Immigration Bureau Clarifies 90-day Rule Change

[Artisi]

It does indeed seem very clear, but do you find the following implementation conducive to tourism?

Maestro[/size]

Simple answer NO - but are all border runners actually tourists, and most tourists are happy with probably 1 or 2 entries a year.

[Crash999]

It does indeed seem very clear, but do you find the following implementation conducive to tourism?

This is the policy that has just been eliminated, so now there's no fixed 180-day block. I think this is where a lot of confusion on this thread comes from as folks didn't know it was in place to begin with. I expect that would have given some people nasty surprises right around this time- 'Sorry, Sir, you last entered the country in November for 2 days- your 180 day block ends tomorrow so I can only give you 1 day.'

Given this change, the timing going forward should be calculated on a rolling basis from the day of entry. Count back 5 months and see how many days the person in question has been in country- if it's 60 days or less then the person can get up to 30 days on that trip, for a total of 90 days in 6 months.

[backflip]

"[g]ive one year non-imm visas to farang within the following parameters; the farang wanting to stay long-term may choose to....

1. pay...

or

2. pay...

or

3. Pay Bt.1,000...

Non-compliance would be met with 'personna non grata' stamp in passport for subsequent 3 years."

Makes sense to me but, many TVers trip over the "or", indicating a choice. Reading this forum, it's clear that many of them don't want a choice, they want to be told EXACTLY what to do.

[Martin]

It does indeed seem very clear, but do you find the following implementation conducive to tourism?

Maestro[/size]

Simple answer NO - but are all border runners actually tourists, and most tourists are happy with probably 1 or 2 entries a year.

I would not be surprised if the Royal Thai Government decided to go back to the thinking of the times at the beginning of the world-wide tourism boom, which was on the lines of:

"All entrants to Thailand must have Thai citizenship or a valid visa.

Genuine tourists (i.e. ones who are here for a holiday and proposing to stay in holiday accomodation for which they can show a pre-paid reservation), can get a suitably-restricted visa on arrival, once their credentials have been checked by 'swiping' their passport against the database."

This could well prove conducive to increased tourism economic activity, as the news that they would no longer have to associate with bogus tourists would increase Thailand's attractiveness in the eyes of genuine tourists.

The term "bogus tourist" could easily become as prevalent in Thailand as the term "bogus asylum-seeker" has become in Britain.

[Bruce1]

I'm just glad I'm on a non imm B visa and don't have to go thru all this nonsense, as I'd be thoroughly confused and frustrated I think.

I think one problem is the "discretion" issue. Discretion should be eliminated as far as possible, as it just leads to confusion and opportunities for graft.

For instance, when does the 180 day period begin and end? Confusing. Why not just base it on a calendar year ie you could only have a total of 180 days between Jan 1 and and Dec 31?

Having officials counting up days actually used is time wasting. Why not simply issue the visa in 30 or 60 day blocks and then have the number of days used stamped on the way out, so when you come back the official only has to look back at the previous stamp and the total used is sitting there to be seen at a glance? So, for instance, the stamp might say that a total of 23 days has been used so far in 2007. Then the offical knows the person has another 157 days remaining in 2007.

30 days is not long enough anyway, particularly for people who are taking long holidays. I know of backpackers who spend 6 months travelling around Australia.

It appears the actual rules are straightforward but its in the application that the confusion arises.

Edited May 2, 2007 by Bruce1

[dr_Pat_Pong]

I'm just glad I'm on a non imm B visa and don't have to go thru all this nonsense, as I'd be thoroughly confused and frustrated I think.

I think one problem is the "discretion" issue. Discretion should be eliminated as far as possible, as it just leads to confusion and opportunities for graft.

For instance, when does the 180 day period begin and end? Confusing. Why not just base it on a calendar year ie you could only have a total of 180 days between Jan 1 and and Dec 31?

Having officials counting up days actually used is time wasting. Why not simply issue the visa in 30 or 60 day blocks and then have the number of days used stamped on the way out, so when you come back the official only has to look back at the previous stamp and the total used is sitting there to be seen at a glance? So, for instance, the stamp might say that a total of 23 days has been used so far in 2007. Then the offical knows the person has another 157 days remaining in 2007.

30 days is not long enough anyway, particularly for people who are taking long holidays. I know of backpackers who spend 6 months travelling around Australia.

It appears the actual rules are straightforward but its in the application that the confusion arises.

Those people "who spend 6 months travelling around Australia" actually possess valid visa's acquired prior to entry to Australia. Thailand require visitors to do the same.

[richguess]

Personally I found KL to be the most boring place I've ever been in my life. Once you've seen the petroleum towers and tried some Muslim food (which was actually very good). There is not a lot else to do. Fun by western standards is illegal.

Getting back the original post.

It all seems pretty clear to me. Everything is as before except instead of being 3 entries within a 6 month period. It is calculated on days.

Quote

The number of consecutive visa exemptions allowed is no longer limited to three

Unquote

What does disturb me:

Quote

It is up to the discretion of the Immigration officer on duty how many days to grant the new arrival.

It would be nice to plan ones trip and not be worried about meeting (as I have on many occasions a nasty little Hitler. Always female and at the new airport). I would not like to plan any aspect of my life at the discretion of a Thai official.

There no sense at all in making people do all these visa runs. Other than Thai officials have there hands in travel agencies arranging these pointless trips. The UK for example give Thai nationals 6 months on Arrival NO LESS. So why do they make us run around like idiots.

Mini bus tours to the border…

Did you ever see a Chinese person on a Visa Run? Funny that isn't it. Some of them are foreign surely.

Sorry, I digress.

Bottom line is still; get a visa in your own country as I have for the last 4 years.

I am new to Thailand and own a small visa/accounting business in Phuket. I have seen numerous qutes from people saying they worry because Thai immigration offcials have the power to decide how long you can stay in Thailand, they don't have to give you 30 days, or 90 days, or whatever. Maybe these people should read the immigration rules from almost all countries...the immigration official at the point of entry has the final determination on length of stay. Even if a consulate/embassy grants you a visa it is still up to the officer at the point of entry. If I am wrong on this please correct me...

[peaces]

.Oh them make us do it because the travel offices make a commision of 3% instead of Thailand making a Commisson of 100%.

Selfish Travel offices and Selfish Selfish of them few immigration officals who make that small 3% while throwing away 97% to another county. them few need to Listen to the Thai national anthem or maybe a nice Money and Love thinking politian who knows it will learn of the terrible few and divert that 97% of foreign money back into thailand instead of into the unpleasant Cambodia and myanmar.

On a tangent

The continental hotel that people recomend on here in penang is a very old 1950's chinese dark shiithole with freezing aircon(cannot be adjusted) 18 degrees all night so you'll get sick and stay longer. but it has a nice lobby to trick you into thinking its a ok hotel. the one next door is ok for about 30% extra. i think the people recommending the continental are actually the workers there(bellmen or their relatives) who have good english to make plenty of extra cash in tips for themselves. i paid them and i rarely use that service but they push it. the orential sounds good too but is an even older shiithole. look at the rooms for yourself. brown 50 year old wooley blantets.

Edited May 5, 2007 by peaces

[marshbags]

.Oh them make us do it because the travel offices make a commision of 3% instead of Thailand making a Commisson of 100%.

Selfish Travel offices and Selfish Selfish of them few immigration officals who make that small 3% while throwing away 97% to another county. them few need to Listen to the Thai national anthem or maybe a nice Money and Love thinking politian who knows it will learn of the terrible few and divert that 97% of foreign money back into thailand instead of into the unpleasant Cambodia and myanmar.

On a tangent

The continental hotel that people recomend on here in penang is a very old 1950's chinese dark shiithole with freezing aircon(cannot be adjusted) 18 degrees all night so you'll get sick and stay longer. but it has a nice lobby to trick you into thinking its a ok hotel. the one next door is ok for about 30% extra. i think the people recommending the continental are actually the workers there(bellmen or their relatives) who have good english to make plenty of extra cash in tips for themselves. i paid them and i rarely use that service but they push it. the orential sounds good too but is an even older shiithole. look at the rooms for yourself. brown 50 year old wooley blantets.

.... Pardon ??????

Translation required please, Peaces.

marshbags

Edited May 5, 2007 by marshbags

[peaces]

In English

Keep the foreigners spending money in Thailand. Don't send them to cambodia and myanmar to spend their money there.

[marshbags]

In English

Keep the foreigners spending money in Thailand. Don't send them to cambodia and myanmar to spend their money there.

Thanks for that Peaces.

marshbags

[peaces]

Thai People Just want money. (Usually)

So it would be logical for the money they spend on visa trips to be spend in Thailand instead and not in them other funny countrys. (laos, cambojia, minimar, etc.)

Also it is annoying for the foreigners on holiday having to leave the country so they just continue traveling elsewhere and not spend the money in Thailand.

Let them pay at the local police station or immigration office like in developed countries(europe etc) for fresh visas and let Thailand make a lot of extra money.

[rexall]

Dont make the foreigners pay Camboatia, meanmar and Loas. Make them Pay Thailand. YES GOOD IDEA.

Foreigners for paying for visas in Thailand and not sending it wih us to external places.

"We want to give you our money. Take our money Pleasseee!"

Sorry, guys, you are missing the point. It's not about money. It is about certain elements in the government who have decided they want fewer falang in Thailand, more control of and limitations on the falang who are already here, and less of what they consider the "wrong type" of falang. The changes in visas, work permits, investments, doing business and owning property have been creeping up since at least 2004 when I became first aware that getting a "B" visa would be virtually impossible any of the regional consulates. In years prior, it was never an issue. Amazingly, some of the more "conservative" types on TV essentially agree with and support this trend and these policies. Others do not. Well, OK, reasonable people can disagree on policy. But the only thing we do not know is how long and how far these restrictions will continue to creep and whom they will effect before trend burns itself out and the "powers that be" are satisfied.

Aloha,

Rex

Edited May 5, 2007 by rexall

[Krub]

Dont make the foreigners pay Camboatia, meanmar and Loas. Make them Pay Thailand. YES GOOD IDEA.

Foreigners for paying for visas in Thailand and not sending it wih us to external places.

"We want to give you our money. Take our money Pleasseee!"

Sorry, guys, you are missing the point. It's not about money. It is about certain elements in the government who have decided they want fewer falang in Thailand, more control of and limitations on the falang who are already here, and less of what they consider the "wrong type" of falang. The changes in visas, work permits, investments, doing business and owning property have been creeping up since at least 2004 when I became first aware that getting a "B" visa would be virtually impossible any of the regional consulates. In years prior, it was never an issue. Amazingly, some of the more "conservative" types on TV essentially agree with and support this trend and these policies. Others do not. Well, OK, reasonable people can disagree on policy. But the only thing we do not know is how long and how far these restrictions will continue to creep and whom they will effect before trend burns itself out and the "powers that be" are satisfied.

Aloha,

Rex

I think there is another stronger pressure that pushes Thailand to 'show' they are stricter with their immigration policies.

These pressures come form our own countries like the US and Europe.

All in the name of fight against the terrorists, gangsters, sex offenders, etc.

The same goes on in others forms in Cambodia, Indonesia where we see at border points expensive, made in the west, terminals which gather info on human movements.

[PeaceBlondie]

I agree with Krub, above. The old system of allowing people into Thailand with no charge at all, didn't pay for the immigration police providing the services. And, they really didn't know who they were letting into Thailand. Of course, the manner by which they react to these problems may be helter-skelter and inconsistent and really inconvenient for thousands of long-staying farang who don't qualify for visas O, A and ED, and that's a shame. But we can't whinge too badly if the Thais simply try to control Thailand a bit more.

[rexall]

I agree with Krub, above. The old system of allowing people into Thailand with no charge at all, didn't pay for the immigration police providing the services. And, they really didn't know who they were letting into Thailand. Of course, the manner by which they react to these problems may be helter-skelter and inconsistent and really inconvenient for thousands of long-staying farang who don't qualify for visas O, A and ED, and that's a shame. But we can't whinge too badly if the Thais simply try to control Thailand a bit more.

Peacy,

You are implying that Krub in his last post was talking about financial issues. He wasn't, unless that is from something he wrote earlier. Krub does, however, make a good point about Thailand becoming stricter to maintain some parity with the stricter immigration policies in the U.S. and other countries. It won't bode very well over here if ultra-conservative approach to the "illegal alien" problem in the U.S. should win out. Of course, America's beef is with "illegals." I don't ever recall reading a post on TV which supports falang "illegals", such as those who live here indefinitely after having overstayed a legal visa.

However, if what you say about visitors without visas being an economic burden on the immigration police is true, Peacy, then simply charge the visitor as many others have suggested here. The 30 day entry permit people are already happy enough to pay their $20 to Cambodia to cross the border on a "visa run." I am sure they would be just as happy to pay the $20 bucks incountry and avoid the schlep to Poi Pet or wherever. Even as the system stands now, if immigration is counting the number of days incountry in a six month period, that would theoretically allow 180 trips back & forth across the border annually. Not much relief on the immigration police financially or demands on their time.

Nope. Me thinks you have to think deeper to get any sense of this.

As I suggested in my original post, much more important is not what has happened. Not much we can do about that. The important question is how far will it go? Is the gov happy enough that they are restricting the flow of falang adequately? . . . Or is the next change no more 60 tourist visas issued by regional consulates? Maybe 1.6 mil bahtski for retirees? hel_l, if you are going to do that, raise the marriage income to 1.6 mil as well because obviously if you need 1.6 mil to be retired in Thailand, you certainly need at least that much to properly support Thai wife and kids, right? Oh, yeah, no one shall be allowed to teach Engarishe unless they are paid 1.6 mil because if you need that much to be retired, and you need that much to support Thai wife & kidlets, certainly you need at least that much to be employed . . . what with bus fare and laundry and all!

Sorry for the tongue & cheek, but the whole this is nuts. More to the point, it is easy to be "philosophical" about it until some policy effects your status. Once again, how far will the policy of restriction go, whom will it effect, and when will it run its course? Creep, creep, creep, creep . . .

Aloha,

Rex

Edited May 6, 2007 by rexall

[JR Texas]

I agree with Krub, above. The old system of allowing people into Thailand with no charge at all, didn't pay for the immigration police providing the services. And, they really didn't know who they were letting into Thailand. Of course, the manner by which they react to these problems may be helter-skelter and inconsistent and really inconvenient for thousands of long-staying farang who don't qualify for visas O, A and ED, and that's a shame. But we can't whinge too badly if the Thais simply try to control Thailand a bit more.

Peacy,

You are implying that Krub in his last post was talking about financial issues. He wasn't, unless that is from something he wrote earlier. Krub does, however, make a good point about Thailand becoming stricter to maintain some parity with the stricter immigration policies in the U.S. and other countries. It won't bode very well over here if ultra-conservative approach to the "illegal alien" problem in the U.S. should win out. Of course, America's beef is with "illegals." I don't ever recall reading a post on TV which supports falang "illegals", such as those who live here indefinitely after having overstayed a legal visa.

However, if what you say about visitors without visas being an economic burden on the immigration police is true, Peacy, then simply charge the visitor as many others have suggested here. The 30 day entry permit people are already happy enough to pay their $20 to Cambodia to cross the border on a "visa run." I am sure they would be just as happy to pay the $20 bucks incountry and avoid the schlep to Poi Pet or wherever. Even as the system stands now, if immigration is counting the number of days incountry in a six month period, that would theoretically allow 180 trips back & forth across the border annually. Not much relief on the immigration police financially or demands on their time.

Nope. Me thinks you have to think deeper to get any sense of this.

As I suggested in my original post, much more important is not what has happened. Not much we can do about that. The important question is how far will it go? Is the gov happy enough that they are restricting the flow of falang adequately? . . . Or is the next change no more 60 tourist visas issued by regional consulates? Maybe 1.6 mil bahtski for retirees? hel_l, if you are going to do that, raise the marriage income to 1.6 mil as well because obviously if you need 1.6 mil to be retired in Thailand, you certainly need at least that much to properly support Thai wife and kids, right? Oh, yeah, no one shall be allowed to teach Engarishe unless they are paid 1.6 mil because if you need that much to be retired, and you need that much to support Thai wife & kidlets, certainly you need at least that much to be employed . . . what with bus fare and laundry and all!

Sorry for the tongue & cheek, but the whole this is nuts. More to the point, it is easy to be "philosophical" about it until some policy effects your status. Once again, how far will the policy of restriction go, whom will it effect, and when will it run its course? Creep, creep, creep, creep . . .

Aloha,

Rex

JR Texas: The visa rules/regulations are part of the securitization of migration process that is taking place worldwide, the direct result of 9/11, the Bad Bush, and in Thailand, Toxin the Magnificent.

The current visa rules are misguided and are targeting people that have nothing to do with crime (i.e., the vast majority of Westerners). Most crime in Thailand is committed by Thais. The illegal migrants are primarily from other Southeast Asia countries in the region and are not Westerners. And they are needed in Thailand to work at menial jobs Thais don't want (similar to US and Mexico).

Now the govt. has created a dangerous economic situation--with both the visa rules and the business rules--as fewer and fewer people want to invest in the country.....few people want to make any long term commitments. Why buy a condo if you can't stay in it? Why get married if you can't live with your wife in Thailand? Why start a business if you can't remain in the country to oversee it or if the rules will eventually put you out of business?

Given what I know about Thai psychology, it is very likely that they will never admit to making a mistake and will continue to make things worse by raising the "income" bar further and adding more "hoops" to jump through in order to get a simple visa of any kind.

Because the visa rules are pushing expats below the age of 50 out of Thailand, the expat community will continue to age (already looks like an old folks home in Pattaya-Jomtien). Eventually the govt. will see the old expats as a burden and will probably abrogate all of the grandfathered rules related to visas. The bar will really have been raised! And the talk about "perpetual visa runners" and how the visa changes are needed will end.

Solution: remove or greatly lower the monthly income requirements for obtaining long-stay visas; create more realistic visa options for long-stay expats (e.g., 10K in a Thai bank AND/OR 10K income); remove 90 day reporting; stop the practice of forcing expats to leave the country to get a visa or change his visa status; allow expats that are married to Thais to live in the country without any income or bank deposit requirements; stop the need for visa runs by making it easy to get any type of visa at the nearest immigration office; create a level playing field for small business investors and entrepreneurs (no more 4 Thais to one farang, no more business income requirements, etc., etc).

AND, if crime is an issue for long stay Western expats, allow them to get background checks at their local embassies (e.g., I go to my local embassy in Bangkok and pay them to initiate a police background check....I get the results and give it to Thai immigration) or do some actual police work. Almost no crimes in Thailand (serious ones other than bar fights) are committed by Westerners. It is almost a non-issue that immigration is trying hard to turn into a major issue.

The securitization of migration virtually never has the intended effect and usually ends up causing far more problems for countries that are embracing it. Here is an idea to think about: Migrants are rarely criminals have been warmly embraced by destination countries in the past because of the positive things they bring with them (happened in my own country, the USA....Italians, Irish, you name it).

Terrorists will find a way to enter a country and cause harm no matter what immigration policies a country implements. You can't stop terrorism via immigration policies.

[PeaceBlondie]

You can call me PeaceBlondie or PB or Peter Pan or Blondie or Old Man on a Sportbike, but please don't give me a nickname like Peacy that resembles another poster.....thanks.

[rexall]

You can call me PeaceBlondie or PB or Peter Pan or Blondie or Old Man on a Sportbike, but please don't give me a nickname like Peacy that resembles another poster.....thanks.

Sorry, lah!