3 hours ago, BritManToo said:

If I were a drug runner, I'd buy an Elite VISA.

Up to you.

On 3/21/2019 at 11:02 PM, JackThompson said:

Per a previous report on this, a guy refused to pay (was trying to appeal the denial-of-entry - which was ignored).  But, upon arrival (where he was sent back to), he was threatened with being thrown in detention there, if he didn't pay for the last-minute-priced ticket.  He paid, so we don't know if it was a bluff.

 

  Wow ,  dont we just love it .  PI  is the plan B . 

4 hours ago, Kasane said:

Too many tourists/exempt visas are viewed as suspicious activity, imo.  If you are engaged in nefarious activities and your base is Thailand then, under cover as a tourist with multiple visits to the country, you have probably established an underground network. I think Thailand is being more strict re abuse of tourist/ exempt entry.

If people were making frequent visits to Siberia in winter as tourists, I would find that suspicious. I do not find it that surprising that some people enjoy spending time here, and make frequent or extended visits. Perhaps, as you suggest, immigration find their own country lacking in charm (at least for those under the age of 50) and assume that anyone who wants to spend time here must have criminal intent. However, I know multiple people who genuinely like Thailand, and spend a lot of time here for purely that reason (and not because they are criminal masterminds).

On 3/23/2019 at 9:13 AM, ThaiBunny said:

All a visa does is give you permission to travel to a port of entry and seek entry. It's entirely at the discretion of the IO whether entry will be given (true of every country that issues visas).  If granted, then the conditions of the visa come into effect

So you apply for a Visa, send all documents in (if doing it by post) pay for the visa, pay for your holiday, make all sorts of reservations, then get all the way to Thailand and be refused entry.

 

The Consulates should have the required resources & power to either approve or deny an applicant a Visa for entry. Not these so called f****** cowboys who may just not like the look of you and then f***** you over a mere few meters from entering the country to begin your holiday you've been planning for. Yes this example is on the extreme, but my point being here is, if a "consulate" has apporoved your application for a Visa, that should be good enough...

 

As I said, total BS...period the way this is handle by Thai Immigration.

 

19 hours ago, Kasane said:

And since IO's have the final authority to admit or deny entry flagged "tourists" need to have a convincing reason for visiting Thailand again and again for IO to be satisfied of the tourists intent of visit. 

Per Thai law, IOs are the ones who need a "convincing reason" to deny entry - and it has to be one of the specific reasons in the Immigration Act.  They do not have the authority to make up an illegal reason - "here too long before" - then cover up their crime by stamping a "real reason" which does not apply to the visitor being denied.  That is what they are doing now - breaking the law, to carry out an illegal-agenda.

 

12 hours ago, Chivas said:

... You'd think the software would bring up the last 12 months and how many days with Visa and Visa exempt entries

It's one line of SQL code (or whatever database) to get the number.  The problem is, that's not a legal reason for an IO to to consider, so no way to justify the work, or use the value in the context of a denied-entry.  Even if they number were displayed, they'd still have to Lie and stamp some "other reason" to avoid confessing to their crime.

 

2 hours ago, Straight8 said:

The Consulates should have the required resources & power to either approve or deny an applicant a Visa for entry.

They do.  The problem is not that those arriving with Visas are in violation of the conditions - the problem is that some Immigration entry points are run by people who think (or are paid to think) that the Actual Laws are "not good enough," so they are justified in breaking the laws.

 

2 hours ago, Straight8 said:

... my point being here is, if a "consulate" has apporoved your application for a Visa, that should be good enough...

IOs have the legal-right to deny entry to those with Visas, but not to do it for an illegal-reason (not present in the Immigration Act), then cover up their crime by stamping a "real reason" which is not germane to the visitor's case/situation.