asiacurious

They really need to allow for named beneficiaries. I can see how this would be a major pain for people who are already stressed and in pain from the loss of a loved one.

Did you write that from a place of ignorance? -- or -- Did you know that what you wrote was untrue? Commissioners serve 4 year terms. William Beach was nominated by Trump in October 2017 and confirmed by the Senate in March 2019. He served his 4 year term. After his term ended, President Biden nominated Erika McEntarfer in July 2023. She was confirmed in January 2024. Here's what William Beach (again, this was Trump's Commissioner, who was not fired) said of Trump firing of Erika McEntarfer.... And here's a link to the full statement..... https://www.friendsofbls.org/updates/2025/8/1/statement-on-commissioner-mcentarfers-removal Screenshot of the tweet in case the link above breaks....

Thanks for sharing this Briggsy. They've seemingly created an "exception" to the rule that lets them collect fines, and I think BrandonJT is right. Sorry you've faced what is truly a bizarre situation. I will add that their clarification that if your visa had been issued by Chonburi Immigration then they wouldn't require a new TM30 after each entry also supports the general rule that most people don't need to do a new TM30 each time. Since you're now living in an area serviced by Jomthien Immigration, when you apply for an extension will that be done there? If it is, I wonder if they'll accept a single new TM30 after the extension is done and stop requiring future TM30s, or if they'll say you're stuck doing TM30s indefinitely. Anyway, I do appreciate the information. Thanks!

As I wrote in reply to another person who said they gave an IO the regulation, but later clarified (as you now do) that they simply quoted it.... I'm not saying a printed copy is going to magically change the IOs position. But neither will it cause them to cancel your visa. When I faced this issue, I didn't start by quoting the regulation. They'll just say I'm wrong, that's not the regulation. All I would have succeeded in doing is to set up a situation where if I respond, it might be viewed as being argumentative or confrontational. That's starting out on the wrong foot. Instead, I just gave them a copy and said something like, I was following this, or I thought this is what I was supposed to do. They'll either accept it or reject it. They're free to correct me and tell me to go do the TM30. I'm not going to argue with them. But.... Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Thanks for sharing that! As the current foremost expert on visa related things, should people take that bit of snark to mean all of my posts are wrong? (BTW, I gave you a hearty 😂 for that!). Obviously, people shouldn't rely on the advice they find on random sites or forums, whether from experts or novices (I include myself in the latter). Everything with a grain of salt. As a wise man once said elsewhere on these forums... In some "guides" you may read.... Ignore that. I agree. Better to look for offices sources.... https://dl.parliament.go.th/handle/20.500.13072/563662 But to each their own.

It doesn't require bravery. It just requires a lack of cowardice.

The form doesn't, but the passport information is entered either online or in person. If via mail, either a photocopy of passport is required, or the 2nd page with passport info is required, don't know which. (A previous landlord had their filing by mail rejected because they didn't include my passport information.)

That's a different situation. You DO need to do a new TM30 in your next entry with the new passport. Immigration will even advise you of this when transferring your visa and extension to the new passport. At least, CW advised me of this.

So you had printed out the regulation (in Thai) issued by the national Thai government and handed it to them? The last time I looked at a map, Songkhla - close as it may be to Malaysia - is still in Thailand. Doesn't mean they won't ignore the law of course.

I finally started doing that. Filled my bankbook up and had to get a new one issued. Now I need to present both (and copies) to the IO every time I extend. Solved the problem by setting up an account at a different bank for everyday use. Pay all bills from the 2nd one now and leave the first one untouched with the 800k in it. Tickle the account every 6 months with a small transaction.

There are sites that'll do a face swap for you. As an example, starting with this base photo that someone else in this thread created using Ai.... Then swapping in this face.... Results in this.... Not the greatest face swap, but it's better than this, which was done by generative ai in Photoshop.... I mean... come on Adobe!

Personally, I'd fly. Back in my border run days (before I started doing 6 month tourist visas) too many land crossings caused headaches, but I never had any issues flying in, and it became my preferred method. Back then, there were cheap fares to Siem Reap and KL, so I'd usually go to one of those places for a few days.

I've posted this info elsewhere, but here it goes.... If you previously filed a TM30 and are returning to the same address after a trip (inside OR outside of Thailand) you do NOT need to file a new TM30. You would only need a new TM30 if you change visa types ot get a new visa (as opposed to an extension of the same visa). Note that if you travel somewhere in Thailand, the place you're temporarily staying will do a TM30 for that stay. But it doesn't replace the TM30 previously filed for your primary residence - that one is still valid. In June 2020 this document was released (this is an unofficial English translation and I link to the official Thai document further down).... And the document reads in part.... The official document (in Thai) can be found on the Thai Parliament's website, the Legislative Institutional Repository of Thailand. Here's the link: https://dl.parliament.go.th/handle/20.500.13072/563662 (The pdf also includes the official paper TM30 reporting form.) I suggest downloading it and bringing a highlighted copy with you whenever you visit immigration. If you don't have the regulation on paper that you can hand to them, it'll be your word vs theirs, and they'll always go with their word. When I was told I needed a new TM30, I handed a copy of this document to the IO (the official Thai version) and that settled the issue. I'll never argue with them, but with the regulation in hand, there really isn't anything to argue about. The government is always free to change the law and it's possible they will. But if they do, the IO will have something on paper that documents the new regulation which they can share with you. There's an unofficial English translation somewhere online, but it can be difficult to locate.

Or it could be they are out late into the night, sitting at bars, looking at their phones, moaning about how inferior this society is (but they aren't racist because they married a local woman) drinking the night away, alone most likely (as she found out he's either a bore or a beast, the latter of which he thinks is a compliment) all while complaining about how immigrants back home (which they call illegals) should, they'll add, add nothing to society and should GTFO and go back to whatever sh*thole country they came from. Sorry for the run on sentence!

Why would they fine you? You're not legally required to do a 90 day report before you leave Thailand. And it's still within the 7 day grace period. I kind of forgot what my reasons were for not participating much in this site a couple of years back, but I think I'm starting to remember why.

Oh, ok. So a totally different situation. When it's your word against hers, she can interpret the regulation any way she wants because.... "You don't know the regulation." "Oh, you misunderstand the regulation." "I'm the IO and I know the regulation." It simply doesn't matter and the IO will always - always! - win when it's a verbal disagreement like that. And I agree with you that challenging her further like that would not have been productive. But when you pull out a hard copy of the Thai government's regulation in Thai - with the section in question highlighted no less - there's really no interpretation left to be had. This is exactly what happened to me. They insisted I needed a TM30. I handed them the official regulation (in Thai and highlighted) and they stopped insisting and processed my extension. Dealing with IO can be intimidating. It's built into the process - they have something that you want, and you don't want to get on their wrong side. Arguing certainly isn't productive. Never argue. But if you're respectful and can offer clear documentation in support of the law, they'll generally accept it.

If they're giving you a 7 day grace period but you are out of the country during the grace period, then I would expect the requirement to notify becomes moot. An example might illustrate.... Say your 90 day is due on October 1st. Grace period ends October 8th. You leave Thailand on October 2nd (without having filed). You return to Thailand on October 4th. You go to Immigration on October 7th to file (it's still within the grace period). What do you think Immigration will do? Accept your filing and tell you to come back in 90 days Accept your filing and tell you to come back in 87 days. Look at you oddly and tell you to come back in 87 days. I'd guess #3.

Contractually, a force majeure clause might give them an out. But could they find enough available new venues in time?

Yeah, I think that's the case. And it goes a long way to come in prepared and well organized, with all forms (correctly) filled, and all documents updated and copied. The only thing I don't give them is the hand drawn map, which they would always discard and ask me to draw again in their presence, like it was some kind of knowledge test. I've also started to bring a complete copy of every passport page that I hold back, just in case there's an extra page in my passport that they might want a copy of. Nothing worse than having to run out to get a random page copied. If I've missed something (rare these days) or given them something that they didn't want/need that gets handed back to me, I make a note of those for the next year's extension application.

So you actually brought a copy of the regulation with you? That's all too rare a thing. When I did my last extension 4 months ago, I had no issues. Didn't even show them a copy of the regulation. I guess I'll find out in about 8 months what happens.

I'm spending a few seconds giving them a sheet of paper so that I don't need to get an unnecessary and not required TM30 filed, which WILL certainly cost me much more time, and possibly a bunch of money. And if it helps the next person avoid the issue because the IO now understands the regulations, so much the better. Or were you asking if it's really a win that I'm spending quite a bit more than a few seconds helping other expats by providing the information here? To that question I'll remain mute.

I can't say that I personally would foul over 300 Baht (though I think it's dumb and self-defeating when your stated desire is to increase tourism!). But I'm a farang and am most definitely crying foul over a fee that is over 25X that 300 baht fee. That said, the goal of the US is (currently and unfortunately) to minimize visitors to the US and isolate America and Americans from the rest of the world. The fee is in keeping with those goals.

I suggest you download the official regulation (in my previous reply) and bring it with you next time. CW is the Imm Office I go to, and I've always found them to be sticklers for following the rules. When an IO once told me what you've been told, I shared a highlighted copy of the regulation (in Thai) and that resolved the issue. Of course the government is always free to change the law and it's possible they've recently done so. But then they'll have something in black and white that documents the new regulation which they can refer to. I'm not going to argue with them if they have a basis for their requirement, but I will most definitely stand my ground if it's clear they have no basis.

Yup. Alas, the only thing that seems to go up for most people is misery and suffering.

The entire bill was designed to CUT taxes for the wealthiest in the US, not to reduce the deficit. The bill INCREASES the national debt by trillions. If they wanted to do actually reduce the debt, they would have raised taxes on those who have benefited the most.

They actually DO have a vision for what they want, and this new fee is a part of that vision. It's just not a vision that many reasonable people share (myself included).