Reception at Suvarnabhumi immigration for Filipina

[Mac Mickmanus]

22 hours ago, bradiston said:

They still said they still didn’t believe she was going back

As She now seems to have applied for an Ed Visa , immigration were correct in their opinion 

[richard_smith237]

20 minutes ago, bradiston said:

She was stuck here during COVID. She went home for 3 months. She came back. Where's the problem? It's just absurd. Destined for tourists? Like there's only so many they're going to issue? As Joe has pointed out, ASEAN citizens are allowed a 30 day visa.

Philippine Citizens are allowed a 30 Day Visa Exempt entry in Thailand. 

They must have a return ticket. 

 

Anyone who spends a long time in Thailand on various visas, Education Visa, Tourist Visa’s, repeated Visa Exempt arrivals and yes returning recently after spending a long time on a Covid extension are going to raise eyebrows - especially if that person is young, of working age from a country who’s nationals traditionally earn less than in Thailand. 

 

Immigration suspected her of working here - they couldn’t prove that. So they profiled her, they questioned her, applied pressure, accused her of having a *fake ticket etc (as many are) - the ticket wasn’t fake so they let her in.

 

20 minutes ago, bradiston said:

The IOs just have nothing better to do.

You mean, the Immigration officers have nothing better to do than their jobs ???

 

Perhaps you should contact immigration each time you have a friend who is arriving and ask them not to do their jobs because you don’t like the way they profile and question some people... 

 

 

*On other threads there are comments about travellers entering Thailand Visa exempt on ‘fake onward tickets’...    bought through websites. So that this was suspect of your ‘friends’ GF is not by any means unfair, wrong or terrible judgment. 

[richard_smith237]

1 hour ago, bradiston said:

Yeah, ok, so I'll tone it down and, leaving this forum aside, say simply according to what I read every day.

 

But don't the IOs have bigger fish to fry? No. Those fish are not for frying, obviously. It would make sense if they really thought she was part of a criminal gang, or maybe even vulnerable to one scam or another. But I guess they go for the easy targets. Can't mess with the Mafia.

Are you changing your tune to...  Catch others, but not my friends GF ???

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BritTim]

23 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Immigration suspected her of working here - they couldn’t prove that. So they profiled her, they questioned her, applied pressure, accused her of having a *fake ticket etc (as many are) - the ticket wasn’t fake so they let her in.

 

They eventually let her in because she was a strong character who stood up for herself. Based on my experience of young Asian women, I suspect 80% or so would have buckled to the pressure and departed in tears.

[Caldera]

28 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

On other threads there are comments about travellers entering Thailand Visa exempt on ‘fake onward tickets’...    bought through websites. So that this was suspect of your ‘friends’ GF is not by any means unfair, wrong or terrible judgment.

That's a good point and others might want to take note. If and when challenged by immigration, having a fake ticket is probably worse than having no ticket, as it suggests a deliberate effort to deceive. 

[Mac Mickmanus]

6 minutes ago, BritTim said:

They eventually let her in because she was a strong character who stood up for herself. Based on my experience of young Asian women, I suspect 80% or so would have buckled to the pressure and departed in tears.

She also agreed to go back to the Philippines using her return ticket scheduled for a months time ,  and soon as She got out the airport, She applied for a long term yearly visa and thus wouldn't be using her return flight trip 

[Boomer6969]

1 hour ago, bradiston said:

The IOs just have nothing better to do.

So you reckon they shouldn't be doing their job?

[BritTim]

2 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

She also agreed to go back to the Philippines using her return ticket scheduled for a months time ,  and soon as She got out the airport, She applied for a long term yearly visa and thus wouldn't be using her return flight trip 

She may or may not have intended to use her return at the point Immigration let her in. Following advice from local immigration, she decided to go ahead with a Non Ed visa. It may or may not have been a perfectly reasonable change of mind. Regardless, I do not see that she is committing any immigration offence.

[richard_smith237]

12 minutes ago, BritTim said:

37 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Immigration suspected her of working here - they couldn’t prove that. So they profiled her, they questioned her, applied pressure, accused her of having a *fake ticket etc (as many are) - the ticket wasn’t fake so they let her in.

Expand  

They eventually let her in because she was a strong character who stood up for herself. Based on my experience of young Asian women, I suspect 80% or so would have buckled to the pressure and departed in tears.

I agree...  She was permitted entry because she held firm and confirmed that her return ticket was valid. 

Immigration made her confirm that she will depart on said ticket - Why ?.... because both immigration and the girl know that this was just a ’throw-away’ ticket and that she intended to stay here longer with more covid extensions or whatever extensions she can obtain. 

 

There is no judgement on that - the immigration is a game to be played and lots of people find creative ways to stay here longer. I don't blame them, Thailand is a nice place to be.

It's a far nicer place for a young lady with a sponsor to be in than back in the Philippines with no money and two children to feed. 

 

So.. good on her, she’s playing the game and succeeded....  But we shouldn’t get angry at Immigration for also playing by their rules...  Their job is to profile such people. 

 

IF we must find flaws in the system, find flaws in the laws themselves - why not just let people in for 1 year at a time ???

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

4 minutes ago, BritTim said:

9 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

She also agreed to go back to the Philippines using her return ticket scheduled for a months time ,  and soon as She got out the airport, She applied for a long term yearly visa and thus wouldn't be using her return flight trip 

She may or may not have intended to use her return at the point Immigration let her in. Following advice from local immigration, she decided to go ahead with a Non Ed visa. It may or may not have been a perfectly reasonable change of mind. Regardless, I do not see that she is committing any immigration offence.

From the unfolding of the story is very clear that there was no intention of using the return ticket in departing in 30 days - it was just insurance, which worked - well played. 

 

This lady was profiled accurately by Immigration (and posters on this thread drew the same conclusions) - she had her ducks in a row and stuck to her story. 

 

 

[Jack1988]

It's good that now immigration start to quick out people that do not have a long term visa. Too much advantage from this covid extensions 

[BritTim]

3 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

IF we must find flaws in the system, find flaws in the laws themselves - why not just let people in for 1 year at a time ???

Clear cut rules that allowed people to know where they stand before travel would be very helpful. With visa exemption, this is difficult to achieve. Certainly, with visa exemption, it is up to Immigration to determine if the person satisfy the conditions for the exemption. Questioning is perfectly appropriate. What I find unreasonable (and I might be unfair to immigration as we only have the lady's account) is trying to pressure the lady into departing before ascertaining the facts.

 

What might eventually happen is a system of visa exemption that is closer to that of many other countries, where use is more restricted by law than at present, but much less scrutiny necessary where visa exemptions are used. The trouble with that is it would affect some tourists. Perhaps, multiple entry tourist visas should be easier to get alongside more limited visa exemptions.

[BritTim]

4 minutes ago, Jack1988 said:

It's good that now immigration start to quick out people that do not have a long term visa. Too much advantage from this covid extensions 

Indeed, Covid extensions are in a sense a win-win for Thailand and for those taking advantage of the deliberate policy of making it easy to stay. However, it gives xenophobes and racists a feeling of grievance. How dare people stay just because it is good for both them and Thailand.

[BritTim]

10 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

From the unfolding of the story is very clear that there was no intention of using the return ticket in departing in 30 days - it was just insurance, which worked - well played. 

 

This lady was profiled accurately by Immigration (and posters on this thread drew the same conclusions) - she had her ducks in a row and stuck to her story. 

I am actually curious. Do you think the lady broke any immigration rules? If not, under what circumstances should people be punished because some officials do not like the way the people leverage the system to their advantage?

 

My own view is that denying visa exemption in this case, if done in an appropriate way, would have been defensible. However, the lady followed the rules, and her decision, following advice from local immigration, of proceeding with the original plan is a correct use of the system as it exists.

[Mac Mickmanus]

6 minutes ago, BritTim said:

Indeed, Covid extensions are in a sense a win-win for Thailand and for those taking advantage of the deliberate policy of making it easy to stay. However, it gives xenophobes and racists a feeling of grievance. How dare people stay just because it is good for both them and Thailand.

Thailand has stated quite clearly over and over again, it doesn't want foreigners staying in Thailand long term without the correct long term visas .

   Thailand doesn't want to be a Country where people just move there and live in Thailand permeantely without a necessary long term visa .

   The woman in question is quite possibly abusing the Ed Visa and shes using that to stay long term .

   You do mention "racists" , seems like some people expect preferential treatment because they are Felangs .

   "How dare you not wave her in without question, She's got a rich felang boyfriend"

[Mac Mickmanus]

8 minutes ago, BritTim said:

I am actually curious. Do you think the lady broke any immigration rules? If not, under what circumstances should people be punished because some officials do not like the way the people leverage the system to their advantage?

 

My own view is that denying visa exemption in this case, if done in an appropriate way, would have been defensible. However, the lady followed the rules, and her decision, following advice from local immigration, of proceeding with the original plan is a correct use of the system as it exists.

Is it against the rules to lie to Immigration officers and to give a false reason why you want to enter Thailand and also give a false date of when you intend to leave ?

[richard_smith237]

25 minutes ago, BritTim said:

Clear cut rules that allowed people to know where they stand before travel would be very helpful.

Agree...  Nothing is quite clear cut in Thailand. They had rules with no back to back exemptions, no more than 3 visa exempts in 180 days, no more than 3 tourist visas in 180 days and so forth.

 

A lot of people were caught out...  

 

25 minutes ago, BritTim said:

With visa exemption, this is difficult to achieve. Certainly, with visa exemption, it is up to Immigration to determine if the person satisfy the conditions for the exemption.

This happens in the UK... ‘on the balance of probabilities’....  I know this is not the UK, but on the balance of probabilities this lady was not going to travel back at the end of her 30 day extension, but that doesn’t mean she was breaking any immigration law. Though is ‘playing the system’ but the system is set up in such a way that it can be easily played. 

 

 

25 minutes ago, BritTim said:

Questioning is perfectly appropriate. What I find unreasonable (and I might be unfair to immigration as we only have the lady's account) is trying to pressure the lady into departing before ascertaining the facts.

Thats part of Immigration questioning - they try to make the subject feel pressured so they crack and own up to whatever it is they are up to.  They clearly believed they were correct about the ‘fake ticket’ and pushed that avenue of questioning until proven wrong. 

 

25 minutes ago, BritTim said:

What might eventually happen is a system of visa exemption that is closer to that of many other countries, where use is more restricted by law than at present, but much less scrutiny necessary where visa exemptions are used. The trouble with that is it would affect some tourists. Perhaps, multiple entry tourist visas should be easier to get alongside more limited visa exemptions.

In these cases it would be simpler to allow freedom of movement of Asean nationals, but the huge economic disparity does not permit this freedom of movement that would see excess numbers of foreign workers in Thailand displacing the Thai jobs - preventing this is one of the primary rolls of immigration (protecting the Thai workforce). 

 

 

Where a poor female has a sponsor the waters become muddied...  It can be proven she’s not here for work, then what visa ? perpetual Tourist ?...  perhaps this is where a long term visa could come into play for someone who plans on being in Thailand for a number of years without working, but the options are limited...   The long term visa is the Elite Visa of course, but I very much doubt any sponsor is keen to make that sort of financial commitment in similar circumstances. 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 30, 2022 by richard_smith237

[richard_smith237]

15 minutes ago, BritTim said:

I am actually curious. Do you think the lady broke any immigration rules? If not, under what circumstances should people be punished because some officials do not like the way the people leverage the system to their advantage?

 

My own view is that denying visa exemption in this case, if done in an appropriate way, would have been defensible. However, the lady followed the rules, and her decision, following advice from local immigration, of proceeding with the original plan is a correct use of the system as it exists.

No... She did not brake any Immigration rules which is why they let her in. 

 

But, she was profiled and thats why the questioned her to check she wasn’t breaking any rules. 

 

She wasn’t punished, she was questioned, perhaps too firmly for the liking of some people, but that is a technique to apply pressure.

 

The Visa was not denied - she was permitted entry and is now continuing to play the game as she (and her sponsor) had planned it through out. Well Played I’d say. 

 

The only criticism of all of this that I have is the butt-hurtness of the Op in his belief that this lady should never have been questioned or was not treated nicely. 

 

The Op seems to think immigration are a welcoming committee and does not appear to know what the job of an immigration officer is.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 30, 2022 by richard_smith237

[bradiston]

1 hour ago, Lemsta69 said:

you really are clueless aren't you? 

Explain

[bradiston]

1 hour ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

As She now seems to have applied for an Ed Visa , immigration were correct in their opinion 

So what? She still hasn't done anything illegal. She's hardly likely to come in and say it's ok I'm going for an ed visa, is it? And I know of at least one school that has extremely close ties with immigration, so they'd be looking forward to their Christmas bonus no doubt. Why get in the way?

[richard_smith237]

9 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

 Thailand doesn't want to be a Country where people just move there and live in Thailand permeantely without a necessary long term visa .

   The woman in question is quite possibly abusing the Ed Visa and shes using that to stay long term .

 

Thailand sets up the system in such a way and allows the system to played....   people play it, fair enough. Many people do, they switch visas, border hop, plan extensions... its just the way Thailand makes some people ‘dance’ through their system. 

 

There’s nothing wrong with that...   This lady most certainly is abusing the ‘Ed Visa’ and Thailand also knows that. Immigration officers will mostly likely be taking their cut and also ‘gaming the system’.

 

 

But...  When questioned, caught or refused entry etc... its all part of the same game. 

To avoid this, meet the specific requirements. 

 

 

In this case: IF the a person under 50 wants to stay long term here without working, then its either get married to a Thai or get a Thai Elite Visa. 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

1 minute ago, bradiston said:

So what? She still hasn't done anything illegal. She's hardly likely to come in and say it's ok I'm going for an ed visa, is it? And I know of at least one school that has extremely close ties with immigration, so they'd be looking forward to their Christmas bonus no doubt. Why get in the way?

Which is fine..  But don’t get upset and hurt when questioned... that too is part of the game. 

 

Additionally, the division of Immigration at the airport is no the same division that gives out Ed Visas - their job rolls are different. 

 

[richard_smith237]

3 minutes ago, bradiston said:

So what? She still hasn't done anything illegal. She's hardly likely to come in and say it's ok I'm going for an ed visa, is it? And I know of at least one school that has extremely close ties with immigration, so they'd be looking forward to their Christmas bonus no doubt. Why get in the way?

I'd also like to ask you... 

 

Instead of a young Filipino lady, what if this were a 32 year old Nigerian male, with no offer of work, no business visa with a long history of being here on Visa Exempts, Ed Visas, Covid extensions ???

 

Should he be profiled and questioned ???....     Why is it wrong to profile and question either of them? and when going through the questioning and profiling process its not really good technique to make them feel welcome and at ease - the officer wants them on edge so they make a mistake. 

 

 

 

[bradiston]

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

Philippine Citizens are allowed a 30 Day Visa Exempt entry in Thailand. 

They must have a return ticket. 

 

Anyone who spends a long time in Thailand on various visas, Education Visa, Tourist Visa’s, repeated Visa Exempt arrivals and yes returning recently after spending a long time on a Covid extension are going to raise eyebrows - especially if that person is young, of working age from a country who’s nationals traditionally earn less than in Thailand. 

 

Immigration suspected her of working here - they couldn’t prove that. So they profiled her, they questioned her, applied pressure, accused her of having a *fake ticket etc (as many are) - the ticket wasn’t fake so they let her in.

 

You mean, the Immigration officers have nothing better to do than their jobs ???

 

Perhaps you should contact immigration each time you have a friend who is arriving and ask them not to do their jobs because you don’t like the way they profile and question some people... 

 

 

*On other threads there are comments about travellers entering Thailand Visa exempt on ‘fake onward tickets’...    bought through websites. So that this was suspect of your ‘friends’ GF is not by any means unfair, wrong or terrible judgment. 

I don't know why you insist on putting friend in quotes.

 

Her ticket wasn't fake end of.

 

Many are missing the point. We don't know what they suspected. They told her simply that she'd stayed too long in Thailand, which is not strictly true. She stages as she was permitted. They also accused her of coming here for enjoyment. Er, that's us lot barred straight away then. You're a member of a privileged class of tourist. White, educated, married, presumably well off, confident, entitled. She isn't. It's that simple. Like my mate said. The Thais tend to treat their ASEAN neighbours with utter contempt. I'm not going to argue about it. I've seen it time and time again. And this is just another example.

[Mac Mickmanus]

4 minutes ago, bradiston said:

I don't know why you insist on putting friend in quotes.

 

Her ticket wasn't fake end of.

 

Many are missing the point. We don't know what they suspected. They told her simply that she'd stayed too long in Thailand, which is not strictly true. She stages as she was permitted. They also accused her of coming here for enjoyment. Er, that's us lot barred straight away then. You're a member of a privileged class of tourist. White, educated, married, presumably well off, confident, entitled. She isn't. It's that simple. Like my mate said. The Thais tend to treat their ASEAN neighbours with utter contempt. I'm not going to argue about it. I've seen it time and time again. And this is just another example.

White people also get question at Immigration and refused entry .

"us lot" , many of you lot have long term visas and thus wouldn't face the same scrutiny as a person without a long term visa .  

    Its the job of Immigration to make sure people entering Thailand have the correct visa , its not treating people with "contempt" at all .

   Did She enter Thailand for Tourism or did She intend to stay long term and live in Thailand ?

[bradiston]

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

Are you changing your tune to...  Catch others, but not my friends GF ???

 

 

 

 

 

 

Catch? She's done nothing wrong for heaven's sake. You think they were trying to catch her? What for? Entering illegally? On what grounds. Sure, they could have "used their discretion" and prevented her from entering at all, I guess. Just as they could with you. Or me. No reason. No obligation to provide one.

 

[richard_smith237]

7 minutes ago, bradiston said:

Catch? She's done nothing wrong for heaven's sake. You think they were trying to catch her? What for? Entering illegally? On what grounds. Sure, they could have "used their discretion" and prevented her from entering at all, I guess. Just as they could with you. Or me. No reason. No obligation to provide one.

 

Yes...  thats exactly what they were trying to do...  Thats exactly what their [Immigration] job is. 

 

They profiled a young single lady from a poorer country who had repeat visits.

 

This lady wasn’t a two-week tourist with a hotel booking on Samui who last came 5 years ago. 

 

 

You really seem to be struggling with the concept of what an Immigration officer actually does.

 

Edited August 30, 2022 by richard_smith237

[bradiston]

1 hour ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

She also agreed to go back to the Philippines using her return ticket scheduled for a months time ,  and soon as She got out the airport, She applied for a long term yearly visa and thus wouldn't be using her return flight trip 

There's nothing in the rule book that says you can't upgrade or apply for a different visa once you're here. How many here did exactly the same? Classic finger pointing. Witch!

[bradiston]

2 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Yes...  thats exactly what they were trying to do...  Thats exactly what their [Immigration] job is. 

 

They profiled a young single lady from a poorer country who had repeat visits.

 

This lady wasn’t a two-week tourist with a hotel booking on Samui who last came 5 years ago. 

 

 

You really seem to be struggling with the concept of what an Immigration officer actually does.

 

She has a wealthy boyfriend here. They've lived together for over 5 years. Are you struggling with that, because it doesn't fit your profile of her?

[Mac Mickmanus]

Just now, bradiston said:

There's nothing in the rule book that says you can't upgrade or apply for a different visa once you're here. How many here did exactly the same? Classic finger pointing. Witch!

So why didn't She tell that to the Immigration officers when questioned ?

   Why didnt She say that she would get a Ed Visa once in Thailand ?