Is Immigration's policy in conflict with the Cabinet Resolution?

[asiacurious]

The draft resolution approved by the cabinet, though not yet recorded in the Royal Gazette (that's when it becomes official) states:

 

Quote

The Cabinet has approved as proposed by the Royal Thai Police as follows:

[snip]

To extend the period of notification of residence in accordance with Article 37 (5) of the Immigration Act 1979 or according to the relevant Ministry of Interior Notification under Article 2 (2) of the Notification of the Ministry of Interior regarding the permission of some foreigners Species in the Kingdom as a special case dated April 7, 2020, as amended by the Ministry of Interior regarding the permission of some aliens to stay in the Kingdom as a special case (Issue 2) dated April 23, 2020 from August 1, 2020 to September 26, 2020.

 

In Thai:

คณะรัฐมนตรีมีมติเห็นชอบตามที่สำนักงานตำรวจแห่งชาติเสนอ ดังนี้

[snip]

ให้ขยายระยะเวลาการแจ้งที่พักอาศัยตามมาตรา 37 (5) แห่งพระราชบัญญัติคนเข้าเมือง พ.ศ. 2522 หรือตามประกาศกระทรวงมหาดไทยที่เกี่ยวข้อง ตามข้อ 2 (2) แห่งประกาศกระทรวงมหาดไทย เรื่อง การอนุญาตให้คนต่างด้าวบางจำพวกอยู่ในราชอาณาจักรเป็นกรณีพิเศษ ลงวันที่ 7 เมษายน 2563 ซึ่งแก้ไขเพิ่มเติมโดยประกาศกระทรวงมหาดไทย เรื่อง การอนุญาตให้คนต่างด้าวบางจำพวกอยู่ในราชอาณาจักรเป็นกรณีพิเศษ (ฉบับที่ 2) ลงวันที่ 23 เมษายน 2563 ตั้งแต่วันที่ 1 สิงหาคม 2563 ถึงวันที่ 26 กันยายน 2563

Source: https://www.thaigov.go.th/news/contents/details/33560

 

That reads like it's another extension of time to do 90 day reports.  Yet Immigration has published graphics that say:

 

 

That does not seem to fit with what the cabinet approved.  What happens if the Royal Gazette sticks with the cabinet resolution?  Does immigration have to redo all of their graphics?  Do other things in the Immigration graphics also change?

 

This possible conflict between the two highlights that Immigration may be trying to re-exert control of Immigration policy.  If they can demonstrate there is no need for the cabinet to issue another automatic extension beyond September 26th - by getting everyone to apply for 30 day extensions - then the cabinet probably won't do another extension.

 

While rejecting most people is a great way to strike a lot of fear into people and might help push them to leave, it could also seriously backfire.  It seems like for Immigration to prove no need for another extension, they may need to approve most of the extensions people apply for, at least the first go round.  Reject too many who can't leave by September 26th and the cabinet might have to extend after all, which is not what Immigration wants at all.

 

One final thought....  Immigration needs to eat, and the automatic extensions aren't putting any food on their table (though keeping foreigners here spending their money does help the economy more broadly).  Forcing everyone out who could otherwise pay monthly fees would also quickly end in tables without food.  If they're going after fees - which seems to be the case - why not triple the fee and do 90 day extensions?

 

Thoughts on any of this?

[ubonjoe]

I have been staying since immigration posted those infographics it not say the same thing as the ministerial notice approved on April 7 that the cabinet resolution extended to September 26th.

I think immigration rushed to get those infographics posted so at least there was something saying it was extended to September 26th.

I think they meant to say 90 reports for those that normally do them (those on long stay extensions and visas) should do a report if they have skipped doing them in August. I don't think they really want those that do not normally do them to do the reportssince they do not stay longer than 90 days.

Even the remark under 2 makes no sense.