Rejected at the airport, what is next?

[AgentSmith]

25 minutes ago, whitemouse said:

The worst is to try and speak Thai to IO, in attempt to be nice, to appear  friendly. Second worst is showing account in Thai bank, to IO's mind that makes you a local and clearly working illegally, IO does not compute that  Westerner's life dream does not include employment in 3rd world country. 

Also, do not show a condo as an address, tourists are supposed to stay at hotels.

I think that's the best advice for people entering on either a tourist visa or visa exempt. It's what I do too and it never caused any trouble and 9 out of 10 times there are no questions asked. I deviated from this once by stating the address of the house I'm renting and also being honest about staying 90 days instead of the 60 as allowed by the visa without extension. Bingo! "Sir walk with me!"

 

I keep talking to a minimum. All I say is Hello Sir and Thank you Sir. With a polite smile of course. I fill in 30 or 60 days on the entry form (depending on whether I have a visa or not), fill in the address of the hotel I usually stay at the first night, and that's that. Just remember you're a tourist and you're coming for a holiday to relax and to spend your money and to leave soon after. Make sure you fit in that profile and you'll be on your way.

Edited December 5, 2018 by AgentSmith

[DrJack54]

If some members can actually go back to op. Are you missing something. The basic question was "what's next" ....all the other crap is exactly that. So foolish suggestion was to fly to x, outside Thailand. Take train to y then after border crossing fly domestic to z. Geezus are you serious. Best advice would possible be take break for little while from los. Maybe Vietnam. If op has Thai gf, no problem fly her there, visa exempt. Then bit later back to Thailand when its time frame good option. Don't listen to dills stating you have absolute right to basically live here on TV,s. BTW op guessing your back home? 19 pages have you contributed?

Edited December 5, 2018 by DrJack54

[AgentSmith]

20 minutes ago, DrJack54 said:

If some members can actually go back to op. Are you missing something. The basic question was "what's next" ....all the other crap is exactly that. So foolish suggestion was to fly to x, outside Thailand. Take train to y then after border crossing fly domestic to z. Geezus are you serious. Best advice would possible be take break for little while from los. Maybe Vietnam. If op has Thai gf, no problem fly her there, visa exempt. Then bit later back to Thailand when its time frame good option. Don't listen to dills stating you have absolute right to basically live here on TV,s. BTE op guessing you back home. 19 pages have you contributed?

I think we're all trying to help here. I'm glad to read about alternatives so I can figure out for myself whether they're practical options for me or not. It makes sense to enter the country over land if a certain border crossing is more lenient than other entry points. The border near Vientiane is one of those that seem to be a great option too. I already crossed there once, a long time ago, and I don't rule out to go down that route again.

 

For those who are becoming too desperate, leaving Thailand for a while probably is the best option indeed. Just go to Vietnam or Indonesia for 3 to 6 months and then return. Bonus tip for Indonesia: get a 60 day tourist visa at their embassy in Bangkok (right next to Pantip Plaza) and fly to Bali. After a month go to any visa agent and have him or her extend your visa for 30 days. You can do this 4 times in a row so your stay is effectively 180 days without ever leaving the country. You probably won't see your passport for a few months though because extensions are a painfully slow process. As soon as you can pick up your passport at your agent it's already time for the new extension. So better just leave it with the agent for the time you're there. Carry a copy with you and you're fine. You can even do domestic flights then. Crazy Indo. ????

Edited December 5, 2018 by AgentSmith

[BritTim]

12 hours ago, elviajero said:

I have never said that 12.2 can be used to deny entry just because someone has stayed too long. A tourist that has stayed in the country for months/years — and is looking to continue that stay — has not provided immigration with evidence that they have the means to support themselves. That is why 12.2 can lawfully be used to deny entry.

As I understand your position, you state

• not being able to prove that you have the money to support yourself during your stay is grounds for denied entry;
• the immigration official is not qualified to evaluate any proof you might have that you can support yourself; and so
• the immigration official can arbitrarily decide to deny someone entry to Thailand based on the fact that the tourist might not have the money to support themselves.

I am quite sure that is not the original intention of Section 12.2 of the Immigration Act. It may (or may not) be true that the top brass in the Immigration Bureau are OK with this, but it is clear violation of the provision in the Immigration Act that only the Minister has the power to arbitrarily grant or deny entry to Thailand.

[JAG]

5 hours ago, sgoodes said:

I'm on my 3rd METV now and carry 40k baht in my wallet minimum at all times. 

Whether it makes a difference or not I'm not sure but I also pay and use the VIP fast track service at BKK. Having a  VIP Thai escort with me at immigration in my opinion has made my entries very smooth .

The IO I have dealt with the last few times has been really friendly and even struck a light conversation with me. 

Just my opinion and experience.

If you are in the habit (or able!) to carry B40k in your wallet at all times I am sure that you are regarded by just about everybody - immigration officers included - as outstandingly handsome!

????

But, to go back to the original post, one grade explains it all: " I have been living in Thailand on Tourist Visas..." Perhaps you are in the same position - it will only take one IO to decide that consecutive METVs constitutes living here and the same could happen to you. Having an escort or being in the VIP channel will not help!

Edited December 6, 2018 by JAG

[JackThompson]

11 hours ago, whitemouse said:

Yes, but you are using logic here, and that is mistake.

Thai IO would see having Thai bank account as further  proof that foreigner is working here. IO's first 'clue' is that someone is here more than 2 months, it simply does not compute in IO's mind. Everyone MUST have 9 to 5 job, just like he, or something is wrong, and that can mean only one thing - foreigner staying over 2 month MUST be working here. Nothing a tourist will say will convince IO otherwise, there just isn't room for additional data in his head. 

 

Best to not mention Thai bank account. My Russian friend who spends 8 months out of a year here simply talks to IO in Russian.

 

The worst is to try and speak Thai to IO, in attempt to be nice, to appear  friendly. Second worst is showing account in Thai bank, to IO's mind that makes you a local and clearly working illegally, IO does not compute that  Westerner's life dream does not include employment in 3rd world country.  

Also, do not show a condo as an address, tourists are supposed to stay at hotels. 

I understand what you are saying - but the IOs who are looking to block us entering are concentrated at a few locations, and not apparently interested in the facts.  The IOs at most locations often see us as a net-benefit to their nation - or, at worst, only care that we are following the published laws / rules (not overstaying, etc). 

 

At land-borders that follow published law, I have shown a condo-card as my address many times over years, and it was always appreciated (easier to read than the TM-6 address).  IOs seem to have a mandate to verify where you will be staying, and presenting a business-card often caused a visible relaxation in an IOs expression. A printed hotel-booking should work equally well for this.

 

I was never asked to show a bank-book/statement, flight-out, or rental-agreement upon entry, because I had a Tourist Visa, and the MFA had already pre-cleared me on those requirements to obtain it.  Except for the 20K Baht cash (published rule), those were not subject to a repeat-review by immigration; that would defeat the purpose of obtaining a visa in the first place.  Any issue on this would constitute a dispute between Immigration and the MFA - not involving the traveler.

 

As to entering at entry points where the law is meaningless - where the IOs/supervisor's can make up any reason they choose to deny entry, then stamp a completely different reason in one's passport - that is where your concerns would come into play.  But I am doubtful any amount of "right things to show" would make much difference if the traveler has significant time in Thailand, and there are detention cells free.  They have made it clear they don't want to see any evidence that the supposed-reason they are using to deny-entry is factually incorrect.
 

The one factor that might help, would be a large amount of cash - 150K Baht worth or similar - which might dissuade a rejection.  This is because the amount of cash the traveler is carrying must be put on the IO's rejected-entry form - making a rejection-claim based on "cannot fund their stay" or "came to work illegally" prima-facie false.  Unlike a bank-statement, an IO cannot claim the cash "might be fake," or he would be negligent in not arresting the holder for involvement in a counterfeit money operation; this creates a Catch-22 in favor of the visitor.

Edited December 6, 2018 by JackThompson

[JackThompson]

10 hours ago, AgentSmith said:

For those who are becoming too desperate, leaving Thailand for a while probably is the best option indeed. Just go to Vietnam or Indonesia for 3 to 6 months and then return.

Be aware, though - at unfriendly entry-points, visitors have been interrogated and denied-entry based on a long-stay history in prior years.  The pattern they are looking for is a visitor with a history of "sticking around" in the past - not something relevant to the law, such as "coming to work illegally" or "doesn't have money" or whatever rejection they may actually stamp in one's passport as a cover-story to hide a rejection based on other reasons.

 

But, I do not recall an rejected-entry under these circumstances for someone with a Tourist Visa - only Visa-Exempt.  So, if staying out due to the desire to enter by air, best to also have a Tourist Visa and 20K worth of cash.

 

For those with a repeated / longer-stay history, who are attempting entry as a Tourist, the primary-factor determining a successful entry to the country is where you enter - whether the law is respected or not by IOs/supervisors at that location.

[elviajero]

9 hours ago, BritTim said:

As I understand your position, you state

• not being able to prove that you have the money to support yourself during your stay is grounds for denied entry;

Short answer is yes. But as you know it depends on the visa being used to enter and any existing authorised stay they might have.

 

9 hours ago, BritTim said:

• the immigration official is not qualified to evaluate any proof you might have that you can support yourself; and so

I wouldn't say not qualified. You are missing the point. I would say that an IO at the border is not interested in seeing proof that someone can continue their stay when the IO is objecting to the fact they are trying to continue their stay as a tourist. The affordability is not relevant.

 

9 hours ago, BritTim said:

• the immigration official can arbitrarily decide to deny someone entry to Thailand based on the fact that the tourist might not have the money to support themselves.

Yes. But as you know the underlying reason to deny entry is because someone has stayed too long as a tourist. Typical/genuine visitors for tourism are not affected.

 

9 hours ago, BritTim said:

I am quite sure that is not the original intention of Section 12.2 of the Immigration Act. It may (or may not) be true that the top brass in the Immigration Bureau are OK with this, but it is clear violation of the provision in the Immigration Act that only the Minister has the power to arbitrarily grant or deny entry to Thailand.

Clearly the "top brass" are ok with this because it's been going on for years, and mostly entries have been denied formally and on record.

 

It is not a violation of the Immigration Act. The "minister" is not the one standing at the border, but simply the person required -- in certain circumstances -- to authorise what IO's can and can't do. That includes giving discretional power.

 

 

Here's the problem that you and others have;

The immigration act does not have the reason of 'staying too long as a tourist' listed as a reason to deny entry. No doubt because when it was written nearly 40 years ago they didn't envisage long term tourism on the scale that happened. We all know that tourist visas are not meant to be used to stay in the country long term. The evidence of that fact is overwhelming with every action the authorities have taken since 2006 to reduce long term tourism.

 

And because there is no specific reason immigration are selectively using whatever other legitimate reason they can to deny entry. Section 12.2 is a 'catch all' law that could justifiably and lawfully be applied in many instances.  IO's can legitimately, lawfully and selectively deny a visitor for tourism entry under 12.2, 12.3 or 12.9, and often long term tourists could be denied under all three.

 

The ridiculous claims being made that IO's are acting unlawfully because the underlying reason for denial isn't the reason being cited on the paperwork is absolute nonsense, because the reason being cited is legitimate in it's own right.

 

The OP is a perfect example to prove what I have been telling you for a long time. 12.9 is for not having 10/20K and 12.2 is for not having a  appropriate means to live in the country for years/months. We all need a job or money in the bank to live. In the case of wanting to live in Thailand the appropriate way to prove ones means is with a job, cash in a Thai bank or a foreign income, and proven through the appropriate channels. Tourists can't do that, because they don't need to do that, because they are not supposed to be living in the country.

 

[AgentSmith]

8 hours ago, JackThompson said:

Be aware, though - at unfriendly entry-points, visitors have been interrogated and denied-entry based on a long-stay history in prior years.  The pattern they are looking for is a visitor with a history of "sticking around" in the past - not something relevant to the law, such as "coming to work illegally" or "doesn't have money" or whatever rejection they may actually stamp in one's passport as a cover-story to hide a rejection based on other reasons.

Agreed! I was interrogated once in Singapore for this exact reason. My way out was a relative who has permanent residence there and a Singapore ID card. He sent me a picture of his ID card and that convinced the IO to let me in based on family visit. I'm not sure what would've happened without that escape. I had only tourist visas for my stays in both Indonesia and Thailand (no visa exempts or just stamps) but that didn't seem to matter. This happened last year.

 

Again that's why I now plan to get a new passport every 1 to 2 years despite the fact that it's valid for 10 years. I had it replaced recently and it certainly made things a lot smoother again.

 

8 hours ago, JackThompson said:

But, I do not recall an rejected-entry under these circumstances for someone with a Tourist Visa - only Visa-Exempt.  So, if staying out due to the desire to enter by air, best to also have a Tourist Visa and 20K worth of cash.

Is there any data available that can tell us how often people are asked to show 20k baht in cash? Because it's not very practical to bring that much money but worth considering if it's getting more common.

[AgentSmith]

12 minutes ago, elviajero said:

The OP is a perfect example to prove what I have been telling you for a long time. 12.9 is for not having 10/20K and 12.2 is for not having a  appropriate means to live in the country for years/months. We all need a job or money in the bank to live. In the case of wanting to live in Thailand the appropriate way to prove ones means is with a job, cash in a Thai bank or a foreign income, and proven through the appropriate channels. Tourists can't do that, because they don't need to do that, because they are not supposed to be living in the country.

All that makes a lot of sense. But how do you then explain why tourists such as myself and many others are even allowed to open a bank account? The law doesn't even require a work permit. Not having a work permit comes with its own limitations while having an account (such as not being able to transfer money internationally) but at least with a few banks it's a pretty straightforward process to get an account even without a visa at all. That contradicts your otherwise logical explanation. If tourists are allowed to have an account then why couldn't that be used to show the 20k baht?

 

I understand that for appearances it's probably best to not show that you actually have a Thai bank account (because as you said tourists normally don't have bank accounts in the country they visit) but you get my point.

Edited December 6, 2018 by AgentSmith

[elviajero]

3 minutes ago, AgentSmith said:

All that makes a lot of sense. But how do you then explain why tourists such as myself and many others are even allowed to open a bank account? The law doesn't even require a work permit. Not having a work permit comes with its own limitations while having an account (such as not being able to transfer money internationally) but at least with a few banks it's a pretty straightforward process to get an account even without a visa at all. That contradicts your otherwise logical explanation. If tourists are allowed to have an account then why couldn't that be used to show the 20k baht?

It is not law that dictates whether or not you need a work permit. It's entirely up to the bank opening the account. And your ability to open a bank account is completely irrelevant to immigration.

 

The 20K required at the border should be in cash or travellers cheques. My understanding behind the law/regulation is that the visitor has funds to get them through their initial time after entering the country. And it's generally only enforced as a reason/excuse to deny entry to long term tourists.

 

3 minutes ago, AgentSmith said:

I understand that for appearances it's probably best to not show that you actually have a Thai bank account (because as you said tourists normally don't have bank accounts in the country they visit) but you get my point.

I do get your point. And you're right that it doesn't really help the cause of claiming to be a tourist.

[AgentSmith]

2 hours ago, elviajero said:

It is not law that dictates whether or not you need a work permit. It's entirely up to the bank opening the account. And your ability to open a bank account is completely irrelevant to immigration.

But that is my point. I was merely referring to the contradiction here that for an IO it might look like you're staying here long term when you have a bank account because of the idea that tourists don't have local bank accounts, when at the same time the law perfectly allows tourists to have a local bank account, regardless of bank policy. So according to policy makers tourists do (sometimes) have local bank accounts. I'm  wondering why this particular immigration rule insists on 20k in cash.

 

Quote

The 20K required at the border should be in cash or travellers cheques. My understanding behind the law/regulation is that the visitor has funds to get them through their initial time after entering the country. And it's generally only enforced as a reason/excuse to deny entry to long term tourists.

So as I said, 20k on a Thai bank account in practice is the same as cash. Actually it's better of course from a practical and safety point but let's not get into that. If that immigration rule would follow the law then it wouldn't exist in its current form and IOs wouldn't be able to use it as an excuse.

 

If they don't want tourists here on a semi permanent basis then why not simply implement a rule/law that states you can only stay here say 9 months per year as a tourist? Other countries do it. I would be very happy with that. Then it's clear for everyone. Now it's almost like Russian roulette and it makes me slightly nervous every time I enter, even though I do nothing wrong per the letter of the law.

Edited December 6, 2018 by AgentSmith

[elviajero]

1 hour ago, AgentSmith said:

If they don't want tourists here on a semi permanent basis then why not simply implement a rule/law that states you can only stay here say 9 months per year as a tourist? Other countries do it. I would be very happy with that. Then it's clear for everyone. Now it's almost like Russian roulette and it makes me slightly nervous every time I enter, even though I do nothing wrong per the letter of the law.

They clearly aren’t worried about having some long term tourists, however, I can think of a few reasons why they haven’t applied strict limits.

 

They don’t need to because the changes made over the last 12 years have reduced the numbers.

 

The immigration computer system isn’t currently capable of counting the time spent in the country for any given reason. So it would be down to IO’s to count using the stamps in the passport. They limited visa exempt entries to 90 days in 180 days in around 2007, which became a nightmare and was soon stopped.

 

The consulates are not connected to each other or immigration so they could end up issuing visas that would not be honoured at the border. A situation I’m sure they wouldn’t want. 

 

The authorities have always tolerated a certain number of long term tourists. It’s basically a numbers game. 

 

I agree that having a fixed published limit would be better for some, but it would almost certainly be limited to 6 months per year. Given the low number of denials, if I was still doing visa runs, I’d rather take my chances and have the potential of longer. If you get denied it doesn’t stop you trying again.

[BritTim]

24 minutes ago, elviajero said:

The authorities have always tolerated a certain number of long term tourists. It’s basically a numbers game. 

The top decision makers have decided that some long term visitors (those with money who do not work illegally, and are not involved in other unlawful activities) are beneficial to the economy and should be allowed. They would like more of the right kinds of long term visitors. However, certain immigration officials (including some quite senior ones) disagree with that policy. Thus, we have a situation where this board is extremely important.  It can inform frequent visitors as to where unofficial rules on who can enter are being enforced. I am resigned to such a system which is quite typical of third world countries where officials are a law unto themselves. Being resigned to it does not mean I approve of it.

[Mai Mee Tang]

Clearly the "top brass" are ok with this because it's been going on for years, and mostly entries have been denied formally and on record.
 
It is not a violation of the Immigration Act. The "minister" is not the one standing at the border, but simply the person required -- in certain circumstances -- to authorise what IO's can and can't do. That includes giving discretional power.
 
 
Here's the problem that you and others have;
The immigration act does not have the reason of 'staying too long as a tourist' listed as a reason to deny entry. No doubt because when it was written nearly 40 years ago they didn't envisage long term tourism on the scale that happened. We all know that tourist visas are not meant to be used to stay in the country long term. The evidence of that fact is overwhelming with every action the authorities have taken since 2006 to reduce long term tourism.
 
And because there is no specific reason immigration are selectively using whatever other legitimate reason they can to deny entry. Section 12.2 is a 'catch all' law that could justifiably and lawfully be applied in many instances.  IO's can legitimately, lawfully and selectively deny a visitor for tourism entry under 12.2, 12.3 or 12.9, and often long term tourists could be denied under all three.
 
The ridiculous claims being made that IO's are acting unlawfully because the underlying reason for denial isn't the reason being cited on the paperwork is absolute nonsense, because the reason being cited is legitimate in it's own right.
 
The OP is a perfect example to prove what I have been telling you for a long time. 12.9 is for not having 10/20K and 12.2 is for not having a  appropriate means to live in the country for years/months. We all need a job or money in the bank to live. In the case of wanting to live in Thailand the appropriate way to prove ones means is with a job, cash in a Thai bank or a foreign income, and proven through the appropriate channels. Tourists can't do that, because they don't need to do that, because they are not supposed to be living in the country.
 

When I read your comments I really understand your point and agree with most of what you say, but there is still something that doesn't fit completely in this reasoning for me, the Elite Tourist Visa.

As far as I know the ETV gives you "special tourist" treatment on Inmigration, you don't need to meet any economic requirement when applying or getting into Thailand (No idea if the 20k bahts could be requested as per Section 12.9, my bet is no IO would ever do). And all that is because you paid a considerable amount of money, at least 500.000 Bahts.

So it seems to me the Section 12.2 and their appropriate means to live in the country are easily forgotten when you have paid upfront.

[edwardandtubs]

I'm interested in the idea posted earlier of using the fast track service as a way of reducing the possibility of getting a rogue immigration officer giving you a hard time. It's not much more than 1000 baht.

[lkv]

43 minutes ago, BritTim said:

The top decision makers have decided that some long term visitors (those with money who do not work illegally, and are not involved in other unlawful activities) are beneficial to the economy and should be allowed. They would like more of the right kinds of long term visitors. However, certain immigration officials (including some quite senior ones) disagree with that policy. Thus, we have a situation where this board is extremely important.  It can inform frequent visitors as to where unofficial rules on who can enter are being enforced. I am resigned to such a system which is quite typical of third world countries where officials are a law unto themselves. Being resigned to it does not mean I approve of it.

We're both speculating, because you know no more than I do about what the top officials have decided, but here's my take on it:

 

They have been encouraging tourism from China in the last 4 years since the coup. The governments share a similar ideology, and i think they have been sharing ideas too. See: mandatory sim registration, fingerprinting, foreigner database, Internet firewall. And so on.

 

Furthermore, China is extremely important for Thailand now, as they make up a significant portion of tourists and it will increase, there is over 1 billion of them and more will be financially capable to afford holidays in the future as China grows.

 

They also lobbied Hong Kong and Singapore extensively. If anybody remembers the TAT advertisment of rich Hong Kong-ers dressed up in suits stopping their limo to buy cashewnuts at the stall.

 

 

Now, for long term tourists, they want them to spend 500K, 1M or 2M baht as a one time fee, and then spend a lot more locally. That's what they really want. With Thai Elite, you buy the right to be a tourist and see temples for 20 years, employment prohibited.

 

Before the coup, god forbid they would stop a taxi in downtown Bangkok with a farang inside. Now, they stop them ALL.

 

Should i mention X Ray Foreigner that had 14 or 15 installements so far?

 

So yes, you were right, they do want more of "the right kind of visitor". What they should understand is, if we find their attitude insulting and we still hang around, really wealthy people will not even bother to land in Suvarnabhumi or hang around too long.

Edited December 6, 2018 by lkv

[elviajero]

3 minutes ago, Mai Mee Tang said:

When I read your comments I really understand your point and agree with most of what you say, but there is still something that doesn't fit completely in this reasoning for me, the Elite Tourist Visa.

As far as I know the ETV gives you "special tourist" treatment on Inmigration, you don't need to meet any economic requirement when applying or getting into Thailand (No idea if the 20k bahts could be requested as per Section 12.9, my bet is no IO would ever do). And all that is because you paid a considerable amount of money, at least 500.000 Bahts.

You're right that 12.9 would NEVER be used. They've no reason to be looking to deny entry with that visa. 

 

3 minutes ago, Mai Mee Tang said:

So it seems to me the Section 12.2 and their appropriate means to live in the country are easily forgotten when you have paid upfront.

For sure.

[BritTim]

6 hours ago, Mai Mee Tang said:

As far as I know the ETV gives you "special tourist" treatment on Inmigration, you don't need to meet any economic requirement when applying or getting into Thailand (No idea if the 20k bahts could be requested as per Section 12.9, my bet is no IO would ever do). And all that is because you paid a considerable amount of money, at least 500.000 Bahts.

Whatever some officials might think about some Elite visa holders, I cannot imagine officials daring to deny such visitors entry without a totally legitimate justification. Doing so could bring them into conflict with the very influential people behind Thailand Elite, and would not be a good career decision.

[DrJack54]

1 hour ago, BritTim said:

Whatever some officials might think about some Elite visa holders, I cannot imagine officials daring to deny such visitors entry without a totally legitimate justification. Doing so could bring them into conflict with the very influential people behind Thailand Elite, and would not be a good career decision.

Agree fully. As an aside. A friend few weeks ago obtained his EV and I was looking at it in his pp (hadn't seen one before). I asked about the process. "Oh I was met at immigration and taken by immigration to room. Greeted by EV rep etc. ( he arrived airport from other country). The visa was placed in pp"

I said, I thought you can't obtain a visa inside Thailand. But he did. 

Edited December 7, 2018 by DrJack54

[bbi1]

9 hours ago, edwardandtubs said:

I'm interested in the idea posted earlier of using the fast track service as a way of reducing the possibility of getting a rogue immigration officer giving you a hard time. It's not much more than 1000 baht.

How do you get a "fast track service" for 1k baht? Do you apply for this when you arrive at the airport?

[JackThompson]

9 hours ago, Mai Mee Tang said:

there is still something that doesn't fit completely in this reasoning for me, the Elite Tourist Visa.

As far as I know the ETV gives you "special tourist" treatment on Inmigration, you don't need to meet any economic requirement when applying or getting into Thailand (No idea if the 20k bahts could be requested as per Section 12.9, my bet is no IO would ever do). And all that is because you paid a considerable amount of money, at least 500.000 Bahts.

So it seems to me the Section 12.2 and their appropriate means to live in the country are easily forgotten when you have paid upfront.

Of course.  Because this issue is not, "Is this person self-supporting and/or safe for Thailand?" - it is about someone coming on a Tourist Visa, so not running through a gauntlet which is designed to force a portion to pay "extra" money. 

 

The Elite Visa is a way to legally pay them off to leave you alone for years at a time.  Once they have their payoff, they don't care what you do, how poor you are, etc.  The payoff is the point of the exercise. 

 

9 hours ago, edwardandtubs said:

I'm interested in the idea posted earlier of using the fast track service as a way of reducing the possibility of getting a rogue immigration officer giving you a hard time. It's not much more than 1000 baht.

When you consider that only a fraction of longer/frequent stay Tourists will be targeted, it would make sense that they would be as likely to target fast-track users.  But if whoever is paying for this operation asks them to, they will - unless the fast-track folks counter-offer with a thicker brown-envelope, since that is the measure of how policy is decided at some entry points.

[JackThompson]

14 hours ago, AgentSmith said:

Agreed! I was interrogated once in Singapore for this exact reason. My way out was a relative who has permanent residence there and a Singapore ID card. He sent me a picture of his ID card and that convinced the IO to let me in based on family visit. I'm not sure what would've happened without that escape. I had only tourist visas for my stays in both Indonesia and Thailand (no visa exempts or just stamps) but that didn't seem to matter. This happened last year.

 

Again that's why I now plan to get a new passport every 1 to 2 years despite the fact that it's valid for 10 years. I had it replaced recently and it certainly made things a lot smoother again.

I don't know about Singapore, but the primary advantage of a new passport at Thai immigration, is a shorter time of reviewing every stamp on every used-page.  Perhaps their screen has less detail on your entries, unless they "drill down" into the data.  But Thai immigration can run a printout and tell you how many days you have been in Thailand over years, across multiple passports. 

 

I would not count on a new passport being of much use at a lawless entry-point - though it is possible an IO might be emotionally-driven to pick victims who have more "visible" stamp-activity, which they might feel during a passport-examination.

 

14 hours ago, AgentSmith said:

Is there any data available that can tell us how often people are asked to show 20k baht in cash? Because it's not very practical to bring that much money but worth considering if it's getting more common.

No.  The policy is arbitrary, but those with a longer-stay history are generally targeted.  Currently, it is used as a "gotcha" law to deny entry at airports, and also reported coming in by land from Malaysia. 

 

Some Malaysian entry points had a "money in passport" scam (busted twice for it - in the news), and the 20K rule was used to extort those bribes.  After this was shut down, they continued demanding to see the money from everyone.  This was apparently done out of spite, since they even began hitting-up Non-O Visa holders, for awhile, and even one report that they tried it on someone with an immigration-issued retirement-extension and re-entry permit (though backed down when the foreigner demanded to speak with a supervisor).

 

11 hours ago, AgentSmith said:

So according to policy makers tourists do (sometimes) have local bank accounts. I'm  wondering why this particular immigration rule insists on 20k in cash.

...

20k on a Thai bank account in practice is the same as cash. Actually it's better of course from a practical and safety point but let's not get into that. If that immigration rule would follow the law then it wouldn't exist in its current form and IOs wouldn't be able to use it as an excuse. 

Different policy makers - banks vs immigration.  And the 20K rule is a "gotcha" rule - not really about "do you have money."  Everyone knows money comes from machines and plastic nowadays.  I carry travelers checks - for no other reason than to show Thai immigration upon entry if asked.  The fees upon purchase are a waste, but they never expire, and they will be replaced quickly if stolen.  Bangkok Bank sells them (where I topped up my supply of ancient ones for immigration-purposes), last time I checked.

 

At some entry-points, IOs are permitted to follow the laws to protect the country.  Other points are run by people paid off by various elements - such as those collecting a portion of agent fees - who order their IOs to carry out an unlawful agenda.  Vigorous enforcement, in that environment, is best assured by employing "useful idiots" - Lenin's term for the foolish "true believers" in a facade, which is used to provide cover for a scam.  An example of the attitudes which this creates in the staff is found in this report:

 

https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/978329-denied-entry-tr-at-suvarnabhumi-no-stamp-options/?do=findComment&comment=11794791
 

[JackThompson]

double post - apologies

But fixing the prior

1 hour ago, JackThompson said:

When you consider that only a fraction of longer/frequent stay Tourists will be targeted, it would make sense that they would be as likely to target fast-track users. 

Should read, "Less likely" - as would create a conflict between the payoffs from fast-track.

Edited December 7, 2018 by JackThompson

[BritTim]

1 hour ago, JackThompson said:

I don't know about Singapore, but the primary advantage of a new passport at Thai immigration, is a shorter time of reviewing every stamp on every used-page.  Perhaps their screen has less detail on your entries, unless they "drill down" into the data.  But Thai immigration can run a printout and tell you how many days you have been in Thailand over years, across multiple passports. 

It is my impression (no proof) that the minute examination of stamps in your passport is an attempt by the immigration official to ensure that there are no discrepancies between what is in your passport and what is in immigration's system. We know officials quite often make errors in the stamps in the passport. They probably also make errors in immigration's system, and it makes sense to correct these when possible.

 

It is unclear to me whether this process of leafing through your passport makes an official more likely to give you a hard time. It may have the subconscious effect of emphasising frequent visits that a glance at their screens (absent any warning notifications) does not. Most likely, the effect (if any) does not afflict all officials.

[lkv]

35 minutes ago, BritTim said:

It is my impression (no proof) that the minute examination of stamps in your passport is an attempt by the immigration official to ensure that there are no discrepancies between what is in your passport and what is in immigration's system. We know officials quite often make errors in the stamps in the passport. They probably also make errors in immigration's system, and it makes sense to correct these when possible.

 

It is unclear to me whether this process of leafing through your passport makes an official more likely to give you a hard time. It may have the subconscious effect of emphasising frequent visits that a glance at their screens (absent any warning notifications) does not. Most likely, the effect (if any) does not afflict all officials.

As far as I am aware, as Jack Thompson mentioned, to dig into one's full history, it would be done in a back office. I believe the primary screen shows the last 3 entries or so. Every time they browse through a passport, they never look at the computer (while focused on the passport), so the reasons generally are:

 

A. To find the actual current visa sticker, which can take a while if your passport is full of reentry permits, extensions and SETVs like mine, not necessarily in a chronological order.

 

B. If they look at stamps, to see how one is stretching the permissions of stay, where they have been issued and so on. Such as: "Why do you always cross at Nong Khai". I vaguely remember old reports of people being asked this type of questions.

Edited December 7, 2018 by lkv

[Briggsy]

2 hours ago, lkv said:

As far as I am aware, as Jack Thompson mentioned, to dig into one's full history, it would be done in a back office. I believe the primary screen shows the last 3 entries or so. Every time they browse through a passport, they never look at the computer (while focused on the passport), so the reasons generally are:

 

A. To find the actual current visa sticker, which can take a while if your passport is full of reentry permits, extensions and SETVs like mine, not necessarily in a chronological order.

 

B. If they look at stamps, to see how one is stretching the permissions of stay, where they have been issued and so on. Such as: "Why do you always cross at Nong Khai". I vaguely remember old reports of people being asked this type of questions.

I agree with this post.

 

I have been pulled aside at Suwannaphum twice and then allowed to pass. On both occasions, the initial trigger for closer inspection was a passport choc-a-bloc with Thai visa stickers and stamps and Cambo / Lao visa stickers. When I renewed the passport, the hassle ended.

 

The review of my long term history was only pulled up by the supervisor. And I also got the question, "Why you go Laos?"!!!

 

Therefore, I will disagree with Jack Thompson on one point, that renewal of a passport doesn't help. My experience is that it does. Being caught in the random "having stayed too long" filter is much more likely if you have a passport full of "incriminating" (in their eyes) stamps. And you are much more likely to avoid any scrutiny at all.

[edwardandtubs]

11 hours ago, bbi1 said:

How do you get a "fast track service" for 1k baht? Do you apply for this when you arrive at the airport?

I just looked on the airport website and you pay in advance and there's someone waiting for you when you get off the plane.

[JackThompson]

21 hours ago, lkv said:

Every time they browse through a passport, they never look at the computer (while focused on the passport), so the reasons generally are:

...

I would add to your list, anything "national-security" related, as to where else you have traveled.  At least, I hope they are doing this. 

 

19 hours ago, Briggsy said:

The review of my long term history was only pulled up by the supervisor. And I also got the question, "Why you go Laos?"!!!

In an "exit interview" at Poipet, I was asked, "Why did you travel to Malaysia?"  I gave an honest answer.  The entire exercise seemed to be testing if I was going to try to bs them, which I did not.  I was late-40s then, and told them I was biding my time to turn 50.  I was never interviewed again, but did not enter at an airport or from Poipet since before that incident occurred.

 

You make a good case on the Passport question.  Having considered this, if I were still using Tourist Visas, and had to enter by air for some reason, I think I would change passports more frequently than the usual 2-years-each, which was enough for obtaining Tourist Visas in the region (if done in a careful order).  At law-following land-borders, I still do not see reports indicating it is an issue - but that could always change.

[stud858]

1 hour ago, sgoodes said:

actually have a home in Australia and I don't live in Thailand as ye

Your a Thaivisa champion.Great advice. I'll do that from now on. Bring my rates invoice as proof that I'm not a tramp.