Questioned at BKK entering on successive SETV, advice needed.

[JackThompson]

3 minutes ago, Soneva said:

So, I guess my long term options are to get visa sponsorship through an employer, or to get a Thailand Elite visa. The TE visa is actually less expensive in the long term than the visa runs I have been taking. I just would have to have the money to pay upfront for a minimum of a five year visa, which as I understand it is about ฿500,000 the last time I checked. That is potentially doable for me, but not necessarily right away.

On the Elite, consider what you will do when that 5 years runs out.  If you are in your 30s, the 1M Baht 20-year Elite option may be a better option.  That assumes that the retirement-requirements are still reasonable at that future-time, of course - take a look at the 5/10 year retirement options for a clue as to which way the wind is blowing - it's not pretty.

 

One of the best permanent solutions is the "investment" option, which can be renewed forever - though that requires 10M Baht to be invested in Thailand (new condos, savings accounts, etc).  The money remains yours, and can be withdrawn/sold and taken elsewhere if things go sideways, here.

 

If funds are limited, I would keep any surplus savings set-aside for learning about and potentially setting up a good life in a country that isn't moving in the direction of making it harder for foreigners to live there.  Laos has no easy "long term" stay options - so I would advise branching out and exploring other options.

 

If you have not spent time in Vietnam, I would encourage doing visa-runs there and using those runs to explore.  HCMC and Hanoi are good Thai consulates to obtain Tourist Visas.  If I were starting my SE Asia journey from scratch, today, that is where I would be checking out first.  Cambodia is another option.  This will create familiarity with nearby countries, where you could feel comfortable staying for longer periods when/if the rules on Tourist Visas are ever changed.  Even if things work out OK in Thailand, this experience would make your life here less stressful - just being familiar with another place you feel comfortable as a "Plan B."

[Soneva]

Nothing in the Thai immigration laws states that tourist visas cannot be used to stay long term in Thailand. I appreciate that you and some immigration officials disagree with the law as it stands, and think it should be amended. However, an immigration official exercising his discretion to deny you entry with a valid tourist visa needs to lie about why he is doing it (such as claiming to know you are entering to work illegally). There is no category under Section 12 of the immigration act to deny entry because you are a tourist for too long.

It’s good to know that it’s an individual immigration officer’s decision. That’s all the more reason why land boarders are more appealing, as I wouldn’t be a sitting duck there and wind up detained at BKK.

Thanks for the very helpful advice re “red stamps”. If I have to rely on visa running for a while longer, I’ll at least stay on top of how to play my cards right to minimize risk.



Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[BritTim]

13 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

One of the best permanent solutions is the "investment" option, which can be renewed forever - though that requires 10M Baht to be invested in Thailand (new condos, savings accounts, etc).  The money remains yours, and can be withdrawn/sold and taken elsewhere if things go sideways, here.

 

In general, I agree with the advice you give people. Unless people are seriously wealthy, I would advise them to be very cautious about the investment option. The assumption that you will (i) be able to sell your investment if you wish when the economy is bad; and (ii) be able to transfer millions of baht out when you want are both dubious assumptions. I would personally not be willing to bring money into Thailand I was not willing, in the worst case, to write off.

 

That said, over the last 15 years or so, investment in Thai real estate has worked out well, especially given the appreciation of the baht against most major currencies.

[Soneva]

On the Elite, consider what you will do when that 5 years runs out.  If you are in your 30s, the 1M Baht 20-year Elite option may be a better option.  That assumes that the retirement-requirements are still reasonable at that future-time, of course - take a look at the 5/10 year retirement options for a clue as to which way the wind is blowing - it's not pretty.
 
One of the best permanent solutions is the "investment" option, which can be renewed forever - though that requires 10M Baht to be invested in Thailand (new condos, savings accounts, etc).  The money remains yours, and can be withdrawn/sold and taken elsewhere if things go sideways, here.
 
If funds are limited, I would keep any surplus savings set-aside for learning about and potentially setting up a good life in a country that isn't moving in the direction of making it harder for foreigners to live there.  Laos has no easy "long term" stay options - so I would advise branching out and exploring other options.
 
If you have not spent time in Vietnam, I would encourage doing visa-runs there and using those runs to explore.  HCMC and Hanoi are good Thai consulates to obtain Tourist Visas.  If I were starting my SE Asia journey from scratch, today, that is where I would be checking out first.  Cambodia is another option.  This will create familiarity with nearby countries, where you could feel comfortable staying for longer periods when/if the rules on Tourist Visas are ever changed.  Even if things work out OK in Thailand, this experience would make your life here less stressful - just being familiar with another place you feel comfortable as a "Plan B."

Very good points. In the interim, I should be using my visa runs as an opportunity to acclimate myself to other countries that could work out as plan B and plan C options.

Fortunately, I expect to have the ability to invest at least that amount in the not too distant future, but investment of over THB 10M is not likely going to be an option in the immediate future. My hope is that being able to invest a substantial amount will eventually unlock doors that would make life here much more secure, comfortable, and possibly even yield return on that investment.

The 20 year Thailand Elite visa would virtually tide me over until “retirement” age. It’s definitely a better value than the five year option.




Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[JackThompson]

31 minutes ago, BritTim said:

In general, I agree with the advice you give people. Unless people are seriously wealthy, I would advise them to be very cautious about the investment option. The assumption that you will (i) be able to sell your investment if you wish when the economy is bad; and (ii) be able to transfer millions of baht out when you want are both dubious assumptions. I would personally not be willing to bring money into Thailand I was not willing, in the worst case, to write off.

 

That said, over the last 15 years or so, investment in Thai real estate has worked out well, especially given the appreciation of the baht against most major currencies.

Very valid points.  Yes, your investments could tank - especially condos, as it becomes harder for foreigners to stay here.  Higher-end condos seem to be doing better (5M Baht and up), but a shift in the global-economy could change that in a hurry.  I certainly don't trust the condo-developer claims of "guaranteed returns for X years" - given they don't have the world-reserve currency and govt to back up their financial-bets (like AIG did, in the USA).  The condo-sold percentages for developers are generally bogus, given the tiny "money down" factor of what qualifies as "sold" - so it looks like a ponzi-scheme, in many ways.  Definitely "buyer beware." 

 

Where I see the difference with investments - especially "in the bank" types, is that the money remains "your money," vs "spent" on the Elite.  But there is a good argument to be made that 1M "spent" vs 10M "invested" = 9M, which could return higher yields than the 1M "spent" on the Elite over 20-years - and/or would at least be diversified outside of "only Thai" investments. 

 

Anyone doing the 10M bit would be wise to have more elsewhere - but, IMO, anyone spending 1M for a visa should have the wealth to meet that threshold.

[JackThompson]

35 minutes ago, Soneva said:

My hope is that being able to invest a substantial amount will eventually unlock doors that would make life here much more secure, comfortable, and possibly even yield return on that investment.

From what I have read, the Elite (even 5-year) is cheaper per-year than creating an "on paper" business that doesn't earn any money.  But, OTOH, if you can find an existing, operating, profitable business (even marginally profitable), buy a percentage, and obtain a Non-B and Work-Permit to be a "director" or other professional position within it, that is another viable option.  The key to remember, is that there are others involved, and it's not liquid, so I would consider this "all at risk" funds.

[Cletus]

10 hours ago, Soneva said:

This was my fourth consecutive visa from Vientiane. No warning stamp this time.

 

 

 

wow, consider yourself a very lucky person.

[Tony125]

12 hours ago, NanLaew said:

Yes. Regardless of what was or wasn't written in your passport, your file in their immigration computer has probably been 'flagged'.

 

At this juncture, that's all you can do. The bank statements, if Thai, may the Sword of Damocles to a more ardent Immigration Officer since banks are not supposed to allow bona-fide tourists to open accounts. Foreign bank statements and the linked ATM card would be OK.

 

Nothing you can change is there? Unless there's a plan to marry a local really quick and change the visa and Thai domicile status based on that.

 

The next Immigration Officer may have a diffferent attitude and/or more time to 'research' your claimed Tourist status. AFAIK, the Suvarnabhumi entry has been less fraught with these extra questions than Don Meuang entries but that premise has also been challenged lately.

 

There's large inconsistency on when it comes to the 'hard' versus 'soft' border Immigration experience. Someone with recent and/or regular experience in doing this should post here eventually.

 

Yes, you should do your homework and see what other options are available.

Your information is wrong, there is no Thai law that states a person cannot open an account on a tourist visa. You can go to many bank sites and see their requirements. Many actual tourists have accounts so that they don't incur large ATM and foreign transaction fees when getting money in Thailand when on frequent trips. 

[Tony125]

13 hours ago, Soneva said:

Thank you very much for the advice.

The only real other option on the table right now is getting a teaching job or such, and thereby a work permit and different visa status.

Or there is the “Thailand Elite” option


Is this a common experience among visa runners? If I continue doing as I have been, is there a serious risk of a problem? Bank statements are foreign and I have the the associated ATM cards.

I use the fast track immigration at BKK, until now I thought that BKK would be subject to less scrutiny than land boarders. However, in other threads, there is a counter argument that there is safety in being able to “back away” from a land boarder crossing, as apposed to being trapped at an airport, where detention is possible.

It’s disconcerting that I have apparently been flagged in the system. I’ll have to figure out how to proceed, as I cannot risk being denied entry.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

You are aware you can extend your single entry tourist visa  or visa exempt entry by 30 days for payment of 1900 baht at immigration?

[Wake Up]

I had an exfriend that lived in BKK on tourist visas for several years. Every time he went out of the country to get another visa he was worried and did not sleep well and had a folder full of documents. If you can afford the elite visa think of your health and do it. Years on living on a 90 days stress treadmill is not good for your health. If you cannot then ok and do what you are doing which is asking for help.  Some men on TF know exactly how to help and advise you. Good luck.  

[JackThompson]

48 minutes ago, Wake Up said:

I had an exfriend that lived in BKK on tourist visas for several years. Every time he went out of the country to get another visa he was worried and did not sleep well and had a folder full of documents. If you can afford the elite visa think of your health and do it. Years on living on a 90 days stress treadmill is not good for your health. If you cannot then ok and do what you are doing which is asking for help.  Some men on TF know exactly how to help and advise you. Good luck.  

That sort of worry, combined with pointless steps to obtain Tourist Visas (throwaway tickets, hotel-bookings, new passports every 2 years, etc) has undoubtedly driven thousands of foreign-capital spenders out of the country.

 

But we can minimize the damage to Thailand's economy by letting people know that there is no reason to worry, as long as they meet the consulate conditions, and avoid a few "lawless-zone" points of entry.

[Soneva]

In general, I agree with the advice you give people. Unless people are seriously wealthy, I would advise them to be very cautious about the investment option. The assumption that you will (i) be able to sell your investment if you wish when the economy is bad; and (ii) be able to transfer millions of baht out when you want are both dubious assumptions. I would personally not be willing to bring money into Thailand I was not willing, in the worst case, to write off.
 
That said, over the last 15 years or so, investment in Thai real estate has worked out well, especially given the appreciation of the baht against most major currencies.

Yes, I generally would never assume that it would be possible to get any large amounts of money invested in Thailand back out. So, I will have to see whether or not, and at what point that might make sense to me.

With the Thailand Elite option, I wouldn’t need to be in a rush to do this, unless I wanted to anyway. And that would always be with the assumption that money would be written off in the worst case scenario. It is possible that ฿10~15 million might be within my risk tolerance, but that also depends on a lot of factors that I won’t know until it is time to make that decision.

I know other foreigners who choose to rent in Thailand and leave that money invested in their home countries or offshore. The main reason for this is uncertainty about the future.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[elviajero]

16 hours ago, Soneva said:

Does a comment like that from an immigration officer constitute a warning that I need to take seriously?

Yes. 

 

16 hours ago, Soneva said:

i.e. have I likely already been flagged for future scrutiny?

Impossible to know. It's unlikely.

 

16 hours ago, Soneva said:

If I continue to visa run in the same manner, will I likely be okay if I make sure to have the requisite amount of cash on me and my next flight out of Thailand already booked?

Impossible to know. Immigration policy of clamping down on long term tourists seems to be based on warnings to worry 'tourists' into stopping rather than refusing entry.

 

16 hours ago, Soneva said:

Incidentally, I noticed that a new system seems to be in place, and the visa itself contains computer inputted data fields. Perhaps this had to do with why I was questioned this time.

Highly unlikely. The IO would be able to see your entry history regardless of whats on the visa.

 

16 hours ago, Soneva said:

I answered the questions truthfully, and explained that I am not and have not been working in Thailand at all, and that I live with my Thai family here.

Tourist Visas are not supposed to be used to live in the country. If you live with your Thai family you should have a Non-Immigrant Visa.

 

16 hours ago, Soneva said:

Or, should I be crossing a land boarder instead, or otherwise do I need to change what I am doing?

There is more chance of being denied entry at a land border than at the airport. Denying entry at the airport is a big deal as it involves airlines, supervisor sign off, and being held in custody until departure. At a land border IO's have been known to simply send you back to the neighbouring country without following formal procedure.

 

16 hours ago, Soneva said:

Or, do I need to get a different visa status altogether?

If you are the spouse or parent of a Thai you can easily get a single or multiple entry Non-Immigrant Visa. Having that is the only way to get immigration off you back.

[Soneva]

I had an exfriend that lived in BKK on tourist visas for several years. Every time he went out of the country to get another visa he was worried and did not sleep well and had a folder full of documents. If you can afford the elite visa think of your health and do it. Years on living on a 90 days stress treadmill is not good for your health. If you cannot then ok and do what you are doing which is asking for help.  Some men on TF know exactly how to help and advise you. Good luck.  

Yes, tourist visas definitely will not be my long term strategy. I can’t have that anxiety or stress in my life, and I already have been spending $6k usd~ per year on quarterly visa runs alone. So, at that rate the TE visa is a significantly less expensive option, and offers convenience and piece of mind.

I would rather be spending the money I have been spending on hotels and airline tickets associated with visa runs on vacations within Thailand.

[elviajero]

16 hours ago, JackThompson said:

Using Land Borders, which follow actual Immigration Law, would solve the problem completely, according to reports to-date - just avoid the Poipet/Aranyaprathet crossing.  You have done nothing legally wrong - there is no legal-count on entering with valid Tourist Visas in any time-frame - but some IOs at airports don't agree with the law.

Complete nonsense. For years IO's at land borders have turned people away without following the law. I only remember one sketchy report of it happening at the airport.

 

The "legal-count" on entering with a Tourist visa is left to the discretion of the IO. You have absolutely no knowledge of the orders that IO's are following either at land borders or airports.

 

16 hours ago, JackThompson said:

Yes - if you continue to enter at lawless checkpoints, you are taking a risk. 

BKK a lawless checkpoint, really!!!!! Can you clarify exactly what laws the IO's are breaking or not following.

 

There is a set of guidance notes issued to checkpoints that are in the public domain. They refer specifically to "visa runs" (visa exempt entry), but as they concern 'tourism' the exact same principle would likely apply to someone presenting a visa.

Subject: Guideline for inspection of citizen from certain countries that are not required to obtain a visa when entering the Kingdom of ThailandInformation checking
1.1 Purpose of entering the Kingdom

The alien must enter the Kingdom with the sole purpose of tourism, and not for work.

1.2 Record of entry and stay within the Kingdom

1.2.1 A number of entry into the Kingdom
1.2.2 The alien must not enter the Kingdom by exploiting 30­ day visa exemptions undertaking method “in­out” or called by foreigners as “Visa run”. Aliens use the advantage of Tourist Visa Exemption by leaving Thailand and returning immediately for the purpose of extending their stay, which is considered from the tourism point of view to be longer than necessary and not in line with the purpose permitted while entering country.

 

It is up to the IO when enough is enough. I wouldn't be at all surprised if similar guidance was issued to IO's regarding Tourist Visas. Fortunately they seem to warn the majority of people rather than deny entry.

 

I know you want the authorities to issue a definitive 'number of visas etc', but why should genuine regular tourists be penalised for people trying to live long term in the country as a 'tourist'. Those days are numbered.

[darrendsd]

42 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Yes. 

 

Impossible to know. It's unlikely.

 

Impossible to know. Immigration policy of clamping down on long term tourists seems to be based on warnings to worry 'tourists' into stopping rather than refusing entry.

 

Highly unlikely. The IO would be able to see your entry history regardless of whats on the visa.

 

Tourist Visas are not supposed to be used to live in the country. If you live with your Thai family you should have a Non-Immigrant Visa.

 

There is more chance of being denied entry at a land border than at the airport. Denying entry at the airport is a big deal as it involves airlines, supervisor sign off, and being held in custody until departure. At a land border IO's have been known to simply send you back to the neighbouring country without following formal procedure.

 

If you are the spouse or parent of a Thai you can easily get a single or multiple entry Non-Immigrant Visa. Having that is the only way to get immigration off you back.

To say there is more chance of being denied entry at a land border is untrue, virtually all if not all stories we read are reports from the Airports, we hardly ever read story's from land borders, in fact I can't recall any

 

I also have a friend who was denied at DM last year, another who was given a 1 hour grilling at the same Airport convinced they were not going to let him in before they relented and did

 

Yes I know you are going to come back with the argument that more people come through the Airports so there is more chance of  being questioned but we don't read any story's of being stopped at Land Borders so your claim is incorrect

 

If you can come back with some proof of your claim I will stand corrected, mine is the numerous reports that we read from people having issues at Airports whether that is being questioned or denied , you are basing your claim on numbers rather than actual reports

 

 

[bkkcanuck8]

13 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Complete nonsense. For years IO's at land borders have turned people away without following the law. I only remember one sketchy report of it happening at the airport.

 

The "legal-count" on entering with a Tourist visa is left to the discretion of the IO. You have absolutely no knowledge of the orders that IO's are following either at land borders or airports.

 

BKK a lawless checkpoint, really!!!!! Can you clarify exactly what laws the IO's are breaking or not following.

 

There is a set of guidance notes issued to checkpoints that are in the public domain. They refer specifically to "visa runs" (visa exempt entry), but as they concern 'tourism' the exact same principle would likely apply to someone presenting a visa.

Subject: Guideline for inspection of citizen from certain countries that are not required to obtain a visa when entering the Kingdom of ThailandInformation checking
1.1 Purpose of entering the Kingdom

The alien must enter the Kingdom with the sole purpose of tourism, and not for work.

1.2 Record of entry and stay within the Kingdom

1.2.1 A number of entry into the Kingdom
1.2.2 The alien must not enter the Kingdom by exploiting 30­ day visa exemptions undertaking method “in­out” or called by foreigners as “Visa run”. Aliens use the advantage of Tourist Visa Exemption by leaving Thailand and returning immediately for the purpose of extending their stay, which is considered from the tourism point of view to be longer than necessary and not in line with the purpose permitted while entering country.

 

It is up to the IO when enough is enough. I wouldn't be at all surprised if similar guidance was issued to IO's regarding Tourist Visas. Fortunately they seem to warn the majority of people rather than deny entry.

 

I know you want the authorities to issue a definitive 'number of visas etc', but why should genuine regular tourists be penalised for people trying to live long term in the country as a 'tourist'. Those days are numbered.

Add to that the reason for rejecting entry does not require positive "proof", it requires a reasonable suspicion based on the facts at hand.  If you are here for a couple years and you can point to no legitimate source of funds for what you are living on then the logical conclusion that you are working in Thailand would be sufficient.  It is then up to you to proof that you have no need to work in Thailand.

[JackThompson]

1 hour ago, Soneva said:

.. I already have been spending $6k usd~ per year on quarterly visa runs alone. So, at that rate the TE visa is a significantly less expensive option, and offers convenience and piece of mind.

I would rather be spending the money I have been spending on hotels and airline tickets associated with visa runs on vacations within Thailand.

My costs, when I was doing that up until this year, were about 30K Baht/yr.  I'm not including "mini-vacation" / "entertainment" aspects of the trips, which I would have to pay for anyway - just travel-costs in/out + 1 to 2 nights in a hotel + visa + a new-passport every 2 years. 

[JackThompson]

54 minutes ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

If you are here for a couple years and you can point to no legitimate source of funds for what you are living on then the logical conclusion that you are working in Thailand would be sufficient.  It is then up to you to proof that you have no need to work in Thailand.

Agreed - but only if there were some sort of defined standard of proof to meet.  When I was using Tourist Visas, I carried around a stack of documents showing my income-sources + my bank-book showing the money coming in as foreign-transfers. 

 

I never needed those, because I always used checkpoints that follow the law (Visa + 20K Baht).  But if confronted on-entry at some of the lawless-checkpoints, by IOs who have been reported to say all sorts of things (calling people "liars," saying "take your Thai-gf to your country because we don't want you here," etc), I have to wonder if my "proof" would have even been considered. 

 

Others have said that showing proof in a bank-book would have a negative-effect - so seems like a "loose-loose" proposition to even try with those people.  It's not really about "working illegally" - which Westerners would be some fraction of 1% of the "problem" (teaching English, which is desperately needed here) - it's about "we don't like your kind sticking around."  Thank goodness these attitudes are rare and isolated to a few places.

[JackThompson]

1 hour ago, elviajero said:

The "legal-count" on entering with a Tourist visa is left to the discretion of the IO. You have absolutely no knowledge of the orders that IO's are following either at land borders or airports.

There is no "legal count" at all for those entering on tourist-visas according to the law and ministerial orders.  If there is some sort of "secret rule" - it seems to only apply where abusive attitudes are also reported.

 

1 hour ago, elviajero said:

Subject: Guideline for inspection of citizen from certain countries that are not required to obtain a visa when entering the Kingdom of Thailand

That set of vague-rules is for Visa Exempt - not Tourist Visas.  I agree that visa-exempt entries should only be attempted by occasional, short-time visitors.  Even Snowbirds and offshore-workers have reported being treated poorly when using them. 

 

All I have added to this thread is in the context of Tourist Visas - not Visa-Exempt.  Granted, I do think the airport-rules for visa-exempts should be defined, because uncertainty combined with power always turns out poorly.  Everyone, on both sides of the desk, knowing exactly what the rules are - combined with an appeals process that is honored - greatly reduces the potential for abusive behavior on the part of either party.

[elviajero]

9 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

Agreed - but only if there were some sort of defined standard of proof to meet.  When I was using Tourist Visas, I carried around a stack of documents showing my income-sources + my bank-book showing the money coming in as foreign-transfers. 

 

I never needed those, because I always used checkpoints that follow the law (Visa + 20K Baht).  But if confronted on-entry at some of the lawless-checkpoints, by IOs who have been reported to say all sorts of things (calling people "liars," saying "take your Thai-gf to your country because we don't want you here," etc), I have to wonder if my "proof" would have even been considered. 

 

Others have said that showing proof in a bank-book would have a negative-effect - so seems like a "loose-loose" proposition to even try with those people.  It's not really about "working illegally" - which Westerners would be some fraction of 1% of the "problem" (teaching English, which is desperately needed here) - it's about "we don't like your kind sticking around."  Thank goodness these attitudes are rare and isolated to a few places.

Reason to believe that entry into Kingdom is not for the purpose of tourism
2.1 Alien will be interviewed and requested to show evidence of the purpose of tourism

such as tickets, pocket money, booking slip, traveling plan.
2.2 The criterion as in 2.1 if deemed necessary to record as an evidence, the alien may be

required to fill out the form as attached in the annex hereto.

 

Reason to reject or permit entry to Thailand

3.1  Upon complete evidence of entering the Kingdom for tourism purpose and not for

working purpose, alien shall be granted for permission to stay for 15, 30 or 90 days as

set out in the bilateral agreements.

3.2  Without valid reason compiled to lack of evidence required by the immigration officer,

the alien shall be refused to enter the Kingdom, pursuant to immigration law provision.

 

The Immigration Bureau's own guidance gives power to the IO to deny entry under immigration law provision. Lawless!!

 

 

[JackThompson]

5 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Reason to believe that entry into Kingdom is not for the purpose of tourism
2.1 Alien will be interviewed...

The Immigration Bureau's own guidance gives power to the IO to deny entry under immigration law provision. Lawless!!

Those interested can read a thread on this topic below, from 2014, when this was new info.  The title of the post was: "Thai Immigration guidelines for inspection of foreigners on visa exempt entries"

As negative press blowback begain world-wide, IOs were then told to relax these restrictions.  But, again, these rules only ever pertained to Visa-Exempt entries.

[elviajero]

40 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

There is no "legal count" at all for those entering on tourist-visas according to the law and ministerial orders.  If there is some sort of "secret rule" - it seems to only apply where abusive attitudes are also reported.

Do you honestly expect the immigration authorities of any country to share all of their orders with the public. There is no "legal count" because they don't want to affect genuine frequently visiting tourist.

 

40 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

That set of vague-rules is for Visa Exempt - not Tourist Visas.  I agree that visa-exempt entries should only be attempted by occasional, short-time visitors.  Even Snowbirds and offshore-workers have reported being treated poorly when using them. 

Yes and I explained they are for visa exempt. I am pointing out to you that order/guidance surrounding Tourist Visas may also exist. and if they did they would likely be the same. You keep repeating these claims of lawlessness when you aren't privy to the orders IO's are working to.

 

Nothing vague about it. They are guidance notes telling an IO specifically what to look for to evidence someone is a tourist. All the things 'visa runners' don't usually have.

 

40 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

All I have added to this thread is in the context of Tourist Visas - not Visa-Exempt.  Granted, I do think the airport-rules for visa-exempts should be defined, because uncertainty combined with power always turns out poorly.  Everyone, on both sides of the desk, knowing exactly what the rules are - combined with an appeals process that is honored - greatly reduces the potential for abusive behavior on the part of either party.

The rules are very straightforward. Tourist Visas are for short term tourism and not to be used to live in the country. Anyone that lives in the country is knowingly pushing their luck. We should all be grateful that they have been so lenient in the past, and continue to, in most cases, warn rather than deny entry.

 

It would not be practical to limit the number of visas issued, and as far as I know the immigration system isn't yet sophisticated enough to count the number of days in the country, as a tourist, within a given time period. So you're left with the IO's to police people at the border.

 

It is people living in Thailand as a tourist that are in the wrong, not immigration who are within their legal right to deny entry. And most people doing so accept that fact.

[elviajero]

9 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

Those interested can read a thread on this topic below, from 2014, when this was new info.  The title of the post was: "Thai Immigration guidelines for inspection of foreigners on visa exempt entries"

As negative press blowback begain world-wide, IOs were then told to relax these restrictions.  But, again, these rules only ever pertained to Visa-Exempt entries.

When? Where would I find that announcement. They have continued cracking down on visa exempt entry by stopping visa runs at certain borders, and now with a strict 2 entry rule. How is that relaxing anything!

 

Again, the point of me quoting the visa exempt guidance was to show what Immigration are ordered to look for, and that you should expect the same as a visa holder when under scrutiny. The 'visa runners' (visa exempt) of the past are the Tourist Visa holders today. Tourism is tourism whether entering with or without a visa.

 

 

[JackThompson]

5 minutes ago, elviajero said:

When? Where would I find that announcement. They have continued cracking down on visa exempt entry by stopping visa runs at certain borders, and now with a strict 2 entry rule. How is that relaxing anything!

https://www.thephuketnews.com/coup-leader-calls-for-immigration-to-relax-‘out-in’-visa-clampdown-48007.php

 

Like what you were quoting above, this is all old-news about Visa Exempt entries.  It has been discussed here repeatedly in the context of folks trying to guess the vague Visa-Exempt rules, with some quoting the initial "crackdown" announcements, and others pointing to the "relaxation of the crackdown" after the negative blowback.  The 2x-land-border rule appears to be a compromise on this Visa-Exempt issue.

 

5 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Again, the point of me quoting the visa exempt guidance was to show what Immigration are ordered to look for, and that you should expect the same as a visa holder when under scrutiny. The 'visa runners' (visa exempt) of the past are the Tourist Visa holders today. Tourism is tourism whether entering with or without a visa.

Maybe, one day, the officials in charge will write "new rules" for Tourist Visa users.  They have not done so yet.  This is clearly to the consternation of officials at some unfriendly checkpoints - some of whom it appears would like to see you, me, and all of "our kind" gone, if they had the power to make it so. 

Note the comments made to this unfortunate fellow, which reveal the real motivations of these people:

[bkkcanuck8]

2 minutes ago, elviajero said:

When? Where would I find that announcement. They have continued cracking down on visa exempt entry by stopping visa runs at certain borders, and now with a strict 2 entry rule. How is that relaxing anything!

 

Again, the point of me quoting the visa exempt guidance was to show what Immigration are ordered to look for, and that you should expect the same as a visa holder when under scrutiny. The 'visa runners' (visa exempt) of the past are the Tourist Visa holders today. Tourism is tourism whether entering with or without a visa.

 

 

[Not specifically Thailand] Tourism is usually interpreted as travelling for pleasure (as opposed to for work, employment, business).  Usually the guidelines (and in some countries hard limits) are more of just trying to make it difficult to use them for employment purposes.  Tourist (as opposed to a permanent resident) has no rights [other than criminal protection] - they don't have access to any social programs (such as public health care, etc.).  If a tourist can satisfy immigration that they have no reason (i.e. no motive) to seek employment, and are not involved in criminal activity -- most immigration departments really don't care about you.   I have one friend (whose family is what most would call wealthy) that would travel to Canada for tourism (6 months) and immigration had no problem extending it (6 months at a time) ad infinitum -- the reason...  they knew she had no reason to seek employment (observations recorded on immigration system).  Immigration sees it's job as protecting the country (criminals, labour market, etc.), not fretting about some pre-conceived notion of what the word "tourism" means.

[Soneva]

This is all very complicated. And maybe that’s a good thing because it has gotten me thinking about how to get a more suitable visa status.

How does one get a non immigrant visa. I should note that while I consider the family I live with to be “my family,” I am not married and therefore from a legal perspective perhaps am not viewed as such.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[elviajero]

32 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

https://www.thephuketnews.com/coup-leader-calls-for-immigration-to-relax-‘out-in’-visa-clampdown-48007.php

Like what you were quoting above, this is all old-news about Visa Exempt entries.  It has been discussed here repeatedly in the context of folks trying to guess the vague Visa-Exempt rules, with some quoting the initial "crackdown" announcements, and others pointing to the "relaxation of the crackdown" after the negative blowback.  The 2x-land-border rule appears to be a compromise on this Visa-Exempt issue.

Well the PM's request clearly fell on the deaf ears of immigration as have done the opposite with the blanket 2 entry limit. I was interested in an announcement by immigration.

 

32 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

Maybe, one day, the officials in charge will write "new rules" for Tourist Visa users.  They have not done so yet.  This is clearly to the consternation of officials at some unfriendly checkpoints - some of whom it appears would like to see you, me, and all of "our kind" gone, if they had the power to make it so. 

I can't see any "new rules" coming soon as I don't believe it's necessary, and would probably negatively impact genuine tourism. It is only long term tourism they are going after, and making visas harder to get and the scare tactics will probably remain. And for those getting questioned I would expect they will be asked for the same type of "evidence" for visa exempt entries in the past.

[darrendsd]

6 minutes ago, Soneva said:

This is all very complicated. And maybe that’s a good thing because it has gotten me thinking about how to get a more suitable visa status.

How does one get a non immigrant visa. I should note that while I consider the family I live with to be “my family,” I am not married and therefore from a legal perspective perhaps am not viewed as such.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

Ignore most of what you have read here, it comes from posters with no actual experience of staying here longterm on Tourist Visas, I discount the poster JackThompson from that, he has 

experience, the other posters i'm afraid not, most of them just like a argument and trying to prove how knowledgeable they are about Immigration policy when in reality they don't know a lot

 

Stick to Laos, they have 2 Embassy's there, don't use International flights and for the moment you will be fine, of course things may change in the future but as it stands at the moment you will be ok

 

I think I read something about a red stamp? If so you need a new Passport before you go on another SETV trip

 

[elviajero]

13 minutes ago, Soneva said:

This is all very complicated. And maybe that’s a good thing because it has gotten me thinking about how to get a more suitable visa status.

How does one get a non immigrant visa. I should note that while I consider the family I live with to be “my family,” I am not married and therefore from a legal perspective perhaps am not viewed as such.

If you're not married you won't get a Non-Imm visa on that basis. If you're over 50 you might be able to get a visa/exemption of stay based on retirement. Otherwise the only option would be an Non-Imm 'ED' (education) visa/extension. They are hassle, with all the conditions, but if you sign up for a Thai, or other qualifying, course it might work. They have been used and abused by people to stay in the country too, so they are also under the spotlight.