Is U-Tapao a 'safe' airport?

[jacko45k]

2 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

48 minutes ago, StevieAus said:

The reason they let the people in from neighboring countries and in particular  Myanamar (Burma) is because many Thais don’t want to do the menial jobs and in particular those laboring jobs where you are working outside in the sun.
There no shortage of work in Thailand ask some of the local businesses and you will get the answer.

what jobs are these falang taking that the thais could do instead? i doubt the internet based jobs count

That is not the point.... if they are doing jobs without a work permit, they are illegal. 

Edited October 1, 2019 by jacko45k

[scubascuba3]

That is not the point.... if they are doing jobs without a work permit, they are illegal. 

then they need to be smarter and find the people working without a permit rather than harass everyone at the airport. Old farts don't get targeted, stupidly they think those over 50 aren't working

[jacko45k]

5 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

8 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

That is not the point.... if they are doing jobs without a work permit, they are illegal. 

then they need to be smarter and find the people working without a permit rather than harass everyone at the airport. Old farts don't get targeted, stupidly they think those over 50 aren't working

I think I responded to this before. It is simpler to police at immigration border points than send groups of officials out to Amata and other industrial parks. And it is their choice where to do this policing. The Thai people themselves do the policing out and about in Thailand.

They aren't harassing EVERYONE at the airport from what I see, just a very small number who have caught their attention. If an old fart is arriving on a retirement extension it is likely valid, but if he arrives on his 23rd Visa Exempt this year, I would expect some scrutiny. 

[scubascuba3]

I think I responded to this before. It is simpler to police at immigration border points than send groups of officials out to Amata and other industrial parks. And it is their choice where to do this policing. The Thai people themselves do the policing out and about in Thailand.

They aren't harassing EVERYONE at the airport from what I see, just a very small number who have caught their attention. If an old fart is arriving on a retirement extension it is likely valid, but if he arrives on his 23rd Visa Exempt this year, I would expect some scrutiny. 

Anyone in their profile range 20-40s would feel targeted and slightly anxious going through immigration so their policy impacts far more than the people they actually quiz. We know this from all the threads and posts on the subject

 

[jacko45k]

1 minute ago, scubascuba3 said:

Anyone in their profile range 20-40s would feel targeted and slightly anxious going through immigration so their policy impacts far more than the people they actually quiz

Not sure what point you are making here. Where are you getting the information that all 20-40s are being targeted because I doubt it. If a person is nervous over nothing (they don't get quizzed), that is not immigration's problem. When valid tourists are deterred in numbers, that will be cause for concern.

[mockingbird]

6 hours ago, lonewolf99 said:

A western passenger would stand out from the crowd and more so if they have have been going in and out of LoS at the other main airports.

 

I'm not a drug smuggler, and I'm pretty sure it's not illegal to attempt to enter Thailand on a tourist visa, so I'd stand out only if this airport has the same immigration policies as the Bangkok airports re: frequent visitors. Are you saying U-Tapao has the same immigration policies as the Bangkok airports?

[BritTim]

4 hours ago, jacko45k said:

I think I responded to this before. It is simpler to police at immigration border points than send groups of officials out to Amata and other industrial parks. And it is their choice where to do this policing. The Thai people themselves do the policing out and about in Thailand.

They aren't harassing EVERYONE at the airport from what I see, just a very small number who have caught their attention. If an old fart is arriving on a retirement extension it is likely valid, but if he arrives on his 23rd Visa Exempt this year, I would expect some scrutiny. 

It would no doubt be easier for police to randomly detain people on the street and imprison them for murder. However, I do not think you would consider that reasonable. I just cannot see how anyone can support denying entry to certain people, with zero evidence, based on the fact that it is conceivable they just maybe might be working. It amounts to a disgraceful lack of due process.

[Caldera]

5 hours ago, jacko45k said:

If an old fart is arriving on a retirement extension it is likely valid, but if he arrives on his 23rd Visa Exempt this year, I would expect some scrutiny. 

I have no idea why you think that someone on a retirement extension is less likely to work in Thailand illegally than someone of the same age who comes in frequently on visa exempt.

 

If there's any correlation, it's probably just the opposite.

 

To obtain a "valid" retirement extension, at no point do you have to prove that you are retired. As long as they can put 800,000 baht in a Thai bank (or use an agent), an applicant might not have any verifiable income at all.

[jacko45k]

47 minutes ago, BritTim said:

It would no doubt be easier for police to randomly detain people on the street and imprison them for murder. However, I do not think you would consider that reasonable. I just cannot see how anyone can support denying entry to certain people, with zero evidence, based on the fact that it is conceivable they just maybe might be working. It amounts to a disgraceful lack of due process.

Ah, the drama queen response.

I support denying entry if they have a high degree of suspicion that they are using the wrong Visa type. Due process is perhaps up to the person trying to gain entry into the Kingdom, something they do not have a right to. As another posted, it is difficult for a Thai to grasp a 32 year old person can swan around Thailand for 9 months without any visible means of support. Their application needs refining.... or their regulations/ requirements need better definition. I certainly do not agree a person able to show the 'required' 20,000 baht should be turned away with a false claim he/she 'does not have any apparent means of support'. Maybe more cash should be required... but someone who turns up without it.... surely that is acceptable. 

Edited October 1, 2019 by jacko45k

[jacko45k]

12 minutes ago, Caldera said:

I have no idea why you think that someone on a retirement extension is less likely to work in Thailand illegally than someone of the same age who comes in frequently on visa exempt.

 

If there's any correlation, it's probably just the opposite.

 

To obtain a "valid" retirement extension, at no point do you have to prove that you are retired. As long as they can put 800,000 baht in a Thai bank (or use an agent), an applicant might not have any verifiable income at all.

Because they have committed to living in Thailand and demonstrated it by having/ showing money here. Having a permanent address and reporting as required. It is ridiculous to say a person on his 10th retirement  extension is likely to be working...... They have signed paperwork confirming and accepting they can not work in Thailand and can be expelled if they do, 

[Caldera]

3 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

It is ridiculous to say a person on his 10th retirement  extension is likely to be working......

How so? I personally know some who do just that, and ever since they've "retired" in Thailand.

 

Your argument that they sign paperwork to the effect that they aren't allowed to work gives me a chuckle - anyone who applies for a tourist visa signs such a declaration as well. Yet some claim that there are people who work illegally on tourist visa, imagine that.

[jacko45k]

Just now, Caldera said:

How so? I personally know some who do just that, and ever since they've "retired" in Thailand.

 

Your argument that they sign paperwork to the effect that they aren't allowed to work gives me a chuckle - anyone who applies for a tourist visa signs such a declaration as well. Yet some claim that there are people who work illegally on tourist visa, imagine that.

Are you claiming they illegally work in Thailand or work outside Thailand?

Signing paperwork is a factor, yes as laughable as the previous affidavits and Stat Decs used to be, to get retirement extensions. 

People have been living in Thailand based on successive TVs, METVs and VEs for many years. It is unlikely they are tourists, that was the starting point of discussion you have twisted around. 

[scubascuba3]

I have no idea why you think that someone on a retirement extension is less likely to work in Thailand illegally than someone of the same age who comes in frequently on visa exempt.
 
If there's any correlation, it's probably just the opposite.
 
To obtain a "valid" retirement extension, at no point do you have to prove that you are retired. As long as they can put 800,000 baht in a Thai bank (or use an agent), an applicant might not have any verifiable income at all.

Very true and even if proof of retirement was required, it means nothing as we know people can continue working and I'm sure many do

[scubascuba3]

Because they have committed to living in Thailand and demonstrated it by having/ showing money here. Having a permanent address and reporting as required. It is ridiculous to say a person on his 10th retirement  extension is likely to be working...... They have signed paperwork confirming and accepting they can not work in Thailand and can be expelled if they do, 

Of course they can be working, online work, maybe even a bar manager, getting previous extensions mean nothing

[Caldera]

4 hours ago, jacko45k said:

Are you claiming they illegally work in Thailand or work outside Thailand?

In Thailand. Obviously there's nothing wrong with having a retirement visa despite working while outside Thailand. Again, proof of actual retirement isn't on the list of requirements for a retirement visa / extension. While that's great for many, some will abuse it - same as with any other kind of visa.

 

[Caldera]

3 hours ago, FredGallaher said:

You sound bitter. I can understand you want to work but you need to do it somewhere else or get a business visa. 

Absolute nonsense. I have never worked and will never work in Thailand. I doubt I will ever work anywhere else again either, if you must know. What I fail to see is why people on retirement extensions should be considered less prone to working illegally than others.

[BritTim]

10 hours ago, FredGallaher said:

The IO become suspicious because of the time spent in Thailand for a young person. These people get upset with being questioned and/or denied entry. They know the drill and it up to them to convince the IO otherwise. After all we are all guests here and no one is entitled. Coming on a tourist or ed visa has been problematic. 

Coming on tourist and education visas is problematic, when entering at some entry points, because there are rules being applied that are not part of the law or of any Ministerial orders.

 

There are plenty of threads where people were denied entry, never being given the opportunity to plead their case. It was "you have been here too long", denied entry because you have no appropriate means of supporting yourself during your stay. This is spite of many previous problem free stays. Plenty of those denied entry certainly cannot be suspected of working for a Thai company. Their pattern of entries makes that totally implausible. Some may be digital nomads, but that is speculation on the officials' part.

 

If Thailand wishes to change its rules to limit stays on tourist visas, that is up to them. It should be done formally and consistently, with visitors knowing what rules will be applied, and not being issued visas that are not honoured. To give officials the power to make up their own rules (when the Immigration Act makes clear they should not) is simply wrong.

[jacko45k]

13 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:

16 hours ago, jacko45k said:

Because they have committed to living in Thailand and demonstrated it by having/ showing money here. Having a permanent address and reporting as required. It is ridiculous to say a person on his 10th retirement  extension is likely to be working...... They have signed paperwork confirming and accepting they can not work in Thailand and can be expelled if they do, 

Of course they can be working, online work, maybe even a bar manager, getting previous extensions mean nothing

I don't believe online work is an issue. If he is a bar-manager he is working illegally. 

[jacko45k]

11 hours ago, Caldera said:

In Thailand. Obviously there's nothing wrong with having a retirement visa despite working while outside Thailand. Again, proof of actual retirement isn't on the list of requirements for a retirement visa / extension. While that's great for many, some will abuse it - same as with any other kind of visa.

 

Then they are working illegally and breaking the law. The types who basically create the problems for those who stay here legitimately, selfish. 

[ubonjoe]

45 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

Then they are working illegally and breaking the law.

Working outside the country is not illegal. There is nothing that states a person cannot work outside the country while on a OA visa or extension of stay based upon retirement. Many people are doing it.

[jacko45k]

Just now, ubonjoe said:

Working outside the country is not illegal. There is nothing that states a person cannot work outside the country while on a OA visa or extension of stay based upon retirement. Many people are doing it.

 

12 hours ago, Caldera said:

In Thailand.

 

[scubascuba3]

You and I don't make or enforce the rules, but we are expected to follow them. It doesn't matter if they make sense to you or you dislike them. It seems that the rules were made to prevent people from coming and working in Thailand. There are other visas for that purpose.

The problem is Immigration aren't following the rules, if it was as simple as that people would know for sure what they needed to comply with

[scubascuba3]

I don't believe online work is an issue. If he is a bar-manager he is working illegally. 

then they should target the work places as i said before rather than harass everyone going through the airports