Short-stay visas extended by 15 days to cover quarantine

[Cadan]

All farangs who have made online friends can come now 

[Reigntax]

No matter how much spin they use they just dont get it .

[Stargeezr]

So how many working stiffs of most ages get 45 days off per year?   Well,  that what I thought.

  None.  Only business owners, and retirees, or self employed folk.  Well maybe all the rich

people and their rich kids who do not have to work for a living.  And what big percentage of the

tourists does that add up to.   Not much.   So Thailand,  nice try,  but try better.

Geezer

[Peter Denis]

39 minutes ago, Stargrazer9889 said:

So how many working stiffs of most ages get 45 days off per year?   Well,  that what I thought.

  None.  ...

The main advantage of providing a 45-day permission to stay when entering Thailand VisaExempt is that it provides those taking the VisaExemption road as first step to apply for a 90-day Non Imm O Visa and subsequent 1-year extension, with sufficient time to do that. 

On a 30-day permission to stay, of which the first 15 days are already eaten by the mandatory quarantaine, they were previously forced to first apply for a 30-day extension of stay, as the Non Imm O Visa application has to be done with at least 15 days left on the permission to stay.

So that additional 15 days are indeed useful as those entering VisaExempt are in large majority of cases NOT tourists but those intending to stay long-term in Thailand by applying for that Non Imm O Visa.

[gt162]

5 hours ago, Salerno said:

 

That's down to the Us, UK and Aussie Embassies, not the Thai Government.

Ya but who drove them to do that? Thai Immigration.

[Salerno]

6 minutes ago, gt162 said:

Ya but who drove them to do that? Thai Immigration.

No, they decided they couldn't be arsed doing the work/couldn't be arsed putting their case forward forceably enough to convince the Thais the current stat decs are a legal document relied on for far more serious things than proof of income ... other nations embassies still do them.

Edited December 24, 2020 by Salerno

[gt162]

1 hour ago, Peter Denis said:

The main advantage of providing a 45-day permission to stay when entering Thailand VisaExempt is that it provides those taking the VisaExemption road as first step to apply for a 90-day Non Imm O Visa and subsequent 1-year extension, with sufficient time to do that. 

On a 30-day permission to stay, of which the first 15 days are already eaten by the mandatory quarantaine, they were previously forced to first apply for a 30-day extension of stay, as the Non Imm O Visa application has to be done with at least 15 days left on the permission to stay.

So that additional 15 days are indeed useful as those entering VisaExempt are in large majority of cases NOT tourists but those intending to stay long-term in Thailand by applying for that Non Imm O Visa.

 

Very useful since 15 days extra gives enough time to apply for Non O entry visa and avoiding to apply for Tourist Visa and then 12 month extension.

[gt162]

7 minutes ago, Salerno said:

No, they decided they couldn't be arsed doing the work/couldn't be arsed putting their case forward forceably enough to convince the Thais the current stat decs are a legal document relied on for far more serious things than proof of income ... other nations embassies still do them.

Yes as my Canadian friends always brag about. But damage is done. I would love to have those restrictions lifted again.

[Peter Denis]

5 minutes ago, Salerno said:

No, they decided they couldn't be arsed doing the work ... other nations embassies still do them.

I read on the Forum that it was actually due to incorrect terminology - certified instead of verified - used by Thai Immigration (where have we heard that one before > visa/extension). 

Thai IO asked the Embassies of the main nationalities (US, UK and Australia make up 70% of long-term stayers) to provide them with a certified income-letter which those Embassies were of course not able to provide as they do not 'certify' documents.  As a result, they ceased providing those income-letters but by the time the misunderstanding was clarified the damage was already done. 

@Tanoshi> Is my understanding correct?  It dates from before my time here.

[Salerno]

14 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

Is my understanding correct? 

 

Basically yes (although I believe the Thais actually wanted them to guarantee the stat decs where legit and they declined as they didn't feel it as in their remit to guarantee anything nor did they want to be liable in the case of someone somehow being busted), the three that dropped out never verified a thing all they did was witness a stat dec, which as you know is a legal document with penalties up to jail time if found to be false. Some other embassies actually did the job required to fulfil the requirements of the Thai government so no issue. One initially stopped them (Denmark?) but then reinstated them, what changed for them, if anything, I have no idea.

 

The fact remains the US. Australia and UK either failed to put their case forward in strong enough terms to convince immigration or can't (be arsed/not physically possible) verify the stat dec is legit

Edited December 24, 2020 by Salerno

[Tanoshi]

9 hours ago, Salerno said:

The fact remains the US. Australia and UK either failed to put their case forward in strong enough terms to convince immigration or can't (be arsed/not physically possible) verify the stat dec is legit

 

The fact is, if Immigration had maintained their insistence that the Embassies had to 'verify' the declared incomes, then all the Embassies would have had to cease the service.

It's also fact that when Immigration issued the amended Police Order accepting the monthly 65K transferred to a Thai bank, they also stated Embassy letters must be 'certified', but that order wasn't circulated until after the UK, US and Australian Embassies had already ceased the service.

Other Embassies therefore continued to issue 'certified' Income letters in compliance with the amended orders and as they were doing previously.

[Salerno]

In which case there is nothing stopping the 3 countries reinstating the letters as Denmark did.

Edited December 24, 2020 by Salerno

[onebir]

On 12/23/2020 at 2:58 AM, dcnx said:

With one policy change they could get every digital nomad, unmarried parter of a Thai, and endless people who have the funds for extended travel and don’t want to be bothered by bureaucracy.

But what's the upside for them?

[Tanoshi]

12 minutes ago, Salerno said:

In which case there is nothing stopping the 3 countries reinstating the letters as Denmark did.

No, there just going to open those departments again and transfer all the staff back that they had to redeploy just to save Immigrations face - I don't think so!

[collingwood]

Salerno, every time I applied, their reply was rejected...visa needed and insurance. Even after posting the info about Visa exempt announced by CCSA from Thailand.

[Salerno]

5 hours ago, collingwood said:

Salerno, every time I applied, their reply was rejected...visa needed and insurance. Even after posting the info about Visa exempt announced by CCSA from Thailand.

 

That's interesting ... in a disappointing way. It would be nice if they could get their <deleted> together and have everyone on the same page for once.

 

Edited December 25, 2020 by Salerno
Typo

[Don Chance]

How about some incentive Thailand?

 

- 60 days on arrival and 60 day renewal until the end of the year.

- Cut the price of quarantine hotels by 1/2.
 

If Thailand want tourists they had better smarten up.