Denied Entry at DMK with 60 day visa from Penang

[KneeDeep]

1 hour ago, Sp4wnY said:

A lot of people here also seem to forget that logic is to be left behind at the border. So you can't really judge their behvior as malevolent against us foreigners. Like not* giving you the option to withdraw money.

 

This of course is nonsense. They don't give you the option because the ATMs are landside, whilst you are airside.

But someone who did a land crossing has indicated that he was allowed to get the extra 1k that was indicated.

In every profession you will get individuals who interpret things differently. The IOs have a job to do. So make it easy for them by having your supporting documents. Then they can use their discretion to let you in.

But if you turn up with just a sense of entitlement, you could be in for a nasty shock.

 

They are clearly cracking down on the criminal element and some of us can get entangled accidentally/temporarily.

So instead of complaining, make it easy for them to remove you from their dragnet and on your merry way.

 

 

 

[warrima]

Quite a predicament for the husband standing safely Landside, with the immigration officers closing in on the Mrs airside. Must have crossed his mind to turn on his heels and jump in a taxi to Nana.

[JackThompson]

1 hour ago, jackdd said:

Actually the amount is not written in the the law but in a miniterial order. Do you have the ministerial order at hand? I doubt that it explicitly says "cash", more likely just "money". This was written long ago and in current times an IO could very well accept a bank statement. The IO could also offer the possibilty to go to an ATM so that the person can withdraw money.

But both of these options are not offered, not because they can't, but because they don't want, whatever their motive is. So it becomes quite clear that this is just an arbitrary reason to deny entry.

... and there is no indication from the OP's post that a request to "see the money" was ever made. 

She also mentioned a lack of other questions related to finances, which would be pertinent to an investigation of "has enough money to support their stay" and "came to work a job illegally," which are the other 2 reported-reasons stamped for denial-of-entry. 

[Lung Khao]

I am very sorry for what happened to you. Nowadays we face divided world. World of globalist supporting unlimited movement around the globe, without borders, without prejudices, they call themselves citizens of the World. On the other side we meet closing  or already closed communities, in which we could face xenophobia and nationalism. But mostly the world consists of moderate societies. Over that all there are border controls. What happened to you is often happening also in US airports to US visa holders, mostly by misunderstanding, excuses not supported by hard evidences, that's make immigration officer suspicious. I don't blame immigration officers, they don't know us, they draw conclusions on the basis of our passport and their data records. I bet, if you were not US citizen and acted the same way when facing US immigration officer as you acted in DMK you would fail.

[JackThompson]

4 minutes ago, Lung Khao said:

I am very sorry for what happened to you. Nowadays we face divided world. World of globalist supporting unlimited movement around the globe, without borders, without prejudices, they call themselves citizens of the World. On the other side we meet closing  or already closed communities, in which we could face xenophobia and nationalism. But mostly the world consists of moderate societies. Over that all there are border controls.

 

What happened to you is often happening also in US airports to US visa holders, mostly by misunderstanding, excuses not supported by hard evidences, that's make immigration officer suspicious. I don't blame immigration officers, they don't know us, they draw conclusions on the basis of our passport and their data records. I bet, if you were not US citizen and acted the same way when facing US immigration officer as you acted in DMK you would fail.

I agree the USA process is horrible - denials should occur pre-boarding or pre-visa - not after the flight. 

 

But there is no comparison possible of Western (higher-wage opportunity) nation's visitors to Thailand, to entry to the USA.  The latter is overwhelmed with lower-wage immigrants who have a historical-pattern of working illegally in huge percentages, flooding labor-markets / crashing wages to bare-subsistence in entire labor-sectors, and thereby contributing to the economic-destruction of millions of citizen-families.  Then add in the difference in taxpayer-funded social-help available - free schools (illegal to even ask about legal-status), birthright citizenship, etc. 

 

There are some parallels: In both nations, those hiring illegal workers are not arrested and thrown in prison, as they should be, for treason.  And visas are being offered to lower-wage foreign workers, which exacerbate the struggle of citizens to earn a decent living.  But in Thailand, very few being hired illegally are from the USA / West (none receive the "L" visas), so what is described by the OP is not relevant.

 

The IOs in question saw that this person came from a higher-wage nation, had a history of travel around the world, and denied them entry to spite this - citing a reason for denial which is not listed in the law.  Further, they asked no questions pertinent to legitimate reasons for denial.

[BritTim]

2 hours ago, KneeDeep said:

This of course is nonsense. They don't give you the option because the ATMs are landside, whilst you are airside.

There are ATMs airside. However, they are in the departure area, and cannot be easily accessed by arriving passengers. When immigration wants to deny someone entry, the passenger is not allowed to access the ATMs (such as to draw money for flight tickets) until after being denied entry. However, there is no real reason why they could not be allowed to use an ATM. The whole checking for cash and preventing you from getting it is just a convenient way, under the rules, to deny someone entry.

[KneeDeep]

8 minutes ago, BritTim said:

There are ATMs airside. However, they are in the departure area, and cannot be easily accessed by arriving passengers. When immigration wants to deny someone entry, the passenger is not allowed to access the ATMs (such as to draw money for flight tickets) until after being denied entry. However, there is no real reason why they could not be allowed to use an ATM. The whole checking for cash and preventing you from getting it is just a convenient way, under the rules, to deny someone entry.

 

Convenient? It's only asked for if you are ripe for being denied entry anyway.

I wasn't asked, even when asked to see outbound flight itinerary etc.

Some people look for any excuse to claim discrimination.

Just have everything in order and then if you have issues you can write about it here. So far we've read about people who have not had everything in order.

Yes, of course we love Thailand for it's relaxed way of life. But many took the biscuit, so now they are cleaning up a bit.

 

[Sp4wnY]

They could just keep your passport and have someone escort you to the ATM. Sometimes they are flexible (even without tip). it's also less work for them than sending you back.

 

At the border they once let me go to a copy shop on the Thai site so I could print out some documents from my school.

 

Maybe they have to reach quotas every month so they go after obvious cases like OP?

 

Some visa expert should make a checklist of documents to bring when arriving to Thailand to have everything "in order". Starting with the boarding pass ????

Edited November 23, 2018 by Sp4wnY

[KneeDeep]

39 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

I agree the USA process is horrible - denials should occur pre-boarding or pre-visa - not after the flight. 

 

But there is no comparison possible of Western (higher-wage opportunity) nation's visitors to Thailand, to entry to the USA.  The latter is overwhelmed with lower-wage immigrants who have a historical-pattern of working illegally in huge percentages, flooding labor-markets / crashing wages to bare-subsistence in entire labor-sectors, and thereby contributing to the economic-destruction of millions of citizen-families.  Then add in the difference in taxpayer-funded social-help available - free schools (illegal to even ask about legal-status), birthright citizenship, etc. 

 

There are some parallels: In both nations, those hiring illegal workers are not arrested and thrown in prison, as they should be, for treason.  And visas are being offered to lower-wage foreign workers, which exacerbate the struggle of citizens to earn a decent living.  But in Thailand, very few being hired illegally are from the USA / West (none receive the "L" visas), so what is described by the OP is not relevant.

 

The IOs in question saw that this person came from a higher-wage nation, had a history of travel around the world, and denied them entry to spite this - citing a reason for denial which is not listed in the law.  Further, they asked no questions pertinent to legitimate reasons for denial.

 

Where you there? No. The Thai bashing gets a bit boring.

They have orders and they are doing their job. The OP fits the criteria they were given and it's down to the OP to show that she did not fit the criteria.

Perhaps her husband still had his boarding pass. We don't know. The OP was even given advice to try another port of entry. So that hardly seems like a hateful monster, now does it?

They likely have quotas. Think about it before just spouting conspiracy theories.

It is their job.

If I was treated unfairly, I would have been here telling all about it. But on both occasions where I have been questioned, they let me pass. Even though the first IO was a little angry by being overruled twice by his superior. 

[overherebc]

2 hours ago, JackThompson said:

... and there is no indication from the OP's post that a request to "see the money" was ever made. 

She also mentioned a lack of other questions related to finances, which would be pertinent to an investigation of "has enough money to support their stay" and "came to work a job illegally," which are the other 2 reported-reasons stamped for denial-of-entry. 

I read through the OP again and she mentioned 'business owner' but doesn't say where the business is.

Maybe relevant, maybe not.

[DjSiN]

Hi. I can totally relate, after going thru this rubbish myself a few days ago. 

 

Just so u know, BKK airport is NO DIFFERENT. 

they're pulling the same BS as DM  

 

all this could be avoided if Immigration made the rules more transparent, or as another poster mentioned, the consulate not GRANTING the Visa in the first place. They have all the info they need to make an educated decision, and it would be far easier and less stress this way. But the real issue is, IMMIGRATION making up rules. They shld get their asses kicked, power trippin. 

 

Other posters here mention that u were doing the wrong thing, do not listen to their rubbish. If it's an IO discretionary rule, then that's not actually a rule for which u are breaking. 

 

If they suspect u may be working or doing some other activity on Thailand which is forbidden, then they shld have REAL proof of this, rather than making some judgment call. 

 

Anyway, if your visa hasn't been stamped, then u can still use it, via a safer border crossing. 

 

They may may be confused as to why u were refused entry previously, which is exactly what happened to me. They kept asking me what happened at BKK. I SAID I don't know. They seemed really bewildered. I had my thai partner on the ph and she cld hear them talking in thai. 

It only seems like a select few locations where they do this. 

 

Really make sure u have ACTUAL CASH 20k BHT on hand and all the other stuff needed to get the visa. 

I was hoping I cld just show my ph banking app with acc balance, but they insisted I get cash. Highly annoyed at that point cos the nearest ATM was 30min away, and then had to exchange usd for tbht. Really painful. 

No consistency. For visa application at Vietnam, I had CASH, but they wanted print out of bank statement. Ludicrous. 

 

Chin up, many people on this forum will blame u for the difficulty, just know, this is the systems fault, not yours. 

Good luck. 

[ParadiseLost]

1 hour ago, DjSiN said:

Highly annoyed at that point cos the nearest ATM was 30min away, and then had to exchange usd for tbht.

For future reference, you can show the equivalent of 20k THB in any major currency. I carry GBP traveler cheques for this purpose alone.

 

 

1 hour ago, DjSiN said:

For visa application at Vietnam, I had CASH, but they wanted print out of bank statement.

The consulates do only the minimum of checks as they get paid for each visa they issue - not in their interests to delve too deeply into the applicant. The bank account print is only to cover their behind.

[Canuckabroad]

Why put up with this grief to come to Thailand?  It’s a great place for short and infrequent visits, but there are other counties (e.g. Vietnam) that will welcome you with open arms (at $150 usd for 3 month multi entry, or $1.8k for 2 year temporary resident visa).

 

I like Thailand, but at the first indication a developing country was going to make it difficult for me to spend my money there, I chose somewhere else.

[JackThompson]

4 hours ago, KneeDeep said:

4 hours ago, JackThompson said:

The IOs in question saw that this person came from a higher-wage nation, had a history of travel around the world, and denied them entry to spite this - citing a reason for denial which is not listed in the law.  Further, they asked no questions pertinent to legitimate reasons for denial.

 

Where you there? No. The Thai bashing gets a bit boring.

She was there:

21 hours ago, Duwanda Nunya said:

They didn't ask about income or give me a chance to show any proof that I own a business and am not working. 

... and it matches other reports, where nothing was asked about money/finances - just "too many days" - which isn't a valid reason to deny entry.

[JackThompson]

11 hours ago, DjSiN said:

all this could be avoided if Immigration made the rules more transparent, or as another poster mentioned, the consulate not GRANTING the Visa in the first place. They have all the info they need to make an educated decision, and it would be far easier and less stress this way.

The MFA does not have access to the immigration DB - but it should not matter, since there is no law or ministerial-order rule which in any way limits the time spent in-country on Tourist Visas.   The only issue which might be caught later, by immigration, would be of the criminal sort, including banned entry. 

 

11 hours ago, DjSiN said:

But the real issue is, IMMIGRATION making up rules.

Yes.  In sum, the MFA is issuing valid Visas per the law while immigration, at certain check points, is Violating The Law to block their use, then covering their tracks with a passport-stamp that pretends an actual legal-reason was used.

 

This is not "Thai Bashing" or even "Immigration Bashing" - because 99.9% of Thais have nothing to do with immigration-policy, and most IOs in immigration I have encountered have been decent people doing their job professionally. 

 

The purpose of this information is to help people avoid the dangerous locations where the laws may be bent or broken.  Specific locations are being operated by supervisors executing an agenda not sanctioned by law.  Enter elsewhere, and all is fine.

[DrJack54]

I'm thinking "enter elsewhere and all is fine" is bit simplistic. The op often enters los from other countries such as Bali. Several members have suggested difficulties at both airports in bkk.

This thread suggests to me that if your are going to enter at airport and have pattern of travel with many VE and even many SETV then at very least have as much "backup" to show its highly unlikely your working. In the op,s case even hotel booking, perhaps outbound ticket, even copies of future flights (if have). Cash etc. In this ladies case she sort of didn't provide much, it would seem. Recently there have been 2 threads of refused entry with visa at airport. I think this lady was very unlucky with the amount of time between visits to Thailand. The other thread was a fella who for 18 months stayed in los with "few day turnarounds". Was living with gf and it would seem, surprise surprise he was working. Many imho are being bit harsh on io,s. 

[Hoppyone]

19 hours ago, overherebc said:

There is no rule/law on 6 months in any year. It existed a few years ago but has been removed.

Also you can always get an extension on a 6mth METV

[Caldera]

It might be as simple as the immigration supervisor getting a kickback from those 800 baht charged for detention. The more detainees, the more money they make. Now that their nice little VOA gravy train has been stopped, they might well be desperate to pursue other revenue streams.

 

I do realize this is Thailand we are talking about, but charging people such a fee for detention which is involuntary by its very nature really shouldn't be legal anywhere in the world. It's shameful. How about the IDC in the city, do people get charged for their stay there as well?

[anon537687643]

A scandalous way to treat someone who has a legitimate visa ! But Thailand law enforcement is not exactly about “legal “


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[JackThompson]

43 minutes ago, DrJack54 said:

I'm thinking "enter elsewhere and all is fine" is bit simplistic. The op often enters los from other countries such as Bali. Several members have suggested difficulties at both airports in bkk.

This thread suggests to me that if your are going to enter at airport and have pattern of travel with many VE and even many SETV then at very least have as much "backup" to show its highly unlikely your working.

As the OP reported:

On 11/23/2018 at 1:49 AM, Duwanda Nunya said:

When were asking why they didn't let us in, they told us we have been in Thailand too much to be on tourist visas and need to leave for longer before coming back or (and better yet) come back with a long term visa. ...

They wouldn't let me talk. They didn't ask many questions. ...

They didn't ask about income or give me a chance to show any proof that I own a business and am not working. Their minds were made up.

They aren't interested in paperwork proving your finances.  They aren't interested in determining if you are "really" working illegally.  Anything they do ask for is just "gotcha" stuff - not related to whether you have the finances for your full-trip and a reason to work illegally. 

 

To review the policy shifts:

This started out with just those "living here" on Visa-Exempts, doing same day out/ins, on the premise of "illegally working" and "too poor backpackers."  Then Tourist Visa holders were targeted, if not staying out between entries for significant time, on the premise of "they must be illegally working." 

 

Now, the amount of time which is "over the limit" (which doesn't exist in the law at all) has been quoted all over the map, from "Tourists only stay 2 or 3 weeks" to "X days/yr" to "X days/2-years" and so on - made up on the spot to fit rejecting based on the particular mark's visit-history.  This is a "target and trap" scheme netting increasing numbers of Western visitors as it expands.

 

I suspect they are filling a quota of Westerners to reject, with the goal of this being to drive down Western numbers in Thailand - excepting those paying tribute.  I don't think the "embassy letter" issue, occurring at the same time, is just a coincidence.  Given the fact that it makes no logical sense to reject billions of baht of foreign-sourced money, the only reasonable explanation is that some entity or entities are paying for this operation - people who do not care about the well-being of Thai people.

 

The only good news - whoever is paying off the supervisors at those locations has not expanded their scheme to other entry-points in the country.  They probably figure they can do sufficient-damage to Western numbers by targeting us at the Bangkok airports only.  This is likely a correct assumption, as many are not willing to do a flight-train/bus-flight routine, just to spend money in Thailand.

Edited November 24, 2018 by JackThompson

[Just Weird]

19 hours ago, ParadiseLost said:

Nothing wrong with my reading - why don't you enlighten me...

 

Here - let me help seeing you are so quick to jump to conclusions:

She asks what the US would say about someone being treated that way, not about the way she was treated. Admittedly she may have a US passport, but nothing she says confirms that. She may also be stating a common belief, most countries would not dare to treat US passport holders that way.

 

There is reading, then there is comprehension. I think you can read, but try processing the content before shooting your mouth off next time.

Yes, there sure is comprehension and it's pretty obvious to anyone who can process the content that she was referring to the US as her own country, why else would she mention it?

[ubonjoe]

A inflammatory baiting post has been removed.

[LukKrueng]

according to the op, seems you are seasoned travelers, yet you don't understand the rules (which are pretty much the same all over the world):

1. Having a valid visa in your passport gives you the right to arrive at the country's port of entrance but does not guarantee your entry which is 100% at the discretion of the immigration officer

2. If you were refused entry you must go back to the place you came from or to the place of your citizenship/residency

3. In case you were refused entry the airline that brought you here is responsible for your departure and is also being fined

4. Being refused entry means you are being deported. In this case your passport is confiscated, held by the authorities until the flight and then given to the flight crew who must hand it over to the authorities on the other end of the fight

[jackdd]

1 hour ago, LukKrueng said:

which is 100% at the discretion of the immigration officer

This is not 100% correct, in Thailand the immigration officer has a list of reasons for which he can deny you, but he can not legally deny you entry just because he wants to

1 hour ago, LukKrueng said:

If you were refused entry you must go back to the place you came from or to the place of your citizenship/residency

This is wrong, it's up to the discretion of the immigration officer

1 hour ago, LukKrueng said:

In case you were refused entry the airline that brought you here is responsible for your departure and is also being fined 

Yes, they will be fined, but i couldn't find anything in the law which says they are responsible for the departure, so i think they are not and it's most likely again up to the discretion of the IO how the person who was denied entry has to leave the country.

1 hour ago, LukKrueng said:

Being refused entry means you are being deported. In this case your passport is confiscated, held by the authorities until the flight and then given to the flight crew who must hand it over to the authorities on the other end of the fight 

Being refused entry is not the same as being deported. They have a stamp for denied entry and another stamp for deportation, so there is a difference, but i don't know what this means in detail.

[SheungWan]

On 11/23/2018 at 1:04 PM, natway09 said:

To leave  your boarding pass on the plane also raised flags.

I think there may be a bit more to this story than we are being told.

Frequent flyers don't leave their boarding pass on the plane.

[BritTim]

37 minutes ago, jackdd said:

2 hours ago, LukKrueng said:

Being refused entry means you are being deported. In this case your passport is confiscated, held by the authorities until the flight and then given to the flight crew who must hand it over to the authorities on the other end of the fight 

Being refused entry is not the same as being deported. They have a stamp for denied entry and another stamp for deportation, so there is a difference, but i don't know what this means in detail.

There is a huge difference in international law between denied entry and deportation. When you are being deported:

• the airline that will carry you must be informed, and generally has the right to deny to carry you (the only exception being the national airline of your home country);
• the country you are being deported to must be informed in advance, and can refuse to receive you.

The consequence of the above is that deportation almost invariably involves an expensive ticket on your national airline back to home country, with no alternatives. If you cannot meet the cost of deportation, expect to be locked up until you can, or until a charity pays for you. With denied entry, the default is that the airline that brought you to Thailand is responsible for returning you to your embarkation point. Depending on the terms and conditions of the airline, you may or may not need to pay for this return. In fact, if you cannot pay, the airline still has no alternative but to carry you and try to get the money back later. 

Edited November 25, 2018 by BritTim

[overherebc]

38 minutes ago, jackdd said:

This is not 100% correct, in Thailand the immigration officer has a list of reasons for which he can deny you, but he can not legally deny you entry just because he wants to

This is wrong, it's up to the discretion of the immigration officer

Yes, they will be fined, but i couldn't find anything in the law which says they are responsible for the departure, so i think they are not and it's most likely again up to the discretion of the IO how the person who was denied entry has to leave the country.

Being refused entry is not the same as being deported. They have a stamp for denied entry and another stamp for deportation, so there is a difference, but i don't know what this means in detail.

Being deported is not the same as denied entry.

Deportation will come after a court case maybe involving a fine and a record being kept of why you were deported. It may also include being blacklisted and again there will be a record kept.

IO's at entry points, I would bet money, don't have the system or the individual power to enter such information on the computer. Read the OP where she said they were making up a file on them and adding photographs, why do that if they could do computer entries with the same info. I see this action as a 'scare tactic.'

[jacko45k]

1 hour ago, SheungWan said:

Frequent flyers don't leave their boarding pass on the plane.

I have left numerous items on planes, books, glasses, boarding passes, pens..

[pattayadgw]

That was a great posting.  These mor+++ who sit at their box don't have a clue outside of their country.  They don't understand that people of all age groups can actually have the cash/wealth and the lifestyle to come and go wherever whenever they like.  This is something totally incomprehensible to them..."you come too many times, you must be working or doing something illegal".... sorry to say, but that's all they know!!

[MRToMRT]

If you just take the main parts of the story and redact the ladies opinion sentences, and then replace Thai/Thailand for US/USA it suddenly becomes fully understandable and dare I say justifiable. Too many people here are colored by their own bad opinions of the immigration system. 

 

600 days out of 2 years on tourist visas would make US immigration hit the red button big time.