My research about Immigration Act section 12.2 - Having no appropriate means of living following entrance into the Kingdom

[jackdd]

I did some research to figure out what Immigration thinks about the meaning of Immigration Act Section 12.2

Quote

(๒) ไม่มีปัจจัยในการยังชีพตามควรแก่กรณีที่เข้ามาในราชอาณาจักร
(2) Having no appropriate means of living following entrance into the Kingdom.

 

This is the section which they like to use at some entry points, to deny people after telling them that they have been in the country for too long on tourist visas.

 

-

 

I started by visiting the regular Immigration Office in Chiang Mai. I didn't get much info from them, was told they are busy with their regular work. But in general the IO who i talked with confirmed what i thought before, he understands ปัจจัยในการยังชีพ (from section 12.2) as "basic needs", meaning accommodation, clothes, food and some money to spend. But he also stated that this is not really the responsibility of this office because they are not the persons working at the entry points, so they can't give me a definitive answer.

 

IOs here all seemed to be busy (which i can somehow understand, many people wanting extensions and other stuff...) and not really interesed in talking with me.

 

-

 

I was thinking about asking Immigration at the airport, but so far we didn't see negative reports from CNX and i don't want to give them bad ideas, so i skipped this.

 

-

 

Instead i headed to the "Immigration Division 5 HQ", assuming that they are above the immigration office in town, and they might be able to give a more definitive answer and have more time for me

But i learned that my assumption was wrong. Yes, they are the Headquarter here in the region, but Chiang Mai airport, as well as the Immigration office outside are actually under Immigration Division 2.

The IOs at Division 5 HQ are just doing backoffice work. So again, they are not the responsible persons, but probably they don't see many foreigners there, so i had a talk with them (actually with a whole group of IOs, and even more watching from their desks what i'm doing there).

They again confirmed that in their opinion ปัจจัยในการยังชีพ means accommodation, clothes, food, money.

 

I told them that i've read some reports of people who were denied entry to Thailand, being told they have been in the country too long on tourist visas, and then stamped reason 12.2 in the passport.

Their first response was that this is strange and actually can't be. So i asked them if they think this is illegal. But i didn't get a straight answer to this question, they just said that it always depends on the circumstances. Even if they would think this is illegal, they probably wouldn't tell me because they don't want to say something negative about their colleagues.

 

Then they asked me if they were doing "in-out", i said i don't know all details, some probably yes.

They said this is not good. I asked: But it's legal, right? Which they confirmed.

So they know it's not illegal, but even the IOs in the backoffice were probably taught by somebody that "in-outs" are not good.

 

One thing which surprised me (when talking about "in-outs") was, that one IO jokingly said that foreigners who might do something illegal in Thailand like to say "I love Thailand" when asked about their extended stay upon entering. I remember seeing somebody post here on Thaivisa, that when asked by an IO about your reasons why you are spending so much time in Thailand, just act stupid and say something like "I love Thailand". If even an IO who works in a backoffice does associate this "I love Thailand" with doing something illegal, i would never say this to an IO when entering the country.

 

They told me to ask at Immigration Division 2 HQ or at the Immigration Bureau.

 

The IOs there were friendly, and had time for me, just not the right place to ask.

 

-

 

Immigration Division 2 HQ is in Samut Prakan, the Immigration Bureau in Bangkok, so i had to call them. I chose the Immigration Bureau (because it's above the Division HQ)

Telling the woman who answered the phone that i want to ask about Immigration Law. Expected to be connected to somebody else, but turned out that she wanted to answer my questions.

Me: What is the meaning of ปัจจัยในการยังชีพ in Section 12.2.

She: Money

Me: Just money?

She: Yes

Me: How much?

She: One moment... (talking with somebody else)... 10.000 THB.

Me: Isn't section 12.9 about money?

She: Section 2 as well.

Me: Is this written anywhere or could you give me this in writing? (Until this point a normal conversation, even though very short answers)

She: If you want this in written form you have to contact a lawyer.

Me: I'm not looking for a problem, i just would like to have in writing what i have to present to not be in breach of section 12.2.

 

Then she handed me over to a male colleague.

From the first sentence on he was already in a bad mood and unfriendly, but he gave some explanations, but always remained somehow vague, avoiding the questions, no matter what he was asked, except one thing: He said IOs will not ask to see money, unless they suspect something is not right.

 

Everything else he said basically confirms what we have heard from the reports, except one detail: Evidence.

In the reports we have seen here, it sounds like the IOs never ask for any evidence, they just say "you have been in the country for too long" and deny the person.

He said if an IO suspects that somebody who arrives with a tourist visa doesn't enter for tourist purposes, an IO will ask for evidence, like hotel bookings, travel plans, money, job in another country and so on, anything which would show that this person is a real tourist and doesn't come to Thailand to work.

 

Some of the questions which i asked, but to which i got no proper answer were:

If you suspect a foreigner of working in Thailand illegally, shouldn't you deny him under 12.3 and not 12.2? Answer: Depends

What can a person do, who isn't asked for any evidence but just denied entry? Answer: The IO will ask for evidence

Can i get the rules regarding 12.2 in writing? No answer, just started talking about something else.

 

Somewhere in between i did again get to hear the "in-out" bad, even though not illegal.

 

-

 

Conclusion:

The personal opinion of the IOs, who i asked about the meaning of ปัจจัยในการยังชีพ (appropriate means of living) in section 12.2 of the Immigration Act, is that it means "basic needs" (accommodation, clothes, food, money).

He never said it directly, but the one IO at the Immigration Bureau basically confirmed that they also use section 12.2 to deny people who they think might come to work in Thailand.

Another common personal opinion of IOs is that "in-out" is bad, even though not illegal.

If they ask to see money, they suspect you might be working in Thailand. So even saying that you have a Thai bank account is probably a bad decision at this point.

Carry evidence that you are not working in Thailand with you, maybe they ask to see it.

If they are going to deny you and don't look at any evidence i would try to call the Immigration Bureau and complain about it, probably it won't help, but maybe there is a small chance that it does.

[elviajero]

1 hour ago, jackdd said:

Conclusion:

The personal opinion of the IOs, who i asked about the meaning of ปัจจัยในการยังชีพ (appropriate means of living) in section 12.2 of the Immigration Act, is that it means "basic needs" (accommodation, clothes, food, money).

And the “appropriate means” of providing “basic needs” is money in the bank or an income from a job/pension.

 

When a tourist, that has stayed long term in the country, is denied under 12.2 the justification is because they haven’t (and can’t) demonstrated an appropriate means of funding life in the country. It’s as simple as that!

[BritTim]

32 minutes ago, elviajero said:

When a tourist, that has stayed long term in the country, is denied under 12.2 the justification is because they haven’t (and can’t) demonstrated an appropriate means of funding life in the country. It’s as simple as that!

Someone on their sixth 60-day visit to Thailand without incident has demonstrated a greater ability to fund their visit than someone on their first visit. I recognize that the officials, in practice, can do what they like, but using Section 12 (2) to say someone who makes many problem free visits to Thailand can no longer be relied upon to visit Thailand without issues is pure BS.

[elviajero]

17 minutes ago, BritTim said:

Someone on their sixth 60-day visit to Thailand without incident has demonstrated a greater ability to fund their visit than someone on their first visit. I recognize that the officials, in practice, can do what they like, but using Section 12 (2) to say someone who makes many problem free visits to Thailand can no longer be relied upon to visit Thailand without issues is pure BS.

And once again you are missing the key part of the law which is "appropriate means of living". They don't want people living in the country that have not demonstrated they've the appropriate means of living such as a job, foreign pension/investment income or money in the bank.

[Briggsy]

5 minutes ago, elviajero said:

And once again you are missing the key part of the law which is "appropriate means of living". They don't want people living in the country that have not demonstrated they've the appropriate means of living such as a job, foreign pension/investment income or money in the bank.

METV applications require finances to be shown outside of Thailand (both a lump sum, usually equivalent to a bank balance of 200,000 for a minimum of 6 months and a pension or earned income) and yet METV holders are still denied using Section 12 (2). Many SETV applications also require financial proof outside of Thailand too. They are also denied.

 

Why not just admit the real reason has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with means of supporting oneself and everything to do with staying in Thailand for long periods on tourist visas? That is what the OP's research suggested. That "out-ins" or "visa runs" are bad according to some sections of the Immigration Bureau. This is what people denied entry are always told. "Get a visa," "You stay here too long," etc.

 

The use of Section 12 (2) is simply window dressing to provide legal cover. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it. Your attempts to try to argue semantics simply show that you too are part of this obvious deceit. Why not just admit the truth?

[ThaiBunny]

4 minutes ago, Briggsy said:

usually equivalent to a bank balance of 200,000 for a minimum of 6 months and a pension or earned income

Can you point me to this? I'm reading the METV visa additional information section on a couple of Thai consulates (Canberra, Melbourne) and they state "Copy of updated bank statement providing of adequate finances (THB 200,000 per person)" - nothing about 6 months (or any duration), nothing else about monies including "pension or earned income"

[KiChakayan]

This is sheer laziness, they stretch their own rules to deny entry to obvious offender, when the only thing they need is one rule stating that no one can stay more 90 days a year on tourist visa, and/or exempts.

[Drax]

Idk. 2 years ago.. I had 5 months in Thailand and had 2 visa runs and 2 non visa entries (had gone travel to other countries outside asia also). 

 

I get in Thailand... they question me 1001 things and wouldn’t let me in. I see what they up to and show them 30k in cash. Without them asking, they say they don’t care. I show them 10001 pictures of me in phi phi Bangkok Chiang Mai pattaya and many other places, my income source and girlfriend, rental contract, they still didn’t care ????. Then I show them a flight to malaysia in 2 months which I had.. only then they let me in and said next time I wouldn’t.

 

Needless to say I switched to a different kind of visa after this bad experience. 

 

 

[jackdd]

1 hour ago, elviajero said:

And the “appropriate means” of providing “basic needs” is money in the bank or an income from a job/pension.

Could as well just be cash, same as required by section 12.9, like what the woman an the Immigration Bureau told me.

With 20k THB in the pocket most people might not last 30 days in Thailand, but it's enough to pay for the basic needs for a week or two.

 

1 hour ago, elviajero said:

When a tourist, that has stayed long term in the country, is denied under 12.2 the justification is because they haven’t (and can’t) demonstrated an appropriate means of funding life in the country. It’s as simple as that!

From the various conversations i'm quite sure that this is not their reason, but their main worry is that the long term tourist is working illegally in Thailand.

We just don't know yet why they choose to stamp 12.2. instead of 12.3. if they suspect people of working in Thailand.

The IO at the Immigration Bureau seemed like he knows about their 12.2. denial game, but as said before, he didn't answer me (He definitely knew how to talk, and how to avoid answering questions, my Thai is not good enough yet to keep up with him, especially not on the phone).

 

[elviajero]

27 minutes ago, Briggsy said:

METV applications require finances to be shown outside of Thailand (both a lump sum, usually equivalent to a bank balance of 200,000 for a minimum of 6 months and a pension or earned income) and yet METV holders are still denied using Section 12 (2). Many SETV applications also require financial proof outside of Thailand too. They are also denied.

I agree that it’s out of order for METV holders to be denied, but the reality is they aren’t. And I’m sure it’s only people like you using them to live in the country too long that have a problem.

 

27 minutes ago, Briggsy said:

Why not just admit the real reason has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with means of supporting oneself and everything to do with staying in Thailand for long periods on tourist visas? That is what the OP's research suggested. That "out-ins" or "visa runs" are bad according to some sections of the Immigration Bureau. This is what people denied entry are always told. "Get a visa," "You stay here too long," etc.

I have always said that the underlying reason is because of “staying too long as s tourist”.

 

And I’ve explained that because no limits are set in law/regulation they are using 12.2 because they can.

 

27 minutes ago, Briggsy said:

The use of Section 12 (2) is simply window dressing to provide legal cover. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it. Your attempts to try to argue semantics simply show that you too are part of this obvious deceit. Why not just admit the truth?

Take your head out of the sand and read what I post!

 

Again, I have always said 12.2 is a legal way for them to deny entry due to the underlying reason.

[elviajero]

32 minutes ago, KiChakayan said:

This is sheer laziness, they stretch their own rules to deny entry to obvious offender, when the only thing they need is one rule stating that no one can stay more 90 days a year on tourist visa, and/or exempts.

One reason they don’t do that is because the immigration system does not keep count. They tried limiting Visa Exemption to 90/180 days back in 2007/08, but had to stop because IO’s were taking too long manually counting the number of days stayed.

[Briggsy]

33 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

Can you point me to this? I'm reading the METV visa additional information section on a couple of Thai consulates (Canberra, Melbourne) and they state "Copy of updated bank statement providing of adequate finances (THB 200,000 per person)" - nothing about 6 months (or any duration), nothing else about monies including "pension or earned income"

UK.

[elviajero]

25 minutes ago, jackdd said:

2 hours ago, elviajero said:

And the “appropriate means” of providing “basic needs” is money in the bank or an income from a job/pension.

Could as well just be cash, same as required by section 12.9, like what the woman an the Immigration Bureau told me.

With 20k THB in the pocket most people might not last 30 days in Thailand, but it's enough to pay for the basic needs for a week or two.

12.9 dictates the amount of “pocket money”.

 

12.2 is without question about money, but it goes beyond that. It is in effect dealing with how someone makes or provides for a living.

 

Do you believe Thailand would allow anyone to live in the country (which is what long term tourists are doing) without vetting them? You know the answer is no, and that is the concern long term tourists throw up, and the primary reason 12.2 exists.

[Briggsy]

11 minutes ago, elviajero said:

I agree that it’s out of order for METV holders to be denied

That's the first time I have heard you say that.

 

11 minutes ago, elviajero said:

but the reality is they aren’t.

Yes, they are.

 

12 minutes ago, elviajero said:

And I’m sure it’s only people like you using them to live in the country too long that have a problem.

And then you contradict yourself once again by tacitly stating that it is fine for METV holders to be denied.

 

13 minutes ago, elviajero said:

I have always said that the underlying reason is because of “staying too long as s tourist”.

And then more contradiction, having spent the earlier part of the thread arguing about appropriate means of supporting oneself.

 

14 minutes ago, elviajero said:

And I’ve explained that because no limits are set in law/regulation they are using 12.2 because they can.

And finally you give up the spin, and say they can deny whoever they like. At least this bit is truthful.

 

15 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Again, I have always said 12.2 is a legal way for them to deny entry due to the underlying reason.

Finally a strawman, twisting what I and others said. 

[elviajero]

43 minutes ago, Briggsy said:

1 hour ago, elviajero said:

I agree that it’s out of order for METV holders to be denied

That's the first time I have heard you say that

Exactly, because you only read what you want to “hear”.

 

43 minutes ago, Briggsy said:

1 hour ago, elviajero said:

but the reality is they aren’t.

Yes, they are.

Prove it.

 

43 minutes ago, Briggsy said:

1 hour ago, elviajero said:

And I’m sure it’s only people like you using them to live in the country too long that have a problem.

And then you contradict yourself once again by tacitly stating that it is fine for METV holders to be denied.

It’s not a contradiction. METV’s are not to be used to live in the country regardless of the fact that the holder proves they’ve cash in the bank. They are meant to be used by someone living outside Thailand that wants to visit multiple times during a 6 month period.

 

But people like you with back to back METV’s are abusing the system if using them to live in the country.

 

It’s how you use the visa that counts.

 

43 minutes ago, Briggsy said:

1 hour ago, elviajero said:

I have always said that the underlying reason is because of “staying too long as s tourist”.

And then more contradiction, having spent the earlier part of the thread arguing about appropriate means of supporting oneself.

Again, not a contradiction. You’ve comprehension issues.

 

The underlying reason is clear, but if they want to deny someone that hasn’t demonstrated the appropriate means of living in the country they can. A long term tourist hasn’t, so they can. 

 

43 minutes ago, Briggsy said:

1 hour ago, elviajero said:

Again, I have always said 12.2 is a legal way for them to deny entry due to the underlying reason.

Finally a strawman, twisting what I and others said. 

Twisted how?

 

To be clear. I don’t like the way immigration deny people, but I understand why they do, and I know they have a legal right to use any condition under 12.2 that fits. 12.2 clearly fits for long stay tourists.

 

The alternative is for fixed limits. In an ideal world that’s the sensible option, but I’m currently against that because it means many more existing long term tourists will be denied/stopped from coming than are currently being discretionally denied.

 

The authorities clearly don’t have a problem with frequent visits for tourism, hence the METV, but they clearly have a problem with tourists — en masse - living in the country.

 

It is long stay tourists that are in the wrong, not immigration. If you haven’t got that message since they started the clampdown in 2006, you never will.

[TaoNow]

OP is asking the wrong question:  The question should be as follows:

 

"is there any law that requires a Thai Immigration officer to admit a non-Thai seeking entry to Thailand?"

 

When you get an answer to that you will begin to see the light.

[PingRoundTheWorld]

2 hours ago, ThaiBunny said:

"Copy of updated bank statement providing of adequate finances (THB 200,000 per person)" - nothing about 6 months (or any duration), nothing else about monies including "pension or earned income"

Different embassies, different rules. They did not require 6 months for my METV - just show the money in the account in current statement.

 

1 hour ago, jackdd said:

We just don't know yet why they choose to stamp 12.2. instead of 12.3. if they suspect people of working in Thailand.

Might have to do with 12.3 requiring that they provide evidence that you are working, while 12.2 requires that you provide evidence that you have the means. Pure speculation, but could be they think 12.2 gives them plausible deniability that you didn't provide evidence (ever though they never asked for it) whereas if it ever became an issue and they were asked what was the basis of their 12.3 decision they have no evidence at all other than you being in the country continuously.

 

As for In-out (out-in?) - what exactly constitutes it? Same day visa run? One day? Two days? Where's the limit they (immigration officers) draw in who's "in-out" and who isn't? I try to make my trips (I don't think of them as visa runs) at least a few days as it's pointless for me to visit anywhere for less than that. Actually just returned from 2.5 weeks in the Philippines - no questions at immigration.

[BritTim]

2 hours ago, jackdd said:

Could as well just be cash, same as required by section 12.9, like what the woman an the Immigration Bureau told me.

With 20k THB in the pocket most people might not last 30 days in Thailand, but it's enough to pay for the basic needs for a week or two.

 

From the various conversations i'm quite sure that this is not their reason, but their main worry is that the long term tourist is working illegally in Thailand.

We just don't know yet why they choose to stamp 12.2. instead of 12.3. if they suspect people of working in Thailand.

The IO at the Immigration Bureau seemed like he knows about their 12.2. denial game, but as said before, he didn't answer me (He definitely knew how to talk, and how to avoid answering questions, my Thai is not good enough yet to keep up with him, especially not on the phone).

They do not want to use Section 12 (3) because many would be able to prove they are not working in Thailand. They consider Section 12 (2) to be vague enough that, whatever people prove, they can just claim it means something different.

 

I think eventually those in immigration who want a rule limiting time on tourist entries will get their way. For the moment, it appears there is sufficient resistance to prevent such a rule being promulgated, so they are faced with accepting the current laws, or using bogus reasons to enforce the laws they wish existed.

[Pilotman]

OP, you need to get out more dude. 

[Pilotman]

1 hour ago, TaoNow said:

OP is asking the wrong question:  The question should be as follows:

 

"is there any law that requires a Thai Immigration officer to admit a non-Thai seeking entry to Thailand?"

 

When you get an answer to that you will begin to see the light.

That maybe the question, but the answer is, "it is what we say it is, so back in your box". 

[BritTim]

1 hour ago, TaoNow said:

OP is asking the wrong question:  The question should be as follows:

 

"is there any law that requires a Thai Immigration officer to admit a non-Thai seeking entry to Thailand?"

 

When you get an answer to that you will begin to see the light.

If you carefully read the Immigration Act, you will see that the answer is "yes" unless there is

• a reason under Section 12 of the Immigration Act to deny entry; or
• instructions from the Minister that identify either the specific individual, or a group meeting defined criteria should be denied entry.

The interesting question is why the law was written that way, rather than giving officials discretion as is usually done in other countries. My theory is that the drafters of the law wanted to eliminate the scope for corruption that exists when officials have too much power.

[jackdd]

1 hour ago, PingRoundTheWorld said:

As for In-out (out-in?) - what exactly constitutes it? Same day visa run? One day? Two days? Where's the limit they (immigration officers) draw in who's "in-out" and who isn't? I try to make my trips (I don't think of them as visa runs) at least a few days as it's pointless for me to visit anywhere for less than that. Actually just returned from 2.5 weeks in the Philippines - no questions at immigration.

There is no law, order or similar saying "in-out", or however you want to call it, is illegal. So at which point the IO considers this "bad" is totally subjective. And just because he thinks this is bad, isn't a reason to deny entry.

 

14 minutes ago, Pilotman said:

OP, you need to get out more dude. 

I drove to the two immigration locations in Chiang Mai on my bike, so i spent some time outside ????

It also gave me the oppertunity to practice Thai with a several different people, i learned a few new things, and the talk at the Division 5 HQ was quite pleasent. Way better than sitting at a bar with some grumpy farangs.

 

1 hour ago, TaoNow said:

OP is asking the wrong question:  The question should be as follows:

 

"is there any law that requires a Thai Immigration officer to admit a non-Thai seeking entry to Thailand?"

 

When you get an answer to that you will begin to see the light.

Immigration law never states it directly (but that's not really surprising, laws usually say what's forbidden and not what's allowed), but looking at the application of the law (for example when they deny somebody they always stamp one of the reasons metioned in the immigration act in the passport), it becomes quite clear that by default foreigners are supposed to be allowed entry, and only if a foreigner breaches certain criteria he can be denied entry.

[elviajero]

31 minutes ago, BritTim said:

They do not want to use Section 12 (3) because many would be able to prove they are not working in Thailand. They consider Section 12 (2) to be vague enough that, whatever people prove, they can just claim it means something different.

How would someone prove they are not working in Thailand?

[elviajero]

18 minutes ago, jackdd said:

There is no law, order or similar saying "in-out", or however you want to call it, is illegal. So at which point the IO considers this "bad" is totally subjective. And just because he thinks this is bad, isn't a reason to deny entry.

“Visa runs” are not illegal. Presumably in the absence of a specific regulation you believe these denials are all down to individual IO’s. In which case;

 

Why is the immigration system set to flag 6 or more VE entries?

 

Why did immigration write, via the MFA, to foreign consuls etc to warn that IO’s had discretionary power to deny entry to “visa runners”?

 

And why wasn’t a regulation passed to specifically deny “visa runners”?

 

And how come IO’s have been ordered to use 12.2 or 3 or 9 to deny “visa runners”?

 

Why do they limit land border entries to two per year?

 

Why have embassies/consulates been ordered to limit TR’s and increase application requirements?

[ubonjoe]

10 minutes ago, elviajero said:

How would someone prove they are not working in Thailand?

Prove income from outside the country. But they never give people a chance to do it before denying entry. 

[Caldera]

3 hours ago, elviajero said:

Do you believe Thailand would allow anyone to live in the country (which is what long term tourists are doing) without vetting them?

Yes. Most foreigners who stay in Thailand long-term haven't been properly vetted. And it shows. A few long-term tourists more or less hardly make any difference.

[elviajero]

30 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

Prove income from outside the country. But they never give people a chance to do it before denying entry. 

That doesn’t prove you’re not working in a Thailand. 

[elviajero]

1 minute ago, Caldera said:

Yes. Most foreigners who stay in Thailand long-term haven't been properly vetted. And it shows. A few long-term tourists more or less hardly make any difference.

Are we now going to argue use of the word vetting!

 

If you want to stay long term your financial standing is “vetted”, and corroborated.

[Caldera]

2 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Are we now going to argue use of the word vetting!

Not at all, I was just stating a fact.

[darrendsd]

7 hours ago, elviajero said:

And the “appropriate means” of providing “basic needs” is money in the bank or an income from a job/pension.

 

When a tourist, that has stayed long term in the country, is denied under 12.2 the justification is because they haven’t (and can’t) demonstrated an appropriate means of funding life in the country. It’s as simple as that!

Rubbish (as usual)  There are plenty of reports from people who have been denied that they have tried to show both the cash needed to enter and proof of funds within Thailand and the I/O has just waved them away without even checking and this has actually happened to me last year also - 20K cash in my pocket and a updated bank book showing monthly transfers from overseas - the I/O wouldn't even look at them no matter how many times I tried to show him them - luckily a grease of the palms soon sorted that out

 

it's very clear from numerous reports that once a I/O decides that you have been here to long on TV's etc it's very hard to get them to change their mind no matter what proof you have that you can fulfill all the requirements