Help with Deportation

[Dmitry2222]

6 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

Clause 2 of section 12 states this. You misquoted it.

"2. Having no appropriate means of living following entrance into the Kingdom."

What can be a proof to remove suspicion about that? Where are described an amount of required means?

[gk10002000]

6 hours ago, Happy enough said:

true, but this guy doesn't seem to have been working or have fallen in love. wasn't really living here. more a tourist with enough money to be here for long periods at a time. there's plenty of them too that thailand loses out on because of these enforcements i think

yep.  I likely could be in that category.  I certainly would prefer to do continuous tourist visas as I would be maintaining my residence in the USA but staying long periods of time in Thailand and jetting back and forth once or twice a year.  I have plenty of passive income.  It looks like I will be doing two tourist visas with one extentsion on each for 90 + 90 days or 180 days in country give or take per year.  Or do the retirement thing.  I so hate paperwork, especially government nonsense paper work.  I will see how things play out later this year and next

[jackdd]

9 hours ago, Cadbury said:

As I said I am not an expert. But I think you are pulling my leg when you talk glibly of a two year tourist. I would imagine that the immigration people would not define that sort of person as a tourist but more of a resident. And perhaps even a working resident depending on their age and appearance. They make the rules.

The point is they like to make rules, but that's not their job and they don't have the right to do rules (laws). They are there to execute laws, which are set by the government or the King in earlier times.

At least in theory Thailand is not much different from western countries, there are people who make the laws, and there are people who execute them. Which also explains why they back up if you file a TM11

[Cadbury]

22 minutes ago, jackdd said:

The point is they (Immigration Dept) like to make rules, but that's not their job

Perhaps your right. As a suggestion why don't you write and tell Immigration that they are only there to follow the rules rather than interpret them.

I am sure they will take you up on your suggestion and ignore the PM's desire to stop so called "tourists" using the rules and entering as tourists and then becoming workers and taking the jobs of Thai people. Good luck with that.

[jackdd]

26 minutes ago, Cadbury said:

Perhaps your right. As a suggestion why don't you write and tell Immigration that they are only there to follow the rules rather than interpret them.

I am sure they will take you up on your suggestion and ignore the PM's desire to stop so called "tourists" using the rules and entering as tourists and then becoming workers and taking the jobs of Thai people. Good luck with that.

I doubt i can reach the Immigration officers at the airports or the land borders by writing anything to anybody  (unless i had their personal address of course)

You can only address them in person at the borders. But that's enough, the TM11 is the official way for anybody to tell the IO: You don't make the laws

 

If they would ever stop me from entering, i would of course show them cash, if that's not enough i would show them that i have money and / or earn money in another country. And if after that they seriously want to refuse me the entry i would tell them that there is no law on which they can refuse my entry and that they are not the people who make laws. Depending on how i judge the IO in the situation i would then either use my contacts in Thailand and see if they change his opinion, or i would just go the official way with the TM11.

[glegolo]

Jackdd,,,,, wake up for God sake......  and smell the roses...... You can not do anything at all, arguing at an officer just put you faster on the outside of Thailand. Buy yourself a REAL VISA proper to your situation that Thailand will more like and accept and be happy in future...

 

glegolo

[ubonjoe]

7 hours ago, Dmitry2222 said:

What can be a proof to remove suspicion about that? Where are described an amount of required means?

As wrote earlier in this topic showing the equivalent of 20k baht in cash for clause 2.

[Dmitry2222]

2 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

As wrote earlier in this topic showing the equivalent of 20k baht in cash for clause 2.

Thanks for reply, however thread starter wrote that cache was showed and IO rejected him. Did IO go beyond the law?

[ubonjoe]

3 minutes ago, Dmitry2222 said:

Thanks for reply, however thread starter wrote that cache was showed and IO rejected him. Did IO go beyond the law?

He did not write how much cash he showed.

Immigration might of had other reasons but did not put the clause on the stamp.

[Dmitry2222]

17 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

Immigration might of had other reasons but did not put the clause on the stamp.

Ok, there is not real reason on the stamp (probably, it is not normal). He wrote: "They clearly thought I was working there..... also I offered to show some banks statements. Nothing worked..."  May be you can help to explain what kind of proofs can be used at this case?  Thanks again.

[JackThompson]

7 hours ago, Cadbury said:

As a suggestion why don't you write and tell Immigration that they are only there to follow the rules rather than interpret them.

Because they don't believe in laws or follow laws.  That's the problem.  People in uniforms who don't follow laws are just well-dressed common-thugs, operating a "3rd World" style gauntlet with jail.  In this case, these now exist in both of Thailand's national-capital airports. 

 

6 hours ago, glegolo said:

You can not do anything at all, arguing at an officer just put you faster on the outside of Thailand. Buy yourself a REAL VISA proper to your situation that Thailand will more like and accept and be happy in future...

I agree that arguing with law-breakers is rather pointless - like quoting laws at a guy who has a gun pointed at you, and is taking your wallet; he obviously doesn't care what the law says/is.  But pointing to a survelliance-camera might do some good - which seems to parallel the case, here.

 

So, if "being nice and polite and respectful" has utterly failed, as evidenced by the rejection-stamp in one's passport, filing that form to appeal it cannot hurt - other than possibly them dragging out your time in detention, since they have 7 days to respond to it.  But, in his case, it appears that the threat of showing the IOs to be breaking the laws they have sworn to uphold, was sufficient to get the rejection-reversed.  I was happy to see a fair end to his tale, complete with passport-scan to prove it.

[JackThompson]

17 hours ago, Happy enough said:

thais are shrewd when it comes to money. OK

But they are - in a way. 

 

Agent-procured extensions-of-stay, refusing the processing legit-applications for extensions by "good guys", hassling people with valid visas upon entry, "crackdowns", special "pay a fortune to leave you alone" visas, etc -  it's all about corruption, and the corrupt do profit nicely. 

 

The "good guy" foreigners and honest Thais running legit-businesses are the losers, of course.

[scubascuba3]

As Khun Ubonjoe said: this is not a deportation but a denial of entry.
A little bit too late now, but you should have been able to have it cancelled by filling a TM 11 form to appeal against the immigration officer who stamped your passport.
That happened to me four years ago and within an hour I was welcome back to Thailand while they were still dreaming to put me back on the next flight to Brussels.
Scanned Document.pdf

How about talking us through what you did that day to appeal and how receptive were they?

[rufmun]

9 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

He did not write how much cash he showed.

Immigration might of had other reasons but did not put the clause on the stamp.

Hello. 29.970thb showed and if they would have left me, around 3.230€ on my bank account. My only sin maybe was to be in the wrong queue.

 

Edited: Is good to say that I never said it wasn't illegal to refuse me. I am just saying that, if the real reason was to have a few visas already, then make it official. But if you put the wrong clause, this is not fair. That's the point of that I think.

 

Thank you for your cooperation.

[Get Real]

On 2018-03-09 at 10:53 AM, darrendsd said:

"You can enter the country at anytime but you should have at least the equivalent of 20k baht in cash in any exchangeable currency.

Also proof to show you have a means to stay here without working." 

 

He showed this when he was denied, having the 20K and proof of a means to stay no longer seems enough, this is not the first time this has happened lately, it seems if they decide they want to deny you then it is going to happen no matter what you show them

How far do you come in Thailand on 20K baht? Maybe that is a relevant question.

[Get Real]

5 minutes ago, Get Real said:

How far do you come in Thailand on 20K baht? Maybe that is a relevant question.

Have to quote myself for the first time. Forgot to enter: "If only can show 20K baht, it should be a limit of stay of maximaum five days". Will send that as an idea to Immigration tomorrow.

[jackdd]

49 minutes ago, rufmun said:

I am just saying that, if the real reason was to have a few visas already, then make it official. But if you put the wrong clause, this is not fair. That's the point of that I think.

Their "problem" is that having "too many" visas is not a reason to deny you

When they deny entry they have to pick one of these:

Quote

1. Having no genuine and valid passport or document used in lieu of passport; or having a genuine and valid passport or document used in lieu of a passport without Visaing by the Royal Thai Embassies or Consulates in Foreign countries; or from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, excepting if a visa is not required for certain types of aliens in special instances. Visaing and visa exemption will be under the learn and conditions as provided in the Ministerial Regulations.

2. Having no appropriate means of living following entrance into the Kingdom.
3. Having entered into the Kingdom to take occupation as a laborer or to take employment by using physical without skills training or to work in violation of the Ministerial Regulations.
4. Being mentally unstable or having any of the disease as prescribed in the Ministerial Regulations.
5. Having not yet been vaccinated against small pox or inoculated or undergone any other medical treatment for protection against disease and having refused to have such vaccinations administered by the Immigration Doctor.
6. 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 foe petty offense or negligence or is provided for as an exception in the Ministerial Regulations.
7. Having behavior 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.
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.
9. Having no money or bond as prescribed by the Minister under him.
10. Being a person prohibited by the Minister under Section 16.
11. Being deported by either the Government of Thailand that of or other foreign countries; or the right of stay in the Kingdom or in foreign countries having been revoked; or having been sent out of the Kingdom by competent officials at the expense of the Government of Thailand unless the Minister shall consider exemption on an individual special case basis.

http://library.siam-legal.com/thai-law/thai-immigration-act-entering-and-departing-the-kingdom-sections-11-22/

 

And it seems that if they don't have a reason they like to choose option 2, because this is probably the easiest for them.

If you fill out the TM11, and write on the appeal that you have a certain amount of money with you, which seems to be a minimum of 20k THB,  then the prime minister or minister of the interior would see this and maybe somebody would start asking question why they refuse entry if you have enough money. So i assume as soon as you submit this form the IO just puts the fee in his own pocket and cancels the entry denied stamp.

What is the official fee for the TM11?

[ubonjoe]

31 minutes ago, jackdd said:

What is the official fee for the TM11?

It is 1900 baht.

[rufmun]

4 hours ago, jackdd said:

Their "problem" is that having "too many" visas is not a reason to deny you

When they deny entry they have to pick one of these:

http://library.siam-legal.com/thai-law/thai-immigration-act-entering-and-departing-the-kingdom-sections-11-22/

 

And it seems that if they don't have a reason they like to choose option 2, because this is probably the easiest for them.

If you fill out the TM11, and write on the appeal that you have a certain amount of money with you, which seems to be a minimum of 20k THB,  then the prime minister or minister of the interior would see this and maybe sody would start asking question why they refuse entry if you have enough money. So i assume as soon as you submit this form the IO just puts the fee in his own pocket and cancels the entry denied stamp.

What is the official fee for the TM11?

Attending to this. They can apply the clause number 11 if I try to entry again but, as far as I know, I was denied, not officially deported. Am I wrong?

 

"11. Being deported by either the Government of Thailand that of or other foreign countries; or the right of stay in the Kingdom or in foreign countries having been revoked; or having been sent out of the Kingdom by competent officials at the expense of the Government of Thailand unless the Minister shall consider exemption on an individual special case basis."

 

Edited: Everyone called me "deported" when it happened the last 25th. The airline took me back to Ho Chi Minh for free. That is why I want to get my status cleared.

 

 

[elviajero]

3 hours ago, rufmun said:

Attending to this. They can apply the clause number 11 if I try to entry again but, as far as I know, I was denied, not officially deported. Am I wrong?

 

"11. Being deported by either the Government of Thailand that of or other foreign countries; or the right of stay in the Kingdom or in foreign countries having been revoked; or having been sent out of the Kingdom by competent officials at the expense of the Government of Thailand unless the Minister shall consider exemption on an individual special case basis."

 

Edited: Everyone called me "deported" when it happened the last 25th. The airline took me back to Ho Chi Minh for free. That is why I want to get my status cleared.

 

 

You were denied entry, but not formally deported so section 12.11 doesn’t apply.

 

People only get formally deported when being removed from the country after entering the country legally/illegally.

[BritTim]

11 hours ago, Get Real said:

Have to quote myself for the first time. Forgot to enter: "If only can show 20K baht, it should be a limit of stay of maximaum five days". Will send that as an idea to Immigration tomorrow.

So, in your view, someone should be able to show 5,000 baht cash for each day they plan to be in the country. Does this imply that someone entering on a single entry Non O (planning to stay for 90 days) should be forced to carry 450,000 baht cash before getting the 90-day stamp?

[Get Real]

3 hours ago, BritTim said:

So, in your view, someone should be able to show 5,000 baht cash for each day they plan to be in the country. Does this imply that someone entering on a single entry Non O (planning to stay for 90 days) should be forced to carry 450,000 baht cash before getting the 90-day stamp?

No, not really. Holders of Non O single entry or multiple entry has thoose based out of 3 reasons. That is Marriage, Retirement or Child Dependant.
In thoose cases there is the 40K or 65K a month that should be shown in my opinion. That due to people staying long time for thoose reasons mostly build a house, rent long time or buy a condo.
In that case they are going to have lesser expensies than a tourist staying at a hotel, eating out every day three times, partying and travelling around the country.

As a tourist, it´s according to me, not going to be much of a life if you not spend 3K a day. This with 20K and 5 days was just an example for spreading the message so to say.
However, as I see thoose rules implemented it would also get rid of people trying to stay long time working illegal or not working on tourist visas.

What should I say. "2 Chicken in one pot? 

[BritTim]

3 hours ago, Get Real said:

Holders of Non O single entry or multiple entry has thoose based out of 3 reasons. That is Marriage, Retirement or Child Dependant.
In thoose cases there is the 40K or 65K a month that should be shown in my opinion.

Although that might be your opinion, the fact is hat a multiple entry Non O visa to visit your Thai spouse is available without showing any financial proof. Indeed, while in Savannakhet you must show financial proof for a tourist visa, this is not required for the multiple Non O based on marriage.

[Get Real]

18 minutes ago, BritTim said:

Although that might be your opinion, the fact is hat a multiple entry Non O visa to visit your Thai spouse is available without showing any financial proof. Indeed, while in Savannakhet you must show financial proof for a tourist visa, this is not required for the multiple Non O based on marriage.

Sure, that´s all right as you say. I told you my opinion one how it all could and should be according to me.

 

When it comes to Non-O, I am well aware of that you can get it without showing money in both Savannakhet and Vientiane. However, a married person or a person with a child and retired people wish to stay longer than 90 days. That is probably going to be the next they crack down on. As you also know it´s possible for marriage and child dependant to extend 60 days at immigration. 
To many are doing that already, and that is probably going to be harder to do time after time too.

After that the only option is going to be an extension of 1 year at immigration office, and then everybody will have to show the funds.

 

Let´s call it future facts.

[anon789561]

6 minutes ago, Get Real said:

Sure, that´s all right as you say. I told you my opinion one how it all could and should be according to me.

 

When it comes to Non-O, I am well aware of that you can get it without showing money in both Savannakhet and Vientiane. However, a married person or a person with a child and retired people wish to stay longer than 90 days. That is probably going to be the next they crack down on. As you also know it´s possible for marriage and child dependant to extend 60 days at immigration. 
To many are doing that already, and that is probably going to be harder to do time after time too.

After that the only option is going to be an extension of 1 year at immigration office, and then everybody will have to show the funds.

 

Let´s call it future facts.

i disagree. i think the ME Non Imm will remain but they will all require proof of funds eventually. and regards showing money you can get in hcmc and london too without. savannakhets' just well known from guys living in the north i guess. anyway why no "very" in front of your profile strap line : ) only kidding mate

[Dmitry2222]

1 hour ago, Get Real said:

After that the only option is going to be an extension of 1 year at immigration office, and then everybody will have to show the funds.

One more motive for corruption.

[Get Real]

30 minutes ago, Dmitry2222 said:

One more motive for corruption.

Maybe they need to have that as an option, to get rid of all tourist visa longstayers. One weight in the scale holds the other one.

[elviajero]

On 09/03/2018 at 10:30 AM, ubonjoe said:

On 09/03/2018 at 10:17 AM, elviajero said:

You were denied entry for not having the means for making a living, but you weren’t formally deported.

Clause 2 of section 12 states this. You misquoted it.

"2. Having no appropriate means of living following entrance into the Kingdom."

I wasn't directly quoting it. I was applying the intent of the clause to the OP's situation.

 

FYI; "Clause 2" has nothing to do with having 10K/20K. That is covered by 12. 9.

"9. Having no money or bond as prescribed by the Minister under him" [that prescribed amount of money being 10K (visa exempt), or 20K (visa holder)].

 

"Clause 2", in simple terms, is for the person does not have an appropriate way of sustaining their stay, such as work/job/income.

"(2) ไม่มี ปัจจัย ใน การ ยังชีพ ตามควร ..."

mai mee [doesn't have] bpat-jai [means/requisite] nai [in] gaan yang cheep [way to support/sustain life (live)] dtaam kuan [appropriately/as it should be] ...

 

The OP claims not to be working, but cannot prove, to the satisfaction of the IO, that they have an appropriate way of supporting such a long stay in the country as a 'tourist'. Therefore they were denied entry.

If a long term tourist claims not to be working they should expect to prove they have a job/income that's not linked to work in Thailand. I don't know if money in a Thai bank would sway it, but given the minimum Thai authorities consider appropriate for someone staying 1 year in Thailand is 400K I'd say that is a good number to start with.

[elviajero]

On 09/03/2018 at 12:51 PM, jackdd said:

But it's not up to you or the IO to decide who is a tourist.

You are kidding? That is exactly what an IO's job is. They screen everyone entering the country.

 

On 09/03/2018 at 12:51 PM, jackdd said:

What if somebody just takes a year or two break from work and wants to spend this time in Thailand?

They get the appropriate visa, and if there isn't one they go somewhere else or play chase the tourist visa around SEA.

 

On 09/03/2018 at 12:51 PM, jackdd said:

By law it's legal to have as many tourist visas or visa exempts as you want as long as you have money.

No it's not. That decision is with the embassies/consulates issuing the visas and the IO's at the border. There may not be a defined limit but no one is entitled to any visa regardless of how much money they have.

 

On 09/03/2018 at 12:51 PM, jackdd said:

If Thailand would not want long term tourists they could just enact laws which other countries have, for example a maximum of 180 days per year in the country on tourist visas, but they didn't do this

They could, but clearly they have chosen not to, yet. They have tackled it by;

• stopping people using visa exempt to live in the country as a tourist
• pushing people from visa exempt to tourist visas
• limiting the number of tourist visas available at one embassy/consulate
• stopping all but SETV's in the region for non SEA residents
• making people go back to their country of residence to get METV
• limiting visa exempt entries by land
• giving IO's discretion to deny those overusing visa exempt at airports

No doubt I've forgotten a few of the methods they have been using since 2006 to successfully reduce the number of long staying 'tourists'.

 

Limiting the number of visas affects genuine frequently visiting tourists so they are unlikely to do that unless they have to, and at the present time their computer system can't keep count of the time in the country each person has spent as a tourist, which makes keeping count impractical. They tried that with visa exempt entries years ago and eventually had to drop it.

 

180 days is without out doubt they line immigration bosses have drawn. Not necessarily to limit everyone to 180 days, but to give IO's a benchmark to  start seriously looking at the person claiming to be a 'tourist. The visa exempt flag triggered after 6 entries is because 6 x 30 = 180 days.

 

Why people want immigration to come up with a strict number of tourist visas, or officially limit time in the country as a tourist to 180 days, is beyond me. Turkeys voting for Christmas!

 

Thailand do want long term visitors, but they don't want those visitors using tourist visas and have made that crystal clear by their actions.

 

[BritTim]

31 minutes ago, elviajero said:

They could, but clearly they have chosen not to, yet. They have tackled it by;

• stopping people using visa exempt to live in the country as a tourist
• pushing people from visa exempt to tourist visas
• limiting the number of tourist visas available at one embassy/consulate
• stopping all but SETV's in the region for non SEA residents
• making people go back to their country of residence to get METV
• limiting visa exempt entries by land
• giving IO's discretion to deny those overusing visa exempt at airports

No doubt I've forgotten a few of the methods they have been using since 2006 to successfully reduce the number of long staying 'tourists'.

I fully agree with your point that they have been cracking down (rightly or wrongly) on certain classes of long term tourists. Where I think we part company is over the consensus at the top about well heeled long term tourists. While I do not think all the senior officials are of one mind, I think there is agreement that people who can easily afford to spend time here without competing with Thais for employment or business should be at least tolerated, if not encouraged. They would prefer that such individuals choose the long term tourist visa known as the Thailand Elite Easy Access visa. However, people who fall into the tolerated category who can get other kinds of tourist visas will also not be turned away ... or, at least, that is the intention. A few immigration officials who disagree with the policy directives from above might occasionally create problems.