They refused my entry into Thailand

[Jim7777]

21 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

The stamp does not mean you can never enter the country again. It is only a denial of entry under section 12 for the immigration clause 3.

"3. Having entered into the Kingdom to take occupation as a laborer or to take employment by
using physical without skills training or to work in violation of the Ministerial Regulations."

You could try to enter again but be sure you have the equivalent of 20k baht in cash and other proof you have enough income without working here.

Perhaps the best would be try enter at the Pedang Besar border crossing to Thailand. You could take a train from KL to there.

Was he on a tourist multi entry visa?  That's what it sounds like because of showing proof of 20,000 baht only.  The op also said that he got an extension before he left so shouldn't he have got a re entry permit before leaving Thailand?  I don't know anything about his work situation if he was or wasn't working but didn't he need a re entry permit before leaving Thailand?  Because he said that he got an extension before leaving Thailand and on an extension you need a re entry permit before leaving the country.  I could be wrong but maybe that was the issue no re entry permit?  

[Jim7777]

21 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

The stamp does not mean you can never enter the country again. It is only a denial of entry under section 12 for the immigration clause 3.

"3. Having entered into the Kingdom to take occupation as a laborer or to take employment by
using physical without skills training or to work in violation of the Ministerial Regulations."

You could try to enter again but be sure you have the equivalent of 20k baht in cash and other proof you have enough income without working here.

Perhaps the best would be try enter at the Pedang Besar border crossing to Thailand. You could take a train from KL to there.

Was he on a tourist multi entry visa?  That's what it sounds like because of showing proof of 20,000 baht only.  The op also said that he got an extension before he left so shouldn't he have got a re entry permit before leaving Thailand?  I don't know anything about his work situation if he was or wasn't working but didn't he need a re entry permit before leaving Thailand?  Because he said that he got an extension before leaving Thailand and on an extension you need a re entry permit before leaving the country.  I could be wrong but maybe that was the issue no re entry permit?  

[JackThompson]

51 minutes ago, GeorgeCross said:

if i go drinking with my friends i'm afraid i'll be breathalyzed on the way home

Only if driving.  Take a taxi.

Quote

if i take my laptop out i'm afraid the random police stops will accuse me of working illegally

Not one bust, ever, for "illegal working" online.

 

Quote

if i go to bangkok i'm afraid i'll be stopped, searched or drug tested

Some years ago, one crew of cops started doing this illegally, after their "happy ending massage" racket was shut-down by the military.  It hit the papers in the West, and the cops were transferred to Nakon Nowhere.  This is no longer a problem. 

 

But, if at a nightclub where drug-use is a known issue, it could happen.  I tend to lean to the "civil libertarian" side of things, but my honest helpful advice to expats, is to live a lifestyle that ensures you can test clean, or stay in a country that doesn't care about drug-use.

 

Quote

if i go to immigration i'm afraid my extension will be denied
and if i leave the country i'm afraid i won't be let back in

I understand on the first issue - depends a lot on which office.  Go 30 days early, so you can find out about new "surprise" required this and that.
On the 2nd, just avoid the known bad-actor entry-points.

[jackdd]

3 minutes ago, Jim7777 said:

Was he on a tourist multi entry visa?  That's what it sounds like because of showing proof of 20,000 baht only.  The op also said that he got an extension before he left so shouldn't he have got a re entry permit before leaving Thailand?  I don't know anything about his work situation if he was or wasn't working but didn't he need a re entry permit before leaving Thailand?  Because he said that he got an extension before leaving Thailand and on an extension you need a re entry permit before leaving the country.  I could be wrong but maybe that was the issue no re entry permit?  

You should read about how a multiple entry tourist visa works, then you will understand it

[ubonjoe]

2 minutes ago, Jim7777 said:

The op also said that he got an extension before he left so shouldn't he have got a re entry permit before leaving Thailand?

Why would he need a re-entry permit? He has a METV that allows unlimited 60 day entries up to the date it expires.

[farangx]

21 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

They set the 20K in cash rule - not us.  If they want to make it more, let them publish exactly how much we need to show, and in what form - then ensure every airline won't let anyone board without it (same one must show outgoing tickets if coming w/o a Visa).

 

Why are you bringing the airline into this?  The airline let him boarded the flight because he has a visa, why are you blaming the airline now?

 

I already showed that that 20K is moot in his case for living in Thailand for a few months.  Why are you talking about it? If you have found a way to stretch this 20K over a few months, then for the greater good for all retirees here, tell Immigration that that 65K can be reduce to 15K and that 800K seasoning reduced to 150K.  More retirees will come here and the Thai government may even grant you an honorary citizenship for your great contribution to the economy.  We all will love you mak mak.

 

[JackThompson]

4 minutes ago, farangx said:

Why are you bringing the airline into this?  The airline let him boarded the flight because he has a visa, why are you blaming the airline now?

No, I am saying if there is a requirement that can be requested, the airlines should be warned, so they will enforce it - as they do for the "must have an outgoing ticket in 30-days" rule for entering w/o a visa. 

Per one report, Thai Air out of Laos is now requiring 20K Baht worth of cash to board with a Tourist Visa.

 

Quote

I already showed that that 20K is moot in his case for living in Thailand for a few months.  Why are you talking about it? If you have found a way to stretch this 20K over a few months, then for the greater good for all retirees here, tell Immigration that that 65K can be reduce to 15K and that 800K seasoning reduced to 150K.  More retirees will come here and the Thai government may even grant you an honorary citizenship for your great contribution to the economy.  We all will love you mak mak.

I already stated that they made up the 20K cash to show rule.  This does not mean that that cash amounts to all their world-wide wealth.  If that isn't sufficient, in combination with the MFAs requirements, then they (not us) need to change their rules to suit - not arbitrarily deny entry to visitors who followed their laws/rules to the letter, as did the OP.

[farangx]

32 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

What is your theory, as to their motivations for this?  I think it's about agent and elite money streams - or possibly the Chinese buying policy.  I cannot find any other logical reason / motivation. 

Jack, you don't need a reason to bash immigration here.  All you need is motivation.

 

[jackdd]

7 minutes ago, farangx said:

Why are you bringing the airline into this?  The airline let him boarded the flight because he has a visa, why are you blaming the airline now? 

Because the airline has to pay a fine if they bring somebody in who is then denied entry, so that's in their best interest. For example the requirement to have a flight out if you arrive in Thailand without a visa is a stipulated requirement and most airlines will check if you have this and in case you don't they won't let you board the plane.

If Thailand would seriously see a problem in people arriving without 20k THB cash they could simply tell the airlines that this is a necessary requirement and people without cash would not be allowed to board anymore, but actually the Thai government doesn't have a problem with it, so there are just some IOs who abuse this rule

 

7 minutes ago, farangx said:

I already showed that that 20K is moot in his case for living in Thailand for a few months. 

I explained to you already that 3 months ago when he got his METV he proved that he has at least 185k THB, no idea why you are still talking about 20k THB, are you trolling?

[FritsSikkink]

50 minutes ago, jackdd said:

"in a country"? In Thailand yes, but not necessarily in other countries.

Tax residency doesn't say anything about that you are going to work.

You are right it doesn't say that but there are quite a few who work here on the wrong visa and don't pay any tax. 

[farangx]

6 minutes ago, jackdd said:

Because the airline has to pay a fine if they bring somebody in who is then denied entry, so that's in their best interest. For example the requirement to have a flight out if you arrive in Thailand without a visa is a stipulated requirement and most airlines will check if you have this and in case you don't they won't let you board the plane.

 

Airlines don't want to pay for their flight out if immigration turn the passengers back.  Visa covers that.  Besides the average tourist stay here is 1 to 2 weeks, 20K should cover this easily. 

 

12 minutes ago, jackdd said:

I explained to you already that 3 months ago when he got his METV he proved that he has at least 185k THB, no idea why you are still talking about 20k THB, are you trolling?

Why would I be trolling with that 20K, when the IO already gave him a nice red stamp for that?

 

[MaksimMislavsky]

57 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

What is your theory, as to their motivations for this?  I think it's about agent and elite money streams - or possibly the Chinese buying policy.  I cannot find any other logical reason / motivation. 

My theory, in very general terms, is "preserving" Thailand as a unique cultural, political, and economical realm, with all the nice features generally recognized and repeatedly mentioned on this forum, for its people. Unchecked influx of free-running foreigners can be devastating with this regard for many reasons.  But I won't insist on it. You are making perfectly valid points, too.

[Briggsy]

10 minutes ago, farangx said:

Why would I be trolling with that 20K, when the IO already gave him a nice red stamp for that?

It is Thai law, you troll, as you have been told more than once. The amount of 20,000 Baht is stipulated in Thai law.

 

The denial stamp was for attempting to enter the Kingdom to work [as a labourer]. The Immigration Officer just made it up as the OP cannot prove a negative.

 

You have added nothing constructive to this thread in numerous posts. You have, however, posted numerous inaccurate assumptions and untrue statements. You are clearly a troll.

[farangx]

2 minutes ago, Briggsy said:

The denial stamp was for attempting to enter the Kingdom to work [as a labourer]. The Immigration Officer just made it up as the OP cannot prove a negative.

 

You have added nothing constructive to this thread in numerous posts. You have, however, posted numerous inaccurate assumptions and untrue statements. You are clearly a troll.

Why should the 20K be applicable in his case, he was here for months.  Surely the IO has the right to doubt him.  Is this why your are trolling because you cannot understand this? And like I said earlier, he can still enter the Thailand in future, so what is the big deal?

 

[DieterK]

4 hours ago, crazygreg44 said:

Klaus, is there anything else that coud have been causing the Immigration officer to deny you entry?  Is there anything on your Facebook page that indicates you are living in Thailand as a yoga teacher, repairing broken phones or being a dive instructor, whilst in the country with a METV ?

No, my FB says I´m living in my home country. I do not wear baggy pants, no tattoos, have short hair, do not smell, always smile at IO.

Nevertheless, i will follow @JackThompsons advice and bring my laptop and few clothes.

 

EDIT: just recognized that I´m not Klaus.

[JackThompson]

14 minutes ago, MaksimMislavsky said:

My theory, in very general terms, is "preserving" Thailand as a unique cultural, political, and economical realm, with all the nice features generally recognized and repeatedly mentioned on this forum, for its people. Unchecked influx of free-running foreigners can be devastating with this regard for many reasons.  But I won't insist on it. You are making perfectly valid points, too.

Glad you answered - it is a genuine question, and I haven't found any rationale that made sense.  I have considered the "loss of culture" aspect - but the primary foreign-cultural leakage is via the airwaves/internet - not physical visitors. 

But, if they were to institute a policy where those on some visa-types needed travel-permits to some areas - and these permits were limited in number and "season" (to visit certain temples, etc) - I could understand this rationale.  That could be done without throwing away however many billion-baht in lost revenue. 

[Youlike]

19 hours ago, Klaus77 said:

I had the key of my home in Italy because I live alone there and the key of motorbike too it's not difficult to understand and Klaus is my nick name .. Claudio the real name..is difficult to understand that????

Yes that's difficult and confusing. So you have only one italian passport right? In that case i would claim my travelinsurance for all the damage because it's not your fault i guess. Hopefully they will claim all damage from the thai immigration.

[MaksimMislavsky]

23 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

but the primary foreign-cultural leakage is via the airwaves/internet - not physical visitors. 

they are trying to address this issue, too. 

moreover, physical visitors in huge numbers affect cost of living, sustainability of infrastructure and environment, economical balance of power, and many other things

 

23 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

a policy where those on some visa-types needed travel-permits to some areas - and these permits were limited in number and "season"

reasonable. but it is in their sole discretion to designate the entire nation as such area, if they see fit.

 

still I would like to stress I strongly agree with you on many points you are making, especially regarding the clearer and consistently enforced entry rules and requirements 

[elviajero]

12 hours ago, GeorgeCross said:

22 hours ago, elviajero said:

It is not about not being wanted. The METV visa is not meant to be used to "live" in the country.

i agree, my interpretation is it's meant to be used for extended tourist visits with or without multiple entries. the op was out of the country for 5 months and then spent 3 months here which was roughly half the METV's duration and could only be defined as an extended tourist visit (unless a 3 month stay is now classes as permanent residency lol!). 

 

on his allowed reentry he was denied re-entry.

 

it all seems above board to me. otherwise why issue tourist visas with 6 month durations!?

I haven't read the whole thread, but I doubt we have been given a full/accurate history of the OP's stay in Thailand. If he has only spent 3 months in Thailand then he has been harshly treated.

 

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.

 

The METV is not designed for people to 'live' in the country for 6 months. It is designed for people to be able to visit frequently for 6 months -- a big difference -- and was specifically aimed at the Asian market.

[JackThompson]

13 minutes ago, MaksimMislavsky said:

they are trying to address this issue, too. 

moreover, physical visitors in huge numbers affect cost of living, sustainability of infrastructure and environment, economical balance of power, and many other things reasonable.

The mass "package tour" version of tourism, which has huge numbers, is certainly an issue with infrastructure - but this is encouraged by immigration.  I have seen the crowding, road-congestion from tour-buses, etc in areas which are part of the tour-circuit - and can imagine the pollution factor.  These problems reduce the appeal to higher-spending tourists.  But, the much smaller number of longer-staying farangs do not contribute considerably to those issues - and would not, even if increased by a factor of 5 or more.  Ending the "50 and over" requirement for non-working annual extensions (the other requirements being the same) would not increase the number by that amount.

 

Given we cannot own land, and the vast majority of us live in a few areas, these would be the areas to see price-increases.  But, we are also the primary job-creation engine in all of those areas except Bangkok.  Therefore, we see Thais coming to us - moving to those areas to make money, to support their families and develop their land in the provinces.  I am not aware of an issue with a lack of affordable housing for Thai in this context (including Bangkok) - nor of enough foreigners moving into the boonies to drive up costs there.

 

Food prices are another concern - but much of that is driven mostly by global-market-pricing and/or small-scale cost-of-production overhead undercut by factory-scale production.  A live-chicken in a village is more expensive than one cleaned and ready to cook at Tesco (the Tesco chicken costs less than the small-scale retail-cost of the food to raise it).  Produce prices are higher in the tourist-areas, but these are driven almost exclusively by middle-man markups, with the farmers receiving a pittance.  The King projects help much in this area, but ... I'm not sure how farangs are a problem-factor.

 

13 minutes ago, MaksimMislavsky said:

but it is in their sole discretion to designate the entire nation as such area, if they see fit.

Yes, and there is Bhutan as an extreme example.  But the loss of jobs, which fund so much development in the provinces, in particular, would not be popular.

 

13 minutes ago, MaksimMislavsky said:

still I would like to stress I strongly agree with you on many points you are making, especially regarding the clearer and consistently enforced entry rules and requirements 

Thanks.  I take no offense to disagreement, and welcome any rationale which could explain the economic-damage being done by the actions taken at some entry-points. 

[JackThompson]

8 minutes ago, elviajero said:

I haven't read the whole thread, but I doubt we have been given a full/accurate history of the OP's stay in Thailand. If he has only spent 3 months in Thailand then he has been harshly treated.

This year, he was here January until May, left, then returned with an METV in late-September - kicked out on his first out/in by air at the Krabi airport.

 

8 minutes 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.

They have gone back over a year to get to a total 180 days in some reported cases.  Some interrogations have involved stays over 6 months in the past.  It seems to be "A visitor who has shown a propensity to stick around," which is the trigger.

 

8 minutes ago, elviajero said:

The METV is not designed for people to 'live' in the country for 6 months. It is designed for people to be able to visit frequently for 6 months -- a big difference -- and was specifically aimed at the Asian market. 

If they designed it specifically as you describe, it would not grant 60-days on entry, and could have had an "out x-days between entries" provision included.  It was designed for short-term Asian-market visitors - yes, but also for the longer-staying folks from further away, who formerly used the 2x and 3x entry Tourist Visas, which were withdrawn at the same time. 

 

As a compromise with the hard-liners, financial and other limits were imposed.  Now, it seems the hard-liners have decided that's not good enough.  First they demanded only official consulates could issue ME visas - and got that concession.  But, it turns out it wasn't "fraud" which accounted for high-usage - but the fact people actually had the minimum-money to show in the bank for months, plus pay the high-cost of the visa, itself. 

 

They should take up any issues they have with the MFA - not harass/deny-entry to visitors who are have complied with the law to drive away good people.

[elviajero]

5 hours ago, LivinLOS said:

88 days !!! 

A METV is designed to stay for longer than 88 days though !!! 

It is designed to enable frequent visits for 6 months with a maximum stay of 60 days per visit. I see no difference between someone using 3 SETV's or someone using a METV if both stay a cumulative 180 days.

[swineninety9]

Anyone ever considered that IO's might have a quota of people they have to deny everyday??? Or conversely, a quota of people who fit a certain criteria for refusal, but a certain number they can make exceptions? Also, seems like a lot of these denial stories the OP says "I'm staying with a Thai girl." Seems to be a common story.

[elviajero]

8 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

Quote

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.

They have gone back over a year to get to a total 180 days in some reported cases.  Some interrogations have involved stays over 6 months in the past.  It seems to be "A visitor who has shown a propensity to stick around," which is the trigger.

Exactly. As I have said before in almost all cases the underlying reason behind anyone being denied entry is the cumulative time spent in the country. The IO's then use whatever other (usually legit) reason that fits to deny entry.

[elviajero]

11 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

Quote

The METV is not designed for people to 'live' in the country for 6 months. It is designed for people to be able to visit frequently for 6 months -- a big difference -- and was specifically aimed at the Asian market. 

If they designed it specifically as you describe, it would not grant 60-days on entry, and could have had an "out x-days between entries" provision included.  It was designed for short-term Asian-market visitors - yes, but also for the longer-staying folks from further away, who formerly used the 2x and 3x entry Tourist Visas, which were withdrawn at the same time. 

The 2x and 3x entry visas weren't meant to be used to stay in the country for months/years either. You've enough proof of that with all the changes made over the last 12 years.

 

You are looking at the METV back to front. If it were meant for someone to be able to stay/live in the country for 6 months it would have permission to stay for 6 months on entry. It is a ME visa to allow visitors the ability to frequently visit for 6 months. Nothing more. The fact that westerners use it to stay long term and the authorities, to date, mostly tolerate that practice doesn't change it's function in the visa system.

 

If embassies/consulates keep selling these visas back to back, and the practice of using the visa to 'live' in the country increases, you will see it getting clamped down, as they did with the 2x and 3x TR's.

[MaksimMislavsky]

13 minutes ago, swineninety9 said:

Also, seems like a lot of these denial stories the OP says "I'm staying with a Thai girl." Seems to be a common story.

This. Exactly. The claim of staying with Thai girl that doesn't help anything, to say the least, IMO.

[JackThompson]

20 minutes ago, swineninety9 said:

Anyone ever considered that IO's might have a quota of people they have to deny everyday??? Or conversely, a quota of people who fit a certain criteria for refusal, but a certain number they can make exceptions? Also, seems like a lot of these denial stories the OP says "I'm staying with a Thai girl." Seems to be a common story.

The reaction to having a Thai gf/wife varies wildly.  Some Thais think it is a good thing - others don't.  I discovered this "amphoe shopping" to get married to my now-wife.  Some had "no can do for American" barriers to marriage, but the one we ended up using was run by a farang-friendly director.  Similar issues at immigration-offices.

 

So, when going through immigration, this could be a roulette-wheel - with best odds of a positive reaction being in areas of the country such as Issan (excepting Poipet) and the far-North.

[gk10002000]

So, how does the OP support himself?  Just showing up with 20k baht is nice for a short term vacation, but if asked what is his job, what is his occupation, what is his source of income, how did he answer?  Just having gotten a visa, by hook or by crook, doesn't mean one can pass the final IO check. 

[JackThompson]

13 minutes ago, elviajero said:

The 2x and 3x entry visas weren't meant to be used to stay in the country for months/years either. You've enough proof of that with all the changes made over the last 12 years.

 

You are looking at the METV back to front. If it were meant for someone to be able to stay/live in the country for 6 months it would have permission to stay for 6 months on entry. It is a ME visa to allow visitors the ability to frequently visit for 6 months. Nothing more. The fact that westerners use it to stay long term and the authorities, to date, mostly tolerate that practice doesn't change it's function in the visa system.

 

If embassies/consulates keep selling these visas back to back, and the practice of using the visa to 'live' in the country increases, you will see it getting clamped down, as they did with the 2x and 3x TR's.

You say "weren't designed to..." - but I do not see evidence they were designed not to permit repeat-use.  If the authorities wanted the limits you describe, they could have included these in their initial rules-making process, or added them as Police-Orders since.  They didn't and haven't. 

 

Because of that fact, it would appear that some within the hierarchy do not agree with the hardliners, and do not oppose people spending more time-in-total in the country on repeat Tourist Entries.  The hardliners do not have power to make the rules - but can influence them, and do control some offices and entry-points, which are run as independent fiefdoms.

 

This goes back to what I wrote about amphurs, above - wildly different attitudes from one to the other.  The hierarchy of Thailand is divided on the issue of foreigners here.  This explains the inconsistencies.  We are caught in the middle.

[JackThompson]

1 minute ago, gk10002000 said:

So, how does the OP support himself?  Just showing up with 20k baht is nice for a short term vacation, but if asked what is his job, what is his occupation, what is his source of income, how did he answer?  Just having gotten a visa, by hook or by crook, doesn't mean one can pass the final IO check. 

He showed 160K Baht + in the bank minimum-balance for 5 months, plus employment and/or income just to qualify to get an METV - plus had to travel to his home country and apply at an official-consulate (not honorary consulate) to apply for it.  You would think that would be enough, in addition to complying with the "show 20K in cash" rule (which applies to any Visa-based entry).

 

As to showing proof of more than that to immigration, to spite having already pre-qualified with the MFA, others report (Bangkok airports) that the IOs refused to even look at proof of their bank-money, income-streams / non-Thai businesses, etc.