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

[Momofarang]

15 hours ago, scottiddled said:

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.

Could you  help me to understand this? Maybe a hint of what the average daily spending of the underprivileged tourist would be?

 

And then maybe we could compare this "underprivileged" market with other opportunities the Thai tourist industry is currently facing.

 

 

 

[Matzzon]

17 hours ago, scottiddled said:

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.

According to the wealthy, releatively speaking, what in the world now that can be. Then the wealthy ones have the choice to be over 50, married, have children, working or buy an Elite visa. That´s a lot of choices instead of violating the tourist visas, so other genuine tourist get more scrutinized.

[scottiddled]

7 hours ago, Matzzon said:

 

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.

 

7 hours ago, Matzzon said:

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.

 

7 hours ago, Matzzon said:

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?

 

 

4 hours ago, Matzzon said:

According to the wealthy, releatively speaking, what in the world now that can be. Then the wealthy ones have the choice to be over 50, married, have children, working or buy an Elite visa. That´s a lot of choices instead of violating the tourist visas, so other genuine tourist get more scrutinized.

tourist v. expat

wrong type of visa

violating

genuine

 

This is all just argument by definition. And even when you're defining words that don't necessarily have a positive/negative connotation, you're not going with definitions that are accepted by a consensus (or denotatively accurate, for that matter).

 

Counting cards at the blackjack table is not illegal. Casinos who intimidate, harass, or assault card counters are engaged in criminal behavior. The card counters are not engaged in criminal behavior. 

 

Sure, casinos have the right to deny someone their business if they think they're a security risk (dangerous, drunk), they'll drive away customers (rude, poor hygeine), or that they're bad for business (they're counting cards). 

 

They can't turn away a customer because they're black, or old, or worship a weird god. The Thai government is seeing people they don't want to let in for reasons they can't legally deny entry, so they're making up rules or fraudulently citing rules that are on the books. They're turning black people away from their casino and saying it's because they're drunk. 

 

You're defending the casinos in this analogy. I get why you want to close what you see as a loophole. But the answer isn't lawlessness; it's fixing the law.

 

[Matzzon]

6 minutes ago, scottiddled said:

 

 

 

tourist v. expat

wrong type of visa

violating

genuine

 

This is all just argument by definition. And even when you're defining words that don't necessarily have a positive/negative connotation, you're not going with definitions that are accepted by a consensus (or denotatively accurate, for that matter).

 

Counting cards at the blackjack table is not illegal. Casinos who intimidate, harass, or assault card counters are engaged in criminal behavior. The card counters are not engaged in criminal behavior. 

 

Sure, casinos have the right to deny someone their business if they think they're a security risk (dangerous, drunk), they'll drive away customers (rude, poor hygeine), or that they're bad for business (they're counting cards). 

 

They can't turn away a customer because they're black, or old, or worship a weird god. The Thai government is seeing people they don't want to let in for reasons they can't legally deny entry, so they're making up rules or fraudulently citing rules that are on the books. They're turning black people away from their casino and saying it's because they're drunk. 

 

You're defending the casinos in this analogy. I get why you want to close what you see as a loophole. But the answer isn't lawlessness; it's fixing the law.

 

So, then you just said that it was easy to deny because it was bad for business. Then we can consider that immigration deem people that continuosly reside in the country on back-to-back tourist visas are deemed bad for business. That due to that they appearently can´t afford the Elite visa that makes them eligible to stay or can show the document or money for any other visa available. So, in other word they do nothing illegal.

[teatime101]

17 hours 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.

Where is that written down? While I plan to get an OA and then retirement visa, for now I'm stuck with visa exemptions and extensions. Even though I am here more than in my own country (I own two properties here), I own a property there, and and that is considered my primary place of residence.

I think you need to show your sources when you make these kind of definitive claims.

[Matzzon]

54 minutes ago, teatime101 said:

Where is that written down? While I plan to get an OA and then retirement visa, for now I'm stuck with visa exemptions and extensions. Even though I am here more than in my own country (I own two properties here), I own a property there, and and that is considered my primary place of residence.

I think you need to show your sources when you make these kind of definitive claims.

Good luck with your plans on an OA and extension on that. Then you will end up with a worthless Thai insurance that you never can trust will pay for the things that happens.

 

You do not need any sources. Just look at the clamp down on tourist visas and that they scrutinize as well as deny entry for person living on tourist visas over a period of 6 month per year.

Seems like the facts talk for themselfs, right?

[scottiddled]

18 hours ago, Matzzon said:

So, then you just said that it was easy to deny because it was bad for business. Then we can consider that immigration deem people that continuosly reside in the country on back-to-back tourist visas are deemed bad for business. That due to that they appearently can´t afford the Elite visa that makes them eligible to stay or can show the document or money for any other visa available. So, in other word they do nothing illegal.

That's not what IOs are doing, and you're blatantly misapplying the analogy I wrote.

 

There is no "bad for business" grounds for denial of a visa/entry. That's a policy lever--one that individual IOs don't have access to. Thai law/regulations give IOs some levers to pull in that neighborhood: the 10,000 THB rule, etc. But it's not up to IOs to decide what's "good for business." Their job is to enforce the laws/regulations as written. 

 

You and I have been around and around on this, and we probably agree that changes in the law are the solution. The difference is, without those changes you seem more accepting of Thai IO lawlessness and you seem more willing to (falsely) demonize people for "abusing" something based on the way you think the law should look. Furthermore, you seem to be in denial at times (you're inconsistent)--often claiming that Thai IOs aren't even breaking the law.

[Matzzon]

17 minutes ago, scottiddled said:

That's not what IOs are doing, and you're blatantly misapplying the analogy I wrote.

First we should take this a little bit easy. From start you were the one replying to my posts. That means you are the one that are trying to change my opinion or blatantly misapplying the things I wrote. There is a solution, though. Just move on if you are not happy.
 

Quote

 

There is no "bad for business" grounds for denial of a visa/entry. That's a policy lever--one that individual IOs don't have access to. Thai law/regulations give IOs some levers to pull in that neighborhood: the 10,000 THB rule, etc. But it's not up to IOs to decide what's "good for business." Their job is to enforce the laws/regulations as written. 

How do you know that? Have you heard the orders they´ve got, or are you just guessing out of the news you have been reading?
 

Quote

You and I have been around and around on this, and we probably agree that changes in the law are the solution. The difference is, without those changes you seem more accepting of Thai IO lawlessness and you seem more willing to (falsely) demonize people for "abusing" something based on the way you think the law should look. Furthermore, you seem to be in denial at times (you're inconsistent)--often claiming that Thai IOs aren't even breaking the law.

They aren´t breaking the law. That not me being in denial, it´s not me being inconsistent and therefore no Thai IO lawlessness. The explaination is quite simple. That is that they have individual discretion to make a judgement based on their individual interpretation of you and your visa history.

 

Regarding changes. Sure that would be good. At the same times those changes has to come from both sides. meaning both from Thai immigration and the ones that tries in every way possible to abuse the visa system.

Edited January 14, 2020 by Matzzon

[scottiddled]

Quote

  36 minutes ago, scottiddled said:

That's not what IOs are doing, and you're blatantly misapplying the analogy I wrote.

First we should take this a little bit easy. From start you were the one replying to my posts. That means you are the one that are trying to change my opinion or blatantly misapplying the things I wrote. There is a solution, though. Just move on if you are not happy.

No, that's not what replying to your posts means. Thanks for informing me that I'm free to "move on" if I'd like. I'll keep it in mind.

Quote

  scottiddled said:

There is no "bad for business" grounds for denial of a visa/entry. That's a policy lever--one that individual IOs don't have access to. Thai law/regulations give IOs some levers to pull in that neighborhood: the 10,000 THB rule, etc. But it's not up to IOs to decide what's "good for business." Their job is to enforce the laws/regulations as written. 

How do you know that? Have you heard the orders they´ve got, or are you just guessing out of the news you have been reading?

I can read the law. There is no "bad for business" provision in the law. There is also nothing directly related to "bad for business" in the grounds IOs have to deny entry. The discretion IOs have is fairly limited and the criteria for exclusion/denial is set forth.

Quote

  scottiddled said:

You and I have been around and around on this, and we probably agree that changes in the law are the solution. The difference is, without those changes you seem more accepting of Thai IO lawlessness and you seem more willing to (falsely) demonize people for "abusing" something based on the way you think the law should look. Furthermore, you seem to be in denial at times (you're inconsistent)--often claiming that Thai IOs aren't even breaking the law.

They aren´t breaking the law. That not me being in denial, it´s not me being inconsistent and therefore no Thai IO lawlessness. The explaination is quite simple. That is that they have individual discretion to make a judgement based on their individual interpretation of you and your visa history.

 

Regarding changes. Sure that would be good. At the same times those changes has to come from both sides. meaning both from Thai immigration and the ones that tries in every way possible to abuse the visa system.

You are wrong.

 

As I wrote above (and as has been thoroughly explained earlier in this thread), Thai IOs have limited discretion and specific grounds to deny entry. "Been here too long" is not among those grounds. That's why Thai IOs have been listing other, inapplicable grounds (e.g., "insufficient means of support") they know are not true on paperwork. They're putting people in cages, denying them entry, and putting allegations they know are false on the paperwork. They do this because the real reason they're denying entry isn't covered in the law. 

 

They are breaking the law. Will they ever face consequences? I doubt it, especially if they're operating under orders from their superiors. 

 

And you are still misusing the term "abuse." The only foreigners abusing the visa system are the ones who are coming to Thailand to work illegally and the overstayers. If you're not working and the purpose of your visit is tourism, whether that visit is a day or 1,000 days (obviously not consecutive, given the law), you are merely taking advantage of the system as it exists. You may think tourism should be defined differently, but neither the law nor the dictionary support your notion that someone magically stops being a tourist based on the calendar. 

 

The sad thing here is you and I agree on far more than is reflected in this back-and-forth, but you seem fixated on a few untenable points (e.g., redefining tourism, claiming the IOs are following the law). Let's just agree that the system should be fixed/clarified (we probably wouldn't agree on the exact details).

[BritTim]

5 hours ago, Matzzon said:

How do you know that? Have you heard the orders they´ve got, or are you just guessing out of the news you have been reading?

If, indeed, the Minister has issued secret orders that those entering with tourist visas should be subject to restrictions on total duration and/or number of entries, then it is clear that the Minister's orders have only been transmitted to selected entry points (which seems a little strange). Further, instructions with respect to limitation on visa exempt entries (something Immigration does reasonably have discretion over) have apparently always been public. Please explain why orders with respect to visa exempt entry should be universal and public, whereas instructions from the Minister with respect to entry with tourist visas should be secret and only applied at selected entry points.

[Matzzon]

53 minutes ago, BritTim said:

If, indeed, the Minister has issued secret orders that those entering with tourist visas should be subject to restrictions on total duration and/or number of entries, then it is clear that the Minister's orders have only been transmitted to selected entry points (which seems a little strange). Further, instructions with respect to limitation on visa exempt entries (something Immigration does reasonably have discretion over) have apparently always been public. Please explain why orders with respect to visa exempt entry should be universal and public, whereas instructions from the Minister with respect to entry with tourist visas should be secret and only applied at selected entry points.

Discretion, my dear Watson. Discretion. That is also applicable on issued visas, due to that the embassies do not have access to visa and entry history. An issued visas is not a guarantee for being allowed entry in the kingdom.

[BritTim]

17 minutes ago, Matzzon said:

Discretion, my dear Watson. Discretion. That is also applicable on issued visas, due to that the embassies do not have access to visa and entry history. An issued visas is not a guarantee for being allowed entry in the kingdom.

According to the Immigration Act, only the Minister has discretion. If you are correct that the Minister has delegated that discretion to his subordinates at certain entry points (something that would be against the spirit of the Act) I still do not understand the need for secrecy. Is the idea to create uncertainty and doubt among potential visitors to Thailand in order to artificially depress tourist numbers?

[Matzzon]

56 minutes ago, BritTim said:

According to the Immigration Act, only the Minister has discretion. If you are correct that the Minister has delegated that discretion to his subordinates at certain entry points (something that would be against the spirit of the Act) I still do not understand the need for secrecy. Is the idea to create uncertainty and doubt among potential visitors to Thailand in order to artificially depress tourist numbers?

Let´s not be a fool. You know as well as me how things work in Thailand. Nothing is what it reads it should be. That´s one of the things everyone has to take into consideration before deciding to move to Thailand or reside here more or less permanently. That things change suddenly, is also something that is very common in this country, which also is something a person that wants to stay here must be aware of. You can not just move to Thailand and complain over everything, when it happens. In that case you came here for the wrong reasons with a far to small buffer to handle any changes in a foreign country.

 

All this talk now regarding the tourist visas and exempt entries, that the refusals is about. Hell Yeah! Of course they start to take a look at this and question people that tries to more or less permanently reside in the country on that kind of visa. When that was issued it was never the intention to be used as a visas for permanent residence. Apparently that has become a problem for Thailand and immigration.

 

Unfortunately there is no visa for an online working 27 year old single person in Thailand. In other words, Thailand is not the country for them. All other that can´t get a visa depending on their age or low income. Yeah, Thailand is not for them either. Just face it! It´s Thailand that decide who they want here, and how long time a person can stay in the country. Not you, not me and absolutely not anybody else coming to this country.

That´s also a thing that a person who wants to stay and live in Thailand must take under consideration before moving. Nothing more to say about this. No need to complain. Thailand is not a country for everybody, and that is something people have to accept. Just take health insurance as an example. People coming here are so stupid that they travel without or settle down without health insurance in a foreign country. My God! How weird is it to try and screw yourself in that kind of way. That has led to Thai immigration demanding insurance on Non-OA visas and following extensions now. Then people have the stomach to complain, for something they should have been clever enough to think about and been respectful to Thailand by having before Thai immigration have to tell them they need to have it. I really hope that they demand this for all visas and extensions that are longer than 90 days. For the shorter one, nobody without a travel insurance should be able to enter Thailand.

 

There is simply no secrecy! They just do not want people living in Thailand on tourist visas no more. Quite easy to understand. people that are trying to use this kind of visas for residing in Thailand, shall need to worry. Let´s say that is there punishment for using a visa that is not designed for that reason.

Edited January 14, 2020 by Matzzon

[BritTim]

1 hour ago, Matzzon said:

You know as well as me how things work in Thailand

I believe I do know how things work in Thailand, yes. In terms of the current discussion, there are two factors in play.

1. Thailand has been happy to host long term tourists, as long as they are financially secure, well able to finance their stays without illegal working. To try to ensure this, they have limited the time you can spend in the country without needing to apply for a fresh visa at an embassy/consulate. The consulate has used various criteria to decide whether to issue a fresh visa, with those criteria changing over the years. One constant has been a tendency to make it much harder for those from low income countries to get visas. There has also been an element of racism in the decisions. Generally, there have been few restrictions on those from high income countries getting tourist visas in their home countries, but there are exceptions (one example of what I discuss in my second main point below). It should be noted that there is still no consensus at the topmost levels of the Thai government that they want to terminate all long term tourism which is why the law has not been changed.
2. Senior officials run their own fiefdoms where, to a large extent, they are able to set their own rules. The degree to which they can get away with brazenly doing so depends on their relationships with those above them. They have often spent large sums to buy their positions, and will generally be left alone as long as their actions are not seen by those at the very top as being detrimental to their own and/or the country's interests.
   A result is that officials who wish to apply rules that are either stricter or more lenient than those decreed by the law are pretty much free to do so. Sometimes they do so in return for financial incentives. Sometimes (and this is the main driver of Immigration at some entry points inventing restrictions on tourist entries) they simply disagree with the law, and decide to invent their own.

[Matzzon]

14 minutes ago, BritTim said:

I believe I do know how things work in Thailand, yes. In terms of the current discussion, there are two factors in play.

1. Thailand has been happy to host long term tourists, as long as they are financially secure, well able to finance their stays without illegal working. To try to ensure this, they have limited the time you can spend in the country without needing to apply for a fresh visa at an embassy/consulate. The consulate has used various criteria to decide whether to issue a fresh visa, with those criteria changing over the years. One constant has been a tendency to make it much harder for those from low income countries to get visas. There has also been an element of racism in the decisions. Generally, there have been few restrictions on those from high income countries getting tourist visas in their home countries, but there are exceptions (one example of what I discuss in my second main point below). It should be noted that there is still no consensus at the topmost levels of the Thai government that they want to terminate all long term tourism which is why the law has not been changed.
2. Senior officials run their own fiefdoms where, to a large extent, they are able to set their own rules. The degree to which they can get away with brazenly doing so depends on their relationships with those above them. They have often spent large sums to buy their positions, and will generally be left alone as long as their actions are not seen by those at the very top as being detrimental to their own and/or the country's interests.
   A result is that officials who wish to apply rules that are either stricter or more lenient than those decreed by the law are pretty much free to do so. Sometimes they do so in return for financial incentives. Sometimes (and this is the main driver of Immigration at some entry points inventing restrictions on tourist entries) they simply disagree with the law, and decide to invent their own.

And? Welcome to Thailand. Just something we have to accept if we are going to live here. Complaining is useless. They ain´t gonna change because of that. The other choice is another SEA´n country.