sylver

Sorry about that. My mistake.

To get back on topic, I was over in Vientienne a few days ago. I was issued a double entry without red stamp.

No problem, let's move on ...

It would be helpful if you could let us know how many tourist visas/entries you have previously had, and if they were from Vientiane.

I had 2 tourist visas in that passport for a total of 3 entries. A double entry from Vientienne and a single from KL. The new visa brings that total to 5. However, it should be noted that my previous passport was stolen less than a year ago, so this passport is almost new, with a few short trips overseas and some visa runs, but I am pretty sure a quick look in their computer would indicate a somewhat larger number of tourist visas.

The other French guy had 5 entries when he asked for a tourist visa.

It might be that not putting a red stamp on my passport was a mistake, but most likely I suspect they have a quota to fill out. There were about 300+ people that day (typical for Vientienne) and I would guess more than half of them are staying on tourist visas long term. (just a wild guess) If most of them had a red stamp, I imagine there would have been more of a commotion.

It says "May not", not "will not". Correct? Until someone returns to Vientienne with that stamp in their passport and gets denied a visa, it's speculation, not fact. Also, that does not mean they may not apply at another location. So, still it's also possible they will not be denied entry to Thailand. As I said before, perhaps you should do a little more research before writing about something you apparently know little about.

Indeed it says "may".

However the verb "may" has several meanings. It can express possibility, as in "we may go to the beach" or it can express permission as in "you may not reproduce this document without written autorization from the author". "May" is somewhat more formal than "can" or "must", but its meaning is unfortunately just as inescapable.

- "May I leave the table?"

- "No, you may not"

This does not mean that there is a chance you won't be able to leave the table. It means that you are not authorized to do so.

Or the classic:

"You can go, but you may not" which means that the person has the physical ability to go, but not the permission.

In the context of a red stamp in a passport, it is unfortunately rather clear that "may" expresses permission, not possibility, and that in this case, the permission is denied.

I invite you to check it up in a good dictionary (Webster or Encarta would be fine, def #3 on both) or in a good English grammar.

Now, I would appreciate if you could refrain from trying to make your points by attempting to discredit me rather than debating my points on their own merits. I am here to exchange ideas and information. Not to get in a fight with strangers.

... I haven't seen that anyone was denied a visa, only that some were given a red stamp along with their visa. I won't speculate on the future, as I would prefer to base my posts on the current facts, apparently something you have little regard for.

...

Text of the red stamp states that the recipient is denied further tourist visas. "The Embassy may not accept the application next time."

So as of right now, based on available evidence, a person receiving a red stamp is denied further visa application. You are welcome to speculate that this might change in the future, but as of right now, if your passport as a red stamp, your next application is denied. To me, this looks very much one of those "current facts".

...

Now, again the topic is about receiving red stamps from Vientienne, if you want to start a political discussion on Thai immigration policy, why not start another thread.

I saw nothing in the first post nor in the post title that would limit the discussion to that. However, I understand from Thaiphoon's explanation that it originated from another thread for that specific purpose (which I didn't know) and I will therefore stop discussing the broader subject of immigration policy on this thread.

You may or may not agree with what I am saying, but if you care to read my posts carefully, you may find that they are in fact discussing this very topic.

Actually, Sylver, you discussions are well off topic on this thread. This thread was set up for FACTUAL information on people's visits to Vientianne to try to ascertain the pattern of issue of Red Stamps from Vientianne. The thread was not set up for general discussion on back to back tourist visas. There is a separate thread for that here:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Crackdown-To...at-t297046.html

I see that you only joined Thaivisa 2 days ago. Perhaps you have not looked through this thread from the beginning. If you have you will see messages and reminders from the Mods what this thread is for. Please respect that and post general discussions points in the other thread. Postings have already been deleted here for being off topic. Your points are interesting, but this thread is not really the right place for those discussions. Thank you for your understanding.

Sorry about that. My mistake.

To get back on topic, I was over in Vientienne a few days ago. I was issued a double entry without red stamp. However a fellow frenchman who sat next to me on the bus back had a red stamp with "7" as the limit.

I am not sure why he got one and I didn't. I am in my early thirties and do not have employment or business in Thailand, whereas my fellow traveller seemed somewhat older and works in the Thai film industry on an intermitent basis, but I doubt they could infer that from our respective passports, so that's probably not the explanation.

I agree, Kuhn Sylver, that you make some very valid points. Here is the link to the UDHR in Thai language script on the United Nations official website:

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDH...lations/thj.pdf

I suggest that you print out a copy or 2 and hand it to the Immigration Agent sitting behind the desk at Suvarnabhumi or Nong Khai and tell them that by provisions agreed upon by the Thai Government in 1948 you should be admitted entry to the Kingdom. Let us know how things work out.

lol.

I will wait a bit to give the Thai government some time to address other somewhat more pressing violations of the said declaration. To give a couple examples, there are a bunch of people in northern Thailand who do not have a nationality (article 15) and Thai jails are notorious for being somewhat short on article 5. Then I heard some mentions that article 21, #3 has been subject to some abuse in recent years.

I would think twice about cutting in front of a 10 wheeler that went past a red light. Still, I believe that it should have stopped and allowed me to go through when it was my turn. Don't you?

I agree, Kuhn Sylver, that you make some very valid points. Here is the link to the UDHR in Thai language script on the United Nations official website:

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDH...lations/thj.pdf

I suggest that you print out a copy or 2 and hand it to the Immigration Agent sitting behind the desk at Suvarnabhumi or Nong Khai and tell them that by provisions agreed upon by the Thai Government in 1948 you should be admitted entry to the Kingdom. Let us know how things work out.

Why bother, unless he is a criminal or some other valid reason to be refused entry, probably all he needs to do is apply for a visa, or complete an arrival card.

Again, this has nothing to do with "Red Warning Stamps at Vientienne".

The "Red warning stamps at Vientienne" is discussing the ability of foreigners to enter and stay in Thailand long term through repeated use of the tourist visa, and the fact that by limiting issuance of the said tourist visa, the Thai governement is denying at term (assuming they follow through with the warnings) entry to a large number of foreigners who wish to live in Thailand and do not fit in other categories.

You may or may not agree with what I am saying, but if you care to read my posts carefully, you may find that they are in fact discussing this very topic.

The problem here is that there is no real alternative to that crutch we call the tourist visa. Married people with children who don't make enough money (even though "not enough" could very easily be twice the national average income) have been using the tourist visa to keep their life together.

That's just not true. If married to a Thai there is no financial requirement to be granted a Non-O visa.

Thaivisa page on the Non immigrant O visa indicates a THB 40,000/month requirement. Is that not true?

...

I'm quite interested in your post from the perspective that I had not been aware of the document in the past. I guess I have heard of it somewhere along the line, but I had never read it. So, thank you for pointing me in that direction.

I admire your honesty. Few have actually read that declaration and perhaps even fewer would admit they don't know actually know what it is about.

Where I perceive the problem is that I believe you are misreading the document.

For example, it says:

"Article 13:

• (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
  
• (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."
  

You'll note it says the right to freedom of movement and residence WITHIN the borders of each state and then adds you have a right to leave your country and return to your country. That does say or imply that you have the freedom to take up residence in another country.

Yet, the freedom to leave a country does suggest the ability of entering another country, doesn't it? Not being able to enter and be in other countries would make it fairly difficult to leave your own.

Article 21 says:

• "(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
  
• (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country."
  

The key word here is "his country". It does not say is somebody else's country.

I don't recall mentionning anything about foreigners taking any part in the Thai government nor foreigners having access to public services in Thailand equal to those of the Thais. And I also did not call for a "borderless world," considering that it would be a lot more than just the freedom to move and be in different places (consider for instance the commercial aspects of borders, which are not )

You're trying to read a "borderless world" into the document. It's not there.

You want your rights to be what you define them to be. That's not the way international law works.

I am aware that I am taking a rather broad view of human rights, and that I tend to err on the side of freedom, but my interpretation of those rights is not exactly unsupported. There has been a lot of arguments about the spirit of the law. Reading again articles 1, 2, 13, 23 and 28, I get the idea of a brotherhood of men, where people are not discriminated against on the basis of where they come from or where they were born, but on the basis of what they do. A world where people are free to move and live their lives as they see fit, as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others.

A world were people are considered to be an asset rather than a liability.

And you know, that wouldn't be such a bad world.

...

I guess I want to ask a question, and I honestly don't know the answer...so it is a real question, not a rhetorical one. Which countries in the world are more liberal about things like tourist visas, retirement visas, and so forth? Almost certainly not the countries almost all of us are from. So which desirable countries are more liberal?

You are missing the problem. The tourist visa by itself is not so much of a problem.

The problem is that Thai law is missing several categories of visa allowing foreign people to build a life in this part of the planet (part of the universal declaration of Human Rights, which has been agreed upon in Bangkok, for the whole asian region). The flexibility of the tourist visa was partly compensating for that problem.

Fixing the Tourist visa by itself isn't a problem, but doing so without fixing the issues that it was covering for is.

Do you think that liking Thailand and wanting to live here is a crime? Is working a crime? No, it's not. In fact, you have a human right to work. And since these rights are inalienable, any law to the contrary is wrong.

The problem here is that there is no real alternative to that crutch we call the tourist visa. Married people with children who don't make enough money (even though "not enough" could very easily be twice the national average income) have been using the tourist visa to keep their life together. People who have sufficient finances to support themselves and enjoy being here (genuine long term tourists - they exist)

You'll note in my original post that I said I didn't understand the whole issue. You'll note that I said I was asking a legitimate question. So, I already admitted that I was missing the point.

No, liking Thailand and wanting to live here is not a crime. Nor, since you are not a Thai citizen is it your right.

No, working is not a crime. But since you are not a Thai citizen it is not a right you have to work in Thailand.

So the Universal Human Rights are not applicable to Thailand? We were born free and equal in rights on the same planet. We have the freedom to move, which includes also movement between countries.

I agree that a lot of laws are contrary to the spirit of the human rights and that most countries seriously neglect the universal declaration of human rights they have signed and often added to their constitution. That doesn't make it right.

Not allowing "farangs" to live and work here is a minor violation compared to the countless number of considerably more critical violations of human rights perpetrated the world over, but that still doesn't make it right.

Anyway, my point wasn't to start a lofty discussion of the rights of man, but to state something which I think is pretty obvious:

There is nothing criminal in wanting to stay in Thailand and there is nothing criminal in wanting to work here. Farangs coming here, working and contributing to the Thai society does not constitute a problem, except for a xenophobic minority. Making a law that makes it criminal, and then saying that people doing it are criminals is a prime example of circular reasoning. And then you get the whole problem of dealing with those "criminals".

Immigration laws have been purported to solve a number of issues ranging from stopping terrorism to curbing prostitution and getting tax evasion under control, to quote the most common justifications for a tightening of immigration laws. I have yet to see any evidence that these measures are working in any way, and these purposes could be much better served through actions directly addressing the problems that immigration control are supposed to fix. If the Thai autorities really wanted to close the farang redlight areas, they could do so within a week. Terrorism doesn't require long term access to a country so immigration laws are irrelevant and tax collection would be better served with permissive immigration rules.

I imagine that you and I disagree on the definition of "tourist".

Don't get me wrong, I love that I can come here on a "retirement visa". But I just don't see it as a right; I see it as a distinct privilege.

I don't think we disagree on that definition. "A person who travels away from home for pleasure purposes." Implicitly, that would rule out foreigners living in Thailand and who plan to continue living in Thailand indefinitely.

The point is that practically speaking, there are very little alternatives for a foreigner wishing to stay legally in Thailand and pretty much all of them include no guarantee on the long term. Even the "easy" categories offer no guarantees. Maried and with kids? Still have to apply for visa every year. And it could be refused without any right of appeal. Retired? Still have to apply and justify of your finances regularly. And the requirements could easily change (and they do). Investment? Same deal. And same problems in regards to changing requirements and possible rejection.

And if you are younger than 50, not married to a Thai and don't have 10 millions bahts in spare change, your options get very scarce. As a matter of fact, they don't exist. There are many ways to go around the regulations, such as creating a company, getting a business visa to "investigate business opportunities in Thailand", or getting a tourist visa and going back and forth, or a few other similar scheme which all have in common the fact that you have to pretend being in one category or another. Why should someone start a company, hire employees and turn over 51% of the shares to some guy/girl whose only qualification is to be Thai just to be allowed temporarly in the country?

At the end of the day, being a tourist is the closest thing to a honest option. In Thailand for pleasure. Repeatedly.

It is a rather poor solution, but hey, a poor solution is a lot better than no solution at all. If someone endeavours to bring a new statute for foreigners which recognizes that we have the right to exist and live here safely and which lays out reasonable expectations from us (like paying fair taxes, respecting local laws...), I would be more than happy to apply.

While I understand the personal inconveniences that may be caused by what appears to be happening. I'm not so clear about various posters' attitudes about it.

Certainly there has been a ton of whining in the TV forums about Thailand being a country where laws are not abided by. Now the complaint seems to be that the laws are being more closely followed.

It appears to me that the people who are having a problem are people who have not been following the letter or even the spirit of the laws. For example, people who appear to be making a life out of being a "tourist" to Thailand.

I guess I want to ask a question, and I honestly don't know the answer...so it is a real question, not a rhetorical one. Which countries in the world are more liberal about things like tourist visas, retirement visas, and so forth? Almost certainly not the countries almost all of us are from. So which desirable countries are more liberal?

You are missing the problem. The tourist visa by itself is not so much of a problem.

The problem is that Thai law is missing several categories of visa allowing foreign people to build a life in this part of the planet (part of the universal declaration of Human Rights, which has been agreed upon in Bangkok, for the whole asian region). The flexibility of the tourist visa was partly compensating for that problem.

Fixing the Tourist visa by itself isn't a problem, but doing so without fixing the issues that it was covering for is.

Do you think that liking Thailand and wanting to live here is a crime? Is working a crime? No, it's not. In fact, you have a human right to work. And since these rights are inalienable, any law to the contrary is wrong.

The problem here is that there is no real alternative to that crutch we call the tourist visa. Married people with children who don't make enough money (even though "not enough" could very easily be twice the national average income) have been using the tourist visa to keep their life together. People who have sufficient finances to support themselves and enjoy being here (genuine long term tourists - they exist)

Sorry, running out of time. I will complete that post later.

"I'm in Thailand on a 30 day entry stamp, my return to work has been delayed and I now need to stay in Thailand for 4 days more than my stamp allows."

Why would you DELIBERATELY break the law?

Because I don't know what the law is here and if overstaying is a serious breach of it.

You do know the law. The stamp on your passport specifically states until when you are allowed in the country. What you didn't know was if it was being enforced. You are not at liberty to break the law just because it isn't enforced.

When I was in the Philippines last year I overstayed about 8 days because there was no immigration on the Island I was visiting and couldn't do anything until I got to Manila - to me any Visa infrignement was very serious but it was absolutely no bother at all, I just went to a visa shop in Manila and they got me an extension for another month on top of a £10 fine for overstaying in about 2 days. The overstay just seemed to be normal practice so as I only need another 4 days in Thailand until I go back abroad to work, I will even get my flights confirmed tomorrow, then I wasn't sure if it was just the done thing to pay a small overstay fine at the airport for this cause.

I have read a few stories of people getting jailed for a very short overstay, missing their planes because they were in jail and having to arrange another plane ticket from jail. Search the net.

Anyways, looks like I will be getting an extension as I don't want to spend the next two weeks worrying about any "what if's".

Thanks for the replies guys.

So my next question, is an extension guaranteed? Will I definitely get one??

No one can guarantee anything, but that said, I have never heard of anyone being denied an extension.

I'm in Thailand on a 30 day entry stamp, my return to work has been delayed and I now need to stay in Thailand for 4 days more than my stamp allows.

I know I can go to immigration and apply for an extension for 1900 Baht, but the overstay fine will also be 2000 Baht, so should I just save myself the hassle of applying for an extension and just pay the fine at the airport when I leave? Is this a viable option?

I've never overstayed a visa in Thailand before so I don't know what the implications of it are. Could there be any reprocussions in the future when I return to Thailand if I deliberately overstay?

Thanks.

As mentionned by others, overstaying could get you into serious trouble. While the odds that you get into trouble for it are low, it's simply not worth the risk.