9 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

They do not get it by "birthright," though.  In the USA,

Very few countries confer citizenship just because someone was born there to illegal parents, so not really a valid point to single out Thailand. 

2 hours ago, ThomasThBKK said:

Nothing really without a job. Normal Jobs prolly don't make sense here for you as u seem to have money. 

 

So basically you are down to  3-4 options: 

 

1) thai elite visa, 1 mio thb for 20 years or 500k for 5 years. 

2) An ED visa, which is quite uncertain for long term

3) use sth like igluu, they hire you and get you a work permit. You run parts of your business (income) over them. They take a cut and pay your taxes. That's good long term as you are edligible for a permanent residency or passport later. 

4) Setup your own thai co Ltd, hire a bunch of thais and get a work permit for yourself. 

5) Try to get a BOI setup and running (complicated but doable) 

 

Not sure why you listed these options without mentioning the obvious one - to enter again on the tourist visa (land border) and then as soon as officially married, switch to a Non O based on marriage, with future extensions. 

22 hours ago, JackThompson said:

The OP was not violating the law with regard to the legal restrictions on the use of a Tourist Visa to enter for 60-days (extendable at immigration's discretion for another 30) - hence why he should not think he was doing anything wrong for one second.

 

IOs do not have the legal-right to violate Thai law, which is why the put the lying-stamp in the OP's passport.  Those doing this are engaging in criminal behavior.  The Immigration Act states explicit reasons that are permitted to deny-entry.  The OP had enough money (in cash to show, no less) to live here for months - so the IO who denied his entry are the ones in direct-violation of the law - not the OP.

 

"Abuse" doesn't exist as a legal term.  It is just a subjective / made-up rhetorical device used by lawbreakers and those who make excuses for their unlawful behavior.

 

No, he means he could encounter more criminals in uniforms - as clearly happened this time.

 

What evidence did they use to show he wasn't a tourist?  They didn't even ask a question.

"The OP was not violating the law with regard to the legal restrictions on the use of a Tourist Visa"

I didn't say that he was violating the law.

 

"IOs do not have the legal-right to violate Thai law..."

I didn't say that they do have that right.  As competent officials, though they each have the authority to deny entry to anyone that they may suspect warrants a denial.

 

""Abuse" doesn't exist as a legal term".

I didn't say that it was.  I did say that he was abusing (the spirit of the) system.  He is doing it objectively, that is not my subjective opinion, he has been living here, and he was trying to extend that exercise, on a tourist visa.  Tourist visas, as you well know, are not intended to be used by foreigners living here.

 

"No, he means he could encounter more criminals in uniforms - as clearly happened this time".

I don't think that he did mean that.  What crime did the IO commit?

 

"What evidence did they use to show he wasn't a tourist?  They didn't even ask a question"

Previous entries for a kick off.

5 minutes ago, lamyai3 said:

Not sure why you listed these options without mentioning the obvious one - to enter again on the tourist visa (land border) and then as soon as officially married, switch to a Non O based on marriage, with future extensions. 

Because he already talked about that earlier in the thread and is aware of all that. 

 

 

Also he's in detention and punished akready, i didn't want to punish him nore with a marriage. 

13 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

 

I do not understand how those immigration labels as "problem-cases" (only at some entry-points, where the actual laws are not followed) are actually some sort of "problem."  They are a "problem" to who or what and why? 

Again, we can only guess, but immigration the world over seems to prefer stamping bona fide package tourists in and out, to stamping people on the wrong kind of visa in and out. 

 

Perhaps it's because of some high profile cases - criminals hiding out in Thailand while pretending to be tourists, whereas package tourists seldom do this kind of thing? Perhaps it's a process thing: package tourists are all identical and never need any special attention?

2 minutes ago, dbrenn said:

Very few countries confer citizenship just because someone was born there to illegal parents, so not really a valid point to single out Thailand. 

I think it is a Good Thing that Thailand does not do this.  See my earlier post - I support Thais preserving Thai rule over their own country, and applaud their NOT signing onto crappy UN treaties that would change this (I commend the Japanese for similar). 

As to those complaining that our passport-countries have been wrecked - I do not at all blame Thailand for this.  But it is a completely different dynamic - people w/o independent incomes are entering our nations and obtaining permanent-stay permissions - and in much, much higher volumes relative to our own populations than temporary-stay, self-funded visitors entering Thailand.

3 hours ago, JustAnotherHun said:

 

I have a fresh report from another guy in a similar situation (we were detained and deported at the same time but he did not have a lot of cold hard cash and his exit ticket) . He crossed today without question asked. They only checked the passport more closely than usual and let him through. I will be crossing soon but won't write here the exact time. 

Edited March 9, 20197 yr by Tayaout

16 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

"The OP was not violating the law with regard to the legal restrictions on the use of a Tourist Visa"

I didn't say that he was violating the law.

 

"IOs do not have the legal-right to violate Thai law..."

I didn't say that they do have that right.  As competent officials, though they each have the authority to deny entry to anyone that they may suspect warrants a denial. 

They can only do this if they have reason (genuine reason) to believe the visitor is violating one of the specific cases where the Immigration Act permits a denial-of-entry.

 

Quote

""Abuse" doesn't exist as a legal term".

I didn't say that it was.  I did say that he was abusing (the spirit of the) system.  He is doing it objectively, that is not my subjective opinion, he has been living here, and he was trying to extend that exercise, on a tourist visa.  Tourist visas, as you well know, are not intended to be used by foreigners living here.

If it isn't legal, it's not relevant.  Actual "abuse" would only include "violating the law."  Laws don't have "spirits" - they have specified-conditions which define what is permitted and not permitted.

 

Quote

"No, he means he could encounter more criminals in uniforms - as clearly happened this time".

I don't think that he did mean that.  What crime did the IO commit?

Denial of entry on false-pretenses.  Applying a denial-stamp in a passport which is in contradiction to the facts, given the OP had enough money to "appropriately" support his entire maximum-permitted stay of 60-days.  The lack of any effort to determine the facts before denying entry would be an aggravating factor when considering sentencing. 

 

Quote

"What evidence did they use to show he wasn't a tourist?  They didn't even ask a question"

Previous entries for a kick off.

There is nothing in the Immigration Act indicating "previous entries" are relevant.  That is why they used a fake-reason for the passport-stamp, instead. 

 

Based on what a "Tourist" cannot do, per the law, they are defined as one who does not take a Thai job, and supports their stay in Thailand with foreign-sourced money.  Therefore, the OP is a "Tourist" per Thai law - as are most others who report being denied-entry on this forum.

Edited March 9, 20197 yr by JackThompson

3 hours ago, ThomasThBKK said:

Nothing really without a job. Normal Jobs prolly don't make sense here for you as u seem to have money. 

 

So basically you are down to  3-4 options: 

 

1) thai elite visa, 1 mio thb for 20 years or 500k for 5 years. 

2) An ED visa, which is quite uncertain for long term

3) use sth like igluu, they hire you and get you a work permit. You run parts of your business (income) over them. They take a cut and pay your taxes. That's good long term as you are edligible for a permanent residency or passport later. 

4) Setup your own thai co Ltd, hire a bunch of thais and get a work permit for yourself. 

5) Try to get a BOI setup and running (complicated but doable) 

 

I went with 1 as i am too lazy for the others and also too young for retirement. 

 

 

Best of luck ???? 

sorry, I did not know that you can't get a Non O by just going to the Thai embassy in Canada,  and showing your bank account

12 minutes ago, dbrenn said:

Again, we can only guess, but immigration the world over seems to prefer stamping bona fide package tourists in and out, to stamping people on the wrong kind of visa in and out. 

 

Perhaps it's because of some high profile cases - criminals hiding out in Thailand while pretending to be tourists, whereas package tourists seldom do this kind of thing? Perhaps it's a process thing: package tourists are all identical and never need any special attention?

I think it is because IO-supervisors are paid to carry out policies - likely with some periodic bonus kickbacks to the lower-level folks. 

Those benefiting from the package-tourists pay for "no hassles" for their customers. 

Those who benefit from other schemes - for which Tourist Visas can act as an alternative - pay to have foreigners with legitimate Tourist Visas (plus money, plus a flight-out, as the OP had) denied-entry (illegally).  Hence, breaking The Law, is for sale.

 

Not to single out Thailand - In the USA, via campaign contributions, The Law, itself, is for sale.  The difference is, this sort of thing does not happen at the lower-bureaucratic level, and the (often crappy) laws are published, passed, and signed, so a degree of transparency exists. 

27 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

I think it is because IO-supervisors are paid to carry out policies 

That's conjecture, really, because there's no source of information to substantiate your claim.

 

All we can see is an alignment of Thailand's immigration policy with that of the western world - it's becoming more difficult and expensive to stay as a resident, backed  up by more rigorous enforcement of the visa system. 

 

Take Australia as an example - in the past, all British people needed to travel to and get settled there was 10 pounds. Now it's very hard - my permanent residence there cost me thousands and was backed up by dozens of documents and references to prove who I was, that I  was in good health, that I had no convictions, and that what I did for a living would benefit them. 

Edited March 9, 20197 yr by dbrenn

1 hour ago, dbrenn said:

Nothing could be further from the truth. Tourism is classed as an invisible export: tourists bring in foreign currency, and spend money in local businesses, creating jobs and boosting Thailand's balance of trade. Yes, there are far too many of them, but nobody cares about that while there's money to be made. 

 

With 35 million of them each year, immigration appears to have neither the time nor the inclination to deal with problem cases. 

 

Revenues from tourism is not a matter of quantity. What impact to the local business do a million 0-baht-tourists from china have? Close to zero.

Only some big tour companies get out a profit of them.

What really counts is the expensis per head and day of a tourist.

One single small pension western foreigner is better for local business than 20 chinese or indians. They only block the streets and pollut the environment with their stinking tour busses.

7 minutes ago, dbrenn said:

27 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

I think it is because IO-supervisors are paid to carry out policies 

That's conjecture, really, because there's no source of information to substantiate your claim.

It is informed conjecture.  We know about the agents, the school-payoffs, and the cost of the elite-visa.  

 

9 minutes ago, dbrenn said:

All we can see is an alignment of Thailand's immigration policy with that of the western world - it's becoming more difficult and expensive to stay as a resident, backed  up by more rigorous enforcement of the visa system. 

Aligning policy with what Western countries are doing does not make sense for Thailand - due to exactly what you pointed out about foreign-spending value, and the lack of incentive for Westerners to enter as Tourists and work illegally in large numbers.  To the extent working was a problem, a "10-days out" between entries would cure that.

 

I suppose one could argue that they are copying Western immigration - to spite its being entirely inappropriate for Thailand - due to some sort of "cargo cult" mentality.  But, as that tends to be the result of stone-age thinking, I find it more plausible that those doing this are more likely motivated by greed.  And when considering how the rest of their system operates - based on envelopes - the shoe certainly fits.

On 3/8/2019 at 12:57 PM, Just Weird said:

It's not that "too much farang stay in Thailand", it's that too many foreigners deliberately abuse the tourist visa system.

 

I think (hope!) that yes, this is the concern of the higher ups who issue directives.

 

But they are not very effective in disseminating clear information down the line (as we are now seeing with the new visa directives) and things tend to get misinterpreted along the way.

 

It is not impossible that there are IOs whose take-away from whatever they were told is indeed "too many farangs, try to keep them out/get rid of them".

 

Over-simplified and over-generalized versions of things are common here. The nuances tend to get lost as messages are passed from person to person.

 

Definitley seems to be the case at Don Muang.

3 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

 

I think (hope!) that yes, this is the concern of the higher ups who issue directives.

 

But they are not very effective in disseminating clear information down the line (as we are now seeing with the new visa directives) and things tend to get misinterpreted along the way.

 

It is not impossible that there are IOs whose take-away from whatever they were told is indeed "too many farangs, try to keep them out/get rid of them".

 

Over-simplified and over-generalized versions of things are common here. The nuances tend to get lost as messages are passed from person to person.

 

Definitley seems to be the case at Don Muang.

"It is not impossible that there are IOs whose take-away from whatever they were told is indeed "too many farangs, try to keep them out/get rid of them".

Just about possible but extremely unlikely.

14 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

It is informed conjecture

There's no such thing ????

I want live streaming from Nong Khai.

 

Forget the bickering, I want to read the OP's next instalment.

18 minutes ago, JustAnotherHun said:

What impact to the local business do a million 0-baht-tourists from china have?

A lot of impact, if their movements are completely predictable, which they are. They may only each spend a few bucks, but they all spend it in the same places. Businesses like that, and lots of politicians own businesses, or have friends who do.

 

Easy for immigration too, stamp them in and out in bulk, then play on your iPhone, with no worries that your boss will blame you for letting in 'problem' cases that require extra attention by behaving badly.

 

It's a shame, but we're all tarred with the same brush. 

11 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

"It is not impossible that there are IOs whose take-away from whatever they were told is indeed "too many farangs, try to keep them out/get rid of them".

Just about possible but extremely unlikely.

 

I don't think so.

 

Out of hundreds of officers, quite possible that a handful understood it that way.

 

The one described in this post seemed to.

8 minutes ago, Briggsy said:

I want live streaming from Nong Khai.

 

Forget the bickering, I want to read the OP's next instalment.

All we're doing is having a discussion on why the OP was treated in the way he was, and how policies are changing. If you don't want to take part in it, then don't take part in it.

1 hour ago, Tayaout said:

I have a fresh report from another guy in a similar situation (we were detained and deported at the same time but he did not have a lot of cold hard cash and his exit ticket) . He crossed today without question asked. They only checked the passport more closely than usual and let him through. I will be crossing soon but won't write here the exact time.

I'm just back from vientiane via Don muang.

 

Real pain in the ass, they stopped me again 30 minutes, first IO was really unpleasant, angry guy just said YOU WORK IN THAILAND ???

Pulled me out of the counter, then no more questions !!!, after a long time waiting they stamped my passport without a word.

 

They were pulling guys over and over, non stop.

 

That's the 2nd time, first time was in Suva and they questioned me 2 hours, it's getting real hot.

 

I advise you to cross by land next time, for somehow the IO's seems to don't give a <deleted>***

6 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

 

I don't think so.

 

Out of hundreds of officers, quite possible that a handful understood it that way.

 

The one described in this post seemed to.

Over the years I've always been treated politely by immigration, with the exception of a small minority who were very rude in one way or another. You have a point. 

1 minute ago, Pepper9187 said:

I'm just back from vientiane via Don muang.

 

Real pain in the ass, they stopped me again 30 minutes, first IO was really unpleasant, angry guy just said YOU WORK IN THAILAND ???

Pulled me out of the counter, then no more questions !!!, after a long time waiting they stamped my passport without a word.

 

They were pulling guys over and over, non stop.

 

That's the 2nd time, first time was in Suva and they questioned me 2 hours, it's getting real hot.

 

I advise you to cross by land next time, for somehow the IO's seems to don't give a <deleted>***

 

Something does seem to be going on at Don Muang but to get a handle on it, can you tell us:

 

- where you entering visa exempt, on a SETV. METV, O visa or what?

 

-how long had you been in Thailand before this and how long were you out of the country?

 

 

1 hour ago, sweatalot said:

sorry, I did not know that you can't get a Non O by just going to the Thai embassy in Canada,  and showing your bank account

 

 

 

Well you can't if you are op and under 50....????

1 hour ago, Tayaout said:

He crossed today without question asked. They only checked the passport more closely than usual and let him through. I will be crossing soon but won't write here the exact time. 

I had trouble exiting and entering at Aranyaprathet with no-o VISA.

These guys are total <deleted>, doesn't matter what VISA you have, they don't want white guys here.

Can't think of any other explanation.

 

Do you think maybe they have a daily quota to deny frangs at airport? So easy when they can use the no money lie.

11 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

 

I don't think so.

 

Out of hundreds of officers, quite possible that a handful understood it that way.

 

The one described in this post seemed to.

"I don't think so".

I don't agree.  It is much more likely that what they were told was not interpreted the way that you quoted it ("too many farangs, try to keep them out/get rid of them") !

1 minute ago, Sheryl said:

 

Something does seem to be going on at Don Muang but to get a handle on it, can you tell us:

 

- where you entering visa exempt, on a SETV. METV, O visa or what?

 

-how long had you been in Thailand before this and how long were you out of the country?

 

 

I had SETV from the Thai consulate in Vientiane.

 

I do kind of 6x6 months Thailand / France (for the last 3 years) i think i went back to Thailand in August or September i cant remember.

So that time it's gona be a bit more than 

 

It was just weird, no question, not asking about money proof or plane ticket, no nothing at all.

 

I don't know if they only check the visas on their computer or if they check for wanted persons or whathever but it took a while

4 hours ago, rott said:

No, refusing entry to someone carrying 200,000 baht on the grounds of insufficient funds is complete nonsense. And you make Thailand look bad by backing it up, when apparently IO's from neighbouring states think it is funny.

Again. He wasn’t denied entry for having “insufficient funds”.

 

Again. I’m not “backing it up”, I am explaining the actual reason behind the denied entry.

 

Quote

Years ago a rule was introduced stating a max of 180 days in one year on tourist visas (might have been 90 days in 180) but was never enforced. If it was people would know where they stood and could plan accordingly.

It was 90 in 180 days and it was only for visa exempt entry, not tourist visa entry.

 

It was enforced, but was stopped because it became impractical for IO’s to manually count previous entries to check the visitor was within the limit.

 

Setting a fixed limit affects all long term tourists. Why do you want to mess it up for all when only a few get denied entry?

 

Quote

Are you actually in Thailand? You seem to post at odd hours.

No.

Edited March 9, 20197 yr by elviajero

5 minutes ago, Pepper9187 said:

I had SETV from the Thai consulate in Vientiane.

 

I do kind of 6x6 months Thailand / France (for the last 3 years) i think i went back to Thailand in August or September i cant remember.

So that time it's gona be a bit more than 

 

It was just weird, no question, not asking about money proof or plane ticket, no nothing at all.

 

I don't know if they only check the visas on their computer or if they check for wanted persons or whathever but it took a while

OK - so your history would have shown something more  6 months here before your trip to Laos.  That would be why they singled you out for initial scrutiny. The annual 6 months out of the country may be why they eventually let your through.

 

They are clearly looking for people who are de facto living her on tourist visas/visa exemptions.

 

If you are aged 50 or over, when next back in France consider getting an O-A visa to prevent future problems, Will also save you all the visa runs.