Extension Of Amnesty Now In the Royal Gazette

[Peter Denis]

1 hour ago, BritTim said:

None of this is set in stone, obviously, and the cabinet could decide there are more important considerations than just enforcing immigration rules. However, I consider the September 26 date (exactly six months from March 26) to be significant. Immigration, I believe, is arguing that no tourist should be here longer than six months. If the cabinet was not swayed by that argument, I think the new deadline would have been September 30.

I believe you are correct, as there is no other rational explanation for choosing September 26 as prolonged Amnesty expiry date.

Many tourists will of course be longer than six months in Thailand, having arrived before March 26.

But the psychological 6-month Amnesty period, shows they mean it and that a further Amnesty extension is very unlikely.

[vermin on arrival]

16 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

I believe you are correct, as there is no other rational explanation for choosing September 26 as prolonged Amnesty expiry date.

Many tourists will of course be longer than six months in Thailand, having arrived before March 26.

But the psychological 6-month Amnesty period, shows they mean it and that a further Amnesty extension is very unlikely.

I know Asians are not always direct, but in this case, why don't they just say it explicitly? So if they change their minds down the road they don't lose face? Or do they not want to be directly harsh and say it? Like when they said yes you can still come to Thailand, and then gave impossible conditions right before the airport shut down.

[Sheryl]

15 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

The ministerial order is an extension of the one approved on April 7th. Everything is the same as before,

 

yes, I understand that but I am still not 100% clear that L-A visa holders are included. I did not ask previously as permission to stay was still valid.

[ubonjoe]

8 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

yes, I understand that but I am still not 100% clear that L-A visa holders are included. I did not ask previously as permission to stay was still valid.

I can recall a news article that stated they had extended all LA visas to November. You need to look into that.

Everybody is covered by the amnesty at this time. 

[vermin on arrival]

42 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

I believe you are correct, as there is no other rational explanation for choosing September 26 as prolonged Amnesty expiry date.

Many tourists will of course be longer than six months in Thailand, having arrived before March 26.

But the psychological 6-month Amnesty period, shows they mean it and that a further Amnesty extension is very unlikely.

 

38 minutes ago, vermin on arrival said:

I know Asians are not always direct, but in this case, why don't they just say it explicitly? So if they change their minds down the road they don't lose face? Or do they not want to be directly harsh and say it? Like when they said yes you can still come to Thailand, and then gave impossible conditions right before the airport shut down.

@Peter DenisAnd it is also interesting because from what I know both Japan and Indonesia came right out and explicitly stated (Japan after 1 amnesty and Indonesia with it's second one month amnesty) when their amnesties would definitively end. I am sure that Taiwan and Korea would both be very explicit about a firm end point. Why is Thailand not doing that? Is it that hey like to dance around the issue more and give themselves more wriggle room if they need it so they never can be explicitly shown to be "wrong" or flip flopping and lose face from it? Here we need to speculate more from the information then many other places in Asia.

[david555]

7 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

What expected rush?
Even the immigration announcement states you have the entire month of August to do skipped 90 day reports.

As they all shall strech the elastic to the last possible days ...

[david555]

1 hour ago, vermin on arrival said:

Maybe. I don't know if the consideration is that no tourist  should be here more than 6 months. The reality is that all people who are covered by this amnesty will have been in country for more than 6 months. I arrived on Jan 30, did my 30 day extension end of Feb, covid extension and then amnesty. So I will be at near 8 months by Sept 26. If this is the 6 month rule, it is being enforced in a strange way. However, I do know that it is clearly 6 months from the declaration of a state of emergency. Whether that is relevant who is to say. In the end the whys of everything are pure speculation since none of this has been explained by the people in charge.

Small side note ...almost all are now taxable ....as 6+ moth's residing at Thailand ...? ????

 

[Caldera]

Trying to understand their point of view, they've put themselves in a comfortable position by stating clearly that people need to prepare to leave or extend by September 26th.

 

If nothing changes and they want to keep it that way, they can point out that they've given "aliens" plenty of advance notice. If the situation changes and they decide to extend again, nobody will complain, but those willing and able to leave or extend will have done so by the time.

 

I think the real issue at this point isn't the amnesty's expiration date, but unnecessary obstacles that prevent some (many?) of those who should be able to qualify for an extension (or visa conversion) from applying for one.

 

 

[BritTim]

2 hours ago, vermin on arrival said:

Maybe. I don't know if the consideration is that no tourist  should be here more than 6 months. The reality is that all people who are covered by this amnesty will have been in country for more than 6 months. I arrived on Jan 30, did my 30 day extension end of Feb, covid extension and then amnesty. So I will be at near 8 months by Sept 26. If this is the 6 month rule, it is being enforced in a strange way. However, I do know that it is clearly 6 months from the declaration of a state of emergency. Whether that is relevant who is to say. In the end the whys of everything are pure speculation since none of this has been explained by the people in charge.

The point is that the latest anyone on a tourist visa or visa exempt entered the country is March 26. Thus, by September 26, it is known that every such person has been in Thailand at least six months. At certain entry points, even prior to the latest events, immigration was denying entry to those entering with tourist visas (and especially visa exempt) if they had already spent 180+ days in Thailand. This is totally arbitrary, but some in immigration seem quite emotional about it.

[BritTim]

43 minutes ago, Caldera said:

I think the real issue at this point isn't the amnesty's expiration date, but unnecessary obstacles that prevent some (many?) of those who should be able to qualify for an extension (or visa conversion) from applying for one.

I 100% agree with this. The reason, I believe, is that it forces people into the clutches of agents who ensure senior officials receive nice fat envelopes.

[Max69xl]

12 hours ago, DrJack54 said:

How does immigration come out of this "face" wise. I mean their terms such as "grace period" and the requirement for August 90 day report etc. Just huff and puff. The government has basically stated to immigration we run the show.

The emergency decree is extended to August 31. That means that the PM runs the show 100%. Why do you think the decree is extended when there are no local Covid-19  cases reported for 60 days? 

[Max69xl]

1 hour ago, Caldera said:

Trying to understand their point of view, they've put themselves in a comfortable position by stating clearly that people need to prepare to leave or extend by September 26th.

 

If nothing changes and they want to keep it that way, they can point out that they've given "aliens" plenty of advance notice. If the situation changes and they decide to extend again, nobody will complain, but those willing and able to leave or extend will have done so by the time.

 

I think the real issue at this point isn't the amnesty's expiration date, but unnecessary obstacles that prevent some (many?) of those who should be able to qualify for an extension (or visa conversion) from applying for one.

 

 

Don't forget that almost everyone on visa exempt or tourist visas have had 6 months free extensions without the need for border runs. 

[Max69xl]

1 hour ago, david555 said:

Small side note ...almost all are now taxable ....as 6+ moth's residing at Thailand ...? ????

 

What are they supposed to tax? 

[Max69xl]

2 hours ago, david555 said:

As they all shall strech the elastic to the last possible days ...

Then they have no right to complain if they are that stupid. 

[Max69xl]

3 hours ago, Peter Denis said:

I believe you are correct, as there is no other rational explanation for choosing September 26 as prolonged Amnesty expiry date.

Many tourists will of course be longer than six months in Thailand, having arrived before March 26.

But the psychological 6-month Amnesty period, shows they mean it and that a further Amnesty extension is very unlikely.

The most rational reason for chosing September 26 instead of August 26 is the fact that nothing will happen in August regarding borders or an increase in outbound flights. You and many others keep overthinking everything. Why is it so difficult to understand that the government won't keep extending the "amnesty" for ever? 

[david555]

24 minutes ago, Max69xl said:

What are they supposed to tax?

 

 

In theory the money brought in to Thailand that year.......i say "theoreticall " as after 6 month in Thailand we are supposed becomes "Tax residents "...????

 

[TerraplaneGuy]

3 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

The ministerial order is an extension of the one approved on April 7th. Everything is the same as before,

I'm on a retirement extension of a non-OA which expires in February 2021.  Just catching up on this thread and looking at Announcement #1178 on the IB website.  I'm wondering if it applies to retirement extensions and if so in what cases.  It says:

 

"... 2. Long-term visa holders have to submit an application for extension in accordance with a reason of necessity of each visa type.  Remark:  An application for extension shall be submitted at each local immigration office from now until September 26, 2020.  All types of visa extension will be effective from September 27, 2020.  In order to reduce overcrowding, please come earlier."

 

I don't know quite how to read this but if we assume a retirement extension is a "long-term visa" this seems to apply.  But if our current extension is still valid until past September 26, as in my case, it doesn't appear to make a lot of sense.  Yet read literally the announcement might mean I have to go and apply for an extension by September 26.  Can that be the intention?  Or are they only talking about people who have a long-term visa (or extension) of some kind that would expire before September 26 except for the amnesty?

[david555]

7 minutes ago, TerraplaneGuy said:

I'm on a retirement extension of a non-OA which expires in February 2021.  Just catching up on this thread and looking at Announcement #1178 on the IB website.  I'm wondering if it applies to retirement extensions and if so in what cases.  It says:

 

"... 2. Long-term visa holders have to submit an application for extension in accordance with a reason of necessity of each visa type.  Remark:  An application for extension shall be submitted at each local immigration office from now until September 26, 2020.  All types of visa extension will be effective from September 27, 2020.  In order to reduce overcrowding, please come earlier."

 

I don't know quite how to read this but if we assume a retirement extension is a "long-term visa" this seems to apply.  But if our current extension is still valid until past September 26, as in my case, it doesn't appear to make a lot of sense.  Yet read literally the announcement might mean I have to go and apply for an extension by September 26.  Can that be the intention?  Or are they only talking about people who have a long-term visa (or extension) of some kind that would expire before September 26 except for the amnesty?

Under long term visas they always refered the non O-A ones .....but dont worry the normal " NON-O" extensions for reason of retirement must be done the normal way at the normal date.

I do mine #8 starting end Aug./ Sept.

The terminlogy is indeed confusing ...

[darrendsd]

7 hours ago, jackdd said:

Actually immigration wanted everybody out by 31st July, maybe giving a grace period, we can see this from the notes of the Cabinet meeting and also from a news post which was posted here on Thaivisa a few weeks ago and mentioned these rumors. But the Cabinet decided to grant this extension, even though immigration was against it. Now immigration wants everybody out by 26th September.

The Cabinet does of course have no legal obligation to listen to immigration, but i guess they also don't like too many complaints from immigration. Thus i think it's unlikely that they decide against immigration's recommendation again, and i think that there is probably no further extension.

There was one I/O that stared he wanted us out - this does not mean that all of Immigration agreed that we should be out by that date

 

The last couple of sentences in your post are just speculation and as usual speculation on this forum regarding the amnesty does not help anyone

[johnmell]

Why would Immigration want all foreigners out.They wont have jobs if there are just a few foreigners.

[Tanoshi]

10 hours ago, vermin on arrival said:

I know Asians are not always direct, but in this case, why don't they just say it explicitly?

How much more explicit do you need them to be - naming the foreigners?

It's evidently clear to me:

Short term Visa holders (TR,TS,VOA and VE) are required to leave the Country by Sept 26th, with the exceptions of 1) Medical illness - for which a medical certificate is required, or 2) No flight availability or a further Covid outbreak situation - requiring an Embassy confirmation letter.

Each permission of stay shall be granted for no more than 30 days.

[Peter Denis]

8 hours ago, Max69xl said:

The most rational reason for chosing September 26 instead of August 26 is the fact that nothing will happen in August regarding borders or an increase in outbound flights. You and many others keep overthinking everything. Why is it so difficult to understand that the government won't keep extending the "amnesty" for ever? 

The issue was not the 2 months which is logical as nothing much will change in August and applicants regularizing their Visa situation will need the 2-month seasoning requirement of their financial funds.

The issue was why Sept 26 instead of Sept 30.  On top of that 26 Sept is a Saturday with Immigration offices closed. 

The psychological 6 months Amnesty period that started March 26 is the most rational explanation for the choice of that particular 26 Sept date.

[TerraplaneGuy]

9 hours ago, david555 said:

Under long term visas they always refered the non O-A ones .....but dont worry the normal " NON-O" extensions for reason of retirement must be done the normal way at the normal date.

I do mine #8 starting end Aug./ Sept.

The terminlogy is indeed confusing ...

Thanks, just wondering how do you know that?  Is there anywhere where they clarified that retirement extensions are unaffected by this?

[lopburi3]

1 minute ago, TerraplaneGuy said:

Thanks, just wondering how do you know that?  Is there anywhere where they clarified that retirement extensions are unaffected by this?

Perhaps a better indication are the daily lines of those doing retirement and marriage extensions of stay in normal manner over the last few months (old rule).  Myself being one of them.  From what has been written here this new time is just an extension of the old rule so will be the same for types of stay.

[jacko45k]

17 hours ago, vermin on arrival said:

Who knows. Many were speculating that this would not be approved again.

Since there was no warning  before July 31st, an extension or amnesty was obligated really.... an announcement late July telling those in amnesty they had to make arrangements to leave would have created chaos. This time people have nearly 2 months to get sorted, and it appears to have come with a warning.

[hotandsticky]

6 minutes ago, TerraplaneGuy said:

Thanks, just wondering how do you know that?  Is there anywhere where they clarified that retirement extensions are unaffected by this?

 

 

Extensions do not form part of the amnesty (only 90 day reporting related thereto)

 

 

Extensions are NOT extensions of visas - they are extensions of permission to stay (the underlying visa was 'used' a long time ago).

[Bangkok Barry]

I wonder if anyone in government will notice that there has been no threat to national security and the country hasn't collapsed by allowing foreigners to remain in the Kingdom.

[mokwit]

14 hours ago, Peter Denis said:

But the psychological 6-month Amnesty period, shows they mean it and that a further Amnesty extension is very unlikely.

Strictly speaking they would become liable for tax filing.

[mokwit]

13 hours ago, vermin on arrival said:

Why is Thailand not doing that? Is it that hey like to dance around the issue more and give themselves more wriggle room if they need it so they never can be explicitly shown to be "wrong" or flip flopping and lose face from it? Here we need to speculate more from the information then many other places in Asia.

Maybe because Thailand detains overstayers - IDC will be full if the authorities misstep in a way that creates overstayers.

[Tanoshi]

2 minutes ago, mokwit said:

Strictly speaking they would become liable for tax filing.

With who, for what?