rejection

[elviajero]

1 hour ago, JackThompson said:

For legal reasons, we cannot use that term here to describe them.  It's like saying "go ahead and hit me" with a couple large bodyguards on either side while making the challenge. 

@Caldera is quite happy to describe them a criminal. Just not brave enough to name one.

 

Surely you have law on your side!

 

1 hour ago, JackThompson said:

Based on our experiences here and all evidence to-date, why should be believe the TIB would care about IOs violating the laws/rules?  Billions of baht in payoffs from agents and schools don't seem to concern them - they even write the rules in such a way to maximize revenue from these schemes, while blaming "foreigners" for the actions of those in their own ranks who facilitate them.

So you beleive the TIB are ‘in on it’, and writing rules/regs to maximise corruption. Laughable!

 

The TIB (authorities) write the rules/regs — then some officers exploit the system and abuse their positions to extort foreigners.

 

Again, explain the financial benefit of IO’s denying entry to long term tourists!

[elviajero]

1 hour ago, JackThompson said:

As to comparing the requirements for 1-year permitted-stays with 30 to 60 day permitted-stays:

• There are no published-requirements to show additional funds (beyond the 10K/20K cash) for 30-day or 60-day tourist entries. 
• There is no legal reason for rejecting-entry based on "past time in the country," period.

Therefore, it is illegal to deny entry for "here too long before," or for not showing financials that are neither legally required nor requested.

 

The authorities can change the rules any time they want to add financials or limits on tourist-entries, but the clique currently misusing the 12-2 clause to deny entry at some entry-points are, evidently, unable to get the rule-changes they desire.

You’re missing the point, I was explaining that “appropriate means” means whatever the authorities want it to mean. Just having money isn’t — in the case of my spouse extension example — considered the appropriate means.

 

Again, no one has been denied entry for the reasons you claim. Other, qualifying reasons are used formally — on the record — to deny entry. The time previously spent  in the country, and request for more time, makes 12 (2) relevant.

[Caldera]

29 minutes ago, elviajero said:

@Caldera is quite happy to describe them a criminal. Just not brave enough to name one.

I'm not sure what amuses me more, your inept attempts at baiting me or your lack of understanding how Thailand works after having spent a princely 23 years (t)here.

 

Reports on here don't allow any of us to make the call if a particular rejection was legal or illegal. I stick to that, you don't. Go ahead defending Thai immigration, if you must - I think their reputation is well deserved and speaks for itself.

[elviajero]

28 minutes ago, Caldera said:

I'm not sure what amuses me more, your inept attempts at baiting me or your lack of understanding how Thailand works after having spent a princely 23 years (t)here.

I’m inept at baiting yet you replied!

 

For the record, quoting something you said is not baiting.

 

Quote

Reports on here don't allow any of us to make the call if a particular rejection was legal or illegal. I stick to that, you don't.

Rubish! You are claiming “criminality” in this thread and claiming illegality in others!!!!

 

If they are following formal procedure and not extorting money when denying entry the denial is legal. You claim otherwise and need to prove it.

 

Quote

Go ahead defending Thai immigration, if you must - I think their reputation is well deserved and speaks for itself.

I’m not defending immigration. I’m calling out the nonsense you/others are spouting in thread after thread.

 

Again, you can’t separate corruption with legitimate immigration policy enforcement.

Edited April 2, 2019 by elviajero

[lkv]

"You stay too long in Thailand. More than 180 days. You cannot stay so long. Therefore, you cannot enter Thailand today because of 12(2),(9)."

 

You still don't get the lawless factor in it, do you, @elviajero?

 

criminal /ˈkrɪmɪn(ə)l/ noun: 1. a person who has committed a crime. synonyms: lawbreaker.

 

So you see, we don't break any laws when we stay over 180 days as a tourist, they do. Especially when they quote it as a reason and they deny you entry for whatever other reason not relevant to that particular situation.

Edited April 2, 2019 by lkv

[elviajero]

1 minute ago, lkv said:

"You stay too long in Thailand. More than 180 days. You cannot stay so long. Therefore, you cannot enter Thailand today because of 12(2),(9)."

 

You still don't get the lawless factor in it, do you, @elviajero?

Anyone can be denied entry under 12 (9) if they don't carry the requisite cash whether it's their first visit or have stayed 1,800 days.

 

I've explained why -- for a tourist -- having "stayed too long" brings 12 (2) in to play.

 

It doesn't matter what the underlying reason is for denying entry. If the person qualifies to be denied under any clause in section 12, they can be denied by the IO quoting the relevant clause. It is possible for a visitor to qualify to be denied for several reasons.

 

These IO's are following formal denial procedure, so the denial is lawful. If the person being denied disagrees with the reason given for denial they can appeal.

 

The writing has been on the wall for ages and what's happening now is just a natural continuation of the ongoing soft clampdown on long term tourism.

 

You lot can bleat all you like, but the TIB (authorities) have undeniably instructed IO's to follow a procedure when using their discretion to deny entry to 'tourists', who are (like I did for years) taking advantage of a lax system. Why you can't accept that FACT is beyond me.

 

[elviajero]

35 minutes ago, lkv said:

criminal /ˈkrɪmɪn(ə)l/ noun: 1. a person who has committed a crime. synonyms: lawbreaker.

 

So you see, we don't break any laws when we stay over 180 days as a tourist, they do. Especially when they quote it as a reason and they deny you entry for whatever other reason not relevant to that particular situation.

Who said you break the law when staying over 180 days?

 

180 days is clearly an unofficial red line set buy the TIB. It’s been quoted by members at multiple entry points for years.

 

Do you understand the difference between, orders, laws, rules and regulations?

 

If an IO isn’t happy that a visitor has stayed over 180 days for tourism, they cannot currently deny entry for that reason, but they can still deny entry under any other qualifying clause in section 12 — which is what is happening.

[tabarin]

6 hours ago, elviajero said:

A foreigner needs the “appropriate means” to live with his wife in the country, which is 400K in the bank, a foreign income of at least 40K pm, or a job in Thailand. He can’t get an extension if he’s being kept by his wife, or only has 200K, because that is not an “appropriate means”.

Do not even want to bore everyone with the nonsense you wrote other than this but at least I can reply on this one.

What you are saying is untrue. You can get an extension if you are sponsored by your wife and you can also get single or multiple non-o visa entries without having any of the qualifications you mentioned. Also came across plenty of IO's who are disgusted by these denials etc.

And uhhh, get a life? Or do you have a fetish with IO's or something? 

Edited April 2, 2019 by tabarin

[elviajero]

15 minutes ago, tabarin said:

What you are saying is untrue. You can get an extension if you are sponsored by your wife

No you can’t!

 

15 minutes ago, tabarin said:

and you can also get single or multiple non-o visa entries without having any of the qualifications you mentioned. Also came across plenty of IO's who are disgusted by these denials etc.

Visas are just for entry and the maximum stay for a non ‘O’ visa is 90 days without an extension of stay.

 

They — under the visa/permit system — are not meant to be used to live in the country.

 

I was specifically referring to an extension of stay.

 

17 minutes ago, tabarin said:

And uhhh, get a life? Or do you have a fetish with IO's or something? 

Grow up.

[lkv]

3 hours ago, elviajero said:

I've explained why -- for a tourist -- having "stayed too long" brings 12 (2) in to play.

That's your own personal interpretation or justification.

 

The fact that you assume the IO's or their bosses think in your Western logic is pure speculation. And if I was to speculate also, I would say, most likely, a faulty logic under Thai standards.

Edited April 2, 2019 by lkv

[JackThompson]

11 hours ago, elviajero said:

@Caldera is quite happy to describe them a criminal. Just not brave enough to name one.

 

Surely you have law on your side!

"The Law" is not a consideration of the anti-farang clique within immigration - other than how to get around it to execute their agenda.  The same applies everywhere the corrupt have gained power.

 

11 hours ago, elviajero said:

So you beleive the TIB are ‘in on it’, and writing rules/regs to maximise corruption. Laughable!

 

The TIB (authorities) write the rules/regs — then some officers exploit the system and abuse their positions to extort foreigners.

So, in your view, is it just a "big accident" that each change happens to take a form that increases corruption-revenue?  I don't think they are stupid and incompetent - that being the only other explanation for the historical pattern. 

It would only take a few sting-operations with attendant prosecutions and plea-bargains for turning in the bosses up the chain, and immigration could remove their corruption problem.  With that done, all the "rule changes," which only hurt honest-applicants and overburden honest IOs with pointless work, would not be necessary.   Marriage-extensions could be approved same-day, retirement money-seasoning could return to 3 months, etc.

 

For some reason, actually busting the bad-guys within the organization does not seem to be something they want to do.  Again, the explanations are either:

• the corruption is allowed intentionally

- OR -

• massive incompetence/stupidity

 

11 hours ago, elviajero said:

Again, explain the financial benefit of IO’s denying entry to long term tourists!

Start with the outcome.  Due to this policy, are more or fewer visitors coerced into either:

• Not coming to Thailand any more

OR

• Submitting ed, retirement or marriage extensions (many of which will involve agent "help") or buying elite visas (for a massive fee)

The anti-farang / "pay us tribute or leave" types want fewer farangs and those that stay paying "extra."  They don't like us at all (many IO-quotes make this clear), but will tolerate us "for a fee." 

Tourist-entries work against them on both points, because the qualifications for 30 or 60 day Tourist entries are less-stringent (no age-limit or massive up-front fee), and they have no way to profit from tourist-entries (without getting caught). 

 

10 hours ago, elviajero said:

Again, no one has been denied entry for the reasons you claim. Other, qualifying reasons are used formally — on the record — to deny entry. The time previously spent  in the country, and request for more time, makes 12 (2) relevant. 

In all of these reports, visitors are told they are being refused for "too much time before" in Thailand.  No reports indicate any questions/concern about long-term financial-support issues.  Yes, IOs "formally" hide what they are really doing with a different "official reason" in the rejection-stamp. 

 

Time spent previously in combination with travel demonstrates the visitor is more likely to possess the financials needed for another 30/60-days - not the reverse.  A lack of overstays also demonstrates they "have their s_ together," and respect / follow the law.  It's a "new guy" who is more likely to go hog-wild and wind up destitute.

 

All it would take is the minister to categorize those staying "over X days as tourists" as an identified-group which could be (not "must be") refused entry, and the IOs would have both flexibility and full legal justification for their actions - with an unquestionably-legal rejection-stamp to match. 

 

If what the IOs are doing is sanctioned from the top, rather than simply "allowed" (like so many other abuses/corruption at offices across the country), can you think of any reason at all the minister does not take that step?

[brokenbone]

On 4/2/2019 at 2:21 AM, elviajero said:

He didn't ask to see cash, because it was irrelevant, because he wasn't denying entry under 12 (9) for not having 10K.

 

He was denying entry under 12 (2) for not having an appropriate means of living in the country.

look, that entry does not ask for any proof

of any 'appropriate means',

and the only 'appropriate means' they would be able to recognize is a fistful of cash, but again, they dont request

the tourists to show the cash. (insert wild guess here)

 

if i came there with a letter from the embassy

showing my disability pension,

they would flat out refuse signing they have received

the letter, if i have stamps showing 'too much entries' TM,

with 'too much entries TM' being kept as a state in state secret.

 

my take on this, is that they have this

suspicion that at least some foreigners

are somehow making a buck,

but imo its not on their department to track down illegal workers

Edited April 3, 2019 by brokenbone

[somtumwrong]

These endless threads about being denied entry and 'rogue' IOs 'misusing' laws and section 12.x .. 'All I ever did was having 1234 visa exempts and 3212 Tourist Visas. I have spent all my time in Thailand for the last 1234 years. This is outrageous! I'm just a tourist!!'

 

Imagine a Thai guy coming to YOUR country with endless Tourist Visas and spending most of his time in your country :D 'But I contribute significantly to the Your-Country-GDP. Where is the thanks?!?'

 

If you are not a tourist, the IO has all the right to deny entry, dear 'tourist' with 1231 VEs. Marry your girl or get a job or get an Elite Visa, I guess those are the options. And if you want to play with fire, get the Education Visa, although they are now strangling out the fake ED visas.

[JackThompson]

9 hours ago, elviajero said:

These IO's are following formal denial procedure, so the denial is lawful.

Not if:

• The formal reason for denial is false - the visitor has sufficient "means of support" and no evidence exists to show otherwise.

 - and/or -

• The formal reason for denial offers the visitor no means of proving otherwise, because no 12(2) type financials are required for Tourist entries.

 

9 hours ago, elviajero said:

If the person being denied disagrees with the reason given for denial they can appeal.

So far, only one report of one who tried, and he was not allowed to do so.

 

 

Quote

I'm in the Deportation room and wondering how and where to appeal against my deportation. My entry was denied at Suvarnabhumi Airport because of to many Tourist Visas in the past. I had all the necessary paper with me. Onward flight back to Europe, Tourist Visa, booking confirmations and 25000 baht cash.

How long could the appeal process take and are there some people did it before?

...

Quote

The law says that you can make an appeal against the decision but in reality you are not allowed to make use of it!

Your friends can also not help you because they are not allowed to fill out the appeal form and bring it somewhere. It says clearly on the form the applicant have to fill out the form in person.

Maybe if you carry the TM11 form already with you and you still get interviewed by the IO you have the chance to hand it over.

I was in the detention room and from there you are only allowed to talk to the Airline Staff via phone with which you arrived.
I asked to make an appointment with an IO to hand over my appeal.  The Airline staff told me that I'm not allowed to make an appeal, i got BLACKLISTED and I have to leave the country asap and she hangs up the phone.

2 minutes later I called again and another employee picked up the phone and told me to get ready for the flight (against my will and agreement).

Only 5 min. later an airline staff came and escorted me to the gate.

 

[JackThompson]

31 minutes ago, somtumwrong said:

Imagine a Thai guy coming to YOUR country with endless Tourist Visas and spending most of his time in your country ???? 'But I contribute significantly to the Your-Country-GDP. Where is the thanks?!?'

My country's lowest paid wage is multiple times higher than what one could earn in Thailand working an illegal-job.  This is one reason our immigration-rules are different than Thailand's. 

 

Another reason, is that our IOs are paid good salaries with excellent benefit-packages, so are not likely to risk losing all that for a bit of corruption-money.  Their IOs are not paid as well, hence Thailand's immigration-law allows them to deny-entry only for a set of very specific reasons - to deter abuse.  Of course, that doesn't work when the chain-of-command abdicates their responsibility to ensure that IOs actually follow the laws they swore to uphold.

 

31 minutes ago, somtumwrong said:

And if you want to play with fire, get the Education Visa, although they are now strangling out the fake ED visas.

On the contrary, immigration's policy-changes on ED Visas have made them very corruption-profitable.  At many offices, just pay your 3K to 5K every 3 months, and you don't have to attend any classes.  You have to pay even if you do attend, or they give you short-extensions.  That policy makes clear that immigration never cared about if you "really were a student" in the first place - only that they got their "tribute payment" in exchange for tolerating your presence.

Edited April 3, 2019 by JackThompson

[Crossy]

And at this point the "discussion" ends.