Denied entry Immigration Act 2, 12 (2)

[lkv]

To correct my previous post, the deportation one seems to be red indeed.

 

First is refusal of entry at airport, second one is deportation after arrested and processed through court for marijuana possesion.

[Media1]

3 hours ago, mekko said:

Where was you deported to? Did you have any input into destination? Did you have to buy a expensive new ticket? 

You must be deported back home

[Media1]

2 hours ago, The Theory said:

Even though they said that, there is no garrantee that you can get back in soon by any other visas. The fact is once you are deported all goes to your record. Most probobly they think you are working illegally. That’s why you shall be reheated next time even with a real visa. 

No straight through no overstay no problem. NEXT 

[ukrules]

3 hours ago, Russell17au said:

I would say that your biggest mistake was taking the arrogant attitude with the Immigration Officer

I don't think so, they had already made up their mind that he wasn't getting in so whatever he said would make zero difference to the outcome.

 

It sounds to me like they denied entry on false pretences - they lied but did it anyway even when he called them out.

 

I will always argue my point with officials and I have won this in the past and got them to back down, this wasn't in relation to entering the country though.

[Media1]

2 minutes ago, ukrules said:

I don't think so, they had already made up their mind that he wasn't getting in so whatever he said would make zero difference to the outcome.

 

It sounds to me like they denied entry on false pretences - they lied but did it anyway even when he called them out.

 

I will always argue my point with officials and I have won this in the past and got them to back down, this wasn't in relation to entering the country though.

Correct

[ubonjoe]

A off topic inflammatory post meant to deflect the topic has been removed.

[JackThompson]

On 6/3/2018 at 8:32 PM, mvdf said:

Immigration officers of this country have every RIGHT to exercise their discretion in matters pertaining to admissibility of foreigners. 

 

And the audacity to question them on the law governing the denial of aliens deemed inadmissible. 

They are required to follow the laws of their own nation.  They wrote the laws - not us - so it is not "audacious" for us to expect those laws to be followed.  In many cases, documented here, they openly flaunt those laws, lie about them, and harm visitors for no sane purpose or goal.  It's certainly not about "stopping illegal workers" - since they have special cut-outs in immigration-law to let millions of those in, from neighboring countries.

 

Therefore, when they quote non-existent "laws" - reported repeatedly here - and have a documented history of corruption throughout checkpoints and offices across the country, some might conclude this is not "on the level," as it were.
 

On 6/3/2018 at 10:30 PM, JBBKK said:

If there is a moral to the story, then I'd say it's simply that they want a tourist to be a tourist.

If you can find a definition of such in Thai law, please let us know.  All that is stipulated on entry on a Tourist Visa, is not to work a Thai job, not to overstay or otherwise break laws, and to have 20K Baht upon entry with a TR-Visa, or 10K Baht entering Visa-Exempt. 

I spent most of several years here acting just like any other "tourist" on Tourist Visa entries - eating-out, go to the beach, travel about, visit temples and landmarks, shop in the malls, etc. 

 

On 6/3/2018 at 10:30 PM, JBBKK said:

No matter what mix of VE, SETV or METV stamps you have, if you are spending more time in the country than you are outside it, then you're risking a denial of entry at some point.

Only if you enter at places where IOs make up non-existent laws and rules - some airports and the Poipet/Aranyaprathet crossing. 

 

If you enter by the other land-borders, you will have no problem with a Visa, and 2 Visa-Exempt entries per-year hassle-free.

 

On 6/3/2018 at 10:30 PM, JBBKK said:

You'll get away with it for longer in Thailand than possibly any other country in the world, but at some point you'll get the wrong Immigration Officer on the wrong day and get yourself in trouble. 

On the contrary, in much of the world nations welcome you with Open Arms to come and spend your money there.  In the region, this includes Vietnam and Cambodia - ZERO reports of this type of behavior, provided you follow the published laws.  Further afield, almost all of Latin America. 

A few lower-wage nations harming their own people by denying-entry to self-financed Western visitors, and often going out of their way to make up lies to do so, is the odd / puzzling behavior.

 

On 6/3/2018 at 10:30 PM, JBBKK said:

I'd advise people to not to try to game the system, which is what I guess I was doing

You were not "gaming" anything.  But there is a special ministerial order regarding Visa Exempt entries, which gives IOs futher leeway to deny entry, if you are seen as using these for "visa-runs" - i.e. quick in/outs.  If you don't have 2 land-border Visa Exempts this calendar year, and had come in that way, you would not have been denied (except possibly by the same clique of farang-haters who also operaste Poipet/Aranyaprathet).

[JackThompson]

20 hours ago, Russell17au said:

I would say that your biggest mistake was taking the arrogant attitude with the Immigration Officer that you did by demanding to know what law they were refusing your entry on and you were told too many ins and outs when you yourself have admitted you do have too many, but you still wanted to push a point trying to make yourself more superior than the IO.

An honest officer should be more than happy to explain the (actual, written) Law in a polite fashion, to anyone who asks.  It has nothing to do with "being superior" - anyone accused of doing something wrong is well within the limits of polite and professional-decorum to ask exactly what they are being accused of doing incorrectly.

 

The problem of people in uniform being "offended" when asked to explain their behavior is not unique to Thailand.   We have this problem in my country also; violence and false-charges are often the response to someone who, "Mouths off about the law."

Complying and keeping one's head down, because one knows they are dealing with corruption and people who don't believe in "the law" is a survival strategy.  If dealing with corrupt officials, it may be better to shut up - not because they are right, but because they have unregulated power to ignore the laws they swore to uphold. 

 

The saddest part, is when people become so accustomed to abuses of power, that the actually believe that the decent person who broke no law is the one in the wrong.   This is a form of Stockholm Syndrome.

 

The officers did not ask the applicant for additional proof of sufficient funding to support his stay - which would be relevant to the denial-stamp applies.  Instead, they talked about "too many ins/outs," which is not relevant to the reason for denial.  If "too many ins/outs" is the reason stated (or "too many days" in other cases), then the stamp would need to reference an immigration-law or ministerial-order stating such a limit.  As no such legal justification exists, they pretended to have omniscient knowledge of the applicant's financial status, as is customary in these cases - but without even attempting to get to the truth.

 

On 6/4/2018 at 2:01 AM, MiWV said:

Why do people think it's their right to do whatever they want regardless of laws in foreign countries? You well know thigs like this are significantly more strict "back home"

We are asking the actual laws be followed - not the reverse.  "Back Home" we have a problem of people coming from low-wage nations to take jobs illegally.  This problem exists in Thailand, as well - but Western visitors are not the source of it; those who do this by the millions have special considerations to allow them in.

 

20 hours ago, Hoppyone said:

I’ve been coming to Thailand on 6mth multi entry visas,in Dec 17 I was pulled aside and questioned why in that 12 month period I’d spent 251 days in Thailand but the law says only allowed to stay for 183 day

There is no such law. This is yet another case of an IO making up a law - and the reason their credibility is seen as lacking with regards to the law.  Of course, since the law doesn't matter in practice, there is not much we can do about it when encountering such people, except to try to minimize the damage they may inflict on our lives.

 

This will not change unless and until the Thai people manage to clean up this problem, which would certainly result in more foreign-funds spent in Thailand, which would be better for everyone.

[Media1]

2 hours ago, JackThompson said:

They are required to follow the laws of their own nation.  They wrote the laws - not us - so it is not "audacious" for us to expect those laws to be followed.  In many cases, documented here, they openly flaunt those laws, lie about them, and harm visitors for no sane purpose or goal.  It's certainly not about "stopping illegal workers" - since they have special cut-outs in immigration-law to let millions of those in, from neighboring countries.

 

Therefore, when they quote non-existent "laws" - reported repeatedly here - and have a documented history of corruption throughout checkpoints and offices across the country, some might conclude this is not "on the level," as it were.
 

If you can find a definition of such in Thai law, please let us know.  All that is stipulated on entry on a Tourist Visa, is not to work a Thai job, not to overstay or otherwise break laws, and to have 20K Baht upon entry with a TR-Visa, or 10K Baht entering Visa-Exempt. 

I spent most of several years here acting just like any other "tourist" on Tourist Visa entries - eating-out, go to the beach, travel about, visit temples and landmarks, shop in the malls, etc. 

 

Only if you enter at places where IOs make up non-existent laws and rules - some airports and the Poipet/Aranyaprathet crossing. 

 

If you enter by the other land-borders, you will have no problem with a Visa, and 2 Visa-Exempt entries per-year hassle-free.

 

On the contrary, in much of the world nations welcome you with Open Arms to come and spend your money there.  In the region, this includes Vietnam and Cambodia - ZERO reports of this type of behavior, provided you follow the published laws.  Further afield, almost all of Latin America. 

A few lower-wage nations harming their own people by denying-entry to self-financed Western visitors, and often going out of their way to make up lies to do so, is the odd / puzzling behavior.

 

You were not "gaming" anything.  But there is a special ministerial order regarding Visa Exempt entries, which gives IOs futher leeway to deny entry, if you are seen as using these for "visa-runs" - i.e. quick in/outs.  If you don't have 2 land-border Visa Exempts this calendar year, and had come in that way, you would not have been denied (except possibly by the same clique of farang-haters who also operaste Poipet/Aranyaprathet).

Agree

[Media1]

1 hour ago, JackThompson said:

An honest officer should be more than happy to explain the (actual, written) Law in a polite fashion, to anyone who asks.  It has nothing to do with "being superior" - anyone accused of doing something wrong is well within the limits of polite and professional-decorum to ask exactly what they are being accused of doing incorrectly.

 

The problem of people in uniform being "offended" when asked to explain their behavior is not unique to Thailand.   We have this problem in my country also; violence and false-charges are often the response to someone who, "Mouths off about the law."

Complying and keeping one's head down, because one knows they are dealing with corruption and people who don't believe in "the law" is a survival strategy.  If dealing with corrupt officials, it may be better to shut up - not because they are right, but because they have unregulated power to ignore the laws they swore to uphold. 

 

The saddest part, is when people become so accustomed to abuses of power, that the actually believe that the decent person who broke no law is the one in the wrong.   This is a form of Stockholm Syndrome.

 

The officers did not ask the applicant for additional proof of sufficient funding to support his stay - which would be relevant to the denial-stamp applies.  Instead, they talked about "too many ins/outs," which is not relevant to the reason for denial.  If "too many ins/outs" is the reason stated (or "too many days" in other cases), then the stamp would need to reference an immigration-law or ministerial-order stating such a limit.  As no such legal justification exists, they pretended to have omniscient knowledge of the applicant's financial status, as is customary in these cases - but without even attempting to get to the truth.

 

We are asking the actual laws be followed - not the reverse.  "Back Home" we have a problem of people coming from low-wage nations to take jobs illegally.  This problem exists in Thailand, as well - but Western visitors are not the source of it; those who do this by the millions have special considerations to allow them in.

 

There is no such law. This is yet another case of an IO making up a law - and the reason their credibility is seen as lacking with regards to the law.  Of course, since the law doesn't matter in practice, there is not much we can do about it when encountering such people, except to try to minimize the damage they may inflict on our lives.

 

This will not change unless and until the Thai people manage to clean up this problem, which would certainly result in more foreign-funds spent in Thailand, which would be better for everyone.

Clean house with new leader. Will need big rubbish trucks. Badges and uniforms trying to claw there way out before the compactor starts up. A good short film

[JackThompson]

57 minutes ago, Media1 said:

Clean house with new leader. Will need big rubbish trucks. Badges and uniforms trying to claw there way out before the compactor starts up. A good short film

I'm not sure the "leader" is the problem.  It was the top-guy who recommended "flexibility" with the ministerial order limiting visa-exempt use - even citing Thailand's need for (illegal) English teachers.   Also, some anti-foreigner steps were taken under the previous (opposing) administrations.

 

But, there is certainly a clique who don't like Westerners here - and they have sufficient power to control the immigration checkpoints of both Bangkok airports.  I first ran into people with this mindset at amphurs, attempting to get married.  It was a shock, after formerly being exposed only to decent-minded Thais, who saw my spending money into their economy as an asset.  Next, I ran into the "family desk" personnel in Jomtien, who have a similar attitude, and refused my extension on false-pretenses.

 

But, it's not all bad news.  At the amphur where I got married, the head-honcho had a positive attitude to foreigners marrying Thais - loved the fact I was educated, and encouraged me to help with development.  At another immigration office, it was all smiles, and encouragement to apply for an extension there.

 

There is a battle going on behind the scenes.  We can only hope those who support policies that will help more Thais prosper will win the day.  But there is another large country in the region, who would love to see all Westerners out, regardless of the harm done to Thailand.  They are patient and persistent.  I would bet they are spreading a lot of money around to make their vision for Thailand come to pass.

[Hoppyone]

7 hours ago, JackThompson said:

An honest officer should be more than happy to explain the (actual, written) Law in a polite fashion, to anyone who asks.  It has nothing to do with "being superior" - anyone accused of doing something wrong is well within the limits of polite and professional-decorum to ask exactly what they are being accused of doing incorrectly.

 

The problem of people in uniform being "offended" when asked to explain their behavior is not unique to Thailand.   We have this problem in my country also; violence and false-charges are often the response to someone who, "Mouths off about the law."

Complying and keeping one's head down, because one knows they are dealing with corruption and people who don't believe in "the law" is a survival strategy.  If dealing with corrupt officials, it may be better to shut up - not because they are right, but because they have unregulated power to ignore the laws they swore to uphold. 

 

The saddest part, is when people become so accustomed to abuses of power, that the actually believe that the decent person who broke no law is the one in the wrong.   This is a form of Stockholm Syndrome.

 

The officers did not ask the applicant for additional proof of sufficient funding to support his stay - which would be relevant to the denial-stamp applies.  Instead, they talked about "too many ins/outs," which is not relevant to the reason for denial.  If "too many ins/outs" is the reason stated (or "too many days" in other cases), then the stamp would need to reference an immigration-law or ministerial-order stating such a limit.  As no such legal justification exists, they pretended to have omniscient knowledge of the applicant's financial status, as is customary in these cases - but without even attempting to get to the truth.

 

We are asking the actual laws be followed - not the reverse.  "Back Home" we have a problem of people coming from low-wage nations to take jobs illegally.  This problem exists in Thailand, as well - but Western visitors are not the source of it; those who do this by the millions have special considerations to allow them in.

 

There is no such law. This is yet another case of an IO making up a law - and the reason their credibility is seen as lacking with regards to the law.  Of course, since the law doesn't matter in practice, there is not much we can do about it when encountering such people, except to try to minimize the damage they may inflict on our lives.

 

This will not change unless and until the Thai people manage to clean up this problem, which would certainly result in more foreign-funds spent in Thailand, which would be better for everyone.

Interesting,but they kept saying to me because of the amount of time I’d spent in Thailand mind you each time with a 6 month mev,they were of the opinion that I was not a genuine tourist as I had previously 7 times been out of country for 1 day at a time and then returned, and that I should be on a retirement visa .Cheers

[Maestro]

On 6/5/2018 at 4:08 AM, JackThompson said:

...All that is stipulated on entry on a Tourist Visa, is not to work a Thai job, not to overstay or otherwise break laws, and to have 20K Baht upon entry with a TR-Visa, or 10K Baht entering Visa-Exempt...

 

 

As far as I know, neither the Immigration Act nor any other law requires carrying 20k or 10k Baht on entry into Thailand but I consider it possible, even highly probable, that immigration has an internal, unpublished guideline to that effect.

[ukrules]

9 hours ago, Maestro said:

As far as I know, neither the Immigration Act nor any other law requires carrying 20k or 10k Baht on entry into Thailand but I consider it possible, even highly probable, that immigration has an internal, unpublished guideline to that effect.

 

Sounds like it, the whole reason he was deported sounds made up to me.

 

It's kind of hard to believe but here we have a country denying entry to people for reasons which are not clearly defined in law.

 

Cases like this deserve maximum publicity because there is no maximum number of entries per month, year or decade in law.

[BritTim]

9 hours ago, Maestro said:

 

As far as I know, neither the Immigration Act nor any other law requires carrying 20k or 10k Baht on entry into Thailand but I consider it possible, even highly probable, that immigration has an internal, unpublished guideline to that effect.

1

I cannot put my hands on it right now, but the Immigration Act Section 12 (9) refers to Having no money or bond as prescribed by the Minister under him. There was, I think, a police order that outlined the 10,000/20,000 baht requirement to meet this criteria.

 

It bears repeating that there is a separate subsection Section 12 (2) Having no appropriate means of living following entrance into the Kingdom. The requirements under this subsection are whatever the immigration official deems appropriate. If an official suspects you of illegal working, they can deny you for this reason, and may refuse to view evidence to the contrary (though, if you are entering with an actual visa, they rarely do).

[Maestro]

Thank you, BritTim, for pointing to Section 12(9) of the Immigration Act , which mentions Section 14. 

 

Quote

 

Section 12

...

(9) Having no money or bond as prescribed by the Minister’s publication
under Section 14;

 

Section 14. The Minister shall have power to publish in the Government
Gazette requiring the aliens entering the Kingdom to have with them either money or bond,
or shall have power to make exemption under any conditions...

 

 

Unfortunately, it is very difficult to track down Ministerial Orders and other texts published in the Government Gazette if one does not know the volume and number or the date of the issue of the Gazette where it was published. The website http://www.krisdika.go.th does not seem to have any search function for this. My polite written requests to the Immigration Bureau for a copy of a Ministerial Regulation mentioned in the Immigration Act have never produced any result. I wonder if @Badbanker can give any suggestion on how to coax immigration into giving a copy of this type of public documents.

[BritTim]

I do seem to remember reading a primary source once in the past, but did not save a link. The requirement is cited all over the place, of course, including on some embassy websites. Unfortunately, some such sites quote outdated versions of the rules, such as http://www.thaiembassy.org/telaviv/en/services/685/17388-Entry-to-Thailand.html

Quote

Minimum Currency Limit When Entering Thailand:

1. Holders of a transit visa or those who enter Thailand without a visa are required to possess not less than the equivalent amount of 5,000 Baht per person or 10,000 Baht per family.

2. Holders of a Tourist Visa -- not less than the equivalent amount of 10,000 Baht per person or 20,000 Baht per family.

3. Holders of a Non-immigrant Visa -- not less than the equivalent amount of 10,000 Baht per person or 20,000 Baht per family.

The above requirements do not apply to minors under 12 years old.

I do not trust embassy websites as reliable even where (as here) they seem to be quoting from an actual primary source. Too often, such sites contain outdated or erroneous information. That said, I do believe the currency limits are real, are double what the site above claims, and have been officially disclosed publicly at some point in the past.

 

EDIT: This webpage indicates that the latest rules came into force on 19th February 2010. That might be helpful in tracking down the actual official order.

 

EDIT 2: I think this is pretty convincing, though still not an official publication.

[JackThompson]

20 hours ago, Maestro said:

I consider it possible, even highly probable, that immigration has an internal, unpublished guideline to that effect.

This is probable, but seems to vary by the checkpoint.  Secret orders and per-location orders could make sense in the case of national-security issues (which I fully support - "keep Thailand safe") - but not a secret location-variable policy for, "Farangs who like Thailand too much." 

Better to save everyone the trouble and just make it public, so people who will be denied don't waste their time - or, if an open-ended but published rule, can compare their situation to the conditions, and choose whether the risk of denied-entry is worth it.

[JackThompson]

On 6/5/2018 at 5:49 PM, Hoppyone said:

Interesting,but they kept saying to me because of the amount of time I’d spent in Thailand mind you each time with a 6 month mev,they were of the opinion that I was not a genuine tourist as I had previously 7 times been out of country for 1 day at a time and then returned, and that I should be on a retirement visa .Cheers 

Yes, they are not accountable to their own laws, and can say/do anything.  This must be kept in mind - and why I never flew-in to their lawless airports - even with a TR Visa - when I was here using Tourist-type entries. 

[Wang Lalker]

and the lesson from this is dont fly into thailand and save yourself a bundle, cross a land border
interesting what country did the compulsory fly to home country so i can mark that country down as never flying anywhere from

[lkv]

47 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

Yes, they are not accountable to their own laws, and can say/do anything.  This must be kept in mind - and why I never flew-in to their lawless airports - even with a TR Visa - when I was here using Tourist-type entries. 

Jack, you are too concerned about airports I'm telling you.

 

Do what another poster was suggesting if so concerned about it. Have the TM11 form in your bag precompleted.

 

It is extremely unlikely to be refused entry on an SETV, too much hassle for them, and you can also appeal. Likely, only if they see you creating the hassle they would drop it, they don't need the headaches.

 

If it ever comes to it, which I don't think it will.

 

[scubascuba3]

Jack, you are too concerned about airports I'm telling you.
 
Do what another poster was suggesting if so concerned about it. Have the TM11 form in your bag precompleted.
 
It is extremely unlikely to be refused entry on an SETV, too much hassle for them, and you can also appeal. Likely, only if they see you creating the hassle they would drop it, they don't need the headaches.
 
If it ever comes to it, which I don't think it will.
 

Has anyone got a template for the TM11?

[lkv]

34 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

Has anyone got a template for the TM11?

 

form_tm11.pdf

[ubonjoe]

6 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:

Has anyone got a template for the TM11?

https://www.immigration.go.th/download/1486548054958.pdf

[Evilbaz]

Laws are passed by Parliaments.

They are applied via Rules and Regulations framed by bureaucrats and approved by Ministers, then published in the Royal Gazette.

In reality, each border entry is its own fiefdom.

In these cases searching the Law is not always fruitful.

[lkv]

Look, I will add one last thing. Hope you are reading this @JackThompson

 

Confirmed reports from DMK and Phuket have been suggesting the following:

 

At DMK, there was one guy on his third consecutive METV that bumped into one of these rogue IO's. He did not have baht so he "forgot" a 100 dollar note in his passport.

 

At Phuket more recently, another poster from the ThaiVisa Advice group was being grilled and accidentally happened to forget he left 1,000 baht in his passport.

 

Let's get this straight. Nobody cares of how much time "you spent in Thailand". They just pick some random "victims" to milk for money.

 

Having said that, I'm not going to have sleepless nights or avoid airports for a potential (and very unlikely), 1000 baht.

[scubascuba3]

Look, I will add one last thing. Hope you are reading this [mention=247476]JackThompson[/mention]

 

Confirmed reports from DMK and Phuket have been suggesting the following:

 

At DMK, there was one guy on his third consecutive METV that bumped into one of these rogue IO's. He did not have baht so he "forgot" a 100 dollar note in his passport.

 

At Phuket more recently, another poster from the ThaiVisa Advice group was being grilled and accidentally happened to forget he left 1,000 baht in his passport.

 

Let's get this straight. Nobody cares of how much time "you spent in Thailand". They just pick some random "victims" to milk for money.

 

Having said that, I'm not going to have sleepless nights or avoid airports for a potential (and very unlikely), 1000 baht.

One of the problems with leaving money in the passport is even if they were happy to see it, it would encourage them to quiz more people so they get bungs, making the problem worse

 

[lkv]

9 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

One of the problems with leaving money in the passport is even if they were happy to see it, it would encourage them to quiz more people so they get bungs, i wouldn't do it

Corruption has increased in the last few years. Look at the "rates" Police is asking nowadays for various things on the streets, in the bars to operate and so on. Hungry. And greedy. Very greedy.

 

Yes, I would say the same, don't encourage it. But it's like pis##ng against the wind, they started it.

 

PS: i am being polite in using terminology such as "forgot", I don't want these posts deleted, in practice the chat is much more direct.

[JackThompson]

2 hours ago, lkv said:

Confirmed reports from DMK and Phuket have been suggesting the following:

 

At DMK, there was one guy on his third consecutive METV that bumped into one of these rogue IO's. He did not have baht so he "forgot" a 100 dollar note in his passport.

 

At Phuket more recently, another poster from the ThaiVisa Advice group was being grilled and accidentally happened to forget he left 1,000 baht in his passport.

 

Let's get this straight. Nobody cares of how much time "you spent in Thailand". They just pick some random "victims" to milk for money. 

 

Having said that, I'm not going to have sleepless nights or avoid airports for a potential (and very unlikely), 1000 baht.

I totally agree that, in most cases, IOs don't really care about the fake-rules they invent, or whether students really study, or whether retirees really have the money.   But some IOs seem to be "true believers" in getting rid of farangs. 

 

Glad to hear a less-painful option is available, for the sake of those it saves from a worse fate, but I would still try to avoid the conundrum.  If asked directly for 1000-Baht to get in, that would be one thing - but sticking money in a passport and hoping the IO is "on the take" is not something I would want to try. 

 

It is fair to say I was overly-cautions when I was using Tourist entries, by avoiding airports entirely.  To each their own, when it comes to risk-taking.

[ukrules]

In Thailand it's always worth asking if you 'can pay a fine'....