Conditions to be denied entry?

[jacko45k]

11 minutes ago, Don Chance said:

Which airlines offer 100% refund on tickets if canceled?

 

You have to look at the T&Cs as you book, likely the most expensive ticket will be the most flexible, ie First Class (F), Biz Class (J) and Economy (Y). Looking closely at rebooking/ changing charges is an option too. Even Air Asia will allow you to make 2 changes of time/date if you buy their fully flex option, and pay for it. 

Getting refunds for tickets booked via agents (Expedia, Travelsupermarket, travelocity etc) can be nigh impossible even if someone close dies!

[JackThompson]

5 hours ago, jacko45k said:

A quick check of the requirements for a Tourist visa on the London Thai Embassy website did not confirm this. No ticket mentioned for a single, confirmed air-ticket TO Thailand for a multiple. A tourist visa was previously more attractive to backpackers due to longer permissions and no need of outward flight proof. 

Ambiguity is the problem here!

Immigration at the airports seems to disagree with the MFA's decisions, in addition to disagreeing with their own published set of legal reasons for denial of entry. 

 

The MFA is still operating under the logical premise that those from higher-wage nations require less scrutiny, because they are unlikely to seek illegal-employment in Thailand.

[Gillyflower]

I have been coming to Thailand on a TV for many years.  I have never been asked to show money at any time. (20K)

To get my visa I have to have (1) a letter from a bank showing that I have 1000 euros in my account. (2) A letter showing that I have a reservation at a hotel. (3) A ticket out of Thailand.  (4) etc. etc.

I always have a 90 day air ticket, or rather 89 by the time I get here.  So many of the remarks made above are not right.

 

[Gillyflower]

 I travel with Air France paying the least possible. The ticket is not refundable EXCEPT for airport taxes and charges.  These taxes are almost as much as the fare part.  So one does get quite a good bit back.

This year I bought a ticket Bangkok/CM which was 100 %refundable, because I paid a normal price for it.

I imagine that most reputable airlines have to refund the taxes part.

Edited November 24, 2018 by Gillyflower
A part of my post had somebody else's post mixed up with it.

[Unify]

23 hours ago, Brunolem said:

Thank you for this extensive reply.

 

Obviously, it is difficult, to avoid Bangkok airports when arriving from Europe or America

From the West coast, Eva Air's flights into Chiang Mai are an alternative. Not sure any the East coast. Chiang Rai airport also has flights from common connection points to Thailand (no direct flights from the West coast.

[NoshowJones]

17 hours ago, JackThompson said:

The definition of "real, legitimate tourist" in Thailand is:

 - has 20K Baht in cash to show

 - has enough money accessible to afford to live here during their next permitted-stay

 - is not working illegally

 

There is nothing in the law or relevant Police Orders about "Limited to X days per 2 years," as quoted to the OP of another thread.  IOs must cite a specific reason to deny-entry - they cannot just "decide" a person "isn't a tourist." They must show that the visitor is too-poor and/or working-illegally.

 

 

Few from the Western world would come here to work illegally for a fraction of what they could earn legally elsewhere.  This is not like those coming to Western countries - where wages are higher than their nations of origin. 

 

Those few that do work illegally should be easily found and rounded-up, if this was a priority.  To deter such activity, catch violators red-handed, put on trial publicly, sentence to jail, then deport and ban for life.  A show-trial, every now and then, would keep others from attempting to do the same.

Excellent post. I have been saying this all along.

[RandG]

20 hours ago, elviajero said:

That’s not true. Genuine/typical tourists do not have any more risk of being denied entry now than anytime in the past.

Reading some of these posts,  you would think 50% of the tourists arriving at BKK,  DMK,  HKT are being dragged off kicking and screaming to be deported. 

[DrJack54]

This perhaps is bit off topic...but anyway. When I first came to visit, then ended up staying was maybe 7 or 8 years ago. I was already at that time over 50. I quickly go the bug esp with cheap flights from bkk to travel a LOT and often. Was never in Thailand for anything like a months. So I just used VE entries.

For some reason (forget why). I was in Saigon and obtained a tourist visa for los. The very polite Lady at Thai Saigon embassy said (I kid you not)... "You stay Thailand long time, why you no get correct visa". Being non o based on retirement. As time past and through Thaivisa heard some bad experiences. 

I then went down non o track. Happy days. 

Fact is there isn't simple option for those under 50 wishing to live here ongoing. 

I get tired if folk banging on about " there are no rules to number of days, number of exempts, setv,s etc.

Fact is I know MANY farang living here working illegally. Having stated "many" they would be an insignificant number compared with the under 50 farang that have financially been able to put themselves in financial position to live here. Go on em.

However take one very small eg. My Thai partner has been to Australia many times. 12 month multiple entry. Let's see how she would go staying in au for 12 month with a weekend exit to say Bali every couple of months. As far as I know its not stated in the conditions of her visa. Perhaps some countries have max days per year or max VE. Thailand does not. Maybe they are too generous even giving VE. Vietnam does not to many countries. USA and AU to name 2. 

Thailand is too easy and that leads to abuse, even more so with no set exact rules. 

Edited November 24, 2018 by DrJack54
Error

[elviajero]

12 hours ago, onera1961 said:

17 hours ago, elviajero said:

By your own experience the answer is no. It is not something that is generally enforced for non-immigrant visa holders.

Somewhere I read that it was required for other Non- visas. I have an O-A. I also never carried 20K in my hundreds of visits using visa exempt, SETV, reentry permit, ED visa, and O-A visa since 2014. This year on an O-A, I have entered/exit 10 times and never been asked for money, though last time IO  questioned me what I am doing in Thailand. Now, I try to keep at least 100K in my Bangkok book and also keep it updated periodically.

These are the dark days for people who like to visit Thailand frequently and I will keep 20K for the next time.  

IMO you are overreacting to the hype around the 20K rule.

 

By law/regulation every visa holder should carry 20K, but immigration -- as a general rule -- immigration do not enforce this at the border. Usually, the only time it's asked for is if the IO is considering denying entry. There is no reason why they would be considering denying entry to a 'O-A' (long stay) visa holder due to multiple visits or a long time spent in the country because that is it's purpose.

 

It is visitors staying long term as tourists that are (mostly) targeting that are sometimes asked to show the 20K when the IO is considering whether or not to let them in.

[elviajero]

13 hours ago, jacko45k said:

20 hours ago, elviajero said:

Yes it is. Every tourist is expected to have an onward ticket. It is a requirement listed on the MFA website to get a Tourist Visa, and many embassies/consulates insist on seeing a confirmed booking before issuing a visa.

A quick check of the requirements for a Tourist visa on the London Thai Embassy website did not confirm this. No ticket mentioned for a single, confirmed air-ticket TO Thailand for a multiple. A tourist visa was previously more attractive to backpackers due to longer permissions and no need of outward flight proof. 

Ambiguity is the problem here!

I don't think "ambiguity" is correct. It is more down to inconsistent enforcement of the rules.

 

The MFA website clearly states that an onward flight is required. Many embassies/consulates now insist on seeing evidence of the onward flight before issuing a visa. The fact that embassies, like London, are not asking to see evidence doesn't, IMO, change the 'expectation'.

[elviajero]

12 hours ago, BritTim said:

Once again, we have the discussion about whether a visa and a permission to stay are the same thing with the same requirements. It is my view that the MFA does not make rules to be followed by the Immigration Bureau, and the Immigration Bureau does not make rules to be followed by consulates. Thus, I do not believe the MFA website is a reliable source of information about the instructions given to immigration officials.

Your view is wrong.

 

The MFA is effectively the PR ministry for Thailand. All they do is publish the visa requirements as directed by Thai authorities. They don't make up any visa rules!

 

12 hours ago, BritTim said:

I can appreciate why, under certain circumstances, immigration officials might ask a tourist visa holder how long they plan to stay, and whether they have an onward ticket. However, I have read nothing to suggest that lack of an onward flight ticket is a valid reason under Section 12 of the Immigration Act for denying a visa holder entry to Thailand.

I have written many times that immigration cannot deny entry because someone doesn't have an onward flight. But every tourist is expected to have one, and if the IO is looking to deny entry for other reasons they may/can ask to see one.

 

Hotel booking, onward flight and pocket money are the things immigration are looking for in a tourist, and the things they may want to see from a visitor repeatedly entering for tourism.

 

As usual, you ignore section 12.10 that refers to section 16, which basically gives immigration -- with the backing of the Minister -- the possibility to deny anyone for any reason. That power could be discretionary or based on set rules, and not necessarily published.

[elviajero]

11 hours ago, jackdd said:

20 hours ago, elviajero said:

Yes it is. Every tourist is expected to have an onward ticket. It is a requirement listed on the MFA website to get a Tourist Visa, and many embassies/consulates insist on seeing a confirmed booking before issuing a visa. 

And according to the Thai version of the immigration website it is a general requirement to show a ticket out of Thailand when applying for a visa, Section 5 of https://www.immigration.go.th/content/visa (http://www.consular.go.th/main/th/services/1287/19758-ข้อมูลทั่วไป.html)

So following your logic of saying requirements for visas are a must have and using the same logic with this source, when entering the kingdom a non-immigrant visa holder could be asked for an outward ticket within 90 days when he arrives in Thailand, and if he can't present it he can be denied entry?

The requirement is referring to applying for a visa. As far as I am aware immigration cannot deny entry to anyone for the reason of not having an onward flight. It becomes 

 

Logically, as proof of the intention to leave (usually an onward flight) is a general requirement to get a visa, it should be easy to understand that immigration 'expect' a 'tourist' to have an onward flight. Or should IO's assume the 'tourist' threw the ticket away after applying for the visa!

[JackThompson]

6 hours ago, DrJack54 said:

My Thai partner has been to Australia many times. 12 month multiple entry. Let's see how she would go staying in au for 12 month with a weekend exit to say Bali every couple of months.

Given the wage-differential between Thailand and Australia, I would imagine there would be suspicion of illegal working.

 

6 hours ago, DrJack54 said:

Fact is I know MANY farang living here working illegally. Having stated "many" they would be an insignificant number compared with the under 50 farang that have financially been able to put themselves in financial position to live here. Go on em.

6 hours ago, DrJack54 said:

Thailand is too easy and that leads to abuse, even more so with no set exact rules. 

As to the illegal-workers - IMO, they should be arrested, jailed, deported, and banned.  The Thais that hired them should get years of prison-time for each illegal foreign hire.  I advocate the same in my passport-country.  Just one of those cases on the TV, and that "maybe later" paperwork for English teachers would be provided, and work-permits obtained, before the first day of work, as the law requires. 

 

I do not see a downside to the lack of limits on stays in Thailand on Tourist entries in cases of those whose home-country provides higher wages than could be obtained via illegal-work here.  As a result, it is not "abuse" - it was intentional and a "feature," adopted by many nations with similar wage-scales.

[The traveler]

On 11/23/2018 at 6:21 PM, Scottjouro said:

Funny your all knowing first statement..LOL...but rubbish  baseless generalisations

 

i came to work in Thailand many years ago on an after tax uplift of around 30% on my farangland salary..so shows how much you know, for professions that are needed in Thailand, significantly higher salaries than that  of Western countries are availible in Thailand to farangs

There are many well paid jobs in Thailand for westerners, but usually for those with high education.

 

I have met plenty of western engineers here, last time few weeks ago at the bang sue train station which I under construction.

 

yes Thailand is cheaper then most western/Northern European countries but there are countries in Eastern Europe where the prices are lower then Thailand and problems to get s job.

 

jackthompson thinks always he know this country more then anybody else.

 

[JackThompson]

5 minutes ago, The traveler said:

There are many well paid jobs in Thailand for westerners, but usually for those with high education.

 

I have met plenty of western engineers here, last time few weeks ago at the bang sue train station which I under construction.

 

yes Thailand is cheaper then most western/Northern European countries but there are countries in Eastern Europe where the prices are lower then Thailand and problems to get s job.

 

jackthompson thinks always he know this country more then anybody else.

Not at all.  As I pointed out above, I was referring to low pay for "illegal working" on tourist-visas - not engineering jobs and similar which come with Work Permits and appropriate visas/extensions.  The context of the thread is fairly clear on this.

[BritTim]

5 hours ago, elviajero said:

As usual, you ignore section 12.10 that refers to section 16, which basically gives immigration -- with the backing of the Minister -- the possibility to deny anyone for any reason. That power could be discretionary or based on set rules, and not necessarily published.

I do not ignore Section 12.10 and Section 16. However,

• I have yet to see an example of anyone denied entry to Thailand based on Section 12.10; and
• Section 16 makes it clear that only the Minister has the power to admit or exclude someone other than pursuant to the rules outlined in the Act. I suppose you could argue that the Minister could issue a blanket exception stating that any immigration official has the right, with his support, to deny someone entry. However, I would argue such guidance would be contrary to the spirit of the Act and highly improper.

[Gillyflower]

15 hours ago, elviajero said:

Your view is wrong.

 

The MFA is effectively the PR ministry for Thailand. All they do is publish the visa requirements as directed by Thai authorities. They don't make up any visa rules!

 

I have written many times that immigration cannot deny entry because someone doesn't have an onward flight. But every tourist is expected to have one, and if the IO is looking to deny entry for other reasons they may/can ask to see one.

 

Hotel booking, onward flight and pocket money are the things immigration are looking for in a tourist, and the things they may want to see from a visitor repeatedly entering for tourism.

 

As usual, you ignore section 12.10 that refers to section 16, which basically gives immigration -- with the backing of the Minister -- the possibility to deny anyone for any reason. That power could be discretionary or based on set rules, and not necessarily published.

Elviajero

TV if I 

About your second paragraph.   I can't even get a TV  (from the Paris Embassy)if I don't meet these requirement.  

[Eaglekott]

OP: IMHO I believe the head line is a bit confusing, "Conditions to be denied entry?"

I do not think there is any "Conditions" to be refused entry. The conditions is to be granted entry. Live up to those conditions and you will be granted. If not, no entry.

[Maestro]

5 hours ago, Eaglekott said:

OP: IMHO I believe the head line is a bit confusing, "Conditions to be denied entry?"

I do not think there is any "Conditions" to be refused entry. The conditions is to be granted entry. Live up to those conditions and you will be granted. If not, no entry.

 

I was wondering about that. Perhaps "criteria" would be a better term than "conditions", I cannot say, but this is mere semantics and it is a moot point, as neither of the two English translations of the Immigration Act I have on file use either of these terms in the opening paragraph of section 12.

Immigration's version:

Quote

Aliens which fall into any of the following categories are excluded from entering into the Kingdom :

 

 

 

Cabinet's version:

Quote

Aliens falling into any of the following categories are excluded from entering the Kingdom —

 

The way the English translations are phrased it looks very much like the conditions or criteria listed in section 12 are not for granting entry but are indeed for denying entry. If one wanted to see if it is the same in the Thai original , one would have to discuss it in the Thai language forum.