Concerned about returning BKK airport on a Tourist Visa

[spambot]

Currently I have an extension based upon retirement which ends soon - I will be in the UK next week where I will apply for a 6 month multi entry tourist visa. However now seeing a number of new reports on this forum recently that seem to suggest there might be a six month limit in a single year when again entering Thailand with a tourist Visa and then being rejected at BKK airports I have some concerns.

 

Since my extension was for 12 months this is obviously greater than the 6 months hence when I return with on a tourist visa is this going to be a problem?.

 

I am not married to a Thai national and I do not wish to again renew existing extension, nor do I want to apply for O-A. I just want to get about 6 months (or possibly less) in Thailand for when I return and I just want to ensure I am not prevented from entering when coming back through BKK airport.

 

 

[donnacha]

The six month multi-entry tourist (METV) is the right visa for what you have described.

The Immigration Officers in the Bangkok airports mainly target guys under retirement age. The idea seems to be that if you are under 50 you will steal a Thai job, but once you are a day over 50 you will give up that devious dream. So, being older means that the METV should work fine for you, whereas it is no longer a safe bet for younger guys.

Of course, the smartest tactic is to simply avoid all the current anti-farang hysteria gripping the Immigration Officers in the Bangkok airports and enter Thailand via a non-Bangkok airport. I understand that might seem wasteful if you are living in Bangkok, but I reckon a short, inexpensive extra flight is worth it just to avoid any uncertainty.



 

Edited November 1, 2019 by donnacha

[ubonjoe]

The purported 180 day rule that immigration mentions on entry is only for previous tourist visa entries.

Your stay on a extension based upon retirement does not count since it is not a tourist visa.

[spambot]

5 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

The purported 180 day rule that immigration mentions on entry is only for previous tourist visa entries.

Your stay on a extension based upon retirement does not count since it is not a tourist visa.

Ahhh - Brilliant UbonJoe - That's exactly just what I wanted to hear.

[elviajero]

2 hours ago, spambot said:

I just want to ensure I am not prevented from entering when coming back through BKK airport.

You can’t, but there is no reason why you would be denied entry with a METV given your recent history.

 

[theonetrueaussie]

21 hours ago, spambot said:

Ahhh - Brilliant UbonJoe - That's exactly just what I wanted to hear.

While it may be what you wanted to hear, there was recently a story of a german expat who did the same as you come off retirement get toruist and he was denied in bangkok and sent back to germany. At the current time no one can say for sure if you will be denied or not, up to the IO on the day. Best bet would be to fly into chiang mai then transfer to bangkok.

[TSF]

Keep the retirement ext + multi re-entry visa, that's about as good as it gets without getting into PR. Anything else is a step down. I've been on the retirement ext + multi re-entry visa for a couple decades now, I only spend about half the year in Thailand but I'm not getting hassled at airports for spending too long in country or having to show cash...I go in and out just like a Thai. IMHO as long as you intend coming to Thailand keep the the retirement ext.

[Tayaout]

Like it was said you should try to keep any extension or non-o visa you have. If you come back on a tourist visa the IO might think you don't qualify for them anymore and you are trying to keep living in Thailand on the wrong visa. 

[ubonjoe]

40 minutes ago, theonetrueaussie said:

While it may be what you wanted to hear, there was recently a story of a german expat who did the same as you come off retirement get toruist and he was denied in bangkok and sent back to germany. At the current time no one can say for sure if you will be denied or not, up to the IO on the day. Best bet would be to fly into chiang mai then transfer to bangkok.

I think there was more to that story. Could you please post a link to that topic.

[Suradit69]

1 hour ago, theonetrueaussie said:

While it may be what you wanted to hear, there was recently a story of a german expat who did the same as you come off retirement get toruist and he was denied in bangkok

You used the right term. It  was a story. And you are now using the unlinked, vaguely recounted story as if it were fact. 

 

There are many stories posted by people who are confused about what happened to them or intentionally edit the stories they tell to enhance the drama and their victimhood.

 

Hoping to fear monger, other posters then refer to these situations as being  "the same as you."

 

 

 

 

[NoshowJones]

"Concerned about returning BKK airport on a Tourist Visa"

Nothing to worry about, the new guy in charge said he is now going to do everything

he can, or words to that effect, to keep the tourists happy.  Aye right. 

[ubonjoe]

Some inflammatory posts and replies have been removed.

[elviajero]

3 hours ago, possum1931 said:

"Concerned about returning BKK airport on a Tourist Visa"

Nothing to worry about, the new guy in charge said he is now going to do everything

he can, or words to that effect, to keep the tourists happy.  Aye right. 

“Tourists”.

[NoshowJones]

1 hour ago, elviajero said:

“Tourists”.

Yes tourists, and any westerners coming to Thailand. Never a day goes past without reports

on Thaivisa of more people having problems, mainly tourists.

[elviajero]

56 minutes ago, possum1931 said:

Yes tourists, and any westerners coming to Thailand. Never a day goes past without reports

on Thaivisa of more people having problems, mainly tourists.

Nope. Only visitors — who are trying repeat long term stays — claiming to be “tourists”.

[NoshowJones]

17 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Nope. Only visitors — who are trying repeat long term stays — claiming to be “tourists”.

Not them all.

[elviajero]

1 hour ago, possum1931 said:

Not them all.

I didn't claim otherwise.

[Langkawee]

10 hours ago, theonetrueaussie said:

While it may be what you wanted to hear, there was recently a story of a german expat who did the same as you come off retirement get toruist and he was denied in bangkok and sent back to germany. At the current time no one can say for sure if you will be denied or not, up to the IO on the day. Best bet would be to fly into chiang mai then transfer to bangkok.

Why risk it when you can fly into KL and be sure to be welcomed. I think you are out of your mind to risk it. Thai airports for international flights i will always considered closed. Absolute madness to fly into Thailand if not on a retirement or marriage visa. 

[pookondee]

 

Things must be bad if the recommendation is flying to Chiang Mai, just to avoid Bangkok..

and another says fly first to KL, to avoid the chance of getting sent all the way back to the U.K.??

 

how utterly absurd!

 

If things really are THAT bad, he could well fly to all manner of locations and still have trouble getting back into Thailand!

 

The scare-mongering is getting out of hand on here.

 

Thousands of people like the OP are flying in every day without problems.

 

I suppose next they will be claiming Thai IMMs officers will look you up and down

and say..

"Ok lads, this one doesnt look like a Thaivisa member, let him in"

 

haha

 

 

 

 

 

[baboon]

2 hours ago, pookondee said:

If things really are THAT bad, he could well fly to all manner of locations and still have trouble getting back into Thailand!

 

The scare-mongering is getting out of hand on here.

 

But they would be sent back to KL / Ho Chi Minh or wherever. Not their home country. 

[shadowofacloud]

On 11/1/2019 at 6:27 AM, ubonjoe said:

The purported 180 day rule that immigration mentions on entry is only for previous tourist visa entries.

I am aware this isn't an official rule, but is it 180 days annually or during a different period?

[dimitriv]

6 hours ago, elviajero said:

Nope. Only visitors — who are trying repeat long term stays — claiming to be “tourists”.

 

Why can somebody staying more than 180 days a year not be a tourist?

 

tourist: "a person who is travelling or visiting a place for pleasure."

 

 

 

[elviajero]

2 hours ago, dimitriv said:

Why can somebody staying more than 180 days a year not be a tourist?

 

tourist: "a person who is travelling or visiting a place for pleasure."

Because the Thai authorities consider a tourist to be a short term visitor who holidays and goes home. The visa system proves that. The maximum stay for tourism is 90 days.

 

We are all visitors and given permission to stay for specific reasons. Anyone that wants to stay long term — under the visa system — needs a long term visa/stay permit. A simple fact.
 

Plus the law says that anyone staying longer than 180 days in a year is ‘resident for tax’. That is probably why the 180 day unofficial line in the sand exists, and IMO it would be the number of days they would limit tourism too if the set an official limit.

Edited November 2, 2019 by elviajero

[elviajero]

2 hours ago, shadowofacloud said:

I am aware this isn't an official rule, but is it 180 days annually or during a different period?

It’s whatever the IO wants it to be. But it appears to be a rolling 12 months as opposed to Jan - Dec.

[dimitriv]

31 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Because the Thai authorities consider a tourist to be a short term visitor who holidays and goes home. The visa system proves that. The maximum stay for tourism is 90 days.

 

We are all visitors and given permission to stay for specific reasons. Anyone that wants to stay long term — under the visa system — needs a long term visa/stay permit. A simple fact.
 

Plus the law says that anyone staying longer than 180 days in a year is ‘resident for tax’. That is probably why the 180 day unofficial line in the sand exists, and IMO it would be the number of days they would limit tourism too if the set an official limit.

 

This was about why Thai authorities make it difficult for tourists to stay.  You explain the rules. But it doesn't answer "why".

 

You only give one more explanation why this rule hurts the economy. Which makes the rule even more illogical.

 

[BritTim]

3 hours ago, shadowofacloud said:

I am aware this isn't an official rule, but is it 180 days annually or during a different period?

Since it is not an official rule, that is up to the individual immigration official. Probably, a rolling 12 month period is the most common. However, we know officials have occasionally chosen a period longer than 12 months.

[elviajero]

12 minutes ago, dimitriv said:

 

This was about why Thai authorities make it difficult for tourists to stay.  You explain the rules. But it doesn't answer "why".

They don’t make it difficult for tourists to visit/stay. It’s the complete opposite and very easy.

 

They are stopping visitors from staying long term for the reason of tourism. Because of the concern over illegal work and because they have the wrong visa.

 

12 minutes ago, dimitriv said:

You only give one more explanation why this rule hurts the economy. Which makes the rule even more illogical.

Stopping a few long term tourists does not hurt their economy.

Countries want tourists to visit for short holidays, spend money, and go home. If you want to stay long term you can as long as it’s for one of the set reasons (not tourism) and you meet the requirements. If you want to stay long term, and don’t fit the criteria, it means they don’t want you.

[Tayaout]

10 hours ago, pookondee said:

 

Things must be bad if the recommendation is flying to Chiang Mai, just to avoid Bangkok..

and another says fly first to KL, to avoid the chance of getting sent all the way back to the U.K.??

 

how utterly absurd!

 

If things really are THAT bad, he could well fly to all manner of locations and still have trouble getting back into Thailand!

 

The scare-mongering is getting out of hand on here.

 

Thousands of people like the OP are flying in every day without problems.

 

I suppose next they will be claiming Thai IMMs officers will look you up and down

and say..

"Ok lads, this one doesnt look like a Thaivisa member, let him in"

 

haha

The problem start when you had previous long term visa or you stay often for long period of time on tourist visa which isn't the case for most visitors. If you are at risk of being denied for these reasons then flying to KL might save you a lot of time and money. Then you can still get back via land border. I'm talking from experience! 

[pookondee]

15 hours ago, baboon said:

But they would be sent back to KL / Ho Chi Minh or wherever. Not their home country. 

And then what?

Try to get back into Thailand again, through the back door?

 

If the IMM officer stamps something not so good in his passport, or puts a note on his file, 

he could get rejected again at an entry point and be in trouble again. 

 

 

[pookondee]

7 hours ago, Tayaout said:

The problem start when you had previous long term visa or you stay often for long period of time on tourist visa which isn't the case for most visitors. If you are at risk of being denied for these reasons then flying to KL might save you a lot of time and money. Then you can still get back via land border. I'm talking from experience! 

Amazing Thailand must have something very amazing for you to go to those lengths.

I will sooner go to Vietnam, Phillipines or Laos, out of principle, if/when Thailand does that to me.