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

[StayinThailand2much]

6 hours ago, Petethefeet said:

He also gave me the impression that I was in future a marked man on their computer system. I extended my visa for a further 30 days in chiang mai with no problem.

One doesn't seem to have anything to do with the other. Never had a problem extending my visa, but I started getting problems in late 2019 at borders after my METV ran out.

[geisha]

On 7/17/2022 at 3:10 AM, JoseThailand said:

In my case, she plainly refused to open an account for me without an insurance. That's why I had to complain and make her lose face.

Oh my, why are you staying so long in this terrible country ? Try going elsewhere and trying to stay for a long time without a correct visa . Why don’t you get the correct visa that corresponds to your needs , or did they refuse you ?? 

[geisha]

8 hours ago, VocalNeal said:

I counted 10 reasons for which they can deny entry, when i looked here. https://www.thai-laws.com/entering-and-department-the-kingdom/

I think number 4 would be apt for many refusals.

[JoseThailand]

1 hour ago, geisha said:

Why don’t you get the correct visa that corresponds to your needs

Tourist visa perfectly corresponds to my needs. I don't need to work, study, marry, volunteer etc. 

[JimTripper]

Remember the movie Pulp Fiction when that guy was getting drilled in the basement by the cop. Thump, thump, thump...

[JoseThailand]

10 hours ago, JimTripper said:

Remember the movie Pulp Fiction when that guy was getting drilled in the basement by the cop. Thump, thump, thump...

We're not in America, bro.

[aldriglikvid]

Do we have any reports of Tourist Visa's getting bounced at BKK IM "now" at post-C19? My STV is ending next month and I'll try to get back in via an TV the coming month (i.e. a month cool-down). I have no overstays or covid-extensions etc. either, if that would slightly tilt the decision in my favor. 

Fingers crossed. ????

[sometimewoodworker]

21 hours ago, geisha said:

I think number 4 would be apt for many refusals.

Along with 7 and 8

[sometimewoodworker]

20 hours ago, JoseThailand said:

Tourist visa perfectly corresponds to my needs. I don't need to work, study, marry, volunteer etc. 

it looks as if immigration doesn’t agree. They have, for quite a while now, been strongly discouraging people staying long term on those visas. The times are changing, as they often do. What has worked in the past is no guarantee of what will work in the future. 
 

So what is the real point of your whining? To exercise your typing skills? To make you feel better?
 

All border immigration officers have a duty to keep people they deem undesirable out, it seems that $100 changed the IOs mind I have no opinion that I want to make public on the validity of his judgment.
 

There are countries where that works, ones where you will get free accommodation for trying and others where you will just be denied entry. You seem to want to stay here cheaply to continue to do that at least some IOs will accommodate you.

[AgMech Cowboy]

On 7/17/2022 at 4:26 AM, JoseThailand said:

We need to assert our rights.

????????????????

[JoseThailand]

5 hours ago, sometimewoodworker said:

it looks as if immigration doesn’t agree. They have, for quite a while now, been strongly discouraging people staying long term on those visas.

I totally agree that they need to combat people illegally working on tourist visas, as well as education visas or any other visas besides Non-B. But as long as you don't work here illegally and follow the official regulations, it should not be a problem if you come with a tourist visa as often as you wish.

[simon43]

8 hours ago, JoseThailand said:

We're not in America, bro.

JoseThailand, can I (politely) ask what your nationality is?

[JoseThailand]

9 minutes ago, simon43 said:

JoseThailand, can I (politely) ask what your nationality is?

Would that make any difference?

[Dan O]

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

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

You're a visitor coming to another country and dont have the rights from your home country.  Every country has the right to refuse entry to anyone they deem unacceptable for any reason.  That does not mean it's illegal for them to refuse your entry. You post like this is a rampant action but compared to the number of tourist entering its minimal its best in numbers and most are validly denied but just don't like it so they complain. 

[JoseThailand]

12 minutes ago, Dan O said:

You're a visitor coming to another country and dont have the rights from your home country.  Every country has the right to refuse entry to anyone they deem unacceptable for any reason.  That does not mean it's illegal for them to refuse your entry. You post like this is a rampant action but compared to the number of tourist entering its minimal its best in numbers and most are validly denied but just don't like it so they complain. 

The fact that you are a foreigner doesn't mean than they can violate their own law when dealing with you.

[vinny41]

28 minutes ago, JoseThailand said:

Would that make any difference?

Sounds like your home country is one where they restricted tourists to maximum of 90 days per 180-day period is that what your looking for in Thailand

[JoseThailand]

11 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

Sounds like your home country is one where they restricted tourists to maximum of 90 days per 180-day period is that what your looking for in Thailand

I would be glad if they clearly set the official rules. Because now, they say you "stay too much" even if you come to Thailand for 90 days every 180-day period!

[BritTim]

1 hour ago, Dan O said:

You're a visitor coming to another country and dont have the rights from your home country.  Every country has the right to refuse entry to anyone they deem unacceptable for any reason.  That does not mean it's illegal for them to refuse your entry. You post like this is a rampant action but compared to the number of tourist entering its minimal its best in numbers and most are validly denied but just don't like it so they complain. 

Every country has a right to set rules that govern the rights of foreigners to enter into their country. Thailand (for pretty good reasons) decided that the rules at entry points should be clearcut, with officials not being allowed to create their own arbitrary reasons for denying entry to those with visas. Those laws were broadly followed for over 30 years following the passage of the most recent iteration of the Immigration Act. Now, at some entry points (and the Bangkok airports are a key example) officials have decided they do not like the restrictions on their power imposed by the law, and elected to ignore the law. The two main reasons are (i) the opportunities for corruption that greater power provides them; and (ii) a feeling that the current law is too liberal, giving individual embassies/consulates the right to issue visas to people that immigration officials feel should not have been given them.

 

Thailand is not really a democracy, so cliques of officials ignoring the law with impunity is not a great surprise. However, generally, the law ought to be changed by parliament, or at least a gazetted decision by the government. I accept the way Thailand is, and live here in spite of the limited rule of law. That does not mean I approve of it.

[JimTripper]

I think that if you have a sticker visa the immigration officer is stretching authority to refuse.

 

The embassy has ready vetted you and your finances when you applied for the visa.

 

The officer discretion thing should be an exceptional circumstance the officer notices that slipped the attention of the embassy or original application. So it should be very rare they question a visa you have, because they are in essence second guessing the process in place.

 

The immigration you see are grunt line stamping workers, similar to what security guards would be, not on the level of embassy staff who issue visas.

[BritTim]

1 minute ago, JimTripper said:

The officer discretion thing should be an exceptional circumstance the officer notices that slipped the attention of the embassy or original application. So it should be very rare they question a visa you have, because they are in essence second guessing the process in place.

The current law is that officials should only deny entry according to specific reasons laid out in Section 12 of the Immigration Act. The officials are directly told they have no discretion, either to admit those that should be excluded under Section 12, or to deny entry for any reason not specified in Section 12. That includes cases where the immigration official believes a consular official was in error. They cannot admit people who were refused visas because the consular official wrongly denied the application; nor can they endeavour to invalidate officially issued visas (you will note that they never mark a visa as cancelled because they lack the power to do so under any circumstances; they can only deny entry and then, legally, only pursuant to Section 12).

 

An argument can be made that it is time for the law to be updated. However, I am not in sympathy with local groups of immigration officials (or sometimes individual officials) deciding to change the law on the fly without a decision by parliament/the government. 

[JimTripper]

3 hours ago, BritTim said:

The current law is that officials should only deny entry according to specific reasons laid out in Section 12 of the Immigration Act. The officials are directly told they have no discretion, either to admit those that should be excluded under Section 12, or to deny entry for any reason not specified in Section 12. That includes cases where the immigration official believes a consular official was in error. They cannot admit people who were refused visas because the consular official wrongly denied the application; nor can they endeavour to invalidate officially issued visas (you will note that they never mark a visa as cancelled because they lack the power to do so under any circumstances; they can only deny entry and then, legally, only pursuant to Section 12).

 

An argument can be made that it is time for the law to be updated. However, I am not in sympathy with local groups of immigration officials (or sometimes individual officials) deciding to change the law on the fly without a decision by parliament/the government. 

Having an officer there at all will probably become a thing of the past soon. Like everything else, it will just be a kiosk or robot and you will be scanning your documents in. It's that way already at some airports when you first arrive, though due to the paranoia you still need to stand in front of an officer.

 

The technllogy is advancing so quickly it will all be robot soon, maybe with an officer looking through a camera in a back room somewhere. We will miss the good old days  (or not) when some human offered some sort of "interpretation".

[Boomer6969]

On 7/17/2022 at 8:14 AM, EVENKEEL said:

In Isaan BB told me farang no have account. In Bangkok they told me I had to get a letter from my Embassy. Went to Patts just to open account. 

Really?  So Buriram isn't in Isaan? I have 7 accounts in my name, one joint account with  my wife, a Master Card CC, and various DCs.

[simon43]

8 hours ago, JoseThailand said:

Would that make any difference?

Yes of course, as others have pointed out concerning the visa rules.  What's your nationality?

[flexomike]

On 7/18/2022 at 4:26 PM, micmichd said:

Too old for an insurance? 

after a certain age, can't remember for sure the banks won't sell you there accident insurance, I was 66 when I was first refused

[sometimewoodworker]

7 hours ago, JimTripper said:

I think that if you have a sticker visa the immigration officer is stretching authority to refuse.

 

The embassy has ready vetted you and your finances when you applied for the visa.

Then you miss understand the process. 
 

The immigration officers are the ones who ultimately have the responsibility of allowing or refusing entry, so no they are not stretching anything if they refuse you entry. The embassy’s and consulates are the first step not the only step.

 

Attention For Tourist and Transit Visa Applicants
You declare that the purpose of your visit to Thailand
is for pleasure or transit only and that in no case shall
you engage yourself in any profession or occupation
while in the country.

 

If an IO feels that you have lied on your application she/he has a duty to challenge or refuse you entry.

 

Thailand restricts it IOs rather more than most countries.

 

There are very few people who are not retired who can spend long periods without working, and fewer still who do not have an occupation. 

[Dan O]

10 hours ago, JoseThailand said:

The fact that you are a foreigner doesn't mean than they can violate their own law when dealing with you.

And what law are they violating?

 

They have the option at immigration to deny entry for a variety of reasons.

 

Crying foul about it doesn't make you right. I don't agree with the application of their choices in many cases but it's their country not yours.

 

The allowance of loose use of various extensions to stay and the loopholes available are just that but in the end they have the right to deny entry when they choose. That doesn't make any thing illegal when they do.

 

you're free to go to where ever you feel treats you the best and apparently here isn't it for you. 

[JoseThailand]

7 minutes ago, Dan O said:

And what law are they violating?

 

They have the option at immigration to deny entry for a variety of reasons.

Read BritTim's messages above. I can't put it any better.

[JoseThailand]

2 hours ago, simon43 said:

Yes of course, as others have pointed out concerning the visa rules.  What's your nationality?

Zimbabwe. So what?

[Dan O]

9 hours ago, BritTim said:

Every country has a right to set rules that govern the rights of foreigners to enter into their country. Thailand (for pretty good reasons) decided that the rules at entry points should be clearcut, with officials not being allowed to create their own arbitrary reasons for denying entry to those with visas. Those laws were broadly followed for over 30 years following the passage of the most recent iteration of the Immigration Act. Now, at some entry points (and the Bangkok airports are a key example) officials have decided they do not like the restrictions on their power imposed by the law, and elected to ignore the law. The two main reasons are (i) the opportunities for corruption that greater power provides them; and (ii) a feeling that the current law is too liberal, giving individual embassies/consulates the right to issue visas to people that immigration officials feel should not have been given them.

 

Thailand is not really a democracy, so cliques of officials ignoring the law with impunity is not a great surprise. However, generally, the law ought to be changed by parliament, or at least a gazetted decision by the government. I accept the way Thailand is, and live here in spite of the limited rule of law. That does not mean I approve of it.

Immigration isn't part of the Visa issuing process at the Embassy level and is disconnected. The visa process has been getting more refined informationally although still cumbersome and confusing but clearly antiquated.

 

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

 

Corruption and power seekers goes on thru out history in all countries and I don't know that the issue of democracy has been raised nor what difference that makes

[Dan O]

3 minutes ago, JoseThailand said:

Read BritTim's messages above. I can't put it any better.

You can't answer because there isn't any law being broken. Immigration at entry has the authority to deny entry with or without a visa in hand, it's their judgment call. 

 

It's maybe applied in a way that isn't consistent or to your liking but again you are a visitor and you have no rights from your country when you are a tourist.

 

Denials aren't out of proportion to arrivals by any means, you just read about those and not the multitudes that abuse or adulterate the process to their benefit, staying endlessly using those loopholes. 

 

Dont like the treatment then don't come.