1 hour ago, JackThompson said:

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.

Yes, and this is all the matter of priorities and perspective. Your reasoning makes perfect sense in the Western perspective and I won't even try to disprove it.  But Thais probably have their priorities skewed towards the Bhutanese end of the spectrum (where they even have the Ministry of Happiness, afaik), and it is up to them. TiT. This is what is more or less behind my "theory" ???? 

 

And no, it doesn't justify arbitrary denial of entry to a legitimate visa holder abiding to written rules. I don't mean it, just to be clear.

 

Edited December 23, 20187 yr by MaksimMislavsky

1 hour ago, elviajero said:

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.

There are advantages in using an METV over SETVs.  In my case I made 3 trips to Thailand on one such visa each time staying less than 40 days.  I saved 2 trips to the consulate office but more importantly I saved 2 pages of my passport that was already running out of pages.  The IO don't even bother to look at me, he knew I don't live here.  My first trip in that visa was for 40 days, if it was less than 30 I would be in on visa exempt.

 

 

Edited December 23, 20187 yr by farangx

35 minutes ago, MaksimMislavsky said:

Thais probably have their priorities skewed towards the Bhutanese end of the spectrum (where they even have the Ministry of Happiness, afaik), and it is up to them. TiT. This is what is more or less behind my "theory" ???? 

Some do.  I think HM IX had the Thai version of that figured out with the "sustainability" principle - a very Buddhist middle-way solution.  But bootstrapping that system into place on family-farms takes some cash, and isn't a big ROI thing - more like insurance.

I've noticed a couple of posts mentioning the 180 days in a year rule. That law rule/law  was withdrawn years ago.

It doesn't exist/apply nowadays and I don't care who quotes it.

IT DOESN'T EXIST NOW.

7 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

But bootstrapping that system into place on family-farms takes some cash, and isn't a big ROI thing - more like insurance.

I'm no expert but my impression  is that, long-term, the sustainability/reasonable sufficiency principle proposed by HM should work pretty well, assuming that (fast) cash is not the only priority as ROI can come in non-monetary/non-material form, too. 

18 minutes ago, overherebc said:

I've noticed a couple of posts mentioning the 180 days in a year rule. That law rule/law  was withdrawn years ago.

It doesn't exist/apply nowadays and I don't care who quotes it.

IT DOESN'T EXIST NOW.

But it doesn't prevent an IO to quote it is a reason while stamping the rejectee's passport with "intention to work" as a basis to deny entry.

7 hours ago, jacko45k said:

Bit late on that aren't you?

You think? ????

2 hours ago, overherebc said:

I've noticed a couple of posts mentioning the 180 days in a year rule. That law rule/law  was withdrawn years ago.

It doesn't exist/apply nowadays and I don't care who quotes it.

IT DOESN'T EXIST NOW.

I have for some time suspected that the immigration officials get a notification when someone passes that threshold. Like the six visa exempt threshold, it would not be an instruction to deny entry, but would recommend increased scrutiny. Every official will tend to interpret that in their own way.

On 12/22/2018 at 8:59 PM, elviajero said:

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

You really say this a lot and I think you are wrong. This and a few other happenings does not prove it. I don’t believe the METV was JUST for ASEAN country people to come in and out. They should  have a better visa for that. I don’t care about that one blip you might post either about ASEAN/ METV . What about the 99++ percent of people who do use the METV for say 4, 5, 6 or 7 months to be tourists and don’t have problems.  As I mentioned semi - retired people , GAP year students , retired people who want to visit in and out of Thailand for 6 months, rich young people with free time etc etc..That NEVER have an issue with using METV’s this way ?  Instead of just repeating and repeating that you believe what it is for,  tell me why you think my reasons are incorrect for both people who are over and under 50?? Thanks. 

4 hours 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.

 

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.

No!!!! You are wrong. For 60 days at a time if needed!!! And very easy to extend 30 more if wanted! Why do you never say this?

4 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.

 

 

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?

Im curious, what did you write as 'occupation' on your entry card

10 hours ago, jackdd said:

No, they don't have this authority, they can only deny people for reasons outlined in the law and nothing else.

Why else would the IO tell OP that he can't make holiday more than 180 days in Thailand per year, but then give him a denied entry stamp stating the reason as "going to work in Thailand"?

Yes, they do have the authority to deny anyone entry to the country, whether you agree with it or not!  They are the ones who are given that authority when they are appointed to the job.

Edited December 23, 20187 yr by Just Weird

3 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

Yes, they do have the authority to deny anyone entry to the country, whether you agree with it or not!  They are the ones who are given that authority when they are appointed to the job.

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?

4 hours ago, JackThompson said:

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. 

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. 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.

 

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. 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.

 

4 hours ago, JackThompson said:

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.

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.

17 hours ago, MekkOne said:

I believe you didn't keep your cool and as result you've been turned away

Speculate much? 

Do you "believe" in Santa too?

 

Based on what, is your almighty judgement, o reader of crystal balls?

Because the guy is venting on a forum?

Silly.

 

If all forum members conducted themselves in front of IOs the way they behave on this forum, Thailand wouldn't have many visitors indeed.

 

Yawn. Next...

 

On 12/22/2018 at 10:19 PM, DrJack54 said:

No its not hard to understand, but apparently for some it is.  I have mate Klaus from Denmark. Anyway good luck.

Klaus is a Germanic name. Italy has a German-speaking minority in South Tyrol.

 

Back to the topic; I would just take the train, as others have suggested.

Edited December 23, 20187 yr by StayinThailand2much

1 hour 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?

Bump. Excellent questions. Anyone know definitely?

6 hours ago, JackThompson said:

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.

You're implying common sense here, but some Thai IOs follow random decisions based on expired laws, and/or their discretionary powers.

2 minutes ago, YogaVeg said:

Bump. Excellent questions. Anyone know definitely?

I don't know it definitely because i don't know any immigration police officer personally to ask stuff like this, but i'm quite sure that this is a rule of thumb estimation done by the IO

2 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?

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).

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

 

https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/378910/immigration-nz-staff-don-t-know-when-to-prioritise-cases-review

3 hours ago, alex8912 said:

You really say this a lot and I think you are wrong. This and a few other happenings does not prove it. I don’t believe the METV was JUST for ASEAN country people to come in and out. They should  have a better visa for that.

I have never said the METV was JUST for ASEAN country people.

 

It is a multiple entry visa to make it easy for any holder to visit as often as they want for 6 months.

 

They don’t have a better visa, hence the METV.

 

3 hours ago, alex8912 said:

I don’t care about that one blip you might post either about ASEAN/ METV . What about the 99++ percent of people who do use the METV for say 4, 5, 6 or 7 months to be tourists and don’t have problems.  

I doubt there are many people using the METV to live long term.

 

3 hours ago, alex8912 said:

As I mentioned semi - retired people , GAP year students , retired people who want to visit in and out of Thailand for 6 months, rich young people with free time etc etc..That NEVER have an issue with using METV’s this way ?  Instead of just repeating and repeating that you believe what it is for,  tell me why you think my reasons are incorrect for both people who are over and under 50?? Thanks. 

Immigration clearly don’t have a problem for some people staying long term. Profiling definitely comes in to it. Thailand has a very lax system and immigration have always selectively enforced it — mostly to our benefit. They almost always start to clampdown when numbers increase. The same will happen with METV use as/if it increases.

3 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?

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.

3 hours ago, alex8912 said:

No!!!! You are wrong. For 60 days at a time if needed!!! And very easy to extend 30 more if wanted! Why do you never say this?

I always say this. But it doesn’t change the fact that we are not supposed to live long term in the country as a tourist.

7 hours ago, mngmn said:

You think? ????

I think and I thunk. Irony is often missed here. ????

10 hours ago, JackThompson said:

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.

Because this has nothing to do with having money yes or no. This is related to living in Thailand on tourist visa.

4 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Because this has nothing to do with having money yes or no. This is related to living in Thailand on tourist visa.

And yet they stamped his denial of entry with the reason that "he attempted to enter the Kingdom to work".

 

So, if it is about living in Thailand on tourist visas, the Immigration Officer had no legal basis to deny entry for that reason and so made up an untrue reason.

 

 

12 hours ago, JackThompson said:

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. 

Indeed, it was only a short two or three years ago that triple entry visas obtained in your own country were treated as something of a gold standard among tourist visas. I had about six of them back to back (18 separate airport entries) with never a question from immigration. These were obtained easily with no documentation needed and at a much lower price than the subsequent METV, even though at the time using them felt like a retrograde development, due to the cessation of the much valued one year multiple non O/A (on basis of visiting friends and family).

 

It seems pretty lousy of immigration to deny entry to someone who has already jumped a much higher bar than was ever necessary in the past, I'm surprised so many people on here are endorsing their behaviour. 

1 minute ago, lamyai3 said:

It seems pretty lousy of immigration to deny entry to someone who has already jumped a much higher bar than was ever necessary in the past, I'm surprised so many people on here are endorsing their behaviour. 

I totally agree.

 

I have obtained METV's. The documentation is not straightforward. The visa has to obtained in one's home country and there are financial and employment thresholds to meet as well as flights and accommodation documentation to book and present. These require the applicant to show he or she has access to significant funds and has a reason to leave Thailand. In addition there is the fee of 5000 Baht plus appointment fee to pay.

 

All of these bars and obstacles should mean that the METV holders have their visa respected upon entry unless there is clear evidence that they are in breach of the law. e.g. a bag full of tools of their trade.

 

What has happened here is that an METV holder has been denied entry on a rule that was rescinded years ago and perhaps only applied to visa exempts (180 day rule) and then a reason stamped in his passport (illegal working) that was completely made up and untrue. If I was the OP, I would certainly feel hard done by.