How difficult is Poipet for visa free entry

[habss]

About me:  Norwegian living in Norway and in Siem reap

                 First land entry in 2018, two land entries In 2017

                 Will have 20000 baht for my Cambodian partner and same for me

                  Have also flown into Thailand three times this year

                  Average stay 4 days, so we’ll under 30 calendar days per year.

                  Have a Bangkok hotel booked for 3 nights, do not have return (bus) ticket.

                  This is for an unimportant leisure trip.

 

important :   I can live with a rejection, but a ban would hurt, my son and I have chronic conditions and accessing thai hospitals in emergencies is critical.

 

 

Do I need to be concerned or cancel the trip?  I can’t think of what reason they would have for denial of entry.   If they do refuse entry, should I go same day by taxi to the closest other border?  Is there any risk whatsoever of being banned?

 

thank you

[ubonjoe]

Since you apparently have been out of the country for more than a day or two you should not have a problem entering the country to get a 30 day visa exempt entry or for your partner to get a 14 day entry.

[jackdd]

There is no risk to be banned, the only problem can be that they don't let you in for any reason they can come up with (they even have a legal reason in your case, because you are required to have a booked ticket out of Thailand to get a visa exempt, this is normally just not enforced) to extort money from you. Just use any other entry point, why risk problems?

Edited December 25, 2018 by jackdd

[elviajero]

2 hours ago, jackdd said:

There is no risk to be banned, the only problem can be that they don't let you in for any reason they can come up with (they even have a legal reason in your case, because you are required to have a booked ticket out of Thailand to get a visa exempt, this is normally just not enforced) to extort money from you. Just use any other entry point, why risk problems?

@habssThere is no problem using this crossing if traveling from Cambodia. It is people doing visa runs or long term tourists that are having issues.

 

You cannot be denied entry “legally” for not having a booked ticket.

 

2 hours ago, habss said:

Do I need to be concerned or cancel the trip?  I can’t think of what reason they would have for denial of entry.

No. There is no reason for them to deny entry.

Edited December 25, 2018 by elviajero

[jackdd]

4 minutes ago, elviajero said:

You cannot be denied entry “legally” for not having a booked ticket.

Not the usual "denied entry" that we sometimes see here with a stamp stating a reason of immigration act section 12, but they could refuse to give him a visa exempt because he doesn't have a booked ticket out, and then he will not be let in because it is like he showed up at the border without a visa.

 

This is btw. the same reason why people here always recommend to people who spend extended time in Thailand to get a tourist visa and not arrive with a visa exempt at Bangkok airports, because an immigration officer does indeed have discretion when giving somebody a visa exempt. But when somebody arrives with a tourist visa, the immigration officer can only legally deny him for one of the reasons listed in the immigration act and doesn't have further discretion.

[BritTim]

9 hours ago, habss said:

Do I need to be concerned or cancel the trip?

There is no chance that you would be blacklisted from entering Thailand in the future. Thai immigration at Poipet/Aran might decide to deny you entry, but I do not think it probable.

 

Please, whatever happens, report on your experience. You seem to have a lot of visa exempt entries over the last few years. Even though they have been for short visits, it is conceivable that immigration will use that as an excuse to deny you entry.

[JackThompson]

With your history, a rejection even at Poipet (the worst crossing into Thailand) is unlikely.  If concerned - coming from Siam Reap, the Chong Chom crossing is another option to the North, as well as Ban Laem to the South.  Both are approximately the same added-distance to your trip, to avoid Poipet.  All Thai entry-points from Cambodia except Poipet are generally friendly, reasonable, and law-abiding. 

[Tayaout]

I'm from Canada and did it 2 months ago. It was my first time crossing by land. I tried to comeback the same day but some officer told it was not possible and I did not insist. I thought about going after midnight but the border is closed at night. The next day, I was there early. They put me aside, asked to see onward plane ticket and 10,000 bath. I booked a ticket to Laos online and the officer told me I should marry my girlfriend then let me go. They seems to automatically questions every border runner unless you use an agency. I don't have any tattoo and look clean. I stayed very polite but it felt like an horrible experience. 

 

The next month, I used a minivan visa service and it was cheaper, faster and much more easier.

Edited December 26, 2018 by Tayaout

[BritTim]

32 minutes ago, Tayaout said:

The next month, I used a minivan visa service and it was cheaper, faster and much more easier.

The visa run services these days all avoid Poipet. Apart from some annoying scams sometimes on the Cambodian side, there is no problem at other border crossings.

[thecyclist]

Virtually zero chance of getting blacklisted unless you cause a scene. Not very likely that you will be denied entry. If questioned, explain your situation (that you live in Cambodia, Thai entries short and usually for medical Tourism). 

You are not adding much distance wise by going via Pailin/Ban Pakkard(a crossing that is even better than Ban Laem :no queuing up there, usually you are through immigration in 5 minutes.)much more scenic around there than the flat and boring Poipet/Sa Kaeo region. 

[elviajero]

22 hours ago, jackdd said:

23 hours ago, elviajero said:

You cannot be denied entry “legally” for not having a booked ticket.

Not the usual "denied entry" that we sometimes see here with a stamp stating a reason of immigration act section 12, but they could refuse to give him a visa exempt because he doesn't have a booked ticket out, and then he will not be let in because it is like he showed up at the border without a visa.

They would not be denying entry because the visitor didn't have a booked ticket. The underlying reason 'tourists' get denied is the time spent in the country as a 'tourist' and that clearly shouldn't be a concern for the OP.

 

Every tourist is 'expected' to have and onward ticket, because that's what a 'typical tourist' would have, but there is no law/regulation that makes it compulsory, or law/regulation allowing immigration to deny entry for not having one.

 

If the visitor had - in the opinion of the IO - spent too long in the country as a 'tourist' and/or was suspected of working they would be denied entry under 12.2 or 12.3 or 12.9. As part of considering whether or not to let the 'tourist' in they are supposed to - based on guidance issued in 2014 - look for things like hotel bookings and onward tickets because that's what a 'genuine tourist' would be expected to have.

Simply put - on it's own - not having an onward ticket is not a lawful reason for denying entry, neither is it a reason immigration would look to deny entry. No onward ticket makes the long term tourist look less like a genuine tourist and more like someone trying to live/work in the country, which increases the chance of being denied entry for not having the appropriate means to stay long term (12.2), or suspicion of work (12.3), or not having 'pocket money' (12.9).

[elviajero]

On 12/25/2018 at 11:46 AM, jackdd said:

This is btw. the same reason why people here always recommend to people who spend extended time in Thailand to get a tourist visa and not arrive with a visa exempt at Bangkok airports, because an immigration officer does indeed have discretion when giving somebody a visa exempt. But when somebody arrives with a tourist visa, the immigration officer can only legally deny him for one of the reasons listed in the immigration act and doesn't have further discretion.

This is wrong. The IO has exactly the same discretionary power to deny entry to a visa holder as they do if visa exempt.

[jackdd]

24 minutes ago, elviajero said:

They would not be denying entry because the visitor didn't have a booked ticket. [...]

 

Every tourist is 'expected' to have and onward ticket, because that's what a 'typical tourist' would have, but there is no law/regulation that makes it compulsory, or law/regulation allowing immigration to deny entry for not having one. 

[...]

Simply put - on it's own - not having an onward ticket is not a lawful reason for denying entry, neither is it a reason immigration would look to deny entry.

What you say is just wrong.

I'm quite sure you have heard that you may be denied boarding a plane to Thailand if you don't have a visa (or re entry permit) and no onwards flight. The airlines didn't make this up by themself, that's an official rule to get a visa exempt, of course it's not always enforced, but an easy option to not let somebody enter Thailand if they want to.

Here two more official sources stating the requirement of proof for onward travel:

https://th.usembassy.gov/thai-immigrations-enforcement-thai-visa-exemption-policy/

http://supibee.thaiembassyuk.org.uk/?q=node/188

 

21 minutes ago, elviajero said:

This is wrong. The IO has exactly the same discretionary power to deny entry to a visa holder as they do if visa exempt.

No it's not the same, for the reason that i explained before already, maybe you should read it again.

And if you still disagree you should explain why you disagree with my argumentation.

Edited December 26, 2018 by jackdd

[JackThompson]

44 minutes ago, jackdd said:

No it's not the same, for the reason that i explained before already, maybe you should read it again.

And if you still disagree you should explain why you disagree with my argumentation.

To add to your point - there is a current Police Order limiting Visa Exempt use, which does not apply to those holding a Tourist Visa.  "Out/In" runs are specifically cited in that Police Order.  As well, Visa-Exempts are granted by Immigration, not the MFA. 

 

Of course, if the IO has a valid reason to deny entry under the Immigration Act, this would apply to anyone on any visa-type - SETV, METV, Non-O, Non-OA, Elite, Non-B, etc - with none given any preference over the other, since the visitor is either in violation of the Act (per the limited legal reasons for denial of entry: no-cash, too-poor, working a Thai job, etc) or they are not.  The visa-type should not make any difference - what was issued being the MFAs business.

 

Even whether the visa, itself, allows work is irrelevant, since the issue regarding working a Thai job would there would be whether the visitor has a work-permit or not.  If there is evidence the person is working a Thai job, a work-permit could be requested, and failure to produce it would get a rejected-entry, even if with a Non-B Visa (and this has been reported as occurring).

Edited December 26, 2018 by JackThompson

[JackThompson]

6 hours ago, thecyclist said:

Virtually zero chance of getting blacklisted unless you cause a scene. Not very likely that you will be denied entry. If questioned, explain your situation (that you live in Cambodia, Thai entries short and usually for medical Tourism). 

You are not adding much distance wise by going via Pailin/Ban Pakkard(a crossing that is even better than Ban Laem :no queuing up there, usually you are through immigration in 5 minutes.)much more scenic around there than the flat and boring Poipet/Sa Kaeo region. 

Coming from Phnom Penh, not much further (just divert at Battambang) - but from Siam Reap, it is well out of the way.

 

10 hours ago, BritTim said:

The visa run services these days all avoid Poipet. Apart from some annoying scams sometimes on the Cambodian side, there is no problem at other border crossings.

One small scam on the Thai side, entering at Ban Laem - the "sale" of TM-6 forms for 100 Baht next to the entry-point.  One needs to go ask an IO for a form, if not buying one.  Maybe some good-will comes from buying into this little racket - so if entering visa-exempt, might be worth it.

[elviajero]

11 minutes ago, jackdd said:

What you say is just wrong.

I'm quite sure you have heard that you may be denied boarding a plane to Thailand if you don't have a visa (or re entry permit) and no onwards flight. The airlines didn't make this up by themself, that's an official rule to get a visa exempt, of course it's not always enforced, but an easy option to not let somebody enter Thailand if they want to.

Here two more official sources stating the requirement of proof for onward travel:

https://th.usembassy.gov/thai-immigrations-enforcement-thai-visa-exemption-policy/

http://supibee.thaiembassyuk.org.uk/?q=node/188

Show me one single report from someone claiming they were told they were being denied entry formally or informally because they didn't have an onward flight!

 

The ONLY reason some airlines insist that the passenger has an onward flight is because; should the passenger be denied entry it is that airlines responsibility - under Thai law - to fly them back out.

 

17 minutes ago, jackdd said:

35 minutes ago, elviajero said:

This is wrong. The IO has exactly the same discretionary power to deny entry to a visa holder as they do if visa exempt.

No it's not the same, for the reason that i explained before already, maybe you should read it again.

And if you still disagree you should explain why you disagree with my argumentation.

I understand what you wrote, and it's wrong for the reason I have given. The powers are exactly the same. If a back to back SETV holder didn't have an onward flight they too would be under greater scrutiny and the chances of being denied entry would be greater. You will/can only be denied under section 12 of the immigration act and those reasons are exactly the same whether entering with or without a visa. The only exception is when they set specific limits through regulation such as the two visa exempt limit by land. They would then use 12.1 or 12.10 to 'formally' deny entry, or more likely just turn the person away.

[elviajero]

31 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

To add to your point - there is a current Police Order limiting Visa Exempt use, which does not apply to those holding a Tourist Visa.  "Out/In" runs are specifically cited in that Police Order.  As well, Visa-Exempts are granted by Immigration, not the MFA. 

TIB/MOI decided to limit visas exempt entries, under regulation allowed by the immigration act, to two per year by land as part of the ongoing clampdown. No "police order" was issued. A public announcement was made by immigration.

 

Entry - under visa exempt OR with a visa - is granted by immigration. The MFA have nothing to do with immigration or visa issuance policy. 

[jackdd]

32 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Show me one single report from someone claiming they were told they were being denied entry formally or informally because they didn't have an onward flight! 

 

The ONLY reason some airlines insist that the passenger has an onward flight is because; should the passenger be denied entry it is that airlines responsibility - under Thai law - to fly them back out.

 

I understand what you wrote, and it's wrong for the reason I have given. The powers are exactly the same. If a back to back SETV holder didn't have an onward flight they too would be under greater scrutiny and the chances of being denied entry would be greater. You will/can only be denied under section 12 of the immigration act and those reasons are exactly the same whether entering with or without a visa. The only exception is when they set specific limits through regulation such as the two visa exempt limit by land. They would then use 12.1 or 12.10 to 'formally' deny entry, or more likely just turn the person away.

I wonder a bit what changed your mind, here a post from yourself from a few months ago where you said yourself that they have discretion when issuing a visa exempt:

On 4/15/2018 at 5:54 AM, elviajero said:

It clearly states in 12.1 that visa exempt entry falls under ministerial registrations. Ministerial regulation gives immigration absolute discretion regarding the overuse/abuse of visa exempt entries. Section 22 clearly states that you can’t appeal against denied entries under 12.1.

I agree with what you said back then and disagree what you wrote now ????

 

17 minutes ago, elviajero said:

No "police order" was issued. A public announcement was made by immigration. 

Here is the police order which you claim doesn't exist:

https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/981135-laws-regulations-police-orders-etc/

"16. Immigration Bureau guideline 0029.1712076 - visa-exempt out-in checklist"

Edited December 26, 2018 by jackdd

[JackThompson]

13 minutes ago, elviajero said:

TIB/MOI decided to limit visas exempt entries, under regulation allowed by the immigration act, to two per year by land as part of the ongoing clampdown. No "police order" was issued. A public announcement was made by immigration.

Not just a "public announcement" - but public announcement of a "Ministerial Order" (not "police order" - sorry).  They cannot just change the rules willy-nilly.  The Prime Minister and Minister of the Interior signed off on this:

 

21 minutes ago, jackdd said:

...

 

https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/981135-laws-regulations-police-orders-etc/

"16. Immigration Bureau guideline 0029.1712076 - visa-exempt out-in checklist"

Also this, from 2014:
Immigration Bureau guideline 0029.1712076 - visa-exempt out-in checklist

That is where they discuss the term "visa run" with regard to out/ins, using Visa-Exempt entries - but the order only applies to "those entering who do not require a visa." 

 

13 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Entry - under visa exempt OR with a visa - is granted by immigration. The MFA have nothing to do with immigration or visa issuance policy. 

If the MFA weren't involved in Visa-qualification policy (really?), that is even more reason every Visa should be honored when entering, unless there is evidence of a specific violation which is listed in the Immigration Act.

 

If the powers that be wanted to include Tourist Visa entries for additional restrictions, as they have done with Visa-Exempt entries, in theory they could.  Even unspecific guidelines, such as in the 2014 order, could have been applied to Tourist Visas.  But, some persons in the decision-making process seem to disagree with that plan. 

[Fairynuff]

And so the bickering goes on. The OP was about using poipet. IMO Poipet is an absolute nightmare. I gave up in favour flying about 5 years ago.

[elviajero]

48 minutes ago, jackdd said:

1 hour ago, elviajero said:

No "police order" was issued. A public announcement was made by immigration. 

Here is the police order which you claim doesn't exist:

https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/981135-laws-regulations-police-orders-etc/

"16. Immigration Bureau guideline 0029.1712076 - visa-exempt out-in checklist"

That is not a police order, and has nothing to do with the two visa exempt entry limit. There's a clue in the title.

 

That is effectively a 'memo' that was issued in 2014 by the TIB to immigration offices/ers giving them guidance about how to deal with 'visa runners'.

 

The two entry limit came into effect on January 1st 2017 as part of the ongoing clampdown of 'visa runners'.

[elviajero]

58 minutes ago, jackdd said:

1 hour ago, elviajero said:

I understand what you wrote, and it's wrong for the reason I have given. The powers are exactly the same. If a back to back SETV holder didn't have an onward flight they too would be under greater scrutiny and the chances of being denied entry would be greater. You will/can only be denied under section 12 of the immigration act and those reasons are exactly the same whether entering with or without a visa. The only exception is when they set specific limits through regulation such as the two visa exempt limit by land. They would then use 12.1 or 12.10 to 'formally' deny entry, or more likely just turn the person away.

I wonder a bit what changed your mind, here a post from yourself from a few months ago where you said yourself that they have discretion when issuing a visa exempt:

On 4/14/2018 at 11:54 PM, elviajero said:

It clearly states in 12.1 that visa exempt entry falls under ministerial registrations. Ministerial regulation gives immigration absolute discretion regarding the overuse/abuse of visa exempt entries. Section 22 clearly states that you can’t appeal against denied entries under 12.1.

I agree with what you said back then and disagree what you wrote now ????

I haven't changed my mind on anything, and I don't see any contradiction between then and now.

 

I think you are confusing two separate events that have a visa exempt connection.

 

There was a specific clampdown on 'visa runners' started in 2014 by immigration that was made public via the MFA to foreign embassies etc.; whereby, IO's were asked to look hard at 'visa runners' and use their discretion - based on guidance issued by immigration - to determine if a 'visa runner' could re-enter. Anyone denied under this clampdown has been denied under 12.2 or 3 or 9 all of which are the same reasons TR visa holders get denied.

 

Then from January 2017 the authorities decided to limit the number of visa exempt entries by land to two per calendar year. That was a regulation issued by the MOI and announced in December 2016. If someone turns up at a land border and tries for a 3rd entry in a year they would be denied under 12.1 or 12.10/section 16. But in most cases the IO would probably just send them back to the neighbouring country. 

 

I hope that helps.

[elviajero]

1 hour ago, JackThompson said:

Quote

Entry - under visa exempt OR with a visa - is granted by immigration. The MFA have nothing to do with immigration or visa issuance policy. 

If the MFA weren't involved in Visa-qualification policy (really?), that is even more reason every Visa should be honored when entering, unless there is evidence of a specific violation which is listed in the Immigration Act.

The MFA is, in simple terms, just the public face of Thailand and publish immigration policy, keep foreign embassies etc. apprised of any major immigration policy, regulation or law changes.

 

The MFA make it clear on their website that visas aren't a guarantee of entry, and that any visa holder can be denied entry under section 12. I don't get your point.

 

Quote

If the powers that be wanted to include Tourist Visa entries for additional restrictions, as they have done with Visa-Exempt entries, in theory they could.  Even unspecific guidelines, such as in the 2014 order, could have been applied to Tourist Visas.  But, some persons in the decision-making process seem to disagree with that plan. 

The control of tourist visa issuance is supposed by fall on the consular staff that issue them. Evidenced by all the changes made since 2006.

IMO immigration do not want to deny entry to any visa holder. The authorities could apply strict limits, but clearly they don't want to. They have effectively forced long term tourists to use visas, and the consular staff are supposed to control visa issuance, and the IO is the last line of defence.

 

I don't see what is hard to understand.

Edited December 26, 2018 by elviajero

[dennis123]

From what you wrote it looks like you're a genuine tourist with all your short stays, shouldn't pose a problem.

[JackThompson]

9 hours ago, elviajero said:

There was a specific clampdown on 'visa runners' started in 2014 by immigration that was made public via the MFA to foreign embassies etc.; whereby, IO's were asked to look hard at 'visa runners' and use their discretion - based on guidance issued by immigration - to determine if a 'visa runner' could re-enter. Anyone denied under this clampdown has been denied under 12.2 or 3 or 9 all of which are the same reasons TR visa holders get denied.

That "Ministerial Order" specifically applied to Visa Exempt entries.  I linked to it above.  This is why one should absolutely not use Visa Exempt to enter the country if one has more "time-spent in-country" in the last couple years.  There is no corresponding order for Tourist Visas.

 

9 hours ago, elviajero said:

The MFA make it clear on their website that visas aren't a guarantee of entry, and that any visa holder can be denied entry under section 12. I don't get your point.

Of course they can deny if a person is in violation of the specific reasons cited in Section 12.  But they cannot legally reject for one reason, then stamp a different reason which is completely unsubstantiated, and not even brought up in questioning (where a "wrong answer," on finances for example, could be relevant evidence).

 

My point is, if Immigration are the ones creating the rules for the MFA, without even needing to compromise with others, then IOs should have Even Less Reason to reject-entry based on rules not present in the Ministerial Orders. 

 

9 hours ago, elviajero said:

IMO immigration do not want to deny entry to any visa holder. The authorities could apply strict limits, but clearly they don't want to. They have effectively forced long term tourists to use visas, and the consular staff are supposed to control visa issuance, and the IO is the last line of defence. 

 

I don't see what is hard to understand.

If Immigration create the rules for Visas single-handedly, they could add a rule via public, Ministerial Order stating:

 

"Tourists who have spent over X days in Y period in Thailand may, at the discretion of ... be refused-entry." 

 

... which would solve the question - creating a Valid Published Reason to Optionally reject on those grounds (not a "hard limit"), yet providing an exact period of time that people could Feel Absolutely Safe traveling to Thailand to spend their money. 

 

What is clear to me, is that the clique of IOs (and others) who want "time in country" limits on Tourist Visas are unable to get their way, so can only enforce this non-existent restriction at points of entry which they control.

Edited December 27, 2018 by JackThompson

[elviajero]

10 hours ago, JackThompson said:

20 hours ago, elviajero said:

There was a specific clampdown on 'visa runners' started in 2014 by immigration that was made public via the MFA to foreign embassies etc.; whereby, IO's were asked to look hard at 'visa runners' and use their discretion - based on guidance issued by immigration - to determine if a 'visa runner' could re-enter. Anyone denied under this clampdown has been denied under 12.2 or 3 or 9 all of which are the same reasons TR visa holders get denied.

That "Ministerial Order" specifically applied to Visa Exempt entries.  I linked to it above.  This is why one should absolutely not use Visa Exempt to enter the country if one has more "time-spent in-country" in the last couple years.  There is no corresponding order for Tourist Visas.

Again.... IT WAS NOT A MINISTERIAL ORDER, or regulation. Immigration simply announced, via the MFA, that they were going clamp down on "visa runners".

 

When they decide someone is a 'visa runner' they deny entry under 12.2, 3, or 9. Exactly the same reasons given if someone is denied entry with a tourist visa. 'Visa runners' will almost always legitimately qualify for at least one of those reasons.

 

10 hours ago, JackThompson said:

19 hours ago, elviajero said:

The MFA make it clear on their website that visas aren't a guarantee of entry, and that any visa holder can be denied entry under section 12. I don't get your point.

Of course they can deny if a person is in violation of the specific reasons cited in Section 12.  But they cannot legally reject for one reason, then stamp a different reason which is completely unsubstantiated, and not even brought up in questioning (where a "wrong answer," on finances for example, could be relevant evidence).

Of course they can!

 

Section 12.2 is a catch all and pretty much every long term tourist denied entry could be denied under 12.2. because they haven't the appropriate means of living in the country. 12.3 is entering to work which was/is the main aim of stopping 'visa runners'; hard to prove they're working, but there is nothing in immigration law that says proof is required. And 12.9 means they can be denied if not carrying the requisite pocket money.

 

10 hours ago, JackThompson said:

My point is, if Immigration are the ones creating the rules for the MFA, without even needing to compromise with others, then IOs should have Even Less Reason to reject-entry based on rules not present in the Ministerial Orders. 

Under the Thai visa system no visa gives pre-entry clearance and the final say is always with the IO. I don't see the issue with that. Genuine tourists will not have a problem entering. 'Visa runners' should know they are pushing their luck and can't complain when they get stopped.

 

10 hours ago, JackThompson said:

19 hours ago, elviajero said:

IMO immigration do not want to deny entry to any visa holder. The authorities could apply strict limits, but clearly they don't want to. They have effectively forced long term tourists to use visas, and the consular staff are supposed to control visa issuance, and the IO is the last line of defence. 

 

I don't see what is hard to understand.

If Immigration create the rules for Visas single-handedly, they could add a rule via public, Ministerial Order stating:

 

"Tourists who have spent over X days in Y period in Thailand may, at the discretion of ... be refused-entry." 

 

... which would solve the question - creating a Valid Published Reason to Optionally reject on those grounds (not a "hard limit"), yet providing an exact period of time that people could Feel Absolutely Safe traveling to Thailand to spend their money. 

That could work, but the main problem would be that the immigration system does not currently keep a count of the X days in Y period, so it would be hard to police. Just like the 90/180 day rule that was scrapped because IO's spent too much time checking through the passport to make a manual count.

 

10 hours ago, JackThompson said:

What is clear to me, is that the clique of IOs (and others) who want "time in country" limits on Tourist Visas are unable to get their way, so can only enforce this non-existent restriction at points of entry which they control.

I think you are seeing conspiracy where it doesn't exist. Your "clique' is countrywide and denials have been reported at most major entry points over the years.

 

Again, I don't understand why you want everyone to have an official time limit when only a few are getting denied. The few currently getting denied would be denied under your system or the current 'discretionary' system, so your change solves nothing.

[JackThompson]

 

44 minutes ago, elviajero said:

When they decide someone is a 'visa runner' they deny entry under 12.2, 3, or 9. Exactly the same reasons given if someone is denied entry with a tourist visa. 'Visa runners' will almost always legitimately qualify for at least one of those reasons.

The guideline/announcement/order or whatever you wish to call it, states that it applies to Visa-Exempts.  It does not apply to Tourist Visa holders.

 

44 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Of course they can!

 

Section 12.2 is a catch all and pretty much every long term tourist denied entry could be denied under 12.2. because they haven't the appropriate means of living in the country. 

If that is the case, then anyone on any visa should be denied entry under 12.2.  None have proven anything to immigration in-country to get their visas, immigration does not have to consider evidence at the entry-point, and immigration has determined the MFA's checks are irrelevant. 

 

A claim of not having "appropriate means of living in the country" is essentially a "Vagrancy" charge, which is proven-false by those targeted being successful "repeat customers" - still spending money as evidenced by their presence in front of the IO following a trip out to purchase another Visa.

 

44 minutes ago, elviajero said:

12.3 is entering to work which was/is the main aim of stopping 'visa runners'; hard to prove they're working, but there is nothing in immigration law that says proof is required.

Nor is there anything in the law that says "suspicion without proof" is acceptable.  The burden of proof is on immigration, unless they specify what one needs to show them in-advance - thus shifting the burden with a reasonable request.

 

Unless/until they specify specific documents/proofs we need to carry (and airlines should demand passengers have this), both of the above can only be enforced if Immigration has evidence of an infraction.

 

44 minutes ago, elviajero said:

And 12.9 means they can be denied if not carrying the requisite pocket money.

A pointless rule these days, but, at least they state what you need to show, so worry-free compliance is possible.

 

44 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Under the Thai visa system no visa gives pre-entry clearance and the final say is always with the IO. I don't see the issue with that. Genuine tourists will not have a problem entering. 'Visa runners' should know they are pushing their luck and can't complain when they get stopped.

If entering Visa-Exempt, those classified as "visa runners" doing "out/in" trips could be denied entry.  Those with a Tourist Visa are not subject to what is outlined in that document.

 

No one using valid Tourist Visas is pushing any luck, unless violating the terms by working a Thai job, overstaying, or literally too poor to pay for food and a room.  Those who have a track-record of stays in Thailand without breaking the law should have more good-credit - not less. 

 

Anyone preventing law-abiding visitors use of their MFA-supplied Visa, by making false-claims about them, is the criminal in this scenario. 

 

44 minutes ago, elviajero said:

That could work, but the main problem would be that the immigration system does not currently keep a count of the X days in Y period, so it would be hard to police. Just like the 90/180 day rule that was scrapped because IO's spent too much time checking through the passport to make a manual count.

Amazing they were doing that manually.  Anyone with decent IT skills could write that - would not even need a team.  But keep in mind, that 90/180 rule was only for Visa Exempts - same as the "out/in" language.  If imposed, any new rule would need to state what types of entries it applied to.

 

44 minutes ago, elviajero said:

I think you are seeing conspiracy where it doesn't exist. Your "clique' is countrywide and denials have been reported at most major entry points over the years.

Not that I have seen being reported at any land-borders other than Poipet, unless you go several years back.  And even then, those were sporadic events that quickly went away.  Nothing of this sort happening at CM Airport either, that I recall. 

 

If you are aware of IOs denying-entry to valid Visa holders at other entry-points, please let us know.  We need to warn potential victims to avoid those areas. 

 

44 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Again, I don't understand why you want everyone to have an official time limit when only a few are getting denied. The few currently getting denied would be denied under your system or the current 'discretionary' system, so your change solves nothing.

How many are not-reported here?  Those detained are not staying in those cells alone, plus add those "allowed to stay in the departure area," after being arbitrarily and illegally denied entry.

 

Thailand immigration had a horrible reputation with travelers, even before it got worse in recent years.  The damage to the country is twofold.  First, doing the lie-based denials of entry in the first place.  Second, by NOT providing a "no problem" baseline if they did decide to limit Tourist "time in country."  As things are now, with their greed/buyout/xenophobia/etc has them targeting snowbirds from Europe, the damage is going off the charts.

 

Of course, if they simply did not try to impose limits that do not exist in the law in the first place, this would be best for the country's citizens by far.  But a "safe within these limits" guideline would be far better than arbitrary rejections - which are designed to create a sense of fear.  That fear is not accidental.  That clique hates us, as anyone who has been treated like a piece of subhuman garbage by an IO knows is true - even if it was the relatively harmless "stare into the distance, with a facial-expression like they just puked, and throw the passport back at you" routine. 

 

Thank goodness most IOs at most checkpoints do not have this hate, and follow the law.  As well, some higher-ups appear to have been unwilling, thus far, to give the clique the new Ministerial Order they would need to change current legal procedures for the worse - making the "Poipet Treatment" go nationwide.

[jackdd]

3 hours ago, elviajero said:

Section 12.2 is a catch all and pretty much every long term tourist denied entry could be denied under 12.2. because they haven't the appropriate means of living in the country

I explained to you in another topic already that your interpretation of this section is just wrong. If you read the original Thai law you will see that this section is meant to refuse entry to people who are impoverished and don't have money to buy food / shelter, because the word which somebody translated into "means of living" actually translates into "basic needs" like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_needs

 

And another way to understand that your interpretation is wrong: If somebody spent an extended time in Thailand, made visa runs and so on, this in itself is prove already that he has the means to stay in Thailand, and an IO can not legally deny him entry. If the IO claims the foreigner funded his stay by illegally working in Thailand he should deny him for 12.3., but probably he is afraid that somebody might ask him for proof of this

 

I guess nearly every time somebody is denied entry under 12.2. it is unlawful by the IO, the problem is that nobody prosecutes them.

 

3 hours ago, elviajero said:

but there is nothing in immigration law that says proof is required

Is there any Thai law which explicitly says "proof is required"? It's just common sense that proof is required, that's how the justice system in most countries (even in Thailand) works.

If proof were not required it would say something like: If the competent officer suspects...

But it doesn't say this, so proof is required, if an IO denies somebody without having proof, this is unlawful

Edited December 27, 2018 by jackdd

[BritTim]

4 hours ago, elviajero said:

Section 12.2 is a catch all and pretty much every long term tourist denied entry could be denied under 12.2. because they haven't the appropriate means of living in the country. 12.3 is entering to work which was/is the main aim of stopping 'visa runners'; hard to prove they're working, but there is nothing in immigration law that says proof is required. And 12.9 means they can be denied if not carrying the requisite pocket money.

Since there is nothing in the Immigration Act that requires proof, they might just as well vary things sometimes by choosing another justification, such as 12 (4) or 12 (8). Section 12 (4) could be particularly useful as the Immigration Official is obviously not in a position to judge if the traveller has, say, leprosy, and it could theoretically be true.

[elviajero]

On 12/27/2018 at 5:52 PM, jackdd said:

On 12/27/2018 at 2:29 PM, elviajero said:

Section 12.2 is a catch all and pretty much every long term tourist denied entry could be denied under 12.2. because they haven't the appropriate means of living in the country

I explained to you in another topic already that your interpretation of this section is just wrong. If you read the original Thai law you will see that this section is meant to refuse entry to people who are impoverished and don't have money to buy food / shelter, because the word which somebody translated into "means of living" actually translates into "basic needs" like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_needs

And I explained to you in several threads that I am not interpreting anything. YOU ARE. I also quoted you the original Thai law with the official translation. I'm happy to explain the translation again.

 

You have zero credibility to claim that your 'interpretation' of the law is superior to immigration or the person that translated the act.

 

On 12/27/2018 at 5:52 PM, jackdd said:

And another way to understand that your interpretation is wrong: If somebody spent an extended time in Thailand, made visa runs and so on, this in itself is prove already that he has the means to stay in Thailand, and an IO can not legally deny him entry. If the IO claims the foreigner funded his stay by illegally working in Thailand he should deny him for 12.3., but probably he is afraid that somebody might ask him for proof of this

As I have explained. It is not just about being able to afford the stay (which is why they are not interested in seeing bank statements at the border). It's that you haven't an appropriate means to live/fund that stay. That would, of course, include the "impoverished".

 

Your interpretation is proven wrong by the reports from members that had cash on them, showed it to the IO, but were denied entry under 12.2. And the reason written in Thai or English that corresponds with the immigration act translation.

 

On 12/27/2018 at 5:52 PM, jackdd said:

I guess nearly every time somebody is denied entry under 12.2. it is unlawful by the IO, the problem is that nobody prosecutes them.

Unlawful in your opinion. The fact that it has been going on for years at many different border points by IO's with absolutely nothing to gain form denying entry, suggests your theory is wrong. And a long term tourist, probably the profile being denied, wouldn't have a leg to stand on if they appealed.