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

[BritTim]

1 minute ago, Dan O said:

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

You can make all kinds of requests. Once an official has decided to violate your legal rights, you should not expect such violations to be selective.

 

Many Burmese scapegoats for crimes in Thailand will tell you, when a police officer is suffocating you with plastic bags to extract a false confession, demanding your rights is often totally ineffective.

 

Thailand is not like Germany. The law is often followed, but there are many rogue officials and cliques of officials. The fact that you do not recognise this is why we cannot carry out a meaningful discussion with each other. You assume that officials must be honest and law abiding. I know that this is not always the case.

[Dan O]

15 minutes ago, BritTim said:

You can make all kinds of requests. Once an official has decided to violate your legal rights, you should not expect such violations to be selective.

 

Many Burmese scapegoats for crimes in Thailand will tell you, when a police officer is suffocating you with plastic bags to extract a false confession, demanding your rights is often totally ineffective.

 

Thailand is not like Germany. The law is often followed, but there are many rogue officials and cliques of officials. The fact that you do not recognise this is why we cannot carry out a meaningful discussion with each other. You assume that officials must be honest and law abiding. I know that this is not always the case.

We're not discussing corruption in other situations. I'm not denying corruption or rogue acts of extortion.  I presume nothing as I've been coming regularly since 1984 and have family and property here so I've seen a lot of <deleted>. A lot not good by any means. 

 

Those other issues have nothing to do with this topic so piling on other issues doesn't prove your claims about lawfulness of denial if entry by Immigration 

 

If your denied entry your held until return arrangements are made for you to leave and you have access to supervisors during that process. Whether they agree or disagree is a different

matter. 

[BritTim]

31 minutes ago, Dan O said:

We're not discussing corruption in other situations. I'm not denying corruption or rogue acts of extortion.  I presume nothing as I've been coming regularly since 1984 and have family and property here so I've seen a lot of <deleted>. A lot not good by any means. 

 

Those other issues have nothing to do with this topic so piling on other issues doesn't prove your claims about lawfulness of denial if entry by Immigration 

 

If your denied entry your held until return arrangements are made for you to leave and you have access to supervisors during that process. Whether they agree or disagree is a different

matter. 

Let me ask you a question, and see if this can get us closer to a meeting of minds.

 

When an immigration official wants to use the "discretion" you believe he has to deny you entry for reasons he believes sufficient, (i) should he stamp your passport accordingly, (ii) should that stamp specify the reason(s) under Section 12 that the denial was made, and (iii) what is the appropriate reason under Section 12 for "you have been here too long on a tourist visa"?

[BritTim]

42 minutes ago, Dan O said:

If your denied entry your held until return arrangements are made for you to leave and you have access to supervisors during that process. Whether they agree or disagree is a different matter. 

Just for information (it is a minor detail) once you are denied entry at either of the Bangkok airports, you are escorted directly to a detention room airside. You are locked in, and have no further contact with Immigration. Your only contact is with the airline representative (same airline that brought you to Thailand) who are obliged to remove you from Thailand.

 

[I can see you will deny this also, but I have had discussions before with people about INAD (inadmissible) passengers. Even when the airline is completely faultless, they are obliged (by international agreement) to follow the instructions of Immigration and take responsibility for your removal.]

[Dan O]

5 minutes ago, BritTim said:

Let me ask you a question, and see if this can get us closer to a meeting of minds.

 

When an immigration official wants to use the "discretion" you believe he has to deny you entry for reasons he believes sufficient, (i) should he stamp your passport accordingly, (ii) should that stamp specify the reason(s) under Section 12 that the denial was made, and (iii) what is the appropriate reason under Section 12 for "you have been here too long on a tourist visa"?

Not my call on what reason  they note as there are a number of reasons available and that has no relevance to your claim they have no authority to deny entrance. 

 

It can be pretty obvious based on the immigration database about your activities,  visa types and lengths of stay and extensions. 

 

The "meeting of the minds" isn't gonna happen as I stand firm that they have legal authority to make judgment calls on denial, just like most every other country, while you claim they have no legal authority to deny entry, and your rights are broken by doing so. As a visitor you have no rights from your home country, only the rights and laws given you while you are a visitor here. 

 

We don't agree and that's the end of the story. This is a circular discussion and I'm ending it. You have your ideas so feel free to stick to them. 

[BritTim]

1 minute ago, Dan O said:

The "meeting of the minds" isn't gonna happen

Sadly, this is true. You claim that the official can use reasons other than those specified in Section 12 to deny entry. I cannot persuade you to suspend your preconceived notions and actually read Chapter 2 of the Immigration Act objectively.

 

I give up.

[Dan O]

8 minutes ago, BritTim said:

Just for information (it is a minor detail) once you are denied entry at either of the Bangkok airports, you are escorted directly to a detention room airside. You are locked in, and have no further contact with Immigration. Your only contact is with the airline representative (same airline that brought you to Thailand) who are obliged to remove you from Thailand.

 

[I can see you will deny this also, but I have had discussions before with people about INAD (inadmissible) passengers. Even when the airline is completely faultless, they are obliged (by international agreement) to follow the instructions of Immigration and take responsibility for your removal.]

Your trying to distort what I said but that's fine. Upon denial you are generally escalated to a superior or other imm official for questioning prior to detention, especially if there's a question or dispute on reason of denial.

 

I've seen it happen personally and also it's been posted here on the forum a number of times. Yes there can be cases you go direct to lock up as well, but those are general for other issues, not the ones from this OP

[Liverpool Lou]

19 hours ago, JoseThailand said:

On 7/20/2022 at 11:03 AM, 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. 

No that does not constitute corruption (an illegal action) on the part of the bank's staff. 

 

The procedure that that employee followed may have been implemented locally under the authority of the local branch manager, giving the employee no choice.  I'd be interested in which bank "regulation was violated", can you quote that official regulation?   

[Old Croc]

On 7/18/2022 at 10:37 AM, 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 many here would be denied under reason #4.

[JoseThailand]

1 hour ago, Liverpool Lou said:

I'd be interested in which bank "regulation was violated", can you quote that official regulation?   

The official regulation clearly states the requirements for account opening, and buying insurance is not among them. That's what I was told when I called the head office. You can find the official requirements on their website too.

[JoseThailand]

1 hour ago, Liverpool Lou said:

The procedure that that employee followed may have been implemented locally under the authority of the local branch manager, giving the employee no choice. 

Maybe that's why the branch manager had to apologize to me too, in addition to the employee involved.

[Liverpool Lou]

3 minutes ago, JoseThailand said:

The official regulation clearly states the requirements for account opening, and buying insurance is not among them. That's what I was told when I called the head office. You can find the official requirements on their website too.

The information shown on the website is clearly the minimum to open an account.   If the staff were not under a certain amount of pressure (targets and financial benefit) to up-sell officially, they wouldn't do it, neither would those BBL product be available.   

 

Local branch managers are given the discretion to open new accounts as they seem fit for their branch, using official BBL products as incentives from which both the staff and the branch benefit.   All the branches/staff have targets relating to products promoted by the bank.

[Old Croc]

Migration Acts, Regulations, Police Orders, etc., even Immigration Departments themselves, exist for one specific reason - to control the entry and stay of an alien in a country. 

John Lennon's Imaginary plea for no borders doesn't exist, not even for the British!

Every country has the right to decide who can enter and stay, and under which conditions. They can refuse entry to anyone at any time if they decide the entrant doesn't, or won't, meet their requirements. Some countries, Thailand is one, have provisions to appeal such a decision, many others don't, mainly on the basis that the complainant has not actually entered the country. If you want to enter and stay long term using a visa (or visa exempt) designed for short term tourism, don't be surprised if one day you get denied at a border. Whining about it, and laughably claiming they have no legal right to do so is naïve. 

Yes, of course Thailand government is riddled with corruption and inconsistencies, it's part of the way the place and the economy works. I've used the system to my advantage, and grumbled about being ripped off at other times. However, I'm able to understand that's how many things are achieved here as opposed to the bureaucratic mechanisms and corruption mainly for the big end of town, in Western countries.  I know which system is cheapest for me and it's one reason I choose to live here.

 

[JoseThailand]

4 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

The information shown on the website is clearly the minimum to open an account.   If the staff were not under a certain amount of pressure (targets and financial benefit) to up-sell officially, they wouldn't do it, neither would those BBL product be available.   

 

Local branch managers are given the discretion to open new accounts as they seem fit for their branch, using official BBL products as incentives from which both the staff and the branch benefit.   All the branches/staff have targets relating to products promoted by the bank.

What are you talking about? The head office clearly said that insurance is not needed to open an account. They gave the branch a good scolding and made them call me back and apologize!

[Liverpool Lou]

14 minutes ago, JoseThailand said:

1 hour ago, Liverpool Lou said:

The procedure that that employee followed may have been implemented locally under the authority of the local branch manager, giving the employee no choice. 

Maybe that's why the branch manager had to apologize to me too, in addition to the employee involved.

I'm not doubting all of what you say but your claim that the up-selling of authorised bank products was "corruption" doesn't do your credibility much good.   

 

They may have offered to open the account for you but I doubt that both the manager and the clerk were forced to apologise to you for a normal branch procedure in the obsequious manner that the tone of your comment suggests they had to.

[Liverpool Lou]

5 minutes ago, JoseThailand said:

They gave the branch a good scolding

Yeah, right, 'course they got a "good scolding".  How would you know, where you privy to that "good scolding"?

Edited July 21, 2022 by Liverpool Lou

[JoseThailand]

4 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Yeah, right, 'course they got a "good scolding".  How would you know, where you privy to that "good scolding"?

Whatever. Was it a good scolding or not, I don't care. I had my account opened without insurance and got some ego boost too haha.

[Liverpool Lou]

7 minutes ago, JoseThailand said:

14 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

The information shown on the website is clearly the minimum to open an account.   If the staff were not under a certain amount of pressure (targets and financial benefit) to up-sell officially, they wouldn't do it, neither would those BBL product be available.   

 

Local branch managers are given the discretion to open new accounts as they seem fit for their branch, using official BBL products as incentives from which both the staff and the branch benefit.   All the branches/staff have targets relating to products promoted by the bank.

Expand  

What are you talking about? The head office clearly said that insurance is not needed to open an account.

That's right, it's not required, but up-selling the bank's products, that the staff and branch have targets for, is not forbidden, either. it's necessary.

[Dan O]

3 hours ago, BritTim said:

Sadly, this is true. You claim that the official can use reasons other than those specified in Section 12 to deny entry. I cannot persuade you to suspend your preconceived notions and actually read Chapter 2 of the Immigration Act objectively.

 

I give up.

SInce you're so triggered to be right I'll respond 1 last time to your claim that immigration officials have no lawful authority to deny entrance, which is what you claim multiple times.  There's no pre-conceived notions on my part just the fact of what actually happens. Also I never said they can go outside of whats written in the full ACT in any of the sections, what I said was the Imm Officers has discretion on how they view and apply their duties. Go back and read the act again and you may see they have to make judgement calls on must every criteria as the wording is not concrete in its meanings. 

 

Section 12 item 7 alone requires judgement and discretion on the part of the Immigration Official:

 

7. Having behavior which would indicate possible danger to the public or likelihood of being a nuisance or constituting any violence to the peace or safety of the public or to the security of the public or to the security of the nation, or being under warrant of arrest by competent officials of foreign governments.

 

Then again outside of Section 12 in Section 16:

 

In the instance where for reason of national welfare or safeguarding the public peace, culture, morality, or welfare, or when the Minister considers it improper to allow any alien or any group of alien to enter into the Kingdom, the Minister shall have power to exclude said alien or group aliens from entering into the Kingdom. 

 

And for clarification, Immigration Official have the authority spelled out and delegated to them in the Act that they are the decision makers at point of entry and exit to the country.

 

Both of theses sections of criteria and others require the designated authorized Imm Official to exercise judgment calls based on what they see, whether you or anyone else feels they are right or wrong, good or bad. 

 

I never said I agree with these or that its ok any time they may be applied inappropriately but they have the lawful authority to have discretion, even when it appears bad or misguided. It may not be right in your eyes but its not your country not your rules and it's the way the game is played here. 

 

Have a good day

[BritTim]

28 minutes ago, Dan O said:

SInce you're so triggered to be right I'll respond 1 last time to your claim that immigration officials have no lawful authority to deny entrance, which is what you claim multiple times.  There's no pre-conceived notions on my part just the fact of what actually happens. Also I never said they can go outside of whats written in the full ACT in any of the sections, what I said was the Imm Officers has discretion on how they view and apply their duties. Go back and read the act again and you may see they have to make judgement calls on must every criteria as the wording is not concrete in its meanings. 

 

Section 12 item 7 alone requires judgement and discretion on the part of the Immigration Official:

 

7. Having behavior which would indicate possible danger to the public or likelihood of being a nuisance or constituting any violence to the peace or safety of the public or to the security of the public or to the security of the nation, or being under warrant of arrest by competent officials of foreign governments.

 

Then again outside of Section 12 in Section 16:

 

In the instance where for reason of national welfare or safeguarding the public peace, culture, morality, or welfare, or when the Minister considers it improper to allow any alien or any group of alien to enter into the Kingdom, the Minister shall have power to exclude said alien or group aliens from entering into the Kingdom. 

 

And for clarification, Immigration Official have the authority spelled out and delegated to them in the Act that they are the decision makers at point of entry and exit to the country.

 

Both of theses sections of criteria and others require the designated authorized Imm Official to exercise judgment calls based on what they see, whether you or anyone else feels they are right or wrong, good or bad. 

 

I never said I agree with these or that its ok any time they may be applied inappropriately but they have the lawful authority to have discretion, even when it appears bad or misguided. It may not be right in your eyes but its not your country not your rules and it's the way the game is played here. 

 

Have a good day

Progress, I think. You now accept that officials must use one or more of the reasons given in Section 12 when denying entry. Our point of disagreement now is whether this is what they are doing. I believe they are improperly adding reasons not specified in Section 12 to deny entry. You believe that Section 12 somehow allows them discretion to do anything at all.

 

We are not going to agree, and I was absolutely wrong to write this reply. Unfortunately, I sometimes find it hard to accept the reality of cognitive dissonance. ????

Edited July 21, 2022 by BritTim

[Dan O]

29 minutes ago, BritTim said:

Progress, I think. You now accept that officials must use one or more of the reasons given in Section 12 when denying entry. Our point of disagreement now is whether this is what they are doing. I believe they are improperly adding reasons not specified in Section 12 to deny entry. You believe that Section 12 somehow allows them discretion to do anything at all.

 

We are not going to agree, and I was absolutely wrong to write this reply. Unfortunately, I sometimes find it hard to accept the reality of cognitive dissonance. ????

you are truely a piece of work and triggered by my non agreement with you. I have not changed my thinking nor position so you can just drop that from your mind.

 

I never said they can do whatever they want to do, even though you claim I said that. I said they have the discretion to make judgement calls and the legal authority to do so. 

 

They have access to a large amount of info in their database and can easily see if someone appears to be abusing or mis-using entries and extensions and what visa type, if any, they use. 

 

you claimed repeatedly they have no legal authority and must follow the exact wording of the Act. If you read the sections the wording is vague enough to grant discretion on how and who to apply it to. I also never said it's not happening either.

 

 I simply gave you examples from the Act of how the Act wording gives them ability to make judgment calls since you continually claim they can not.  

 

End of story 

[The Hammer2021]

On 7/17/2022 at 7:27 AM, JoseThailand said:

Sometimes reporting helps. I complained to the Bangkok Bank head office about a branch employee who tried to make me buy an insurance to open an account. The next day they they called me back from the branch, apologized and offered to open an account without an insurance.

Why should they apologise? It's BB policy to sell insurance with a new account. Who did you call to complain? This sounds a very fishy  story to me.

[The Hammer2021]

I have no idea what the OP is talking about except it very slanderous.  People get thrown  out for being on overstay or are forbidden entry as they don't  meet legal requirements.  It's that simple.

[The Hammer2021]

On 7/17/2022 at 7:30 AM, Olmate said:

And you.declined! Why complain then! 

Of this really happened

[BritTim]

2 hours ago, Dan O said:

you are truely a piece of work and triggered by my non agreement with you. I have not changed my thinking nor position so you can just drop that from your mind.

 

I never said they can do whatever they want to do, even though you claim I said that. I said they have the discretion to make judgement calls and the legal authority to do so. 

 

They have access to a large amount of info in their database and can easily see if someone appears to be abusing or mis-using entries and extensions and what visa type, if any, they use. 

 

you claimed repeatedly they have no legal authority and must follow the exact wording of the Act. If you read the sections the wording is vague enough to grant discretion on how and who to apply it to. I also never said it's not happening either.

 

 I simply gave you examples from the Act of how the Act wording gives them ability to make judgment calls since you continually claim they can not.  

 

End of story 

I will grant you this. Whether a foreigner actually satisfies some of the reasons (under Section 12) to deny entry can be a matter of debate. When denied for such a reason, the foreigner ought to be allowed to appeal if he disagrees with the official's decision. I am trying to imagine what the stamp in the foreigner's passport would look like when "using discretion" to deny entry for a reason not listed in Section 12.

[Dan O]

31 minutes ago, BritTim said:

I will grant you this. Whether a foreigner actually satisfies some of the reasons (under Section 12) to deny entry can be a matter of debate. When denied for such a reason, the foreigner ought to be allowed to appeal if he disagrees with the official's decision. I am trying to imagine what the stamp in the foreigner's passport would look like when "using discretion" to deny entry for a reason not listed in Section 12.

Not sure why you are having so much trouble wrapping your head around the fact that Imm Official use their  discretion whenever denying entry and it seems to be such an illogical function for you. You appear to think that it means they just make up some random reason like oh I don't like his shirt color or Hey he's wearing a blue hat and it's Tuesday...... Do you even understand what "using their discretion" means? It appears you dont

 

I suggest that you start a new thread asking for real life examples from people actually denied entry. Be specific on not wanting rumors or annoctdotal stories. Don't forget to ask if they had an option to appeal and speak to a supervisor. 

[BritTim]

4 minutes ago, Dan O said:

Not sure why you are having so much trouble wrapping your head around the fact that Imm Official use their  discretion whenever denying entry and it seems to be such an illogical function for you. You appear to think that it means they just make up some random reason like oh I don't like his shirt color or Hey he's wearing a blue hat and it's Tuesday...... Do you even understand what "using their discretion" means? It appears you dont

 

I suggest that you start a new thread asking for real life examples from people actually denied entry. Be specific on not wanting rumors or annoctdotal stories. Don't forget to ask if they had an option to appeal and speak to a supervisor. 

An immigration official having such powers is very normal and, indeed, is the practice in most countries of the world. What I have trouble wrapping my head around is the fact that you do not understand that such powers comes from the laws of each country. Thailand has decided, unlike most countries, to provide immigration officials at entry points much less power than is standard. (There were good reasons for this, as it happens.) There is no natural law or religious teaching that gives officials powers that a country's legal framework does not provide them.

 

The Immigration Act specifies what should happen (see Section 22) when the competent official discovers that an alien who has entered the Kingdom is prohibited from entering the Kingdom under the provisions of Section 12, For some inexplicable reason, besides not mentioning the "discretion" provided to competent official, the Act is also silent on the procedure to be followed when denying entry other than under the provisions of Section 12. [except that, based on reported experiences, the official need not (as in the situation described in Section 22) provide a written notification explaining the reasons for his denial, and will use his discretion to refuse to provide the TM11 form needed for an appeal.]

 

If interested in what the TM11 form looks like, see https://aseannow.com/applications/core/interface/file/attachment.php?id=569010

[Dan O]

8 minutes ago, BritTim said:

An immigration official having such powers is very normal and, indeed, is the practice in most countries of the world. What I have trouble wrapping my head around is the fact that you do not understand that such powers comes from the laws of each country. Thailand has decided, unlike most countries, to provide immigration officials at entry points much less power than is standard. (There were good reasons for this, as it happens.) There is no natural law or religious teaching that gives officials powers that a country's legal framework does not provide them.

 

The Immigration Act specifies what should happen (see Section 22) when the competent official discovers that an alien who has entered the Kingdom is prohibited from entering the Kingdom under the provisions of Section 12, For some inexplicable reason, besides not mentioning the "discretion" provided to competent official, the Act is also silent on the procedure to be followed when denying entry other than under the provisions of Section 12. [except that, based on reported experiences, the official need not (as in the situation described in Section 22) provide a written notification explaining the reasons for his denial, and will use his discretion to refuse to provide the TM11 form needed for an appeal.]

 

If interested in what the TM11 form looks like, see https://aseannow.com/applications/core/interface/file/attachment.php?id=569010

I understand full well what the act says and how it is used. For some reason you can't seem to understand that fact and continue to imply I don't understand it and I'm wrong.  

 

There is no reason for you and I to discuss this any longer as no explanation seems to satisfy you. 

 

At this point I would ask you not to reply to me or write any more about this to me as its a worthless exercise as it's just going in circles. 

 

Write to the immigration division and ask or complain to them if you need any more clarity or information. 

[ubonjoe]

This topic has certainly run its course since it has now turned into a bickering session between 2 members.

This topic now