Promula

4 hours ago, OJAS said:

But would not the OP be making a truthful declaration, affidavit or whatever you like to call it by ticking the second box 

 

I think anyone ticking only one box will be rejected, or limited to a maximum of one extension like when extending a TV.

20 minutes ago, Andrew234 said:

I think you forgot paranoid.

I don't think so.

It's not the police's job to help foreign tourists stay in Thailand for a year. They've tried to make them leave several times, and are now ratcheting up the pressure by bringing an affidavit into it. Thai govt departments have many such affidavits. They're used to introduce legal consequences when asking for something you're not reasonably entitled to.

IMO a strong reason for continued refuge will be valid. Fear of getting a very low risk fever, or of going to Turkey, isn't. If they reject or prosecute a few people for submitting an unreasonable claim for 60 days of refuge, a mass exodus from Thailand will follow. Job done.

During the amnesty people haven't needed to make much of a choice. It's been simple. Leave or stay.

As of next month, the choice becomes "leave, or make a sworn police statement (that could be used against you in court) whereby your personal circumstances mean that you should be granted 60 days of refuge in Thailand"

It's interesting that this is being introduced at the 9 month stage, the same duration as the STV. I think tourists will need a strong personally,-valid reason to remain in Thailand for longer than 9 months. I don't think that fear of getting a cough will count.

30 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

You selected the definition that fit your purpose. There are many definitions for a affidavit.

See this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affidavit

 

Consider the source of the affidavit. The police will logically use their own affidavit in court. If there's no intent to, they'd simply extend the amnesty.

39 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

Affidavits can be used for many things. They are just a statement to verify something. The are certainly not only for use in court.

A power of attorney is an example of one.

A power of attorney is for use in court if things end up in court, as are all affidavits. That is their primary purpose, by definition. 

6 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

They are not changing to that form. They will still accept letters from a embassy.

It is just an option for those unable to get a letter from their embassy to apply under clause 2.28 of the immigration order.

I think you're underestimating the significance of signing a police affidavit which is effectively to swear on oath that you can't leave Thailand or would be at serious risk of harm if you leave Thailand and so should be granted refuge, which you can't prove in court.

I always take such things seriously based on personal experience, and having thought about it over recent days, think that's the unfortunate reality of this form.  

I'm trying to be realistic and cautious, not pessimistic.  

39 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

 

Immigration are just wanting something on paper to justify the extension. Not much different that the letters issued by a embassy.

It's very different. I think it likely that they are changing to this form from embassy letters because it allows prosecution for a false statement. Embassy letters don't. They aren't doing it to be kind. Remember, they're the police.   

4 minutes ago, rxr said:

The first checkbox says:

I am not permitted to enter the destination country OR the pandemic situation of Covid-19 is still ongoing

 

As long as the pandemic is ongoing I'd have no problem signing this document

You're welcome to think that, but I disagree. The form is a sworn oath that you either can't leave Thailand or would be at serious risk if you leave Thailand. Could you prove those things in court? If so, you're fine. 

9 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

Affidavits can be used for many things. They are just a statement to verify something.

 

You made a false police report that has own penalties under a law.

I didn't make a false police report. I made a false Transport Office affidavit declaration. Unknowingly, because of language problems both when describing my problem and being unable to read the form. That didn't stop me ending up in court and fined. 

11 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

Where does it say it is for that.

Why?

Immigration are just wanting something on paper to justify the extension. Not much different that the letters issued by a embassy.

It's an Affidavit. A sworn oath for use as evidence in court.

To explain my story, I had my driving licence confiscated for going through a red light in Nakhon Phanom. Rode back to Bangkok and then realised I should have waited and gone to recover it from the police station. Went to the transport office in Bangkok and told them what happened. They misunderstood and thought I'd lost my licence and reported it to the police so gave me a Thai language form to sign which I couldn't read and which got me a replacement licence. The police were in contact shortly afterwards...

To those laughing, I speak from experience as someone who ended up in a Thai court for making a false declaration on a government document. It wasn't fun.

The interesting thing is, this is a legal document intended for use in court. Simply ticking a box without having a reasonable belief and evidence that you are unable to leave Thailand could cause serious problems later.  That's why I think those that are feeling happy that no evidence is apparently required to be supplied with it are unwise.

This form isn't a generous gift by the IOs. It's a sworn oath. 

30 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

sent by Thai Post. 

Seven days to arrive, a day for consideration, and seven days to return ????

But to make a serious point, I'm sure they could do it more quickly, but the staff are either too scared to suggest it or simply don't care.

The Thai government office I worked in for a year in 2008 still had typewriters on most desks! Nobody used them of course, but nobody thought to get rid of them since the office opened in the 1980s.

Never had one and never want one, but regularly hear about them.

Are they anything more than proof that Thai government bureaucracy is still back in the 1970s?

Having held a non F visa before, it's my educated opinion.

Then again, that's a matter of perspective. There are people who believe that, like birds, having been born on this planet and being part of it, they're entitled to live on whichever bit of it they want.

A hundred years ago or so ago, or a thousand, they'd be right. National borders set up by the locals to assume control over people born outside of them is a recent development.

1900 baht sounds right. There's no justification for charging more. You're paying for an administration service.

34 minutes ago, DaLa said:

Try getting into Thailand using an inflatable boat up the Gulf of Thailand with no passport and see what happens.

Happens quite often on the Andaman side of the country https://www.fortifyrights.org/tha-inv-2019-06-12/

Playing devil's advocate here:

- Thailand currently has many thousands of visa-less foreigners from different continents who could return to their native country and are young enough to not be at risk from covid-19, or could travel to a third country such as Turkey or Mexico, but they don't want to because they prefer Thailand and so are claiming leave to remain in Thailand. 

- The UK currently has many thousands of visa-less foreigners from different continents who could return to their native country, or more importantly to France where they safely were before a small boat carried them across the English Channel, but they don't want to because they prefer the UK so are claiming leave to remain in the UK.    

If they allowed the switch that the OP is talking about, you're going to get a flood of people accepting job offers, getting the employer to pay for the quarantine, and then not turning up for work.

Not saying the OP did that or is contemplating doing it, but there are reports of people thinking they can get an STV to enter Thailand and then switch their visa, which is a similar scenario.

55 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

The could be doubling up the 30 day extensions.

I don't think they are not rushing out the 60 day extensions approval since everybody can stay until November 30th if they have applied for the 30 day extension.

If they give everyone a stamp until 30 Nov and then until 29 Jan, the imm offices are going to be very quiet in December.

I think they're trying to avoid that by giving out some stamps for people to return in December then February instead of November then January, to spread the load.

12 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

 

If the were done the right way doing a 30 day extension to November 30th and then do the 60 day extension it would be until January 29th.

Yes it's all strange. I think each immigration office has a quota for 30 November stamps, and once reached they'll start issuing 30 December stamps to avoid overcrowding in November.

Meanwhile, I've seen a report of someone going to CW yesterday and being given the choice of a 30 Nov stamp yesterday or returning in a week's time for a 30 December stamp instead.

Sounds like this could be made official, presumably with the form rolled out in most or all IOs, next week.  

Reports of 60 day extensions from 1 November are circulating elsewhere, although for extension applications from last month, not using the new currently unofficial form.

2 hours ago, Promula said:

Thanks. I don't think anyone will be applying for a 60 day-er this month. There's no need to. 

I take that back. I wasn't thinking straight.

As regards 2530Ubon's very optimistic opinion that an embassy letter isn't required and everyone will get a 60 day extension, I urge caution, some reading between the lines, and to get an embassy letter if possible.

Why? Because the new form has a "embassy letter not available" tickbox option. They wouldn't put that tickbox on the form if having an embassy letter or not is completely irrelevant. I think having an embassy letter will guarantee an automatic 60 day extension.

By ticking the "couldn't get an embassy letter" box, the IO is likely to use some discretion and examine your situation. If your main reason for applying is not wanting to leave Thailand (as it would be if for example you were applying to extend a visa exempt stamp for 30 days) I think they're going to give serious consideration as to why they should let you remain for another two months for this reason when you've already been here 8-9 months as a "tourist".