They refused my entry into Thailand

[Cereal]

Pertinent to the discussion but should really not be, what did you dress like? Have you got visible tattoos, facial piercings etc.? What is your hair style?

 

I know logically these things shouldn't count, but they do and we all know they do.

 

My personal rule is, when crossing an international border, or taking an international flight, look decent.

[Just Weird]

9 hours ago, jackdd said:

Then why do they tell people one reason, but stamp another reason in the passport?

Why don't they have a "denied entry" stamp with just a text field in which they can write whatever reason they want?

Why did we never see anybody being officially denied for a reason other than the reasons stated in the immigration act?

Can you show any evidence that confirms what you say?

I don't need to show evidence of something that exists and is in practice every day of the week!   You can find it in the Immigration Act, though. 

[jackdd]

18 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

I don't need to show evidence of something that exists and is in practice every day of the week!   You can find it in the Immigration Act, though. 

Which section?

[Lobber]

I've seen Vlogs of so called "experienced- long stayers" of Thailand saying they don't trust the web or Thai post to do their 90 day report. They prefer a 2 hour drive, 1 hour wait at Imm. rather than do it a simple way. Begs the question of how much they do like, trust, or are competent living here in Thailand, and should anyone believe them, and their Vlogs???

[JackThompson]

11 hours ago, elviajero said:

There is a disconnect between the embassies/consulates that are just interested in making money from issuing visas and immigration who have to police entry. 

That is what the restrictions are created to address - why an METV application has the conditions on money, income/employment, etc.  If those are deemed inadequate by immigration, they can take up that issue with the MFA, not law-abiding visitors.

 

11 hours ago, elviajero said:

As you know the say on entry is squarely with the IO's at the border, and if they believe the person is staying too long as tourist they will find a way to legitimately deny entry.

It's not remotely legitimate if they are denying for "staying too long as a tourist" - since that is not a legitimate reason to deny-entry per the law.  Covering up their unlawful action by pretending another condition is true - absent any evidence it is so - is just adding a 2nd crime to their actions that day.

 

11 hours ago, elviajero said:

Thailand do not impose a strict limit on tourism, which I think is a good thing, but at the same time it is widely known that a tourist visa is for short term tourism and not for long term stays.

If they wish this to be the case, they need to state this - somewhere in some law or police order - with regard to the use of Tourist Visas.

 

11 hours ago, elviajero said:

Everything they have done since 2006 proves that, and has been successful in reducing back to back visa exempt and tourist visas. IMO they are not imposing limits at the moment because they don't have to and they are leaving it down to the IO's at the border to do their job.

 

11 hours ago, elviajero said:

Sorry, but this is just nonsense. All the clampdowns have clearly come from the top and different crossing points have always reacted to their own local issues. e.g. BKK is currently reacting to an increase in long term tourists, that historically used land borders, but switched to airports when the land borders became stricter.

The land borders are not more strict, other than Poipet/Aranya (who tell people to fly in to meet their buddies), so I do not see how one follows the other.

 

As we see in many areas of Thai government (labor, immigration (offices and entry-points), etc), local areas can ignore the written directives from superiors without consequence.  A case can be made for "federalism" - but not in an area such as a nation's immigration policy.  This state of affairs is an indication that a country is not stable / safe for planning to live long-term, or for investment - which is a disservice to the Thai people. 

 

But, this state of chaos / semi-anarchy does not in any way indicate that what is happening at bad entry-points is sanctioned from above - only that the superiors are semi-powerless to manage the civilian/bureaucratic equivalent of "war-lords," who control local-area fiefdoms.

 

What seems to have ticked some off, is they pushed to add all those financial hurdles (which TAT likely opposed), including having to travel across the world to go get the METV - but the people they were trying to stop have enough money to jump all those hurdles. 

 

I could understand, to an extent, when they targeted "barely surviving" backpackers doing visa-exempt border-bounces forever ("Thailand's image" or something - since they were still a net-spending plus).  But targeting METV holders makes no sense at all.  It makes even less sense than rejecting-entry to SETV holders, who, themselves, require more actual income-flow to repeat-stay, than someone here with an extension based on retirement (demonstrated, vs agent-faked or a savings-acct they cannot touch).

[JackThompson]

 

10 hours ago, Ashto said:

By way of comparison, here’s a glimpse of how New Zealand Immigration behaves at times: ...

Apples and Oranges, though.

What is the median-wage in NZ, vs Thailand?

 

Do people try to enter NZ to work illegally, due to the availability of a higher-wage as an illegal-worker, than a legal-job in their home-country? 
What percentage of Westerners who can afford the hoop-jumping to get an METV do this in Thailand?

 

What is the "tourism" percentage of NZ's total-GDP vs Thailand?

How many NZs are hand-to-mouth poor, and need as many Tourist jobs as possible to be created, in order to travel to tourist-areas for work, to support their families and fund the modernization of their homes and family farms?

[Just Weird]

2 hours ago, jackdd said:

Which section?

Read it and you'll find it. 

 

I've just looked at it again and the 92 Sections only took a few minutes to glance through to find what you're looking for.  Try it, I'm sure you can read too; I could tell you which section but I'm not doing your research for you!

Edited December 24, 2018 by Just Weird

[Percy Penguin]

18 hours ago, elviajero said:

Immigration do not just look at the entry being made, but the cumulative total of stays in the country. There is an unofficial line of 180 days that often gets quoted which is clearly the point that IO's are ordered to scrutinise the history and intentions of the visitor more closely.

 

17 hours ago, JackThompson said:

They have gone back over a year to get to a total 180 days in some reported cases.

 

13 hours ago, edwardandtubs said:

 

How does this 180 day thing work exactly? Is it 180 days per calendar year or 180 out of the previous 365 days? Can they even see those numbers on their system or do they have to count it up themselves?

 

10 hours ago, BritTim said:

Since it is not an official rule, we really do not know. As I posted earlier, I suspect the immigration computer system, on entry, has been programmed to alert officials if the 180-day threshold has been breached (so increased scrutiny can take place) but exactly how the 180 days is counted is not known. It might not even be the most recent 12-month period. Conceivably, it might be 180 days in any 12-month period after some start date (similar to the visa exempt entry checks).

 

System generated notifications aside, the officials can decide to create their own threshold. For some of them, it might just be a general feeling that you have been here too long (as has happened according to at least one report where the 180 days was over an approximate 17 month period).

 

9 hours ago, elviajero said:

They seem to count based on the “previous 365 days”. But there is no officially published rule.

 

No they don’t have the number on the system, and would have to calculate it.

And I thought I was safe sticking to 179 days per 365-day period - is there just that one report of going back over 365 days, and does anyone remember anything about it that might help me find it on here?

 

I can see that one six-month trip is not the same as four trips of a month and a half each with time at home in between, so I guess the pattern counts for something as well as the total time.

[jackdd]

21 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

Read it and you'll find it. 

 

I've just looked at it again and the 92 Sections only took a few minutes to glance through to find what you're looking for.  Try it, I'm sure you can read too; I could tell you which section but I'm not doing your research for you!

Sure you did ????

But now you can stop trolling

[JackThompson]

1 hour ago, Percy Penguin said:

And I thought I was safe sticking to 179 days per 365-day period - is there just that one report of going back over 365 days, and does anyone remember anything about it that might help me find it on here?

 

I can see that one six-month trip is not the same as four trips of a month and a half each with time at home in between, so I guess the pattern counts for something as well as the total time.

All that counts at an entry point that does not obey the law, is what the IO feels like doing.  There is no appeal to law, logic, etc.  I recall (from memory) 2 cases of an IO going back over a year - but, there are so many topics on rejected-entry at Bangkok airports, that it would take some effort to find them. 

Another case, more recently, where someone was told "tourists only stay for a couple weeks" (or similar - not exact wording) - meaning not only do they disagree that a Tourist Visa grants a 60-day permitted-stay - but even immigration's own 30-days granted for Visa-Exempt, is "too long" for this clique.

 

This clique of IOs are, in essence, at war with the laws they are sworn to uphold.  But given no one higher in rank will do any thing about their rogue-behavior (to-date), there is nothing for us foreigners to do except avoid them - never set foot within the territory they control - and hope the problem does not spread to additional points of entry.

[lamyai3]

On 12/24/2018 at 10:45 AM, Lobber said:

I've seen Vlogs of so called "experienced- long stayers" of Thailand saying they don't trust the web or Thai post to do their 90 day report. They prefer a 2 hour drive, 1 hour wait at Imm. rather than do it a simple way. Begs the question of how much they do like, trust, or are competent living here in Thailand, and should anyone believe them, and their Vlogs???

Generally, anything in a personal blog or vlog is better taken with a pinch of salt. However, it's true that the online system has had many problems historically, many of which are documented in other threads (as well as a pinned topic on here). Not sure how reliable it is at the current time. Regular Thai Post is also untrustworthy, but EMS is a safe next day method, this is what I use and not had any trouble yet.

[garyk]

On 12/23/2018 at 3:11 PM, JackThompson said:

 

I suppose I have the benefit of not experiencing Thailand in the "good old days" - so compare my relative freedom to that in police-state USA - where every trip to work or the store runs a gauntlet of police.  Hours on the roads and highways here, but have not seen cars pulled-over left and right like the USA.  Seems much better to me.

What???  Jack, not sure where you are from, but you need a reality check. 

[JackThompson]

8 hours ago, Just Weird said:

I did, why don't you try it, it's not that difficult.

 

I'm not the one who's trolling, as you well know.

If you choose to actually state what it is you are talking about, note that IOs cite the "official reason" they are rejecting in the visitor's rejection-stamp.  Therefore, please include a case (or cases) where the part of the Immigration Act you are referring to was used as the official-reason for rejection.

[JackThompson]

2 hours ago, garyk said:

What???  Jack, not sure where you are from, but you need a reality check. 

I lived in many areas of the USA.  How many miles can you travel in a populated area without seeing a car pulled-over in the USA (if even a full mile)?  Compare to Thailand. 

 

The police in the USA are tasked with making money for state/local governments, from people bothering no one, by writing tickets for minor traffic-infractions and such - but they "don't have the manpower" to deal with actual property-crimes (solving those doesn't pay dividends to the govt). 

 

To top it off, no where I have lived in SE Asia was as dangerous or theft-likely as any city where I lived in the USA.

[Just Weird]

5 hours ago, JackThompson said:

If you choose to actually state what it is you are talking about, note that IOs cite the "official reason" they are rejecting in the visitor's rejection-stamp.  Therefore, please include a case (or cases) where the part of the Immigration Act you are referring to was used as the official-reason for rejection.

I'm talking about the fact that IOs have the absolute right to deny entry to anyone.  That's it.

[BritTim]

22 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

I'm talking about the fact that IOs have the absolute right to deny entry to anyone.  That's it.

That is not true according to the Immigration Act and public police orders. Also, if the Minister (the only one able to arbitrarily admit or deny entry according to the Immigration Act) has issued a secret order permitting officials to deny entry on his behalf, I would argue that such an order would be very clearly against the intent of the Immigration Act.

 

In Thailand, anything is possible. However, I believe officials are citing Section 12 (2) or Section 12 (3) as the reason for denied entry (rather than Section 12 (10)) because no such delegation has been given by the Minister.

[Blue Water Sailor]

On 12/23/2018 at 11:11 AM, JackThompson said:

 

I suppose I have the benefit of not experiencing Thailand in the "good old days" - so compare my relative freedom to that in police-state USA - where every trip to work or the store runs a gauntlet of police.  Hours on the roads and highways here, but have not seen cars pulled-over left and right like the USA.  Seems much better to me.

 

I spent years of total-time in the Jomtien Beach area before moving to the boonies.  During all that time, I never had a bad-experience with the police and found the cost of living quite reasonable.  I spent a few months in Bangkok maybe 3 years ago - did not find it expensive, and the people were friendly.  I did see a drug-bust go down from my balcony once - done very professionally, with no shots fired or even minor-violence.  Excellent training and execution. I was impressed. 

 

Maybe it helps that I never smoke funny-cigs, or hung out places where I might be questioned about that sort of thing.  I'm not saying you did, Onera - maybe I've just had good luck.  But, I would have passed the urine-test, in any case.  It is sad to hear of people busted for it here, and the hell they are put through over a fairly benign thing - but the Thai attitude on that substance is not a new thing. 

Exactly, You want to see a real police state, go to the US, Thailand has been my home base for 10 years, and as bad as some think, I feel a hell of lot more free in Thailand than I do in the States, I don't go back there unless I absolutly have to. I do like Cambodia and visited Vietnam for the first time on my last R&R. I'll be going back for sure.

[dcnx]

On 12/22/2018 at 9:24 PM, stevymac said:

 

 

So where is he from then?


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

I’ll tell you after I leave the bar. Been here since 9am.

Edited December 26, 2018 by dcnx

[dennis123]

Amazing really must definitely be some (racial) profiling going on like he mistook you for an Indian or something.

 

Knowing that the rules are getting stricter it's incredibly dumb to leave your camera, room key, and the key of your motorbike in Thailand during a visa run. When I travel out of the country I even take the framed photo and the ashes/bones of my lost friend across the border, just in case I get denied I want to keep that, earlier I even went as far that I packed every piece of electronic equipment in my car like my boat battery charger, TV, PlayStation, additional laptop, cloth iron, juicer, toaster, and even my microwave lol.

 

Always surprised to read those reports as I've been coming and going on SETV tourist visas and exempts for at least six years in a row, I'm white and look near 50 though I'm quite a bit younger than that, and I always prepare a good set of clothes when crossing the border, can't say I always look fresh & frisky when I spend a month binge drinking in Laos or Cambodia, yeah I take a shower but the tiredness shows, feeling like a total wreck lol, and with all the alcohol and what not in my body I sweat like crazy while filling in the paperwork and walking from desk to desk, no clonazepam or diazepam helps with that by the end of the holiday. Still, they keep allowing me in.

 

Strange Thailand, just back from prison, DUI, 2 nights at Pattaya police station, no stamp in passport but on second offense deportation so be careful as you don't want to be stuck in a cell where they don't even provide you with water, everything has to be ordered through a ward/guard that wants to make some extra money, some of these guards don't even care about money and simply ignore you and then you have to wait till the next shift starts, rather unpleasant. Luckily we're all in the same boat together so I got water from some Thai people that were locked up and they even shared a cigarette with us (foreigners) every few hours. Somehow they got that smuggled in, tried it myself but didn't get it through. Oh and not to speak of this crazy foreigner that was locked alone in a cell, running around naked, pissing on the floor and then sleeping on that same floor and yelling almost 24/7.

 

I'm drifting off a little bit from the topic but thought it makes an interesting story, there was a Dutch guy as well, ran into an alcohol control same as me then at court he denied he was driving because he stood still with his motorbike, judge didn't like that answer so kept him in prison for another 6 days, till he admitted and then the judge said we're going to deport you ???? First time offense and first time visit to Thailand! Never lie to a judge or try to twist the story. When I was before the judge there was no translator available so police agents suggested I just say Yes Yes Yes to every question, so I did and after paying 8500 baht I was free ????

[Just Weird]

21 hours ago, BritTim said:

That is not true according to the Immigration Act and public police orders. Also, if the Minister (the only one able to arbitrarily admit or deny entry according to the Immigration Act) has issued a secret order permitting officials to deny entry on his behalf, I would argue that such an order would be very clearly against the intent of the Immigration Act.

 

In Thailand, anything is possible. However, I believe officials are citing Section 12 (2) or Section 12 (3) as the reason for denied entry (rather than Section 12 (10)) because no such delegation has been given by the Minister.

Unfortunately for you, it is true.  Decisions as to who is refused entry are made by IOs, known as competent officials, not by the Minister.   Obviously, they have been delegated the authority to do that!

 

You don't see the Minister at the IOs' desks checking incoming travellers, do you?  Neither do you see threads here from members complaining that the Minister wouldn't allow them in, it always IOs!

[Just Weird]

21 hours ago, overherebc said:

????

He seems to have dropped using the 'sad' emoti' for everything and moved on a bit.

????????

I use the "sad" emoji because the comments in those posts are sad, that's what the emojis are for.  How come you haven't commented about the "like" emojis that I use?

 

It's ironic that someone who uses three ???? emojis to accompany one sad sentence has the gall to criticize my use of one!

Edited December 27, 2018 by Just Weird

[Rimmer]

Flame and replies removed

[JackThompson]

6 hours ago, Just Weird said:

Unfortunately for you, it is true.  Decisions as to who is refused entry are made by IOs, known as competent officials, not by the Minister.   Obviously, they have been delegated the authority to do that!

 

You don't see the Minister at the IOs' desks checking incoming travellers, do you?  Neither do you see threads here from members complaining that the Minister wouldn't allow them in, it always IOs!

 

An IO cannot reject-entry to a person holding a valid Tourist Visa, unless that individual is in known-violation of a specific item in the list specified in the Immigration Act.  All official rejected-entries to-date seen here specified one of the items in that list.  As the traveler can not be expected to prove a negative, it is up to the IO to substantiate a case of a violation. 

 

One of the items on the "reasons to deny entry" list, refers to the Minister having specified an individual or group for rejected entry.  If/when this is used, it would be reflected in the rejection-stamp - but we have yet to see Any Reports of that reason being given/used to reject-entry in the years I have been reading this forum.

 

A bad/dishonest officer can use their power to deny-entry to a person for a false-reason, and due to a lack of oversight here, there is no recourse for the person being wronged.  In these cases, there was no way for the IO to have come to a reasonable conclusion that the person was, for example, "unable to support themselves after entry to the country."  In some cases, they are reported as refusing to even look at evidence presented to the contrary. 

 

This is why the only workable solution is to avoid points where bad-officers (usually the supervisor is making the call) are operating, and stick to locations where honest, law-abiding officers are known to run the entry-point.

[aldriglikvid]

I try to to read as many posts as I can (but it's hard to keep up). Have you encountered anyone having being rejected with this "kind of history": 

 

1 Dec 2017 - Entered the Kingdom with a SE Tourist Visa (issued in Home Country - Sweden) 

30 Jan 2018 - Extension 30 day at local IM

28 Feb 2018 - Went back to Home Country 

 

~ 90 Days

 

1 Aug 2018 - Entered the Kingdom with a SE Tourist Visa (issued in Home Country - Sweden) 

30 Sep 2018 - Extension 30 day

28 October - Left to Vietnam

 

~90 days (of which 150 in calendar year 2018) 

 

30 October - Entered the Kingdom with a SE Tourist Visa (issued in Vietnam)

30 December - Extension 30 day

January 28 - Left to Vietnam

 

~90 days (of which 210 in calendar year 2018) 

January 30 - Entered the Kingdom with a SE Tourist Visa (issued in Vietnam)  

 

Would you say I have decent chances of entering Thailand on my third SETV "in a row"? 

Can produce 20k, condo contract, flight ticket exiting Thailand etc. 

 

 - This "180 day rule" is it on a rolling 12 month period, or calendar year period? (Is it reset 2018/2019). 
 - This "180 day rule" apparently (if existing) wasn't enforced on my when entering Thailand on 30th of october again) 

 

 

 

 

 

[ubonjoe]

2 hours ago, aldriglikvid said:

Would you say I have decent chances of entering Thailand on my third SETV "in a row"? 

Can produce 20k, condo contract, flight ticket exiting Thailand etc. 

I see no reason for you to have problem when you to enter the country next month after getting the new visa. Your trips back to Sweden and getting a visa there helps.

There is certainly no 180 day rule.

[mvdf]

On 12/27/2018 at 9:16 AM, JackThompson said:

 

An IO cannot reject-entry to a person holding a valid Tourist Visa, unless that individual is in known-violation of a specific item in the list specified in the Immigration Act.  All official rejected-entries to-date seen here specified one of the items in that list.  As the traveler can not be expected to prove a negative, it is up to the IO to substantiate a case of a violation. 

 

Wrong. 

 

You seem to think Thailand should make an exception to immigration rules and allow everyone in based on the sole fact of being a holder of a valid Thai visa. 

 

Other countries' IOs refuse admission even if the person seeking admission holds a perfectly valid visa. A picture-perfect example is the United States. Everyone must overcome the presumption of intending immigration to the US when applying for admission. The decision to admit or not is at the IO's discretion. 

 

It is not for the IO to substantiate a case of violation. It is up to the traveller to substantiate his or her intentions when seeking admission. That same rule applies to Thailand. 

 

Stop making other countries seem like they are REQUIRED and OBLIGATED to accept westerners! 

[ICELANDMAN]

Claudio You not see ? You are not welcome on Thailand.  A free advise, change country and girl friend ????

[BritTim]

43 minutes ago, mvdf said:

You seem to think Thailand should make an exception to immigration rules and allow everyone in based on the sole fact of being a holder of a valid Thai visa. 

Quite the reverse. We want immigration rules followed. The Immigration Act Section 12 is perfectly clear about the reasons for which foreigners should be denied entry, and the Immigration Act as a whole is clear that individual immigration officials are not allowed to invent their own reasons for denying entry.

 

45 minutes ago, mvdf said:

Other countries' IOs refuse admission even if the person seeking admission holds a perfectly valid visa. A picture-perfect example is the United States. Everyone must overcome the presumption of intending immigration to the US when applying for admission. The decision to admit or not is at the IO's discretion.

In most countries, the law gives immigration officials greater discretion than in Thailand. The right of officials to deny entry is largely determined by the laws of individual countries. There is not some international agreement that gives officials powers not enshrined in the relevant country's own regulations. On the other hand, those wishing to claim refugee status have greater rights entering the US than they do in Thailand. We do not claim that immigration officials in Thailand are obliged to accept asylum seekers because their counterparts in the US are. In Thailand, asylum seekers can, and sometimes are, denied entry based on Section 12 (1). US laws and Thai laws are different.

 

54 minutes ago, mvdf said:

That same rule applies to Thailand.

Logical as that might seem to you, that is not what Thai law implies.

[JackThompson]

20 hours ago, mvdf said:

Wrong. 

 

You seem to think Thailand should make an exception to immigration rules and allow everyone in based on the sole fact of being a holder of a valid Thai visa. 

On the contrary, if a visitor is in violation of the Immigration-Act or pertinent Ministerial Orders, they can be denied legally.

 

20 hours ago, mvdf said:

Other countries' IOs refuse admission even if the person seeking admission holds a perfectly valid visa. A picture-perfect example is the United States. Everyone must overcome the presumption of intending immigration to the US when applying for admission. The decision to admit or not is at the IO's discretion. 

The USA is horrible, admitted, but their IOs have this discretion per USA law.  Thailand IOs do not have this discretion - probably due to their propensity to be bribed / bought-off - though that appears to have happened, with the same result, by ignoring their laws.

 

20 hours ago, mvdf said:

It is not for the IO to substantiate a case of violation. It is up to the traveller to substantiate his or her intentions when seeking admission. That same rule applies to Thailand. 

Ok, then Immigration will need to provide specifics as to what Travelers need to show for what entry-types under what conditions.  Many reports indicate that IOs involved refused to look at any evidence they had to present, then made up some lying reason to stamp in their passport, without even asking pertinent questions related to that stamp/reason.

 

20 hours ago, mvdf said:

Stop making other countries seem like they are REQUIRED and OBLIGATED to accept westerners! 

I did not write Thai Immigration Law - they did.  I am not "making" Thailand do anything - only warning people that some entry-points are run by IOs who don't respect the laws they are sworn to uphold - so that these entry-points can be avoided by the good, law-abiding people, who could suffer there.

[AGareth2]

On 12/26/2018 at 2:48 PM, Just Weird said:

I'm talking about the fact that IOs have the absolute right to deny entry to anyone.  That's it.

even diplomats?