First time sent to inmigration office at Don Mueang airport

[DJ54]

DMK seems to use a fine tooth comb. I’m on retirement extension 

and the officer spent a very long time looking through everything but result was nothing said and on my way. I flew in from a week in SG for Airshow 

Edited October 6, 2018 by DJ54
Spelling

[JackThompson]

6 hours ago, elviajero said:

The 10K is meant to be 'pocket money'. It is not the amount "to cover their stay". Not many tourists could survive on 333 baht per day!

Not all entrants are staying the full period.  "Pocket Money" is obsolete, in any case, thanks to electronic banking.

 

6 hours ago, elviajero said:

Immigration almost always use either sections 12.2 or 12.3 as reasons to deny entry to long term visa exempt 'tourists'. That hasn't changed.

When this denial-spree first got going at the airports, I recall the reports - they were checking for "cash in hand" and denying visitors they didn't like (who had done nothing wrong, per the published law/rules) based on that rule. 

 

After awhile, people got wise to this, and began carrying cash and/or travelers checks (as if it was 1975), so this stopped being an effective way to deny-entry to visitors whom the IOs thought there should be a law or rule to stop. 

 

Then, they started using the "coming to work illegally" rule for awhile, when the visitor had the money, but they really wanted to "stop them" from coming here to spend it. 

The refusal-stamp being used more recently assumes you don't have enough money to spend for your entire trip.  Curiously, this is given to those who report never asked about their finances in hours during interrogations.  Given the length of time spent hassling these people (who have followed the rules as published without error) personnel-time to review documents was not the issue. 

 

I suspect that no guidelines are issued - or updates to the IATA list - because those would have to come from the top - not from the head of an entry-point or lower-rank with an unsactioned agenda.

 

The reason I think those doing this at only certain checkpoints are acting on their own, is because it follows a pattern reported in countless reports documented here concerning irregularities at local offices (which I have experienced personally).  Given this long-standing pattern, a lack of action from above does not confer legitimacy to their actions - it merely re-enforces the reality that "what I say goes" can trump the law at every office and checkpoint.

 

Let us hope the new director demands that a uniform standard is applied by those working under him.

[elviajero]

9 hours ago, BritTim said:

10K (20K for families) in the case of visa exempt entries, and 20K (40K for families) if entering with a visa are documented rules. I am not aware of anywhere that it is stated that only cash or travelers checks are accepted. I can see some logic in declaring that immigration should not have to check out credit cards, but none for preventing travelers from using their credit card to get cash at an ATM when they arrive unaware that the archaic cash only rule is in effect.

You would need to enter the country first to use an ATM. I think that's called a catch 22. But you can use other currencies or Travellers cheques. When they reaffirmed the rules in 2010 it was widely published that only cash and T/cheques were accepted.

 

From the Thai Embassy, London website;

http://www.thaiembassy.org/london/en/services/7495/81751-Who-Needs-a-Visa.html

Foreigners entering Thailand under the Tourist Visa Exemption category must show the documents below at the port of entry: 

• Proof of adequate finances for the duration of stay in Thailand i.e. traveller’s cheque or cash equivalent to 20,000 Baht per person and 40,000 Baht per family.

 

How many genuine tourists are asked to show cash? It is generally only long term tourists that are asked and most of those know fully well what the rules are and that they are probably pushing their luck.

 

Again, I see it as a positive concession that they don't insist we all carry 10K/40K in cash. And all the time it is only some long term tourists getting hassled I don't see the problem.

[elviajero]

8 hours ago, JackThompson said:

15 hours ago, elviajero said:

The 10K is meant to be 'pocket money'. It is not the amount "to cover their stay". Not many tourists could survive on 333 baht per day!

Not all entrants are staying the full period.  "Pocket Money" is obsolete, in any case, thanks to electronic banking.

It is usually only those with a history of staying the full period that get asked to prove they have 10K. I agree, these days it is unnecessary with e-banking, which is probably one reason genuine tourists don't, as a rule, have to show the cash.

 

8 hours ago, JackThompson said:

When this denial-spree first got going at the airports, I recall the reports - they were checking for "cash in hand" and denying visitors they didn't like (who had done nothing wrong, per the published law/rules) based on that rule. 

 

After awhile, people got wise to this, and began carrying cash and/or travelers checks (as if it was 1975), so this stopped being an effective way to deny-entry to visitors whom the IOs thought there should be a law or rule to stop. 

Immigration have, for years, reacted to the way we have used the loopholes. Long term tourists switching to using airports instead of land borders is a perfect example and why the focus is now on the airports. First they stopped us doing visa runs and pushed us on to tourist visas, then they made it harder to get tourist visas and now they are lawfully denying some long term tourists that are clearly not visiting for tourism. Anyone that hasn't yet got the message (I can think of at least 2 members of TVF) are blinkered to the reality.

 

I agree that profiling plays a big part, but I think it's fair enough to deny entry to a 20 something Filipino that is almost certainly working, and to give a pass to a 40 something westerner who is more likely to be able to fund their stay without working. The options are to publish fixed limits and deny everyone exceeding those limits, OR give IO's the power to decide. I vote for the latter.

 

[BritTim]

27 minutes ago, elviajero said:

How many genuine tourists are asked to show cash? It is generally only long term tourists that are asked and most of those know fully well what the rules are and that they are probably pushing their luck.

  

Again, I see it as a positive concession that they don't insist we all carry 10K/40K in cash. And all the time it is only some long term tourists getting hassled I don't see the problem.

For Westerners, for the most part, it seems selected officials only want to stop those who have spent long periods in Thailand on tourist entries and/or education visas. Other nationalities are sometimes affected differently. If from the Indian subcontinent on a first visit to Thailand, you had better be sure you have that cash ready.

[oldskoolbeatz]

Is Chaing Mai airport much safter option to fly into than BKK airports if you have a long history of visa exempts/tourist visas?

[BritTim]

35 minutes ago, oldskoolbeatz said:

Is Chaing Mai airport much safter option to fly into than BKK airports if you have a long history of visa exempts/tourist visas?

The answer to that is "maybe". We do not have horror stories from there to say there is a problem, but the low number of international entries means that bad experiences might be too rare to have appeared on this forum, especially as many arrivals are Chinese who would almost never post here. It may be safer, or problems might just fly under the radar.

[elviajero]

8 hours ago, JackThompson said:

The refusal-stamp being used more recently assumes you don't have enough money to spend for your entire trip.  Curiously, this is given to those who report never asked about their finances in hours during interrogations.  Given the length of time spent hassling these people (who have followed the rules as published without error) personnel-time to review documents was not the issue. 

Where is the published rule that says someone can stay months/years as a tourist?

 

It would be ridiculous to expect IO's to scrutinise documents proving someones financial status at the border. It just becomes another subjective decision. As I have tried to convey several times, the problem at the point of "interrogation" is not so much about having the funds to stay, but that they have stayed to long as a tourist and haven't provided immigration/consular staff evidence of how they make a living in the way someone wanting to stay long term has to do. You seem to want them to take each entry in isolation; whereas immigration are, reasonably, looking at the cumulative stay.

 

8 hours ago, JackThompson said:

The reason I think those doing this at only certain checkpoints are acting on their own, is because it follows a pattern reported in countless reports documented here concerning irregularities at local offices (which I have experienced personally).  Given this long-standing pattern, a lack of action from above does not confer legitimacy to their actions - it merely re-enforces the reality that "what I say goes" can trump the law at every office and checkpoint.

Different rules have legitimately been enforced at different border points forever, it's nothing new. In most cases they are reacting to the local issues. Airports are now a target partly because of the increased use by long term tourists thinking they can beat the system by flying in. Ironically they are now being advised to go back to using land borders -- guess what happens next.

 

If IO's were extorting people at BKK/DMK I would have some sympathy for your argument, and if they didn't need denials signed of by supervisors and involve airlines I could agree they are acting alone. The reality is that they are acting on orders and some are more officious than others.

 

Local offices have a certain amount of autonomy. I agree that it would be far better if they all followed the exact same procedure, but in some cases that can work in our favour. Unless the IO at the border or immigration office is trying to extort money, IMO, they are working to legitimate orders. 

[elviajero]

2 hours ago, oldskoolbeatz said:

Is Chaing Mai airport much safter option to fly into than BKK airports if you have a long history of visa exempts/tourist visas?

I would say it’s pot luck at any airport if using visa exemption.

[Puccini]

12 hours ago, DJ54 said:

DMK seems to use a fine tooth comb. I’m on retirement extension 

and the officer spent a very long time looking through everything but result was nothing said and on my way. I flew in from a week in SG for Airshow 

What and where is SG?

[JackThompson]

3 hours ago, elviajero said:

Where is the published rule that says someone can stay months/years as a tourist?

"As a tourist" mixes exempt and visa entry - and they are treated differently.  But, each entry is for 30 or 60-days (30 for the OP's case).  You can get a 30-day extension only at immigration's discretion.  There is no limit that says you cannot leave and come back and do it again with a Tourist Visa.  With visa-exempt, you are not supposed to do quick out/ins - but the OP was not doing that.

 

Quote

It would be ridiculous to expect IO's to scrutinise documents proving someones financial status at the border. It just becomes another subjective decision.

As I have tried to convey several times, the problem at the point of "interrogation" is not so much about having the funds to stay, but that they have stayed to long as a tourist and haven't provided immigration/consular staff evidence of how they make a living in the way someone wanting to stay long term has to do.

In the OP's case - not necessary.  He was traveling to expensive locales frequently.  Others flew from long-distances at significant cost - so clearly not "too poor" to afford the stay - but had been here for awhile before.  And when you consider how long they spend on each rejection, time to look at a document is not an issue. 

 

If the minister wrote a rule where IOs could accept particular docs, under specific conditions, then it would remove the existing subjectivity, and would be a faster process for both entry and rejections.  If it's still a problem, charge a couple hundred baht (with receipt) for document-review.

 

Quote

You seem to want them to take each entry in isolation; whereas immigration are, reasonably, looking at the cumulative stay.

The only question is, can this person pay their way for the next 30 or 60-days?   If they have shown the ability to make frequent visa-trips and not overstay, this is a positive track-record indicating they are likely to have the means. 

 

If they are just running across a land-border and back the same day, they may fit into the "too poor" category, which is being excluded by current restrictions on visa-exempt entries.  Only poorer visitors who can at least afford agent-fees seem to be welcome - sometimes more-so than those with legit-financials. 

 

Quote

Different rules have legitimately been enforced at different border points forever, it's nothing new. In most cases they are reacting to the local issues. Airports are now a target partly because of the increased use by long term tourists thinking they can beat the system by flying in. 

Ironically they are now being advised to go back to using land borders -- guess what happens next.

When the 15-days at the border was in-effect, flying in was preferable for that reason.  I don't know why anyone would think entering by-air is in any way safer now, since there has been no problem for years entering by-land with a Tourist Visa - other than Poipet/Aranya. 

 

Quote

Local offices have a certain amount of autonomy. I agree that it would be far better if they all followed the exact same procedure, but in some cases that can work in our favour.

I cannot think of a case where it would not be better to go to an office where one can get honest-service for everything - where you know exactly what to expect, and will get the service you are qualified to receive. 

 

But my point is, corruption drives many decisions at some offices.  The only preferential-treatment reported, at any office, is via agent-payoffs.  Given this open-corruption is tolerated, why would this not also be possible at some entry-points?

 

Quote

If IO's were extorting people at BKK/DMK I would have some sympathy for your argument, and if they didn't need denials signed of by supervisors and involve airlines I could agree they are acting alone. The reality is that they are acting on orders and some are more officious than others.

Rejected-visitors have paid the return-fare in all cases I have read, so the airlines aren't being hurt by this.  They actually benefit, having no reason to complain about selling those last-minute-(over)priced tickets.

 

Orders from whom?  That is the key-question.  If it were high-enough on the chain, they could publish the rules as "official."  A supervisor could still be given leeway to overrule, but the pool of those who could be potentially-targeted for extortion would be greatly reduced.

 

Notice the Poipet/Aranya IOs tell visitors "you must fly in" (to the gauntlet) - not "Take a taxi to Ban Laem," (where there is no problem).  Someone is telling them to say this.  Reports also indicate one can buy their way past this barrier.

 

Quote

Unless the IO at the border or immigration office is trying to extort money, IMO, they are working to legitimate orders. 

The most recent reported case ...

 

But this low-level payoff stuff is just on the surface.  I've given this a lot of thought, and I cannot find any reason which is both logical and legit to do this to cases such as the OP.  It's the qui-bono question which usually solves the riddle - or at least greatly narrows the possibilities.  Someone must be paying to get this policy enforced, and the financier's(s') cost/benefit analysis has thus-far limited their spending to a few targets.

 

"Keep the bums out," I can understand, but I cannot imagine a good reason to do/say this to the OP of this thread ... 

On 10/3/2018 at 6:32 PM, Loqador said:

She started to make me a lot of questions that i answered and she said that i was living in Thailand and told me many times that i have to go back to my country now. 

... who can afford to make frequent Visa-trips - and in his case, travel to many other non-cheap countries spending weeks at a time in them, as evidenced in his passport.

 

Even if there was a legit-reason not to let him in, what business is it of hers where he goes next?  The PI, Vietnam, and Cambodia would love for him to stay there, and an IO would know this. From my angle, it looks to me like a pressure-tactic for an "up-sell" to another visa-type - trying to frame the situation as if he must either "go home," or pay into the system via agents, elite, etc.

Edited October 6, 2018 by JackThompson

[HAKAPALITA]

New Zealand seems to have very clear Visa polices going by the number of folks they just bang on to the next plane home. Thais should follow their example, ban these crafty bouncers for life.Or extend here "in house" for the genuine need ones.

[JackThompson]

6 minutes ago, HAKAPALITA said:

New Zealand seems to have very clear Visa polices going by the number of folks they just bang on to the next plane home. Thais should follow their example, ban these crafty bouncers for life.Or extend here "in house" for the genuine need ones.

How would that benefit the Thai businesses where visitors like the OP spend their money?  Is there some benefit to your suggested policy, applicable to similar cases as the OP - who clearly has money to spend, and can earn more in his passport-country than in Thailand - which I am missing?  If so, what is it?

[HAKAPALITA]

29 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

How would that benefit the Thai businesses where visitors like the OP spend their money?  Is there some benefit to your suggested policy, applicable to similar cases as the OP - who clearly has money to spend, and can earn more in his passport-country than in Thailand - which I am missing?  If so, what is it?

Not refined, but basically thats why he would fall into the Genuine Need i mentioned.Saw a NZ Doc, basically about its war on Bums, now i cant find it.!!.

[andux]

4 hours ago, elviajero said:

Where is the published rule that says someone can stay months/years as a tourist?

 

It would be ridiculous to expect IO's to scrutinise documents proving someones financial status at the border. It just becomes another subjective decision. As I have tried to convey several times, the problem at the point of "interrogation" is not so much about having the funds to stay, but that they have stayed to long as a tourist and haven't provided immigration/consular staff evidence of how they make a living in the way someone wanting to stay long term has to do. You seem to want them to take each entry in isolation; whereas immigration are, reasonably, looking at the cumulative stay.

 

Different rules have legitimately been enforced at different border points forever, it's nothing new. In most cases they are reacting to the local issues. Airports are now a target partly because of the increased use by long term tourists thinking they can beat the system by flying in. Ironically they are now being advised to go back to using land borders -- guess what happens next.

 

Beating what system? I think that you are overthinking this way too much. If they actually cared, there would just be a law stating that tourists cannot stay longer than 6 months per year, like other countries do. Problem solved.

 

Would you mind explaining me why that law doesn't exist? Some officer now and then giving trouble to random tourists doesn't really count as the country as a whole actually caring about this.

[elviajero]

36 minutes ago, andux said:

Beating what system? I think that you are overthinking this way too much. If they actually cared, there would just be a law stating that tourists cannot stay longer than 6 months per year, like other countries do. Problem solved.

"Beating what system" -- In the past people staying long term using Tourist Visas would re-enter via land borders. As part of the crackdown people were 'occasionally' denied entry or given a hard time. So, based on the advice from forums like this, many switched to using airports where historically IO's were not giving people a hard time. 

 

They clearly do care otherwise people wouldn't be denied entry or given a hard time at the border. If you had followed everything immigration have done since 2006 to reduce long term tourism you would be aware that they are not looking to completely stop this practice, but to make it harder for the 'problem' group/s.

 

36 minutes ago, andux said:

Would you mind explaining me why that law doesn't exist? Some officer now and then giving trouble to random tourists doesn't really count as the country as a whole actually caring about this.

Explained above, but to add;

• they don't need to, and; 
• because they do not have the capability on their systems to easily count the time spent in the country as a tourist, and;
• embassy/consulates do not have a central database to see someones visa history, and; 
• there is a disconnect between the embassies/consulates that want to issue as many visas as possible to make money and immigration who's job it is to ensure someone is entering for the reason they're being given permission to enter, and;
• It's not a good look for a country to issue visas and then turn people away (en masse).

It's not just about what is happening at the border, you have to look at the bigger picture. Everything they have done since 2006 has been to make it harder to stay long term as a tourist. Since 2006 they have stopped people doing visa runs, pushed those people to using Tourist Visa and then made TR's less available, they did away with the DETV and replaced it with the METV that cannot be obtained in the region for most visa runners. Everything they have done has been to make long term tourism difficult. I think that proves the 'authorities' do care!

Edited October 6, 2018 by elviajero

[andux]

2 hours ago, elviajero said:

"Beating what system" -- In the past people staying long term using Tourist Visas would re-enter via land borders. As part of the crackdown people were 'occasionally' denied entry or given a hard time. So, based on the advice from forums like this, many switched to using airports where historically IO's were not giving people a hard time. 

 

They clearly do care otherwise people wouldn't be denied entry or given a hard time at the border. If you had followed everything immigration have done since 2006 to reduce long term tourism you would be aware that they are not looking to completely stop this practice, but to make it harder for the 'problem' group/s.

 

Explained above, but to add;

• they don't need to, and; 
• because they do not have the capability on their systems to easily count the time spent in the country as a tourist, and;
• embassy/consulates do not have a central database to see someones visa history, and; 
• there is a disconnect between the embassies/consulates that want to issue as many visas as possible to make money and immigration who's job it is to ensure someone is entering for the reason they're being given permission to enter, and;
• It's not a good look for a country to issue visas and then turn people away (en masse).

It's not just about what is happening at the border, you have to look at the bigger picture. Everything they have done since 2006 has been to make it harder to stay long term as a tourist. Since 2006 they have stopped people doing visa runs, pushed those people to using Tourist Visa and then made TR's less available, they did away with the DETV and replaced it with the METV that cannot be obtained in the region for most visa runners. Everything they have done has been to make long term tourism difficult. I think that proves the 'authorities' do care!

 

Thanks for sharing some really good points.

 

Are you sure that the system doesn't track the dates of entries and exits of each person, and therefore is able to easily calculate the time spent in the country for each tourist? I seriously doubt this. Makes me wonder why they even computers at all at immigration checkpoints, take pictures of everyone, etc?

[mstevens]

5 hours ago, HAKAPALITA said:

New Zealand seems to have very clear Visa polices going by the number of folks they just bang on to the next plane home. Thais should follow their example, ban these crafty bouncers for life.Or extend here "in house" for the genuine need ones.

One rule New Zealand has concerns the amount of time you can stay in the country on a tourist visa or visa waiver stamp.  Those from Europe and North America get 3 months permission to stay on arrival without the need for a visa.  This can be extended in country for another 2 lots of 3 months, meaning a total of 9 months.  However, at that point they cannot extend further on a tourist visa (they could get a work visa, if they qualify) and must leave the country AND cannot return for 9 months.  I think if Thailand had something like that it would fair and clear.

 

Personally, I think Thailand should introduce a rule saying no-one can stay in the country for more than 6 months in a calendar year on visa waiver stamps + tourist visas combined.  6 months in a country per year as a visitor is plenty.  Such a rule would be clear for all.

[HAKAPALITA]

I was lucky, could afford to retire early too young for retire visa years ago.Got 3 Months in Homeland, then some extensions here.No anger, but the nice IO said i must leave. and come back.!. On paying mes Hotel bill after a few weeks in Singapore i thought Thais are not good business folk, make me pay all this money outside Thailand to a rich Nation. I did visit NZ on a Visa run thing 25 ago, and was so bloody cold n wet i did feel a bit angry that time. 

[JackThompson]

9 hours ago, HAKAPALITA said:

Not refined, but basically thats why he would fall into the Genuine Need i mentioned.Saw a NZ Doc, basically about its war on Bums, now i cant find it.!!.

Yes - I cannot blame them for that.  Thailand already addressed this, by limiting visa-exempt.  People who can only afford to bus to a land-border and back - or even do same-day out/ins by air are blocked. 

 

Another way to handle this would be to require people staying here more often/longer to use a credit-check service that works in partnership with immigration (for a fee), which would verify they have access to at least 150K Baht or so when they enter.  Apply online before coming in, or one could be held in detention during the check (same as being held currently, waiting for a for flight-out).

[JackThompson]

5 hours ago, mstevens said:

Personally, I think Thailand should introduce a rule saying no-one can stay in the country for more than 6 months in a calendar year on visa waiver stamps + tourist visas combined.  6 months in a country per year as a visitor is plenty.  Such a rule would be clear for all.

I agree on a clear-rule, but this would needlessly deny foreign-capital spending into the country.  "A week out before coming back" when a person has stayed more than "x" days in a year would work to block those working-illegally.  Make it 2, if that's not enough.  This could be combined with what I suggested, above, regarding a credit-check.

 

But, the best, most-effective solution would be putting the illegal-employers in jail.  Fines aren't enough. Management-class people don't want to go to jail, and won't hire a foreigner illegally if that were in the cards.

 

Those not working illegally must have foreign-sourced income, or they would be starving (given no handouts available for them). 

Edited October 7, 2018 by JackThompson

[HAKAPALITA]

7 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

I agree on a clear-rule, but this would needlessly deny foreign-capital spending into the country.  "A week out before coming back" when a person has stayed more than "x" days in a year would work to block those working-illegally.  Make it 2, if that's not enough.  This could be combined with what I suggested, above, regarding a credit-check.

 

But, the best, most-effective solution would be putting the illegal-employers in jail.  Fines aren't enough. Management-class people don't want to go to jail, and won't hire a foreigner illegally if that were in the cards.

 

Those not working illegally must have foreign-sourced income, or they would be starving (given no handouts available for them). 

Does that stop the many Security fraudsters who go home, sign on then come back again after a few months, i hear this from many old X pats like me. First hand i only see  Millennial Bum Teachers who were ex Bar Nannies and Nigerians smooth talkers teaching in small schools here.

[JackThompson]

9 hours ago, HAKAPALITA said:

First hand i only see  Millennial Bum Teachers who were ex Bar Nannies and Nigerians smooth talkers teaching in small schools here. 

Many have reported that it is impossible to get a teaching job without working illegally - at least for the first few months (the schools lie and tell them it's legal during a "probationary period") - and some report that schools continue to delay after that period.

 

Instead of making the process extremely easy for qualified native-English speakers (like Cambodia, which has had great success in this regard), Thailand has set more difficult qualifications and created a troublesome work-permitting process.  But, the pay is not commensurate with these hurdles, and enforcement is lacking on illegal-hiring, so Thai kids wind up with less than ideal English teachers, in many instances.  Better that they get good basic language skills from less-qualified but native-speaking + well-spoken teachers.

 

In any case, this should not be immigration's problem to deal with, since they don't have the tools to discern illegal-teachers from the rest of more frequent visitors.  Attempting to make this immigration's problem cannot help but lead to many "false-positive" hits on those who are here to spend foreign money vs work. 

 

Edited October 7, 2018 by JackThompson

[HAKAPALITA]

1 hour ago, JackThompson said:

Many have reported that it is impossible to get a teaching job without working illegally - at least for the first few months (the schools lie and tell them it's legal during a "probationary period") - and some report that schools continue to delay after that period.

 

Instead of making the process extremely easy for qualified native-English speakers (like Cambodia, which has had great success in this regard), Thailand has set more difficult qualifications and created a troublesome work-permitting process.  But, the pay is not commensurate with these hurdles, and enforcement is lacking on illegal-hiring, so Thai kids wind up with less than ideal English teachers, in many instances.  Better that they get good basic language skills from less-qualified but native-speaking + well-spoken teachers.

 

In any case, this should not be immigration's problem to deal with, since they don't have the tools to discern illegal-teachers from the rest of more frequent visitors.  Attempting to make this immigration's problem cannot help but lead to many "false-positive" hits on those who are here to spend foreign money vs work. 

 

Do professional folk leave their Homeland without securing a position, salary and required visas before hand, Without keep them out.

[JackThompson]

15 minutes ago, HAKAPALITA said:

Do professional folk leave their Homeland without securing a position, salary and required visas before hand, Without keep them out.

These days - post-globalization, where job-security doesn't exist except govt-jobs and a few select-fields?  ... I'll skip the tangent. 

 

In this particular case, "Professional Teacher" thinking is the primary-flaw in the current scheme.  Quality-speaking English teachers are needed.  They don't need to have a degree in English - or any degree at all, necessarily.  Gap-year college-bound type youngsters could be a great fill for helping young children grasp the basics, then base promotions on results - not credentials.

 

The important factor is good syntax and no strong accent, so that Thais can get to the point of having a basic English conversation with a co-worker or customer - likely in another country, who may very well also be speaking English as a 2nd language. 

 

Again regarding Cambodia - the govt doesn't get in the way, the schools (private ones often run by a native-speaker) choose who they want to teach, and market-forces sort the wheat from the chaff.  As a result, dirt-poor Cambodian kids speak better basic English than the average college-educated Thai.  Whose kids have a better shot at getting a job in the future?

 

Even teaching kids English for free as a volunteer in Thailand is made a PITA by the bureaucracy.  One cannot do it on a retirement-extension (most cases).  Even if on a Non-O based on marriage, one needs a work-permit - which takes thousands of "married to a Thai" people (like myself) out of the potential teaching-pool.  I won't risk being arrested, and maybe deported, for trying to help, and getting a work-permit is deemed too difficult. 

 

I am generally supportive of a very restrictive, nationalist work-permit policy ala: "Please train our citizens to do X," followed by, "Thank you. The citizens you trained will take it from here.".  But there are not enough Thais qualified to teach English.  I have seen college-level English teaching materials riddled with grammatical errors.  In these conditions, well-spoken native-English speakers will do far more good than harm. 

[SCOTT FITZGERSLD]

as usual the immigration officers are confused or creating confusion or just have

the common thai communication problems.

 

in your case, which seems to be the case of many people who enter thailand on 30 days waiver,

the confusion is between the old 180 days a year restriction, and the new 183 days a year tax residency law.

the tax residency law says that anyone who resides in thailand for more than 183 days a year, is

considered resident of thailand (for tax purpose) and has to pay taxes on ALL HIS INCOME WORLDWIDE.

Which means must also declare all his income and assets to the thai tax authorities.

 

in other words, thailand does not really wants you here, it wants your money. and

rightly so. there are too many people in thailand, but too little money. so

make your calculations and see what you really wants from thailand. if

you don't have a wife or a business here, than there should'nt be a reason to

come so often to a country that does not really wellcome you, or at least

tells you clearly what are it's immigration requirements.

 

[SCOTT FITZGERSLD]

On 10/6/2018 at 10:30 AM, elviajero said:

It is usually only those with a history of staying the full period that get asked to prove they have 10K. I agree, these days it is unnecessary with e-banking, which is probably one reason genuine tourists don't, as a rule, have to show the cash.

 

Immigration have, for years, reacted to the way we have used the loopholes. Long term tourists switching to using airports instead of land borders is a perfect example and why the focus is now on the airports. First they stopped us doing visa runs and pushed us on to tourist visas, then they made it harder to get tourist visas and now they are lawfully denying some long term tourists that are clearly not visiting for tourism. Anyone that hasn't yet got the message (I can think of at least 2 members of TVF) are blinkered to the reality.

 

I agree that profiling plays a big part, but I think it's fair enough to deny entry to a 20 something Filipino that is almost certainly working, and to give a pass to a 40 something westerner who is more likely to be able to fund their stay without working. The options are to publish fixed limits and deny everyone exceeding those limits, OR give IO's the power to decide. I vote for the latter.

 

so you are some kind of IO salve who see all visitors to the country as potential "exploiters" of loop holes.

another way to see it is that visitors come to thailand according to the laws immigration creates.

if immigration really does not want all those long term visitors , than new laws should be made.

thing is, thailand needs all those visitors. a huge chink of the thai economy is depanded on long term visitors / tourists (yes, someone who just come to spend few months in thailand is still a tourist).

so why can't immigration cut it to the chest and come with clear strict rules like in most countries?

MY GUESS is pride. they are too proud to admit that thailand needs those visitors badly, and

too poor to deny their entry alltogether.

[andux]

18 hours ago, SCOTT FITZGERSLD said:

the tax residency law says that anyone who resides in thailand for more than 183 days a year, is

considered resident of thailand (for tax purpose) and has to pay taxes on ALL HIS INCOME WORLDWIDE.

Which means must also declare all his income and assets to the thai tax authorities.

 

in other words, thailand does not really wants you here, it wants your money. and

rightly so. there are too many people in thailand, but too little money. so

make your calculations and see what you really wants from thailand. if

you don't have a wife or a business here, than there should'nt be a reason to

come so often to a country that does not really wellcome you, or at least

tells you clearly what are it's immigration requirements.

 

 

Thailand doesn't tax foreign income, unless remitted into Thailand the year it is earned. For this very reason, foreign income and assets don't have to be declared to the Thai tax authorities.

 

I'm guessing you are from a European nation; yeah the taxation there is pretty brutal, all countries tax on worldwide income, have abusive CFC rules, etc. But it's not the case of Thailand (yet).

 

[HAKAPALITA]

Yes ,sounds all very correct. One Problem i spot with the Well Spoken Native comment. Where is he.?.Im told my spoken English is very good, ive lost the Muppet Show Cheff sound Scans have.  This in denial theme that these young Brits dont sound like Gascoin, Alex Fergerson or an Init Mate Londoner is an insult to the nice old Brit Teachers from 20 years ago who you were happy to join your table for a Beer..Sorry but if you have a dialect dont teach Thai Kids.

[elviajero]

On 10/8/2018 at 1:07 AM, SCOTT FITZGERSLD said:

so you are some kind of IO salve who see all visitors to the country as potential "exploiters" of loop holes.

No idea what a “salve” is, but many visitors have been using the loopholes in the visa system for decades. Helped by people like me!

 

On 10/8/2018 at 1:07 AM, SCOTT FITZGERSLD said:

if immigration really does not want all those long term visitors , than new laws should be made.

Everything immigration/the authorities have done (rules/regulations) since 2006 has been to make it harder for long term tourism. So they clearly, at the very least, have been trying and succeeding in reducing numbers. Fact.

 

On 10/8/2018 at 1:07 AM, SCOTT FITZGERSLD said:

thing is, thailand needs all those visitors. a huge chink of the thai economy is depanded on long term visitors / tourists (yes, someone who just come to spend few months in thailand is still a tourist).

so why can't immigration cut it to the chest and come with clear strict rules like in most countries?

Thailand, like other countries, wants lots of short term visitors for tourism, and long term visitors for other reasons. Other reasons that they have been properly vetted for. 

 

They clearly do not need to apply strict rules at this time as they are reducing the number of long term tourists by other methods. Fortunately that means the loopholes stay open for some of us to exploit.

 

On 10/8/2018 at 1:07 AM, SCOTT FITZGERSLD said:

MY GUESS is pride. they are too proud to admit that thailand needs those visitors badly, and too poor to deny their entry alltogether.

Thailand does not need ‘long term tourists’ badly! They get millions of short term genuine tourists passing through every year. What they need, like other countries, is to manage who they let in for short term or long term visits. Which is what they seem to be doing.

Edited October 14, 2018 by elviajero