Mattd

4 minutes ago, 007 RED said:

Although it is possible that immigration might pick up on a ban 12 years ago, I very much doubt that they will board the vessel and ‘drag’ the OP off the ship if he/she has elected not to disembark.  There would be no point.

 

As for security, again according to the Immigration Act B.E.2422  Section 27(1) the owner/person in charge is responsible for ensuring that no one leaves the vessel without permission from a ‘competent official’ (read immigration officer) .  There are very substantial penalties if there is a breach of these regulations.

I agree there would be no point, trouble is, logic doesn't prevail here at times, as we are very aware of!

Agreed it is the vessel operator that is responsible, trouble is ports have more holes in them than a colander, especially if the disembarkation is via ferry boat, it is, I feel, going to somewhat depend on whether the blacklist does come out and if the Thai authorities get some crazy notion that this is a backdoor entry attempt by the OP.

Just now, ubonjoe said:

If people would read his reply to one of my posts on page one he is already in the process of getting his records checked.

I saw this, it is certainly one way of finding out the blacklisted side, what it won't tell is what the authorities will do if she is onboard and stays onboard whilst in port, that part is unknown, I will be amazed if they do not have a regulation in place for these instances, I might even try contacting a mate at a ship agency and ask his advice, can't be the first time this has come up and it has tweeked my interest now!!

20 minutes ago, 007 RED said:

However, I would concur with a number of other poster who have indicated that only passengers who have chosen to disembark the vessel will have their passports examined and stamped prior to disembarkation.  Those who do not disembark do not have their passport stamped – why would they when they have not been granted entry.  This has certainly been my experience on the cruises that my wife and I have taken during the past 10 years.

100% agree, I am not saying her passport will be submitted to disembark, what I am saying is that her blacklisting will come up prior to arrival and like APIS it would say no can get off, the issue is more of one of security, unlike an airport, ships and ports are relatively easy to get off and through and the authorities know this, which may or may not be a problem for the OP.

I do think that on the balance of probabilities all will be fine and immigration will just insist she stays onboard.

I for one will be very interested to know how this pans out.

2 minutes ago, Evilbaz said:

 

This is my actual experience.

Your passport is not stamped to allow entry into that port unless you apply to do so onboard.

To exit the ship you need a stamped passport and a Ship's exit/entry card.

Both are checked on entry and exit and your passport is surrendered for a Thai exit stamp.

They are meticulous on who is allowed on or off.

 

Befriend the Purser early!

They wont accept tips but love compliments and particularly submitted favourable Good Job forms.

Thanks, this does make some sense, it must differ by cruise line, some good friends arrived in to LCB from Southampton on Arcadia and apart from submitting their passports before arriving, then no other passport checks were made, they were given an exit card at the same time as their passport and that is all they showed at the gangway to get off, mind you in their case, they were terminating here, as this was where they lived at that time.

I picked them up from the port and was quite shocked with the lack of security etc. both from the port and the ship, given the ISPS rulkes that are supposed to be in place.

What doesn't change though is the fact that the details of ALL persons onboard will have been sent to the Port Authority, who will then pass to immigration, so any blacklists etc. etc. will be picked up then.

On a smaller scale, I managed a fleet of diving and ROV support vessels (Thai owned, foreign flagged) coming and going in to ports throughout Thailand, once the guys were stamped in, then the passports were never checked once after that.

4 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

I do not see any value in having cruise company, Captains or anyone asking their Phuket agents for 'advice' from Thai Immigration.

There are pluses and negatives to this, I'm not so sure that immigration would give their advice, so much as they could confirm that the OP comes up on the blacklist and what their official line would be in that case, they could well be OK with the OP staying on board, the problem is how to guarantee that.

Worse case is they might detail the OP and then release her just prior to the vessel departing, I do not think they would deport via air in this instance, particularly as the OP isn't really trying to enter Thailand.

For sure, if she is showing up on a blacklist this will be known well before the vessel arrives.

16 minutes ago, Aditi Sharma said:

 

It can equally be a nightmare on board unless they have a way of ordering all of the passengers in one place. 

The passengers won't even see an immigration officer, it will be done whilst they sleep.

8 minutes ago, Aditi Sharma said:

1. When do you mean?

2. Why would they board the vessel?

 

Thanks!

 

 

1. When getting off the cruise ship in Phuket, so before boarding the bus for a tour, getting in a taxi etc. at the point of entry in to Thailand,

2. They have to get on to a cruise ship before she arrives in to port, to stamp all of the passengers (and crew) passports prior to them getting off, it would be one big logistical nightmare if they didn't!

Think of over 10 A380's landing in to a small airport at exactly the same time and only 3 or 4 immigration desks open and those same A380's take off at exactly the same time in 12 odd hours time, would be just enough time to get stamped in and out again!

16 minutes ago, Evilbaz said:

So this differs to a person in transit at a foreign airport?

How?

The car example has entered Tha-Land.

Accepted the car has entered via a land border, the point being that the ship has entered Thailand by being in port, or more correctly so, by being within the 12 NM zone.

Once that entry is made, then the regulations of Thailand prevail in terms of immigration etc. and a passenger or crew could be arrested if they were wanted by the authorities for whatever reason.

I admit am not very familiar with Phuket and cruise ships, I do believe the bigger ones ferry passengers in via smaller boats?

Laem Chabang (LCB) I am very familiar with and the difference between a transiting plane and ship is plain to see there, a passenger in transit on a plane cannot physically get past the border controls without passing immigration, whereas once a vessel is cleared in to LCB, then passengers are free to go and come, there are zero checks of passports or baggage etc. once the vessel berths, so even if a passenger said they wanted to stay onboard, there is really very little stopping them from getting off if they so wished.

Which is why I asked if anybody physically checked your passport (apart from immigration officers the night before arriving in to port) when you got off the ship and when you got back on again?

The very fact that immigration board the vessel before arriving in to port does tell you that the clearance is already done, as I said before, in the case of a cruise ship, it has to be all done, otherwise it would simply take too long to do upon arrival, these things rarely stay more than 24 hours at the most, imagine 5,000 people trying to clear immigration at once in a relatively small port 

In this case, they may well be satisfied with her staying onboard, no way of knowing unless they try to check beforehand, the agents can do this, of that I am sure.

2 minutes ago, Aditi Sharma said:

I think OP ought to have got the message. It's her call now.  Might consider the below-quoted idea, it's brilliant! Hope all her family members are carrying mobile phones. 

 

It is an option that would avoid any possible repercussions, however, it could be costly and also it would mean missing out on a part of the cruise already paid for.

I would be talking to the purser and perhaps get the Master to contact the shipping agents in Phuket, who could make advance inquiries of the Thai Authorities as to the position they will take, then go from there.

It may well be that they will accept just staying onboard.

23 minutes ago, Evilbaz said:

Rubbish - you need an entry stamp to disembark in Phuket.

You have to actively apply for it via submitting your passport to the Purser.

I've done this - have You?

The Ship is in Thai waters but you are not unless you leave the sanctuary of the Ship (which many choose not to do).

I've worked and still do, in International Shipping for over 30 years and I absolutely guarantee this is not rubbish, the vessel will almost certainly be pre-cleared in to the port, the logistics of not doing this are very clear to see, the physical stamping of the passports is only a SMALL part of a vessel's inward and outward clearance, there is a lot more to it than just that.

As I have stated, the ship's agents will have submitted all of the certification and documentation to the port authority in advance of the vessel arriving in to port, there are bunch of IMO FAL forms to send in, one of these is a passenger list, which has details of the passengers, including full name, nationality passport number and date and place of of birth, this is what will be used to pre-clear the folks onboard prior to the physical boarding of immigration at latest the night before the arrival.

http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Facilitation/FormsCertificates/Pages/Default.aspx

The vessel may be foreign flagged, but it can be boarded by the Thai authorities for whatever reason they like, port state control inspection, customs inspection etc. etc. and is not a sanctuary for illegals.

Liken it to a foreign registered car that was in Thailand!

1 minute ago, FritsSikkink said:

"in the sanctuary of the ship's registered country - not Thai waters!."

Nonsense, you are in Thai waters and they can arrest you if they want to.

Absolutely correct

21 minutes ago, Evilbaz said:

If you don't want to disembark, do nothing and stay on the ship, eat, drink and swim without crowds in the sanctuary of the ship's registered country - not Thai waters!.

That is not strictly correct, for the vessel to enter in to port it will require inward port clearance, which will also involve clearance of the persons onboard, I am 99% sure that this clearance is done via the ship's agents submitting all of the statutory and class certification, plus a crew list in advance, the fact that you give or do not give your passport is irrelevant to this clearance and this is where it is most likely to pick up the blacklist.

The fact that the vessel is in port means that is is cleared in to the country and the crew / passengers can freely get on or off the ship.

When you disembarked or boarded in Thailand, then did anybody ever physically check your passport apart from when it was stamped the night before?

A good example of this is India, whereby any country requiring a visa would need to get this visa before boarding the ship whether or not they intend on actually getting off the ship, if there are two Indian port calls, then a ME visa is required, sounds daft, but it is true.

Just now, ubonjoe said:

The non-f visa can be issued for several different types official duties. As I wrote he has the correct visa for what he is doing.

Yes, I edited my original post, as further research does reveal this, you live and learn!

Non-Immigrant Visa Type “F” may be granted to holder of ordinary passports who are invited to work or train with the Royal Thai Government or the United Nations agencies in Thailand.

A Non Immigrant F visa is normally issued to perform official duties, for example an Ordinary (Non Diplomatic) passport holder to perform duties at an embassy.

So it appears that this may well have been issued in error.

Not sure if you can work in the capacity offered using this class of visa, perhaps others can answer that.

Edit: Concur with UJ on this after more research, you learn something new everyday! 

The ship and all of those onboard will be required to clear in to Thailand, there is no way around that part.

The normal procedure for cruise ships is that Immigration will board the vessel at the port call prior to Thailand and carry out the clearances during the transit to the Thai port, depending on the vessel's route then they maybe onboard for up to 2 days, I'm guessing that the port prior to Phuket will possibly be Singapore?

As suggested, talk to the purser, it highly probable that the cruise line submit a passenger / crew list to the Thai Immigration some days in advance and therefore the checks are completed before the immigration officers boarding at the prior port to Phuket, if this is the case, then you will (should) have some advanced warning of whether or not you have an issue.

Otherwise, depending on the availability of efficient communications during the transit, then there is a small possibility that all of the passport clearances will be completed without any checks, then, upon arrival in to Phuket, immigration would depart the vessel and go to their office and enter the info into the database.

They do it this way to speed up the clearances, as some cruise ships can have upwards of 5,000 people onboard and are usually only in port for 12 hours or so, to do the immigration clearance upon arrival is just not practical.

Are you able to get off the vessel in the port prior to Thailand, then fly to the port that will be after Phuket and rejoin?

The issue the Thai authorities may have is guaranteeing that you will not disembark in Phuket, unless, perhaps, the Master gives some sort of guarantee of detaining you onboard.

There is always the possibility that they remove you from the vessel, place you in detention, then escort back to the vessel just prior to departure.

As of January 1st this year, citizens from eligible countries get 30 days at a land border, but are allowed to do only 2 land border entries per calendar year.

9 hours ago, wgdanson said:

Do it in Excell.......easy, or count on your fingers, or look at a calendar. 90 minus 1 for first day and one for the day you leave  = 88.

For those that have Windows 10, the built in calculator can be very easily used to calculate dates, Drop down to Date Calculation -> Add or Subtract Days, then for a 90 day report for example, enter the last report date or last date of entry, plus 89 days and it will give you the new report date.

The usual mistake for most is not realising that the report or entry date is counted as day one, as it would not necessarily be in most of the countries we derive from.

I had the same forms from both of my Lloyds accounts, one in the UK and one offshore, although I differ from you in that I work and pay tax in Thailand, so do have a Thai TIN.

What amazed me was the supporting documentation that they needed for a 'self certification', if I were to have followed this to the letter, then it would have cost a lot of money, as the required documents needed certifying by persons who are not easy to get hold of!

In the end I sent them a copy of my Thai work permit, passport and a scan of a residence certificate that the British Embassy did last year for a change of address in the car blue book, none of them certified, so far not heard back from them.

Worse case they say they will share info with HRMC, which is fine with me!

First off, I'm not Australian 

I understand the frustration and it does seem a bit stupid on face value, however, a bit of research revealed that the original biometric data may not have been retained once the visa was issued and used, due to the principles that are contained in the Privacy Act 1988.

That Act provides that, where personal information is no longer needed for any purpose for which it may have been used or disclosed, the relevant entity must take such steps, as are reasonable in the circumstances to destroy the information, or to ensure that the information is de‑identified.

Just now, elviajero said:

Yes. 

I only asked as that form is actually a form that gives one of the parents consent to take a child overseas, or at least the modified wording in English states this.

So far, I've seen 3 different versions of consent forms if you include that one.

Knowing how inflexible Thai bureaucracy can be, then it would pay to be absolutely sure, especially as this form has to be seemingly notarised in the UK prior to the Embassy.

This form from a Kiwi based consulate, different format again.

consent.pdf

18 minutes ago, Eaglekott said:

Must I leave Thailand to change? First part say "would be no need" and then I have to?

As far as I am aware you should be able to change the reason for your extension of stay from work to marriage whilst using the original non b category without having to go and get a new non-o visa.

You may continue to work, as you still hold a non immigrant visa extension and there should be no reason why this would affect your PR application, so long as the period in Thailand and the number of years of tax payments / work permits are unbroken as per the rules.

In fact, leaving the Country, applying for a non-o visa and then an extension may well jeopardise the PR application.

4 minutes ago, AUNG ZAW BA said:

so you mean I can get the re entry permit and need to enter before 25 November . Right?

 

To keep your single entry alive if you need to leave Thailand between now and the 25th November, then you need a re-entry permit, if you depart without, the non-b visa is dead, as it is a single entry visa.

A re-entry permit will not extend the visit, it will just allow you to depart and return again, upon return you would be given permission to stay until 25th November.

If you arrive after this date you will need a new visa if continuing to work.

1 minute ago, jackdd said:

What i found on google: http://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/legislation/country/thailand/summary

"Non-air conditioned facilities serving food and/or drinks are smoke free only in the areas where food and/or drinks are served."

In a restaurant / bar the food and drinks are usually served everywhere, so this would mean smoking there is forbidden.

Interesting, though in reality 99% of bars / restaurants allow smoking, air con or not!

28 minutes ago, jackdd said:

Smoking at restaurants is forbidden

Only air conditioned ones 

2 hours ago, impulse said:

 

Why?  They're just the public face of the real power- $$$.  Perhaps a dozen families that keep Thailand's masses poorly educated, compliant, and subservient.

 

Just like elected officials don't hold the real power.

 

 

Sad as it is. this is very close to the truth, those that do hold the true power are the ones that control the majority of the wealth in Thailand, it is certainly not in their interests to educate the masses, education would mean that the masses might start to understand and question the existing system.

History has proven itself time and time again that this is the case, as soon as a Government starts to make significant changes that may benefit the masses and threaten this power base, then the orders are given and the military does the rest, look back and analyse each time.

Whenever the general public try to have a serious voice and it threatens the power base, it is squashed.

Unfortunately, Thailand is long way off being considered a developed nation, it could be one of the richest in the world and still would not be truly developed, 98% of the country would never see or benefit from that wealth.

Wealth doesn't make the country developed, unless it is allowed to.