not allowed on the airport to enter by tourist visa.

[edwardandtubs]

I'm a bit confused as I don't have time to wade through all 16 pages of this thread. The OP was in Kuala Lumpa but had a flight to Cambodia. Now he's saying he's in Kuala Lumpur. What happened?

 

You really need to just stop faffing around. There is a fast train that goes from Kuala Lumpur to Hat Yai with a brief change of trains at the border. Why not take that, fly from Hat Yai to Bangkok and sort out your business visa documents when you get home? 

[pearciderman]

1 hour ago, JackThompson said:

Since the number of hours has been lowered to a reasonable level (in some areas), there is no point in not going to classes, getting your money's worth, and being legit.  Why lie, when you can benefit from doing the right thing?

 

I am sure that in the last tranche of changes to the Ed visa/extension the amount of hours that you are obliged to study weekly went UP.

[edwardandtubs]

7 minutes ago, Mattd said:

Even if they had no concrete proof, they obviously had the suspicion, this was even confirmed by the OP himself when he supposedly contacted somebody he knew in BKK airport immigration.

I suspect that there is a lot more behind this refusal than we are being told.

We also don't know what the OP said to the immigration officer. As he seems to think what he's doing is perfectly legal, he probably revealed all to the immigration officer. If he had just said he was on a long holiday in Koh Chang, he probably wouldn't have had this problem.

[Mattd]

8 minutes ago, edwardandtubs said:

We also don't know what the OP said to the immigration officer. As he seems to think what he's doing is perfectly legal, he probably revealed all to the immigration officer. If he had just said he was on a long holiday in Koh Chang, he probably wouldn't have had this problem.

This is true with regard to the initial refusal in DMK airport, however, he said that sometime after this refusal he contacted a friendly female IO who works out of BKK airport and she thought the refusal was to do with working illegally, of course if he did make suggestions in DMK to that effect, then it would say this in the immigration system.

The OP does seem to think that whatever it is he does is not in violation of any laws, the way he describes it suggest the opposite.

Who knows what information has been exchanged, either by the OP or by others.

Edited January 28, 2018 by Mattd

[Mattd]

11 minutes ago, edwardandtubs said:

I don't have time to wade through all 16 pages of this thread.

 

11 minutes ago, edwardandtubs said:

Why not take that, fly from Hat Yai to Bangkok and sort out your business visa documents when you get home? 

If he did this then it is highly likely that they would just refuse him entry again, as per the first entry by the OP that started the thread.

[edwardandtubs]

17 minutes ago, pearciderman said:

 

 

5 minutes ago, Mattd said:

 

If he did this then it is highly likely that they would just refuse him entry again, as per the first entry by the OP that started the thread.

Well, they don't usually refuse at land borders if you have the cash. Will the denial at the airport change that?

Edited January 28, 2018 by edwardandtubs

[Mattd]

2 minutes ago, edwardandtubs said:

Well, they don't usually refuse at land borders if you have the cash. Will the denial at the airport change that?

There are differing thoughts on that subject throughout the thread, the only test would be for him to try it, there are two things that would suggest a further refusal is likely though, he now has a fresh entry refusal stamp in his passport and the same information is in the immigration database.

The OP is now talking of whether he can get a non b visa for business, this could prove difficult if he doesn't have the documentation to back it up and even this does not guarantee him entry.

[JackThompson]

43 minutes ago, pearciderman said:

I am sure that in the last tranche of changes to the Ed visa/extension the amount of hours that you are obliged to study weekly went UP.

It did - to 400 hrs - but in the last month or so, some regions are reported to have reduced it.  I cannot find the thread where this was discussed, though I was arguing your point, until corrected.

[JackThompson]

35 minutes ago, edwardandtubs said:

Well, they don't usually refuse at land borders if you have the cash. Will the denial at the airport change that?

It could, but we do not have reports of this from others who were denied at airports, then came in later by land.  I'd bring the 20K Baht cash, plus a folder of bank-statement printouts, to maximize my odds. 

 

49 minutes ago, edwardandtubs said:

We also don't know what the OP said to the immigration officer. As he seems to think what he's doing is perfectly legal, he probably revealed all to the immigration officer. If he had just said he was on a long holiday in Koh Chang, he probably wouldn't have had this problem.

He said, that they said, that they "did not believe" him.  Which differs from, "They told me what I was doing was illegal-work."  

Others who tried to prove they had plenty of money have reported being called liars, so this would fit the "airport immigration attitude" pattern.

[juice777]

 Nothing wrong with doing it.  It will not make you look like a criminal.

"Six visa exempt entries triggers an alert to check your history of them."

Is it 6 in a certain amount of time or all together?

I am thinking of using 1 soom so I don't have to transfer a visa to my new passport. I don't have any in my current passport but must many more then 6 in my lifetime.

So will I get flagged if I use enter on a visa Exempt at a land crossing?



Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

[ubonjoe]

6 minutes ago, juice777 said:

Is it 6 in a certain amount of time or all together?

Since early 2015. There is no reset that I am aware of. The officer will be able to see your history of them.

It not being flagged it is only an alert.

At a land border it will not come into play since you are limited to 2 visa exempt entries per calendar year now.

[juice777]

 
new passport have a new number and its not at the system. And there is no marks about last number of passport. Thailand airport dont do finger scan. So new passport it is new life. I dont know number at  new passport change or not in another countries, but for mine is like that. Also in mine you can have 2 active passport for travel. (i have 2 passport, but one of them do not have any space. My country do it, because if you have once visa to Iran or simular countries you will never get visa to U.S after that or if you want to have a visa for some country you need keep your passport and wait, so you can use another one for travel in that dates ). And both passport have different no., and nothing says between them.
I would gladly get a new passport for a new one instead of a full one. But only it can be received within 2-3 months in any country except mine.

Anyway now it is weekend, so i just take a flight  to Vietnam from KL.
And on monday i will get an answer about making non-b visa for my  old passport with that stamp. If i get confirmation... that it will be ok for immigration.
Do it because its more easy way for me and i will spend less time and nerves then i go to my country.
 
Guys dont worries to much about this situation, i think really choose ladies or more friendly looking staff at airport immigration. And it should to be ok. Air Asia staff with who i fly back to KL tell me that in Don Mueng airport them are more stronger then in Suvarnabhumi at the moment ( but maybe them just talk). If you real tourist it should be no problem. But if you would like to stay long time, better to do ED visa without going to school. If you will not go out for travelling from Thailand  will be no questions. 
 
There was a comment that I take work from the Thais.
I do not think so. The staff works for me. I officially pay them salaries, insurance and taxes.
I just do not work myself. 
That's why I did not do business visa before. And also i live at Ko Chang and there have a very big problems with good lawers. 
But apparently the sweet times of Thailand are finally over and I now have no other choice - just make a business visa and work officially.

 
about the confirmation of income from another country.
really they do not care.
built on I "believe you" or "do not believe".
More than 180 days on a tourist visa is bad.
and I do not think that they will delve into statements from foreign bank accounts
I had both dollars and euros and Thai bats worth more than 50,000 in cash. But they looked and said they did not want to look at it.
They did not cancel my visa. They simply deceived their own system so as not to let me in. With the verdict, there is no money to come to the kingdom.
For the main reason - "I do not believe".
I have a small business in Thailand.
And my absence had no effect on business.
It's just stupid because  now I'm spending money in another country that I could spend in Thailand.

but once again I remind you I had 4 tourist visas in a row in this passport.
Who really is a tourist should not be affected in any way.
Or maybe I just was not lucky with an officer who looked at my passport.
 
I will make an update on Monday.
Based on the results of a possible plan.
And I'll keep you posted.
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 

 

So you are working then and now you are recommending people get a Ed visa and don't go to school.

Wow

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

[juice777]

May I tell you, as politely as possible, that you have no idea.
Before settling here I used my Australian passport. But, since I was resident of France I had to use my French passport to get a NON O-A in Paris. When I crossed the border in Suvarnabhumi, the nice sexy IO looked a bit puzzled when looking at her screen and then said: "Oohh you got two passports? ", "Yes Madam" was my answer. End of story.
 
It shows you however that they are clever enough to do multi-criteria searches, piece of cake to look up by surname and DOB, which in my case returns only one item.
 
No rocket science at all, my ex-wife collaborated, back in 1983, with immigration in Canberra to develop a phonetics name matching algorithm. 1983 was still stone age, computing wise.

Yes I don't believe in 2018 anyone can legally have 2 passports which can't cross reference to each other especially from the same country,all types of security issues.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

[juice777]

Man, I am going to be blunt: you deserve all the trouble you might be in. You are running a business while staying on Tourist Visas, just mind boggling! The whole thread should be removed as it strongly suggests illegal activity, which is squarely against TV forum rules.

Yes he so flippant about the whole thing to lets hope Thai imagination do monitor this site and are on the look out for him.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

[Tanoshi]

4 minutes ago, juice777 said:

Yes I don't believe in 2018 anyone can legally have 2 passports which can't cross reference to each other especially from the same country,all types of security issues.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
 

You cannot transfer a Visa to a new passport.

Just carry both passports.

The visa is still valid even if the passport expires.

 

Only extensions can be transferred to a new passport.

[juice777]

The thread will most likely turn into a discussion regards what is or what is not working.

He is working and opening encouraging people to break The rules by getting a ED visa and don't go to school. One of the reasons I didn't get one and study in Thailand because it looks like you are abusing the system because of people like him.

 

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

 

 

 

[ubonjoe]

A personal attack on a member has been removed. A repeat will result in a formal warning.

[JackThompson]

1 hour ago, juice777 said:

He is working and opening encouraging people to break The rules by getting a ED visa and don't go to school. One of the reasons I didn't get one and study in Thailand because it looks like you are abusing the system because of people like him.

People like him, encouraged down this road by IOs who process extensions in combination with an "extension handling fee" paid to schools - which affects honest and dishonest ED-extension applicants, alike. 

The only reason to show up to class, is to get your money's worth of Thai-learning from class-fees - not because immigration actually cares if you are legit.  Many offices couldn't care less if you are a "good guy" or "bad guy" - they want brown-envelopes, not "honest applicants."

[elviajero]

6 hours ago, JackThompson said:

For a stress-free experience, come in via any land border except Poipet - and have 20K Baht worth of cash - and no more than 2 visa-exempts (by land) per calendar year, and you will not ever be rejected entry (unless something changes in the future). 

LOL. Does that come with a personal guarantee?

 

6 hours ago, JackThompson said:

Little has changed in the last few years, as to frequent Tourist Visa use.  Airports have been risky for awhile.  Always enter by land (not Poipet) - even with have a passport full of Tourist Visas - no problem with a new, valid visa and 20K Baht.

Little except,

• No more double entry TR's locally to Thailand to make it harder for long term tourism.
• METV's not available locally to Thailand to make it harder for long term tourism.
• Job and cash in the bank to qualify for an METV.
• Greater enforcement of limiting the number of TR's each consular section will issue.
• Enforcement of onward flights and proof of 20K when issuing TR's locally.

All of which designed to make it harder to live in the country long term, and are no doubt reducing the number of long term tourists.

 

Can they make it anymore obvious?

 

6 hours ago, JackThompson said:

Due to corruption at some immigration offices - yes - precisely why they had a "crackdown" - to increase the thickness and frequency of brown-envelopes for ED-extensions. 

No the "crackdown" was because too many foreigners were using the 'ED' visa to LIVE in the country. Corruption existed before the crackdown and continues after.

 

6 hours ago, JackThompson said:

So they assumed he was working illegally.  What paperwork has immigration defined as acceptable, to avoid being rejected entry on these grounds?  And who knows if they would just say, "I don't believe..."  Consider that they didn't care he had 50K Baht in cash - hardly what someone working "under the table" in Thailand would be likely to have in their pocket.

He wasn't denied entry because he didn't have at least 20K (Immigration act - section 12.9.), he was denied entry under 12.2. Someone living in the country for a long term as a tourist that claims they are not working throws up the question of how they 'make a living'. Without proof that you have funds or income coming in from abroad, or a legal income in Thailand, you can lawfully be denied under 12.2. I've no idea what paperwork would be accepted because, as usual, it would be done to the senior officer to accept/decline whatever was offered.

 

The OP is clearly not a 'tourist' and the IO/senior officer clearly did the right thing in denying entry. Anyone LIVING in the country as a 'tourist' cannot complain when an IO does their job and denies entry, regardless of the reason given.

 

6 hours ago, JackThompson said:

The "180 days" is something an IO at the airport made up and told you.  It has no basis in law or fact.

No it's not. 180 days has been quoted by many IO's at different borders for several years, and is clearly the line that immigration officers are ordered to consider if someone is a genuine tourist or not. E.g. 6 visa exempt entry flag = 30 x 6 = 180 days. No one needs more than 6 month continuously in Thailand for tourism. And all the cases that get discussed on this forum are not genuine tourists with entry problems, but with people LIVING in Thailand that are rightly/lawfully being stopped.

 

Tourist visas are issued for short term tourism, not to live in the country. Anyone living in the country requires the appropriate visa.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 28, 2018 by elviajero

[JackThompson]

39 minutes ago, elviajero said:

6 hours ago, JackThompson said:

For a stress-free experience, come in via any land border except Poipet - and have 20K Baht worth of cash - and no more than 2 visa-exempts (by land) per calendar year, and you will not ever be rejected entry (unless something changes in the future). 

LOL. Does that come with a personal guarantee?

No - just going by the facts at hand.  Who has been denied entry with a Tourist Visa at a land-border, other than Poipet, in the last couple years, who had the cash?  I can only remember some strange thing for a week in 2014 or so coming from Malaysia - and closed borders during the govt-transition period.

 

39 minutes ago, elviajero said:

No the "crackdown" was because too many foreigners were using the 'ED' visa to LIVE in the country. Corruption existed before the crackdown and continues after.

I don't think they care a whit about "abuse" - only who is lining their pockets (or not).  The "crackdown" increased their payouts (every 90-days, vs once a year), which I don't think is a coincidence. 

 

39 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Anyone LIVING in the country as a 'tourist' cannot complain when an IO does their job and denies entry, regardless of the reason given.

If "living in the country" was defined in the law/ministerial orders concerning Tourist Visas, I could take that into consideration.   It's like defining "what is a tourist" - we just go round in circles with words which are not defined in clear legal terms.  In the West, we'd go to the statutes, then Black's Law to erase any doubt about word-definitions. 

 

Of course, IOs can do whatever they want, ignore any documentation they want, deny appeals, etc - because that's how 3rd world style corruption works.  So, they can say you are working illegally whether you are or not, or whether you can prove you are or not with documents - because they can just lie about a non-existent "180 day rule," while calling you the liar - then laugh at how stupid you were to think they were honest or cared about the truth.

 

39 minutes ago, elviajero said:

180 days has been quoted by many IO's at different borders for several years, and is clearly the line that immigration officers are ordered to consider if someone is a genuine tourist or not.

It was once tangentially-relevant to visa-exempts, in that there was a 90-day limit per 180 days, which adds up to ~180 days / yr.   Some IOs may believe such a rule should exist. 

 

But if it was an "order" applying to Tourist Visas, they surely they would publish the order, plus the specific documentation that applicants need to provide to overcome any barrier to entry.  If applicants cannot meet that bar, they would be able to know this in advance, and not try to enter at all; this would save everyone a headache.

 

EDIT - please keep in mind - they seem not to be telling folks, "After 180 days we need to see X,"  - but are saying, "No more than 180 days are allowed," which simply is not true.

 

39 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Little except,

• No more double entry TR's locally to Thailand to make it harder for long term tourism.
• METV's not available locally to Thailand to make it harder for long term tourism.
• Job and cash in the bank to qualify for an METV.
• Greater enforcement of limiting the number of TR's each consular section will issue.
• Enforcement of onward flights and proof of 20K when issuing TR's locally.

All of which designed to make it harder to live in the country long term, are no doubt reducing the number of long term tourists.

Agree with the general premise, to which we can add the Visa-Exempt restrictions they have added, recently.

 

All of these make it harder for poorer travelers (backpacker-types) to be here for longer periods, but it's just more expensive, now.  If they wanted to "stop frequent tourist visa users" entirely, they'd simply cap by quantity of visas or days in-country, and enforce it consistently.

 

I can only reach the conclusion that there are disagreeing factions at play within the system - MFA, TAT, and within immigration itself.  More "friendly" factions control some points of entry - so I stuck with those, when coming in frequently on Tourist Visas.  I plan to continue using those entry-points, even with my Non-O ME, just to avoid potential problems with some in authority who, from what I have experienced, don't like us being here at all.

Edited January 28, 2018 by JackThompson

[darrendsd]

50 minutes ago, elviajero said:

LOL. Does that come with a personal guarantee?

 

Little except,

• No more double entry TR's locally to Thailand to make it harder for long term tourism.
• METV's not available locally to Thailand to make it harder for long term tourism.
• Job and cash in the bank to qualify for an METV.
• Greater enforcement of limiting the number of TR's each consular section will issue.
• Enforcement of onward flights and proof of 20K when issuing TR's locally.

All of which designed to make it harder to live in the country long term, are no doubt reducing the number of long term tourists.

 

Can they make it anymore obvious?

 

No the "crackdown" was because too many foreigners were using the 'ED' visa to LIVE in the country. Corruption existed before the crackdown and continues after.

 

He wasn't denied entry because he didn't have at least 20K (Immigration act - section 12.9.), he was denied entry under 12.2. Someone living in the country for a long term as a tourist that claims they are not working throws up the question of how they 'make a living'. Without proof that you have funds or income coming in from abroad, or a legal income in Thailand, you can lawfully be denied under 12.2. I've no idea what paperwork would be accepted because, as usual, it would be done to the senior officer to accept/decline whatever was offered.

 

The OP is clearly not a 'tourist' and the IO/senior officer clearly did the right thing in denying entry. Anyone LIVING in the country as a 'tourist' cannot complain when an IO does their job and denies entry, regardless of the reason given.

 

No it's not. 180 days has been quoted by many IO's at different borders for several years, and is clearly the line that immigration officers are ordered to consider if someone is a genuine tourist or not. E.g. 6 visa exempt entry flag = 30 x 6 = 180 days. No one needs more than 6 month continuously in Thailand for tourism. And all the cases that get discussed on this forum are not genuine tourists with entry problems, but with people LIVING in Thailand that are rightly/lawfully being stopped.

 

Tourist visas are issued for short term tourism, not to live in the country. Anyone living in the country requires the appropriate visa.

 

 

 

 

You have no idea whatsoever if the requirements for the METV were designed to stop people living here longterm, it is not unreasonable for a Government to ask applicants to show funds if they are planning to stay in a country for a long period of time, for instance if you apply for a 6 month visa to the UK you are required to show funds, this is the same for a 6 month visit to Thailand, how do you know for sure that the rules are designed to stop people living here on them? There are reports on here of people ending one METV then going home and getting another,  if they were really designed to stop people living here longterm then that wouldn't be allowed would it?

 

It is not unreasonable for any Government to ask any longterm visitor to show they have funds to support themselves during their stay, this DOES NOT mean they designed the METV to stop people living here longterm on them like you imply

 

The official reason the METV were introduced was to boost tourism and and help the ASEAN community

 

 

"No one needs more than 6 month continuously in Thailand for tourism"

 

Well if that's the case why can you get at least 8 months stay on a METV with the full blessing of Immigration and the Government? Why is it then possible to go to say Laos and obtain another 3 4 or even 5 SETV's giving you around a total of over 2 years in the country? Again all with the blessings of Immigration and the Government, That kind of destroys your 6 month theory doesn't it?

Edited January 28, 2018 by darrendsd

[ChouDoufu]

.............

Edited January 28, 2018 by ChouDoufu
oops

[balo]

OP : Just apply for a new passport at your embassy in KL or Cambodia. Maybe it will take a few weeks . Then when you get the passport, apply for a tourist visa, and enter one of the Thai borders. If lucky you will get through and no questions asked.

[edwardandtubs]

1 hour ago, balo said:

OP : Just apply for a new passport at your embassy in KL or Cambodia. Maybe it will take a few weeks . Then when you get the passport, apply for a tourist visa, and enter one of the Thai borders. If lucky you will get through and no questions asked.

That's not going to make any difference though because the immigration officer at the border will see the two passports are linked, will see the refusal of entry and think he is trying to evade it. At least if he just takes a train straight from Kuala Lumpur to the border, he looks like he's just making a second attempt rather than trying to hoodwink the officers.

[007 RED]

1 hour ago, balo said:

OP : Just apply for a new passport at your embassy in KL or Cambodia. Maybe it will take a few weeks . Then when you get the passport, apply for a tourist visa, and enter one of the Thai borders. If lucky you will get through and no questions asked.

Sorry but getting a new passport does not wipe the slate clean.  

 

As has been pointed out several times previously the only difference between the old and the new passport is the passport number.  

 

The moment that the OP gives his new passport to the IO at whatever entry point he uses, and the IO put the photo page onto the scanner the immigation database will immediately realise that the passport number has not been used before to enter the Kingdom.  

 

The computer system then runs a comparison check using the information derived from the bottom of the photo page between <<<< >>>> namely; the country code +gender+date of birth+family name+first names.  

 

As all these are the same as the original passport the IO is advised that a previous possible passport exists and is shown a photo of the OP taken the last time that he exited the Kingdom on his old passport.  

 

The IO confirms that the photo matches the person and the immigration system then links the old and new passports.  The IO can then see all of the OPs entry and exit history, including the reasons for his refused entry, going back a good number of year.  The whole process takes a fraction of a second.

 

Getting a new passport does not resolve the issue.

Edited January 28, 2018 by 007 RED
Typo

[StayinThailand2much]

2 hours ago, elviajero said:

No the "crackdown" was because too many foreigners were using the 'ED' visa to LIVE in the country. Corruption existed before the crackdown and continues after.

So why would I learn Thai (I understand, that most classes to which an 'ED visa is attached, are about learning the local lingo) at a school, if I did not want to stay an extended time in Thailand?? Learning Thai for 3 or 6 months, only to return home after, not having any use for the acquired language skills, therefore, effectively, wasting my money? What use are Thai language skills outside of Thailand? Of course, people learn Thai to 'live' in Thailand...

Edited January 28, 2018 by StayinThailand2much

[SicTransit]

Sorry but getting a new passport does not wipe the slate clean.  
 
As has been pointed out several times previously the only difference between the old and the new passport is the passport number.  

Been pointed out at least ten times in this thread alone. But what “slate” does the OP need to clean? He is not blacklisted after all. Correct me if I’m wrong but getting a new passport does not violate any laws, immigration or otherwise.

[007 RED]

2 hours ago, elviajero said:

 

He wasn't denied entry because he didn't have at least 20K (Immigration act - section 12.9.), he was denied entry under 12.2. Someone living in the country for a long term as a tourist that claims they are not working throws up the question of how they 'make a living'. Without proof that you have funds or income coming in from abroad, or a legal income in Thailand, you can lawfully be denied under 12.2. I've no idea what paperwork would be accepted because, as usual, it would be done to the senior officer to accept/decline whatever was offered.

 

The OP is clearly not a 'tourist' and the IO/senior officer clearly did the right thing in denying entry. Anyone LIVING in the country as a 'tourist' cannot complain when an IO does their job and denies entry, regardless of the reason given.

 

I totally agree.  As the OP has admitted in previous posts, he owns a small business, trains the employees, pays the employees wages and tax, recieves dividends (payment) from his company.  Although he denies that he works he now claim that he will get a non-B visa to make himself legal.  Also he says that he is considering an EV but will not attend classes.  I think this just about sums the OP up.

 

I suspect (and it is only my suspicion) that when he was interviewed by the senior IO he let it slip, when asked what he did while staying in the Kingdom (for 2 years) and how he funded his stay, that he owned a small business.  Alarm bells ring with the senior IO who then possibly conducts a search of the OP and his luggage.  Ops, I bet 10 2 1 that the OP had his bank pass books with him and these would show all the credits having been made from within the Kingdom for the past X years.  These might be difficult to explain.

 

Hence the IOs suspicion that the OP was using the TV to work and the refusal on the grounds of Section 12(2).

[007 RED]

2 minutes ago, SicTransit said:

 

Been pointed out at least ten times in this thread alone. But what “slate” does the OP need to clean? He is not blacklisted after all. Correct me if I’m wrong but getting a new passport does not violate any laws, immigration or otherwise.

 

You are perfectly correct when you say that getting a new passport does not violate any laws, immigration or otherwise.  I also agree that as far as he has admitted, he has not been banned or blacklisted.

 

However, the Op seems to be under the impressiion (wrongly so) that by getting a new passport the IO will not see his previous entry/exit history and the reason for his recent entry refusal, therefore, enhacing his chances of being admitted the next time he tries to enter.

[JackThompson]

56 minutes ago, StayinThailand2much said:

So why would I learn Thai (I understand, that most classes to which an 'ED visa is attached, are about learning the local lingo) at a school, if I did not want to stay an extended time in Thailand?? Learning Thai for 3 or 6 months, only to return home after, not having any use for the acquired language skills, therefore, effectively, wasting my money? What use are Thai language skills outside of Thailand? Of course, people learn Thai to 'live' in Thailand...

I think you hit the nail on the head - as to why certain factions don't like this program at all, and treat ED-Visa persons like dirt (unless they get some money in the pocket).  That faction really don't want us sticking around.  That said, I have met some authorities who think we are a net-positive.

 

36 minutes ago, SicTransit said:

Been pointed out at least ten times in this thread alone. But what “slate” does the OP need to clean? He is not blacklisted after all. Correct me if I’m wrong but getting a new passport does not violate any laws, immigration or otherwise.

 

It probably doesn't do him any good, though.  We have seen others go through a rejected-entry for a Tourist Visa (usually for not having 20K Baht in-hand), then come in by land a few days later - using the same "unused" Tourist Visa (or still-valid METV, in at least one case) - without issue. 

 

I don't recall them even having to prove overseas money - just the 20K Baht, at most - though I'd be prepared with proof I had more where the 20K came from, just in case.