9 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Except, the AirAsia website you pointed to contained the following advisory circled below:

 

 

When they say "domestic connections", I presume that means to other Thai airports, regardless of whether those other Thai airports are classed as domestic or international.  If so, that would seem to rule out the fly thru idea you mentioned above.

Drat! I had forgotten that. At DMK, Fly-Thru uses an airside immigration desk (separate from the main immigration). However, it will still be the same immigration officers and potential problems. Sorry for the misinformation.

17 minutes ago, BritTim said:

There are flights into Chiang Mai from many overseas airports. There are also flights from China and Hong Kong direct into Chiang Rai. Never having flown in there, I have no idea whether it would be a good place to enter.

 

Looked at Chiang Rai-Hong Kong. The vast majority of 1 stop flights between go thru BKK. And the only nonstop I could find on that route is one that goes only M-W-F.

 

 

And Chiang Mai-Hong Kong works:

 

 

 

there are non-stop flights from various cities in china to phuket.

also china eastern has direct kunming-chiang mai, 2 hours.

11 minutes ago, ChouDoufu said:

there are non-stop flights from various cities in china to phuket.

also china eastern has direct kunming-chiang mai, 2 hours.

 

Is there any particular reason you'd want to get kicked out to China, when there are other options closer to home/Thailand?

 

The AirAsia nonstop between KUL and UTP would seem ideal for any BKK area folks, in a booted out pinch. And the tickets cheap as chips.

 

I guess I'm working from the presumption that the people who are getting kicked out are likely getting kicked out from grumpy Immigration BKK or DMK... So figuring that general area is where they might want to be getting back to.

 

Nonstops from KUL to Hat Yai are a bit over 1 hour, and KUL to UTP a bit over two hours... and no prior or arrival visa required to Malaysia, I believe...

 

not just for the booted-outeds.  think some were looking to find alternate routes in (without xfer in bkk) after using up their land border allotment.

 

and there's around 20 cities in china that offer visa free 72-hour or 144-hour transit.  so 3-6 days in the city without a visa, just an entry permit.

16 minutes ago, ChouDoufu said:

not just for the booted-outeds.  think some were looking to find alternate routes in (without xfer in bkk) after using up their land border allotment.

 

and there's around 20 cities in china that offer visa free 72-hour or 144-hour transit.  so 3-6 days in the city without a visa, just an entry permit.

 

Thanks!  Perhaps it also was me thinking that China might not necessarily be such a hospitable place these days for Americans, Canadians and who knows who else....

 

The other factor that could likely come into play for such destinations is how easy is it to obtain a Thai tourist visa back into Thailand if, for example, someone has just been denied entry on the basis of too many VEs.

 

 

On 3/22/2019 at 9:44 AM, chrisc38 said:

So if i had bought the 5 year elite visa 3 years ago i would have wasted 3 years of it now no? Why would that be better?

If you had bought it last month , no current problem.

i'm actually here now, no problems so far.  that could change if trump does something.....foolish.

 

about the visa free transit, you have to be coming from one country and exiting to a different country, so may take some more planning.  (hong kong is considered outside of china for this policy)  have to remain in the city where the airport is located during the transit period.

 

there are thai consulates in guangzhou, nanning and kunming with direct

flights.

He's a westerner, which simply means he's qualified to do as he pleases to some TV members. 

 

To the OP: Go get a real visa!

10 hours ago, BritManToo said:

There's no 'correct' in the translation

ตามควร  - appropriately ; correctly ; as should be

I always wonder why you discuss about the different english translations of a Thai word, of which all are not correct

 

Just search for "ปัจจัยยังชีพ" on Google and look in which contexts this is used in various news articles.

Then it becomes quite clear that this word means something like "basic needs" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_needs

So the IO said OP does not have food, shelter and clothing (or we could say "impoverished") and thus was denied entry.

Showing cash does of course show that the person is not impoverished. The IO doesn't ask for it, because it would prove that the IO is acting unlawful if he would deny entry after seeing cash.

On 3/22/2019 at 3:30 PM, tabarin said:

Perhaps because you generally not become wealthy when throwing your money on nonsense visa's and other things.
You can start a business with less than that.

And that is also his option. Running a business here in Thailand is not easy, however. If he is wealthy, has no need to work, and likes to travel, I doubt he would wish to do so.

On 3/22/2019 at 10:13 AM, Old Croc said:

Most countries don't allow residence using tourist visas. All have special arrangements (visas) for long term stays.

Why not simply buy the cheap, for you, Elite Visa?

You guys sound like a commercial for Elite visa. Elite visa is a TOURIST visa - it is no different than any other tourist visa except that it gives you 1 year entries instead of 30 or 60 days - you still cannot work and still regarded as a long-term tourist.

 

So if Thailand didn't want people to stay more than 180 days a year - why does the Elite visa exist? why is there no official rule stating 180 days a year? Simple fact is it's not that Thailand doesn't want long-term tourists - it's certain immigration offices/officers who don't, for whatever reason. Oh, and certain TV posters too, apparently, lol.

30 minutes ago, Briggsy said:

ตามควร  - appropriately ; correctly ; as should be

A group of university students studying English and their English lecturers disagree with your translation.

Jackdd and myself also disagree with you.

 

2 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

A group of university students studying English and their English lecturers disagree with your translation.

 

What a silly comment.

 

https://dict.longdo.com/search/ตามควร

23 minutes ago, PingRoundTheWorld said:

you still cannot work and still regarded as a long-term tourist.

Thai ministers and authorities consider all white foreigners in Thailand to be tourists.

15 hours ago, Thailand Outcast said:

Do you have a link to this? 

 

If what you say is correct, one could effectively stay 8 consecitive months of the year in Thailand. 

 

30 day exempt, then extend = 60 days x 4 = 8 months.  Then you must leave for 4 months. 

 

You could spread it out a little with a couple of 2 week holidays, to effectively in Thailand 9 months of the year on visa exemption stamps and extensions. 

 

Somehow, I can't see this being being allowed.

Please see copy of information hereunder provided by The Thai Embassy to me in Australia. Please see the final paragraph.

 

I have seen on 2 web sites (world travel guide & thaivisaservice ) that this restriction is 3 times in a 6 month period or 6 times per year, but that information is quite old and pre-dates the Thai Embassy information.

 

" Visa Exemption and Bilateral Agreement

 
Passport Holders who can enter Thailand without a Visa

The VISA EXEMPTION RULE allows tourists from 55 countries¹ to enter Thailand without a visa. They are granted to stay a maximum of 30 days if they are entering Thailand via an international airport or entering through a land border checkpoint from neighboring countries.

Under the new provisions of the VISA EXEMPTION RULE and BILATERAL AGREEMENT effective December 31, 2016, passport holders of 55 countries are entitled to enter Thailand under this rule provided that they meet the following criteria:

1.    The visit is strictly for tourism purposes.

2.    They must have a confirmed return ticket to show that they are flying out of Thailand within 30 days of entry, as appropriate. Open tickets do not qualify. Traveling over land out of Thailand by train, bus, etc to Cambodia, Laos, Malaysia (including en route to Singapore), Myanmar, etc may be accepted as proof of exiting Thailand.

You may be asked to show your flight ticket on entering Thailand. If you do not possess a flight ticket to show you will be exiting Thailand within 30 days of entry you will be most likely refused entry.

3.    It will also be necessary to prove that you have funds of at least 10,000 THB per person during your stay in Thailand.

A fee may be levied on persons entering Thailand under the VISA EXEMPTION RULE especially when entering through a land border in Southern Thailand.

Holders of normal passports of the following countries are granted visa-free travel to Thailand for a period of up to 30 days. The exemption is granted at most twice in a calendar year when entering over land or via a sea border, and 4 times per calendar year ( 1^st January – 31^st December ) when entering by air. For Malaysians entering by land border, there is no limitation in issuing the 30-day visa exemption stamp. Korea, Brazil, Peru, Argentina and Chile will get 90 days in both airport and land border.

¹55 Countries allowed to enter Thailand under the VISA EXEMPTION RULE:

. 

1 hour ago, TigerandDog said:

A fee may be levied on persons entering Thailand under the VISA EXEMPTION RULE especially when entering through a land border in Southern Thailand.

That's classic - they actually codified the "money in passport" scam being run out of Sadao, before, as a "fee."

1 hour ago, TigerandDog said:

4 times per calendar year ( 1^stJanuary – 31^stDecember ) when entering by air.

I'm not sure if it's funny or sad that even embassies don't know the actual rules. What's for sure is there's no such limit on entries by air.

2 hours ago, Briggsy said:

What a silly comment.

https://dict.longdo.com/search/ตามควร

Dictionaries are very poor at translating Thai, not to mention two Thai words added together can mean completely different things to the two words used individually (which is why I check translations with Thai people). The way you added 'correct' to your translation completely altered the meaning of the sentence. I'm sorry you don't understand, and I'm sorry I can't understand it for you. I would suggest you take the phrase down to a qualified Thai language teacher and ask them what it means, without first suggesting what you think it means to them.

 

"not having a correct means of supporting oneself" is not even a 'correct' English sentence, so cannot by definition be a 'correct' translation. Might as well claim 'my friend you' is 'correct' English. 

 

'No means to support himself while in the Kingdom' is the correct and complete translation.

'Doesn't have the means to support himself while in the Kingdom' would be a reasonable alternative.

'Not having the means to support ...........'

There are many ways of translating it into an English sentence, but not your way.

Talk about backtracking! What a ridiculous post!

 

ตามควร is a very straightforward forward phrase meaning appropriate, correct, proper or as it should be. It cannot mean anything else.

 

You were busted and now you're backtracking. It is not too bad to admit you're wrong. Just do it. Be a man.

 

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).

10 minutes ago, Briggsy said:

means of supporting yourself

This translation is wrong

And you skipped the "following entrance in the Kingdom" part, which makes it clear that for this section it's irrelevant what you did before, but this is only about how you can live in Thailand if they let you enter. Having cash does obviously satisfy this section.

35 minutes ago, Briggsy said:

Talk about backtracking! What a ridiculous post!

 

I've said the same thing in all my posts, no backtracking from me.

Your English comprehension skills seem to be as poor as your Thai translation skills.

I'm finished with you.

On 3/22/2019 at 5:06 AM, chrisc38 said:

Since when is having a pocket full of cash not an appropriate means of living in the country

I came from OZ about 2 years ago on a 6 months tourist visa. I ended up extending it and staying for around 8 months, before i got a job and now I'm on a Non B. You need about 200,000 baht in your home country. (double tourist visa) I guess it's called. Why don't you get one of those - as in 6 months Thai - 6 months elsewhere, if money is not an issue.

5 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Thai ministers and authorities consider all white foreigners in Thailand to be tourists.

No they don’t!!!

 

They consider us all visitors. And they grant us permission to stay for several reasons; tourism is just one of those reasons.

6 hours ago, PingRoundTheWorld said:

You guys sound like a commercial for Elite visa. Elite visa is a TOURIST visa - it is no different than any other tourist visa except that it gives you 1 year entries instead of 30 or 60 days - you still cannot work and still regarded as a long-term tourist.

No it’s not a tourist visa. Nowhere is it written on the visa that it’s a tourist visa. It’s a Privilege Entry Visa issued under investment rules.

 

If it were a tourist visa the maximum stay, by law, would be 90 days per entry. They can issue a permit for 1 year because it falls under investment rules.

 

You’re not regarded as a “long-term tourist”, because you’re not issued permission to stay for tourism. Immigration record the entries completely separately to tourist entries.

 

Quote

So if Thailand didn't want people to stay more than 180 days a year - why does the Elite visa exist?

Originally as an easy way for Thaksins business mates to come and go!

 

They do want people staying more than 180 days as long as they have the correct visa/permit. A tourist visa is not the correct visa.

 

Quote

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

IMO there are two main reasons;

1. They currently don’t ned to because the restrictions on VE land entries, and getting TR’s locally, has greatly reduduced long term tourists.

2. It’s not practical to set a fixed limit as the immigration system doesn’t keep count. 

 

Quote

Simple fact is it's not that Thailand doesn't want long-term tourists - it's certain immigration offices/officers who don't, for whatever reason. Oh, and certain TV posters too, apparently, lol.

The simple fact is that everything the authorities have done since 2006 has been to deter long term tourism.

6 hours ago, BritManToo said:

6 hours ago, Briggsy said:

ตามควร  - appropriately ; correctly ; as should be

A group of university students studying English and their English lecturers disagree with your translation.

Jackdd and myself also disagree with you.

The Thai authorities, and the person translating the immigration act based on context and the intention of the law, disagree with you!

29 minutes ago, elviajero said:

The simple fact is that everything the authorities have done since 2006 has been to deter long term tourism.

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

3 hours ago, jackdd said:

This translation is wrong

And you skipped the "following entrance in the Kingdom" part, which makes it clear that for this section it's irrelevant what you did before, but this is only about how you can live in Thailand if they let you enter. Having cash does obviously satisfy this section.

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

 

12 (2) is about money, but it goes beyond how much money you’ve got in your pocket. It is a catch all that IO’s can use for anyone that isn’t working, or that doesn’t have other “appropriate means” to support their stay.

 

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.

4 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.