Rob Browder

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.

Better to fly/go to Vientiane, apply/get a Non-O Visa there (takes a couple days), then come back on that. This avoids dealing with the "Non-O Conversion" lady at Jomtien who wants 15K Baht payoff to follow the written rules, plus 2 trips there to deal with it. It's bad enough having to deal with the historically-abusive 1-year marriage-extension desk staff, there - no sense doubling your pain.

Which is a big lie. There are a limited number of stated reasons under Thai law for denying-entry, in a futile attempt to stop corrupt-practices. None of those legal reasons include "come too often as a tourist." They tell folks they are denying for that, but then put a stamp saying they didn't have the money - as if someone paying for long-haul flights (from UK, after 6-mo out, in your case) is "too poor" to be here. A sane "discretion" would be noting if the person's passport-country minimum-wage is 10x higher than what one can earn working illegally in Thailand - but, this somehow doesn't come into it, as millions of illegal workers are here from neighboring countries, and L-Visas are issued to millions more. Note, the now-gone "2x / year max by land-borders" rule never applied to them - only to us. There are no handouts to foreigners here, so nothing to lose allowing folks in who have no sane reason to work illegally here - only come to spend money. It only makes sense when one understands that "immigration" is just the "front operation" for the real action. If purchasing "safe entry" services via their agent-partners, or using an agent-van service, one can visa-exempt-enter in-perpetuity with same-day in/outs. If the policy was stated clearly, many folks would just follow the rules, and not need agent-service. As well, IOs could get into trouble for violating such for agent-partner payoffs. Again, regarding the now-gone "2x by land" rule, this could not be bypassed by agent-van service - but with that rule gone, agent-van-runs are now unlimited. Written clear policies inhibited the racket, while an absence of such, combined with their reported enforcement actions, make perfect sense in this context.

Years ago, getting the stamp-xfers done at the airport on-departure was standard policy. Sad they stopped doing this - and what (expletive) they won't xfer the stamps at any office - as if Immigration is not one agency under the national govt - rather, a collection of (expletives) fighting over who gets the first-cut of agent-fees.

The owner of where you stay are legally-required to file a TM-30 within 24 hours of your arrival. But, if you do not interact with a local immigration office, this is not enforced at entry/exit points. So, you can definitely get a TM-30 w/o issue. After that, you can apply a residence certificate - though that policy may vary by immigration-office and/or require an agent. To get an annual extension based on marriage to a Thai in the shortest time "in-country," enter with a Non-O 90-day Visa based on marriage, get a re-entry permit for your next monthly in/out, returning before that visa / re-entry expires, then apply for the 1-year extension. Depending on the immigration office, the "under consideration" may run starting 30 days after the last extension's permitted-stay (was at my office), OR, may start on the day of application. To work-around that, you could leave/return on re-entry permits twice in the 90-days (separate re-entry permit for each departure/return), returning with a short-time left on the Non-O Visa's permitted-stay, so that your application can be submitted just before the Non-O Visa's 90-days is over. But beware, some offices hate marriage-based extensions, and may ask for "extra documents" to screw you out of it - delighting in the fact you won't have time to comply before your permitted-stay runs out. Alternatively, you could apply for a Non-O Visa before entering Thailand every visit - avoiding the risk of being denied-entry for "coming too much/often as a tourist" at the airport.

If you use an agent, they don't require any of this. It is the folks NOT using an agent who are targeted, as always. They have required the owner's blue-book + chanote + ID (if renting) for a long time with "too hard / much work" extensions they do not want to process, like marriage/family based ones - but now more offices are hitting retirement-extension folks with it too.

In the past - and possibly ongoing at some offices, one can get the 30-day extension from a tourist entry (TR-Visa or Visa-Exempt), then the 60-day extension after this. Policy varies by office, however - some refusing to follow their own long-existent policies, now.

Another option, if have already used the 60-day "visit family" extension, or it is not enough time to obtain and season 400K in the bank - can go to Vientiane Laos, and get a Non-O 90-day Visa based on marriage. Reports indicate they are issued quickly - within a couple days of filing online (eVisa) and then going to the consulate to pay the fee (2000 Baht). With this, he can also apply for another 60-day extension at immigration.

There is no legal reason to deny-entry for, "Didn't learn Thai well enough in a course, before." The rats (more like termites or ticks, as regards their effect on the health of the country) are those stuffing their pockets with "agent" brown-envelope money, driven by denying-entry on a lie (not enough money), when the OP had the required money.

Or any other language one can study here but Thai - or cooking, etc.

They saw you had an ED in the past, and that put you out of the "occasional tourist" category, whom they are forbidden to hassle. You are now in the "can hassle" category, so need to pay them "tribute" money via their agent-partners to enter by air. They seem to have a "quota" of denials to reach, to increase the fear of denial-of-entry, which increases their extortion-racket revenue. Airport-Immigration don't get a cut of the student-visa agent-money. Different entry-points and offices are in a competition of sorts for cuts of the corruption-money. This is also evident when folks on long-term extensions move offices, and report being required to "re-prove" qualification for their last extension at the prior office. If unwilling to use "safe entry," you can probably enter through any land-border other than Poipet/Aranyaprathet w/o issue, so could fly to Malaysia, or Cambodia, and enter by land. Worst-case in that situation, is you just walk back and cancel your exit-stamp - no detention and forced-flights.

If they cared about the well-being of Thailand - yes - and would scrap "verifying your money" entirely (like Cambodia and Laos), as there are no "benefits" here for foreigners, so any here are either self-funded or homeless. But, they only care about maximizing brown-envelope income from their agent-partners.

Then xfer-back all the rest of un-needed funds, since living well in Thailand is inexpensive - is the primary reason people retire here - unless one has "expensive habits" of some sort.

No - having 65K total income is not the same as xferring it all to Thailand, which was never required until the income-letters stopped. Some folks have expenses at home - so now have to transfer-back funds to cover those.

First application is 25K, because it includes the initial Non-O 90-Day visa. A "renewal" application is only 12.5K baht. In another thread, a poster noted the savings of having your own 800K with them was minimal.