What's your opinion on the best option for entry considering the recent refusals?

[saltedegg]

Best options with a passport worth IO scrutiny?

 

For frequent travellers, the consensus here seems to be that BKK/DMK is no-go, Cambodian borders are out, Sabao(sp?) is strict/corrupt. I haven't read of anyone being hassled CNX / Krabi / Vientiane, are they pretty safe bets (I mean, it's basically a gamble right) ? Are land crossings generally more lenient?

 

I don't have an extensive history of staying in Thailand, but I've got a lot of in-and-out exempts and a TV in my passport (as in an entry every 3 pages), which I'm sure warranted the IO pulling me aside at DMK during my previous visit (From what I've read here, got let in on a typical 'next time you stay out 6 month' bs clause). I'm meeting friends there for a couple of weeks this time around, and don't really want to screw up my holiday. So I'm weighing up my options for what will be my last visit for a while.

Edited January 9, 2020 by saltedegg

[Happy Grumpy]

First:

 

Why are you coming here? What is the purpose?

 

 

For you, that is tourism.

 

How long ago was your last visit?

 

Get a Tourist Visa from an embassy, book your hotels and print out the booking, book your flight out and print out the ticket, take 20,000 cash for your holiday with you as cash. 

 

 

[DrJack54]

OP, advice all depends on where are you currently. Also how many border crossings this year. I would assume zero.

Edited January 9, 2020 by DrJack54

[jackdd]

All land borders except Poipet are ok. But at the Malaysian border they seem to be a bit more strict (asking to see the cash, might ask to see a hotel booking or ticket out*).

 

*There is no written requirement that you need a ticket out or a hotel booking. But this is probably part of their "tourist screening"

Edited January 9, 2020 by jackdd

[Happy Grumpy]

25 minutes ago, jackdd said:

 

*There is no written requirement that you need a ticket out or a hotel booking. But this is probably part of their "tourist screening"

Yup.

 

As I said:

 

1 hour ago, Happy Grumpy said:

Get a Tourist Visa from an embassy, book your hotels and print out the booking, book your flight out and print out the ticket, take 20,000 cash for your holiday with you as cash.

No problemo. ????

 

1 hour ago, Happy Grumpy said:

How long ago was your last visit?

Unless, perhaps, this was something like last week. ????

[BritTim]

Visa exempt entries by air are very risky at all airports if you have an extensive history of tourist entries to Thailand.

 

The twice per calendar year visa exempt entries by land are safe at almost all land crossings. However,

• you should avoid Poipet/Aranyaprathet;
• at some crossings, especially from Malaysia, you may need to spend one night outside Thailand if doing an in/out for a visa exempt entry; and
• if trying to spend most of your time in Thailand as a tourist, you should not use those visa exempt entries by land except as a last resort. They are your insurance policy for when other plans for entry fall through.

With a visa, you are safe entering at almost all land crossings and (based on prior experience) at some airports. Do not try to enter at Poipet/Aranyaprathet which is a law unto itself. Tend to avoid Padang Besar which, while not exactly lawless, will try hard to find a justification to deny you entry. Sadao has been problematic in the past, but experience of the last couple of years (with the exception of one recent report) suggests it is now OK.

 

With a long history of tourist entries, avoid trying to enter (even with a tourist visa) via the airports at Suvarnabhumi, Don Muang, Phuket and Krabi. Chiang Mai airport seems OK with a visa. U-Tapao airport (based on limited data) is probably OK. With other airports, there is too little in the way of reports to provide firm advice. 

Edited January 9, 2020 by BritTim

[Snacks]

12 minutes ago, BritTim said:

Visa exempt entries by air are very risky at all airports if you have an extensive history of tourist entries to Thailand.

 

The twice per calendar year visa exempt entries by land are safe at almost all land crossings. However,

• you should avoid Poipet/Aranyaprathet;
• at some crossings, especially from Malaysia, you may need to spend one night outside Thailand if doing an in/out for a visa exempt entry; and
• if trying to spend most of your time in Thailand as a tourist, you should not use those visa exempt entries by land except as a last resort. They are your insurance policy for when other plans for entry fall through.

With a visa, you are safe entering at almost all land crossings and (based on prior experience) at some airports. Do not try to enter at Poipet/Aranyaprathet which is a law unto itself. Tend to avoid Padang Besar which, while not exactly lawless, will try hard to find a justification to deny you entry. Sadao has been problematic in the past, but experience of the last couple of years (with the exception of one recent report) suggests it is now OK.

 

With a long history of tourist entries, avoid trying to enter (even with a tourist visa) via the airports at Suvarnabhumi, Don Muang, Phuket and Krabi. Chiang Mai airport seems OK with a visa. U-Tapao airport (based on limited data) is probably OK. With other airports, there is too little in the way of reports to provide firm advice. 

Great advice, thanks!... also wondering if anyone has EVER heard of anyone being denied entry at Chiangmai airport w a valid tourist visa (not VOA, but actual SETV or METV)?

 

Im currently deciding whether to risk CMX or just go to the friendship bridge in Laos. Any opinions would be appreciated ????

[gamini]

Most countries limit tourist stays to 6 months in a calendar year so what do you expect. Why should Thailand be any different. They want proper tourists and retirees

[belfast3]

On 1/9/2020 at 6:41 AM, Snacks said:

Great advice, thanks!... also wondering if anyone has EVER heard of anyone being denied entry at Chiangmai airport w a valid tourist visa (not VOA, but actual SETV or METV)?

 

Im currently deciding whether to risk CMX or just go to the friendship bridge in Laos. Any opinions would be appreciated ????

There is one or two stories - one of a guy who had been abusing TV and ED visas for 11 years so hardly surprising. I only know personally of one person who has been questioned at CNX (VE, no 20k, no hotel booking) but was let through. 

I flew into CNX in August with extensive history + SETV and had no problems, the immigration staff seemed to be very neutral and efficient – I didn't see anyone being questioned or having issues. If you have SETV or METV and 20k cash you will most probably be fine at CNX. 

 

[SouthDutchy]

I stayed 11 months in LOS with tourist visas and exempt entries before I flew back to my country. I will enter Thailand at the friendship bridge at the end of this month. It costs more and takes half a day of extra travel, compared to entering at BKK/DMK. But, the risk of being denied entry and the stress that goes with it made it a no-brainer for me.

 

(from what I read CNX might be OK but there is still a risk, that's why I choose the Friendship bridge).

[acenase]

Taking a risk and going to DMK seems better than just ignoring it and spending more time and money on fear & uncertainty. Especially since you flew back to your country.  They are targeting visa runners in the region. Dubbed "in-and-out visa run" on their paperwork.  I was told by the I/O that they don't like when people just leave Thailand for a week and come back with a new Visa. They want them to go back to their country and then come back.  I think if I am going to spend more money and more time, I would like to know 100% if the I/O I am faced with at DMK will deny me then I will feel justified spending the extra money to enter at land border instead of avoiding it and wonder if I would have gotten stamped in without a problem or not.

[BritTim]

5 hours ago, acenase said:

Taking a risk and going to DMK seems better than just ignoring it and spending more time and money on fear & uncertainty. Especially since you flew back to your country.  They are targeting visa runners in the region. Dubbed "in-and-out visa run" on their paperwork.  I was told by the I/O that they don't like when people just leave Thailand for a week and come back with a new Visa. They want them to go back to their country and then come back.  I think if I am going to spend more money and more time, I would like to know 100% if the I/O I am faced with at DMK will deny me then I will feel justified spending the extra money to enter at land border instead of avoiding it and wonder if I would have gotten stamped in without a problem or not.

I used to believe that returning to home country before entering Thailand would reassure Immigration that you still had a connection to home country, and protect you from denied entry due to Immigration believing you were trying to live in Thailand as a tourist. Numerous reports, starting a couple of years ago, have convinced me that travel from home country probably makes little difference, unless you have been out of Thailand for a lengthy period.

 

Each of us needs to come to our own cost/benefit decision. Is the inconvenience and greater cost of travelling to a neighbouring country and entering by land justified by the almost certain successful entry? Are you a natural worrier who would be a nervous wreck flying into Suvarnabhumi not being confident of being admitted? There is no right or wrong answer.

[scottiddled]

On 1/10/2020 at 11:30 AM, gamini said:

Most countries limit tourist stays to 6 months in a calendar year so what do you expect. Why should Thailand be any different. They want proper tourists and retirees

Then Thailand should enact/publicize clear policies establishing such limits. If the law limited tourists (VE, VOA, TV) to six months in a calendar year, rolling one-year period, etc., people would adapt and either abide by those limits or seek alternatives. Instead, the lack of transparency leads to each IO becoming a law unto themselves.

 

And then you've got farang who actually defend this, as you are doing, with asinine pontificating like "proper tourists," as if there's an agreed-upon definition or international standard in that regard--let alone a Thai one.

 

As it stands now, there is no limit on visa exemptions at airports. There is no limit on number of tourist visas. There is no limit on number of days one can spend in any given time period. There is no limit on exemptions. There is no minimum requirement for number of days spent outside of Thailand. There is no requirement for visiting one's home country, let alone for a specific amount of time. There is no requirement for a printout of a hotel booking. There is a requirement to show "adequate finances" to support oneself ("i.e. 10,000 baht"), and even that requirement is a bit shady (how is it relevant in an era of ATMs and credit cards?) and abused by IOs in a round-peg/square-hole fashion to exclude people they think "visit too much" and therefore might be working. 

 

Most people in the world can't afford (money and/or time) to hop on a plane and come to Thailand for one week of tourism. Of those who can afford it, a smaller number are fortunate enough to be able to afford longer. When I read the TV Salty Squad moaning about what is/isn't tourism, I'm simultaneously saddened and amused (I have a dark sense of humor). Many members of the Salty Squad are darned privileged in their own lives. For some reason, they think they should be able to live their privileged life on B, O, O-A, etc. (and their relevant extensions), but that someone who has the luxury of exploring Thailand (and themselves)--whether it's on a gap year or because they're just independently "wealthy" (relatively speaking)--stops being a tourist on Day 31, or Day 61, or Day 185.

 

If you have such a strong attitude about "proper tourists," then define them. Where does the Book of Gamini draw the line on tourism? If you have a reasonable, bright-line definition, maybe we should put you in charge of the Immigration Police so you can announce the definition, fix the inconsistent enforcement, and provide much-needed clarity to the world.

 

11 hours ago, acenase said:

They are targeting visa runners in the region. Dubbed "in-and-out visa run" on their paperwork.  I was told by the I/O that they don't like when people just leave Thailand for a week and come back with a new Visa. They want them to go back to their country and then come back.  

Then they should change the laws/regulations and make that clear. Instead it's up to random IOs to (mis)interpret the law and tell people who just want to enjoy the country in peace that they've violated (unwritten) rules.

Edited January 12, 2020 by scottiddled

[Matzzon]

6 hours ago, BritTim said:

I used to believe that returning to home country before entering Thailand would reassure Immigration that you still had a connection to home country, and protect you from denied entry due to Immigration believing you were trying to live in Thailand as a tourist.

Going home for 14 days up to a month, and stay in Thailand 5 month, after that repeat. How in the world would you come up with an idea that looks like you are not living in Thailand. In one year you would be in Thailand 10 month and in another country 2 month. For most people, that makes it easy to see where you are trying to live, right?

[scottiddled]

32 minutes ago, Matzzon said:

Going home for 14 days up to a month, and stay in Thailand 5 month, after that repeat. How in the world would you come up with an idea that looks like you are not living in Thailand. In one year you would be in Thailand 10 month and in another country 2 month. For most people, that makes it easy to see where you are trying to live, right?

This is the other thing the IO apologists do. Beyond (re)defining "tourism," they invoke the phrase "living in" as if it has any relevance.

 

It's a nearly meaningless concept. You live wherever you are in that moment.

 

Do you mean reside, as in a permanent residence? Well, by some interpretations (including some legal ones related to residency protections), you reside (or can claim to reside, depending on the jurisdiction) wherever you slept last night. If I sign a one-year lease on a condo, is that my residence? What about one month? One night? Does it matter if I have another lease somewhere else? Or family I might go back to?

 

Or my stuff in a storage locker on another continent? Do you consider a residence a place where you keep a bunch of stuff? A place you might return to? If I come from Home Country A with all my possessions, get a place in Thailand, but have plans to go to Bangladesh next month and get a place there, where do I reside?

 

For the purposes of defining limited-duration tourism, these questions are largely irrelevant. And they're irrelevant under the letter of Thai immigration law. You're allowed (or denied) entry for whatever period. As long as you're not working, you can legitimately claim to be a tourist. See the sights, meet people, or watch Netflix in your hotel--it's up to you. To put it simply: if they stamp you in for X days, you can "live" in Thailand for up to that many days, and then you have leave (or extend the permission). As far as I can tell, not even the most arbitrary of IOs is listing "photo of your home in another country" as required documentation. 

 

I know a friend who pulled a pretty radical gap year. They sold/stored everything and headed for Southeast Asia, with no immediate plans to return for at least 10 months. The idea was to "live" an itinerant lifestyle: check out Thailand for a while, then maybe Indonesia, etc. Just because he didn't have another permanent residence did not mean he wasn't a tourist. And while a country would be well within its rights to limit the length of time my friend can stay, if they don't do so and there's no employment involved, any claim that he is "living" somewhere would have been irrelevant sophistry.

 

 

Edited January 12, 2020 by scottiddled

[DrJack54]

Unless I have missed something (often occurs) the OP has contributed Zip. Where he is currently along with many other details makes this another sidetracked thread. 

[Matzzon]

3 hours ago, scottiddled said:

This is the other thing the IO apologists do. Beyond (re)defining "tourism," they invoke the phrase "living in" as if it has any relevance.

 

It's a nearly meaningless concept. You live wherever you are in that moment.

 

Do you mean reside, as in a permanent residence? Well, by some interpretations (including some legal ones related to residency protections), you reside (or can claim to reside, depending on the jurisdiction) wherever you slept last night. If I sign a one-year lease on a condo, is that my residence? What about one month? One night? Does it matter if I have another lease somewhere else? Or family I might go back to?

 

Or my stuff in a storage locker on another continent? Do you consider a residence a place where you keep a bunch of stuff? A place you might return to? If I come from Home Country A with all my possessions, get a place in Thailand, but have plans to go to Bangladesh next month and get a place there, where do I reside?

 

For the purposes of defining limited-duration tourism, these questions are largely irrelevant. And they're irrelevant under the letter of Thai immigration law. You're allowed (or denied) entry for whatever period. As long as you're not working, you can legitimately claim to be a tourist. See the sights, meet people, or watch Netflix in your hotel--it's up to you. To put it simply: if they stamp you in for X days, you can "live" in Thailand for up to that many days, and then you have leave (or extend the permission). As far as I can tell, not even the most arbitrary of IOs is listing "photo of your home in another country" as required documentation. 

 

I know a friend who pulled a pretty radical gap year. They sold/stored everything and headed for Southeast Asia, with no immediate plans to return for at least 10 months. The idea was to "live" an itinerant lifestyle: check out Thailand for a while, then maybe Indonesia, etc. Just because he didn't have another permanent residence did not mean he wasn't a tourist. And while a country would be well within its rights to limit the length of time my friend can stay, if they don't do so and there's no employment involved, any claim that he is "living" somewhere would have been irrelevant sophistry.

 

 

Ooh, so you had to separate live and reside. Thanks for that. I think you understood what I meant anyway, right?

Everything else is just useless info. Yes, it does matter if it is 1 month, 3 month or 7 month. That´s because it´s called a tourist visa. You can´t hardy be called a tourist, if you reside in a country long enough to make you a tax resident. Finally the immigration have got it, and are now cleaning up that little forgotten hole that before made it possible to abuse tourist visas.

[scottiddled]

1 hour ago, Matzzon said:

Ooh, so you had to separate live and reside. Thanks for that. I think you understood what I meant anyway, right?

Everything else is just useless info. Yes, it does matter if it is 1 month, 3 month or 7 month. That´s because it´s called a tourist visa. You can´t hardy be called a tourist, if you reside in a country long enough to make you a tax resident. Finally the immigration have got it, and are now cleaning up that little forgotten hole that before made it possible to abuse tourist visas.

I certainly understood what you meant. What you mean is just wrong, that's all.

 

Your circular argument about the length of stay and the fact that it's called a tourist visa doesn't change anything. A person can meet the denotative definition (i.e. dictionary definition) of tourist as long as they have the time and money to do so. 1 month, 10 months, or one's entire lifetime, they can seek to engage in tourism. Thai immigration law provides that the tourist visa is "for the purposes of tourism." The wording for exemptions is similar. Tourism can be defined simply (and accurately) as "travel for pleasure."

 

Thai immigration law also (shortsightedly, perhaps) includes no meaningful caps regulating long-term tourism. This is what leads to people gaming the system (e.g., border runs, visa runs, extensions), to IOs inventing their own extralegal procedures and definitions, and to people like you throwing out dubious claims that some TV forum users are "not tourists" or "living here." You can argue that it's a "hole" in the law, and I won't disagree with you there. The argument that the system is being "abused" is far shakier, especially when you frame Thai IO's inconsisent and extralegal "cleaning up" in a positive light.

 

Thailand probably should clean up the tourist visa/exemption system. It seems like that would please you. The requirements for entry as a tourist are pretty easy to satisfy, and there are no meaningful legal limits on how long a person can be a tourist in Thailand beyond the hoop-jumping that comes from getting another visa and/or doing another border run. It might be wise for Thailand to put in some limits, because right now a person is a tourist unless they're working, and a person qualifies for entry as a tourist if they can meet a pretty low standard. 

 

The answer is not what you consider "cleaning up" by arbitrarily making up new aspects of what makes someone a tourist simply because tourist has a different connotative meaning for you. I've read far too many stories about people facing interrogation and even denials (sometimes after securing a valid visa) for extralegal reasons:

• Come too often.
• Been here too much.
• Don't stay out long enough.
• Don't spend enough time in home country.
• Don't have printout of hotel booking.
• Too many visas.
• Too many exemptions.
• Too many extensions.
• Had an ED visa a while ago and now you don't speak Thai to their satisfaction.
• Had an ED visa a while ago, period.
• Have a Thai significant other, so you're not a tourist.
• ...and so on.

There's zero excuse for defending IOs who make up the law as they go. 

 

I completely understand criticizing certain people who break the law (e.g., work here illegally). I even understand not sympathizing with those you feel are "abusing" the system. But when you openly condemn them, you're endorsing Thai lawlessness, corruption, and the kind of arbitrary exercise of discretion that can one day be turned on you. If you endorse that, you're part of the problem.

 

P.S. Tax residency is also irrelevant. A jurisdiction's policies regarding tax residency are for revenue purposes, not to establish any precedent for right to abode, etc. I'm currently a tax resident in two different countries. I certainly don't "live" in two places at once. You can absolutely be considered a bona fide tourist even if you qualify as a tax resident.

[Matzzon]

15 minutes ago, scottiddled said:

I certainly understood what you meant. What you mean is just wrong, that's all.

 

Your circular argument about the length of stay and the fact that it's called a tourist visa doesn't change anything. A person can meet the denotative definition (i.e. dictionary definition) of tourist as long as they have the time and money to do so. 1 month, 10 months, or one's entire lifetime, they can seek to engage in tourism. Thai immigration law provides that the tourist visa is "for the purposes of tourism." The wording for exemptions is similar. Tourism can be defined simply (and accurately) as "travel for pleasure."

 

Thai immigration law also (shortsightedly, perhaps) includes no meaningful caps regulating long-term tourism. This is what leads to people gaming the system (e.g., border runs, visa runs, extensions), to IOs inventing their own extralegal procedures and definitions, and to people like you throwing out dubious claims that some TV forum users are "not tourists" or "living here." You can argue that it's a "hole" in the law, and I won't disagree with you there. The argument that the system is being "abused" is far shakier, especially when you frame Thai IO's inconsisent and extralegal "cleaning up" in a positive light.

 

Thailand probably should clean up the tourist visa/exemption system. It seems like that would please you. The requirements for entry as a tourist are pretty easy to satisfy, and there are no meaningful legal limits on how long a person can be a tourist in Thailand beyond the hoop-jumping that comes from getting another visa and/or doing another border run. It might be wise for Thailand to put in some limits, because right now a person is a tourist unless they're working, and a person qualifies for entry as a tourist if they can meet a pretty low standard. 

 

The answer is not what you consider "cleaning up" by arbitrarily making up new aspects of what makes someone a tourist simply because tourist has a different connotative meaning for you. I've read far too many stories about people facing interrogation and even denials (sometimes after securing a valid visa) for extralegal reasons:

• Come too often.
• Been here too much.
• Don't stay out long enough.
• Don't spend enough time in home country.
• Don't have printout of hotel booking.
• Too many visas.
• Too many exemptions.
• Too many extensions.
• Had an ED visa a while ago and now you don't speak Thai to their satisfaction.
• Had an ED visa a while ago, period.
• Have a Thai significant other, so you're not a tourist.
• ...and so on.

There's zero excuse for defending IOs who make up the law as they go. 

 

I completely understand criticizing certain people who break the law (e.g., work here illegally). I even understand not sympathizing with those you feel are "abusing" the system. But when you openly condemn them, you're endorsing Thai lawlessness, corruption, and the kind of arbitrary exercise of discretion that can one day be turned on you. If you endorse that, you're part of the problem.

 

P.S. Tax residency is also irrelevant. A jurisdiction's policies regarding tax residency are for revenue purposes, not to establish any precedent for right to abode, etc. I'm currently a tax resident in two different countries. I certainly don't "live" in two places at once. You can absolutely be considered a bona fide tourist even if you qualify as a tax resident.

Great! You just must be serious, because I´ve never seen this much BS ever. ????????????????

 

A person that reside the bigger part of the year in one country, can not be seen as visiting the country. That person have created a life in that country, and therefore can not be seen as a tourist. If you can´t understand that simple fact, I can only feel sorry for you.

While you are on it. Can´t you just name about another couple of countries, where you can reside full time in the country on tourist visas, that can´t be extended on a yearly basis.

 

And no, you can not be considered a tourist at the same time you are a tax resident in a country. That´s when the name tourist turns over to be an expat.

Edited January 12, 2020 by Matzzon

[jackdd]

3 minutes ago, Matzzon said:

A person that reside the bigger part of the year in one country, can not be seen as visiting the country.

According to Thai law people on a tourist, non-immigrant or any other temporary visa or extension are considered "temporary visitors". So even somebody who may have spent many years uninterrupted in Thailand is considered to be visiting the country, and somebody who spent "the bigger part of the year" in Thailand on tourist visas is still considered a visitor to this country.

 

14 minutes ago, Matzzon said:

While you are on it. Can´t you just name about another couple of countries, where you can reside full time in the country on tourist visas, that can´t be extended on a yearly basis.

This topic is about Thailand, it is completely irrelevant what other countries do, every country can make its own laws and rules.

[scottiddled]

17 minutes ago, Matzzon said:

Great! You just must be serious, because I´ve never seen this much BS ever. ????????????????

 

A person that reside the bigger part of the year in one country, can not be seen as visiting the country. That person have created a life in that country, and therefore can not be seen as a tourist. If you can´t understand that simple fact, I can only feel sorry for you.

While you are on it. Can´t you just name about another couple of countries, where you can reside full time in the country on tourist visas, that can´t be extended on a yearly basis.

 

And no, you can not be considered a tourist at the same time you are a tax resident in a country. That´s when the name tourist turns over to be an expat.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading

 

This is approaching the realm of the incoherent. 

 

Jack is right that most of the goalpost-moving requests for non-Thai examples is off-topic, and that Thailand gets to make its own laws. Just specific to Thailand, several of your arguments immediately fall apart. A person can absolutely--and fairly easily, I might add--find out that they're accidentally classified as a resident for tax purpose even though they've strictly been engaged in tourism. Got a one-semester or one-year sabbatical and want to explore Thailand (and maybe the region) from top to bottom, learning to scuba dive and teach yoga and cook delicious foods while you write your memoirs? Well, you're a tax resident if you've been physically present for 180 or more days--even if you've never spent more than a week at the same hotel, friend's house, or AirBnB.

 

A person can have a "home" in their home country, another country, or multiple countries. They could sell everything and live out of a suitcase. It has nothing to do with whether or not they're a tourist, just as tax residency does not preclude tourism.

 

The rest of your argument is just arbitrary definitions. "Well, you're not really a tourist if you're also...["living here," "residing here," "an expat," etc.]. I recommend reading: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman

[Matzzon]

19 minutes ago, scottiddled said:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading

 

This is approaching the realm of the incoherent. 

 

Jack is right that most of the goalpost-moving requests for non-Thai examples is off-topic, and that Thailand gets to make its own laws. Just specific to Thailand, several of your arguments immediately fall apart. A person can absolutely--and fairly easily, I might add--find out that they're accidentally classified as a resident for tax purpose even though they've strictly been engaged in tourism. Got a one-semester or one-year sabbatical and want to explore Thailand (and maybe the region) from top to bottom, learning to scuba dive and teach yoga and cook delicious foods while you write your memoirs? Well, you're a tax resident if you've been physically present for 180 or more days--even if you've never spent more than a week at the same hotel, friend's house, or AirBnB.

 

A person can have a "home" in their home country, another country, or multiple countries. They could sell everything and live out of a suitcase. It has nothing to do with whether or not they're a tourist, just as tax residency does not preclude tourism.

 

The rest of your argument is just arbitrary definitions. "Well, you're not really a tourist if you're also...["living here," "residing here," "an expat," etc.]. I recommend reading: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman

Recommendation taken. I will give you one in return. In Thailand your are no longer seen as a tourist if you spend over 6 month residing in the country. We are in Thailand, talking in a Thai forum, right. So my recommendation is: Stop babbling BS, and get used to it. Cheers!

If you can´t grasp that, then we surely know where the incoherent part resides.

[Matzzon]

42 minutes ago, jackdd said:

According to Thai law people on a tourist, non-immigrant or any other temporary visa or extension are considered "temporary visitors". So even somebody who may have spent many years uninterrupted in Thailand is considered to be visiting the country, and somebody who spent "the bigger part of the year" in Thailand on tourist visas is still considered a visitor to this country.

Everybody is called visitors, as long as they are not residing in Thailand om PR. The fact is that you have something called tourist visas for tourists, and other visas for the other part of all the visitors in the country for other reasons. In other words a visitor is not always a tourist, according to the Thai immigration law, which is the one relevant here.
 

42 minutes ago, jackdd said:

 

This topic is about Thailand, it is completely irrelevant what other countries do, every country can make its own laws and rules.

You might think it´s irrelevant. The fact is that it´s very relevant, due to that makes you understand a wider perspective. As for example, that Thailand do not stand alone as a country that has taken this stance. It´s rather more common than uncommon.

[jackdd]

13 minutes ago, Matzzon said:

Everybody is called visitors, as long as they are not residing in Thailand om PR. The fact is that you have something called tourist visas for tourists, and other visas for the other part of all the visitors in the country for other reasons. In other words a visitor is not always a tourist, according to the Thai immigration law, which is the one relevant here.

There is also no limitation in the immigration law for how long somebody can be considered tourist.

Let's not forget the Thailand Elite visa, which is advertised as tourist visa, but allows the person to stay as long as they want. This shows that the time somebody can be considered a tourist is not limited.

 

6 minutes ago, Matzzon said:

As for example, that Thailand do not stand alone as a country that has taken this stance. It´s rather more common than uncommon.

I'm not aware of any other country which doesn't limit the time people may spend in the country and which gives their immigration officers a list of reasons for which they are allowed to deny people, but some immigration officers don't follow the law and deny people for arbitrary reasons.

So this can't be too common.

[BritTim]

24 minutes ago, Matzzon said:

Recommendation taken. I will give you one in return. In Thailand your are no longer seen as a tourist if you spend over 6 month residing in the country. We are in Thailand, talking in a Thai forum, right. So my recommendation is: Stop babbling BS, and get used to it. Cheers!

If you can´t grasp that, then we surely know where the incoherent part resides.

It seems the main reason people like you give for being unable to visit Thailand for pleasure for more than 179 days a year in that possible tax liabilities preclude your being a tourist. Let's examine some consequences of that guideline:

• I reside in Thailand from 1 January 2020 until 28 June 2020 (180 days) spending the rest of the year in Vietnam. I am a tax resident under Thai law and, thus, according to you can no longer be spending time in Thailand for pleasure.
• I reside in Thailand from 1 January 2020 until 27 June 2020 (179 days), spending the rest of the year in Vietnam. I am OK as I am not a tax resident.
• I reside in Thailand from 5 July 2019 until 27 June 2020 (358 days) continuously in Thailand, and the rest of 2019 and 2020 in Vietnam. I am not considered tax resident in Thailand for either 2019 or 2020. Does that mean I can validly enjoy spending time here?

The simple fact is that "tourist" is not defined anywhere in Thai law, except sometimes in very vague terms. Regulations have been promulgated from time to time limiting use of visa exempt entry. Further, embassies/consulates have discretion to decide whether you should qualify for visas (including tourist visas). When Immigration decides to abrogate validly issued visas, and deny entry according to their opinion of whether you should have been issued the visa, they are acting outside Thai law as written. This is true even if they abuse an existing valid reason for denied entry under Section 12 of the Immigration Act, twisting it to mean something that was never intended.

[scottiddled]

20 minutes ago, BritTim said:

It seems the main reason people like you give for being unable to visit Thailand for pleasure for more than 179 days a year in that possible tax liabilities preclude your being a tourist. Let's examine some consequences of that guideline:

• I reside in Thailand from 1 January 2020 until 28 June 2020 (180 days) spending the rest of the year in Vietnam. I am a tax resident under Thai law and, thus, according to you can no longer be spending time in Thailand for pleasure.
• I reside in Thailand from 1 January 2020 until 27 June 2020 (179 days), spending the rest of the year in Vietnam. I am OK as I am not a tax resident.
• I reside in Thailand from 5 July 2019 until 27 June 2020 (358 days) continuously in Thailand, and the rest of 2019 and 2020 in Vietnam. I am not considered tax resident in Thailand for either 2019 or 2020. Does that mean I can validly enjoy spending time here?

The simple fact is that "tourist" is not defined anywhere in Thai law, except sometimes in very vague terms. Regulations have been promulgated from time to time limiting use of visa exempt entry. Further, embassies/consulates have discretion to decide whether you should qualify for visas (including tourist visas). When Immigration decides to abrogate validly issued visas, and deny entry according to their opinion of whether you should have been issued the visa, they are acting outside Thai law as written. This is true even if they abuse an existing valid reason for denied entry under Section 12 of the Immigration Act, twisting it to mean something that was never intended.

Very well said, all around.

 

I'd take it a step further. They aren't just acting outside of Thai law even if they cite an existing, valid reason for denial of entry. When they cite an inapplicable basis for denial, they're engaging in fraudulent, criminal behavior. If the real reason for denial is "too many entries" but they're listing "insufficient means of support" (and from the reliable reports I've read, not even giving folks the opportunity to show the cash), they're lying on a government form and using that to throw someone in a detention cell. Sure, nothing will (likely) ever happen to them because they're acting on orders from someone, somewhere. But this just reinforces the culture of lawlessness.

 

It's maddening how the Salty Squad and its allies can bemoan those who work within the tourist visa/exemption system for "abusing" that system, all on some pretext that a person with X# of entries or X# of days spent has magically crossed some line into non-touristdom, while simultaneously cheering on IOs who flat-out break the law.

Edited January 12, 2020 by scottiddled

[Caldera]

52 minutes ago, Matzzon said:

In Thailand your are no longer seen as a tourist if you spend over 6 month residing in the country.

That is simply not true, not in general at least. For example, I spent significantly more than 6 months in Thailand last year AS A TOURIST, and not a single Thai official I dealt with (immigration and consular officers) told me at any point that I'm not a tourist. Others would have, no doubt, but I've encountered none of them.

 

I do realize that there's a shift in attitude towards long-term tourism within the Thai officialdom, so before you point out the obvious, yes I'm aware of this and that's one reason for spending less time in Thailand this year (as I'm writing this, air pollution in Bangkok would have to be my #1 reason, however).

 

In the absence of clear rules, each official makes up his own - and each tourist can shop around while it lasts.

[Matzzon]

6 hours ago, Caldera said:

That is simply not true, not in general at least. For example, I spent significantly more than 6 months in Thailand last year AS A TOURIST, and not a single Thai official I dealt with (immigration and consular officers) told me at any point that I'm not a tourist. Others would have, no doubt, but I've encountered none of them.

 

I do realize that there's a shift in attitude towards long-term tourism within the Thai officialdom, so before you point out the obvious, yes I'm aware of this and that's one reason for spending less time in Thailand this year (as I'm writing this, air pollution in Bangkok would have to be my #1 reason, however).

 

In the absence of clear rules, each official makes up his own - and each tourist can shop around while it lasts.

A tourist visits Thailand, while an expat resides there the bigger part of the year. That´s just plain fact, and that´s why there is different visas.

[Matzzon]

6 hours ago, BritTim said:

It seems the main reason people like you give for being unable to visit Thailand for pleasure for more than 179 days a year in that possible tax liabilities preclude your being a tourist. Let's examine some consequences of that guideline:

• I reside in Thailand from 1 January 2020 until 28 June 2020 (180 days) spending the rest of the year in Vietnam. I am a tax resident under Thai law and, thus, according to you can no longer be spending time in Thailand for pleasure.
• I reside in Thailand from 1 January 2020 until 27 June 2020 (179 days), spending the rest of the year in Vietnam. I am OK as I am not a tax resident.
• I reside in Thailand from 5 July 2019 until 27 June 2020 (358 days) continuously in Thailand, and the rest of 2019 and 2020 in Vietnam. I am not considered tax resident in Thailand for either 2019 or 2020. Does that mean I can validly enjoy spending time here?

The simple fact is that "tourist" is not defined anywhere in Thai law, except sometimes in very vague terms. Regulations have been promulgated from time to time limiting use of visa exempt entry. Further, embassies/consulates have discretion to decide whether you should qualify for visas (including tourist visas). When Immigration decides to abrogate validly issued visas, and deny entry according to their opinion of whether you should have been issued the visa, they are acting outside Thai law as written. This is true even if they abuse an existing valid reason for denied entry under Section 12 of the Immigration Act, twisting it to mean something that was never intended.

 

6 hours ago, scottiddled said:

Very well said, all around.

 

I'd take it a step further. They aren't just acting outside of Thai law even if they cite an existing, valid reason for denial of entry. When they cite an inapplicable basis for denial, they're engaging in fraudulent, criminal behavior. If the real reason for denial is "too many entries" but they're listing "insufficient means of support" (and from the reliable reports I've read, not even giving folks the opportunity to show the cash), they're lying on a government form and using that to throw someone in a detention cell. Sure, nothing will (likely) ever happen to them because they're acting on orders from someone, somewhere. But this just reinforces the culture of lawlessness.

 

It's maddening how the Salty Squad and its allies can bemoan those who work within the tourist visa/exemption system for "abusing" that system, all on some pretext that a person with X# of entries or X# of days spent has magically crossed some line into non-touristdom, while simultaneously cheering on IOs who flat-out break the law.

The part where they deny for the wrong reason and are therefore engaging in a wrongful, to criminal, behaviour is unfortunately right. That does not have anything to do with the true definition of a tourist vs an expat, though. They should of course have been given the right tools for denial of entry before such order was given.

[Matzzon]

7 hours ago, jackdd said:

There is also no limitation in the immigration law for how long somebody can be considered tourist.

Let's not forget the Thailand Elite visa, which is advertised as tourist visa, but allows the person to stay as long as they want. This shows that the time somebody can be considered a tourist is not limited.

There is a limitation, but that one is only visible to the ones that do not do all they can to stay in a country on the wrong type of visa. Yes, Elite is an exeption. That´s why you have to pay a bigger amount of money to be considered as a tourist longer time. Why do you think that is? Can it be out of the simple reason that the other visas do not give you that opportunity. When there is a right visa, and people try and use the wrong one that is called stupid and can be seen as overuse. it simply do not work. Actually same as trying to put the wrong key in the door. It just wont open, right?