Immigration rules tightened ?

[BangkokReady]

38 minutes ago, Nickelbeer said:

Thailand needs sanctions to straighten them out. 

 

Their ragged economy needs western cash to keep it solvent. Immigration does not recognize this simple economic fact.

The problem is that the people in charge of this don't seem to be to bothered by the lack of tourism.  Maybe they will after a couple more years without it, but there doesn't seem to be any hurry to get tourism back so they must not value tourists at all.

 

As you say, the fact that immigration seem to hate foreigners coming to Thailand is beyond absurd.  The kind of thing you expect to see in a farcical comedy novel.

Edited April 7, 2022 by BangkokReady

[The Hammer2021]

5 hours ago, BritTim said:

This is not a criticism, just a statement of fact. Some (not all) immigration officials are very judgmental when it comes to grooming and dress. They can even conclude that you are disrespectful. If you do not fit their image of a "quality" foreigner, they will often be very strict in applying regulations. I recommend that you be aware of this.

I wish this were true! Tattooed  scum with piercings and oil stained  MC colours are stamped through immigration as are a whole  myriad of misfits, uglies and flip flop wearing trash.

[BritTim]

5 minutes ago, The Hammer2021 said:

I wish this were true! Tattooed  scum with piercings and oil stained  MC colours are stamped through immigration as are a whole  myriad of misfits, uglies and flip flop wearing trash.

50 years ago, I was a hippy, and I am not judgmental when it comes to people's appearance (though a bad attitude or manners will bias me against them). I do believe it is an ignorant way to present yourself when needing approval from an official in conservative Asia. When an official does not like the way you look, they will still stamp you in if they cannot find a legitimate justification to deny entry. What they will not do is cut you any slack.

[OJAS]

16 hours ago, RichardColeman said:

With respects your airline should have asked all of the same questions prior to boarding - least Thai Airways UK staffing did with me during check-in 

In my experience, Thai Airways check-in staff at foreign airports (in particular LHR and CDG) also grasp the significance of a re-entry permit without a detailed and lengthy explanation being required on my part - in stark contrast to their dozy, incompetent and clueless Emirates counterparts! As a result I've always flown with Thai and never with Emirates again following the particular check-in incident I was referring to up thread.

 

Edited April 8, 2022 by OJAS

[NoshowJones]

15 hours ago, BritTim said:

This is not a criticism, just a statement of fact. Some (not all) immigration officials are very judgmental when it comes to grooming and dress. They can even conclude that you are disrespectful. If you do not fit their image of a "quality" foreigner, they will often be very strict in applying regulations. I recommend that you be aware of this.

If I was an IO, I would not be happy with anyone entering the country in say, wearing shorts or singlets.

[EVENKEEL]

3 minutes ago, possum1931 said:

If I was an IO, I would not be happy with anyone entering the country in say, wearing shorts or singlets.

I have to agree a bit here. Travelers do dress like slobs.

[ubonjoe]

Two posts bringing politics into the discussion have been removed.

[BangkokReady]

38 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

I have to agree a bit here. Travelers do dress like slobs.

Isn't that part of the identity of a traveller?  Super relaxed bum type of look?  I dare say many of them turn up looking like a homeless but really they're wearing designer clothes.

 

I understand that immigration officers like to see people dressed smartly, as they think it shows respect, but even though a tourist in shorts and a singlet might appear scruffy, they could still actually be wealthy and ready to spend a lot of money in Thailand. ????‍♂️

[NativeBob]

Generally those imm. off's always irritate me - airports, land check points and chaengwattana building. There's something the way they behave like they hold your fate in their hands and they can deny you anything. And by doing their job they doing you a huge favor. for XX years never see anything of value from them. 

Bad taste, bad judgement, greedy and corrupt - stark difference from the european counterparts.

Saying that brings few memories from Bulgaria airport. Outstanding a**hole.

Once in KL airport I forgot about airport tax and obviously had no cash. Amazingly imm.officerette (lady) helped me out.
Aranya-Prathet - nightmares. 50+ something freakish IO told me that my visa was not valid and stamped "canceled" all over it. I had to fly in through Dong Muang, cost me more than I thought about a single day visa run.

Jomtien office is the "best" example of whole immigration department. 5 minutes of visit would give a complete picture. 

 

[merijn]

22 hours ago, KhunBENQ said:

7 days? Well there was always a field to fill at the departure card about accommodation.

But can't tell whether there is any 7 day requirement.

There is and was never a requirement for a 7 day hotel booking to enter the country.

The address on the TM6 card is only for the first night.

BUT due to Covid they are now more interested into where you stay untill your second covid test in case they have to trace you down.

Maybe this is the reason for asking for the hotel address.

19 hours ago, sandyf said:

Different airlines have different procedures and many would not have allowed you to board. At the end of the day it is your responsibility to meet the requirements.

This statement was on the London Embassy website before they revamped it.

 

Foreigners entering Thailand under the Tourist Visa Exemption category must show the documents below at the port of entry:
Proof of adequate finances for the duration of stay in Thailand i.e. traveller’s cheque or cash equivalent to 10,000 Baht per person and 20,000 Baht per family.
Proof of onward travel (confirmed air, train, bus or boat tickets) to leave Thailand within 30 days of the arrival date (**otherwise a tourist visa must be obtained).

Yes, people are responsible for the correct paperwork but airlines are financially responsible in case you are refused entry due to missing documents.

Therefore, most airlines will check at check-in if you qualify for entry.

[BritTim]

1 hour ago, NativeBob said:

Aranya-Prathet - nightmares. 50+ something freakish IO told me that my visa was not valid and stamped "canceled" all over it. I had to fly in through Dong Muang, cost me more than I thought about a single day visa run.

I am not sure what the true story was here, but an immigration official at the border has no ability to "cancel" a visa. If it was a single entry visa, it may have been previously used, in which case he can stamp it "used" but not "cancelled". More likely, the Phnom Penh embassy did what was fairly common in 2019. They would decide to deny the application for a tourist visa, but place the visa in your passport before stamping it cancelled. This allows them to collect the visa application fee without them being suspected of corruption (just pocketing the money). Often people will collect their passports without looking at the visa they believe they have received.

Edited April 8, 2022 by BritTim

[NativeBob]

1 hour ago, BritTim said:

I am not sure what the true story was here, but an immigration official at the border has no ability to "cancel" a visa. 

I am not sure what is your point of "true story"and why you have to question any information you bumped into.
However, that happened sometime in 2004, and I had a simple border crossing to activate second entry of my dual business visa I got from Penang, MY. Things were much easier those days ))) 

Please feel free to comment someone's else post.

[sandyf]

21 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

I've never been asked for onward ticket at BKK immigration when flying visa exempt and I've done it many times. it happens when checking in at Airport though.

 

17 hours ago, TropicalGuy said:

These may be the strictest terms; applied only to suspected vagrants. 
There are never any legit “outward” airline terms for Thailand (with Western passport). 
Never been asked for anything at either end anywhere in 45 years Intl. travel prior to Covid.Except strong questioning entering USA and Canada (never returned).

Just before the pandemic started I entered Vietnam on visa exempt and immigration insisted on seeing my return ticket. My mate from Ireland had to have a visa and they didn't ask for his ticket.

People have selective memories and when anyone says they have not done anything in a fairly protracted period, it has to  be taken with a  pinch of salt. 

[BritTim]

1 hour ago, NativeBob said:

However, that happened sometime in 2004, and I had a simple border crossing to activate second entry of my dual business visa I got from Penang,

Well, this is odd. I have always thought a Non Immigrant visa could only be single entry or multiple entry. (Penang, I know, did do double entry tourist visas at that time.) If the visa was stamped "used" at the border at Poi Pet, the most likely reason would be that it had expired. What was the validity period on a double entry Non Immigrant visa from Penang at that time? If it was only 90 days, that could explain why the official stamped it "used". Depending on your nationality, I am still surprised that in 2004 you were not allowed a visa exempt entry (assuming your nationality allows them).

[sandyf]

3 hours ago, merijn said:

Yes, people are responsible for the correct paperwork but airlines are financially responsible in case you are refused entry due to missing documents.

That is a myth, you will find in the general conditions of carriage that airlines reserve the right to recover any costs incurred due to entry denial from the passenger.

[BritTim]

2 minutes ago, sandyf said:

 

Just before the pandemic started I entered Vietnam on visa exempt and immigration insisted on seeing my return ticket. My mate from Ireland had to have a visa and they didn't ask for his ticket.

People have selective memories and when anyone says they have not done anything in a fairly protracted period, it has to  be taken with a  pinch of salt. 

If you mean they required a return ticket when entering Vietnam visa exempt, that is correct, and a strictly enforced requirement. Did you mean that you had a problem entering Thailand visa exempt from Vietnam? Especially if entering in Bangkok, that was not unusual at that time. Officials were being tough on many people entering visa exempt through the Bangkok airports at that time.

[BritTim]

2 minutes ago, sandyf said:

That is a myth, you will find in the general conditions of carriage that airlines reserve the right to recover any costs incurred due to entry denial from the passenger.

The airline has the right to try (and they usually succeed). However, they are obliged to transport you out of Thailand if you are denied entry whether you pay or not. Additionally, under some circumstances, the airline can be fined for negligence in failing to check you met conditions for entry. Unless you have signed an actual indemnity form (which I have occasionally) the airline will usually have a tough time trying to recover the costs of the fines.

[sandyf]

19 minutes ago, BritTim said:

If you mean they required a return ticket when entering Vietnam visa exempt, that is correct, and a strictly enforced requirement. Did you mean that you had a problem entering Thailand visa exempt from Vietnam? Especially if entering in Bangkok, that was not unusual at that time. Officials were being tough on many people entering visa exempt through the Bangkok airports at that time.

I meant what I said, merely pointing out that 2 of us entered together, one was asked for a ticket and one wasn't.

If you want me to be more clear, I don't really believe people remember how they entered and what was said to them 45 years ago, I'm struggling with 20 odd years.

[TropicalGuy]

5 hours ago, BangkokReady said:

Isn't that part of the identity of a traveller?  Super relaxed bum type of look?  I dare say many of them turn up looking like a homeless but really they're wearing designer clothes.

 

I understand that immigration officers like to see people dressed smartly, as they think it shows respect, but even though a tourist in shorts and a singlet might appear scruffy, they could still actually be wealthy and ready to spend a lot of money in Thailand. ????‍♂️

Perception is All in Life with face to face situations. Never understood how anybody can travel in often freezing aircraft & airports in shorts singlet flip flops. Beach Wear Only. <deleted> look anywhere in fact.
Invites Immy trouble too…..who wants to see these peoples chest back armpits, 
Good Leather Shoes. Smart Clean Chinos or Dark Jeans. Quality Long Sleeved Shirt with Clean T Shirt. Short Clean Head/ Face Hair & Nails; Always. 

[TropicalGuy]

17 hours ago, The Hammer2021 said:

I wish this were true! Tattooed  scum with piercings and oil stained  MC colours are stamped through immigration as are a whole  myriad of misfits, uglies and flip flop wearing trash.

They are oblivious to the risk of entry denial & financials applied which they can’t meet…..????????

[sandyf]

25 minutes ago, BritTim said:

The airline has the right to try (and they usually succeed). However, they are obliged to transport you out of Thailand if you are denied entry whether you pay or not. Additionally, under some circumstances, the airline can be fined for negligence in failing to check you met conditions for entry. Unless you have signed an actual indemnity form (which I have occasionally) the airline will usually have a tough time trying to recover the costs of the fines.

It is not as hard and fast as you try and make out. Every chance that if the problem arises immediately it would probably be the airline they came off.

If you have ever watched that Australian customs programme it can be many hours before deportation takes place, then it becomes the first available flight to the country of origin. How long did it take them to deport the tennis star.

At the end of the day it is your responsibility to meet the entry requirements, not the airlines. Airlines may well be obliged to check certain requirements, such as a visa, but a visa is no guarantee of entry,  as the tennis man found out.

It is wrong for people to try and make out the airline will get you home free of charge.

[BritTim]

5 hours ago, sandyf said:

It is not as hard and fast as you try and make out. Every chance that if the problem arises immediately it would probably be the airline they came off.

If you have ever watched that Australian customs programme it can be many hours before deportation takes place, then it becomes the first available flight to the country of origin. How long did it take them to deport the tennis star.

At the end of the day it is your responsibility to meet the entry requirements, not the airlines. Airlines may well be obliged to check certain requirements, such as a visa, but a visa is no guarantee of entry,  as the tennis man found out.

It is wrong for people to try and make out the airline will get you home free of charge.

I have had long discussions before on this forum about the difference between denied entry (inadmissible passengers: INADs) and deportation. Suffice to say that, if you are denied entry, the airline that transported you to Thailand is responsible for transporting you back to your embarkation airport (if possible) and otherwise usually to your home country. This is always true even when the airline is completely blameless, and irrespective of whether they are paid (though airlines usually find a way to get payment from you). Once immigration denies you entry, deportation rules do not apply. You are only deported if you successfully pass immigration and are subsequently ordered out of the country.

Edited April 8, 2022 by BritTim

[impulse]

7 hours ago, sandyf said:

It is wrong for people to try and make out the airline will get you home free of charge.

They may not get you home free of charge, but get you back on an airplane they will, regardless of your ability or willingness to pay.  It's then up to them to get the money from you.

 

Many years ago, I was denied boarding in Chicago (to China) because of a change in visa rules.  I had a very polite and extensive conversation with the gate agent supervisor who explained to me that not only was the airline responsible for repatriating you, they could be subject to fines in the neighborhood of tens of thousands of $USD.

 

I appreciate the OP's heads-up that some existing rules were enforced in his recent case.  It may not be definitive, and YMMV, but it's an excellent data point.

 

[sandyf]

18 hours ago, BritTim said:

I have had long discussions before on this forum about the difference between denied entry (inadmissible passengers: INADs) and deportation. Suffice to say that, if you are denied entry, the airline that transported you to Thailand is responsible for transporting you back to your embarkation airport (if possible) and otherwise usually to your home country. This is always true even when the airline is completely blameless, and irrespective of whether they are paid (though airlines usually find a way to get payment from you). Once immigration denies you entry, deportation rules do not apply. You are only deported if you successfully pass immigration and are subsequently ordered out of the country.

Thanks, good to see more constructive dialogue than the off hand comments that usually appear.

Quite happy to accept a plausible explanation.