Refused entry and thrown in a cell

[elviajero]

5 hours ago, Searat7 said:

“Being unable to support oneself “ has become a common reason for refusing entry at airports. What if one used cell phone to pull up Thai banking app where they could show their local account balances ?  Would this help ?

No it wouldn't. It is not just about how much money you have.

 

They are using section 12.2 of the immigration act which says:

"Having no appropriate means of living following entrance into the Kingdom"

 

Immigration get away with using this law in the context of long term tourists because they have stayed in the country for months without providing the appropriate (key word) means of living in the country. People need a job, money in the bank or a regular income in order to live and a tourist hasn't demonstrated that. And they can't demonstrate that because they are supposed to be a tourist. Showing how much you have in Bangkok Bank isn't likely going to help prove you are a tourist.

[lkv]

36 minutes ago, elviajero said:

People need a job, money in the bank or a regular income in order to live and a tourist hasn't demonstrated that.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I saw you repeating this over the last few months over and over again.

 

My question to you is, have you spoken to the head of Immigration and has he confirmed to you that's their understanding of means of supporting oneself, or are you making assumptions based on your Western logic?

 

Serious question.

[Steve Vincent]

When i travel to Thailand on a 90 day visa I'm automatically given 60 days and need to apply at the local immigration to gain access to another 30 days at a cost of 1,900 baht - also have to report to the local immigration office within 24hrs of arriving,notifying them of my place of stay. It's annoying as believe you should be able to travel around freely without proving how much money you've got in your bank account. 

would advise you also look into going to school a couple of times a week and learning the language : previously when attending these schools you didn't have to make visa runs on a regular basis ! Maybe they've changed the law ? But previously students learning the language were allowed to stay up to one year before leaving the kingdom. Sorry for your ordeal but nothing surprises me anymore with Thai laws and immigration policy's 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

6 hours ago, BritTim said:

Usually, they would not even look. They have made up their minds, and are impervious at that point to logic.

 

So what would they say if the person actually has the 20K baht in their pocket? Does that make them refusal proof in the current environment?

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

2 hours ago, Xaos said:

First time when I came to Thailand for hols I didnt knew there was cash req on border for visa exemption. I had like 5k and rest in atm. Woman asked me show 10k i said got 5 and card she pointed on airplane and said go home. Luckily there was atm machine.
 

 

That's a good example, as the Immigration chief said in his speech the other day, of Immigration being their version of "friendly" toward tourists and tourism... 

[elviajero]

1 hour ago, lkv said:

Don't take this the wrong way, but I saw you repeating this over the last few months over and over again.

 

My question to you is, have you spoken to the head of Immigration and has he confirmed to you that's their understanding of means of supporting oneself, or are you making assumptions based on your Western logic?

 

Serious question.

Several years ago, when people that had money on them were still getting denied entry, it made me question a lot of what was being advised, and blindly repeated, on TVF. The common misconception being that entry denied under 12.2 is for not having the requisite 10/20K in cash. So I spoke to a senior officer at CW (my brother-in-law's mother-in-law). The senior officer in Kanchanaburi who I spoke with about many immigration laws/regs/rules for over two hours during an extension application visit. Immigration officers at the Ban Phu Nan Ron border I got to know over the course of a year waiting for my mate to do his regular visa run. I also have two IO mates that I've known over 20 years that I can get information through. And my company lawyer who, through necessity, has become expert in immigration law, and is now very well 'connected'.

 

These days I don't give advice on anything I don't have first hand knowledge of, or have corroborated through my contacts.

 

Section 12.9 is the law that requires us to carry 10/20K. This is considered pocket money. It is not considered the amount of money required to live in the country for 30/60 days. You wouldn't get far on 333 baht per day (20K/60).

 

Section 12.2 is a catch-all that allows them to deny entry to anyone that has not shown the appropriate means of living in the country. As I've explained, everyone needs a job, money in the bank or an income to live; and that is the implication behind this law. All long term stay permits require one of the three.

[lkv]

29 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Section 12.9 is the law that requires us to carry 10/20K. This is considered pocket money. It is not considered the amount of money required to live in the country for 30/60 days. You wouldn't get far on 333 baht per day (20K/60).

10,000 baht is the minimum amount of money required for someone to travel into Thailand for a stay of up to 30 days.

 

20,000 baht is the minimum amount of money required for someone to travel into Thailand for a stay of up to 60 days.

 

According to the Immigration Act 1979 or whatever other antique directive.

 

I FEEL it's enough to travel on, according to current laws (from 1979).

 

If anybody feels differently, they should look at rewriting the laws. Maybe take TM30 out also, while they're at it.

[elviajero]

11 minutes ago, lkv said:

10,000 baht is the minimum amount of money required for someone to travel into Thailand for a stay of up to 30 days.

 

20,000 baht is the minimum amount of money required for someone to travel into Thailand for a stay of up to 60 days.

 

According to the Immigration Act 1979 or whatever other antique directive.

We're getting into semantics.

 

The immigration act does not specify the amount required or what it's for. It says;

12.9 Having no money or bond as prescribed by the Minister under him

 

Simply put, you can be denied entry if you don't have at least the amount of money announced by the Minister (announced by regulation), which is 10/20K. That just gets you through the door. How you fund your stay after that is completely separate. Even someone entering with a Non O-A having proven income/cash in the bank is expected, under law, to have 20K on them.

[lkv]

1 minute ago, elviajero said:

We're getting into semantics.

 

Yes we are, because if I travel to Japan on a 90 day visa waiver and tour Japan for 60 days out of it, it doesn't mean I live in Japan.

[elliss]

On ‎7‎/‎25‎/‎2019 at 2:24 PM, jaffacakes1 said:

 Good point regarding the suit. I had worn it at KL immigration as they are quite conservative. I am British. I had the extension of stay refused which I think just means that I could not stay for a further 30 days. 

Wearing a suit, they probably thought your a wanna be teacher .555

       Better luck next time.

 

 

 

[elviajero]

1 minute ago, lkv said:

Yes we are, because if I travel to Japan on a 90 day visa waiver and tour Japan for 60 days out of it, it doesn't mean I live in Japan.

I agree. But that is completely irrelevant.

 

Someone that is staying for months at a time in a country split only by a quick border hop, is living in that country. And if you stay in Thailand for more than 180 days you are, by law, considered resident.

 

I lived in Thailand over 10 years as a 'tourist' and only left the country to extend my stay. If I wasn't living in Thailand where was I living?

[lkv]

@elviajero Look, I think both you and I are wasting our time trying to interpret laws in a lawless country.

 

You are trying to find a justification from a legal point of view, when these minions are skirting the law with their denials under 12.2. There is no defined amount of money like in Europe, say 30-50 euros per day, where someone wishing to stay the full 90 days in Schengen would be expected to have 50×90=4,500 euro in their accounts , or a way to get access to it, if say grilled by immigration. This applies in developed economies that think logically, not in la-la land.

[jackdd]

5 minutes ago, elviajero said:

And if you stay in Thailand for more than 180 days you are, by law, considered resident.

Only by tax law (considered a "tax resident"), not by any other law.

[lamyai3]

6 hours ago, Tayaout said:

I was in the same situation and it was not that bad if you know what a Thai cell really look like. 

 

The pictures I've seen of detention rooms in the airport are significantly worse than a lot of actual prison cells in the west. When someone is locked against their will in a windowless dormitory, I'd say it's pretty reasonable to describe it as a cell.

 

The disgraceful conditions of the third world jails here are a different matter altogether, and have more in common with an animal enclosure. 

[elviajero]

24 minutes ago, lkv said:

@elviajero Listen, I think both you and I are wasting our time trying to interpret laws in a lawless country.

 

You are trying to find a justification from a legal point of view, when these minions are skirting the law with their denials under 12.2. There is no defined amount of money like in Europe, say 30-50 euros per day, where someone wishing to stay the full 90 days in Schengen would be expected to have 50×90=4,500 euro in their accounts , or a way to get access to it, if say grilled by immigration. This applies in developed economies that think logically, not in la-la land.

That post just confirms your anti-Thai bias which is forming your opinion. I'm not the one interpreting the law, you are. 

 

Tourist visas are meant for short term visits. They are not meant to be used as a way to live in the country by repeated exits/entries. End of. Fact. Would you like a list of the evidence? If you want to stay in the country long term you need a long term visa or permit. The visas/permits on offer confirm that fact.

 

The Thai authorities allowed it to happen until it became an issue, and since then every thing the 'Thai authorities' have directed their 'minions' to do is designed to reduce/deter/prevent visitors from staying in the country as 'tourists'.

 

You can get a 10 year visitor (tourist) visa to visit the UK. Do you think they will let someone stay in the country for the whole of that 10 years? 

 

Discussions around the financial standing of a tourist are completely irrelevant. They don't care how much money someone has, beyond the minimums, they care that the person is using the visa for it's purpose within the visa system.

 

Typical visitors for tourism do not have a problem. It's only people trying to 'get around' the system that do. That should tell you everything. If there isn't a visa/permit available for the reason and length of stay, then assume you're not wanted. Theres no point whinging when they say enough is enough. IMO we are lucky the system is still as lax as it is!

[BuckBee]

Yes it catching out lot of people who are genuine tourists and turn up on wrong day at airport when immi officers being less than logical with handling those entering the country .

If OP been interviewed properly and they taken time do history checks and allowed call his wife he should of been given 15 or 30 days and some advice .

you meet wrong immi people on wrong day and very little can be done as exact rules and conduct mean nothing here and with wrong officers you got no chance of mitigating your circumstances or pressing legal guideline point's .

 

I don't tend travel with pre planned 20K +  as always pull some cash via atm at airport or a border, I got pulled at swampy along with many others, mostly chinese and put in a queue for questioning,

Was a right mess my boarding pass permanently got lost my passport went missing but fortunately they found that eventually ( chinese girl was holding that and sure she had my boarding pass in her passport lol, although I accepted fault I had lost that ! ) wanted 20K, I did manage just scrape over 20K in us $ singapore $ and bit of baht from previous holiday, they then move goal post and want more as obsessed I come working even though show them document for my employment in singapore. eventually after almost 45 minutes of commanding officer trying print out my previous history ( which was incomplete and also interpreted wrong as he over looked a previous exit and fact you get no entry stamps or a visa for your home country) i was allowed log into bank account and a print out of statements of a nice balance show to commanding officer had me allowed entry on my setv .

Treatment while not bad the logic, reason and implementation of regulations was awful . Like anything in thailand with officials anything can happen regardless to your legitimacy, intent, previous history, appearance and financial situation . While you can improve chances you can never guarantee anything as it down to what goes on that day .

I seen some awful scenarios at border queues from malaysia and cambodia in past, cambo being worst where people pushed away by immi officers as all in bad mood after big boss been on a rant as he taken heat (day before had let 3 people through on fake type o visas on jack golfs visa run service, had cambo visa touts telling people about it)
Met some pretty genuine tourists, even as couples who in a mess that day, cambo letting them back in easy but thailands immi officers where like children having tantrums and disgraceful, that day you had no chance see a higher ranking officer or mitigating anything as simply told to go away then ignored and next in queue waved over, those who stood ground just stayed there ignored .

 

The reality is it pretty easy spot trouble or long timers if interview them properly and do checks correct, if got visa issued already most should still get offer of entry of some amount even if only 7 days.

Holding room for people with some obvious means, thai wives, pretty genuine reasons for coming back in on visa exempt or a issued visa is just poor immigration policies, rules and training .

 

Had pretty polite officers on the whole but bad, awkward and rude ones will be an amazing 'thailand only' experience .

 

[elviajero]

23 minutes ago, jackdd said:

28 minutes ago, elviajero said:

And if you stay in Thailand for more than 180 days you are, by law, considered resident.

Only by tax law (considered a "tax resident"), not by any other law.

It's resident, not "tax resident". The point is that if tax law considers you resident, how can anyone justify they are a tourist.

 

You are resident wherever you stay on a long term basis, and that is irrespective of immigration status or law. All those expats with temporary permits are resident purely because of the time spent in the country.

[lkv]

12 minutes ago, elviajero said:

That post just confirms your anti-Thai bias which is forming your opinion. I'm not the one interpreting the law, you are. 

The IO's opinion might be the same as my opinion today and the same as your opinion tomorrow.

 

Because they have no clue of what's going on.

 

They just receive some directive from the top one day, without details on how to deal with all the technicalities, and it creates an environment of exactly what it is now, la-la land, where every office acts differently.

 

Throw in a little corruption here and there, and it becomes so mixed up that nobody knows what's real and what's not, what to follow and what not to.

 

As of long term tourism, there are countries in the region where it's still possible, and no sign of change, some with some questions asked, some with none.

[jackdd]

6 minutes ago, elviajero said:

It's resident, not "tax resident". The point is that if tax law considers you resident, how can anyone justify they are a tourist.

In my case my normal residence is in Germany and i don't come to Thailand to work here, so according to the definition of "tourist" in Thai law i'm a tourist.

[PingRoundTheWorld]

On 7/25/2019 at 2:24 PM, jaffacakes1 said:

I had the extension of stay refused which I think just means that I could not stay for a further 30 days. 

I think you mean you had a visa exempt entry refused.

 

Which is quite ridiculous, but that is the face of immigration these days.

[BuckBee]

This post got nothing do with tourist visas,

This guy simply had issue on employment and came back on visa exempt, maybe not best choice by him if he had done research but by the immi rules and if officers had used common sense and followed legal requirement in good intentions of legal requirements he should of been granted entry of some amount .

 

As for tourist scenario they don't really know what they want, if don't want, repeat setv simply only allow 2 then you blocked/flagged like done with visa exempt .

 

You can still do more than 6 months pretty easily but just not really knowing what requirements are, funny thing is if go changwattana for 30 day extension on your fourth setv all extended they not busting your balls or stamping your passport void of further entries .
The rules and rabble of immigration professionals is bigger mess than the unwanted rabble they turn away .

[elviajero]

4 minutes ago, lkv said:

The IO's opinion might be the same as my opinion today and the same as your opinion tomorrow.

 

Because they have no clue of what's going on.

 

They just receive some directive from the top one day, without details on how to deal with all the technicalities, and it creates an environment of exactly what it is now, la-la land, where every office acts differently.

 

Throw in a little corruption here and there, and it becomes so mixed up that nobody knows what's real and what's not, what to follow and what not to.

Welcome to Thailand. I don't agree with a lot of what goes on, although often things work in our favour too. I try to explain to people what or why immigration do something and the actual powers that allow it.

 

Corruption exists, but not everything they do that we don't like is corrupt. 

 

4 minutes ago, lkv said:

As of long term tourism, there are countries in the region where it's still possible, and no sign of change, some with some questions asked, some with none.

None of which are Thailand, which is unique and has immigration issues the others don't.

[Scouse123]

On 7/25/2019 at 2:32 PM, Chivas said:

Just another perfect example of Thai immigration degrading the experience for intended longer stayers.

Its all completely deliberate. 30 day maximim no sweat spend our dosh and get out. Wait until the finger printing database goes "live" with foreign Police databases and watch the denials soar and pax sent back

 

I am confused by your post. What are you meaning about database ' going live ' ?

 

I have been reading up on this and to my knowledge the database is ' live ' albeit at the moment it is gathering fingerprints and facial recognition into its database via its biometrics system. Previously, it did not have this technology.

 

What it did have was the advance passenger lists from airlines in the countries of departure. It also had and still has records from Interpol of red notices, stop notices and persons of interests from other governments.

 

The biometrics system picks up and identifies those traveling on false and fake passports as well as those whose identity page differs to that stored in the chip including the face/photo.

 

Now having a system to collect fingerprints and in effect ' link ' that information to the passport holders chip and facial recognition to the chip photo, this will stop those who seek to ' cheat the system ' and are blacklisted from returning to their countries of origin and getting new passports under a different name and gaining access to the country.

 

What else are you expecting it to do? I should imagine it is already connected to other countries criminal databases for people who are wanted.

 

 

 

[PingRoundTheWorld]

4 minutes ago, elviajero said:

None of which are Thailand, which is unique and has immigration issues the others don't.

What makes it unique? And what immigration issues?

 

Other countries simply want expat money. So did Thailand before the tourism boom, now they think they don't need the expats anymore - but they're dead wrong - they'll wake up when tourism is down further and the expat money has gone.

[elviajero]

7 minutes ago, jackdd said:

In my case my normal residence is in Germany and i don't come to Thailand to work here, so according to the definition of "tourist" in Thai law i'm a tourist.

There is no definition of 'tourist' that I'm aware of.

 

We are all visitors and we visit for many different reasons. Tourism is just one, and a visit for tourism prohibits work. You would only be considered a tourist if you have permission to stay for tourism.

 

The word 'resident' can be used in different context. If you live in Thailand you reside in Thailand regardless of which country considers you resident for tax or your immigration status.

[elviajero]

1 minute ago, PingRoundTheWorld said:

What makes it unique? And what immigration issues?

Other countries simply want expat money. So did Thailand before the tourism boom, now they think they don't need the expats anymore - but they're dead wrong - they'll wake up when tourism is down further and the expat money has gone.

Nonsense. It's still very easy to live in Thailand if you qualify, and the qualification has hardly changed.

 

Many countries surrounding Thailand have a fraction of the visitors Thailand gets and are still having to encourage tourism etc. Thailand has the opposite problem of being too popular and needs to tighten up it's borders.

[jackdd]

10 minutes ago, elviajero said:

There is no definition of 'tourist' that I'm aware of.

I wonder why you always act like you know everything in discussions about tourist or not tourist when you don't even know the only definition of "tourist" existing in Thai law.

TOURISM AUTHORITY OF THAILAND ACT, B.E. 2522 (1979)

"tourist" means any person who freely travels from his normal place of residence to other place for temporary period with the objective other than to carry on his occupation or to earn income;

[lkv]

6 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Thailand has the opposite problem of being too popular and needs to tighten up it's borders.

With all the crap about it, in the last years, murders in Ko Tao, boats sinking, airport scams, tuk tuk scams, overpriced bars and dirty beaches, Police checks on the streets in Bangkok, knock knock at the door for TM30, I must say they have done an excellent job so far in reducing all numbers, and the trend will continue.

[elviajero]

4 minutes ago, lkv said:

With all the crap about it, in the last years, murders in Ko Tao, boats sinking, airport scams, tuk tuk scams, overpriced bars and dirty beaches, Police checks on the streets in Bangkok, knock knock at the door for TM30, I must say they have done an excellent job so far in reducing all numbers, and the trend will continue.

Maybe numbers will reduce, I doubt it. Many of the things you list have been going on for decades. It could be argued that numbers would have been even higher without them. At some point Thailand will hit it's natural peak numbers. IMO, it's close to that already as the world is continuing to open up.

[elviajero]

13 minutes ago, jackdd said:

26 minutes ago, elviajero said:

There is no definition of 'tourist' that I'm aware of.

I wonder why you always act like you know everything in discussions about tourist or not tourist when you don't even know the only definition of "tourist" existing in Thai law.

 

Quote

TOURISM AUTHORITY OF THAILAND ACT, B.E. 2522 (1979)

"tourist" means any person who freely travels from his normal place of residence to other place for temporary period with the objective other than to carry on his occupation or to earn income;

 

"...THAT I AM AWARE OF". That implies I don't know everything!!!!!!!!!

 

That definition does not change anything I've said in this thread or any other. You are only considered a tourist by immigration if you are given permission to stay for tourism. FACT.