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

[BritTim]

2 hours ago, elviajero said:

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

I have several times opined that visa exempt entries (and visas on arrival) are properly the purview of immigration officials to grant or deny. Perhaps, it is appropriate to expand on that, and why those entering with visas from embassies/consulates are different.

 

With visa exempt entry and visas on arrivals, there are really two distinct steps, though there is a tendency to amalgamate the two. The first is deciding whether the traveller qualifies (basically what the consular officials are responsible for in the case of visas); the second is deciding whether there are reasons under the Immigration Act to deny entry.

 

It is entirely reasonable for immigration to decide whether the traveller qualifies for a visa exempt or visa on arrival. No previous vetting has been done. Indeed, there are published orders to guide immigration officials on how to decide if the VE/VOA should be given. It is my view that, if a VE/VOA is not given, the correct follow up would be denied entry, reason 12 (1) with a note like "no visa and not eligible for visa exemption".

 

When someone arrives with a visa, the situation is different. Vetting of the application to determine whether someone qualifies to visit as a tourist or to visit Thai relatives should have already been done by the consular officials. When an immigration official decides to abrogate the visa, using a bogus reason, they are implying that they know better than the consular officials. I am quite sure that is not the way the law is supposed to work.

[ThomasThBKK]

2 hours ago, elviajero said:

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

Yeah right - if i have a few hundred k USD in my bank account and money coming from an offshore company every month or otherwise income and savings, it's quite obvious that i am not working as a hooker in Thailand.

This is called common sense, and is indeed a thing in law and defined as: 

 

Quote

Sound practical judgment; that degree of intelligence and reason, as exercised upon the relations of persons and things and the ordinary affairs of life, which is possessed by the generality of mankind, and which would suffice to direct the conduct and actions of the individual in a manner to agree with the behavior of ordinary persons.

 

[jackdd]

2 hours ago, elviajero said:

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

Because somebody involved in programming this system thought this was a good idea. The ministerial regulations explicitly state that people are entitled to a visa exempt many times. And when this system was implemented the 2 exempts at land border rules didn't exist yet.

 

2 hours ago, elviajero said:

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”?

I think i didn't see this one yet, can you post a source?

 

2 hours ago, elviajero said:

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

Because this would have to be done on ministerial level, but it looks like Prayut doesn't want to kick the visa runners out completely.

 

2 hours ago, elviajero said:

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

I doubt they have been ordered to do this, at least not from somewhere high up. DMK, BKK and CNX are all under Immigration Division 2. It looks like only DMK and BKK are denying people like this. I think so far we didn't have a denied entry report from CNX. So probably it was not an order from the Division 2 HQ or higher up, because this would have included CNX. Looks more like IOs from the problematic airports just exchanged ideas with each other.

 

3 hours ago, elviajero said:

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

This was actually the only change regarding Immigration laws / rules within Thailand in recent years which came from somebody sitting above Immigration. All other changes were done by Immigration itself. So i would guess an IO could convince Prayut that this was a good idea to do, but he didn't want to be too harsh on foreigners. If he wanted to be stricter he could easily do this.

 

3 hours ago, elviajero said:

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

This is something i also don't really understand. Like who ordered these changes? Were they signed by Prayut or did somebody on a lower level came up with these ideas? Would be interesting to know.

 

 

Regarding visa exempts:

I followed the different ministerial and police orders regarding the visa exempt regulations, and noticed something interesting.

This is the original ministerial order (which was updated a few times, see the foot notes, but the latest update with the limit at land borders is missing): http://www.krisdika.go.th/librarian/get?sysid=739379&ext=htm

It says that people (from countries which qualify) are allowed to enter Thailand visa exempt many times. So they don't just write allowed to enter, but they explicitly say many times.

Then a few years ago they appended an extra paragraph, stating the limit of two visa exempts at land borders. But it looks like they never removed the "many times" wording. So actually it should be impossible for them to deny somebody the visa exempt, just because the person had many before, because the ministerial order clearly states he is allowed to do this.

[Traubert]

I'd guess about 60 western people a year get the knock back on 12.2/3/9.

 

I would further hazard a guess that 39 of them go and enter through a land border anyway.

 

Is there evidence, apart from new posters on TV, to suggest otherwise?

[Sheryl]

22 minutes ago, Traubert said:

I'd guess about 60 western people a year get the knock back on 12.2/3/9.

 

I would further hazard a guess that 39 of them go and enter through a land border anyway.

 

Is there evidence, apart from new posters on TV, to suggest otherwise?

 

from posts from people in airport detention - including their reports of who else is in there with them - I think somewhere around  200 - 300  is more likely taking all entry points into account.

 

Which is still very small considering the total numbers entering the country daily.

 

[edwardandtubs]

45 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

Which is still very small considering the total numbers entering the country daily.

 

The real question is what percentage of people living in Thailand long-term more than six months a year are being denied entry. I'm currently on a 3 month stint back in the UK and plan to return to Thailand on an METV but have no idea if I'll have any problems due to the 10 or so SETVs in my passport.

[elviajero]

3 hours ago, Sheryl said:

from posts from people in airport detention - including their reports of who else is in there with them - I think somewhere around  200 - 300  is more likely taking all entry points into account.

 

Which is still very small considering the total numbers entering the country daily.

I only have arrival figures from immigration records for the first three quarters of 2018, There were 4,713,623 entries for tourism from the the top (by number) 17 western countries . TR = 103,017 (2%) ; VE 4,610,606 (98%).

 

I've no idea about rejections, but it's obvious from the numbers why the focus has been on VE exemption for so long. And the number of reports of people being denied with TR's is still tiny, and in the most part targeted just to the long stayers.

[Scott]

Inflammatory troll post reported and removed.

 

[elviajero]

4 hours ago, jackdd said:

8 hours ago, elviajero said:

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

Because somebody involved in programming this system thought this was a good idea. The ministerial regulations explicitly state that people are entitled to a visa exempt many times. And when this system was implemented the 2 exempts at land border rules didn't exist yet.

So it's done to the programmer. Okay 555.

 

4 hours ago, jackdd said:

8 hours ago, elviajero said:

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”?

I think i didn't see this one yet, can you post a source?

It was sent out in 2014. I send you a copy later.

 

4 hours ago, jackdd said:

8 hours ago, elviajero said:

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

Because this would have to be done on ministerial level, but it looks like Prayut doesn't want to kick the visa runners out completely.

Not sure what Prayut has to do with anything.

 

"Visa running" as it was for years has been stopped. Visa runners are now forced to get TR's which is why the limits etc started to be introduced back in 2008ish, and why the focus at airports has moved to TR holders.

 

4 hours ago, jackdd said:

8 hours ago, elviajero said:

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

I doubt they have been ordered to do this, at least not from somewhere high up. DMK, BKK and CNX are all under Immigration Division 2. It looks like only DMK and BKK are denying people like this. I think so far we didn't have a denied entry report from CNX. So probably it was not an order from the Division 2 HQ or higher up, because this would have included CNX. Looks more like IOs from the problematic airports just exchanged ideas with each other.

So with all the evidence of a clampdown since 2006 you don't believe the orders come from high up. When they made it public that they were clamping down on visa runners no regulation was passed to enable IO's to specifically deny entry based on too many stays. So when the authorities made this announce many what laws do you think IO's were meant to use if it wasn't 12.2, 3 or 9?

 

4 hours ago, jackdd said:

8 hours ago, elviajero said:

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

This was actually the only change regarding Immigration laws / rules within Thailand in recent years which came from somebody sitting above Immigration. All other changes were done by Immigration itself. So i would guess an IO could convince Prayut that this was a good idea to do, but he didn't want to be too harsh on foreigners. If he wanted to be stricter he could easily do this.

Pruyat again? They couldn't be much more stricter than 2 per year!

 

The simple answer is to shut down VE visa runs by land.

 

5 hours ago, jackdd said:

8 hours ago, elviajero said:

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

This is something i also don't really understand. Like who ordered these changes? Were they signed by Prayut or did somebody on a lower level came up with these ideas? Would be interesting to know.

The reason is obvious. They stopped visa running by land and actively pushed people to get TR's. At the same time (approx 2008) they started using the "red stamp" at Vientiane and limiting the number of TR's. Again, nothing to do with Prayut.

 

Over the years they have ramped up application requirements as part of the clampdown on long stay tourists who now rely on TR's.

 

A major problem for immigration is the disconnect between them and the embassies/consulates who want to issue as many visas as they can for the income.

 

I am sure that immigration do not want to deny anyone with a visa, but some 'tourists' don't seem to have got the message and continue to push their luck.

 

[elviajero]

5 hours ago, ThomasThBKK said:

8 hours ago, elviajero said:

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

Yeah right - if i have a few hundred k USD in my bank account and money coming from an offshore company every month or otherwise income and savings, it's quite obvious that i am not working as a hooker in Thailand.

This is called common sense, and is indeed a thing in law and defined as: 

Says a lot about you that the first job you think of is "hooker".

 

Common sense suggests that just because someone has money in the bank or claim to have a job in another country does not mean they are not working in Thailand; especially if they are spending months/years in the country. At best it shows the person is less likely to need to work in Thailand. Some people have more than one job. Many long stay tourists are funding their stay by illegally working remotely for their foreign based and paid business.

Edited August 2, 2019 by elviajero

[elviajero]

5 hours ago, BritTim said:

8 hours ago, elviajero said:

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

I have several times opined that visa exempt entries (and visas on arrival) are properly the purview of immigration officials to grant or deny. Perhaps, it is appropriate to expand on that, and why those entering with visas from embassies/consulates are different.

 

With visa exempt entry and visas on arrivals, there are really two distinct steps, though there is a tendency to amalgamate the two. The first is deciding whether the traveller qualifies (basically what the consular officials are responsible for in the case of visas); the second is deciding whether there are reasons under the Immigration Act to deny entry.

 

It is entirely reasonable for immigration to decide whether the traveller qualifies for a visa exempt or visa on arrival. No previous vetting has been done. Indeed, there are published orders to guide immigration officials on how to decide if the VE/VOA should be given. It is my view that, if a VE/VOA is not given, the correct follow up would be denied entry, reason 12 (1) with a note like "no visa and not eligible for visa exemption".

 

When someone arrives with a visa, the situation is different. Vetting of the application to determine whether someone qualifies to visit as a tourist or to visit Thai relatives should have already been done by the consular officials. When an immigration official decides to abrogate the visa, using a bogus reason, they are implying that they know better than the consular officials. I am quite sure that is not the way the law is supposed to work.

The answer is because 6 x 30 = 180. 180 days is the unofficial line in the sand at which point IO's are meant to give extra scrutiny to the persons history. 180 days is often quoted by IO's as the limit for tourism although we know that is not backed up by regulation/law.

 

The MFA make it clear on their website that a visa does not guarantee entry and that the decision is with the IO. IO's have exactly the same powers whether the person is entering using VE or a TR. That said no country wants to be seen to issuing visas on one hand and denying entry with the other, and on the whole they don't. It's long stay tourists that are being targeted in the same way the visa runners were targeted in the past. And they are being denied entry using the same "bogus" reasons used for VE visa runners.

 

 

Edited August 2, 2019 by elviajero

[brokenbone]

i feel sorry for the below 50 sods, thank goodness that shit is behind me.

still its an unfair age discrimination

Edited August 2, 2019 by brokenbone

[elviajero]

6 hours ago, darrendsd said:

14 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 

Having 20K in your pocket doesn't stop them denying you under 12.2. 

 

Agreed; if they decide you're not coming in you're not coming in. It is laughable that you still think waving bank statements or proof of your foreign income is going to prove anything. You are only required to show 10K/20K. The idea of showing bank statements etc came from forums like TVF, and spread amongst the long stayers. There has never been any evidence that it's made any difference. You're supposed to be a tourist so they have no interest in how you make a living. They want to see hotel bookings, pocket money and that you're planning to leave. Very simple.

[PingRoundTheWorld]

9 hours ago, elviajero said:

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

At least according to one source: "According to a spokesman for the Thai Immigration Bureau, the new regulation was created to encourage foreigners to secure the proper visas in advance from a Royal Thai Embassy prior to their arrival. The new rule will also limit the amount of back-to-back visa runs being made by foreigners to extend their stay. "

At least back then when it was created it sounds like they just wanted to limit back-to-back, not total duration, which makes sense as someone doing constant same-day visa runs is much more likely to be working illegally than someone who flies out to another country for a week or two or more before coming back.

 

7 hours ago, darrendsd said:

luckily a grease of the palms soon sorted that out

Would you care to elaborate? Asking genuinely in case I ever find myself in a similar situation (sad that we have to worry about this). If you don't want to answer in public please PM.

 

 

 

[jacko45k]

13 hours 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.

They tried that, didn't work out, although it was 6 months I believe. There are such things as tourists who can afford to be in Thailand over 3 months/ year. 

[PingRoundTheWorld]

6 hours ago, jackdd said:

I think so far we didn't have a denied entry report from CNX.

I can recall at least one denied report from CNX, so yes they definitely are doing it up there too.

 

4 hours ago, edwardandtubs said:

I'm currently on a 3 month stint back in the UK and plan to return to Thailand on an METV but have no idea if I'll have any problems due to the 10 or so SETVs in my passport.

Get a new passport prior to applying for the METV. Will make it easier both to get the METV and when entering the country. Being 3 months out you'll likely not encounter any issues on the first entry. Later ones probably depend on your pattern of travel.

[edwardandtubs]

2 minutes ago, PingRoundTheWorld said:

I can recall at least one denied report from CNX, so yes they definitely are doing it up there too.

 

Get a new passport prior to applying for the METV. Will make it easier both to get the METV and when entering the country. Being 3 months out you'll likely not encounter any issues on the first entry. Later ones probably depend on your pattern of travel.

I'm sure I won't have any problems getting the METV in the UK as I have all the required paperwork and will be getting it from a consulate. A new passport won't help much at the airport as it will be immediately linked to the old one. If anything it might make the immigration officer more closely scrutinise me.

[fforest1]

14 hours 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.

If a guy wants to live in a 3000 baht a month room with no air-con and only eats mama noodles from 7-11 then this is the appropriate way for him to live if he can support himself....If some ones not begging in the street then that should be good enough for Thailand... 

[jacko45k]

21 minutes ago, fforest1 said:

If a guy wants to live in a 3000 baht a month room with no air-con and only eats mama noodles from 7-11 then this is the appropriate way for him to live if he can support himself....If some ones not begging in the street then that should be good enough for Thailand... 

Why? Thailand welcomes tourists who are expected to contribute to the Thai economy, and effectively keep local people in work and improve welfare generally. Thailand does not owe the nationals of other countries a place to live by any requirement. 

What that foreigner wants to do is Thailand's business. Thailand has a right to decide who lives in Thailand beyond their own nationals. Just good enough just isn't.

Having 10,000 baht on you to live a month is hardly elitism.

Edited August 3, 2019 by jacko45k

[jackdd]

3 hours ago, elviajero said:

Pruyat again? They couldn't be much more stricter than 2 per year!

If you look at ministerial orders from the last years you find Prayut's name under them. So in the end he is the one who decides about them.

If Prayut decided that Thailand really doesn't want long term tourists and visa runners anymore it would be very easy for him to do. He would just have to issue an order like this: Cut all time frames related to tourist entries in half. Visa exempt gives 15 days, tourist visa 30 days, METV valid for 3 months, giving 30 days per entry, extension 15 days. Staying here long term would become a pain in the ass and people would decide to go somewhere else. 99% of tourists don't stay longer than 15 or 30 days anyway, so it wouldn't really have an impact on them.

 

3 hours ago, elviajero said:

So with all the evidence of a clampdown since 2006 you don't believe the orders come from high up. When they made it public that they were clamping down on visa runners no regulation was passed to enable IO's to specifically deny entry based on too many stays. So when the authorities made this announce many what laws do you think IO's were meant to use if it wasn't 12.2, 3 or 9?

Was there ever an official order regarding tourist visas? Afaik these announcements were always about visa exempts, some IOs just broadened this to all tourist entries. As somebody wrote here before: If somebody is denied a visa exempt (i would agree that they have some discretion to issue them, compared to that they actually have no discretion for people arriving on a tourist visa), the correct reason to stamp in this persons passport would be 12.1.

Edited August 3, 2019 by jackdd

[Caldera]

3 hours ago, elviajero said:

Common sense suggests that just because someone has money in the bank or claim to have a job in another country does not mean they are not working in Thailand; especially if they are spending months/years in the country. At best it shows the person is less likely to need to work in Thailand. Some people have more than one job. Many long stay tourists are funding their stay by illegally working remotely for their foreign based and paid business.

Common sense suggests that foreigners who have been "vetted" as holders of extensions based on being married to a Thai or being retired aren't any different from long-term tourists in that regard. Applying your standard, they could also work illegally in Thailand. I know at least two "retired" guys who are, in actual fact, digital nomads.

[KiChakayan]

1 hour ago, fforest1 said:

If a guy wants to live in a 3000 baht a month room with no air-con and only eats mama noodles from 7-11 then this is the appropriate way for him to live if he can support himself....If some ones not begging in the street then that should be good enough for Thailand... 

Nope, just take the host country's prospective:

a) Cost / benefit? = low,

b) Risk  (of becoming a burden) / Benefit = high,

Therefore I am not interested; we want high spending, properly insured tourists who come to visit us for a few weeks.

 

As for many other things I cant blame Thai immigration for their intent, it is their lazy, sloppy, ineffective and burdensome implementation of rules that drives me mad.

[darrendsd]

3 hours ago, elviajero said:

Having 20K in your pocket doesn't stop them denying you under 12.2. 

 

Agreed; if they decide you're not coming in you're not coming in. It is laughable that you still think waving bank statements or proof of your foreign income is going to prove anything. You are only required to show 10K/20K. The idea of showing bank statements etc came from forums like TVF, and spread amongst the long stayers. There has never been any evidence that it's made any difference. You're supposed to be a tourist so they have no interest in how you make a living. They want to see hotel bookings, pocket money and that you're planning to leave. Very simple.

You must hold the TV record of contradicting yourself in a single thread

[treetops]

On 8/2/2019 at 10:09 AM, 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"

 

On 8/2/2019 at 10:43 AM, Briggsy said:

UK.

I got one in the UK (Consulate in Glasgow) a fortnight ago and there was no time requirement for money in the bank.

[schlemmi]

It means: Not be able to support your own life on a legal way when you stay in TH.

 

[schlemmi]

On 8/2/2019 at 4:27 PM, 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.

Because they have no evidence.

[elviajero]

17 hours ago, Caldera said:

Common sense suggests that foreigners who have been "vetted" as holders of extensions based on being married to a Thai or being retired aren't any different from long-term tourists in that regard. Applying your standard, they could also work illegally in Thailand. I know at least two "retired" guys who are, in actual fact, digital nomads.

Yes, and?

 

My point was that it’s impossible for anyone to prove they aren’t working!

[tgeezer]

The translation “following entry into the kingdom” is not what the Thai says.  Not having means of support on entry into the Kingdom   appropriate to the type of entry.   

batjaiyangcheep means money, you can buy toothbrush, clothes and food etc. while in The Kingdom. 

Denied entry by 12.2 seems reasonable if the IO is saying that owning a condo, having cash in the bank etc. is not appropriate for the type of entry being attempted.  (dtam cuan geh goranee gan cow racha anajak ) 

More or less the same but consider that there are many people with their ‘feet under the table’ which is disapproved of and border control has been told to do something about it. 

This is the result of allowing people to live in Thailand unofficially then trying to prevent it.  Embassies in neighbouring countries have been providing visas for foreigners which has devalued the visa system making border control more problematic. 

Every case of denied entry is an individual case so Immigration trying to have Immigration rule on the subject is pointless. 

 

 

The Immigration Act needs bringing up to date.

[Caldera]

16 hours ago, elviajero said:

Yes, and?

 

My point was that it’s impossible for anyone to prove they aren’t working!

Only if you apply your nonsensical, absolute standard. Anyone with half a brain, on the other hand, would look at the likelihood / probability.

[elviajero]

43 minutes ago, Caldera said:

Only if you apply your nonsensical, absolute standard. Anyone with half a brain, on the other hand, would look at the likelihood / probability.

Yes, and?

 

My point was that it’s impossible for anyone to prove they aren’t working!