After 11 years in Chiang Mai, I was Denied Entry

[alex8912]

6 hours ago, Just Weird said:

There are no opportunities for baksheesh, tea money, bribes when entering the country at Immigration, neither are there any agents there to assist those who don't meet the IOs requirements!

So I guess you have not been to Bangkok airport in the past several months. 

Tell me what airport in the world has a “ no tips” sign in front of each IO?? 

Why do you think these signs had to be there? 

There were many accepting these tips and it had been proven. That is your answer. 

[Just Weird]

5 hours ago, BritTim said:

The trouble with that is that the Immigration Act specifically states that, unlike in most other countries, immigration officials do not have that power. They are supposed to deny entry only for the reasons specified in Section 12 of the Immigration Act (and they do actually stamp one of those reasons in your passport, even though their use of it is bogus). Only the Minister has discretion to deny entry to individuals or groups for other reasons. It is possible for the Minister to use Police Orders to instruct officials on other reasons for denied entry (and this is sometimes done with visa exempt entries and visas on arrival). However, the Minister clearly is not supposed to delegate power to officials to deny entry whenever they feel like it.

"...Immigration Act specifically states that, unlike in most other countries, immigration officials do not have that power".

 

The trouble is that I have read the Act and what you stated is untrue.  The Act makes no mention, for instance, of any other countries.  Immigration Officers are known as competent officials (or maybe competent officers) and as such if they deem that someone should not be granted entry their word counts.  That doesn't stop anyone who wants to appeal the decision from doing so, though. 

 

"...the Minister clearly is not supposed to delegate power to officials to deny entry whenever they feel like it".

The exact opposite of what you claim is the case, the Minister does give those competent officials that power as Immigration Officers but the IOs generally do not deny entry to visitors "whenever they feel like it"!   To make that accusation is plain ridiculous, in general, and particularly ridiculous in the case of the OP that is being discussed.

[fforest1]

11 minutes ago, Okis said:

OP the people scolding you are not genuine bootlickers or halo—boys. It's just that their envy makes their stomach turn deep inside since you've been here for 11 years without the pressure to invest resources to be able to stay and instead you used those resources to enjoy yourself. 

 

I'm looking forward to getting my first long term visa in the end of this month. Not because of the visa itself but rather to see if i`m gonna turn into a grumpy wrinkled up senior on thaivisa telling people to do the same as me or they wrong and need to leave Thailand ????

Whats funny the old guys telling every one to get the right visa I bet a whole lot of them lived on double tourist visas for years before they turned 50.... lol...... If they were in Thailand when they were under 50 I bet just about every last one of them did it....

[jethro69]

So it means, they send you away, not even check if you have the 20K.

Had an odd experience 3 weeks ago, when I crossed a land border, the IO went to see his Sup, however when I asked what's wrong? Standard stupid answer, everything ok. Oh yes, maybe until next time. 

I wonder how the elections go, most probably Status Quo, for sure repression will increase. An unknown outcome, well Status Quo will remain too, as we'll have another coup within should the general prick not win. Ohhh, be sure to see some comedy in between 

[jspill]

Stick to land borders, I've been here nearly 10 years, haven't used an airport for over a year when I started reading of denials on this forum.

 

It's the Thai elections, there's a decent chance things get easier once military rule is gone, back to how they were before, very easy.

[balo]

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

I know loads of guys who had an Ed VISA for learning Thai, none of them ended up speaking a word of Thai.

OP himself stated he is fluent in Thai , so I think he learned something at that school.   

Before I turned 50 I was on a 1 year ED visa myself, and I actually tried to learn Thai but after 6 months I realized it was never going to work for me.  But this was before immigration started to "test" peoples language skills. 

 

[shaurene]

I would never fly in or out of D.M. After experienced it.  I fly out of Suvanabum when I go to China, Vietnam Hong Kong Malasia. Immigration at D.M. Is a nightmare.

[Happystance]

3 hours ago, Thailand Outcast said:

Entering by land still does not 100% guarantee entry, but at least you can walk back to where you came from. 

 

1 hour ago, jspill said:

Stick to land borders...

 

It's the Thai elections, there's a decent chance things get easier once military rule is gone, back to how they were before, very easy.

Land borders! 

Malaysia is epic, KUL is a nice cheap airport to fly in to, no visa needed and well served by the rails. Head on up to Padang Besar with maybe a layover on Penang Island, on the off chance you get turned away at the border you could be on Langkawi for sunset!

 

Make it fun!

 

And ya, elections, change in the air, things might lighten up, positive thinking goes a long way, no need to work yerselves into a froth here...

 

[lamyai3]

6 hours ago, chrisc38 said:

I agree, i milked the system for a long damn time, i'm not bitter about the whole thing, just thought i'd share my experience.

Thanks for sharing your experience, another depressing account of immigration running amok. I can't really agree that you milked the system, when all you did was to follow the prevailing rules of the day. When an IO told someone in the past "too many visa exempt entries, get a tourist visa" and the person subsequently did, how is that milking the system? The only people who seem to be milking the system right now are the ones who are running it. 

[Enki]

19 hours ago, mngmn said:

Find it interesting (but not surprising) that TV members attack the OP but say nothing about the appalling behaviour of the IOs.  Thai IOs should be made to watch the Australian Border Security show for some pointers on how to interact with passengers politely (even when the passenger is breaking the law).

 

Increasingly worried about my two VE entries I need to do following three years in Thailand on Non-O visas.  My passport is full of entry/exit stamps but I need to enter two more times to pack up my condo and ferry stuff back home for good.  I don't feel confident that the IOs will accept this as a valid reason as they seem to simply enjoy being vindictive. 

Just get a new passport, can't be so hard.

[dbrenn]

14 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Are you sure of that?

I read it as 'not enough money for living' nothing to do with occupation.

Foundation for living - could refer to funds or a job. It's a bit ambiguous I'll grant you. Ambiguity being a useful tool for refusing entry.

[Peterw42]

14 minutes ago, elviajero said:

That's wrong. Every westerner living in the country is resident! You are confusing immigrant status with residential status.

 

We are all visitors. Some visitors have a certificate of residence (indefinite leave to remain); most have temporary permission to stay. Both are resident if it is their permanent/long term home.

A certificate of residence does not give you indefinite leave to remain. A certificate of residence is a document you get from immigration to buy a motorbike etc, nothing to do with being a Permanent Resident. PR status is indefinite stay, no visa, no 90 day reports.

[Date Masamune]

A certificate of residence does not give you indefinite leave to remain. A certificate of residence is a document you get from immigration to buy a motorbike etc, nothing to do with being a Permanent Resident. PR status is indefinite stay, no visa, no 90 day reports.

Totally agree a legal residence implies some objective status. As it is anything short of PR you are only subject to Thai law as benefits some the national interest, not booted for any reason dreamed up by the police, a false accusation, puffing on the vape pen, “insults”, etc.

Of course if you get robbed by a ladyboy or get your wallet returned by a taxi driver they’ll let you appear at the police station either pointing for the camera or “wai” ing as appropriate. That is the extent of Alien protection under Thai law.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[elviajero]

16 minutes ago, Peterw42 said:

A certificate of residence does not give you indefinite leave to remain. A certificate of residence is a document you get from immigration to buy a motorbike etc, nothing to do with being a Permanent Resident. PR status is indefinite stay, no visa, no 90 day reports.

Wrong too!!!!!  

 

A residence permits full title is “Certificate of Residence”. 

Edited March 23, 2019 by elviajero

[MrBingley]

It doesn't make sense for Thailand to run two "premium" options for under 50s, the Elite visa and BOI agreement with Iglu for digital workers, and allow people to stay as long as they want on tourist visas and exemptions. Thailand only seems to have realised this last year, when there was a spike in cases like this one, even though these other options have been available for several years. 

Edited March 23, 2019 by MrBingley

[BritTim]

5 hours ago, elviajero said:

The OP was not denied entry for not having money. He was denied for not having an appropriate way of living in the country. There’s a big difference.

The original Thai is clearer on what this actually means, and it is nothing to do with having the correct kind of visa. The original Thai is

Quote

ไมมีปจจัยในการยังชีพตามควรแกกรณีที่เขามาในราชอาณาจักร

which means, literally "no factor in sustaining life after entry", or in context, no way of supporting yourself after entry into the kingdom.

 

If immigration officials were supposed to judge whether arrivals were using the correct kind of visa for their intended stay, Section 12 would say so, not say that officials should deny entry if you have no way of supporting yourself in Thailand for the next 60 days.

[BritTim]

2 hours ago, Enki said:

Sorry. The law is very simple and very clear: an immigration officer can deny you entry for what ever reason he/she wants. There is no law that you can apply to, to force entry.

Here is a link to the most commonly used translation of the Immigration Act:

http://web.krisdika.go.th/data/outsitedata/outsite21/file/Immigration_Act_B.E._2522.pdf

 

Perhaps, you would be so good as to point out the Section that supports your contention that "an immigration official can deny you entry for whatever reason he/she wants". The appropriate sections to look at are Sections 11-22.

 

The only way your statement is correct is if your meaning is that, in Thailand, the rule of law is meaningless, and the immigration officials can simply ignore the laws as written.

[BritTim]

50 minutes ago, Sealbash said:

In which country does an IO not have discretionary authority?

I think the Immigration Bureau probably believes its officials should have that discretion. Nevertheless, under Thai law, they do not. I agree this is different from the law in most other countries.

[BritTim]

4 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

Surely section 16 gives wide discretionary powers that an IO would claim to be exercising under delegation?

Section 16 gives the Minister wide discretionary powers. Carefully read sections 11-22 several times, and you should come to the conclusion that the Immigration Act specifically and deliberately avoids giving officials other than the Minister discretion over who to admit or deny entry (other than pursuant to the reasons given in Section 12).

[ubonjoe]

This topic just got a few pages shorter after removing 66 posts for bickering, flaming, trolling. and etc.

[buick]

20 hours ago, brokenbone said:

the only visa more expensive then ED visa is 5 year elite visa

what makes the ED visa expensive ?

 

edit:

according to the OP's post #141:

What i was doing was actually more expensive than ED visas 11,400 for extensions a year and 6-8 flights out a year + hotels etc, do the math.

 

so ED visas certainly rank below visa runs by air to nearby countries in terms of cost.

Edited March 23, 2019 by buick

[sanemax]

Just now, buick said:

what makes the ED visa expensive ?

Lessons for 1 year 40-50 000 Baht .

Visa + extensions 8000 Baht .

Trip to Laos 5-10 000 Baht .

50-70 000 Baht per year for an Ed visa

[buick]

16 hours ago, chrisc38 said:

If you must know i got lucky in the IT boom before i moved and got lucky again with bitcoin. I also got lucky doing this for so many years, an elite visa would have been a waste of money to do before this, don't know why ya'll keep suggesting i should have done something different, obviously what i've done the past 11 years has worked, time for the next thing, not a big deal, but i wouldn't have done anything different. The four hours i had to endure at don muang airport sure beats wasting 300,000 baht which i would have wasted had I bought and elite visa 3 years ago. If i had followed the advice given here i'd have a lot less bitcoin than i do now.

i'm with you on 'forget the elite visa'.  better to spend money on travel to/spending time in other countries in the region.  just try to keep your time in thailand below 6 months a year and use tourist visas to enter thailand.  maybe get an METV in your passport country.  maybe get to know penang as a leisure destination as you have easy access via train to land border (2x/year visa exempt). 

 

i enjoy my time in thailand (about 8 months a year) but i enjoy my time outside thailand just as much.  no reason to stretch your time in thailand when so many other places can be equally enjoyable.

[onera1961]

It doesn't make sense for Thailand to run two "premium" options for under 50s, the Elite visa and BOI agreement with Iglu for digital workers, and allow people to stay as long as they want on tourist visas and exemptions. Thailand only seems to have realised this last year, when there was a spike in cases like this one, even though these other options have been available for several years. 

Elite visa holders are not authorized to work, contribute to social security, and pay taxes. Iglu workers are entitled for all of these

Sent from my JKM-LX2 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[onera1961]

which means, literally "no factor in sustaining life after entry", or in context, no way of supporting yourself after entry into the kingdom.
 
If immigration officials were supposed to judge whether arrivals were using the correct kind of visa for their intended stay, Section 12 would say so, not say that officials should deny entry if you have no way of supporting yourself in Thailand for the next 60 days.

Thai people cannot fathom somebody winning a lottery in the west.

Sent from my JKM-LX2 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[JackThompson]

9 hours ago, elviajero said:

The OP was not denied entry for not having money. He was denied for not having an appropriate way of living in the country. There’s a big difference.

Yes, the 2nd way is the IO claiming to know more about the visitor's long-term financial situation than the former, which can be solved by showing 10K Baht.  But if that were the issue at hand, the interrogations would involve financial questions.  They don't.  I have yet to read a single report with the question, "What is your means of long-term financing to afford your stay?"  When they do ask questions, reports indicate they often call the person a liar, so perhaps a waste of time to bother, if the person's words are meaningless to them.

 

So if words don't work, perhaps immigration want something more solid related to the "appropriate means" test.  If so, they would need to specify what that is.  Their only other logical alternative would be to deny-entry to every single person attempting entry on visa-exempt, tourist-visa, non-o Visa, ed-visa, etc.  You have said in the past, that IOs cannot possibly accept people "waiving bank-statements," so if there is no means to counter this financial-claim upon-entry, then immigration must turn everyone away - since none, except those on immigration-issued "extensions of stay," have proven an "appropriate means of living" in the country to immigration (though they have, to the MFA's satisfaction). 

 

Those coming in on repeat TR of visa exempt - and w/o overstays which the IOs could use as an excuse to deny-entry - are responsible people with more money to spend than is needed for many other forms of stay.  To deny that group based on a money-question is illogical. They don't even try to argue that case, instead lying about some imaginary time-limits being "the law" for tourists, but knowing better than to implicate themselves in a crime by putting that in the denial-stamp.

[Maestro]

On 3/22/2019 at 11:01 AM, elviajero said:

Virtually everyone is denied under section 12 (2) of the immigration act.

 

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

 

You were not denied for not having money, but for not having an appropriate means (way) of living in the country.

Does the original Thai text which has been translated as "means of living" really allow the interpretation of "way of living" in the context of section 12(2)? It will be interesting to see how a court of law rules on this if ever such a case goes to court. In the meantime, for a discussion of it on Thaivisa the Thai language forum would be the appropriate place.

[HampiK]

17 minutes ago, Maestro said:

Does the original Thai text which has been translated as "means of living" really allow the interpretation of "way of living" in the context of section 12(2)? It will be interesting to see how a court of law rules on this if ever such a case goes to court. In the meantime, for a discussion of it on Thaivisa the Thai language forum would be the appropriate place.

Yes, this I have asked myself many times as well.. "have the means of living" something to do with money or not?

As not enough money there is already a separate section. This maybe would be the main question. What is real the meaning of this section.

[elviajero]

7 hours ago, BritTim said:

The original Thai is clearer on what this actually means, and it is nothing to do with having the correct kind of visa. The original Thai is

which means, literally "no factor in sustaining life after entry", or in context, no way of supporting yourself after entry into the kingdom.

 

If immigration officials were supposed to judge whether arrivals were using the correct kind of visa for their intended stay, Section 12 would say so, not say that officials should deny entry if you have no way of supporting yourself in Thailand for the next 60 days.

I didn’t say it had anything to do with the type of visa.

 

I’ve explained the Thai text in the past. And you’re missing/ignoring a key part of the text; ตามควร - dtaam kuan. Which — as in the official translation— translates in context as “appropriate”. 

 

The official Thai translation is contextually accurate.

 

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

 

This law is written as a catch all and is saying that you can’t enter because you haven’t got an “appropriate” way of living (“supporting yoursel”) in the country.

 

They can use it for long term tourists because — as a tourist — they haven’t met any test to prove how they “support themselves”.

 

And as I’ve explained before, waiving a bank statement or wod of cash at the border is neither the time or place to prove your “means of living”, so it’s usually ignored by the IO.

 

The irony is that IO’s want evidence that you’re a tourist and going home, not that you’ve loads of money and can stay indefinitely!

 

Eventually people will stop conflating the requirement of 12 (9) with (2).

Edited March 23, 2019 by elviajero

[ChoakMyDee]

On 3/22/2019 at 4:24 PM, chrisc38 said:

For the record i'm not a digital nomad never worked a day the whole time i've been there...SNIP....

I'll be back from my extended holiday soon. can count on that.

Dude, thanks for sharing the details of your story. Please ignore the haters, they're old angry men married to ugly bar girls and they're jealous of you. Best of luck to you.

Edited March 23, 2019 by ChoakMyDee
quoted text too long