Rejected at the airport, what is next?

[sanemax]

 

 

Here is an extract from guidance issued to IO’s regarding visa exemp, but the principle applies to TR’s too ...

 

”Reason to believe that entry into Kingdom is not for the purpose of tourism
2.1 Alien will be interviewed and requested to show evidence of the purpose of tourism such as tickets, pocket money, booking slip, traveling plan

That rule is if the I.O believe that they arent entering Thailand for tourism, and they believe that they are entering Thailand to work :

"3.1 Upon complete evidence of entering the Kingdom for tourism purpose and not for working purpose, alien shall be granted for permission to stay for 15, 30 or 90 days as set out in the bilateral agreements"

  How does having 20 000 Baht in your pocket prove that you arent going to work in Thailand and not having 20 000 Baht in your pocket doesnt mean that you will work in Thailand?

   Its a rule that predates the modern banking era and needs to be changed to something more efficient 

[alex8912]

 

Hells bells its not about "funds or means of support," that's just a reason to reject as per OP.

Member this thread is about op.

He could of had a zillion baht on person. Irrelevant. The io right or wrong concluded he was not a "genuine tourist" 

Yes don't jump in and ask for a meaning or definition. He didn't get in. Full stop. Very lucky to get back home country. Stop complain. Accept or FO

No .  You or no one else on this thread can read the mind of this individual IO. IF YOU THINK YOU CAN PROVE IT! I think that if he had the 20k or more in cash ( which is the law) that then he would have been let in with a verbal warning “ this is the last time “ and/ or they would have been forced to at least view his bank statement with 1 million+ baht and also give him the verbal warning and let him in.  Accept or go to bed. Your last sentence above is for a douche bag. 

[elviajero]

 

That rule is if the I.O believe that they arent entering Thailand for tourism, and they believe that they are entering Thailand to work :

"3.1 Upon complete evidence of entering the Kingdom for tourism purpose and not for working purpose, alien shall be granted for permission to stay for 15, 30 or 90 days as set out in the bilateral agreements"

  How does having 20 000 Baht in your pocket prove that you arent going to work in Thailand and not having 20 000 Baht in your pocket doesnt mean that you will work in Thailand?

   Its a rule that predates the modern banking era and needs to be changed to something more efficient 

I was simply quoting that because it makes it clear that the 10/20K they ask to see is considered "pocket money" and not -- as you understand it to be -- money to live on for the 60 days. You said; "I do understand the law , but that law isnt fit for purpose because 20 000 Baht isnt sufficient for the duration of the visa and most people do not carry cash around on their person these days ."

 

You clearly do not understand the law or the reason for visitors to be expected to carry cash. Yes the world has moved on, but Thailand is still very much a cash society so cash to them is still the norm.

 

FYI that guidance applies to any visitor doing back to back visa exempt entries to extend their stay. Having 20K, hotel bookings, onward flights proves absolutely nothing. But they clearly consider those to be typical of a tourist entering to holiday and go home.

[elviajero]

 

You interpret "means to live" as "way to live", and just come to a wrong conclusion, as you do with many of your arguments.

 

I just did some research regarding the true meaning of "ปัจจัยในการยังชีพ", because that's what 12.2. is about (If you don't have this you are not allowed to enter)

This does translate to "basic needs", or "necessities of life". And this actually means the absolute basics like food, clothes and shelter. Of course you can just buy all of these if you have money.

So 12.2. is to deny entry for impoverished people and has absolutely nothing to do with how you get money or finance a long term stay.

“I just did some research ...” And there’s the problem! You don’t have a clue about the subject beyond what you read on forums and get from google!

 

No doubt your research included google translate too.

 

The official translation makes the intent of the law clear enough; which is to deny entry to anyone without an appropriate means to support their stay. Impoverished or otherwise.

 

I am not, as usual, interpreting anything. YOU ARE. My understanding and knowledge comes from primarily conversations with two senior immigration officers, and following immigration practice, over many years. I just use documents in the public domain to try and explain it to opiners like you.

[chado]

 

Take 20k THB in cash with you and enter at any land border except Poipet and you should not have a problem. 

It's always been the airports where one won't have a problem entering. What has changed? I know -- nothing. The opinion of the farangs trying to decipher the officers minds and action has changed

Edited December 3, 2018 by chado

[chado]

 

Interesting. That sounds like you think immigration officers basically want to deny entry to some people and just have to find a reason why they can do this, correct?

100%

 

Yet many people here try to find justifications and explanations and make sense for the officers' decisions.

 

An officer wants to deny a certain person, that's it. Don't try to explain why -- unexplainable.

[chado]

(.)

Edited December 3, 2018 by chado

[JackThompson]

 

It's always been the airports where one won't have a problem entering. What has changed? I know -- nothing. The opinion of the farangs trying to decipher the officers minds and action has changed

Policy towards those entering at airports, with more frequent and longer visits to Thailand, has changed - significantly.   Even those who think the policy-shift is legal and/or justified admit that much.

 

By contrast, other than a few brief periods, those entering with Tourist Visas at land-borders only had a problem from Malaysia, if they didn't have the 20K - but they simply walked back, got it, and returned.

 

Visa Exempt entries are another issue, but are less of a problem by land recently, since the "2x by land per calendar-year" rule went into effect.  If under the limit - few problems reported.

[onera1961]

 

young affluent and rich that I am and how I have no need or desire to work for a pittance in Thailand and that the 5-10 million Baht that I've spent in Thailand over the years has all come from abroad .

Wow. I really like to know your secret. Did you win a lottery or inherit it? Are you a member of FIRE movement? Can you write a book and publish it in Amazon? I will sure buy it.

Of course, you don't need the money but it will help humanity and countless perpetual tourists struggling to make it big in Chiangmai. You may be a leader of those perpetual tourists. Show them the right path. Think Tim Ferris. Of course, when he wrote his famous "4-hour work Week" book and did not tell people to go to Chiangmai and become a perpetual tourist in Thailand. May be your book will show them how to become a professional tourist in Thailand.

 

Edited December 4, 2018 by onera1961

[jackdd]

 

The official translation

There is no "official translation", the only "official" version is the Thai version.

 

 

No doubt your research included google translate too. 

No

I searched for "ปัจจัยในการยังชีพ" on Google and looked at in which context it's used.

Here a few examples for you, there are way more if you Google it by yourself:

https://www.thairath.co.th/content/1390060

http://ngoaclub.blogspot.com/2011_11_27_archive.html

http://palanla.com/index.php?op=domesticLocation-detail&id=46

It's always used as "basic needs" and never as "appropriate way of living", mainly in context of natural catastrophes when first aid was provided.

 

 

My understanding and knowledge comes from primarily conversations with two senior immigration officers,

How about you do some research on your own and don't just listen to what other people tell you? Especially people who are known to bend the rules and to give wrong information on purpose.

[JackThompson]

 

 

people who are known to bend the rules and to give wrong information on purpose

We have it on good authority from Mr. Soprano himself, that his "protection" system for shopkeepers is solely instituted for the purpose of providing a safe and secure environment for entrepreneurs to flourish, consistent with his love of a free-market economy - nothing to do with self-enrichment.

[sanemax]

2 hours ago, onera1961 said:

Wow. I really like to know your secret. Did you win a lottery or inherit it? Are you a member of FIRE movement? Can you write a book and publish it in Amazon? I will sure buy it.

Of course, you don't need the money but it will help humanity and countless perpetual tourists struggling to make it big in Chiangmai. You may be a leader of those perpetual tourists. Show them the right path. Think Tim Ferris. Of course, when he wrote his famous "4-hour work Week" book and did not tell people to go to Chiangmai and become a perpetual tourist in Thailand. May be your book will show them how to become a professional tourist in Thailand.

 

Not a long enough story to write a book : I began my working life with no qualifications and got a job sweeping up building sites whilst living at home with my mum , learnt how to build houses and then moved onto to property investment , spent years working hard , living meagerly and invested everything that I earned 

[sanemax]

8 hours ago, elviajero said:

I was simply quoting that because it makes it clear that the 10/20K they ask to see is considered "pocket money" and not -- as you understand it to be -- money to live on for the 60 days. You said; "I do understand the law , but that law isnt fit for purpose because 20 000 Baht isnt sufficient for the duration of the visa and most people do not carry cash around on their person these days ."

 

You clearly do not understand the law or the reason for visitors to be expected to carry cash. Yes the world has moved on, but Thailand is still very much a cash society so cash to them is still the norm.

 

FYI that guidance applies to any visitor doing back to back visa exempt entries to extend their stay. Having 20K, hotel bookings, onward flights proves absolutely nothing. But they clearly consider those to be typical of a tourist entering to holiday and go home.

Its you who doesnt understand , I've written it once and you failed to understand , no point in writing it again 

[luckyluke]

18 years in Thailand and still don't understand everything.

What I understand is, that the officer in charge, at an Immigration Office, airport, land border... has the absolute power.

He may be wrong, but even his superior will not admit he is, in the presence of a third party.

[BigT73]

8 hours ago, elviajero said:

“I just did some research ...” And there’s the problem! You don’t have a clue about the subject beyond what you read on forums and get from google!

 

No doubt your research included google translate too.

 

The official translation makes the intent of the law clear enough; which is to deny entry to anyone without an appropriate means to support their stay. Impoverished or otherwise.

 

I am not, as usual, interpreting anything. YOU ARE. My understanding and knowledge comes from primarily conversations with two senior immigration officers, and following immigration practice, over many years. I just use documents in the public domain to try and explain it to opiners like you.

 Hi elviajero thanks for your contributions, if one carried the 20k cash in pocket arriving on a metv visa, how much extra do you think would be needed on a thai bank? And if this figure is printed on a thai bank book prior to leaving Thailand how long would that printout be valid for?

[KhunProletariat]

Stop abusing the T visa. It's obvious you are not a genuine tourist. Get a NON IMM visa/visa extension like the rest of us lifers! 

 

 

[onera1961]

2 hours ago, luckyluke said:

What I understand is, that the officer in charge, at an Immigration Office, airport, land border... has the absolute power.

This is true. Immigration has absolute power in any country. Who are you going to complain? You can take them to court. But that will take months or years to resolve. No countries' immigration just go by the written rules. They also use their judgement if the candidate is going to violate any laws in the future (e.g. take up a job in the future due to financial difficulties,  already working illegally, or not attending schools, may not attend schools in the future, etc.) If they suspect anything, they don't have to prove it. Of course, in the western countries they do a through vetting as IOs are well trained in the vetting process and in Thailand IOs just pick up randomly among thousands of perpetual tourists. Almost 32 million visitors go through Thailand's border and only a very minor even less than one hundredth of a percentage are picked up for questioning and it is invariably perpetual tourists. And it is also easy to profile perpetual tourists in Thailand. They will go to neighboring countries for visa runs and stay may be few days at best. They will never go back to their home country or even New Zealand and stay there for three month. The OP is a rare case because he is going back to home country every nine months. 

Edited December 4, 2018 by onera1961

[onera1961]

2 hours ago, sanemax said:

Not a long enough story to write a book : I began my working life with no qualifications and got a job sweeping up building sites whilst living at home with my mum , learnt how to build houses and then moved onto to property investment , spent years working hard , living meagerly and invested everything that I earned 

That is a great story and kudos for your achievement. The FIRE movement advocates the same principle but it is more geared towards professionals - Save early, invest, buy only what you need not what you can afford now, etc. 

[elviajero]

4 hours ago, BigT73 said:

 Hi elviajero thanks for your contributions, if one carried the 20k cash in pocket arriving on a metv visa, how much extra do you think would be needed on a thai bank? And if this figure is printed on a thai bank book prior to leaving Thailand how long would that printout be valid for?

Unfortunately I can't give you a definitive answer.

 

There is no need for a 'tourist' to have any money in a Thai bank. Carrying 20K in cash or travelers cheques is all that's required.

 

Generally immigration will only look to deny entry to a tourist that is clearly living permanently in the country, or is making frequent long stays; and it's generally only people they are looking to deny entry to that they ask to see 20K.

 

If they are considering denying entry because you've spent too long in the country as a tourist, they -- almost certainly -- aren't going to be interested in seeing money in a Thai bank that would enable you to continue doing something they are objecting to.

 

Spending 6/9 months in the country using a METV shouldn't be a problem. Problems could arise if using back to back METV's to live in the country.

[sanemax]

1 hour ago, elviajero said:

 

Generally immigration will only look to deny entry to a tourist that is clearly living permanently in the country, or is making frequent long stays; and it's generally only people they are looking to deny entry to that they ask to see 20K.

 

If they are considering denying entry because you've spent too long in the country as a tourist, they -- almost certainly -- aren't going to be interested in seeing money in a Thai bank that would enable you to continue doing something they are objecting to.

 

That isnt the case at all , immigration are not specifically looking to deny  people who stay long term on tourist visas , they are looking for people who are working illegally in Thailand.

   There are tell tale signs for immi that some people are working illegally (always doing visa runs on Mondays , sometimes over/understaying to get to an embassy on a Monday , coming straight back the next day , or doing week long visa runs during the school holiday) 

  Many long term stayers on T.V's do not encounter any problems , just get problems when they suspect that you are working

[onera1961]

27 minutes ago, sanemax said:

There are tell tale signs for immi that some people are working illegally (always doing visa runs on Mondays , sometimes over/understaying to get to an embassy on a Monday , coming straight back the next day , or doing week long visa runs during the school holiday) 

I think most people working illegally now are remote workers. My guess is very few teachers, bar managers, real estate agents, sales people, dive instructors, football players, etc. are working illegally any more. This is just my guess only.

[elviajero]

13 minutes ago, sanemax said:

That isnt the case at all , immigration are not specifically looking to deny  people who stay long term on tourist visas , they are looking for people who are working illegally in Thailand.

The reason they are suspicious that someone is illegally working is BECAUSE THEY'VE LIVED IN THE COUNTRY A LONG TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

 

FYI: They rarely deny entry under section 12.3 which would be for someone suspected of entering to work. 

 

21 minutes ago, sanemax said:

There are tell tale signs for immi that some people are working illegally (always doing visa runs on Mondays , sometimes over/understaying to get to an embassy on a Monday , coming straight back the next day , or doing week long visa runs during the school holiday) 

LOL!

 

They do definitely profile, but it’s more about age and nationality.

 

People should ignore your opinion that they check the days you exit or whether schools are on holiday!

[elviajero]

10 hours ago, jackdd said:

15 hours ago, elviajero said:

The official translation

There is no "official translation", the only "official" version is the Thai version.

I downloaded my translated copy that was published on the Immigration Bureau website. I make that an official translation!

 

12.2

”Having no appropriate means of living following entrance into the Kingdom.”

 

What would you consider is an appropriate (to Thai authorities) means of living in Thailand?

 

 

[jackdd]

18 minutes ago, elviajero said:

I downloaded my translated copy that was published on the Immigration Bureau website. I make that an official translation! 

This translation does still not have any legal relevance, even if you call it "official"

 

18 minutes ago, elviajero said:

12.2

”Having no appropriate means of living following entrance into the Kingdom.”

 

What would you consider is an appropriate (to Thai authorities) means of living in Thailand?

I don't really see a point in discussing an english word which has no legal reference, but in my opinion in this english version they want to say "money".

As explained before, the term used in the official Thai version is "ปัจจัยในการยังชีพ", how about you ask some random Thai persons what this actually means if you don't believe me?

[JackThompson]

6 hours ago, onera1961 said:

Almost 32 million visitors go through Thailand's border and only a very minor even less than one hundredth of a percentage are picked up for questioning and it is invariably perpetual tourists. And it is also easy to profile perpetual tourists in Thailand. They will go to neighboring countries for visa runs and stay may be few days at best. They will never go back to their home country or even New Zealand and stay there for three month. The OP is a rare case because he is going back to home country every nine months. 

Actually, we have seen some reports of people who stayed longer-term in the past, left for up to a year, returned, and were interrogated or refused-entry.   We have also, more recently, seen snowbirds targeted.  Their "profile" to target seems to be any farang who has a tendency to "stick around." 

 

But, again, this only applies at a handful of rogue checkpoints - not the vast majority.  So, it is clearly not an official policy sanctioned from the top, but rather another case of local "in charge" supervisors having minimal oversight of their behavior / policies / actions - the same as repeatedly reported variances at local immigration offices. 

 

This "lack of an enforced standard" problem is not limited to immigration, as policies are also quite inconsistent at different amphoes, labor-offices, and Thai consulates.  Probably more than only those, but just going by what I have read on this forum over the years.

[BritManToo]

8 hours ago, BigT73 said:

if one carried the 20k cash in pocket arriving on a metv visa, how much extra do you think would be needed on a thai bank?

Having a Thai bank account would indicate you're not a tourist.

[sanemax]

1 hour ago, elviajero said:

The reason they are suspicious that someone is illegally working is BECAUSE THEY'VE LIVED IN THE COUNTRY A LONG TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

FYI: They rarely deny entry under section 12.3 which would be for someone suspected of entering to work. 

LOL!

They do definitely profile, but it’s more about age and nationality.

People should ignore your opinion that they check the days you exit or whether schools are on holiday!

Living in the country along time is not the single reason as to why they suspect that you are working , there are other factors involved , like always doing visa runs around the working week , ie , like during the week-end and during school holidays , which is more suspicious that someone who max's out their visa all the time .

  Age and nationality do come into it , they may question a 25 year old and why he isnt back at home working and they may realise that a 48 year is rich enough not to have to work back home 

[elviajero]

1 hour ago, jackdd said:

1 hour ago, elviajero said:

I downloaded my translated copy that was published on the Immigration Bureau website. I make that an official translation! 

This translation does still not have any legal relevance, even if you call it "official"

Legal relevance! I simply said it was the “official translation”. And most importantly it’s the only translation that counts.

(2) ไม่มีปัจจัยในการยังชีพตามควรแก่กรณีที่เข้ามาในราชอาณาจักร

 

(2) Having no appropriate means of living following entrance into the Kingdom. 

 

1 hour ago, jackdd said:

1 hour ago, elviajero said:

12.2

”Having no appropriate means of living following entrance into the Kingdom.”

 

What would you consider is an appropriate (to Thai authorities) means of living in Thailand?

I don't really see a point in discussing an english word which has no legal reference, but in my opinion in this english version they want to say "money".

As explained before, the term used in the official Thai version is "ปัจจัยในการยังชีพ", how about you ask some random Thai persons what this actually means if you don't believe me?

I read/write Thai so don’t need help with the translation. I did show it to my wife and she said “hasn’t got a job”!

 

You are basically arguing samantics. Of course it’s about money! “Means of living” means having money or a way to make money.

 

I am happy — based on the explanation of the law given to me — that the immigration act “official translation”, and the translation stamped on the OP’s expulsion notice, adequately translate the reason for denial.

[jackdd]

6 minutes ago, elviajero said:

I read/write Thai so don’t need help with the translation

So you know the meaning of every single word / term in the Thai language? Congratulations to this exceptional achievement

 

9 minutes ago, elviajero said:

I did show it to my wife and she said “hasn’t got a job”! 

So, let's use your wife's translation:

12.2. Having no job following entrance into the Kingdom.

Using your wife's translation every tourist, retiree, student and so on should be denied entry. Do you really think your wife's translation could be correct?

[elviajero]

3 hours ago, sanemax said:

Living in the country along time is not the single reason as to why they suspect that you are working , there are other factors involved , like always doing visa runs around the working week , ie , like during the week-end and during school holidays , which is more suspicious that someone who max's out their visa all the time .

  Age and nationality do come into it , they may question a 25 year old and why he isnt back at home working and they may realise that a 48 year is rich enough not to have to work back home 

The underlying reason why long term tourists get hassled or denied entry is because they’ve — in the opinion of the IO — stayed in the country too long as a tourist. Fact.

 

Suspicion of working will be based on profiling, and can definitely be a deciding factor. But there are many reports from people that state the IO’s reason for denial was the time spent in the country. Fact.

 

Very few claim they were suspected of working, or get formally denied with suspicion of work as the reason. Fact.

 

Reducing/stopping illegal work was the driving factor back in 2006, but having reduced illegal workers the focus these days is to make long term tourism harder and harder without affecting typical/genuine tourists.