Turned away at Bangkok airport

[Briggsy]

34 minutes ago, tifino said:

they'd want you have the cash in pocket, because it is the easiest thing to take from you, on the spot

 

 

but it's a bit rude, as it costs one to cop the extra ATM transaction fees, for no good reason!

 

 

I'm thinking that one could, on the spot; log in to one's online bank account, and display Statement Standing, and Transaction History; which would reveal consistent Income deposits etc

 

Then reach deeper into one's bag, and come out with a home country Gov't letter; which details one is on a lifetime Gov't Veterans Pension...a Lifetime Income

 

 

Your post makes sense. However this topic is about denial of entry at the airport. It is well documented that they are not interested in credit cards, bank statements or income letters. If they ask to see cash, they want to see cash. That is how it works at the immigration counter at the airport.

 

It should be pointed out that recent reports often state they are not interested in seeing or discussing cash now. You are either denied under section 12.2 or allowed in but told to get a "proper visa".

[elviajero]

6 hours ago, Caldera said:

11 hours ago, elviajero said:

To sustain a long stay in a country you need a lot more than 20K. That isn't even enough to cover a 3 month stay.

The thing is that you don't really "sustain" a long stay if you're on a succession of tourist visa - you're stamped in for 60 days, maybe extend by another 30 days and need to exit and request permission to enter once again.

I’ve heard this argument many times and with respect it’s nonsense.

 

I used to live in the country using DETV’s. During the course of a year I would, on average, spend 4 days and a few hours out of the country. I could have spent as little as 1 night out of the country. You cannot possible believe or suggest that I wasn’t ‘living’ in the country just because I left the country temporarily 3 times a year!

 

Long term tourists may not have continuous stays, but they are certainly living in the country. That is clear to immigration and why they can deny entry under section 12.2.

 

[Hoppyone]

On 8/1/2018 at 12:05 PM, sikishrory said:

Yeh it is translated as means and refers to finance. Again not sure what your trying to proove.

ยัง has nothing to do with the word support. Maybe the word you are thinking of is ยัน which means support or sustain. The word you are trying to translate there is 1 word ยังชีพ not 2 words.

You mention you can enter thailand on visa exempt entry. Common knowledge.

Rebutting inaccuracies? I asked if I were missing something regarding needing an onward flight to which people have replied you don't need one. News to me as in the past when I have applied for tourist visas an onward flight was always requested.

 

 

On a 6months multi entry tourist visa a return flight is not needed

[JackThompson]

On 8/1/2018 at 12:05 PM, sikishrory said:

Yeh it is translated as means and refers to finance. Again not sure what your trying to proove.

ยัง has nothing to do with the word support. Maybe the word you are thinking of is ยัน which means support or sustain. The word you are trying to translate there is 1 word ยังชีพ not 2 words.

You mention you can enter thailand on visa exempt entry. Common knowledge.

Rebutting inaccuracies? I asked if I were missing something regarding needing an onward flight to which people have replied you don't need one. News to me as in the past when I have applied for tourist visas an onward flight was always requested.

The issuance of Visas is done by the MFA (not immigration), whose Consuls may request an onward flight to issue a Tourist Visa.  Once one has a Visa, there is no requirement to show proof of this flight to enter the country. 

 

Visa Exempt entries are issued by Immigration, at their discretion, and Immigration may ask to see proof of an onward flight to issue the Visa-Exempt entry stamp.   Ministerial orders have been published announcing limits on their issuance.

 

This difference is why airlines will often demand proof of an onward flight for persons planning to enter Visa-Exempt, but rarely for those with a valid Visa (if requested, is usually reversed if one speaks to an airline-supervisor, who checks the rules).

[JackThompson]

On 8/1/2018 at 12:27 PM, tifino said:

Been for years returning for quick holidays, of usually 2 to 3 weeks at a time, once or twice a year.

Since 2013 the subsequent visits I have never had more than 30 baht cash in my pockets (mrs has it all) 

 

 This next time will be a slight change; in that we are instead landing at swampy,

swap to flight up to and stay 5 nights Chiang Mai,

followed by 5 nights Yangong,

then back in to swampy to fly back out home - all in a flight/accom package all pre-paid...

 

Now, I am reading that I expect they'll have me up against the wall, if I don't carry cash? 

My wallet only ever!! carries my Travelex and falang CCards 

I have been existing a personally cash free society for over a decade, and don't plan to go back to the old ways...

A few short stays per year should not be a problem - they seem to object to those "putting down roots" without immigration-supplied extensions.  But, I would (and do) carry 20K Baht worth of old-fashioned travelers checks, just to be safe.  They never expire, so you only lose the fee and some inflation in the denominated currency.

 

19 hours ago, tryasimight said:

Do travellers cheque still exist? 

I think the last time I used then was 1992.

Yes.  Bangkok Bank sells them locally.  I topped-up my supply there a year+ ago so I wouldn't have to feel like a robbery-target whenever I was going in/out of Thailand, but also be able to satisfy IOs at checkpoints (in combination with a Visa).

[JackThompson]

6 hours ago, Rich8483 said:

OP here. I appreciate all the feedback and discussion my situation has generated. I knew at some point that the bill was going to come due. In fact on the original flight in from PP I was telling my Thai gf that I was going to have to start spending time outside the country in the not-too-distant future. I just didn't expect the not-too-distant-future was now. Live and learn.

I'm prepared to mend my ways and stop living in Thailand full time on TVs and VEs. My plan going forward is to spend 1 or 2 months elsewhere, then 1 or 2 months in Thailand etc etc..

But I need to get back soon to clear up some personal business, grab some things from my room and the like.

So, I plan on going to Vientiane next week to try and get a tourist visa. And then do a border entry through Nong Khai. I have a ticket that shows I'm going from Bangkok to France on Sept 11 and I'll bring as much cash as I safely can with me.

Anyone think that's not going to be enough?

You were doing nothing wrong.  "They" have the power to write the rules - not us - and have chosen not to be specific as to what is permitted, leading to wild variations as to what is deemed "ok" or not.  

Being realistic, you would not have a Thai GF if you were broke (or any GF anywhere I can think of, no matter how good looking you are ? ).  You would certainly not be taking her on trips to foreign countries without money, so the IO knew you must have some income/savings happening.  Denying you on that premise was disingenuous, but what happened was not really about whether you had money - that was just the excuse.

 

You should have no problem entering at Nong Khai with a Tourist Visa.  20K Baht worth of cash (can be USD, Euro, etc) is plenty.  They rarely ask to see the cash at that checkpoint - but maybe they would, given the rejected-entry stamp in your passport.  The return-flight to France is also helpful, in this context. 

 

I would replace the passport before you come back from France.  Though the "record" will be in their Database, it will not be a big sticker getting their attention as they examine every page of your passport (which they seem to do). 

 

As to future visits, there is no reason to "change your ways" and stop spending your time and money in Thailand with someone you love - just use Tourist Visas and alter your entry-points.  See my advice above in post #85. 

[natway09]

Unless I am mistaken you can only do 2 land border visa on arrivals a year

[Briggsy]

31 minutes ago, natway09 said:

Unless I am mistaken you can only do 2 land border visa on arrivals a year

You can do 2 visa exempt entries at land borders per calendar year not visas on arrival.

 

However Rich8483 is going to get an SETV in Vientiane so this is not relevant to him.

[elviajero]

3 hours ago, JackThompson said:

The issuance of Visas is done by the MFA (not immigration), whose Consuls may request an onward flight to issue a Tourist Visa.  Once one has a Visa, there is no requirement to show proof of this flight to enter the country. 

There is a requirement for every tourist to have an onward flight. It’s just not always   enforced. IO’s have the right to ask to see an onward when entering the country, although they can’t, as far as I know, deny entry specifically for not having an onward flight.

 

The consulates should check that the applicant has an onward flight, but some choose not to. The airlines are supposed to check that someone flying without a visa has an onward flight, but some choose not to. Just because the consular or airline staff don’t check doesn’t mean it’s not a requirement to have one.

 

 

[elviajero]

3 hours ago, JackThompson said:

You were doing nothing wrong.  "They" have the power to write the rules - not us - and have chosen not to be specific as to what is permitted, leading to wild variations as to what is deemed "ok" or not.  

Execept living in the country long term as a tourist, which is wrong. Discretionary power is better than fixed limits, because more of us get away with staying longer than we should.

 

[Caldera]

7 hours ago, elviajero said:

I’ve heard this argument many times and with respect it’s nonsense.

 

I used to live in the country using DETV’s. During the course of a year I would, on average, spend 4 days and a few hours out of the country. I could have spent as little as 1 night out of the country. You cannot possible believe or suggest that I wasn’t ‘living’ in the country just because I left the country temporarily 3 times a year!

 

Long term tourists may not have continuous stays, but they are certainly living in the country. That is clear to immigration and why they can deny entry under section 12.2.

 

If you want to call my argument nonsense, you shouldn't twist it. I didn't write that long-term tourists cannot be considered "living" in Thailand, I agree that this is what they do. However, it's a simple fact that their stay isn't "sustained" - they do have to leave and re-enter. For the latter, they need permission - and as this topic and many others show, it might or might not be granted. The remaining question is what's the reason for these denials - individual decisions by individual immigration officers / supervisors or official policy.

 

I don't agree with your assessment that "Thailand" doesn't want long-term tourists. Who is Thailand, anyway? I guess you mean the officialdom as a whole. There's no official policy to that effect, however, although it would be easy to enact it. What we have is the situation that SOME immigration officers don't like it, while others are perfectly fine with it. You seem to mix that up, and have been since a long time.

 

At Chaeng Watthana, hundreds of people apply for tourist visa and visa exempt extensions each and every day. Been there and done that, many times! It would be easy to deny these extensions to people who have crossed a certain threshold of days in the country within a year or so - but we never hear that it happens and I've certainly never witnessed or experienced it. Same with other offices - if and when we hear of any trouble, it's about TM30 enforcement.

 

So it's three checkpoints (BKK, DMK and Aran) out of many and zero immigration offices I know of that make a stand against long-term tourists. Hardly "Thailand". ?

[seancbk]

10 hours ago, Caldera said:

If you want to call my argument nonsense, you shouldn't twist it. I didn't write that long-term tourists cannot be considered "living" in Thailand, I agree that this is what they do. However, it's a simple fact that their stay isn't "sustained" - they do have to leave and re-enter. For the latter, they need permission - and as this topic and many others show, it might or might not be granted. The remaining question is what's the reason for these denials - individual decisions by individual immigration officers / supervisors or official policy.

 

 

Sustained in the context that was being discussed does not mean 'continuous', rather it means sustain as in  'afford (to live)' 

They get refused for not having enough money to 'afford to live' in Thailand for 60 days.   

[spacebass]

On 8/1/2018 at 9:09 PM, sikishrory said:

It's not. I remember reading on here about people getting asked to show cash. So on my next entry i looked all around swampy airside to see if you could get money out anywhere. Not a single ATM anywhere but there were booths. Being a kasikorn account holder myself I asked her if i could get money out and she said you can't.

I don't think I can get cash with debit card from the bank if ATM is down.

[LomSak27]

First lots of good information which I have cut and pasted.

 

Going to post it here, not to hijack, but to add to the conversation & comments

This by the way is Plan B which is rapidly becoming Plan A

 

I have a past long stay history, but that is for WORKING in Thailand under appropriate Visa. New Passport and for this year:

2018)  – Two SETV both Plus the 30-day extension. This will take me until October 2018 AT which time I will leave the country for the remainder of 2018.

2019)I will get another SETV in Laos Viet or Cambo and reenter Thailand in Jan of 2019, I will extend to max out at 90 days then leave Thailand in March 2019

Time in Indonesia, Malaysia and Home country. I will apply for a SETV in home country and reenter Thailand in mid-September of 2019 for 60 plus the 30-day extension.
 

I am using 2 SETV per year, for roughly six months in country per year. No Visa free entries. Not over and back but documented time spent in other countries etc. Plus of course have at least 20K on each re-entry.

Under current regulations should I have any problems? By the way I will try and go land entry when I can but one will be coming in from Home country jet flight.

Comments appreciated.

[kimamey]

On 8/1/2018 at 11:53 AM, overherebc said:

Of course you can enter on a 30 day VE.

The problem people have is because the do it either back to back too often or have short breaks only between each entry.

Yes it's legal but is now obviously frowned upon.

I assume the problem is that VE is intended for those  just visiting but for the purposes of encouraging tourism they feel a TV isn't needed.  Others need a TV or if staying longer.  I think a TV is longer although I can't remember and I've never needed one as my first few visits were on VE. I'm now on non imm visas.

If people use VE and/or TV for what appears to be a long stay then that's a misuse as immigration see it.  As far as I know they can refuse entry even with a visa of any type. It's basically down to the opinion of the immigration officer but I suppose putting something definite down as a reason is easier for them. 

 

From my own experience I can't remember being asked for proof of anything in all the things I've travelled here.  Mind you since they started to crack down on this I've been on non imm type O, always with the same address and now married. 

[overherebc]

10 minutes ago, kimamey said:

I assume the problem is that VE is intended for those  just visiting but for the purposes of encouraging tourism they feel a TV isn't needed.  Others need a TV or if staying longer.  I think a TV is longer although I can't remember and I've never needed one as my first few visits were on VE. I'm now on non imm visas.

If people use VE and/or TV for what appears to be a long stay then that's a misuse as immigration see it.  As far as I know they can refuse entry even with a visa of any type. It's basically down to the opinion of the immigration officer but I suppose putting something definite down as a reason is easier for them. 

 

From my own experience I can't remember being asked for proof of anything in all the things I've travelled here.  Mind you since they started to crack down on this I've been on non imm type O, always with the same address and now married. 

My thinking is the VE is really intended for the ease of tourists who might be on a last minute decision for a holiday and maybe don't have time to apply for a visa in their own country. They arrive, have 2/3/4 weeks here and go home. In 99% of those cases they will have also booked a last minute return flight and possibly a few nights in BKK prior to deciding on where else to go, phuket, samui wherever. Doing that once a year won't be a problem.

The arguement, I spend lots of money here so why can't I use VE all the time doesn't fly with IO's who see 6/7/8 VE's with 30 day extensions in a short period with one week breaks in Malaysia Vietnam etc as living here and probably working. That's how they see it, like it or lump it.

I also agree with you saying a visa does not mean automatic entry and that applies to all countries.

[JackThompson]

15 hours ago, Caldera said:

I don't agree with your assessment that "Thailand" doesn't want long-term tourists. Who is Thailand, anyway? I guess you mean the officialdom as a whole. There's no official policy to that effect, however, although it would be easy to enact it. What we have is the situation that SOME immigration officers don't like it, while others are perfectly fine with it. You seem to mix that up, and have been since a long time.

 

2 hours ago, kimamey said:

If people use VE and/or TV for what appears to be a long stay then that's a misuse as immigration see it. 

The written-laws/orders seem to indicate that those with the authority to write the laws do not like "Western tourists who are poor" - and have taken steps to make spending considerable time in Thailand on tourist-entries more expensive, given the restrictions placed on visa-exempt entries, and the travel requirements to obtain successive Tourist Visas.

 

Certain officials at the Bangkok (and some other) airports and Poipet/Aranya checkpoints don't think this policy goes far enough.  Their attitude is not reported at other points of entry.

 

Some claim longer-stayers/yr are "rorting" or using "loopholes," but this is inaccurate.  Loopholes in the law do exist - such as citizens from Malaysia, Laos, and Cambodia being exempt from the "2x land-border visa-exempts per calendar year" rule.  Citizens of those nationalities (estimated to work illegally by the millions in Thailand) are the beneficiaries of a "legal loophole" which exempts them from a rule all others are subject to.

 

By contrast, the lack of any limit on time spent in the country under Tourist-type entries is not a loophole - it is a long standing "Policy."  Changing policy requires a change in the law, or that a clarifying rule be published (a "ministerial order," in Thailand).  This has been done for visa-exempt entries (weeding out those who cannot afford more expensive travel than "bus to the border and back"), but not for Tourist Visa entries.

 

2 hours ago, kimamey said:

As far as I know they can refuse entry even with a visa of any type. It's basically down to the opinion of the immigration officer but I suppose putting something definite down as a reason is easier for them. 

Under Thai law, IOs must specify one of a set of defined reasons for refusal.  This is why those at unfriendly checkpoints who have been reported to claim things like "The law is you can only stay 180 days in a year" (not true), then stamp a different "real law" reason for denial in the person's passport.  This duplicitous behavior is of the type expected from those violating laws - not upholding them.

 

These refusals stamped in applicant's passports at unfriendly checkpoints are often based on no evidence.  Some reports state they do not ask for evidence, or refuse to even look at relevant evidence volunteered by the applicant (online bank-statements, etc).  Some of these IOs are reported to deliver a flurry of hateful statements which indicate bias - the very opposite behavior to that of a good public official dispassionately carrying out their official duties in enforcing the law. 

 

The important thing to remember for those using Tourist Entries: Most checkpoints are staffed with good IOs who behave honorably.  The bad-apples can be avoided, entirely by wise choices of one's point-of-entry.

[elviajero]

On 8/2/2018 at 4:30 PM, Caldera said:

If you want to call my argument nonsense, you shouldn't twist it. I didn't write that long-term tourists cannot be considered "living" in Thailand, I agree that this is what they do. However, it's a simple fact that their stay isn't "sustained" - they do have to leave and re-enter. For the latter, they need permission - and as this topic and many others show, it might or might not be granted.

I'm not twisting anything. You are clearly implying that leaving and re-entering the country somehow exempts a person from the visa system.

 

On 8/2/2018 at 4:30 PM, Caldera said:

The remaining question is what's the reason for these denials - individual decisions by individual immigration officers / supervisors or official policy.

Some of the obvious reasons include;

• Abusing the visa system. Tourist visas are for short term tourism not long term, even "unsustained", stays.
• Spending too long in the country without proving the means to support their long stay.
• Suspicion of illegal work to fund their long stay.

Individual officers are making decisions, but according to the official policy/orders given by their bosses at the respective border point. If their bosses weren't on board the IO's wouldn't be able to formally deny entry. There is nothing to gain for an IO to deny entry at a border unless they are succeeding in soliciting 'tea money', which as far as I know is not happening at the airports.

 

On 8/2/2018 at 4:30 PM, Caldera said:

I don't agree with your assessment that "Thailand" doesn't want long-term tourists. Who is Thailand, anyway? I guess you mean the officialdom as a whole. There's no official policy to that effect, however, although it would be easy to enact it.

Since 2006 the authorities (Thailand) have; stopped unrestricted back to back visa exempt entry by land, pushed long term tourists to get visas, limited the number of visas available locally, done away with DETV, replaced the DETV with the METV that is deliberately not available locally to Thailand for visa runners, stamped warnings in passports, issued warnings to foreign countries via the MFA, forced people to troll SEA for visas, enforced stricter conditions for issuing SETV's, AND you believe there is no official policy to deter/reduce long term tourism. Really!

 

They could impose limits on tourist visa numbers or the time spent in the country, but based on the current set up it would not be that easy to enact; as they found out in 2007/8'ish, and seemingly unnecessary given their softly, softly approach that seems to be reducing numbers without affecting genuine/typical tourists. I for one do not want to see them impose strict limits. We are better off with the current 'discretionary' situation. Visa runners just need to accept the situation for what it is.

 

On 8/2/2018 at 4:30 PM, Caldera said:

What we have is the situation that SOME immigration officers don't like it, while others are perfectly fine with it. You seem to mix that up, and have been since a long time.

What we have is some border officers carrying out orders in a way you (I presume) and others don't like because it's arbitrary, locally driven, and you haven't been cc'd in on the memos.

 

On 8/2/2018 at 4:30 PM, Caldera said:

So it's three checkpoints (BKK, DMK and Aran) out of many and zero immigration offices I know of that make a stand against long-term tourists. Hardly "Thailand". ?

So the two busiest entry points, and one of the busiest land borders used by Bangkok/Pattaya visa runners, are making a stand, AND you don't believe the authorities (Thailand) are taking a stand against long term tourism and/or some visa runners! Hardly a credible opinion given the checkpoints concerned.

 

Visa runners have, in numbers, changed their modus operandi from using the land borders (due to hassle at land borders), and immigration at the airports are reacting to that change. That is the simple reason why we are reading more reports of problems at the airports.

 

In every thread concerning visa exempt and tourist visa problems people are being advised how to get around the problems. New passports, vary places they apply, fake airline tickets etc. The very fact that is necessary demonstrates that 'Thailand' is continuing it's clampdown of long term tourism.

[elviajero]

On 8/3/2018 at 9:50 AM, JackThompson said:

Some claim longer-stayers/yr are "rorting" or using "loopholes," but this is inaccurate.

Of course there is a loophole concerning the use of tourist visas.

 

When the immigration act was enacted few people were able to sustain long stays in Thailand without working and tourists visited for a few weeks and went home. They were in effect forced to go back home to work, and no limits were required. Over the last 10 years or so more people are increasingly able to work remotely, and live wherever they want. The Thai visa system hasn't caught up with that change. However, to deal with the change the authorities have imposed various measures to make it harder to get/use back to back tourist visas to close the loophole.

[elviajero]

On 8/3/2018 at 9:50 AM, JackThompson said:

These refusals stamped in applicant's passports at unfriendly checkpoints are often based on no evidence.  Some reports state they do not ask for evidence, or refuse to even look at relevant evidence volunteered by the applicant (online bank-statements, etc).  Some of these IOs are reported to deliver a flurry of hateful statements which indicate bias - the very opposite behavior to that of a good public official dispassionately carrying out their official duties in enforcing the law. 

They don't need evidence. The fact that someone has lived a long time in the country without providing immigration or consulates proof of their "appropriate" means of living/financial standing means they can be denied. No country is going to allow visitors to waive bank statements at a border IO to satisfy their financial standing!

Edited August 4, 2018 by elviajero

[Caldera]

2 hours ago, elviajero said:

I'm not twisting anything. You are clearly implying that leaving and re-entering the country somehow exempts a person from the visa system.

I don't see how I'm implying that. Someone who leaves and re-enters the country is obviously subjected to the "visa system". Just what exactly that system means and how it's applied is rather inconsistent.

 

I don't see anything wrong with using these inconsistencies to your advantage. Thais often do the same, for example when applying for Schengen visa - some European embassies are known to be more lenient than others. Not taking advantage of that would be outright foolish, and the same applies here.

 

As for your long-winded opinion piece that follows, I think you've made your opinion known many times before. You won't convince me, but maybe you convince others - keep it up!

[JackThompson]

16 hours ago, elviajero said:

They don't need evidence. The fact that someone has lived a long time in the country without providing immigration or consulates proof of their "appropriate" means of living/financial standing means they can be denied. No country is going to allow visitors to waive bank statements at a border IO to satisfy their financial standing!

Consulates accept bank-statements (foreign or Thai) to issue visas for many visa-types.  But, if this is not sufficient, exactly what evidence what is needed simply needs to be defined.  An embassy income-letter (MFA stamped, so clearly not fraudulent) or proof of money "in the bank" from a Thai bank-book, as is used for immigration-issued extensions?  Many would happily oblige.

[Tanoshi]

13 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

Consulates accept bank-statements (foreign or Thai) to issue visas for many visa-types. 

True, but the proof of financials are matched to the period of stay one gets from the Visa.

The financial requirement for a Non Imm O-A Visa which allows a 1 year entry is the equivalent of 800,000 baht, no different to that of a 1 year extension based on retirement.

[AdamTheFarang]

"I would like to go other places" -  you don't seem to concerned about your Thai tiruk (sweetheart)

[JackThompson]

2 hours ago, Tanoshi said:

True, but the proof of financials are matched to the period of stay one gets from the Visa.

The financial requirement for a Non Imm O-A Visa which allows a 1 year entry is the equivalent of 800,000 baht, no different to that of a 1 year extension based on retirement.

Yes.  So for a 60-day stay, one could show 133K Baht in a Thai bank (half that, for visa-exempt), or an MFA-certified income-letter.  But, if this were enforced on everyone, it would target/eliminate their favorite new "zero-dollar tour" guests.  Only Westerners who have ever stayed "too long" (which is undefined = "made up on the spot") and other "undesirables" would be targeted.  This would make it all too clear what was afoot.

 

As well, many would simply prepare, as they did to handle the "show the cash" excuse for denial-of-entry.  That stopped being effective, as folks started playing their "pretend it is 1970" game (pre-ATMs). Our passing their new tests would spoil the intent of the whole operation (again).

[Rich8483]

4 hours ago, AdamTheFarang said:

"I would like to go other places" -  you don't seem to concerned about your Thai tiruk (sweetheart)

Since you know nothing about my relationship your desperate little attempt to seem insightful is nothing but that. What's the matter boy, your gf made off with your sack and you have nothing left to do but troll TV?

[Tanoshi]

2 hours ago, JackThompson said:

Yes.  So for a 60-day stay, one could show 133K Baht in a Thai bank (half that, for visa-exempt), or an MFA-certified income-letter. 

Your average tourist stays 2/3 weeks taken leave from his employment.

They don't require a Thai bank account, or an Income letter.

They enter VEE.

[AdamTheFarang]

50 minutes ago, Rich8483 said:

Since you know nothing about my relationship your desperate little attempt to seem insightful is nothing but that. What's the matter boy, your gf made off with your sack and you have nothing left to do but troll TV?

Wow you sound very bitter, is there more to this story the reason they turned you away? Why do you make things hard for yourself, why not take your girlfriend back to your own country, earn more money, probably have less Visa issues, if you have children probably a better education or are you wanted for a crime in your own country. Perhaps that's the reason. FYI no lady took off with my "sack" 

[Yeahbutwhytho]

Seeing it says you didn't have enough money to enter thailand, if it is infact not true - and you do have means of supporting yourself why didn't you fight it?

The only reason the IO got away with it is because you accepted it - and those who say they have every right to turn him away... well then they should use the right stamp then explaining properly why ?

[elviajero]

19 minutes ago, Yeahbutwhytho said:

Seeing it says you didn't have enough money to enter thailand, if it is infact not true - and you do have means of supporting yourself why didn't you fight it?

The only reason the IO got away with it is because you accepted it - and those who say they have every right to turn him away... well then they should use the right stamp then explaining properly why ?

It doesn't say that. Read the thread and you will understand the reason for the denied entry.

 

You cannot appeal against being denied entry when trying to enter under the visa exempt scheme. It's the law.

 

The reason they "got away with it" is because they have the law/regulation on their side, a fact the OP seems to accept. "Admittedly I had violated the spirit of the law so I'm not going to waste time bemoaning their actions."