Expelled no questions asked at Don Muang

[farangx]

31 minutes ago, Tayaout said:

Long shirt, black pants and leather shoes. Clean look and decontracted but no ties or coat. I'm confident it had 0 influence lol

Don't dress like you are trying to con them. ????

 

[JackThompson]

30 minutes ago, Tayaout said:

I think if I ever get back to Bangkok I will try to get the denied entry stamp reversed at Chang Wattana. 

 

Others have commented on this - but it is important to know why.  Do not expect anything approaching honest-dealings with immigration.  The same clique who ILLEGALLY blocked your legal entry have control of much of that division, as well as many amphoes and other parts of the government bureaucracy. 

 

Immigration is not like a government division in a country where rule-of-law exists.  The entire project is a cover for taking under-the-table money - enriching the corrupt within.  Every change to immigration rules are designed specifically to increase their illegal money revenues - including the latest changes under the new boss.  Quoting the law only makes criminals angry.

 

At one time, Chang Wattana was the one office where one could count on the published rules - and Only the published rules - being followed to obtain extensions.  Under the new boss, this has changed.  Many have begun reporting additional "unpublished requirements" for marriage-based extensions there.  Other offices have similar but varying ways of doing the same thing.

 

You can still work-around these, but be aware - you are not dealing with an honest system.  Even if the IO in front of you might have good intentions, their boss likely does not.  Expecting an honest-system will lead to what I encountered, when I walked head-first into it, thinking they gave a (bleep) if I was honest and qualified or not.  They don't.

 

All that said, I love my Thai wife and living in Thailand.  There are ways to deal with it - for now, at least.  The good folks here can help you out with those steps when/if you encounter problems later. 

 

As to the people who blame you for following the law as written - just ignore them.   We can only guess why foreigners would snuggle-up under the leathery-wing of evil, but sycophants to power often do this.  They seem to think it is "cool" that some bureaucrat in a uniform can get away with lying and messing with people, and have changed their justifications for the increasing harsh-treatment of foreigners to suit whatever the (deleted) have done next.

 

Good luck at Friendship Bridge.

[Caldera]

OP, could you share with us what reasons for denial they stamped your passport with?

 

Best of luck when attempting to enter overland! You will probably be fine.

[Essecola]

Unending government issues in TH throughout many years. I spent a lot of money here and will be taking my funds somewhere else barring something stable popping up. Not recommending India, but at least they are decent enough to have clear rules that state visitors are allowed maximum of 180 days in a calendar year. Here there is no way at all to even make a halfways clear plan. Funny they don't like us. I come from a city that is more than half Asian immigrants. We have all heard the "go home if you don't like it" jingle, but when I go home, an Asian person checks my passport, and once on the street, and I am still a minority in the place my predecessors built and developed. I wonder if Thai people will ever return from a trip abroad and have their passport and baggage checked by a westerner. Oops, NEVER. These countries over here don't subscribe to diversity you see, not even if we are a tiny % (nearly 1.0-1.5%) and only spending money (as opposed to working).

[Elkski]

1 hour ago, myshem said:

You were lucky to come from Laos. It's always smarter to fly from neighboor country. Idiots are sent back to EU or US.

 

Please explain how I'm an idiot or at what point I am at risk to fly direct to BKK from USA? 7 times in 3 yesrs no issues yet.  But I have not pushed the 90 days in 180 yet.  Longest stay was 59 days and then  6o days out.   5 trips 1 month or less.  

 

PS you idiots who don't read the thread and then comment should be banned fir a week.   The op had 200,000 baht cash.  I would worry to tell the &$#+& crooks I had so much cash.  

 

Plus why would a tourist dress up to visit Thailand.  Why wouldn't casual clothes look better?  

Edited March 8, 2019 by Elkski

[Pravda]

5 hours ago, Tayaout said:

Im aware of this and was planning to deposit the money needed in my Bangkok bank account for wedding visa next week. However if I knew that for some reason they would not let me back (with a real visa this time) then I would simply wait at the beach in Malaysia and not bother going to Vientiane then getting deported back there. 

 

What ever you do, don't bring your future Thai wife to Quebec.

[Tayaout]

15 minutes ago, Caldera said:

OP, could you share with us what reasons for denial they stamped your passport with?

 

Best of luck when attempting to enter overland! You will probably be fine.

 

[JustAnotherHun]

Is there any european or other western country where foreigners can live on tourist visas a year or two in a row? I don't think so.

Even with the new rules and individual farang-hating IOs Thailand is a much easier place to stay for foreigenrs than most other countries I know.

[Tayaout]

3 minutes ago, JustAnotherHun said:

Is there any european or other western country where foreigners can live on tourist visas a year or two in a row? I don't think so.

Even with the new rules and individual farang-hating IOs Thailand is a much easier place to stay for foreigenrs than most other countries I know.

I agree but everywhere I went the rules were clear and I was never questioned even when staying the maximum of day and coming back the minimum time required. 

[Tayaout]

12 minutes ago, Pravda said:

 

What ever you do, don't bring your future Thai wife to Quebec.

I don't even have plan to bring myself to Quebec. I have been on travel for over 5 years... 

Edited March 8, 2019 by Tayaout

[JustAnotherHun]

3 minutes ago, Tayaout said:

I agree but everywhere I went the rules were clear and I was never questioned even when staying the maximum of day and coming back the minimum time required. 

Your case is imho an extreme one and you are right complaining about the lack of rules. Good luck to you at the land border. I hope you'll be with your girlfriend again very soon!

[yuiop]

15 minutes ago, Elkski said:

Please explain how I'm an idiot or at what point I am at risk to fly direct to BKK from USA? 7 times in 3 yesrs no issues yet.  But I have not pushed the 90 days in 180 yet.  Longest stay was 59 days and then  6o days out.   5 trips 1 month or less.  

 

PS you idiots who don't read the thread and then comment should be banned fir a week.   The op had 200,000 baht cash.  I would worry to tell the &$#+& crooks I had so much cash.  

 

Plus why would a tourist dress up to visit Thailand.  Why wouldn't casual clothes look better?  

Cool, but you still don't understand that this rule does NOT exist|

[ubonjoe]

Was this a 2 or 9 that you erased. That is the clause number under section 12 of the immigration act you were denied entry for.

 

"2. Having no appropriate means of living following entrance into the Kingdom.

9. Having no money or bond as prescribed by the Minister under him"

Nine is for not showing 20k baht.

 

 

[Slipperyone]

13 minutes ago, JustAnotherHun said:

Is there any european or other western country where foreigners can live on tourist visas a year or two in a row? I don't think so.

Even with the new rules and individual farang-hating IOs Thailand is a much easier place to stay for foreigenrs than most other countries I know.

In western countries Ie this case New Zealand more likely to be called Visitor Visa . My Thai gf has had 9 visitor visas totalling 5 years

[Tayaout]

11 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

Was this a 2 or 9 that you erased. That is the clause number under section 12 of the immigration act you were denied entry for.

 

"2. Having no appropriate means of living following entrance into the Kingdom.

9. Having no money or bond as prescribed by the Minister under him"

Nine is for not showing 20k baht.

 

 

2

It means they think I'm working illegally? 

 

Edit: I ask the other guy and he has both a 2 and a 9.

Edited March 8, 2019 by Tayaout

[JackThompson]

15 minutes ago, JustAnotherHun said:

Is there any european or other western country where foreigners can live on tourist visas a year or two in a row? I don't think so.

Even with the new rules and individual farang-hating IOs Thailand is a much easier place to stay for foreigenrs than most other countries I know.

This is not a high-wage European or Western country.  The only reason the official unemployment rate here is low, is because Thais have farms to go back to (and be poor there) when they don't have a decent job on offer. 

 

Thailand is a country where each self-funded foreigner here literally manifests the paychecks of several Thais into existence.  There are many countries where this is the case, and Thailand is in the tiny minority who don't welcome our being here to spend.
 

4 minutes ago, yuiop said:

Cool, but you still don't understand that this rule does NOT exist|

Not only is there no such legal rule, we have no idea what "made up" criteria are being used.  The conditions for the repeated reports of interrogations and denied-entries are all over the map in terms of time-spent. 

 

As a result, I would not be confident that staying shy of "90-days per 180 days" as a Tourist is safe to enter at the lawless entry-points.  Maybe it is.  Who knows?  They don't operate in a sane manner.  There are no actual "rules" in play.  Denying someone like the OP makes no sense at all.

[JackThompson]

10 minutes ago, Tayaout said:

2

It means they think I'm working illegally? 

 

Edit: I ask the other guy and he has both a 2 and a 9.

They saw you were well-dressed, so didn't bother asking to see 20K Baht (rule #9), as that would have only weakened their case.  The other guy, they probably asked, and he didn't have it to show (in cash - on plastic doesn't count). 

 

What "they really think" is not the issue at hand.  They lie as part of their job per orders of the boss of that entry-point.  They "really" denied your entry because the clique that runs that entry point hates farangs, and don't want us "sticking around" too long.  

 

But, as there is no "legal reason" to deny for that reason, they cover up their crime using an "official" reason - #2 in your case - which is a "catch-all"  They claim you don't have enough money to fund your full stay, while not providing any method/opportunity for you to show otherwise. 

 

If applied consistently, no Tourist could ever enter Thailand, based on their application of rule #2 to you.

[metempsychotic]

6 hours ago, dbrenn said:

200k is a lot of cash to be carrying around. Most tourists use a combination of cash and cards.

 

Could such a large cash amount have made them suspicious that they were ill-gotten gains, or otherwise 'untouristlike' behaviour?

6000 USD and change, it's not that much, in the grand scheme of things, and he has stated his reasons for crying it. Deposit for marriage visa.. 

[ubonjoe]

14 minutes ago, Tayaout said:

2

It means they think I'm working illegally? 

Not really. That one is a common one they use since it is hard to prove.

This is the one for that.

"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."

[elviajero]

33 minutes ago, Tayaout said:

2

It means they think I'm working illegally? 

 

Edit: I ask the other guy and he has both a 2 and a 9.

No. That would be (3).

 

(2) is a catch all clause that they can use in cases like yours. You don’t have the appropriate means of living long term in the country. Appropriate being a job, proven foreign income, certified cash in the bank.

 

They do often use (2) & (9. (9) is for not having the required 20K, which they couldn’t of used for you as you had more than 20K on you.

Edited March 8, 2019 by elviajero

[Briggsy]

Yes, the Thai says mai mee patjai yangcheep, no means of supporting yourself. Since the SETV is not means tested or underpinned by financial proof, this is the one they regularly use for long stayers.

[lazygourmet]

1 hour ago, farangx said:

Don't dress like you are trying to con them. ????

 

My thoughts, exactly... 

Classic timesharing tout or boiler room guy attirement.

[ryane66]

1 hour ago, JustAnotherHun said:

Is there any european or other western country where foreigners can live on tourist visas a year or two in a row? I don't think so.

Even with the new rules and individual farang-hating IOs Thailand is a much easier place to stay for foreigenrs than most other countries I know.

Mexico, 6 month tourist visa. Out for a day and in for another 6 months.

I lived in the Philippines for over 2 years. Every 2 months filled out a form and got a new stamp. Never had to leave.

Edited March 8, 2019 by ryane66

[JackThompson]

27 minutes ago, Briggsy said:

Yes, the Thai says mai mee patjai yangcheep, no means of supporting yourself. Since the SETV is not means tested or underpinned by financial proof, this is the one they regularly use for long stayers.

Then it would apply to all on a tourist-visa - especially newcomers, with no history of funding previous stays.  Also ED - where the embassy doesn't even ask to see 20K Baht, tickets - nada.

 

42 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Appropriate being a job, proven foreign income, certified cash in the bank.

If that were needed, the consulates would ask for it when one applies for a Tourist Visa, as they do for some other types. 

Where is "appropriate" defined as you describe?  

How is "200K Baht worth of cash to spend" not "appropriate?" 

How would any person arriving with a Tourist Visa - 1st time or 50th time - (or ED, or Non-O) - possibly meet such a standard? 

 

Before, the justification was, "20K isn't enough for the whole stay," hence the excuse of the 12.2 stamp.  The OP had 200K, so that doesn't fit.  There was also the made-up 180-day rule, rationalized by tax-laws and/or old/defunct visa-exempt rules.  Now, the goalposts have moved again. 

 

Who invents these ever-evolving talking points to justify immigration's shifting policies, to spite no change to the law they are purported to uphold?  Does a PR-outfit working for the anti-farang brigade (or agents, or elite-visa crew) send out a morning-email, with the latest "just say this" justifications for these criminal denials-of-entry and the other abuses of expats? 

[elviajero]

23 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

55 minutes ago, Briggsy said:

Yes, the Thai says mai mee patjai yangcheep, no means of supporting yourself. Since the SETV is not means tested or underpinned by financial proof, this is the one they regularly use for long stayers.

Then it would apply to all on a tourist-visa - especially newcomers, with no history of funding previous stays.  Also ED - where the embassy doesn't even ask to see 20K Baht, tickets - nada.

Why would they! They don’t have a problem with typical tourists holidaying short term in the country and going home. And don’t require that group to prove anything beyond pocket money.

 

The issue is with people using VE/TR’s to live in the country (months/years) that haven’t provided the appropriate means of living,

 

Long term tourists are abusing the use of VE/TR’s regardless of any published limits. And I’ve explained to you many times why they don’t currently publish limits.

 

The OP is evidently — and by his own admission — not a tourist.

[DrJack54]

45 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Why would they! They don’t have a problem with typical tourists holidaying short term in the country and going home. And don’t require that group to prove anything beyond pocket money.

 

The issue is with people using VE/TR’s to live in the country (months/years) that haven’t provided the appropriate means of living,

 

Long term tourists are abusing the use of VE/TR’s regardless of any published limits. And I’ve explained to you many times why they don’t currently publish limits.

 

The OP is evidently — and by his own admission — not a tourist.

Exactly why I have one person on ignore list. In my day we called it "a broken record". If I wanted to live here well under 50, I would buy an elite visa. 

[A1Str8]

You were denied coz of the tourist visa not the money. Enter at another point, like the one suggested by the moderator and show the proof that you have sufficient funds etc.

[yourauntbob]

Immigration at Don Muang seems to be getting worse.  Fly in last saturday and it took forever for each person to get through the cue.  When i took my turn the woman at the counter almost didnt let me through because she didnt recognize my address.  I spend 3 months here a year and the other 9 back in the States.  Even so they gave me a hard time just getting through.  

[Nyezhov]

2 hours ago, ryane66 said:

Mexico, 6 month tourist visa. Out for a day and in for another 6 months.

I lived in the Philippines for over 2 years. Every 2 months filled out a form and got a new stamp. Never had to leave.

european or western country, not a violent third world sh**hole

[JackThompson]

1 hour ago, elviajero said:

Why would they! They don’t have a problem with typical tourists holidaying short term in the country and going home. And don’t require that group to prove anything beyond pocket money.

But they might not have "appropriate" income to support their entire stay.  Remember when it was about 20K Baht not being enough for that threshold?

 

1 hour ago, elviajero said:

The issue is with people using VE/TR’s to live in the country (months/years) that haven’t provided the appropriate means of living,

What is the material difference between those 2 groups such that anyone would care?  Both are spending their own money.   Those who have spent more time in Thailand have a track record of having a means of supporting themselves, so are the ones immigration should be least-worried about, from a financial perspective.

 

Each tourist entry is separate - no one is getting a "long term stay" out of a tourist-entry, so proving enough money for a long-term stay is not at all relevant.  Pocket-money can be checked at each entry, if desired. 

 

Of course, they tried that at first, and people started carrying the cash.  Oops, turns out most of those visitors they wanted to turn-away had the money after all.  So time for a new excuse - this one with no logic to it at all.