Richard Barrow in Thailand 

 

@RichardBarrow

 

 

Many people have asked about the “visa amnesty” which is due to expire on 31 July. Most want to know what will happen to them if it expires. Will they have to quickly leave? The short answer is, there has been NO announcement yet. But, I will post my thoughts in this THREAD >>

 

 

 

It is important to note that all of this is speculation until the official announcement. But my money is on an option for workers to apply for a Non B without leaving the country and tourists given another 30 days. But, you should have a Plan B in case they say get out in X days.

 

For those of you who normally extend their stay every year and can do so, I would strongly suggest you do that this week. It is quite possible that Immigration will be very crowded next week. Same goes for 90 day reporting. Do it now if possible. Good luck!

Serious question here....

 

Why do people keep calling what the Thai government did last April an Amnesty, and not an extension?  I have only ever seen it called an extension by the Thai government.  It seems like the whole "it's not an extension, it's an amnesty" meme started with people like Richard Barrow.  But what is the evidence/rationale for this?

 

For example, this comes from the Thialand Ministry of Foreign Affairs website (link below):

 

 

You can download here: http://www.mfa.go.th/protocol/contents/files/news-20200430-212528-840791.pdf

 

Then there is this....

 

 

Put Immigration Bureau, it says that there's no need to extend the visa, do 90 day reporting, pay any fee, or submit any documents, and that the, "Immigration Bureau will process the abovementioned steps automatically".

 

That sure seems to say that they are processing an automatic visa extension, which would clearly not be a visa.

 

Can someone (anyone?) actually point to anything other than comments by tweeters, in these forums, and elsewhere online that this is an amnesty and not an extension?

 

Thanks! 

https://thethaiger.com/news/national/what-will-happen-to-foreigners-with-expired-visas-after-july-31

What will happen to foreigners with expired visas after July 31?

 

Before you read further, seeking a definitive answer, we don’t have one.

 

But stranded foreigners, who have been able to stay in Thailand via a visa amnesty, have an approaching D-Day – July 31, 2020. This is the sunset of the current amnesty for foreigners who have, through no fault of their own, been stuck in Thailand whilst the borders have been closed. Whilst sitting out the Covid-19 outbreak in the pleasant Thai sunshine, the clock is ticking and the end of the amnesty is in sight.

 

17 minutes ago, asiacurious said:

Why do people keep calling what the Thai government did last April an Amnesty, and not an extension?  I have only ever seen it called an extension by the Thai government.  It seems like the whole "it's not an extension, it's an amnesty" meme started with people like Richard Barrow.  But what is the evidence/rationale for this?

While you are correct that immigration has been implementing automatic "extensions", those extensions are not implemented under any previously existing law - thus the term "amnesty".

17 minutes ago, anchadian said:

https://thethaiger.com/news/national/what-will-happen-to-foreigners-with-expired-visas-after-july-31

What will happen to foreigners with expired visas after July 31?

 

Before you read further, seeking a definitive answer, we don’t have one.

 

But stranded foreigners, who have been able to stay in Thailand via a visa amnesty, have an approaching D-Day – July 31, 2020. This is the sunset of the current amnesty for foreigners who have, through no fault of their own, been stuck in Thailand whilst the borders have been closed. Whilst sitting out the Covid-19 outbreak in the pleasant Thai sunshine, the clock is ticking and the end of the amnesty is in sight.

 

I disagree with that part. They knew what was coming for months, they still had ways out even in the middle of pandemic, they just CHOSE not to take it.

38 minutes ago, tomazbodner said:

I disagree with that part. They knew what was coming for months, they still had ways out even in the middle of pandemic, they just CHOSE not to take it.

Is there something wrong with people making that choice?  No one asked for a free extension, and many (if not all) were surprised by it.  It seems to have brought a lot of good will towards the Thai government from those who have benefited, perhaps some hostility from those who don't (or wish they could, but can't).

 

If Thailand chooses to extend visas further, either for free or for a fee, would that be a good or bad decision?  

 

 

57 minutes ago, anchadian said:

But stranded foreigners, who have been able to stay in Thailand via a visa amnesty, have an approaching D-Day – July 31, 2020. This is the sunset of the current amnesty for foreigners who have, through no fault of their own, been stuck in Thailand whilst the borders have been closed. Whilst sitting out the Covid-19 outbreak in the pleasant Thai sunshine, the clock is ticking and the end of the amnesty is in sight.

 

What is the origin of this being called an amnesty, is what I'm curious about.

 

 

43 minutes ago, timendres said:

While you are correct that immigration has been implementing automatic "extensions", those extensions are not implemented under any previously existing law - thus the term "amnesty".

This is an interesting idea.  Are visas types, duration, and requirements specifically written into laws as passed by the Thai legislature?  Or are they rules promulgated by the executive branch via administrative agencies, such as Thailand Immigration?

 

It could make a difference.  If they are promulgated rules by an executive branch of government, then could the executive branch - especially under the emergency decree - not promulgate new rules, even if only on a temporary basis?

 

If the types, duration, and requirements are passed by the legislature, then I could see how the extension is an amnesty.  Otherwise, I can't.  (Of course, it doesn't really matter what I or anyone else can or can't see/understand/agree with, though a better understanding of the laws and rule making process here might help shed a better light on the situation.)

Edited July 8, 20205 yr by asiacurious

1 minute ago, asiacurious said:

What is the origin of this being called an amnesty, is what I'm curious about.

I believe it was the press that first coined the term.

Where they got it from I have no clue.

41 minutes ago, tomazbodner said:

I disagree with that part. They knew what was coming for months, they still had ways out even in the middle of pandemic, they just CHOSE not to take it.

 

Easy to say, but in a lot of cases, the issue wasn't getting out.  It was getting back in to re-unite with their families or get back to their jobs.

 

14 minutes ago, asiacurious said:

Is there something wrong with people making that choice?  No one asked for a free extension, and many (if not all) were surprised by it.  It seems to have brought a lot of good will towards the Thai government from those who have benefited, perhaps some hostility from those who don't (or wish they could, but can't).

 

If Thailand chooses to extend visas further, either for free or for a fee, would that be a good or bad decision?  

I hope Thailand does extend further as abruptly ending it would cause a major chaos. And while I obviously don't know whether they would or not, it was originally extended due to flight restrictions and pandemic around the World. And these haven't changed. If any, they've gotten a lot worse.

But often things are seen through revenue. If these "stranded" foreigners are bringing in needed cash, likelihood is that they'll extend. If they are bringing crime and are burden to society, they might not. Trouble is that governments tend to throw all in the same basket so a couple of <I'll delete it myself> can ruin it for everyone.

It's politicians making decisions. They do what Thai people would like them to do. Farang don't vote.

15 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Easy to say, but in a lot of cases, the issue wasn't getting out.  It was getting back in to re-unite with their families or get back to their jobs.

 

Fair statement. But those with jobs in Thailand could come back for a long time (work permit holders were allowed in from the very start if I remember correctly), and those with families would often be on some sort of long term extensions of stay, which I think weren't included in amnesty anyway - I thought Non-B and Non-OA weren't automatically extended, just on arrival and tourist visas? Or did I get that wrong?

Makes sense to extend everyone 30 days and give option to get a non b in the country. So everybody who wants to stay just pay an agent and get a non b. Those who are not willing to pay will have to leave. 

4 minutes ago, timendres said:

I believe it was the press that first coined the term.

Where they got it from I have no clue.

It's an excellent point, and I've wondered about that.

 

I thought perhaps that the first time the government extended the visa in April, they may have called it an amnesty.  But even then, they called it an extension.  In fact, at that time they required people to apply for the extension.  It wasn't automatic.

 

From April 10th's Bangkok Post:
 

Quote

 

The government has relaxed visa rules for foreign visitors and those from neighbouring countries holding a temporary border pass since they are unable to leave the country due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

 

However, foreigners who work or live in the kingdom, will have to report and apply for visa extensions as usual.

 

https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/1896700/stranded-foreigners-receive-visa-relief

 

So It seems pretty clear that the first extension was not an amnesty, though that didn't stop various sites, tweeters, youtubers... from calling it an amnesty.  But nobody in the government or press did.  (I could be wrong, but I've searched quite extensively and haven't found anything.)

 

I'd also highlight that the government had the power to change immigration rules via an executive order, so the rules related to visas seem to be promulgated and not legislatively developed.  This begs the question then, if the first extension through executive order was not considered amnesty by the government, why would the second extension be considered amnesty?  (Again, I've found no evidence that the government views it as amnesty; all evidence is that it's an extension, albeit one granted by order automatically without need for application.)

 

To put it succinctly, if the executive can change the rules regarding the number or duration of visa extensions, why can it not also change the method by which they are extended (automatic instead of application)?

 

"Amnesty for foreigners" sounds a lot more clickbaity than "Automatic visa extensions for foreigners" (which is rather prosaic).  Amnesty is a loaded word that can trigger a lot of emotion in people.  Whether it's amnesty for migrants in Europe fleeing conflict areas or amnesty for people crossing the southern boarder of the US... it's bound to get more eyes than dull old "visa extension".

 

There's probably no way to ever know who first called it an amnesty, and in the end it doesn't even really matter.  But if anyone has any links they can share to articles or videos of people in government calling it an amnesty, please do post.

 

 

From https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/amnesty 

 

"a fixed period of time during which people are not punished for committing a particular crime"

 

Therefore, it COULD be said that had people not been granted permission to stay without extending, or border hopping or whatever, then they would have become criminals simply by staying, so the amnesty prevented that from happening. 

 

OR....from https://www.dictionary.com/browse/amnesty

 

"Law. an act of forgiveness for past offenses, especially to a class of persons as a whole."

 

So the act of staying would have caused people to commit the offence of overstaying, which would now be a "past offence", thus...amnesty

 

Just my take on it.......the defence rests, M'Lud ????

17 minutes ago, VBF said:

From https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/amnesty 

 

"a fixed period of time during which people are not punished for committing a particular crime"

 

Therefore, it COULD be said that had people not been granted permission to stay without extending, or border hopping or whatever, then they would have become criminals simply by staying, so the amnesty prevented that from happening. 

 

OR....from https://www.dictionary.com/browse/amnesty

 

"Law. an act of forgiveness for past offenses, especially to a class of persons as a whole."

 

So the act of staying would have caused people to commit the offence of overstaying, which would now be a "past offence", thus...amnesty

 

Just my take on it.......the defence rests, M'Lud ????

Excellent dictionary definitions!  Thank you!

 

I would however, argue they strengthen the position that the government has not issued an amnesty of any kind.  Rather, people have been given permission to stay with automatic temporary extensions.  Hence they are not criminals and therefore would not need amnesty.

 

 

And now I realize that I failed to post the 2nd page of that Government notice, in which it states, without any ambiguity, "The period of time permitted for stay in the Kingdom under... [various acts and notifications from the Ministry of the Interior]  shall be temporarily extended from 1 May B.E. 2563 (2020) to 31 July B.E. 2563 (2020)"!

 

My bad for failing to post that before.  Here it is:

 

 

 

Edited July 8, 20205 yr by asiacurious
clarified first paragraph

20 minutes ago, asiacurious said:

Excellent dictionary definitions!  Thank you!

 

I would however, argue they strengthen the position that the government has not issued an amnesty of any kind.  Rather, people have been given permission to stay with automatic temporary extensions.  Hence they are not criminals and therefore would not need amnesty.

 

<snipped for clarity>

Lol ????

I'm obliged to my learned colleague 

3 hours ago, asiacurious said:

Can someone (anyone?) actually point to anything other than comments by tweeters, in these forums, and elsewhere online that this is an amnesty and not an extension?

It is an amnesty because these people are currently overstaying the visa they have in their passport, or not carrying out procedures required during their stay. But they are forgiven for all their crimes.

1 hour ago, Boomer6969 said:

It is an amnesty because these people are currently overstaying the visa they have in their passport, or not carrying out procedures required during their stay. But they are forgiven for all their crimes.

How does that answer the question?

 

It's just another comment/opinion that it's amnesty (an opinion of which everyone is entitle to have).  But it's the same thing people have been saying even though ALL the evidence actually from the government is contrary to that.

 

Can someone (anyone?) actually point to anything other than comments by tweeters, in these forums, and elsewhere online that this is an amnesty and not an extension?

 

 

13 hours ago, asiacurious said:

Can someone (anyone?) actually point to anything other than comments by tweeters, in these forums, and elsewhere online that this is an amnesty and not an extension?

It's a distinction without a difference, so I'm not sure why it concerns you so much.

 

"Amnesty" would imply that "there's a law stating that you must depart or get an extension by the date stamped in your passport, otherwise you will be in violation and subject to penalties, but we are waiving that and permitting you to stay without additional formalities."

 

"Extension" implies that "there's a law stating that you must depart or get an extension by the date stamped in your passport, otherwise you will be in violation and subject to penalties, but we are permitting you to stay by deeming you to have received an automatic extension without additional formalities."

 

The Thai words used in the order are "ขยายระยะเวลา", which do indeed mean "extend the duration". But I think you'll find that the word "amnesty" isn't typically used in immigration amnesty laws in the US or Europe, either. Those will usually say something along the lines of "people in xyz situation are hereby allowed to stay in the country without penalty with the following conditions", and the press and public, applying the dictionary definition of "amnesty", will say, "hey, the government passed an amnesty".

15 hours ago, asiacurious said:

I would however, argue they strengthen the position that the government has not issued an amnesty of any kind.  Rather, people have been given permission to stay with automatic temporary extensions.  Hence they are not criminals and therefore would not need amnesty.

It is a bit of a pointless exercise on definition but VBF had a fairly good take on it.

Aliens have been allowed to remain in the country beyond initially approved dates without penalty. The extension relates to the period in which no penalty will be applied, not any particular individual.

In other words said aliens have been released from any penalties that would normally apply for a specified time frame, and amnesty is just a posh word for released.

7 minutes ago, sandyf said:

It is a bit of a pointless exercise on definition but VBF had a fairly good take on it.

Aliens have been allowed to remain in the country beyond initially approved dates without penalty. The extension relates to the period in which no penalty will be applied, not any particular individual.

In other words said aliens have been released from any penalties that would normally apply for a specified time frame, and amnesty is just a posh word for released.

Good summary.

 

Calling it an "extension" could also be misleading as people on annual extensions of stay, while covered by the "amnesty", will still need to extend their stay as normal, and if they don't they will have to start the whole process again from scratch once the amnesty ends.

Edited July 9, 20205 yr by brewsterbudgen

18 hours ago, tomazbodner said:

I disagree with that part. They knew what was coming for months, they still had ways out even in the middle of pandemic, they just CHOSE not to take it.

I have a Non-O VISA valid until April 2021.

What choice have I had, apart from pay twice?

18 hours ago, asiacurious said:

Serious question here....

 

Why do people keep calling what the Thai government did last April an Amnesty, and not an extension?  I have only ever seen it called an extension by the Thai government.  It seems like the whole "it's not an extension, it's an amnesty" meme started with people like Richard Barrow.  But what is the evidence/rationale for this?

 

For example, this comes from the Thialand Ministry of Foreign Affairs website (link below):

 

 

You can download here: http://www.mfa.go.th/protocol/contents/files/news-20200430-212528-840791.pdf

 

Then there is this....

 

 

Put Immigration Bureau, it says that there's no need to extend the visa, do 90 day reporting, pay any fee, or submit any documents, and that the, "Immigration Bureau will process the abovementioned steps automatically".

 

That sure seems to say that they are processing an automatic visa extension, which would clearly not be a visa.

 

Can someone (anyone?) actually point to anything other than comments by tweeters, in these forums, and elsewhere online that this is an amnesty and not an extension?

 

Thanks! 

Its just semantics mate.  Whether it's an extension or an amnesty (and really it is not important either way) doesn't change the fact, that at this time, the 31st of July looks an ominous date for many (unless the Govt decides otherwise).

Edited July 9, 20205 yr by thainet

17 hours ago, impulse said:

 

Easy to say, but in a lot of cases, the issue wasn't getting out.  It was getting back in to re-unite with their families or get back to their jobs.

 

That's true, but I think the point being made is that the press and others keep emphasizing the "travelers stuck in Thailand" theme, and it's a stretch of language to say that people can be "stuck" in a country where they actually want to live (since the real issue is an inability to leave and return in order to activate a new period of stay).

 

If you're referring to those who were trapped OUTSIDE of Thailand and can't get back in, that's a separate issue, and one which the authorities haven't shown much interest in addressing.

Call it the "Covid 19 (exceptional) permission"

They even made a Covid 19 stamp if you leave the country currently.

 

 

https://twitter.com/IngoBkk/status/1278907953601564677

 

Edited July 9, 20205 yr by KhunBENQ

Technically, only the retroactive part of the first cabinet resolution was an "amnesty". On April 7th, they "forgave" overstays for all those who had been legally in Thailand on March 26th. The part about automatically extending permissions of stay (first to April 30th, then to July 31st) is just that, an extension.

BritManToo: I think that you must have a one-time year permission to stay.  The terminology used in Thailand is a little crazy but it is important to distinguish between visas and permissions to stay.  The requirements between them differ and people who confuse them sometimes have problems.  If fact, when you get your first year-long permission to stay, your Visa is cancelled.  Many of us have gone the route of entering on a Visa or Visa waiver, applied for a 90-day Visa in-country, then a one year permission to stay.  When that is granted, the Visa is cancelled.  I don't know why Thai Immigration does it that way, but they do.  Through the years, many posters have been preparing to get a new Visa only to find that they needed an extension of their permission to stay and have not qualified as a result.

This is pointless. 

 

Everyone has their thoughts. Sometimes it's better to keep them to yourself.

Removed a troll post.

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

I have a Non-O VISA valid until April 2021.

What choice have I had, apart from pay twice?

So you had it done in April 2020, what's the issue then?

 

By 1 year extension you tell the government that you're not one of these stranded in Thailand who would return home as soon as flights resume.

12 minutes ago, tomazbodner said:

So you had it done in April 2020, what's the issue then?

 

By 1 year extension you tell the government that you're not one of these stranded in Thailand who would return home as soon as flights resume.

You don't appear to have even a basic knowledge of VISA's, but you insist on commenting.

So I'll just add you to my ignore list.