Illegally denying entry with a tourist visa or visa exempt at an airport?

[BritTim]

2 minutes ago, Dan O said:

Immigration at arrival have always had the ability to deny entry separate of a visa being issued. so I'm a bit confused at your response

 

You will remain confused as you do not understand:

1. Immigration officials acquire powers to admit or deny entry to travellers based on the law. There is no natural law that gives people with the title of "immigration official", "border control officer" or any other title an automatic right to determine whether someone should be admitted.
2. Thailand made the decision to take "discretion" out of the hands of officials at entry points into Thailand. This is atypical. In most countries, officials (at least at a senior level) are permitted to deny entry that, for any reason they consider sufficient, justifies such a denial.
3. You have no willingness to suspend your preconceived ideas about what power an official "ought" to have, and actually read the Immigration Act to see what powers they "actually" have.

Let's see if I can get you to, at least, read the most relevant sections.

Section 12

Aliens falling into any of the following categories are excluded from entering the Kingdom —

 

... snip [various conditions under which the official should deny entry, including...] ...

 

(10) Being prohibited from entering the Kingdom by the Minister under Section 16; 

 

Section 16

If, in the interests of the country or for reason of public order, good morals or culture, or for the happiness of the people, the Minister considers that any alien or group of aliens should not be permitted to enter the Kingdom, the Minister shall have power to not permit such alien or group of aliens to enter the Kingdom.

 

Note, in reading the Act that the Minister is the only person empowered to admit or deny entry to foreigners other than pursuant to specific criteria laid out in the Act. Indeed, under the Act, even the Minister's powers are not absolute.

[NanLaew]

On 7/17/2022 at 7:48 AM, JoseThailand said:

On 7/17/2022 at 7:45 AM, Gottfrid said:

No, you are totally free to leave Thailand alone and chose, in your opinion, a better country. Or, you can, of course, continue to visit/stay/live here and keep up the complaining.

This can happen in any country if you are being pussy and don't care if your rights are violated.

Any country including those that aren't labeled as third world.

 

I ran the gauntlet of several of US Immigration's secondary inspections for about a year. This after almost twelve years of living and legally working there. They suspected I was (or had been) working illegally and one officer couldn't understand how I owned a house there, had a driving license, etc.. The first restriction they placed on me was I could only re-enter the US at Houston, all other airports would bar my re-entry. After my third secondary inspection in about ten months, it was eventually revealed to me that the issue arose by my using two different passports to enter the country over the preceding years; one had a visa and I used that when I was entering to do paid consulting work offshore. The other had no visa and I would use that with the 90-day visa-waiver system when I was on a quick home visit from Brazil or elsewhere and relax with no work involved.

 

Apparently there's a US immigration law that if you have a passport with a valid US visa in it, that is the ONLY travel document that can ever be presented for entry to the US, ie. if you have a valid US visa anywhere (a 10-year US visa remains valid although the passport it is in may have expired), you are not eligible to use the visa-waiver system. This is not mentioned in any of the published terms and conditions for visa-waiver eligibility. I was told this law has been in place since some time around 1947, preceding the visa-waiver system itself.

 

After this 'abuse' was agreed to be through a simple misunderstanding on my behalf, did US Immigration decide that was the end of it? No. Despite taking them almost ten months to find the precise reason I was being flagged by their system, they said I  was no longer eligible for visa-waiver entry and I would need to get a US visa before any future travel to the US. When they ruled that foreigners can only apply for a visa in their home country, I couldn't reconcile my schedule (I had relocated to the Far East) with the 5-day rigmarole of getting a US visa in London.

 

My friend in Houston is an accredited immigration attorney but he advised me that it would be a long, expensive process to challenge this ruling with a very high likelihood of being unsuccessful. The onus would be on me listing all my entries over the past twelve years, detailing dates and carrier and which ones were for work and which ones were for pleasure, complete with boarding pass stubs. At the same time, my attorney would not have access to the immigration history that we were challenging.

 

Thailand's easy peasy.

[Dan O]

27 minutes ago, BritTim said:

You will remain confused as you do not understand:

1. Immigration officials acquire powers to admit or deny entry to travellers based on the law. There is no natural law that gives people with the title of "immigration official", "border control officer" or any other title an automatic right to determine whether someone should be admitted.
2. Thailand made the decision to take "discretion" out of the hands of officials at entry points into Thailand. This is atypical. In most countries, officials (at least at a senior level) are permitted to deny entry that, for any reason they consider sufficient, justifies such a denial.
3. You have no willingness to suspend your preconceived ideas about what power an official "ought" to have, and actually read the Immigration Act to see what powers they "actually" have.

Let's see if I can get you to, at least, read the most relevant sections.

Section 12

Aliens falling into any of the following categories are excluded from entering the Kingdom —

 

... snip [various conditions under which the official should deny entry, including...] ...

 

(10) Being prohibited from entering the Kingdom by the Minister under Section 16; 

 

Section 16

If, in the interests of the country or for reason of public order, good morals or culture, or for the happiness of the people, the Minister considers that any alien or group of aliens should not be permitted to enter the Kingdom, the Minister shall have power to not permit such alien or group of aliens to enter the Kingdom.

 

Note, in reading the Act that the Minister is the only person empowered to admit or deny entry to foreigners other than pursuant to specific criteria laid out in the Act. Indeed, under the Act, even the Minister's powers are not absolute.

Hahahaha   Nope I'm confused just by your interpretation of the law and the denial of entry authority of an immigration officer. 

 

Your extracting sections of the law and making an interpretation of what it means using only those sections.

 

That's fine if that's your view but in the end it the decision resides with the official at the entry point and the  authority they are bestowed by the minister in conducting their duties. End of story. 

 

We'll just have to disagree on interpretation of the authority the Immigration officers hold.  

 

 

[Liverpool Lou]

On 7/17/2022 at 7:32 AM, JoseThailand said:

Because it's corruption. The bank doesn't want to lose a customer because of a corrupt employee.

Bank employees are tasked with selling the bank's products, to do so is not corruption!

[BritTim]

11 minutes ago, Dan O said:

Your extracting sections of the law and making an interpretation of what it means using only those sections.

I have read the whole Act multiple times, and carefully evaluated the meaning of all the important sections. Have you? If I gave you a link to one of the many translations of the Immigration Act, you would still not read it, continuing to rely on your preconceived ideas of the powers of officials.

 

Where do immigration officials acquire the power to deny entry to foreigners? Is it

1. from Thai law; or
2. from US law; or
3. from some kind of natural law related purely to job title; or
4. other (please specify)?

[Liverpool Lou]

On 7/17/2022 at 8:07 AM, EVENKEEL said:

Bangkok Bank wanted me to buy insurance as well. When I refused she got a bit huffy and said then I would need to open account with 20K thb. My response, fine here you go 20K.

No big deal as long as they open the account, B19,900 could be withdrawn immediately at the ATM when leaving the bank!

[simon43]

1 hour ago, JoseThailand said:

Zimbabwe. So what?

So you needed to apply for a Tourist Visa before arriving in Thailand, according to the visa requirements for citizens of Zimbabwe.  Is that what you did?

 

What does your 'So what' comment mean? Why so aggressive when forum members are trying to give you honest advice?

[Liverpool Lou]

On 7/17/2022 at 8:09 AM, FriendlyFarang said:

On 7/17/2022 at 7:55 AM, Gottfrid said:

Here it clearly stands in the immigration law, that a decision is at the discretion of the immigration officer.

Why do you make up things? That's not what Thai immigration law says.

That is the case.  IOs are what the law refers to as "competent officers" and they do have the discretion to make the decision as to who gets stamped in.  

[FriendlyFarang]

1 minute ago, Liverpool Lou said:

That is the case.  IOs are what the law refers to as "competent officers" and they do have the discretion to make the decision as to who gets stamped in.  

Can you quote the section of the law where it says that they have discretion?

Edited July 20, 2022 by FriendlyFarang

[Liverpool Lou]

On 7/17/2022 at 9:38 AM, FriendlyFarang said:

There is no Thai immigration law which would allow them to arbitrarily deny entry.

There is the law that gives IOs discretion to decide who enters the country, you can tell that they are in that position from their job title, Immigration Officer".

[Liverpool Lou]

On 7/17/2022 at 9:47 AM, FriendlyFarang said:

The minimum wage in Thailand is 350 baht per day, probably because this is considered to be "appropriate means of living" by the Thai government, I think everybody here can satisfy this requirement.

The perceived ability of Thais to live on B350 a day is completely irrelevant to the subject of foreign tourists' financial requirements for entry to the country.    You think that  (hypothetical) visitor staying for a week and declaring, if asked, that he only had B2,450 to his name should be allowed in?   

[FriendlyFarang]

14 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

There is the law that gives IOs discretion to decide who enters the country

No there isn't, stop trolling. They can only deny people for a certain set of defined rules.

 

14 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

you can tell that they are in that position from their job title, Immigration Officer

Following your absurd logic an "immigration" officer wouldn't even be responsible for us, because nearly all of us here aren't immigrants, we are non-immigrants.

Edited July 20, 2022 by FriendlyFarang

[Liverpool Lou]

16 minutes ago, FriendlyFarang said:

17 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

That is the case.  IOs are what the law refers to as "competent officers" and they do have the discretion to make the decision as to who gets stamped in.  

Can you quote the section of the law where it says that they have discretion?

Yes, I can, the Immigration Act B.E. 2522, Section 35, for instance...

"...the competent official [Immigration Officer] deputized by the Director General shall have the authority to permit the alien , who entered to stay temporarily in the Kingdom under Section 34 , to remain in the Kingdom...".

 

[Liverpool Lou]

11 minutes ago, FriendlyFarang said:

25 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

you can tell that they are in that position from their job title, Immigration Officer

Following your absurd logic an "immigration" officer wouldn't even be responsible for us, because nearly all of us here aren't immigrants, we are non-immigrants.

My absurd logic?   Maybe with your logic you think that those blokes that stamp in visitors should be call "Non-Immigration Officers"?

[FriendlyFarang]

13 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Yes, I can, the Immigration Act B.E. 2522, Section 35, for instance...

"...the competent official [Immigration Officer] deputized by the Director General shall have the authority to permit the alien , who entered to stay temporarily in the Kingdom under Section 34 , to remain in the Kingdom...".

 

"to remain in the kingdom..."

This section is about extensions. Entry is covered in sections 11-22:

https://library.siam-legal.com/thai-law/thai-immigration-act-entering-and-departing-the-kingdom-sections-11-22/

 

Regarding extensions they might have some limited discretion, regarding entry they have none.

[Liverpool Lou]

26 minutes ago, FriendlyFarang said:

"to remain in the kingdom..."

This section is about extensions. Entry is covered in sections 11-22:

https://library.siam-legal.com/thai-law/thai-immigration-act-entering-and-departing-the-kingdom-sections-11-22/

 

Regarding extensions they might have some limited discretion, regarding entry they have none.

Section 18
The competent official shall have power to inspect persons entering into or leaving the Kingdom, In light of this provision, persons entering into or departing from the Kingdom must submit a list of items as prescribed in the Ministerial Regulations, and must be inspected and approval by the competent official assigned to the Immigration check point.

[FriendlyFarang]

14 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Section 18
The competent official shall have power to inspect persons entering into or leaving the Kingdom, In light of this provision, persons entering into or departing from the Kingdom must submit a list of items as prescribed in the Ministerial Regulations, and must be inspected and approval by the competent official assigned to the Immigration check point.

Customs might inspect our luggage, I think people here are aware of this, but thanks for quoting the relevant section of the law.

But what does this have to do with this topic, a person being denied entry to the country by immigration?

Edited July 20, 2022 by FriendlyFarang

[BritTim]

1 hour ago, Liverpool Lou said:

There is the law that gives IOs discretion to decide who enters the country, you can tell that they are in that position from their job title, Immigration Officer".

Here is a link to a translation of the most recent version of the Thai Immigration Act (provided as a convenience to foreigners by the government Council of State):

http://web.krisdika.go.th/data/outsitedata/outsite21/file/Immigration_Act_B.E._2522.pdf

 

Please review Chapter 2 (Sections 11-22) Entering and Exiting the Kingdom and indicate which Section gives officials this "discretion". As an alternative, indicate why the applicable law does not apply.

 

Those drafting the law made the decision that the grounds for admitting or excluding foreigners from Thailand should be clearcut, with no "competent official" given the power to depart from those criteria. Indeed, the drafters of the Act even tried to facilitate an appeal process, making clear that any denial of entry would automatically be void unless the Minister endorsed the official's decision within a limited period of time.

 

[As an aside, note that the objective of these clear rules was to make corruption by Immigration Officials appointed to enforce the law as difficult as possible, and this was almost always successful for over 30 years.]

 

You can state that officials have the right to exclude people for reasons not specified in the Act, as well as deny the right of appeal specified in the Act, but your assertion is not supported by the clear language of the Immigration Act.

[Dan O]

2 hours ago, BritTim said:

I have read the whole Act multiple times, and carefully evaluated the meaning of all the important sections. Have you? If I gave you a link to one of the many translations of the Immigration Act, you would still not read it, continuing to rely on your preconceived ideas of the powers of officials.

 

Where do immigration officials acquire the power to deny entry to foreigners? Is it

1. from Thai law; or
2. from US law; or
3. from some kind of natural law related purely to job title; or
4. other (please specify)?

Yes I have read it and understand it sufficiently. They have the authority based on their position in the immigration department and under the laws as written. 

 

So based on your view I guess the immigration officers have no power or authority then to even issue stamps in passports for permission of stay either. So the minister should be the only source to man all entry points to the country and be the only source to address any denial issue at in entry point. 

 

That's absurd logic but you can go with that.

 

Try googling any source that offers legal advice and support of immigration issues and see what they say about being denied by an immigration official and you will find the exact same answer, the immigration officers have the open authority based on the written laws to deny entrance.   They have wide latitude and may in some case use their own judgment however flimsy to deny entry based on all info they have in front if them. People have the option to appeal denial if you feel it's incorrect, some are successful most are not. 

 

On that note I'm done discussing this with you. You are more than welcome to your opinion and we will have to disagree. 

[BritTim]

8 minutes ago, Dan O said:

Yes I have read it and understand it sufficiently. They have the authority based on their position in the immigration department and under the laws as written. 

Please cite the Section of the Act that you believe grants them that authority. Thanks.

[JoseThailand]

5 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Bank employees are tasked with selling the bank's products, to do so is not corruption!

They may offer insurance, but when they make it compulsory - that's corruption and violation of the bank's regulation. That's why the head office's reaction was prompt and ruthless. 

[Dan O]

4 hours ago, BritTim said:

Please cite the Section of the Act that you believe grants them that authority. Thanks.

It's obvious you have no clue about how immigration works, the delegation of authority and their structure within the dept.

 

The whole act, if you read it and associated regs under immigration give them authority and latitude of judgement, even if it's not applied evenly or to your liking. You have the ability to appeal as well, if denied.  so to expect every job position to be listed in an legal act shows your lack of understanding about legal acts and regulations and how they are written or structured. Granted these are poorly written.

 

Unless a bribe or illegal payment is requested its not illegal to deny entry based on what information they have access to on the entrant, which is a lot for someone with multiple entries or extensions. 

 

I'm done with this discussion, so your time is up. Believe what you want and use that logic if you're ever stopped and see where you get.

 

Have a great day 

[JoseThailand]

18 minutes ago, Dan O said:

Unless a bribe or illegal payment is requested its not illegal to deny entry based on what information they have access to on the entrant, which is a lot for someone with multiple entries or extensions. 

Bribes are requested. And they falsify the evidence, too (about "no appropriate means").

[Dan O]

34 minutes ago, JoseThailand said:

Bribes are requested. And they falsify the evidence, too (about "no appropriate means").

In some cases a payment may be requested and that is illegal and can be reported but all denials don't fall into that category. As for insufficient funds for support that's a provable point and unless you can't prove it then it's valid.  Your sticking to your story on this and that's fine but it's far less rampant than your implying, in my opinion.

 

Has it happened yeah, is it constant or frequent no. you just hear about the few it happens to so it seems bigger than life and then all the 2nd and 3rd hand stories come out about, I know a guy it happened to.   Most of them they were probably validly denied and want to make a case for being wronged. 

 

I'm done on this topic as it's circular and goes no where. 

 

Have a great day

[JimTripper]

12 hours ago, Dan O said:

Don't like the treatment then don't come. 

So who pays the return flight ticket when he shows up visa in hand and is refused? They need to figure this out BEFORE he gets to the airport ????‍♂️.

[arithai12]

9 hours ago, BritTim said:

Please cite the Section of the Act that you believe grants them that authority. Thanks.

I am sure that every time you enter Thailand you have the full Act (in Thai language) under your arm and when you stand in front of an Immigration Officer you show them the relevant sections, tell them in their face that they have no authority, and you demand the presence of the Minister.

 

[BritTim]

4 hours ago, JoseThailand said:

Bribes are requested. And they falsify the evidence, too (about "no appropriate means").

... and, an additional illegal act, they prevent you appealing.

 

If the denial of entry is legal, the stamp they are obligated to make in your passport (and the paperwork they are supposed to provide but often do not) should reflect the reason under Section 12 for your denied entry. As we know, they will verbally give you a reason not outlined in Section 12, and then give a false reason on the passport stamp.

[BritTim]

4 hours ago, Dan O said:

As for insufficient funds for support that's a provable point and unless you can't prove it then it's valid. 

You are never given the opportunity to prove it. They simply tell you you are denied because you have been here too long, or some other reason which they are not allowed to use to deny entry, then stamp your passport with a bogus reason, such as the "no way to support yourself" nonsense.

[BritTim]

17 minutes ago, arithai12 said:

I am sure that every time you enter Thailand you have the full Act (in Thai language) under your arm and when you stand in front of an Immigration Officer you show them the relevant sections, tell them in their face that they have no authority, and you demand the presence of the Minister.

I struggle to read Thai legalese, and have only done this for Chapter 2 of the Act. However, I have several times been through two separate English translations of the entire Act. When I stand in front of the official in a country like Thailand, I am well aware that knowing the law at least as well as he does will not help me. If his superiors permit him to ignore the law with impunity, there will be nothing I can do about it. Thailand has limited rule of law, and that is something I am forced to accept. The positives of spending time here outweigh negatives such as this. I can ask him (via the appeal process) to get the Minister's endorsement of his denial (the default being that his denial is revoked) but he can simply refuse me my legal right of appeal (unless I am able to quickly call a well connect immigration lawyer (in which case the official would probably back down).

[Dan O]

9 hours ago, BritTim said:

You are never given the opportunity to prove it. They simply tell you you are denied because you have been here too long, or some other reason which they are not allowed to use to deny entry, then stamp your passport with a bogus reason, such as the "no way to support yourself" nonsense.

I call bs on your statement.  You can request to speak to a supervisor