Back to Thailand after getting a 3 year ban

[elviajero]

On 10/24/2017 at 9:47 AM, Just Weird said:

How do you work that out?  If, as unlikely as it is, he is ever given permission to stay before the ban expires by an Immigration Officer and stamped into the country after presenting his legitimate passport then he is then here legally.  Where's the con in that situation?

No he wouldn't be in the country legally because he has been banned.

 

The OP was talking about getting a new passport in a different name from another country. It might be a legitimate passport, but it's only purpose would be to con his way back in.

[bobalolo]

Thanks for everyone who messaged me in private.

I would like for the people who criticize me and happy for me getting banned  that my "crime" did not hurt anyone. I hurt no one and my action had 0% effect on Thailand or Thai people. 

If anyone else has any idea or contact on a way I can get help I am welcome them to send me a message.

[juice777]

If you have dual nationality and a legit passport then it's worth a shot. You would be crazy to try on a fake passport. Get caught and probably banned for life.

Or hopefully a prison sentence

 

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

 

 

Crazy because he might end up in prison and I would have little sympathy for him. Especially as he said he was to lazy to go on visa runs.

[Just Weird]

11 hours ago, elviajero said:

No he wouldn't be in the country legally because he has been banned.

 

The OP was talking about getting a new passport in a different name from another country. It might be a legitimate passport, but it's only purpose would be to con his way back in.

As I have pointed out several times already I was not referring to his getting a new passport.  I was referring to a hypothetical situation that someone mentioned whereby he enters on his original passport and an IO stamps him in.  In that situation he would be here legally because a competent officer has given him permission to stay regardless of a previous ban.  It's hypothetical and it won't happen, I know, but in that scenario having been given permission to stay he could stay, legally.  And that would not be a con.

[007 RED]

53 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

As I have pointed out several times already I was not referring to his getting a new passport.  I was referring to a hypothetical situation that someone mentioned whereby he enters on his original passport and an IO stamps him in.  In that situation he would be here legally because a competent officer has given him permission to stay regardless of a previous ban.  It's hypothetical and it won't happen, I know, but in that scenario having been given permission to stay he could stay, legally.  And that would not be a con.

Hypothetically speaking…. You go to the ATM.  Insert your legit card.  Enter your PIN.  Request 1,000 Baht.  The ATM spews out 100,000 Baht.  You don’t report the error and keep the money.  

A couple of weeks later the cops knock on your door with a CCTV video in hand of you pocketing the money from the ATM .  Have you acquired the money legally? 

 

In your hypothetical example, if the OP was subsequently stopped for whatever reason and it was then discovered that he was in fact banned, he would be arrested and deported under the Immigration Act Section 12(11) and/or Section 36 and/or Section 54.  It is highly possible that his ban would also be increased.

[Just Weird]

3 minutes ago, 007 RED said:

Hypothetically speaking…. You go to the ATM.  Insert your legit card.  Enter your PIN.  Request 1,000 Baht.  The ATM spews out 100,000 Baht.  You don’t report the error and keep the money.  

A couple of weeks later the cops knock on your door with a CCTV video in hand of you pocketing the money from the ATM .  Have you acquired the money legally? 

 

In your hypothetical example, if the OP was subsequently stopped for whatever reason and it was then discovered that he was in fact banned, he would be arrested and deported under the Immigration Act Section 12(11) and/or Section 36 and/or Section 54.  It is highly possible that his ban would also be increased.

Good god...what has stealing cash that's not yours from an ATM got to do with anything?

 

How do you know he would be deported in this hypothetical situation?  He may have been banned but, since the ban, a competent officer (that is who decides whether an individual can be given permission to stay in the country) would have, hypothetically, given him permission to enter and stay.  That makes him legal.

[elviajero]

1 hour ago, Just Weird said:

As I have pointed out several times already I was not referring to his getting a new passport.  I was referring to a hypothetical situation that someone mentioned whereby he enters on his original passport and an IO stamps him in.

Ok, in that scenario they haven't conned (deceived) their way in.

 

1 hour ago, Just Weird said:

In that situation he would be here legally because a competent officer has given him permission to stay regardless of a previous ban.

No he wouldn't legal. He is banned from the country under law, so entering the country without having the ban lifted makes his entry and stay illegal. Being granted permission to stay by the IO does not override the ban.

 

1 hour ago, Just Weird said:

It's hypothetical and it won't happen, I know, but in that scenario having been given permission to stay he could stay, legally. 

If it was discovered that he had entered the country he would almost certainly be arrested, detained and deported, or more likely arrested, detained and taken to court. I'm pretty sure the court would take a dim view and could imprison him for up to 2 years before deporting him.

Edited October 28, 2017 by elviajero

[blackcab]

1 hour ago, Just Weird said:

In that situation he would be here legally because a competent officer has given him permission to stay regardless of a previous ban.

 

The immigration officer would not have the authority to allow him to legally enter the country. That being said, the officer could make an error and allow him to enter.

 

There are numerous cases of posters being granted entry in error. Most often the error is either the wrong class of entry being given, or the wrong duration of stay being given.

 

The consistent advice given on this forum is that even if the entry stamp grants you more time than you should have received, the stamp is an error and you should leave on or by the correct date or face an overstay fine.

 

In the case you mention, the entry stamp would be a complete error because the banned individual should not be in the country at all.

 

If the individual was apprehended inside the country, do you think immigration would:

 

a. agree that the mistake was in any way their fault and allow the matter to be resolved over a cup of tea, or

 

b. arrest him, take him to IDC and then place him in front of the Court?

Edited October 28, 2017 by blackcab

[BritTim]

1 hour ago, Just Weird said:

Good god...what has stealing cash that's not yours from an ATM got to do with anything?

 

How do you know he would be deported in this hypothetical situation?  He may have been banned but, since the ban, a competent officer (that is who decides whether an individual can be given permission to stay in the country) would have, hypothetically, given him permission to enter and stay.  That makes him legal.

I can assure you that, in Thailand, being caught in the country when blacklisted will have you arrested for illegal entry. The defense that the immigration official made a mistake will not help you. Stating that you misunderstood, and believed you were not blacklisted, might get you lenient treatment (if the court believes you) but at a minimum you will be deported.

[Just Weird]

9 hours ago, elviajero said:

Ok, in that scenario they haven't conned (deceived) their way in.

 

No he wouldn't legal. He is banned from the country under law, so entering the country without having the ban lifted makes his entry and stay illegal. Being granted permission to stay by the IO does not override the ban.

 

If it was discovered that he had entered the country he would almost certainly be arrested, detained and deported, or more likely arrested, detained and taken to court. I'm pretty sure the court would take a dim view and could imprison him for up to 2 years before deporting him.

"Being granted permission to stay by the IO does not override the ban."

Really?  Says who if another IO ('a competent officer', you do know what that means, don't you?) gives him permission to enter and stay?

 

"If it was discovered that he had entered the country he would almost certainly be arrested, detained and deported, or more likely arrested, detained and taken to court. I'm pretty sure the court would take a dim view and could imprison him for up to 2 years before deporting him."

Why?  An IO would have given him permission to enter and stay!  Where did you get 2 year imprisonment bit from?  Which court?...he wouldn't have committed an offence!

[Just Weird]

9 hours ago, blackcab said:

 

The immigration officer would not have the authority to allow him to legally enter the country. That being said, the officer could make an error and allow him to enter.

 

There are numerous cases of posters being granted entry in error. Most often the error is either the wrong class of entry being given, or the wrong duration of stay being given.

 

In the case you mention, the entry stamp would be a complete error because the banned individual should not be in the country at all.

 

If the individual was apprehended inside the country, do you think immigration would:

 

a. agree that the mistake was in any way their fault and allow the matter to be resolved over a cup of tea, or

 

b. arrest him, take him to IDC and then place him in front of the Court?

Neither.  Having being being given permission to enter and stay for a specified period he would then be here legally.

[Just Weird]

8 hours ago, BritTim said:

I can assure you that, in Thailand, being caught in the country when blacklisted will have you arrested for illegal entry. The defense that the immigration official made a mistake will not help you. Stating that you misunderstood, and believed you were not blacklisted, might get you lenient treatment (if the court believes you) but at a minimum you will be deported.

I suspect, quite strongly that, you are probably not in a position to assure anyone off anything in this hypothetical case.

[blackcab]

8 hours ago, Just Weird said:

Neither.  Having being being given permission to enter and stay for a specified period he would then be here legally.

 

In this scenario the OP would be erroneously given an entry stamp in his passport and erroneously allowed to enter the country by an immigration officer.

 

The key point to consider is that the immigration officer's erroneous actions would not affect the status of the OP's 3 year ban. An erroneous entry stamp does not cancel a 3 year ban for overstay. Neither does an erroneous entry stamp suspend the overstay ban for the duration of the entry allowed by the stamp.

 

As such, if the OP was discovered in Thailand he would be here while being a banned individual and would be arrested and processed accordingly.

[JackThompson]

8 hours ago, Just Weird said:

I suspect, quite strongly that, you are probably not in a position to assure anyone off anything in this hypothetical case.

What do You Really Believe would happen to him, if caught here during his ban-period?

Do you honestly believe that the authorities would say, "Oh, golly.  He was banned, but we screwed up and let him in.  I guess we have to let him stay now for his full permitted-stay, since he didn't do anything 'wrong'."   Someone might get away with that in Euro/USA, with a good lawyer - but not here. 

 

Consider, he would be viewed has having doubly-disrespected their authority - first by overstaying, then by ignoring the ban.  That would be considered insulting to Immigration and to the whole of Thailand as a sovereign-nation, since control of one's national-borders is the very definition of "having a country."  To believe things would work in any way less than "harsh" for him, under such circumstances, would be quite naive. 

[Just Weird]

3 hours ago, blackcab said:

 

In this scenario the OP would be erroneously given an entry stamp in his passport and erroneously allowed to enter the country by an immigration officer.

 

The key point to consider is that the immigration officer's erroneous actions would not affect the status of the OP's 3 year ban. An erroneous entry stamp does not cancel a 3 year ban for overstay. Neither does an erroneous entry stamp suspend the overstay ban for the duration of the entry allowed by the stamp.

 

As such, if the OP was discovered in Thailand he would be here while being a banned individual and would be arrested and processed accordingly.

That's just your opinion and I do not agree with it, academic as the situation is.  An Immigration Officer gives the ban, an Immigration Officer, hypothetically, stamps him in.  Who says that the entry stamp doesn't count, hypothetically?

[elviajero]

13 hours ago, Just Weird said:

"Being granted permission to stay by the IO does not override the ban."

Really?  Says who if another IO ('a competent officer', you do know what that means, don't you?) gives him permission to enter and stay?

Yes, really! 

Yes I know what "a competent officer" is. And I know that whenever a "competent officer" gives the wrong permission to stay it has to be corrected at the border or a local immigration office.

 

13 hours ago, Just Weird said:

Why?  An IO would have given him permission to enter and stay!  Where did you get 2 year imprisonment bit from?  Which court?...he wouldn't have committed an offence!

Someone being caught in the country that has been banned could have their permission to stay revoked if caught. 

Immigration Act. Section 36 : Where there is a proper reason , the Director General or the Immigration Commission shall have power to revoke permission previously authorized the alien to stay temporary in the Kingdom , whether or not the Director General , or the official deputized by the Director General , has granted such permission...

 

Immigration Act. Section 81 : Any alien who stay in the Kingdom without permission or with permission expired or revoked shall be punished with imprisonment not exceeding two years or a fine not exceeding 20,000 Baht or both.

 

FYI; Section 81 is also the penalty for anyone overstaying. Currently people get fined a maximum of 20K, but they could be sent to prison. I would have thought that someone that has re-entered the country when the know they are banned might not be treated so leniently within the law. Chances are they would just get thrown out again, but if immigration and the court wanted to play hardball they could.

 

Of course he's committed an offence! He's entered the country knowing that he's banned from entering the country. Whether the IO aids and abets, or makes an error doesn't matter. Section 16 has been used to exclude people, banned for overstaying, from the country. Section 12 confirms that anyone prohibited under section 16 is excluded from entering the country, and section 81 gives the possible punishment for being in the country without permission.

Immigration Act. Section 12 : Aliens which fall into any of the following categories are excluded from entering into the Kingdom

10. Being a person prohibited by the Minister under Section 16.

Immigration Act. Section 16 : In the instance where for reason of national welfare or safeguarding the public peace , culture , morality , or welfare , or when the Minister considers it improper to allow any alien or any group of alien to enter into the Kingdom , the Minister shall have power to exclude said alien or group aliens from entering into the Kingdom.

 

There is no way that anyone found in the country that has been banned would be allowed to stay regardless of what is stamped in their passport. The only question is what penalty would be applied before deportation, and that could include two years in prison.

 

Edited October 29, 2017 by elviajero

[blackcab]

24 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

That's just your opinion and I do not agree with it, academic as the situation is.  An Immigration Officer gives the ban, an Immigration Officer, hypothetically, stamps him in.  Who says that the entry stamp doesn't count, hypothetically?

 

The immigration officer administers the ban, however the ban originates from statute law and ministerial regulation.

 

Statute law and ministerial regulations cannot be superseded by a single immigration officer.

 

Only parliament (in whatever form) can change statute law. Only the minister of the interior or the prime minister, etc. can change a ministerial regulation.

 

Like in any country, there is a chain of command and an administrative hierarchy.

 

Do you really believe a front line immigration officer can unilaterally overrule the minister of the interior's standing orders on the banning of overstayers?

[Just Weird]

5 minutes ago, blackcab said:

 

The immigration officer administers the ban, however the ban originates from statute law and ministerial regulation.

 

Statute law and ministerial regulations cannot be superseded by a single immigration officer.

 

Only parliament (in whatever form) can change statute law. Only the minister of the interior or the prime minister, etc. can change a ministerial regulation.

 

Like in any country, there is a chain of command and an administrative hierarchy.

 

Do you really believe a front line immigration officer can unilaterally overrule the minister of the interior's standing orders on the banning of overstayers?

You're right about there being a chain of command and bearing that in mind, what I do know is that (in this hypothetical situation) the "front line" IO is the one who has the authority to decide who is stamped into the country as being there legally.

[elviajero]

10 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

You're right about there being a chain of command and bearing that in mind, what I do know is that (in this hypothetical situation) the "front line" IO is the one who has the authority to decide who is stamped into the country as being there legally.

That authority would not include allowing someone to enter that has been banned under law.

 

The immigration law, sections 12,16, stops the IO from knowingly letting someone in that's been banned. And if an IO does let them in, the law; section 36, can take it away.

[blackcab]

18 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

You're right about there being a chain of command and bearing that in mind, what I do know is that (in this hypothetical situation) the "front line" IO is the one who has the authority to decide who is stamped into the country as being there legally.

 

You never answered:

 

Do you really believe a front line immigration officer can unilaterally overrule the minister of the interior's standing orders on the banning of overstayers?

 

A simple yes or no will suffice.

[BritTim]

51 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

You're right about there being a chain of command and bearing that in mind, what I do know is that (in this hypothetical situation) the "front line" IO is the one who has the authority to decide who is stamped into the country as being there legally.

I cannot find a link to any report of someone being caught in the country after being blacklisted. However, there are many reports of people who have been given entry stamps with incorrect Admitted Until dates. If the Admitted Until date in your passport states that you can stay for 60 days plus one year (wrong year in the date) it does not allow you to stay until the date stamped in your passport. Indeed, I have seen reports of at least one person blacklisted for overstay by relying on erroneous stamps.

 

You can disagree, but an entry stamp for someone admitted in error (or deliberately by a corrupt official) is not going to be regarded as valid.

[BritTim]

Here is a classic illustration that a legal entry stamp in your passport, fraudulently obtained, can land you in serious hot water: https://www.thethailandlife.com/illegal-thai-visa

[farangx]

17 hours ago, Just Weird said:

That's just your opinion and I do not agree with it, academic as the situation is.  An Immigration Officer gives the ban, an Immigration Officer, hypothetically, stamps him in.  Who says that the entry stamp doesn't count, hypothetically?

You could be hypothetically right ....

 

It would then take another IO to correct this mistake hypothetically.  And to end this circus, he was deported not hypothetically.