Passport Question

[kamarada]

i GOT TWO PASSPORTS. iT'S POSSIBLE TO SWITCH BETWEEN THEM WHILE TRAVELING?

[Maestro]

Yes.

[tracer5050]

This is a great help to me , Thanks I travel to LOS about every 3 months but in the past only stay for 3 or 4 weeks . planing to stay longer soon. So thanks for the insite.

[Maestro]

The switching does not work in all countries, though. If you are in Thailand and hop across the border to Cambodia, turn around and show your other passport, Thai Immigration will not accept it because they want to see the entry and exit stamps of Cambodia. But if, for example, you fly from London to Singapore you can enter and leave that country with one passport, then fly to Thailand and enter and leave with the second passport, then fly to Manila and enter with any of your passports, etc.

--

Maestro

[Axel]

There are some points in case entry into Thailand is denied.

If you arrive at a land border you will be returned to where you come from (as per last country's immigration chop)

At the airport, you will be returned to the airline and it's their job to fly you out or home.

Edited April 9, 2007 by Axel

[kamarada]

Ok, thanx a lot for your comments guys. Someone knows if it's possible to change passports while flying from Thailand to Malaysia?

[Mahout Angrit]

You dont say why you want to use two passports but if it is to get around the 90day in 180day visa free entry restriction you might want to ask yourself :- is your name the same in both passports, is your date of birth the same in both passports, will the mug shot they take of you when you enter the country at the airport look the same.

I'm sure the restriction is to restrict the person entering too regularly not the passport. It must be a risk the computers will pick it up. Having two passports is not illegal but trying to fool immigration could have uncomfortable consequences

[kamarada]

Well my problem is that the passport that I'm using expires in 3 months, I can't not get a new one in Thailand and have no money to go back to my country. That's why I want to use the other one (1 year left). I got my 1rst 30 days stamp 2 weeks ago. I was suprised that they let me in.

[lkjh]

The switching does not work in all countries, though. If you are in Thailand and hop across the border to Cambodia, turn around and show your other passport, Thai Immigration will not accept it because they want to see the entry and exit stamps of Cambodia. But if..........

--

Maestro

OK I think I understand what the problem would be here but what about this.

Would this work?

1.leave at aranyapratet on current passport.

2.enter/exit Cambodia on OTHER nationality passport (which has a new unused tourist visa for Thailand in it, (obtained by post))

outcome = 'old' passport with exit stamp from Thailand and 'new' passport showing entry and exit for Cambodia (albeit on the same day + land border).

Im wondering whether Cambodia would want to see an exit stamp from Thailand, just as Thailand wants to see an exit stamp from Cambodia.

thanks for any help

[HomeSeekAsia]

First, there's nothing illegal about having 2 passports,

and even many good reasons

to want to switch passport/citizenship while entering a new country.

For instance, I am a US/French citizen, and when I travel to many places

where the US is disliked, I use my French passport.

Second, your rights vary depending on the passport you're travelling on, the stamps it has etc.:

I visited Israel as a US citizen, and therefore could not enter some

Middle-East countries on that passport because it has been stamped by Israel.

But should I end-up in

a situation like Lebanon last Summer where foreign citizens are evacuated

(or worse, taken hostage), given the likely outcome, I would

become 100% French in a New-York minute !

Not only is it allowed to change passport when entering a new country, but in some cases

it is compulsory: for instance it is forbidden for a US citizen to enter the US on a foreign passport.

A dual US/European citizen must swith passports when trveling bet. the 2 continents.

So, you have the right to enter Cambodia on whichever passport you want.

I suggest you carry a (certified) photocopy of your other passport with the page showing your exit from Thailand

in case Cambodian immigration

has questions: you can then legitimately explain that you chose to use one passport for reason X.

And it's safer anyway should your passport get lost/stolen

One common reason to have 2 passport is to allow you to travel on ppA while having passport B

waiting for some exotic visa at some remote embassy.

You even have the right to enter Thailand on any passport even if there's no stamp of

the country you last visited. In that case though, you may be asked to explain and show

your other passport (or copy). Note though that there's a gap between `legal' and `enforced':

sadly dual-citizenship is a grey area legally and too many officials are incompetent and ignore the laws

they're supposed to enforce: I had a special case when

US immigration nagged me about why I didn't have a green card in my

US passport

But competence in Asia is much higher imo.

One interesting thought for dual citizens: most countries will allow you to

have 2 passports, so theoretically a dual citizen should be able to have 4 legal passports!

(2 for each citizenship).

Bottom line: your plan sounds highly reasonable, and should you encounter a problem,

the risk is minor since

you are not breaking any law !

The switching does not work in all countries, though. If you are in Thailand and hop across the border to Cambodia, turn around and show your other passport, Thai Immigration will not accept it because they want to see the entry and exit stamps of Cambodia. But if..........

--

Maestro

OK I think I understand what the problem would be here but what about this.

Would this work?

1.leave at aranyapratet on current passport.

2.enter/exit Cambodia on OTHER nationality passport (which has a new unused tourist visa for Thailand in it, (obtained by post))

outcome = 'old' passport with exit stamp from Thailand and 'new' passport showing entry and exit for Cambodia (albeit on the same day + land border).

Im wondering whether Cambodia would want to see an exit stamp from Thailand, just as Thailand wants to see an exit stamp from Cambodia.

thanks for any help

[Krub]

First, there's nothing illegal about having 2 passports,

and even many good reasons

to want to switch passport/citizenship while entering a new country.

For instance, I am a US/French citizen, and when I travel to many places

where the US is disliked, I use my French passport.

Second, your rights vary depending on the passport you're travelling on, the stamps it has etc.:

I visited Israel as a US citizen, and therefore could not enter some

Middle-East countries on that passport because it has been stamped by Israel.

But should I end-up in

a situation like Lebanon last Summer where foreign citizens are evacuated

(or worse, taken hostage), given the likely outcome, I would

become 100% French in a New-York minute !

Not only is it allowed to change passport when entering a new country, but in some cases

it is compulsory: for instance it is forbidden for a US citizen to enter the US on a foreign passport.

A dual US/European citizen must swith passports when trveling bet. the 2 continents.

So, you have the right to enter Cambodia on whichever passport you want.

I suggest you carry a (certified) photocopy of your other passport with the page showing your exit from Thailand

in case Cambodian immigration

has questions: you can then legitimately explain that you chose to use one passport for reason X.

And it's safer anyway should your passport get lost/stolen

One common reason to have 2 passport is to allow you to travel on ppA while having passport B

waiting for some exotic visa at some remote embassy.

You even have the right to enter Thailand on any passport even if there's no stamp of

the country you last visited. In that case though, you may be asked to explain and show

your other passport (or copy). Note though that there's a gap between `legal' and `enforced':

sadly dual-citizenship is a grey area legally and too many officials are incompetent and ignore the laws

they're supposed to enforce: I had a special case when

US immigration nagged me about why I didn't have a green card in my

US passport

But competence in Asia is much higher imo.

One interesting thought for dual citizens: most countries will allow you to

have 2 passports, so theoretically a dual citizen should be able to have 4 legal passports!

(2 for each citizenship).

Bottom line: your plan sounds highly reasonable, and should you encounter a problem,

the risk is minor since

you are not breaking any law !

The switching does not work in all countries, though. If you are in Thailand and hop across the border to Cambodia, turn around and show your other passport, Thai Immigration will not accept it because they want to see the entry and exit stamps of Cambodia. But if..........

--

Maestro

OK I think I understand what the problem would be here but what about this.

Would this work?

1.leave at aranyapratet on current passport.

2.enter/exit Cambodia on OTHER nationality passport (which has a new unused tourist visa for Thailand in it, (obtained by post))

outcome = 'old' passport with exit stamp from Thailand and 'new' passport showing entry and exit for Cambodia (albeit on the same day + land border).

Im wondering whether Cambodia would want to see an exit stamp from Thailand, just as Thailand wants to see an exit stamp from Cambodia.

thanks for any help

I am not sure about not breaking any law from the point of view of Thailand.

Thailand is trying ot enforce the 90 days in 180 rule.

If you 'play' with passports to try and bypass that rule, I think Thailand would be legitimate to deport you.

There is however nothing illegal to use 2 legal passorts for dual nationals

[lopburi3]

You have no right to enter a country by virtue of your passport. Immigration makes that decision and I suspect any "ambulance chaser lawyer" talk will only serve to bring out the deportation wagons. Not worth taking the chance IMHO.

[hotgeekus]

First, there's nothing illegal about having 2 passports,

and even many good reasons

to want to switch passport/citizenship while entering a new country.

For instance, I am a US/French citizen, and when I travel to many places

where the US is disliked, I use my French passport.

Second, your rights vary depending on the passport you're travelling on, the stamps it has etc.:

I visited Israel as a US citizen, and therefore could not enter some

Middle-East countries on that passport because it has been stamped by Israel.

But should I end-up in

a situation like Lebanon last Summer where foreign citizens are evacuated

(or worse, taken hostage), given the likely outcome, I would

become 100% French in a New-York minute !

Not only is it allowed to change passport when entering a new country, but in some cases

it is compulsory: for instance it is forbidden for a US citizen to enter the US on a foreign passport.

A dual US/European citizen must swith passports when trveling bet. the 2 continents.

So, you have the right to enter Cambodia on whichever passport you want.

I suggest you carry a (certified) photocopy of your other passport with the page showing your exit from Thailand

in case Cambodian immigration

has questions: you can then legitimately explain that you chose to use one passport for reason X.

And it's safer anyway should your passport get lost/stolen

One common reason to have 2 passport is to allow you to travel on ppA while having passport B

waiting for some exotic visa at some remote embassy.

You even have the right to enter Thailand on any passport even if there's no stamp of

the country you last visited. In that case though, you may be asked to explain and show

your other passport (or copy). Note though that there's a gap between `legal' and `enforced':

sadly dual-citizenship is a grey area legally and too many officials are incompetent and ignore the laws

they're supposed to enforce: I had a special case when

US immigration nagged me about why I didn't have a green card in my

US passport

But competence in Asia is much higher imo.

One interesting thought for dual citizens: most countries will allow you to

have 2 passports, so theoretically a dual citizen should be able to have 4 legal passports!

(2 for each citizenship).

Bottom line: your plan sounds highly reasonable, and should you encounter a problem,

the risk is minor since

you are not breaking any law !

The switching does not work in all countries, though. If you are in Thailand and hop across the border to Cambodia, turn around and show your other passport, Thai Immigration will not accept it because they want to see the entry and exit stamps of Cambodia. But if..........

--

Maestro

OK I think I understand what the problem would be here but what about this.

Would this work?

1.leave at aranyapratet on current passport.

2.enter/exit Cambodia on OTHER nationality passport (which has a new unused tourist visa for Thailand in it, (obtained by post))

outcome = 'old' passport with exit stamp from Thailand and 'new' passport showing entry and exit for Cambodia (albeit on the same day + land border).

Im wondering whether Cambodia would want to see an exit stamp from Thailand, just as Thailand wants to see an exit stamp from Cambodia.

thanks for any help

In Lebanon, if you were French, you would have waited a long time, the peacekeepers took a week to get there.

[oooooo]

i maLd m3 on3 2 UZ, all fin3.

[HomeSeekAsia]

In Lebanon, if you were French, you would have waited a long time, the peacekeepers took a week to get there.

A- French citizens were evacuated LOONG before the US made any attempt to recover their own citizen

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/16/...tion/index.html

B- The French took onboard many other foreigners, women, children etc. incl. Americans ONE WEEK before the first US ship showed up (Sadly, New-Orleans comes to mind)

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/31/news/refuge.php

C- If you are ever evacuated by the US because of a war or other emmergency, you better have deep pockets: Uncle + Aunt were rapatriated from Sierra Leone where they worked for a NGO, and years later they're still paying HUGE intallments! For Lebanon though, the fee was waved because of the ``logistic imperfections" of the evac plan, but i you made your way out on your own, you pay the bill !

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/18/...tion/index.html

Apologies if the topic does not appear directly relevant to this forum, but I could not let false info + the example shows that dual citizen are lucky to have more than one ambassy to turn to for help: it DOES MATTER & it's worth knowing the facts before any emergency.

[sbk]

Keep this on topic and non political or off topic posts will be deleted.

[HomeSeekAsia]

I am not sure about not breaking any law from the point of view of Thailand.

Thailand is trying ot enforce the 90 days in 180 rule.

If you 'play' with passports to try and bypass that rule, I think Thailand would be legitimate to deport you.

There is however nothing illegal to use 2 legal passorts for dual nationals

Well, there are 2 points really:

1- Having 2 passports: legal, incl switching passports after you leave country A, before you enter country B (modulo some details in my former post, unrelated to Thailand), and also legal for many non dual citizens (often frequent travelllers)

2- The Thai immigration law, often quoted as ``90 days in 180": that, I am not qualified to say what is legal or not.

Immigration officers have the authority to deny visas, visa waivers/ entry to a visitor as in most souvereign countries, but `deporting' is another matter: If I am lawfully in Malaysia on my way to Thailand, denied entry for whatever reason, I get to stay in Malaysia, no? Where & why would I be deported ? Plus there are many int'nl laws/treaties dealing with `deportation and human rights', to address - among other things- victims of war, persecution etc. I am not very familiar with those either. So `being denied entry' and `being deported' are very distinct issues.

I wish there were clear answers to the currebt ``90 days in 180"... but I haven't found any...I'm not even sure I understand the ``90/180" law and its enforcement given my experience, which is the following:

BEFORE leaving the US, I asked for a 2 month renewable visa.

Arrived End of November 06

End of January 07: visa run to Ranong and got a 2 months automatic extension.

End of March: Went to immigration office without leaving Thailand, where I got a 1 month extension, no questions asked.

Total: 5 months.

I then tried to ask the immigration officers ``What next?" <long story... wanted to attend a wedding in another Asian country...am skipping the details... but wanted to know if I needed to file a form before leaving to be allowed to re-enter Thailand+ am potentially interested in a Thai+Scuba course but don't want to pay if I'm not certain to be allowed in. Plus my spouse and I are considering academic positions in Thailand for 07-08...>

The officer deliberated with his colleagues about how I could leave & reenter the country, and told me: `` You could file that form, but then would have to pay 1900bh, and would just get the remaining of the 30 days. So instead, since you want to go abroad anyway, just apply for another 2 months renewable tourist visa at the nearest Thai ambassy: it'll save you money and time".

Of course I was puzzled, since the Thai ambassy would see that I had spent 5 months in Thailand, so it seemed to go against the ``90 days in 180". But the officer assured me it was not a problem at all. He added that of course the choice was up to me, and also did not know whether my best interest was to apply for a non-imm visa.

To be on the safe side, I've asked my spouse back home to check at the Thai ambassy in the US.

And... I got my visa legally and without a glitch: all good for another 5 months.

I had researched the legal immigration texts in detail: I am no lawyer but it seems that each officer / ambassy has great latitude in determining whether to allow so in, and in addition to the ``90 in 180" law, the spirit of the text emphasises letting in ``Aliens who may benefit the Kingdom", economically, scientifically, artistically, touristically etc.

For what it's worth, I've gathered bits of info like:

- It's easier for (western) mid-age women to get a visa, since they're less likely to be sexual predators/preys

- Some ambassy (ex: Manilla) don't issue reknewable visas regardless of your citizenship, while others are more relaxed (KL, New York).

- There is no centralized database: elsewhere in this forum someone explained the burden it is for immigration officers to now have to compute the # of 90/180 days without a computer.

My take is that I have not done anything illegal, have not lied etc. and was given a valid visa and allowed each time to enter the country legally. I am respectful of the terms of my visa e.g. I cannot work, and would need to follow the laws to change my status if I was planning to work. Hence I'm not breaking any laws !!!

Moreover I hope I am benefiting the tourist industry, as well as the many wonderful Thai people I've met: I try to teach what I know, and to learn as much as I can, and the Thai people have without doubt taught me a LOT !

[Crossy]

Of course I was puzzled, since the Thai ambassy would see that I had spent 5 months in Thailand, so it seemed to go against the ``90 days in 180". But the officer assured me it was not a problem at all. He added that of course the choice was up to me, and also did not know whether my best interest was to apply for a non-imm visa.

Why were you puzzled?

It would appear that your time in Thailand was spent on valid visas, the 90/180 rule does not apply.

The fundamental point of the 90/180 rule is that it applies only to visa free (visa waiver) entries.

BTW The word is 'embassy'

Edited April 27, 2007 by Crossy

[HomeSeekAsia]

You have no right to enter a country by virtue of your passport. Immigration makes that decision and I suspect any "ambulance chaser lawyer" talk will only serve to bring out the deportation wagons. Not worth taking the chance IMHO.

Thailand+Immigration+Laws-depending-on-your-citizenship(s) are the main topic(s) of this forum, right ? So I assume posts should try to be accurate, right?

I never claimed any right to enter any country by virtue of any passport, although technically your statement #1 is clearly false: a passport gives you - in most cases- the right to enter the country/ies you're a citizen of and the country/ies you are a permanent resident of. Moreover, in some cases covered by intl'l treaties I have the right - by virtue of my passport- to enter de-facto some FOREIGN countries (cf. European Union). And, more generally, a passport is - by definition- a necessary though non sufficient condition to obtain the right to enter a country, so ``you DO obtain the right to enter a country by virtue of your passport'' + possibly additional documents!

The term ``Ambulance chaser talk" is a/ Pejorative, Insulting b/ Undeserved.

English isn't my native tongue, I hope it isn't yours either...

Fyi that ``talk" comes straight from the advise I got BOTH at the Thai immigration office and the Thai Ambassy in the US + from MANY hours I spent researching texts on Thai immigration law as well as what is legal or not for dual citizen: a case more and more frequent, but overlooked by most jurisdictions, incl. `Ambulance chasing lawyers'.

Just thought it could be of interest to other dual-citizens who, like me, can't afford a $500/hour Lawyer: I am GENUINELY trying to learn more about the rights and duties of being a dual-citizen, and of course about Thai immigration laws! One legitimate and highly relevant question being: can a dual-citizen have 3 or 4 passports ?

I also perceive (and I apologize if I am wrong) a tone of moral superiority, as if I was advocating some illegal activity while all I'm trying to do is LEARN, KNOW MORE. Imho the distinction between what is legal, enforced, moral/ethical are 3 distinct cases always worth pondering !

As for your reference to `Deportation wagon', my grand-mother was in one: tatoo #31xxx to Auschwitz-Birkenau, 231 (adult&healthy) women, 49 survivors after 4 months ! A decorated member of the French underground, sadly she passed away in July 2006 and indirectly is one of the reasons I am in Thailand. So please, be a bit careful with your choice of `terminology': immigration problems are not fun, but a tourist paying a fine for over-staying his/her visa or being denied entry is not comparable to being forced into slavery, watching kids being slaughtered and worse. And fyi, my g.mother was not Jewish (though her best friend was): she just said what she thought, dared to oppose the silent majority, refused to yield to fear, and *knowingly* acted accordingly and took the chances... Is``Saying what you think" your definition of ``an ambulance chaser lawyer talk" ?

I respect you opinion, yet I do not agree with it: Dual citizen --> tiny risk of being detected ... doing nothing illegal ...

Basically, what have you got to lose ?

But either way, when one decides if it's worth the risk, one should do so *knowingly* !

Thank you.

[Krub]

I am not sure about not breaking any law from the point of view of Thailand.

Thailand is trying ot enforce the 90 days in 180 rule.

If you 'play' with passports to try and bypass that rule, I think Thailand would be legitimate to deport you.

There is however nothing illegal to use 2 legal passorts for dual nationals

Well, there are 2 points really:

1- Having 2 passports: legal, incl switching passports after you leave country A, before you enter country B (modulo some details in my former post, unrelated to Thailand), and also legal for many non dual citizens (often frequent travelllers)

2- The Thai immigration law, often quoted as ``90 days in 180": that, I am not qualified to say what is legal or not.

Immigration officers have the authority to deny visas, visa waivers/ entry to a visitor as in most souvereign countries, but `deporting' is another matter: If I am lawfully in Malaysia on my way to Thailand, denied entry for whatever reason, I get to stay in Malaysia, no? Where & why would I be deported ? Plus there are many int'nl laws/treaties dealing with `deportation and human rights', to address - among other things- victims of war, persecution etc. I am not very familiar with those either. So `being denied entry' and `being deported' are very distinct issues.

I wish there were clear answers to the currebt ``90 days in 180"... but I haven't found any...I'm not even sure I understand the ``90/180" law and its enforcement given my experience, which is the following:

BEFORE leaving the US, I asked for a 2 month renewable visa.

Arrived End of November 06

End of January 07: visa run to Ranong and got a 2 months automatic extension.

End of March: Went to immigration office without leaving Thailand, where I got a 1 month extension, no questions asked.

Total: 5 months.

I then tried to ask the immigration officers ``What next?" <long story... wanted to attend a wedding in another Asian country...am skipping the details... but wanted to know if I needed to file a form before leaving to be allowed to re-enter Thailand+ am potentially interested in a Thai+Scuba course but don't want to pay if I'm not certain to be allowed in. Plus my spouse and I are considering academic positions in Thailand for 07-08...>

The officer deliberated with his colleagues about how I could leave & reenter the country, and told me: `` You could file that form, but then would have to pay 1900bh, and would just get the remaining of the 30 days. So instead, since you want to go abroad anyway, just apply for another 2 months renewable tourist visa at the nearest Thai ambassy: it'll save you money and time".

Of course I was puzzled, since the Thai ambassy would see that I had spent 5 months in Thailand, so it seemed to go against the ``90 days in 180". But the officer assured me it was not a problem at all. He added that of course the choice was up to me, and also did not know whether my best interest was to apply for a non-imm visa.

To be on the safe side, I've asked my spouse back home to check at the Thai ambassy in the US.

And... I got my visa legally and without a glitch: all good for another 5 months.

I had researched the legal immigration texts in detail: I am no lawyer but it seems that each officer / ambassy has great latitude in determining whether to allow so in, and in addition to the ``90 in 180" law, the spirit of the text emphasises letting in ``Aliens who may benefit the Kingdom", economically, scientifically, artistically, touristically etc.

For what it's worth, I've gathered bits of info like:

- It's easier for (western) mid-age women to get a visa, since they're less likely to be sexual predators/preys

- Some ambassy (ex: Manilla) don't issue reknewable visas regardless of your citizenship, while others are more relaxed (KL, New York).

- There is no centralized database: elsewhere in this forum someone explained the burden it is for immigration officers to now have to compute the # of 90/180 days without a computer.

My take is that I have not done anything illegal, have not lied etc. and was given a valid visa and allowed each time to enter the country legally. I am respectful of the terms of my visa e.g. I cannot work, and would need to follow the laws to change my status if I was planning to work. Hence I'm not breaking any laws !!!

Moreover I hope I am benefiting the tourist industry, as well as the many wonderful Thai people I've met: I try to teach what I know, and to learn as much as I can, and the Thai people have without doubt taught me a LOT !

I used the words : If you 'play' with passports to try and bypass that rule, I think Thailand would be legitimate to deport you.

You object to my using the word 'deport'

I am just trying to warn you what Thailand might do if you were found to have used as a single person with 2 different legal passports and have managed to bypass the 90 days in 180 rule (by enterring on no visa entries)

Any entries with a visa do not count for that 90 in 180 days rule

We are all struggling to understand, find out how Thai immigration is applying that rule and believe me it is not easy because as you are starting to find out yourself, they do not apply it in the same way at all border points nor even within different officers of the same border point.

I was trying to pointout a possible senario if using 2 differetn passport for a single same person. I would not risk being caught and put in IDC and trying to argue my rights to use 2 passports accross a cell door with hundreds of illegal immigrants around me. Plenty of horror stories around about IDC.

Good luck

[HomeSeekAsia]

Of course I was puzzled, since the Thai ambassy would see that I had spent 5 months in Thailand, so it seemed to go against the ``90 days in 180". But the officer assured me it was not a problem at all. He added that of course the choice was up to me, and also did not know whether my best interest was to apply for a non-imm visa.

Why were you puzzled?

It would appear that your time in Thailand was spent on valid visas, the 90/180 rule does not apply.

The fundamental point of the 90/180 rule is that it applies only to visa free (visa waiver) entries.

BTW The word is 'embassy'

Well, the 2x2months I understand. Then I was told to go to immigration: I was worried and had prepared a whole briefcase of documents to explain why I should be allowed one extra-month, but the one month extension was a formality.

But now, the officer telling me to apply for the very same visa is what puzzled me: since I now have that new 2 months renewable visa it means I can stay for another 5 months, right ? But then I could in theory get to KL every 5 month and stay here forever, or am I missing a crucial point ?

On the one hand, Thailand seems to want to enforce a ``60/180 days" rules, which - if I understood correctly - applies to tourists on visa waivers i.e. mainly from America & Europe. This suggests that ``long-term tourists" are a concern.

Yet, most of the very same people to which the ``60/180" rule applies could easily get a tourist visa BEFORE entering Thailand,

and then stay 5 months, re-apply, stay another 5 months etc.

I have met numerous ``visitors" who spend half the year in the region (escaping winter)) and simply were not aware of the option of applying for a visa before coming to Thailand...

But I guess I have more to learn, since I found out that to work in Thailand I would need a `non-immigrant' visa which sounds counter-intuitive at first, that a`resident visa' can be obtained only after residing in the Kingdom for 3 years.

And even after asking, I still can't figure who should fill a `declaration of staying 90 days" form and much more...

Any enlightenment is welcome !

And thanks for helping me avoid a blunder should I ever write to Mr `Embassador' just kidding, spell-checker's asleep...

[Krub]

Of course I was puzzled, since the Thai ambassy would see that I had spent 5 months in Thailand, so it seemed to go against the ``90 days in 180". But the officer assured me it was not a problem at all. He added that of course the choice was up to me, and also did not know whether my best interest was to apply for a non-imm visa.

Why were you puzzled?

It would appear that your time in Thailand was spent on valid visas, the 90/180 rule does not apply.

The fundamental point of the 90/180 rule is that it applies only to visa free (visa waiver) entries.

BTW The word is 'embassy'

Well, the 2x2months I understand. Then I was told to go to immigration: I was worried and had prepared a whole briefcase of documents to explain why I should be allowed one extra-month, but the one month extension was a formality.

But now, the officer telling me to apply for the very same visa is what puzzled me: since I now have that new 2 months renewable visa it means I can stay for another 5 months, right ? But then I could in theory get to KL every 5 month and stay here forever, or am I missing a crucial point ?

On the one hand, Thailand seems to want to enforce a ``60/180 days" rules, which - if I understood correctly - applies to tourists on visa waivers i.e. mainly from America & Europe. This suggests that ``long-term tourists" are a concern.

Yet, most of the very same people to which the ``60/180" rule applies could easily get a tourist visa BEFORE entering Thailand,

and then stay 5 months, re-apply, stay another 5 months etc.

I have met numerous ``visitors" who spend half the year in the region (escaping winter)) and simply were not aware of the option of applying for a visa before coming to Thailand...

But I guess I have more to learn, since I found out that to work in Thailand I would need a `non-immigrant' visa which sounds counter-intuitive at first, that a`resident visa' can be obtained only after residing in the Kingdom for 3 years.

And even after asking, I still can't figure who should fill a `declaration of staying 90 days" form and much more...

Any enlightenment is welcome !

And thanks for helping me avoid a blunder should I ever write to Mr `Embassador' just kidding, spell-checker's asleep...

Yes it seems that as things stand for the moment, you are able to apply for visas one after the other. We will have to see if this continues or if they put a maximum to the number of back to back visas you can get. Already the Embassy in Phnom Phen has stamped pasport with the words no more visa from this Embassy but other Embassies, Consulates seem to be OK for back to back visas.

Edited April 27, 2007 by Krub