Rob Browder

That's a valid point. I would get a new passport in such circumstances - when there is anything "bad" in there, which might affect entry into another country. Per reports that Thai denial-of-entry are often not logged by Immigration (another thread), a new passport could also be useful for these cases.

How I see this: It would be self-defeating, for the purpose of creating "safe entry" revenue, to put things in the Immigration computer which could land an IO in hot-water for letting you in via "safe entry." The goal isn't "keeping you out" - only making you pay them via agent.

Yes, and that is the primary reason I throw-away the ROI I could be making from my 800K baht, by paying an agent for a fraction of the incurred-losses. That said, they would have to show in-court an expat's knowledge that their agent-money was "paying a bribe," vs merely "sponsoring" their extension. Also note, the Trump admin just "loosened" enforcement of this policy/law, because it was making "doing business" in places like Thailand, Africa, etc near-impossible, as their economic/govt systems are built upon corruption. Granted, such "leniency" will likely be reserved for billionaires, while the book could be thrown at us "peon" sucker-taxpayer citizens at any time - if only to keep some bureaucrat busy, who could otherwise be doing something useful for us (like providing sworn-affidavits of our income-statements).

Ah, yes - so much better if we have to get married to our Thai wives in Singapore or similar, then go through the rigamarole of "authenticating" that "foreign marriage." So, save $50, and spend 10x+ that, plus additional bureaucratic-hell, instead? That 25,000 x $50 = $1,250,000 in revenue. Not enough to pay for the staff to do it? Ok, make it $75. Folks like you don't have to use the service, if you don't want. I am sure many Americans would love to get the job working at the embassy doing that; fed-jobs have great $$ + benefits, after all.

It is the US Govt's job to serve it's citizens - not run espionage under embassy-cover, operating for the interests crony deep-pockets. The cronies' budget is never cut, as we get subjected to various forms of "austerity," allegedly to "save money" - an infinitesimal amount by comparison, in any case, for which I suggested simply charging us at-cost. Notarizing documents showing our income should have been the workaround / solution. Its a federal-felony to lie / use forged documents for such. If Thailand believed such was occurring, they could refer it to the local US-FBI office for prosecution.

"Honesty and Intentions" to do what? Paying our own way, as we must without exception, to continue living here? How would one not be "financially independent of the state" of Thailand, as a foreigner here? What welfare programs are available for us? None. Requiring health-care could come into this, but they had to "corrupt" that up, by rejecting high-quality options, in-lieu of scammy plans from local cronies on a list of "acceptable" options - with immigration's usual agent-workaround, of course. A low fee-to-enter Thailand (repeatedly proposed / never implemented) could easily cover all foreigners emergency health services, in any case - the logical solution, which avoids paperwork / verification, etc.

I hope the USA and other embassies provide everything which can help US Expats support their stay in Thailand, and charge only what it costs to provide those services, for which we have always been required to pay. That should be one of their top primary duties.

Changes since include: 1) Not being able to show the 65K as "total income" - vs "income transferred to Thailand" - when the embassy-letters stop for your country. 2) The change from 800K in the bank + 2 months living expenses to needing to show 800K in the bank for 5 months + early-submission time + 400K you can never use. No "grandfathering" was permitted for either of these changes - a departure from their previous policy of not changing the requirements for those already established/retired here.

No and No. In Thailand, the bribes to enter "hassle fee" are paid through agents - rarely directly to Immigration officials. This allows them to pretend not to be as corrupt as India, etc.

While a Tourist Visa was less-likely to result in rejected-entry than Visa-Exempt, people have been denied-entry on Tourist-Visas, including METV entries - unless using agent-assisted service (agent-van for land-borders or "guaranteed entry" service by air).

Pay the agent, and you can stay even easier. That is how they operate here. Feel free to link to one, and we can continue this discussion there. Bottom-line figures: Condo rent starts ~5K (cheap 'rooms' less). Elec water w/ reasonable air-con use under 2K. Order food delivered-free from Makro / Lotus - costs more if you want a bunch of imports, but very inexpensive if you LIKE Thai food (which is better than most). All the rest is extra - eating out, bars, travel - whatever floats their boat. Total spend "on the cheap" is still multiple Thai salaries. Surplus to the crazy 65K can be invested back-home, also - much wiser, economically, than spending it all to "live" (exist) back there.

Some agents need a mobile-phone with some crazy xfer limit set - but others do not. Some agents use specific banks (not all use BKB), but most can open an account at their preferred bank with him - and because he is on a non-imm extension now, opening a new account is easier.

Note that your past time in Thailand. before the recent 45 days, comes into the equation. The tourist-entries / time in prior years, if you previously had an ED or Volunteer visa, or a Covid extension, etc. Yes, there is a better option - Poipet being the absolute worst entry point to Thailand, and Bangkok airports' immigration the 2nd worst option. You can take a bus to Battambang, then take a mini-van or taxi (shared or private) to Ban Laem, and enter Thailand from there.

Some offices have agent service - others do not. Some offices demand "source" documents, which they cannot verify, so could be photo-shopped - as usual, Immigration's actions are only targeting honest / no-agent applicants. Though, I do agree that most folks choose agent-service over transfer-hassles, given agents are available where the majority of foreigners live.

Most people were not willing to commit a felony by lying on an income affidavit - and many countries embassies which no longer issue them DID check the documentation - were legally allowed to do this, whereas the USA law doesn't permit consulate-staff to do this. The only people being "bitten" are HONEST people - not those who merely switched to immigration's agent-partners - the only logical-reason why Thai-Immigration initiated this issue with the USA/Australia/UK, some years back. Norway's recent decision is a separate issue - no indication Thai immigration were involved - but note they did verify the documents / income. Where "small margins" means having multiples more than required to live here comfortably in a condo? The last place one would want to be on a smaller limited income is a country where living expenses are multiples higher. Why would anyone want to live poor in the West, vs live well here - as their spent-money also employs multiple Thai people? It's a "win-win" for all concerned. Of course one needs to have a "buffer" of cash (here, or in one's home-account) to cover an emergency departure, but that is a fraction of what is demanded to avoid being forced to an agent. Also, a sane person will have health-insurance, or a fund for this, if too old to get it.