After 11 years in Chiang Mai, I was Denied Entry

[elviajero]

7 minutes ago, BritTim said:

For a long time, from 2008 onward, the claim was that they were trying to stop people working illegally in Thailand. Recently, it is less clear what their objectives are. I do not think the powers that be in Thailand are of one mind on this.

I agree that historically the underlying concern was/is working illegally. But the new additional growing problem is the ability of thousands of visitors to be able to work remotely to fund their long term stay.

 

In the past 12 (3) was used a lot more than it is these days. Now 12 (2) is used in most reported cases.

 

7 minutes ago, BritTim said:

I believe setting clear rules is hampered greatly by a power struggle between the Immigration Bureau and Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

I have absolutely no idea where you see a power struggle. The MFA are no more than the voice for the TIB and responsible for making sure the consuls issue visas in accordance with the rules.

 

Entry to the country is and always will be down to the TIB, as stated on the MFA website.

[KarlS]

12 minutes ago, jackdd said:

Because some IOs act unlawfully

 

Do you have incontrovertible evidence for that statement? 

BTW "extensions" cannot be obtained by 'flying out'.

[elviajero]

16 minutes ago, jackdd said:

20 minutes ago, elviajero said:

So why can’t we all just turn up with wods of cash and be granted entry whenever we want!

Because some IOs act unlawfully

And getting a yearly extension (for married people or people over 50) is easier / cheaper than flying out of the country every two months and getting an extension every other two months.

Clearly they are not acting unlawfully when formally denying entry under section 12 of the immigration act.

 

The reason why we can’t turn up at the border on our terms is because Thailand has laws/rules/regs that prevent us. You and others simply can’t accept that fact.

[jackdd]

1 minute ago, elviajero said:

Clearly they are not acting unlawfully when formally denying entry under section 12 of the immigration act. 

Clearly they are acting unlawfully when denying  entry for a reason which is just not true.

 

I think i made an example like this in another thread before to show you that your argumentation regarding this doesn't make sense, but here we go again:

Let's say you never worked in Thailand, but tomorrow you get arrested and deported for working illegally in Thailand. Using your own argumentation this would be lawful, because you would be formally deported for working illegaly, right?

[jackdd]

17 minutes ago, KarlS said:

Do you have incontrovertible evidence for that statement?  

BTW "extensions" cannot be obtained by 'flying out'.

I think nobody ever posted a video recording himself waving a wad of cash and then being denied for 12.2, so we don't have "incontrovertible evidence".

But we had various reports of people who were denied entry and usually their story goes somehow like this: The IO said i was in the country too long (how they count varies by IO), and then i was denied entry for 12.2 (which is about money, but they were never asked about money).

This gives us quite some evidence, even if it's not incontrovertible.

 

I never said that flying out would give an extension.

[KarlS]

6 minutes ago, jackdd said:

This gives us quite some evidence, even if it's not incontrovertible.

It provides no evidence of anything other than that a few anonymous people who were refused entry have whined on a forum. 

[lkv]

5 minutes ago, KarlS said:

It provides no evidence of anything other than that a few anonymous people who were refused entry have whined on a forum. 

You mean anything other than that a few anonymous people supposedly were refused entry and are sharing their stories with us (the only stories they ever posted, in some cases). ????

Edited March 24, 2019 by lkv

[elviajero]

14 minutes ago, jackdd said:

Clearly they are acting unlawfully when denying  entry for a reason which is just not true.

Agreed if not true. But it's just your opinion that the reasons given to deny a long term tourist are not true. The Thai authorities disagree, and have given IO's the authority to use any reason in section 12 that fits. 12 (2) fits for the reasons explained.

 

14 minutes ago, jackdd said:

I think i made an example like this in another thread before to show you that your argumentation regarding this doesn't make sense, but here we go again:

Let's say you never worked in Thailand, but tomorrow you get arrested and deported for working illegally in Thailand. Using your own argumentation this would be lawful, because you would be formally deported for working illegaly, right?

Probably unlawful, but the question is way too simple for a full discussion/answer.

 

Best to stick to analogies specific to entering the country.

[KarlS]

4 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Let's say you never worked in Thailand, but tomorrow you get arrested and deported for working illegally in Thailand

Highly unlikely --- Do you have any personal knowledge/experience of this happening? 

[elviajero]

32 minutes ago, jackdd said:

I think nobody ever posted a video recording himself waving a wad of cash and then being denied for 12.2, so we don't have "incontrovertible evidence".

But we had various reports of people who were denied entry and usually their story goes somehow like this: The IO said i was in the country too long (how they count varies by IO), and then i was denied entry for 12.2 (which is about money, but they were never asked about money).

This gives us quite some evidence, even if it's not incontrovertible.

 

I never said that flying out would give an extension.

Some people asked to show money that haven't had 10K/20K have ben denied quoting 12 (2) and (9). Why both?

 

You/others are claiming using 12 (2) is unlawful when someone has the requisite cash. And you're wrong. Having 10K/20K is to ONLY satisfy 12 (9). Having an "appropriate means of living" is required to satisfy 12 (2); such as a job or another appropriate means of living. APPROPRIATE is the key word that you others are conveniently ignoring.

 

If 12 (2) was just about money it would say so, and somewhere in Thai law/rules/regulations it would specify what the appropriate amount of money is.

[lkv]

So when at land borders there coming from Malaysia, the IO's were forcing everyone (including multi non B holders), to show 20K cash.....what was that all about? Satisfying which paragraph of the section 12? 2...9...?

 

Never mind, it's a rhetorical question, with an irrelevant answer.

Edited March 24, 2019 by lkv

[jackdd]

1 hour ago, elviajero said:

You/others are claiming using 12 (2) is unlawful when someone has the requisite cash. And you're wrong. Having 10K/20K is to ONLY satisfy 12 (9). Having an "appropriate means of living" is required to satisfy 12 (2); such as a job or another appropriate means of living. APPROPRIATE is the key word that you others are conveniently ignoring.

Just that in the Thai version it doesn't say "appropriate means of living", and only the Thai version is legally binding.

But we don't even have to discuss about the correct translation, because you are just ignoring the second part of the sentence which says "following entrance into the Kingdom". Is a tourist supposed to show that he has a job in Thailand to be allowed to enter? Obviously this is about money in case of a tourist.

You interpret the law so that this is about the history of the foreigner, even though the law clearly says that it's about the future.

Edited March 24, 2019 by jackdd

[Metapod]

at this point, if you are not working in thailand and under 50, then elite visa is the way to go.

 

 

[elviajero]

3 hours ago, jackdd said:

Just that in the Thai version it doesn't say "appropriate means of living", and only the Thai version is legally binding.

It does say that according to IMMIGRATIONS OWN TRANSLATION!

 

Guess which translation they’d quote and use to apply the law. You are the one trying to re-interpret the Thai text, and it won’t be yours they’d use.

 

The actions of IO’s are entirely in line with immigrations own translation and orders.

 

Quote

But we don't even have to discuss about the correct translation, because you are just ignoring the second part of the sentence which says "following entrance into the Kingdom".

How have I ignored it?

 

Quote

Is a tourist supposed to show that he has a job in Thailand to be allowed to enter?

Of course not. We are not discussing cases of a typical tourist entering for tourism, we are discussing a long term visitor that is trying to stay longer.

 

Quote

Obviously this is about money in case of a tourist.

The only money a tourist is required to have is specified in 12 (9).

 

Quote

You interpret the law so that this is about the history of the foreigner, even though the law clearly says that it's about the future.

No I don’t. I explained why the past history in conjunction with a new entry makes immigration concerned about how the so-called tourist (long stay visitor) is funding their stay.

[BritTim]

6 hours ago, elviajero said:

When 12 (2) is used in the context of a long term tourist immigration are saying; you’ve already stayed months/years, but you don’t have a job or other way of funding your stay that they consider appropriate so you ain’t coming in again.

No, I believe what they are saying is they do not want people in Thailand long term as tourists, period. And, I do not think that is what Section 12 (2) was ever intended for. Having appropriate means to support yourself during your stay is actually confirmed once you have done it repeatedly without evidence of illegal working or other criminal activity. Immigration (and apparently you) are twisting Section 12 (2) to try to make it mean something that it was never intended for.

[jackdd]

18 minutes ago, elviajero said:

It does say that according to IMMIGRATIONS OWN TRANSLATION!

Doesn't mean that the translation is correct.

They also translated the text on the arrival card wrong, and it's probably not too difficult to find even more official texts which they translated wrong.

[BritTim]

6 hours ago, elviajero said:

I have absolutely no idea where you see a power struggle. The MFA are no more than the voice for the TIB and responsible for making sure the consuls issue visas in accordance with the rules.

 

Entry to the country is and always will be down to the TIB, as stated on the MFA website.

It would be awfully strange IMHO, if the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was reduced to a spokesman for a department of the Ministry of the Interior. It is true that the MFA does often try to inform its staff of decisions made by the Immigration Bureau over matters that are immigration's responsibility, and that affect foreign visitors. These are usually around visa exempt entries. The reason why I suspect a conflict is precisely because we see published rules for entry with visa exempt entries (which are the responsibility of the Immigration Bureau) and the lack of clear published rules (other than those agreed long ago) for those entering using visas issued by consulates under the supervision of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I think two of the reasons are:

1. visa fees form a significant part of the budget for running the consulates; and
2. there is a very human resistance to relinquishing power that they have had in the past, and to hand over that power to another Ministry.

When the change from double/triple entry tourist visas to multiple entry tourist visas was made, this did not change the power dynamics, which is why I think it was easily introduced. Similarly, reducing the powers of honorary consulates had little negative impact on embassies and official consulates so, again, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was happy to make such changes (which I think you will find were not announced by the Immigration Bureau).

[BritTim]

5 hours ago, elviajero said:

Agreed if not true. But it's just your opinion that the reasons given to deny a long term tourist are not true. The Thai authorities disagree, and have given IO's the authority to use any reason in section 12 that fits. 12 (2) fits for the reasons explained.

I am actually curious as to why they do not use Section 12 (7) which is also a valid reason for denied entry, and much harder to disprove than Section 12 (2).

[BritTim]

5 hours ago, elviajero said:

You/others are claiming using 12 (2) is unlawful when someone has the requisite cash. And you're wrong. Having 10K/20K is to ONLY satisfy 12 (9). Having an "appropriate means of living" is required to satisfy 12 (2); such as a job or another appropriate means of living. APPROPRIATE is the key word that you others are conveniently ignoring.

Having an appropriate means of living, to my mind, means being able to stay in Thailand without breaching Thai laws, or in some other way becoming a public burden. Those who have frequently stayed in Thailand, and proved they can satisfy those conditions, are the last people that should be suspected of being unable to do so in the future.

[lamyai3]

5 hours ago, elviajero said:

 

Quote

I think i made an example like this in another thread before to show you that your argumentation regarding this doesn't make sense, but here we go again:

Let's say you never worked in Thailand, but tomorrow you get arrested and deported for working illegally in Thailand. Using your own argumentation this would be lawful, because you would be formally deported for working illegaly, right?

Probably unlawful, but the question is way too simple for a full discussion/answer.

 

Best to stick to analogies specific to entering the country.

The spirit of the question is clear enough, switch out "arrested and deported" for "denied entry" and you've got your specific analogy.

 

Refusing people entry on nothing more than a suspicion of not having an appropriate means of living in the country is similar to a cop arresting you for not having your passport on you, and then refusing completely to acknowledge it when you try to show him it's in your bag. There are countless appropriate means of supporting a long term stay here for people from a western country, all kinds of passive income that come from investments, rental etc. It's dirty pool to deny entry without giving the person any means to refute what they've been accused of. 

[lkv]

7 hours ago, elviajero said:

 

The only money a tourist is required to have is specified in 12 (9).

 

No I don’t. I explained why the past history in conjunction with a new entry makes immigration concerned about how the so-called tourist (long stay visitor) is funding their stay.

Do you not understand that Immigration is not concerned?

 

It's not about "let's keep the borders safe" like in the US or the UK.

 

If you watched any of the Border Security shows, you would see that "means of living" does not mean 20k baht, it means credit cards, in some cases they call the sponsor of the traveller on the phone and if that person says: "yeah i will pay for his expenses", then the traveller is allowed entry. With 10 dollars in their pockets.

 

But this is Thailand.

 

All Immigration is concerned about here is: "my boss told me this morning that I have to do a crackdown today, so I will just grill everybody, section 12.2 or 12.9 who cares, semantics".

 

[elviajero]

5 minutes ago, lkv said:

Do you not understand that Immigration is not concerned?

 

It's not about "let's keep the borders safe" like in the US or the UK.

 

If you watched any of the Border Security shows, you would see that "means of living" does not mean 20k baht, it means credit cards, in some cases they call the sponsor of the traveller on the phone and if that person says: "yeah i will pay for his expenses", then the traveller is allowed entry. With 10 dollars in their pockets.

 

But this is Thailand.

 

All Immigration is concerned about here is: "my boss told me this morning that I have to do a crackdown today, so I will just grill everybody, section 12.2 or 12.9 who cares, semantics".

 

Frankly I don’t give a stuff about their concerns or motivation behind denying long term tourists. I am arguing against the claims that it’s unlawful to deny a long term tourist under 12 (2).

[lkv]

5 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Frankly I don’t give a stuff about their concerns or motivation behind denying long term tourists. I am arguing against the claims that it’s unlawful to deny a long term tourist under 12 (2).

Based on our understanding of how a proper Immigration system should work, it is unlawful. 

 

So I am on the same side with the other posters.

 

I do understand what you are saying, and I do respect your opinion, but I also believe that we should start to think a bit "Thai" and adapt to local realities to "navigate" better.

 

And by that I mean, these people have a different logic.

Edited March 24, 2019 by lkv

[onera1961]

1 hour ago, vinniekintana said:

..or write a book!

On my last entry, the IO asks me what you do in Thailand. O-A is a long stay visa and is mostly used for retirement.

 

IO: What you do in Thailand?

Me: I'm writing a book

IO: What book?

Me: It is a book about an old man in search of a Lolita in Thailand

IO: What?

Me: It is an erotic book like 120 days of Sodom

IO: What Sodom?

Me: Sodom like Sadist

IO: You are sadist

Me: No I write book about Sadist

IO: Why

Me: It gives me sexual pleasure

IO: (confused) No, No, No, you cannot go Thailand

Me: I am a Buddhist

IO: You very bad. calls security and arrest me

 

 

The above dialogues between IO and me were just fantasies. When IO asked What you do in Thailand, I said I retired and nothing more. But the dialogues did occur in my mind. 

Edited March 25, 2019 by onera1961

[puukao]

1.  Don't try to impress a Thai with your Thai.  Speaking is 1%, born in Thailand, 99%.  Remember that.

2.  Don't start an argument

3.  Nobody cares about your problems, except maybe to laugh

4.  Educational Visa for 7 years in CM..... I really don't need to know anymore.

 

When will you jokers realize.... "mai bpen rai" is NOT THAI.    It's super lazy, horrible letters that are only understood by the weakest minds on the planet.  Oh wait, I guess that's needed here.  

 

 

Edited March 25, 2019 by puukao

[JimmyTheMook]

1 hour ago, onera1961 said:

On my last entry, the IO asks me what you do in Thailand. O-A is a long stay visa and is mostly used for retirement.

 

IO: What you do in Thailand?

Me: I'm writing a book

IO: What book?

Me: It is a book about an old man in search of a Lolita in Thailand

IO: What?

Me: It is an erotic book like 120 days of Sodom

IO: What Sodom?

Me: Sodom like Sadist

IO: You are sadist

Me: No I write book about Sadist

IO: Why

Me: It gives me sexual pleasure

IO: (confused) No, No, No, you cannot go Thailand

Me: I am a Buddhist

IO: You very bad. calls security and arrest me

 

 

The above dialogues between IO and me were just fantasies. When IO asked What you do in Thailand, I said I retired and nothing more. But the dialogues did occur in my mind. 

 

So have you found a publisher?

[JackThompson]

21 hours ago, Briggsy said:

12 (2) is a catch all section of the legislation denying entry because if you are on visa exempt and de facto living here, you have not demonstrated an appropriate means of supporting yourself (despite the fact you may be a billionaire).

Ridiculous is pretending this reason for denial-of-entry is not being misused by IOs - that one could be denied entry based on no evidence at all, for a reason one has no way to dis-prove, and which would work in the opposite way you claim.  Those here more often, have demonstrated a tested means of support, vs a newcomer or less-frequent visitor who has not.  

 

Therefore, by your logic, no one can enter the country visa-exempt - because they "have not demonstrated" and "can not demonstrate" that they have a "means of support" ("appropriate" or otherwise). 

 

As well, it is not correct to say they are "living here" since they can only stay 60-days max (visa-exempt) at a time.  Those with longer-stay permitted-stays have to prove they can survive a longer period, whereas visitors like the OP, entering exempt, must face an IO every 30-days. 

 

On 3/24/2019 at 8:13 AM, PingRoundTheWorld said:

why is there no official rule stating 180 days a year?

They could easily set up the immigration system to make the count (trivial technical task with any database), but there is No Legal Basis for denying-entry on those grounds.  The supervisors running this illegal-agenda don't have official-clearance to reject-entry for this illegal-reason, so it cannot be justified.

[lamyai3]

1 hour ago, onera1961 said:

It is an erotic book like 120 days of Sodom

Either a long stay visa or an extension of stay would be required to write this book without altering the title.

[Caldera]

6 hours ago, elviajero said:

I am arguing against the claims that it’s unlawful to deny a long term tourist under 12 (2).

You're in no position to determine that their decisions are lawful. That obviously doesn't stop you from posting your nonsensical interpretation of 12.2 time and again.

 

Your argument that there's no official 180 days limit per year for tourism because their system cannot show them "time spent in country" is particularly lame, in any case. As that's something that (at least some in) immigration have wanted to see since at least 2006, you'd have to assume that they should have been able to add that to their software in the meantime. As you know, they have all the underlying data in their DB and are able to print all comings and goings, so it's a relatively simple modification to make.

[elviajero]

On 3/25/2019 at 4:46 AM, Caldera said:

You're in no position to determine that their decisions are lawful. That obviously doesn't stop you from posting your nonsensical interpretation of 12.2 time and again.

They are formally denying entry, and using a reason under section 12 using a "Legal Notice". You are the one claiming illegality, so the onus is on you/others to prove your claims.

 

It is not my interpretation of 12 (2). It is my explanation of the TIB's use of 12 (2).

 

On 3/25/2019 at 4:46 AM, Caldera said:

Your argument that there's no official 180 days limit per year for tourism because their system cannot show them "time spent in country" is particularly lame, in any case.

It's a FACT that the system can't keep count. It is a FACT that they tried a limit in the past and stopped it because manual counting was not practical. Given those facts they are unlikely to use that method again.

 

On 3/25/2019 at 4:46 AM, Caldera said:

As that's something that (at least some in) immigration have wanted to see since at least 2006, you'd have to assume that they should have been able to add that to their software in the meantime. As you know, they have all the underlying data in their DB and are able to print all comings and goings, so it's a relatively simple modification to make.

You clearly haven't got a clue about databases either. I've been designing and writing database code for 20+ years and modifications are not always "simple" unless catered for at the design stage!

 

It's been a few years since I was shown the front-end of the immigration system, I've never seen the back-end, and there are at least three separate databases in use. But I doubt the time and expense required to - if possible - modify the system to keep count of entries would be worth it, especially when other methods of controlling entries are working.