Rejected at the airport, what is next?

[elviajero]

20 minutes ago, jackdd said:

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

No, but after 23 years I don’t need much help from google.

 

20 minutes ago, jackdd said:

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?

My wife’s translation was too literal. But it’s along the right lines based on the use of “การ” (gaan - work). Work being a means to sustain a living.

 

Not relevant. Retirees prove their appropriate means to live in the country; being cash in the bank or an income. Students don’t need to provide proof for their reason for a permit to stay.

 

 

[AgentSmith]

What I've learned over the years living in SE Asia is that immigration officers have absolute power over people trying to enter the country, that those officers don't have any obligation to explain themselves to people trying to enter the country and that the system of the country you're trying to enter will always back the officer no matter what. We the guests basically have no rights, simple as that. And you better just accept that. In that regard I came to believe that it's entirely futile to try to decipher the official reason why they would deny anyone entry as it's probably just an excuse and therefor irrelevant. The officer makes up his or her mind based on the first 30 seconds of contact and that's that. Is it fair? Nope. Is it realistic? Oh yeah... All we can do is find ways around the quirks.

 

I was almost denied entry for the first time since I've been coming here (since 2007). This happened early this year at Don Mueang airport, a place where I previously always felt perfectly safe to enter. Questions were never asked, ever. Because of that I had all my guards down so that sudden wall hit me pretty hard. The young IO took me apart in that room near the escalator. He sat me at a table, shouted some things at my face without any of the famous Thai politeness, and left. He never had ears for anything I had to say. Maybe his dog just died, I don't know. He simply was in a bad mood. He came back after about 10 minutes and told me I had to buy an onward ticket with a date no more than 30 days away and left again. I was entering on a SETV though for which I had shown all necessary paperwork at the embassy in KL and I had the same proof with me at the airport. My mistake I believe was that my onward ticket was 90 days away and not 60. I actually thought being honest would go a long way. The embassy accepted my statement that I would apply for an extension of stay 2 weeks before the end of my 60 day visit. The IO clearly did not. I learned a lesson. Or perhaps it was all the stamps in my passport which he was browsing over for at least a whole minute. Anyway, I bought the ticket with the Air Asia app, showed it to him and after he stamped me in I thanked him with the most sincere looking smile I could produce.

 

The honesty went overboard after this experience. Now I just enter the country stating the amount of days of my allowed visit again without extension even if I plan to stay longer. What also helped tremendously is that in the mean time I got a new passport in my home country. I'm Dutch and I can get a new passport at Schiphol airport within 5 working days. I simply have to make an online appointment to apply for the new passport. Upon arrival I go to the desk to fill in a form, deliver a new passport photo and pay the fee. 5 days later I pick up my new passport and use it to check in again, thus traveling again with a brand new passport without any traces of previous trips. Of course immigration here keeps their own digital records now but I wonder how detailed those are. And at least they can't see my visits to other countries anymore. I used to be thrilled having a passport filled with stamps and visas. You know when traveling still had romance in it. Those days are long gone.

 

Now I'm thinking to apply for a new passport on every trip to Holland which happens every 1 to 2 years. Dutch officials don't care. Dutch law allows it and well it's not Thailand so the law is on my side there. This special service costs me around 100 euros every time but it saves me lots of headaches and probably worse. I've also applied for a new passport at the Dutch embassy in Bangkok in the past. That was about 7 years ago. The downside of that is that the old passport number gets stamped into the new one. That doesn't happen in my home country so getting it back 'home' seems the better option. Perhaps the Thai immigration's IT system is based on passport numbers only so they can't trace back previous entries made on older passports. I don't know of course. Just guessing and hoping it to be true.

 

I know Thailand doesn't like people staying on TV's for a long time. I totally get that. Thailand is far from the only one in this part of the continent. Indonesia has been much worse in refusing people. Or throwing people out just because they thought they were working illegally even though they weren't. I left Bali mostly for these reasons. I just hope that Thailand will cool down a bit but I fear it will only get worse over the years. I'm still over a decade away from turning 50 so a retirement visa won't be an option anytime soon.

 

I have no idea how much more time I can spend in Thailand without jumping through an almost impossible amount of hoops (such as setting up a company to be allowed to have an income here). Instead I probably have to go back to swapping Thailand and Bali, 6 months here 6 months there. Trip to Holland in between, get a new passport there and start the cycle again. And in the mean time saving money for an elite visa for the 5 years leading up to my retirement visa. Seems like a solid plan... At least I'll be skipping most of the rainy season again in both locations. Every disadvantage has its advantage, a famous Dutch football player once said.

Edited December 4, 2018 by AgentSmith

[jackdd]

6 hours ago, elviajero said:

My wife’s translation was too literal. But it’s along the right lines based on the use of “การ” (gaan - work). Work being a means to sustain a living.

You are wrong again.

การ does not mean "work", i'm not 100% sure, but i think just การ alone never means work

And in the sentence ไม่มีปัจจัยในการยังชีพตามควรแก่กรณีที่เข้ามาในราชอาณาจักร it does not mean work for sure, because here การ is used to transfrom the word ยังชีพ from a verb into a noun, and การยังชีพ means something like "subsistence"

[JackThompson]

11 hours ago, BritManToo said:

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

Fortunately, that is not how Thai law classifies "tourist," which is defined in law only by prohibited activities, such as working a job here.  Thai bank-accounts, Thai-investments, etc are not in the list of "tourist prohibited" activities.  

 

Those who cannot pay for their stay are also prohibited from entering as a Tourist - but this does not specify where the funds must be saved, or the origin of one's income (could be passive-income dividends from the Thai stock market). 

 

This is why one will have no trouble obtaining a Thai Visa at Thai consulates by showing the required 20K Baht in a Thai bank account, and a 1-year condo lease for proof of where one will be staying. 

[BritManToo]

1 minute ago, JackThompson said:

This is why one will have no trouble obtaining a Thai Visa at Thai consulates by showing the required 20K Baht in a Thai bank account, and a 1-year condo lease for proof of where one will be staying. 

If I were an immigration officer and you were entering on a Tourist VISA, and admitted having a Thai bank account, driving licence, Thai investments or property, I wouldn't let you in because you clearly aren't a tourist.

An immigration officer can refuse any foreigner entry (VISA or not).

Just because you are sold a VISA, doesn't mean the border immigration officer has to let you in. 

 

This is how immigration works all over the world.

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

[ozmeldo]

I intensely dislike these posts.

 

Why don't you leave? You have no wife or children here. Can't qualify for O visas.

 

What is such an absolute magnet that 221 others countries can't offer you?

 

I'm not being flippant, but seriously move on. It's a big wonderful world.

[onera1961]

14 minutes ago, ozmeldo said:

What is such an absolute magnet that 221 others countries can't offer you?

If you want a party town, go to Benidorm in Spain. Clean beaches, bars where ladies don't bother you with lady drinks, high speed stable Internet if you're a remote worker and no problem staying most of the year if you're an European. For others, you may have to leave after three months.

Edited December 5, 2018 by onera1961

[JackThompson]

3 minutes ago, ozmeldo said:

I intensely dislike these posts.

Why don't you leave? You have no wife or children here. Can't qualify for O visas.

What is such an absolute magnet that 221 others countries can't offer you?

I'm not being flippant, but seriously move on. It's a big wonderful world.

I honestly do not understand why you would "intensely dislike" these posts.  Consider the several Thais whose jobs (vs subsistence-farming) are funded by his spending, alone.  Get to know some of them, and you may begin to feel more like I do about this tragic policy-shift.

 

As to wife or children - I dated my Thai wife for several years before we got married (when was almost 50, anyhow, so not for the visa).  How to get to know a woman AND the culture here - sufficient to commit to marriage - with only the limited-time that the Bangkok-airport IOs think is the max one should be allowed? 

 

After my negative experiences at some amphoes - the closest analogy being the treatment of mixed-marriages in 1950s USA - I suspect our marrying Thais is a major emotional-factor in the objection, of some, to us "sticking around."  Fortunately, most IOs and many Amphoes do not share this perspective.

[JackThompson]

11 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

An immigration officer can refuse any foreigner entry (VISA or not).

Just because you are sold a VISA, doesn't mean the border immigration officer has to let you in. 

Only for very specific legal reasons in the case of Thailand.  Unfortunately, they can break the law, lie, and deny for false-reasons anyway - nothing you can do about it.  The good news is, this aberrant behavior is only reported as occurring at a few locations.

 

27 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

This is how immigration works all over the world.

Laws regarding reasons for rejection and, importantly in this context, situations/conditions regarding foreign-visitors, vary wildly from one country to the next.  No point taking a long tangent to explain the differences, as that has been covered in many other threads.

[BritManToo]

8 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

How to get to know a woman AND the culture here - sufficient to commit to marriage - with only the limited-time that the Bangkok-airport IOs think is the max one should be allowed? 

Only took me 2 weeks from meeting to Amphur marriage.

Easily done on a tourist VISA.

[JackThompson]

7 hours ago, elviajero said:

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.

Agree on all these points, with regard to the Bangkok airports and Poipet/Aranya crossing (fortunately, this is not happening at most entry-points) -  though we clearly disagree on whether this is legal behavior by immigration, what a "genuine tourist" is in Thai law, etc. 

 

Can your contacts at immigration explain just 3 questions:

• Why do they endeavor to destroy the lives of Thai citizens who rely on the spending of those they are rejecting for their livelihoods? 
• What harm is being done - specifically to whom or to what - that needs to be addressed in this crude way - absent any clear guidelines to assist those being rejected, denying them the ability to plan in-advance?
• Why, if this is important enough to do arbitrary "surprise attacks" on decent people, can no ministerial/police order be written to address this aspect of Tourist Visa usage?

[JackThompson]

5 hours ago, AgentSmith said:

The young IO took me apart in that room near the escalator. He sat me at a table, shouted some things at my face without any of the famous Thai politeness, and left. He never had ears for anything I had to say. Maybe his dog just died, I don't know. He simply was in a bad mood. He came back after about 10 minutes and told me I had to buy an onward ticket with a date no more than 30 days away and left again. I was entering on a SETV though for which I had shown all necessary paperwork at the embassy in KL and I had the same proof with me at the airport. My mistake I believe was that my onward ticket was 90 days away and not 60. I actually thought being honest would go a long way. The embassy accepted my statement that I would apply for an extension of stay 2 weeks before the end of my 60 day visit. The IO clearly did not. I learned a lesson. Or perhaps it was all the stamps in my passport which he was browsing over for at least a whole minute.

He wasn't polite because, in his eyes (and his clique), you are not a human-being who deserves being treated with respect.  That's how racism works on the brain.

 

Yes, it was the stamps and your history.  You are a "stick around" Farang, and he actively hates it that you can stay here, and that those who write the laws don't share his "correct" viewpoint, and give him a legal reason to deny-entry to you. 

 

Since he demanded a ticket out in 30 days, he clearly also disagrees that a Tourist-Visa entry is 60-days, and likely pukes in his mouth a little, every time he has to give that stamp (which we sub-human animals, clearly don't deserve).  I've seen a facial-expression matching this description, myself - and then they stare off into the distance, as they throw your passport back, to avoid having to even look at you.

 

His anger is fueled further, by the fact you can afford to do what you do - not work a crappy job like the one he had to buy (not earn, through a meritocratic system).

 

The irony is, it is immigration which will give you that 30-day extension.  But that is at an office that he and his farang-hating clique do not control.  That makes him even more angry.  

 

It was fortunate he didn't just lie, claim he knew you were "too poor to afford your stay," and deny your entry on a lie - as has happened to others. 

[elviajero]

5 hours ago, jackdd said:

You are wrong again.

การ does not mean "work", i'm not 100% sure, but i think just การ alone never means work

And in the sentence ไม่มีปัจจัยในการยังชีพตามควรแก่กรณีที่เข้ามาในราชอาณาจักร it does not mean work for sure, because here การ is used to transfrom the word ยังชีพ from a verb into a noun, and การยังชีพ means something like "subsistence"

I really don’t need a lesson in Thai from you and google. I said her translation was too literal. 

 

“Subsistence” would mean what in the context of this sentence?

[jackdd]

48 minutes ago, elviajero said:

I really don’t need a lesson in Thai from you and google. I said her translation was too literal. 

 

“Subsistence” would mean what in the context of this sentence?

Do you know what a dictionary is?

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/worterbuch/englisch/subsistence

Quote

- the state of having what you need in order to stay alive, but no more:
- enough money or food to keep yourself alive
- what a person needs in order to stay alive:

As i explained already, this law is to keep impoverished people out of the country, not to deny people "who stayed to long in the country" (according to a made up personal definition of an immigration officer)

Edited December 5, 2018 by jackdd

[BritTim]

6 hours ago, ozmeldo said:

Why don't you leave? You have no wife or children here. Can't qualify for O visas.

There are people who do not qualify for a Non Imm O visa who still have strong connections in Thailand. One common example is those in same sex relationships. Thailand does not provide any kind of visa to accommodate such people. While I have no romantic interest in other men myself, I am sympathetic to the needs of those who are gay.

[BigT73]

6 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Only took me 2 weeks from meeting to Amphur marriage.

Easily done on a tourist VISA.

What did you do after?   Did you need to leave the country for marriage visa/extension?

 

[AgentSmith]

7 hours ago, JackThompson said:

He wasn't polite because, in his eyes (and his clique), you are not a human-being who deserves being treated with respect.  That's how racism works on the brain.

 

Yes, it was the stamps and your history.  You are a "stick around" Farang, and he actively hates it that you can stay here, and that those who write the laws don't share his "correct" viewpoint, and give him a legal reason to deny-entry to you. 

 

Since he demanded a ticket out in 30 days, he clearly also disagrees that a Tourist-Visa entry is 60-days, and likely pukes in his mouth a little, every time he has to give that stamp (which we sub-human animals, clearly don't deserve).  I've seen a facial-expression matching this description, myself - and then they stare off into the distance, as they throw your passport back, to avoid having to even look at you.

 

His anger is fueled further, by the fact you can afford to do what you do - not work a crappy job like the one he had to buy (not earn, through a meritocratic system).

 

The irony is, it is immigration which will give you that 30-day extension.  But that is at an office that he and his farang-hating clique do not control.  That makes him even more angry.  

 

It was fortunate he didn't just lie, claim he knew you were "too poor to afford your stay," and deny your entry on a lie - as has happened to others. 

Frankly I don't care what went on in his mind. And racism is everywhere, not only in Thailand, so I certainly don't take that personally.

 

I too have worked low ranking jobs for less than mediocre money for quite a while so I can relate to the hate the world and the upper class feelings. It's tough when even hard work can't get you higher up in the rankings. That's fuel for the behavior that he displayed so I wasn't even mad at him personally.

 

I tend to approach these things more pragmatically. I now know to avoid young male IOs at the airport so I pick a line with an older looking IO instead, if only so I don't encounter that same guy again (I don't have a perfect memory of his face).

 

In my experience staff at consulates and embassies as well as immigration offices in the country are much more lenient. I have experience with 3 different offices for extensions and those have always been extremely smooth experiences. Follow the rules there and they consider you one of the good guys. Then it's all smiles and jokes. I got visas at the embassies in Cambodia, Laos, KL and Bali and those also were always great experiences with no hiccups whatsoever.

 

No, it's the IOs at borders, basically the gatekeepers of the country, who can be a pain in the ass. They have the power of denying entry and because that's all the power they have they will want to show it at some point. This behavior happens quite often with workers with a low pay grade. Just giving these people a decent salary would probably change things a lot. I'd be happy to pay extra for my visa to accomplish that.

 

All this aside, let's not forget it can all be way worse than here. Cambodia is horribly corrupt at its borders with officers charging double for a visa among other things. Or take Indonesia. There it can easily take hours just to get a simple extension. Those lazy facks not only don't want to work for their money they're not even ashamed to show it. And this has nothing to do with racism by the way. Locals get the same treatment when they apply for a passport or an ID. Compared to there Thailand is organized heaven. ????

Edited December 5, 2018 by AgentSmith

[AgentSmith]

2 hours ago, BritTim said:

There are people who do not qualify for a Non Imm O visa who still have strong connections in Thailand. One common example is those in same sex relationships. Thailand does not provide any kind of visa to accommodate such people. While I have no romantic interest in other men myself, I am sympathetic to the needs of those who are gay.

Never thought about this but I agree. Makes me wonder why Thailand doesn't recognize same sex marriage given that Thai culture is fairly open-minded about different sexual orientations. And there certainly are no religious barriers here.

[JackThompson]

44 minutes ago, AgentSmith said:

Frankly I don't care what went on in his mind. And racism is everywhere, not only in Thailand, so I certainly don't take that personally.

I don't care so much if it's just their opinion that they are "superior" or whatever floats their ego.  But when it prevents getting service or leads to the abuse you described (or I experienced in other contexts), then it's a problem. 

 

44 minutes ago, AgentSmith said:

I too have worked low ranking jobs for less than mediocre money for quite a while so I can relate to the hate the world and the upper class feelings. It's tough when even hard work can't get you higher up in the rankings. That's fuel for the behavior that he displayed so I wasn't even mad at him personally.

Most of my young-life, also.  But I didn't take out my frustration on my employer's clients.

 

44 minutes ago, AgentSmith said:

I tend to approach these things more pragmatically. I now know to avoid young male IOs at the airport so I pick a line with an older looking IO instead, if only so I don't encounter that same guy again (I don't have a perfect memory of his face).

The ladies at the airports have a very bad reputation in reports here.  I simply avoid the airports, entirely - so not an issue.

 

But to be clear, at land-border crossings with Issan IOs (but not Poipet), I have had many friendly encounters - including jokes and some friendly talk, when there wasn't a line/hurry.  I would not mind being next-door neighbors with many.  It's just a small clique in control of a few checkpoints that have this unchecked "active hate" problem, which has led to these reports.

 

44 minutes ago, AgentSmith said:

In my experience staff at consulates and embassies as well as immigration offices in the country are much more lenient. I have experience with 3 different offices for extensions and those have always been extremely smooth experiences. Follow the rules there and they consider you one of the good guys. Then it's all smiles and jokes.

I had that experience as well for years - until suddenly I didn't.  Different desks for different services in the same office varied from professional, by the book, and sometimes even friendly, to ice-cold and deeply-corrupt.  I hope your luck holds out.

 

44 minutes ago, AgentSmith said:

I got visas at the embassies in Cambodia, Laos, KL and Bali and those also were always great experiences with no hiccups whatsoever.

Similar here - but the Tourist Visa shuffle ended for me a couple years ago.  Be careful at Cambodia now - best to go with zero to one other TR Visa in your passport max, per recent reports.

 

44 minutes ago, AgentSmith said:

No, it's the IOs at borders, basically the gatekeepers of the country, who can be a pain in the ass. They have the power of denying entry and because that's all the power they have they will want to show it at some point. This behavior happens quite often with workers with a low pay grade. Just giving these people a decent salary would probably change things a lot. I'd be happy to pay extra for my visa to accomplish that.

As would I.  Just an extra 100-baht per-entry / extension / etc - then pay those guys a decent wage, so they would not have to resort to corruption.  I wish I could tip the good ones I described above.  Decent-pay was key to ending corrupt behavior in other countries, combined with proper-oversight.

 

44 minutes ago, AgentSmith said:

All this aside, let's not forget it can all be way worse than here. Cambodia is horribly corrupt at its borders with officers charging double for a visa among other things.

Only if entering at Koh Kong, though.  Elsewhere, an extra $5 is the most "extra" that is needed for quick service.  If only agent-fees ($20 agent-fee for a 1-year ~$350 visa) and border-issues in Thailand were so easy to overcome, financially.

 

44 minutes ago, AgentSmith said:

Or take Indonesia. There it can easily take hours just to get a simple extension. Those lazy facks not only don't want to work for their money they're not even ashamed to show it. And this has nothing to do with racism by the way. Locals get the same treatment when they apply for a passport or an ID. Compared to there Thailand is organized heaven. ????

Bummer on Indonesia - I have no experience there, nor desire to go.  But will keep that in mind.

[AgentSmith]

23 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

I don't care so much if it's just their opinion that they are "superior" or whatever floats their ego.  But when it prevents getting service or leads to the abuse you described (or I experienced in other contexts), then it's a problem. 

 

Most of my young-life, also.  But I didn't take out my frustration on my employer's clients.

Same but of course there's a difference between a company with economical interests or a government organization that can't be held accountable by those (the travelers) who depend on it. There simply is no way for us to influence the way the system works. There's only diplomatic channels and that's way beyond my control.

 

Quote

 

The ladies at the airports have a very bad reputation in reports here.  I simply avoid the airports, entirely - so not an issue.

If only I could avoid the airports. Most times I fly in from further away so I don't really see how to travel differently without it costing a lot more time (and money for that matter).

 

Quote

Bummer on Indonesia - I have no experience there, nor desire to go.  But will keep that in mind.

Generally speaking I find Indonesian culture quite a bit friendlier. It's just the arse holes in uniform you have to deal with there. Bali is a beautiful island that despite all its tourism still retains its own cultural values. It's quite unique in the world really. And if you're a diver then Indonesia wins from Thailand, hands down. It's an absolute world wonder when it comes to the marine world. Bali already is stunning, if you know the right spots at the right time. Did several thousand dives there and I won't forget many of them for a whole bunch of reasons. I've swam in what felt like live BBC documentaries. I saw giant manta rays on a weekly basis. Mola mola on numerous occasions during winter season. Sharks, turtles and most of the small critters you can find in the books. The cultural barriers are also smaller than they are here. The language is easy to pick up, Indo's often speak good English and sometimes even other European languages, they're more international. The reason I'm in Thailand though is the much better infrastructure, housing, hospitals and such. Healthcare in Indo is abysmal, rock bottom level. Lots of African countries already have better doctors and hospitals now. You get something even slightly serious there? Get the hell out. ???? But for holidays really worth the trip. They have orangutans, hundreds of active volcanoes, infinite number of islands to discover. For people who like remote places it's the country to be.

Edited December 5, 2018 by AgentSmith

[JackThompson]

13 minutes ago, AgentSmith said:

If only I could avoid the airports. Most times I fly in from further away so I don't really see how to travel differently without it costing a lot more time (and money for that matter). 

Best route from afar is fly to Penang, train across through Pedang Besar (showing 20K Baht, if needed), then fly-onward from Hat Yai.  I know it's a pita, but worth it given the lack of stress, in my book.  When the daily "international train" went all the way from Penang to Bangkok (without changing trains / layovers), that was even better.  I loved that ride, though the trains were more fun then, before they banned alcohol - met many cool folks.

[AgentSmith]

11 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

Best route from afar is fly to Penang, train across through Pedang Besar (showing 20K Baht, if needed), then fly-onward from Hat Yai.  I know it's a pita, but worth it given the lack of stress, in my book.  When the daily "international train" went all the way from Penang to Bangkok (without changing trains / layovers), that was even better.  I loved that ride, though the trains were more fun then, before they banned alcohol - met many cool folks.

Thanks but I'll keep taking my chances then. ????I'll be flying into Hua Hin next time, from KL. Flew out twice from there and that's pure bliss. They only recently installed actual immigration desks to replace the few adjacent tables they used before. I'll find out next time what it's like to enter there.

[JackThompson]

15 minutes ago, AgentSmith said:

Thanks but I'll keep taking my chances then. ????I'll be flying into Hua Hin next time, from KL. Flew out twice from there and that's pure bliss. They only recently installed actual immigration desks to replace the few adjacent tables they used before. I'll find out next time what it's like to enter there.

Please let us know how it goes.  We don't have many reports from the smaller airports.

[elviajero]

4 hours ago, jackdd said:

Do you know what a dictionary is?

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/worterbuch/englisch/subsistence

As i explained already, this law is to keep impoverished people out of the country, not to deny people "who stayed to long in the country" (according to a made up personal definition of an immigration officer)

“Subsistence” in the context of this law means:

subsistence

/səbˈsɪst(ə)ns/

noun

1. the action or fact of maintaining or supporting oneself, especially at a minimal level.

"the minimum income needed for subsistence"

synonyms:

maintenance, keep, upkeep, support, livelihood, living,

 

Look at the synonyms and particularly the words “livelihood”, and “living”.

 

ไม่มี Don’t have 

ปัจจัย means

ใน of

การยังชีพ subsistence (maintaining or supporting oneself).

ตามควร appropriate

 

The “official” Immigration translation says:

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

 

You can’t possibly argue the “official translation” is wrong! The translator has used “living” instead of your preference of “subsistence”, which in the context of the law is the far better choice.

 

Of course someone that is “impoverished” could be denied entry under 12.2, because they clearly haven’t the means to support themselves.

 

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.

[edwardandtubs]

46 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

Best route from afar is fly to Penang, train across through Pedang Besar (showing 20K Baht, if needed), then fly-onward from Hat Yai.  I know it's a pita, but worth it given the lack of stress, in my book.  When the daily "international train" went all the way from Penang to Bangkok (without changing trains / layovers), that was even better.  I loved that ride, though the trains were more fun then, before they banned alcohol - met many cool folks.

It's expensive and impractical. The cheapest flight in March from London to Bangkok is £218 compared to £368 from London to Penang and when you take into account the cost of getting from Penang to Bangkok you're looking at double the price in total.

 

I think the problem is going to be solved by the new e-visa. I would apply in the UK and my details automatically get sent to Thai immigration. How could they then justify refusing me entry at the airport? Surely if they want to refuse entry they should inform me in advance before I've even got on the plane.

[jackdd]

51 minutes ago, elviajero said:

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.

How about looking at this subject from another perspective:

The fact that a tourist has stayed in the country months / years in itself proves that he has the means to support himself. If he did this for let's say the last 5 years, why should he suddenly not be able to do this for the next 60 days?

If the immigration officer thinks that the tourist is getting the money to support himself through illegal channels, like for example working in Thailand, then he should deny him under 12.3. But maybe 12.3. requires a real proof from the immigration officer and he can't just come up with it because he feels like it.

[elviajero]

28 minutes ago, jackdd said:

How about looking at this subject from another perspective:

The fact that a tourist has stayed in the country months / years in itself proves that he has the means to support himself. If he did this for let's say the last 5 years, why should he suddenly not be able to do this for the next 60 days?

Being able to afford to live in the country and having the appropriate means of living in the country are entirely different. 

 

A GBP millionaire could walk into an immigration office waving his bank book demanding an extension of stay and would be refused point blank, UNLESS he’s had the money in the bank for the required time. And he wouldn’t even get a look in if the money was still in a foreign bank.

 

It’s not just about being able to afford the stay, but also that you’ve demonstrated your “appropriate means” to immigration based on their rules.

 

Clearly a long term tourist is funding their stay somehow. But there is no way immigration are going to accept proof of the financial standing at an interview at the border. Especially when the underlying reason for denial is the time spent in the country.

 

Although they’re only asking for anther 60 days the past record suggests they’re going to be staying longer than 60 days. The idea that it’s only a series of 60 day stays and that immigration should ignore the cumulative total is frankly laughable.

 

There is no way for a long term tourist to demonstrate they’ve the “appropriate means”, because they aren’t supposed to be staying months/years as a tourist.

 

The visa/permit system is very clear on the reasons allowed to stay long term, and the conditions we need to meet to stay long term.

 

Why people continue to deny reality is beyond me. I’m a pragmatist, and over the years have milked the system for all it’s worth, but at the same time understood that the legal loopholes I’ve exploited could be closed anytime.

 

28 minutes ago, jackdd said:

If the immigration officer thinks that the tourist is getting the money to support himself through illegal channels, like for example working in Thailand, then he should deny him under 12.3. But maybe 12.3. requires a real proof from the immigration officer and he can't just come up with it because he feels like it.

I agree, but maybe that’s why they nearly always fall back on the ‘catch all’ of 12.2.

[observer90210]

With all the hassles and considering the OP is still below 50, try Vietnam or other Asian countries that are more expat friendly and have not yet got a swolen head with all the expat/farang money comming in.

[AgentSmith]

3 hours ago, JackThompson said:

Please let us know how it goes.  We don't have many reports from the smaller airports.

Will do. It will happen earliest at the end of February though.

[whitemouse]

14 hours ago, JackThompson said:

Fortunately, that is not how Thai law classifies "tourist," which is defined in law only by prohibited activities, such as working a job here.  Thai bank-accounts, Thai-investments, etc are not in the list of "tourist prohibited" activities.  

 

Those who cannot pay for their stay are also prohibited from entering as a Tourist - but this does not specify where the funds must be saved, or the origin of one's income (could be passive-income dividends from the Thai stock market). 

 

This is why one will have no trouble obtaining a Thai Visa at Thai consulates by showing the required 20K Baht in a Thai bank account, and a 1-year condo lease for proof of where one will be staying. 

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.