After 11 years in Chiang Mai, I was Denied Entry

[Percy P]

On 3/22/2019 at 6:17 AM, riclag said:

Mai mee bpat jai yang cheep

No money for support lifestyle or living

 

Thanks for the heads up and sorry for your issues 

The required some of money to enter the Kingdom is 20,000 Baht or equivalent of other means. I keep 20000B in a Thai Bank for this purpose. The pass book is updated every time I Leave the Kingdom 

together with a letter from the bank stating the 20000B .

I was out of the Kingdom 4 weeks, on returning the IO at the boarder would not except my pass book as it was not up to date, luckily he let me pass. So now on the letter from the bank I have them wright in Tha!i.  Money can not be taken out of the account outside of Thailand. 

Edited April 1, 2019 by Percy P
Addition

[Briggsy]

9 minutes ago, Percy P said:

The required some of money to enter the Kingdom is 20,000 Baht or equivalent of other means. I keep 20000B in a Thai Bank for this purpose. The pass book is updated every time I Leave the Kingdom 

together with a letter from the bank stating the 20000B .

It must be cash or traveller's cheques. This is well-documented. Immigration Officers at border checkpoints are not interested in bank books or statements. They have no legal standing for the purpose of preventing denial of entry. You have been wasting your time with the updates and the letter.

[chrisinth]

2 hours ago, Percy P said:

The required some of money to enter the Kingdom is 20,000 Baht or equivalent of other means. I keep 20000B in a Thai Bank for this purpose. The pass book is updated every time I Leave the Kingdom 

together with a letter from the bank stating the 20000B .

I was out of the Kingdom 4 weeks, on returning the IO at the boarder would not except my pass book as it was not up to date, luckily he let me pass. So now on the letter from the bank I have them wright in Tha!i.  Money can not be taken out of the account outside of Thailand. 

At which point of entry do you use this method of financial proof?

 

In all cases that I have read (no practical experience here) it is either Thai baht, traveler's cheques or equivalent denominations in another recognised currency. Proof of bank accounts don't mean anything. 

 

Suggest you look into this a bit deeper before trying it again.

Edited April 1, 2019 by chrisinth

[leogerritsen]

On 3/27/2019 at 3:03 AM, elviajero said:

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).

 

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.

 

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.

It is just a matter of collecting the tm6 and tm7 forms with their issued date. To me that might be solved with a SQL querty. That means no changes to the system, just a dynamic count.

[Briggsy]

2 minutes ago, leogerritsen said:

It is just a matter of collecting the tm6 and tm7 forms with their issued date. To me that might be solved with a SQL querty. That means no changes to the system, just a dynamic count.

And yet, during the few months this operated, you had officers at border check points scrutinising stamps and then manually calculating with pen, paper and calculator, if one was to hand. TIT = ineffectual IT.

[leogerritsen]

Just my 2 cents. Government officials have the power to decide things differently. You can check that. 

I have many encounters with good and bad endings. I found on closer observations my own attitude on these occasions to have led the officer to decide against me.  I can group my attitude in different classes.

1. ignorant of a specific rule, but completely convinced i was right.

2. knowingly bending a rule, but hitting the 'wrong' person.

3. having an attitude, being angry at something. Thai have a keen nose on disturbances of the emotion.

4. tell me another option ????

[elviajero]

10 hours ago, Percy P said:

The required some of money to enter the Kingdom is 20,000 Baht or equivalent of other means. I keep 20000B in a Thai Bank for this purpose. The pass book is updated every time I Leave the Kingdom 

together with a letter from the bank stating the 20000B .

I was out of the Kingdom 4 weeks, on returning the IO at the boarder would not except my pass book as it was not up to date, luckily he let me pass. So now on the letter from the bank I have them wright in Tha!i.  Money can not be taken out of the account outside of Thailand. 

A bank book updated or not is not going to be accepted if they are looking to deny entry. Under the rules it’s cash or travellers cheques only.

 

It’s usually only tourists that are asked to prove the 10/20K and a typical tourist isn’t likely to have/need a Thai bank account. IMO it would go against a tourist trying to convince an IO they were a tourist by showing a Thai bank book! 

[Thailand Outcast]

31 minutes ago, leogerritsen said:

Just my 2 cents. Government officials have the power to decide things differently. You can check that. 

I have many encounters with good and bad endings. I found on closer observations my own attitude on these occasions to have led the officer to decide against me.  I can group my attitude in different classes.

1. ignorant of a specific rule, but completely convinced i was right.

2. knowingly bending a rule, but hitting the 'wrong' person.

3. having an attitude, being angry at something. Thai have a keen nose on disturbances of the emotion.

4. tell me another option ????

Can you see how clear policy and procedure would take "the attitude" out of you, and the immigration officer, because both know what they can, and can't do, within the law?

 

Currently, it's just a big grey area and up to the interpretation of individual immigration officers at various boarders. 

 

[Goldbear]

The same thing happened to a Canadian friend a bit less than two months ago. He flew to Vietnam, (though he got a tourist visa there), flew back into Don Mueang. They told him he'd been in Thailand more than 180 days in 2018 and denied him entry. They put him in the detention, made him fly back to Vietnam and put the same stamp in his passport. He also has plenty of money. 

Edited April 1, 2019 by Goldbear
Clarity

[JackThompson]

19 hours ago, Briggsy said:

And yet, during the few months this operated, you had officers at border check points scrutinising stamps and then manually calculating with pen, paper and calculator, if one was to hand. TIT = ineffectual IT.

That was years ago.  If they wanted this functionality now, and don't have someone in-house who can do it, they could purchase it's implementation from an IT-vendor for minimal cost.  They have the means to "print out one's full history" (done to me and others) - which means the full-history is accessible, which means it can be queried. 

 

The problem is, "time in country before" is legally irrelevant - which is why those denying-entry for this reason have to hide what they are doing from scrutiny, using an "official reason" (though a lie) for denying entry.

Edited April 2, 2019 by JackThompson

[JackThompson]

18 hours ago, Goldbear said:

The same thing happened to a Canadian friend a bit less than two months ago. He flew to Vietnam, (though he got a tourist visa there), flew back into Don Mueang. They told him he'd been in Thailand more than 180 days in 2018 and denied him entry. They put him in the detention, made him fly back to Vietnam and put the same stamp in his passport. He also has plenty of money. 

There is no logical motivation for preventing self-funded visitors from spending their money in the country, but the clique running bad immigration entry-points don't care about "the country" / the well-being of ordinary Thais who need those jobs to escape a cycle of poverty. 

 

It's not about if he "really had the money to afford his stay" or not - it's about his spending time in Thailand on a means of entry/stay which is not susceptible to corruption-money / extortion.  There are no "money-hooks" into tourist-type entries, and bribes at the entry-point are too easy to spot / get caught / generate bad-press (see Sadao - busted twice for this).  A trusted middle-man is needed to make these things work "safely," for all involved.

 

For example, if your friend went for an ED Visa, then he'd need "extensions of stay" with the attendant "extra fees" paid for them through the school-officials.  For extensions based on retirement (if old enough), marriage to a Thai, etc, "agent fees" enter the picture, for a large percentage of applicants.  And then there is the Big Enchilada being pushed - the massive fee for the "elite visa."  Immigration appear to have clear orders to leave those with that visa alone ("or else"). 

[tassieman]

On 3/22/2019 at 12:50 PM, tingtongtourist said:

 

Firstly they consider him the VE abuser, which now seem a worse crime than even living there many years.

 

Right or wrong, they obviously assume people avoid to get the real visa for bad reasons.

 

Because for YEARS they warns people "next time get the real visa"

(instead of VE and preferable to get from you own country)

 

And for some reason people dont understand why...

That when you get the right visa you are screened and vetted from the Thai official consul and that satisfy them of proof of your situation and meet requirements  

 

Sorry, but really no excuse, we been reading it over and over on here people getting knocked back for VEs

Yes, all fair enough commentary TTT ???? I guess my "dumb" question is...what type of visa should you apply for if, indeed, your reason for frequent visits to LOS is not tourism per se but, yes, to see your partner (long term)...is there a short stay GF Visa ???? Since being based in Phnom Penh, I have been dropping in more regularly using VE (but not staying fully 30 days)...always have a return ticket and at least BHT20K in cash. BUT, if I was ever questioned I was going to say "yep, visiting and staying with my girl". After reading much on this thread, probably not the best POA lol. 

[merijn]

On 3/22/2019 at 5:22 AM, JackThompson said:

pushed several embassies to stop issuing income-verification letters. 

Thailand never pushed embassies to stop issuing income certificates but they told the embassies already several years ago that they have to take responsibility for the correctness of the certificates they issue. (not only a signature check)

Most countries don't have any issue with this and continue issuing income certificate as normal but some countries where not able or just refusing to take responsibility for their income certificates and therefore don't issue them anymore.

 

[JackThompson]

2 hours ago, merijn said:

Thailand never pushed embassies to stop issuing income certificates but they told the embassies already several years ago that they have to take responsibility for the correctness of the certificates they issue. (not only a signature check)

Most countries don't have any issue with this and continue issuing income certificate as normal but some countries where not able or just refusing to take responsibility for their income certificates and therefore don't issue them anymore.

 

Per FOA and other references, the critical meeting occurred in May 2018, when some embassies were told they needed to "verify" the incomes stated in their income documents.  Only later, after 4 embassies canceled their letters, did the "new rules" come out, wherein the language was "certify." 

 

I am not absolving our embassies of all responsibility for what has transpired - they likely have their own reasons; but immigration seems to have handed them the sword which was used to cut off our letters.  In theory, now that the language is "certify," we should be able to get the letters back - but I would not hold my breath.

Edited April 3, 2019 by JackThompson

[merijn]

17 hours ago, JackThompson said:

Per FOA and other references, the critical meeting occurred in May 2018, when some embassies were told they needed to "verify" the incomes stated in their income documents.  Only later, after 4 embassies canceled their letters, did the "new rules" come out, wherein the language was "certify." 

That is correct but the meeting you are referring to was only to remind the embassies about this, They where informed already much earlier that they have to verify the provided information, (but i don't remember anymore exactly when that was).

By verifying the provided income information they can certify the income certificate certificate as the income is verified.

But the affected embassies choose not to do so.

 

[jacko45k]

On 3/23/2019 at 5:05 PM, BritManToo said:

There's no law that specifies how long you can stay in Thailand.

If there were they would have written 'stayed too long in Thailand' in his passport as the reason for denying him entry.

Surely there is a system of permissions to stay and if not in a position to extend that it will come to an end and limit one's stay. Leaving and returning is the usual way a new permission is obtained, and a person who is obviously living in Thailand, using a Tourist Visa or Visa Exempt (for tourism purposes) to try and re-enter, can rightly be blocked from entering. 

[CharlieH]

Some abusive posts removed.

 

7) You will respect fellow members and post in a civil manner. No personal attacks, hateful or insulting towards other members, (flaming) Stalking of members on either the forum or via PM will not be allowed.
 

[JackThompson]

6 hours ago, merijn said:

That is correct but the meeting you are referring to was only to remind the embassies about this, They where informed already much earlier that they have to verify the provided information, (but i don't remember anymore exactly when that was).

By verifying the provided income information they can certify the income certificate certificate as the income is verified.

But the affected embassies choose not to do so.

It is not a matter of "choice" for "verifying" the validity of incomes - it is a matter of what is legal by the laws of the countries involved.  It is not legal for Dept of State to "verify" incomes or "validate" documents - all they can do is "certify" - which means "This person is who they say they are and swear this is true."  The UK has privacy-laws which also prevent "verifying" the documents they are given to "certify."

 

There is also the practicality-aspect - state-dept / embassy employees are not forensic accountants. 

 

Thailand-authorities evidently realized they had asked the impossible, so retreated to the "certification" language vs the "verification" language which was reportedly used in May 2018.

 

I am not aware of earlier requests for a different standard, but it is not revealed in the FOA docs which have come out from the UK, or any public statements by embassy or Thai-immigration personnel that I have seen. 

 

Some embassies (France, for one) continue to issue the same type of Statutory Declarations which the USA used previously - with no attendant documents - just a sworn oath.  Because those are still in-use and evidently being accepted by Thai immigration, the USA and AU should immediately resume issuing theirs. 

 

Thai immigration can always request secondary-documentation, as they are reported to do in Chiang Mai, currently.

[JackThompson]

3 hours ago, jacko45k said:

Surely there is a system of permissions to stay and if not in a position to extend that it will come to an end and limit one's stay. Leaving and returning is the usual way a new permission is obtained, and a person who is obviously living in Thailand, using a Tourist Visa or Visa Exempt (for tourism purposes) to try and re-enter, can rightly be blocked from entering. 

A visitor attempting entry can be refused-entry only for the specific reasons stated in the Immigration Act.  None of those reasons are "living in the country," or "here too long before."   These are both absent from the law, and also undefined.  This is why most entry-points do not deny-entry for these reasons - and the few that do hide their actions behind an unrelated reason in their denial-stamps.

The bad entry-points cannot publish a "previous time" limit, which they are not legally allowed to enforce - so what results is complete anarchy.

[Tomtomtom69]

On 3/22/2019 at 6:55 AM, BritManToo said:

Always a mistake, never speak to IOs or other government officials in Thai, they don't like it.

Happy and a bit stupid is the way to go.

Nonsense. They appreciate it.

[Tomtomtom69]

On 3/23/2019 at 9:53 PM, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Just curious -- regarding the notion of a Plan B if previously denied entry at Swampy or DMK.....

 

There was prior talk in this thread about going back to Phnom Penh and starting over from there, with either a land entry back to Thailand or some other airport other than BKK or DMK.

 

But I was looking at the airline booking sites today, and I don't see/can't find any direct flights from Phnom Penh direct to anywhere else in Thailand but BKK or DMK.  There are of course connecting flights that go from PP to BKK or DMK and then onward to other Thailand cities. 

 

So I guess the question becomes, if you're coming back from a place like Phnom Penh because you've had trouble with Immigration at BKK or DMK and you want to avoid them, and you have a connecting flight to another city, do you still have to go thru Immigration in BKK or can wait to do so until reaching your final destination?

 

If you have to go thru Immigration at your first entry point into Thailand, which would be BKK or DMK because there are no direct flights from PP into Thailand that avoid those airports, then I don't see any air trip way to avoid them???

 

Just by way of example, I searched for all flights from PP to CM, and got this result -- It looks like pretty much all the flights from PP into Thailand go thru one of the BKK airports. And the flights that don't go thru BKK go to some very far afield other Asian countries before coming back to CM.

 

 

Here's what you get if you want to go from PP to CM and avoid going thru BKK/DMK:

 

 

Air Asia now flies Phuket-Phnom Penh. It's a brand new route.

[elviajero]

31 minutes ago, Tomtomtom69 said:

On 3/21/2019 at 11:55 PM, BritManToo said:

Always a mistake, never speak to IOs or other government officials in Thai, they don't like it.

Happy and a bit stupid is the way to go.

Nonsense. They appreciate it.

I agree. You gain tonnes of respect when speaking Thai. However, the only time it's not a good idea to speak Thai is when trying to convince an IO at passport control that you're a tourist.

[Yamojig]

Great info!  Thank you for sharing.

[WeekendRaider]

The idea we should all have a “plan B” makes sense and I also thought of this after having problems this year.  But didn’t do one.  Doing such a plan at all seriously could not help but change the way we think of our lives here in a way that is not positive.  Thailand needs to really revamp this whole thing.  This whole saga is bad for everyone.

[Cat ji]

On 3/22/2019 at 6:12 AM, Kelsall said:

Time for all of us to wake up and smell the coffee.  We go by their rules, both written and unwritten, and they are changing and enforcement is changing.

Yes.  Hence the increased interest in alternative places.
There seems to be quite a few complaints about the 800K baht for the retirement extensions, and the 400K having to have been in the account longer, but it will probably not stay at 800K for very much longer.

 

 

On 3/22/2019 at 6:12 AM, edwardandtubs said:

OP, thanks for the tip about not signing but I am curious how someone with your knowledge was not aware that flying in to Don Muang with a long stay history and no tourist visa was inevitably going to lead to refusal of entry.

Habit, got used to it being no problem for so long, so many times.

[Cat ji]

6 minutes ago, WeekendRaider said:

The idea we should all have a “plan B” makes sense and I also thought of this after having problems this year.  But didn’t do one.  Doing such a plan at all seriously could not help but change the way we think of our lives here in a way that is not positive.  [...]

Good point. I know that's a tendency I have, need to be more realistic. And that sort of situation could be much worse if you didn't have so much money.

[Thailand Outcast]

30 minutes ago, WeekendRaider said:

The idea we should all have a “plan B” makes sense and I also thought of this after having problems this year.  But didn’t do one.  Doing such a plan at all seriously could not help but change the way we think of our lives here in a way that is not positive.  Thailand needs to really revamp this whole thing.  This whole saga is bad for everyone.

Thailand will not change, so you have to change.

 

"Failing to plan is planning to fail." 

[WaveHunter]

All good things must come to an end.  It seems to me that the day of this being the land of smiles is over.  Immigration, while never a pleasant experience has gotten markedly worse to deal with in the 18 months I've lived here.  Some of the officers are like little dictators or martinets the way they treat many ExPats.  I don't think that's right, especially considering the significant amounts of money that ExPats bring to the economy!

 

I may be incorrect but it seems to me that Thailand's economy relies heavily on tourists and ex-pats, and would be in a pretty sorry state without them.  Maybe they should start acknowledging that by how they treat us.

 

I'm glad I got to experience the best of what Thailand has to offer for a while at least, but I think it's time to start thinking about finding another place that has a little more respect for ExPats...and the long-term money they bring to an economy, like maybe Vietnam.

Edited April 19, 2019 by WaveHunter

[Thailand Outcast]

10 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

All good things must come to an end.  The day of this being the land of smiles is over.  I'm glad I got to experience it for a while at least, but I think it's time to start thinking about another place that has a little more respect for ExPats...and the long-term money they bring to an economy...like maybe Vietnam.

I don't expect Thai's to respect me, but what I do expect, from a country marketing itself as a retirement destination, is some certainty and surety in their visa system that legally permits expats to reside here, but we can't have foreigners actually having any rights, can we?

 

Seriously, out of the retired demographic, what is the percentage of foreigners committing crime, or destitute? 

 

All this 800k / 400k is a smoke screen for cheap farang loans to Thai banks.  

 

It can't be call emergency funds for an accident or illness because if you spend some of your 800k in pre or post seasoning, no visa, and is you spend some of your 400k at all, no visa. 

 

Vietnam is pay a flat fee and here is your visas.  No hoops to jump through. 

Edited April 19, 2019 by Thailand Outcast

[jayboy]

On 4/7/2019 at 4:45 PM, elviajero said:

I agree. You gain tonnes of respect when speaking Thai. However, the only time it's not a good idea to speak Thai is when trying to convince an IO at passport control that you're a tourist.

It depends. Excellent polite Thai tonally and grammatically sound will certainly be helpful. But in my experience, 90% of foreigners who boast about speaking "good Thai" simply don't meet the required standard and often even those semi-fluent betray the low social class of their Thai contacts.No particular harm in itself but it won't impress bureaucrats.

 

Excellent Thai speakers tend not to brag about it. Why should they? They operate on a different level to the Pattaya (used generically not geographically) mob