Denied entry at Suvarnabhumi Airport

[Mattd]

23 minutes ago, Seanbhoy said:

If whatever crime you have committed could be deemed serious enough to be a constant threat to minors or vulnerable people then I think its due diligence that your home nation informs which ever country you are visiting.

I would agree with you, the trouble is this is not happening.

Countries will share information on persons who are on a watch list, especially if it involves a security threat, this is most likely done via an organisation such as Interpol.

There have been numerous reports of folks getting caught here for messing with children whilst teaching etc. etc. and then it comes out that they have served time, or are still wanted in their home country for similar.

A recent example was the Brit accused of the death of the girl who 'fell' off the balcony in Pattaya.

Lots of people have been found here who are wanted murderers / rapists and other heinous type crimes, very few are found entering the country though, mores the pity.

 

It is possible that the guy in the OP may have made a petty mistake years ago, paid the price and has been clean since, everybody does deserve one chance to rehabilitate.

[Antioc]

There is no doubt that this chap was not sent back for no reason.   Unless, as stated previously, he provides more information it is impossible to ascertain why the IO pulled him up.  Thailand is a known destination for many undesirable characters and almost all countries have some exchange of information with the authorities here.  This could happen a lot more in the future as more offenses are added and more people are on watch lists.  Australia is particularly diligent where crime is concerned, family violence and offenses against women are seen as particularly serious.

[Mattd]

Some interesting reading here regarding PNR (Passenger Name Records) sharing agreement between the EU & Australia, seems this was only agreed and introduced relatively recently.

https://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/information_on_pnr_agreements#incoming-588

[Bartman1369]

Maybe a similar name to someone else who is on the reject list prompted the question. To which as, someone quoted earlier should have been no for such a  minor offence 25 years ago. Then if you get caught out you plead ignorance. Now he is on the deportees list it will be more difficult to get in next time. Did he have a proper tourist visa or only Visa on Arrival.

 

Applying at his local embassy first should clarify if he is ableto enter the country or not.

[Bangkok Barry]

2 hours ago, SpeakeasyThai said:

As an honest law abiding ex pat living in Thailand, I am fed up meeting lawless ex pats with criminal history, problems and mental baggage that they bring to Thailand. They end up bringing their problems with them and thus, creating problems for the rest of us. Your 'friend' should stay in America where he belongs. He is America's problem, not ours.

 

Well done Thai immigration. 

Many people say that about immigrants to countries in the West. Much of the time it's true, too. Sadly. Gives the rest a bad name.

[Mattd]

10 minutes ago, Bartman1369 said:

Applying at his local embassy first should clarify if he is ableto enter the country or not.

Unfortunately this doesn't seem to be the case, the Thai embassies / consulates issue a visa without any external checks.

[Will27]

4 hours ago, scottiejohn said:

Australia Immigration do according to their Border Secuity Programmes.

No they don't.

[007 RED]

39 minutes ago, Mattd said:

Some interesting reading here regarding PNR (Passenger Name Records) sharing agreement between the EU & Australia, seems this was only agreed and introduced relatively recently.

https://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/information_on_pnr_agreements#incoming-588

Nothing very new or revealing in these documents.

 

FYI – the above was a Freedom of Information request made to the European Commission by a human rights activist.  He basically wanted to have access to all documents held by any of the member of the EU relating to the exchange of information in respect of Passenger Name Records (PNR).

 

PNR is the term used for the basic passenger biographic information collected at the international departure point from their passport.  This basic information is fed into the Advance Passenger Information System (APIS), which in turn forwards the information to the destination country, thereby allowing that country to indicate that will accept or refuse entry of that passenger.  This process normally takes place before the person leave their departure country. 

 

PNR currently does not contain any information relating to criminal history.  The USA has been pressing hard to have additional information supplied including criminal history and financial status, but this is being rejected by the 26 countries which currently use the APIS.

[juice777]

Thai immigration does not have direct access to any other countries immigration or national security databases.  Likewise, other countries do not have access to Thai immigration or security databases.  Information is shared on a need to know basis, as and when appropriate and this is normally done via diplomatic channels.
 
I suspect, that on this occasion the IO just threw the question ‘out of the blue’.  When the passenger answered yes, the next obvious question would have been what offence(s) you were convicted of.  Depending upon the answer, the IO would have referred the matter to a senior officer for further investigation and a decision regarding entry.
 
FYI – The Immigration Act B.E. 2522, Section 12 states:  Aliens which fall into any of the following categories are excluded from entering into the Kingdom:
 
Section 12(6) states:  Having been imprisoned by the judgement of the Thai Court; or by a lawful injunction; or by the judgement of the Court of foreign country, except when the penalty is for a petty offense or negligence or is provided for as an exception in the Ministerial Regulations.
 
Section 12(7).   Having behaviour which would indicated possible danger to the public or likelihood of being a nuisance or constituting any violence to the peace or safety of the public or to the security of the public or to the security of the nation, or being under warrant of arrest by competent officials of foreign governments.
 
Section 12(8).   Reason to believe that entrance into the Kingdom was for the purpose of being involved in prostitution, the trading of woman of children, drug smuggling, or other types of smuggling which are contrary to the public morality.
 
Without additional information it is impossible to say why the IO made the decision to refuse entry.

I've never herd one time of A Thai immigration officer asking anyone if they have been to prison. There has to be more to this then the op knows.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

[Will27]

4 hours ago, Mattd said:

Quite possibly they do, although given the nature of the US system, even this is probably only certain limited info, i.e. whatever is on a federal database.

I still doubt the Thai's have this sort of access.

Australia don't have access to the US system at ports of entry.

 

You have to declare if you've had any criminal convictions on your incoming passenger card.

It's an honour system.

[juice777]

As an honest law abiding ex pat living in Thailand, I am fed up meeting lawless ex pats with criminal history, problems and mental baggage that they bring to Thailand. They end up bringing their problems with them and thus, creating problems for the rest of us. Your 'friend' should stay in America where he belongs. He is America's problem, not ours.
 
Well done Thai immigration. 

2 months 25 years ago oh be serious lol. You don't even know what the crime was.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

[NoshowJones]

2 hours ago, Briggsy said:

I don't believe Thailand has access to the U.S. criminal record system.

 

Has somebody got reason to dislike this guy to the extent they would try and make trouble for him with authorities?

 

Has he upset anybody in Thailand?

 

Is there a hostile ex-wife?

 

Are there alimony or child support issues, particularly unpaid alimony or child support?

 

What part of Oregon is he from?

 

Who knew he had served time?

He should never have admitted he had served time to the IO. Someone he has pissed off has told Thai Immigration.

[007 RED]

1 minute ago, juice777 said:

I've never herd one time of A Thai immigration officer asking anyone if they have been to prison. There has to be more to this then the op knows.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
 

You may not have herd of it being asked... but many countries ask this information when you apply for a visa... so why should an IO not ask it?

 

[juice777]

One thing I can think of - some sort of "sexual deviant" type of offense, which might involve being "listed" on something more widely shared.  I seem to recall someone with such a charge being blocked entry recently, but that thread was closed before details were discussed.
 
Most would associate inclusion on such a list with rape or similar, but in the USA, that might include minor incidents such as "public urination" (drunk, taking a leak behind a dumpster) or something more potentially-serious, such as "domestic-violence."  In the latter case, for a man in the USA, avoiding such a charge means that when/if a female gets violent with you, run away as fast as you can; don't imagine you have a right to "self defense" or to protect your property - just run.

If it's public urination he would probably be more welcome in Thailand.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

[Mattd]

2 minutes ago, Will27 said:

You have to declare if you've had any criminal convictions on your incoming passenger card.

It's an honour system.

Yes, after I did further research then I do think this is the case, except in serious cases and where somebody has applied for a certain visa type or migration, where this info may be requested.

[Mattd]

5 minutes ago, 007 RED said:

Nothing very new or revealing in these documents.

What did interest me was the fact that this agreement is not that old and the way that the information can or cannot be used.

[007 RED]

3 hours ago, SpeakeasyThai said:

'Gobsmacked'... clearly you are living in the past? Don't you know everything is linked up to computers now! They can find out anything about anyone if they want to. Elementary.

 

If Thailand was so linked up (4.0), then why is it that immigration (which is part of the Royal Thai Police) have not been able to locate a large number of recent high profile fugitives e.g. YL; RB; Space ship monk etc.?

 

Answer is simple... They do not have access to other countries immigration or police databases.

Edited January 29, 2018 by 007 RED

[Goldbear]

The OP used the word prison. In the state that I'm from a person would only go to prison if they were sentenced to a felony crime and they were actually going to be incarcerated for a year or more. 

 

If you spent two months in the county jail, you have not gone to prison. And if you say you've gone to prison, the person hearing it might think that your crime is a lot more serious than maybe it was.

[JackThompson]

33 minutes ago, juice777 said:

If it's public urination he would probably be more welcome in Thailand.

Well, they would likely not consider that 'crime' a reason for not permitting access to the country. 
But when the fellow's name shows up on the "sex offender list," then he doesn't get in - even if Thailand would never put someone on such a list for such an offense.

[Lacessit]

2 minutes ago, Goldbear said:

 

 

If you spent two months in the county jail, you have not gone to prison.

Can you explain the difference between being in jail and being in prison. It seems to me one is a prisoner with either synonym.

[SunsetT]

4 hours ago, 007 RED said:

Reason to believe that entrance into the Kingdom was for the purpose of being involved in prostitution

So 90% of men arriving should be refused entry ................

[tonray]

55 minutes ago, Will27 said:

It's an honour system.

Well they do say there is 'honor among thieves'

[SCOTT FITZGERSLD]

YOU CAN get all the answers by looking at BORDER CONTROL movies at youtube or t.v.

thailand follows and copies the policies and trends you can see on those movies.

so why was your friend allowed once and not this time?

maybe there is something your friend does not tell you, but the USA authorities told the thai authorities.

 

for example, maybe your friend had a conviction for child porn, and when he came back from thailnd

the USA authorites alerted the thai authorities, and asked them to prevent his entry next time.

usually, thai authorities will not be hard on visitors from USA, unless asked to do so by USA authorities.

[JackThompson]

41 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Can you explain the difference between being in jail and being in prison. It seems to me one is a prisoner with either synonym.

It has to do with the severity of the crime and "how much lawyer" (corruption) one can afford, in the US Legal system.  
 

The Supreme Court of the USA has ruled that one can be "arrested and put in jail" for something as minor as a "seat belt" violation (actual case).  I don't think Thailand would want to ban-entry to those with minor traffic/safety violations, so the distinction is relevant. 

 

Since the working-class can offer little defense (public-defender = "public pretender" lawyer), those who "look poor" (of any race/ethnicity) are targeted by police, so that the prosecutors they work with can get higher conviction-ratios.  The financially-defenseless generally have to "plea" to some crime, whether innocent or guilty.

 

But since all crime/arrest data is not being shared, it stands to reason that the person denied in this case was put on some sort of special list of persons, which was shared with Thai authorities.

[Briggsy]

The OP has not come back so there is no point speculating on a topic which is based on something that is very likely to be wrong information.

[9KPhalak]

There has been a Thai law of this nature in the books for years.  As I remember any offense would prevent you from entering the Kingdom.  Excluding, traffic offenses.  I remember seeing it when I applied for the visa along with other criteria that you needed for the visa.   I cannot find it now but I remember it clearly. 

[Mansell]

I really doubt that a record, and a short record like his from 25 years ago is still in the system in the US....possible, but unlikely. And unless it was a Federal crime it wouldn't be in a national database. If he is from Oregon then it would only be in their database, and I am guessing probably a small weed conviction. His problem was saying Yes to them. I spent a short amount of time in a prison in Morocco, but there is no way I would tell them this.....and I would bet big money there is nothing on record in that country.....in fact it was 1972 which is 46 years ago which is a lifetime ago there. Obviously they didn't ask him first time in came into Thailand.....I am just surprised they would ask a tourist with money and ticket out of the country.

[9KPhalak]

There has been a Thai law of this nature in the books for years.  As I remember any offense would prevent you from entering the Kingdom.  Excluding, traffic offenses.  I remember seeing it when I applied for the visa along with other criteria that you needed for the visa.   You know, liked passport with more than 6 months left on it.  

[Mansell]

1 hour ago, SCOTT FITZGERSLD said:

YOU CAN get all the answers by looking at BORDER CONTROL movies at youtube or t.v.

thailand follows and copies the policies and trends you can see on those movies.

so why was your friend allowed once and not this time?

maybe there is something your friend does not tell you, but the USA authorities told the thai authorities.

 

for example, maybe your friend had a conviction for child porn, and when he came back from thailnd

the USA authorites alerted the thai authorities, and asked them to prevent his entry next time.

usually, thai authorities will not be hard on visitors from USA, unless asked to do so by USA authorities.

Nobody was nailing people for child porn 25 years ago in the USA. So I really doubt that was it.

[9KPhalak]

I agree.  But those databases are becoming one very fast.  Yes, he should never have said yes.  I bet he could go back home get another visa and get in.