and that Thailand gets to make its own laws. Just specific to Thailand, several of your arguments immediately fall apart. A person can absolutely--and fairly easily, I might add--find out that they're accidentally classified as a resident for tax purpose even though they've strictly been engaged in tourism. Got a one-semester or one-year sabbatical and want to explore Thailand (and maybe the region) from top to bottom, learning to scuba dive and teach yoga and cook delicious foods while you write your memoirs? Well, you're a tax resident if you've been physically present for 180 or more days--even if you've never spent more than a week at the same hotel, friend's house, or AirBnB.

 

A person can have a "home" in their home country, another country, or multiple countries. They could sell everything and live out of a suitcase. It has nothing to do with whether or not they're a tourist, just as tax residency does not preclude tourism.

 

The rest of your argument is just arbitrary definitions. "Well, you're not really a tourist if you're also...["living here," "residing here," "an expat," etc.]. I recommend reading: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman

Recommendation taken. I will give you one in return. In Thailand your are no longer seen as a tourist if you spend over 6 month residing in the country. We are in Thailand, talking in a Thai forum, right. So my recommendation is: Stop babbling BS, and get used to it. Cheers!

If you can´t grasp that, then we surely know where the incoherent part resides.

15 minutes ago, scottiddled said:

I certainly understood what you meant. What you mean is just wrong, that's all.

 

Your circular argument about the length of stay and the fact that it's called a tourist visa doesn't change anything. A person can meet the denotative definition (i.e. dictionary definition) of tourist as long as they have the time and money to do so. 1 month, 10 months, or one's entire lifetime, they can seek to engage in tourism. Thai immigration law provides that the tourist visa is "for the purposes of tourism." The wording for exemptions is similar. Tourism can be defined simply (and accurately) as "travel for pleasure."

 

Thai immigration law also (shortsightedly, perhaps) includes no meaningful caps regulating long-term tourism. This is what leads to people gaming the system (e.g., border runs, visa runs, extensions), to IOs inventing their own extralegal procedures and definitions, and to people like you throwing out dubious claims that some TV forum users are "not tourists" or "living here." You can argue that it's a "hole" in the law, and I won't disagree with you there. The argument that the system is being "abused" is far shakier, especially when you frame Thai IO's inconsisent and extralegal "cleaning up" in a positive light.

 

Thailand probably should clean up the tourist visa/exemption system. It seems like that would please you. The requirements for entry as a tourist are pretty easy to satisfy, and there are no meaningful legal limits on how long a person can be a tourist in Thailand beyond the hoop-jumping that comes from getting another visa and/or doing another border run. It might be wise for Thailand to put in some limits, because right now a person is a tourist unless they're working, and a person qualifies for entry as a tourist if they can meet a pretty low standard. 

 

The answer is not what you consider "cleaning up" by arbitrarily making up new aspects of what makes someone a tourist simply because tourist has a different connotative meaning for you. I've read far too many stories about people facing interrogation and even denials (sometimes after securing a valid visa) for extralegal reasons:

• Come too often.
• Been here too much.
• Don't stay out long enough.
• Don't spend enough time in home country.
• Don't have printout of hotel booking.
• Too many visas.
• Too many exemptions.
• Too many extensions.
• Had an ED visa a while ago and now you don't speak Thai to their satisfaction.
• Had an ED visa a while ago, period.
• Have a Thai significant other, so you're not a tourist.
• ...and so on.

There's zero excuse for defending IOs who make up the law as they go. 

 

I completely understand criticizing certain people who break the law (e.g., work here illegally). I even understand not sympathizing with those you feel are "abusing" the system. But when you openly condemn them, you're endorsing Thai lawlessness, corruption, and the kind of arbitrary exercise of discretion that can one day be turned on you. If you endorse that, you're part of the problem.

 

P.S. Tax residency is also irrelevant. A jurisdiction's policies regarding tax residency are for revenue purposes, not to establish any precedent for right to abode, etc. I'm currently a tax resident in two different countries. I certainly don't "live" in two places at once. You can absolutely be considered a bona fide tourist even if you qualify as a tax resident.

Great! You just must be serious, because I´ve never seen this much BS ever. ????????????????

A person that reside the bigger part of the year in one country, can not be seen as visiting the country. That person have created a life in that country, and therefore can not be seen as a tourist. If you can´t understand that simple fact, I can only feel sorry for you.

While you are on it. Can´t you just name about another couple of countries, where you can reside full time in the country on tourist visas, that can´t be extended on a yearly basis.

And no, you can not be considered a tourist at the same time you are a tax resident in a country. That´s when the name tourist turns over to be an expat.

3 hours ago, scottiddled said:

This is the other thing the IO apologists do. Beyond (re)defining "tourism," they invoke the phrase "living in" as if it has any relevance.

 

It's a nearly meaningless concept. You live wherever you are in that moment.

 

Do you mean reside, as in a permanent residence? Well, by some interpretations (including some legal ones related to residency protections), you reside (or can claim to reside, depending on the jurisdiction) wherever you slept last night. If I sign a one-year lease on a condo, is that my residence? What about one month? One night? Does it matter if I have another lease somewhere else? Or family I might go back to?

 

Or my stuff in a storage locker on another continent? Do you consider a residence a place where you keep a bunch of stuff? A place you might return to? If I come from Home Country A with all my possessions, get a place in Thailand, but have plans to go to Bangladesh next month and get a place there, where do I reside?

 

For the purposes of defining limited-duration tourism, these questions are largely irrelevant. And they're irrelevant under the letter of Thai immigration law. You're allowed (or denied) entry for whatever period. As long as you're not working, you can legitimately claim to be a tourist. See the sights, meet people, or watch Netflix in your hotel--it's up to you. To put it simply: if they stamp you in for X days, you can "live" in Thailand for up to that many days, and then you have leave (or extend the permission). As far as I can tell, not even the most arbitrary of IOs is listing "photo of your home in another country" as required documentation. 

 

I know a friend who pulled a pretty radical gap year. They sold/stored everything and headed for Southeast Asia, with no immediate plans to return for at least 10 months. The idea was to "live" an itinerant lifestyle: check out Thailand for a while, then maybe Indonesia, etc. Just because he didn't have another permanent residence did not mean he wasn't a tourist. And while a country would be well within its rights to limit the length of time my friend can stay, if they don't do so and there's no employment involved, any claim that he is "living" somewhere would have been irrelevant sophistry.

 

 

Ooh, so you had to separate live and reside. Thanks for that. I think you understood what I meant anyway, right?

Everything else is just useless info. Yes, it does matter if it is 1 month, 3 month or 7 month. That´s because it´s called a tourist visa. You can´t hardy be called a tourist, if you reside in a country long enough to make you a tax resident. Finally the immigration have got it, and are now cleaning up that little forgotten hole that before made it possible to abuse tourist visas.

7 hours ago, rooster59 said:

The meeting on Monday will be the first time the senior royals have met in person to discuss the concerns raised by Harry and Meghan.

Let´s hope Harry stands up for his wife and children and also make it the last. Let him be free if that is his wish. I totally fail to see where there would be any crisis.

His way of democracy. He talk and other people listen and do as they are told. It´s called Demo-crazy 4.0.

6 hours ago, BritTim said:

I used to believe that returning to home country before entering Thailand would reassure Immigration that you still had a connection to home country, and protect you from denied entry due to Immigration believing you were trying to live in Thailand as a tourist.

Going home for 14 days up to a month, and stay in Thailand 5 month, after that repeat. How in the world would you come up with an idea that looks like you are not living in Thailand. In one year you would be in Thailand 10 month and in another country 2 month. For most people, that makes it easy to see where you are trying to live, right?

@Geoffggi Good  in bad ones out - That's the majority.... 

And how do you figure that comment fits for this news?

Do you know things about this? Do you know it´s a tourist that has been killed? Do you know how many Chinese woman that lives in Thailand? Do you know anything about the gang or the criminals? Are they from another country, or are they Thais or Chinese living in Thailand?

The problem here is not if there were cones or no cones, or if the driver of the minivan was able to see those or not. Appearantly he wasn´t able to see a big truck standing still in the middle of the road. In other countries it´s not allowed to put blind drivers behind a wheel of public transportation.

7 hours ago, rooster59 said:

Residents in the Bang Plee Noi area of Samut Prakarn south east of Bangkok appealed to the media for help after Klong Samrong has run almost dry.

Help is coming! let us all join hands and try our best to invent water. 

7 hours ago, rooster59 said:

shot down unintentionally due to human error

Hell yeah, but it has nothing to do with the states. This is just something that is very common in the population of certain countries.

5 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

So you aren't taking the challenge then?

What challenge? I sked you to provide me with facts and not fiction. Is that the challenge you are talking about, because you surely seem to avoid that.

if you mean regarding me and my work? That is not done without WP. I have a setup company and more than 10 Thais working in it.

48 minutes ago, Momofarang said:

So what?

What are you trying to post? So what? eeeh? What do you mean? By all means, explain.

They are not illegal. You know that, right?

3 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

You are misleading people. If you work in Thailand you need a work permit.

Show me the exceptions in the labor law where it says you don't need one if your customer is outside Thailand.

If you are so sure, give me the place where you work from, I will send somebody from the labor office, you admit that you work for a customer outside Thailand and we take it from there.

So, that means that you made all the co-working spaces illegal? Do you really understand what it is you are posting?

4 hours ago, Kondee07 said:

Does anyone have a definition for "Forum support desk"? Because it seems I must be mistaken.

 

What is the proper way to get an answer to a question from the staff here?

 

"Contact us form" => No answer

 

"Forum" => No answer

[email protected]