It would be interesting, but anyone that has spent months/years in the country really doesn’t have a chance of a successful appeal, unless that is the reason given on the expulsion notice; which it never is.

If the reason given by the immigration mafia is "no appropriate means of life living in Thailand" or "having money less than the minimum requirement of immigration announcement" then they can be easily proved as an incorrect reason. As to how the appeal would go, maybe I'll find out soon enough

18 hours ago, Cheesus said:

~10months/year

 

When I was checking in at Japan airport I was given form to sign but it was about issue that my second name (in passport) wasn't written in my reservation

 

So you're saying that it won't be possible for me to choose (and pay) for flight to some different destination?

 

 

Staying 10 months in one year is not considered a tourist anywhere. I know that in Australia and New Zealand, no way you can stay more than six months.

3 minutes ago, gamini said:

Staying 10 months in one year is not considered a tourist anywhere. I know that in Australia and New Zealand, no way you can stay more than six months.

If that's the law there, fine. Visitors will know and can plan accordingly. Rejecting people at the airport without having such a regulation, writing down a bogus reason when doing so, is another story.

 

If Thailand doesn't want long-term tourists, they shouldn't get visa or boarding clearance. There's no valid reason to subject such a traveler to the denied entry experience described in this and similar threads. That should be reserved for more serious cases, and airport immigration would better focus on real security threats anyway.

When my son becomes old enough, on his birthday, I will make a hanging immigration doll filled with candy and then hand him a bat. 

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

I assumed he'd been sacked, or moved to an inactive post.

Haven't seen his photo for a while now.

Just saw him on tv full screen proud as a trout in fresh water.

He is on the case of the Afrikaan who killed the Thai 'lady' last week.

Chasing by any means in his name.

43 minutes ago, gamini said:

Staying 10 months in one year is not considered a tourist anywhere. I know that in Australia and New Zealand, no way you can stay more than six months.

Those countries have higher wages which attract people who come to work illegally.  Thailand has this problem also, but not from people who have passports to countries where the lowest-paying job is more than an illegal Thai job.

 

The percentage of their populations which rely on tourism for employment is also far below that of Thailand.  Thailand has always welcomed repeat tourists, because it is all upside for us to spend our foreign-capital into their economy; each one of us spends several Thai-job-salaries into existence every month we stay.

 

As well, Thailand is not a party to many UN Conventions on refugees, etc - so no way we can "make ourselves their problem," as we see all too frequently when foreigners from poorer countries enter our own (legally or illegally), and find ways to "cling on" and never leave - draining the funds for social-welfare programs designed to provide a safety-net for our citizens, in the process.  There is no welfare for foreigners in Thailand.

 

For these reasons, very different immigration protocols were developed.  In order to minimize corruption/bribe opportunities, there are only very specific reasons Thai immigration can deny entry.  None of those reasons is even close to, "was in the country legally a lot before."  It is simply not a valid legal reason to deny entry to Thailand.

1 hour ago, scubascuba3 said:

1 hour ago, elviajero said:

It would be interesting, but anyone that has spent months/years in the country really doesn’t have a chance of a successful appeal, unless that is the reason given on the expulsion notice; which it never is.

If the reason given by the immigration mafia is "no appropriate means of life living in Thailand" or "having money less than the minimum requirement of immigration announcement" then they can be easily proved as an incorrect reason. As to how the appeal would go, maybe I'll find out soon enough

The person given the exclusion notice I posted was denied entry for two separate reasons.

 

12 (9) “having money less than the minimum requirement of immigration announcement”.

They admitted they didn’t have the required cash so it couldn’t be appealed.

 

12 (2) “no appropriate means of life living in Thailand”.

In order to appeal you need to know what immigration consider “appropriate means”, and as that isn’t specified anywhere you’ve virtually no chance of a successful appeal.

 

12 (2) is a catch all law that can easily be applied to a visitor that has spent months/years in the country without proving an (unprovable) appropriate means of living, and is looking to stay longer.

3 hours ago, elviajero said:

I don't understand this latest advice not to sign anything! It doesn't make any difference whether or not you sign the expulsion notice or not.

One poster who was denied entry stated that in the document he was asked to sign was a clause stating he accepted his detention and that he would have to pay for this "accommodation".

 

A different poster who was denied entry refused to sign and was marched to the gate.

 

I don't know about you but, given the choice to pay 800 Baht to be locked in a room or the option to wait airside for no charge, I know which one I would choose.

2 hours ago, JackThompson said:

But IOs - who are not even remotely representative of "Thailand" as a country - cannot make up their own reasons to deny-entry as they see fit.

Don't the  IOs the have right of discretion?

And yes they are representing the state at the border.

4 minutes ago, sweatalot said:

Don't the  IOs the have right of discretion?

And yes they are representing the state at the border.

Thai IO's have the same discretion about whether or not to allow entry as all IO's of western counties have.

10 minutes ago, KarlS said:

Thai IO's have the same discretion about whether or not to allow entry as all IO's of western counties have.

No, according to law they do NOT.

Some update: I had to pay 1700 thb for 17 hours of my accomodation, otherwise I was threatened not to be escorted to the gate. In other words they would make me miss my flight. Maybe they were bluffing but I passed anyway.

 

I was double assured right before flight that when I get tourist Visa in KL then I will be permitted to entry through Phuket airport.

 

I'm in KL now, no problem with immigration

 

Someone asked about detention room. It's not that bad compared to the stories about Singapore one. Worst thing is that its freezing there. I was lucky since I came with jacket but even though it was cold as <deleted> in there. Anytime I could ask security guard to buy me food/water (obviously had to give him money)

1 minute ago, ThomasThBKK said:

No, according to law they do NOT.

What 'law' are you talking about?  Please provide a link.

Yet another post about someone being denied entry. 

 

My first thought was that gaining entry to Thailand has now become nothing more than a crap shoot, but then this guy has been in country for ten months out of twelve and tried to enter visa-exempt, a schoolboy error. If he had been actually allowed to enter, then that would have made a more interesting post.

 

Genuine tourists do not enter a country multiple times a year for months on end! When will people realise this?

 

What were you doing as a "tourist" for 10 months a year? Visiting every wat in the country? I would side with the Thai authorities in this one, at least they are taking steps to deny entry to people who are clearly on the wrong visa, or, in this case, don't have a visa at all despite extensive travel to Thailand.

 

Everything is easy with the benefit of hindsight, but the OP should have done his homework. It seems that so many long-term visitors to Thailand do not understand the concept of a visa - it is a kind of filter to prevent people who are considering illegal work or activities from entering the country. A way to sort the genuine from the non-genuine, a way to protect the country from descending into a haven for undesirables.

 

I feel for the OP, from his point of view he may have done nothing wrong, and endured a great deal of hassle because he didn't understand that there are other types of visa for long-term visitors. But at least now he knows, I doubt he will make the same mistake again.

6 minutes ago, KarlS said:

What 'law' are you talking about?  Please provide a link.

 

Quote

Section 16. If, in the interests of the country or for reason of public order, good morals or culture, or for the happiness of the people, the Minister considers that any alien or group of aliens should not be permitted to enter the Kingdom, the Minister shall have power to not permit such alien or group of aliens to enter the Kingdom.

 

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

 

Section 16, If u read the whole thing multiple times it's clear that only the Minister has these discretions and they avoided giving them to IOs. 

 

That's why they always quote 12.2 instead. 

 

Quote

(2) Having no appropriate means of living on entering the Kingdom;

 

12 minutes ago, pr9spk said:

Genuine tourists do not enter a country multiple times a year for months on end! When will people realise this?

That depends on your definition of tourism. I like the following from Wikipedia:

 

Tourism means people traveling for fun. It includes activities such as sightseeing and camping. People who travel for fun are called "tourist".

16 minutes ago, ThomasThBKK said:

 

 

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

 

Section 16, If u read the whole thing multiple times it's clear that only the Minister has these discretions and they avoided giving them to IOs. 

 

That's why they always quote 12.2 instead. 

 

 

That link opens an UNOFFICIAL TRANSLATION. 

If I worked as an immigration officer, after having undergone all the training and exams, then if a European visitor who spends 10 months out of 12 in the country on tourist visas doesn't pique my interest, then I'm not sure what would. They are looking for anyone who could be detrimental to the country, and wanting to deny entry to these people to protect their homeland. Good for them.

 

The immigration officer is just doing their job to protect the country from suspicious visitors. And then it is the job of any long-term visitor to try and understand the immigration rules of the country which they spend most of their time in as a visitor. And therefore to get the correct visa for their purpose of stay.

 

Wikipedia might define a tourist as such, but it is clear that the Thai authorities take a more sensible approach, and can get a feel for when someone is doing something wrong, or is on the wrong type of visa. If they just let everyone in visa-free for as long as they wanted, Thailand would become a haven for criminals and undesirables.

Just now, KarlS said:

That link opens an UNOFFICIAL TRANSLATION. 

Translated by

Center for Translation and Language Services, Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia, Mahidol University under contract for the Office of the Council of State of Thailand's Law for ASEAN project.

 

 

whatever mate, feel free to read and translate the thai version yourself ????

 

There's obviously no official english translation as thai law is in thai language.

2 minutes ago, ThomasThBKK said:

Translated by

Center for Translation and Language Services, Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia, Mahidol University under contract for the Office of the Council of State of Thailand's Law for ASEAN project.

 

 

whatever mate, feel free to read and translate the thai version yourself ????

 

There's obviously no official english translation as thai law is in thai language.

Read this from your link  "DISCLAIMER: THIS TEXT HAS BEEN PROVIDED FOR EDUCATIONAL/ COMPREHENSION PURPOSES AND CONTAINS NO LEGAL AUTHORITY. THE OFFICE OF THE COUNCIL OF STATE SHALL ASSUME NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY LIABILITIES ARISING FROM THE USE AND/OR REFERENCE OF THIS TEXT. THE ORIGINAL THAI TEXT AS FORMALLY ADOPTED AND PUBLISHED SHALL IN ALL EVENTS REMAIN THE SOLE AUTHORITY HAVING LEGAL FORCE" 

Can't you two just get a room?

Just now, KarlS said:

Read this from your link  "DISCLAIMER: THIS TEXT HAS BEEN PROVIDED FOR EDUCATIONAL/ COMPREHENSION PURPOSES AND CONTAINS NO LEGAL AUTHORITY. THE OFFICE OF THE COUNCIL OF STATE SHALL ASSUME NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY LIABILITIES ARISING FROM THE USE AND/OR REFERENCE OF THIS TEXT. THE ORIGINAL THAI TEXT AS FORMALLY ADOPTED AND PUBLISHED SHALL IN ALL EVENTS REMAIN THE SOLE AUTHORITY HAVING LEGAL FORCE" 

 

Yes, as i said only the thai version is legal as for every thai law text.

Just translate it yourself, as already said. What's your problem? ????‍♂️

32 minutes ago, pr9spk said:

Can't you two just get a room?

Have heard there's one only 100 baht for one hour.

Your almost 35 , 

You live in Thailand

you spend 10 out of 12 months in Thailand with a passport having METV and other TV

you obviously have money , can support yourself and can substantiate it!

 

It's the age(suspicious life style)! I wonder if a old gizzer would have been put through this

 

I must compliment you on your calmness

 

Please  keep us informed

 

2 hours ago, ThomasThBKK said:

2 hours ago, KarlS said:

Thai IO's have the same discretion about whether or not to allow entry as all IO's of western counties have.

No, according to law they do NOT.

They can with the authority of the Minister of Interior.

 

Immigration Act:

Section 12 (10). Being a person prohibited by the Minister under Section 16.

 

Section 16. In the instance where for reason of national welfare or safeguarding the public peace , culture , morality , or welfare , or when the Minister considers it improper to allow any alien or any group of alien to enter into the Kingdom , the Minister shall have power to exclude said alien or group aliens from entering into the Kingdom.

 

The Minister can use section 16 to give discretional power to IO's under section 12 (10) to deny entry to any person or group they choose to exclude.

 

It is clear that such power has been given to IO's to scrutinise long term visitors for tourism and to deny entry at their discretion. However, the minister has not (although they could) passed a regulation giving strict limits (other than VE entry at land borders), and has evidently instructed IO's to use any qualifying reason under section 12 to deny entry to long term visitor for tourism the IO wants to exclude.

4 hours ago, elviajero said:

It is clear that such power has been given to IO's to scrutinise long term visitors for tourism and to deny entry at their discretion.

If such power had been given, then the IOs would deny those people referring to 12.10.

But they don't refer to 12.10, which makes it clear that the minister didn't give them this power.

No matter which way you view this it is not good news 

1 hour ago, rosst said:

No matter which way you view this it is not good news 

not good news for those who think they can abuse a tourist visa for long term stay.

 

And btw: IOs act on behalf of the minister - so they have discretional power

53 minutes ago, sweatalot said:

so they have discretional power

No, they don't

The word "Law" and "Thailand" should not be used in the same sentence.

If you really are going to rail against some Thais (Immigration Officers) not following the law, I suggest you change your target to Thai drivers on the roads. A far better result if the "Law" was enforced.