Denied entry.

[sallecc]

2 hours ago, paulikens said:

I'll tell you why i was drip feeding the info. because i wasn't sure id even get any response to my first post.  I didn't want to write out a long post and no-one even respond and also even if i had put most of the details i guarantee someone would want some other detail that i had forgotten.  On the passport point I still haven't got that back yet as i'm still in the detention room i fly out this evening.   And the final point which I keep having to repeat but has got lost in so many comments.  The only thing i EVER wanted to know was how long would or should it be before i attempt to come back to thailand?     Yes i believe it is unfair that the embassy grant you the visa but the immigration still can refuse you BUT my original post was only enquiring about how long before i should attempt to come back to Thailand.   everything else is irrelevant.    

Did they force you to pay for the return flight? Is it direct flight from Phuket to Penang, or transfer via KL? How is the detention accomodation at Phuket airport? I heard it's better than BKK... It sucks they kept you there so long, probably the rule is to use same airline and same return point.

[freedomnow]

36 minutes ago, wmlc said:

if so, call Siam Legal to help you understand. ????????????

Oh right, a segue into yours or your friend's visa offerings....

 

I see.

[wmlc]

19 minutes ago, freedomnow said:

Oh right, a segue into yours or your friend's visa offerings....

 

I see.

Lol you really are clueless if you think I’m even affiliated with Siam Legal. Sarcasm must be a new thing in your part of the world. ????????????

[wmlc]

28 minutes ago, sallecc said:

Did they force you to pay for the return flight? Is it direct flight from Phuket to Penang, or transfer via KL? How is the detention accomodation at Phuket airport? I heard it's better than BKK... It sucks they kept you there so long, probably the rule is to use same airline and same return point.

If the passenger can’t pay for their own flight the airline that flew the passenger to Thailand is on the hook to pay for your flight back to where they got you. 

[Paul Catton]

4 hours ago, BritTim said:

An interesting possibility. It is true that the Minister might have secretly instructed immigration at certain airports to deny people entering under certain conditions. I think that would be legal. I think some other countries (including the US) have employed such secret orders. I have never before seen suggestions that Thailand has done this ... but maybe. Still, I do not think this is the same as giving officials discretion. It seems the Minister does not have the power to do that.

I cannot comment upon this inclusion upon the "Legislation" being introduced except being a firewall beyond  imminent focus.

[Paul Catton]

1 hour ago, wmlc said:

It’s not true what you say. There are internal announcements and ministerial regulations that have caused these entry refusals. Implemented by the Ministry of interior together with immigration . It is done  off and on to discourage illegal activities. Most foreigners in legal hot water are normally on overstay, have an improper visa in relation to their true intention, or a dodgy ED or volunteer visa. So, in summary, after these announcements and regulations are issued, the officers act on them. 

Please provide details of the "Internal Announcement" and all relevance "Ministerial  Regulation" that you are aware of.  It will then provide adequate database inclusion for "Asean Now" 

Most foreigners in legal hot water are normally on overstay, have an improper visa in relation to their true intention, or a dodgy ED or volunteer visa.

These are multiple issues to this discussion regarding any semantics of "Denied Entry" I stand aside.

 

[FritsSikkink]

On 7/27/2023 at 3:05 PM, bignok said:

Never been asked

Me neither but never been refused too.

[wmlc]

1 hour ago, Paul Catton said:

Please provide details of the "Internal Announcement" and all relevance "Ministerial  Regulation" that you are aware of.  It will then provide adequate database inclusion for "Asean Now" 

Most foreigners in legal hot water are normally on overstay, have an improper visa in relation to their true intention, or a dodgy ED or volunteer visa.

These are multiple issues to this discussion regarding any semantics of "Denied Entry" I stand aside.

 

Oh my Buddha 

[BritTim]

6 hours ago, wmlc said:

What Brit Tim and others do not know about,  as Siam Legal won’t post them for Brit Tim to quote, there are internal memos  and Ministerial regulations  issued by immigration and the Ministry of Interior that give immigration officers full discretion on allowing people to enter Thailand or not. This will be based on the content of the internal memo or the approved and documented Ministerial regulation after it gets published in the government gazette.  The memo is not law and does not get published in the government gazette but Ministerial regulations do. Memos are usually issued to instruct the officers to be more strict on certain things due to a recent issue that has caused problems,  such as crimes being committed by the Chinese with dodgy volunteer and ED visas. Immigration was instructed to scrutinize almost everyone entering on those types of visas. 

What you write is quite true, with a few caveats. Most important, what can be done by fiat by the Minister alone, while quite broad, is still limited by the law. Any order he wishes to make that contradicts current provisions in the law, at a minimum, must be approved by the cabinet and published in the Gazette.

[BritTim]

6 hours ago, paulikens said:

They didn't even ask if i had any cash on me.   

They never do these days, unless they are pretty sure you do not have it. The last thing they want is for you to show them a lot of cash, and then tell you that you cannot enter sue to lack of money,

[Dan O]

12 hours ago, freedomnow said:

How does that work then with the clowns if METV is 6 months ?

That works like that as the various visa's and exempt entry have a specific amount of time assigned to them. METV grant you they time and quantity of entries as part of that visa. 

[BritTim]

4 hours ago, Paul Catton said:

It is an interesting point due to its inclusion within Legislation.

With enforcement under Section 16, Does any person know if there is a current "Edict" with listing of published individuals and/or groups by the Minister, or is this an authority transferred unilaterally to the "Competent Officer" screening entry.

I believe the Minister can identify individuals or groups to be denied entry. The law states that only the Minister has this power. The Minister cannot transfer his powers to anyone else without cabinet approval together with publishing an order in the Royal Gazette. This amounts to a change in the law.

[BritTim]

4 hours ago, wmlc said:

As you say my babble above, it’s referring to stays longer than 180 days in one calendar year. Not up to 6 months as you say but beyond that. Think again. Nice try but you can’t win the debate. The issue is the Thai government wants people who want to stay more than 6 months in any give. calendar year to get a proper long term visa. End of story. Maybe that it too difficult for you to understand???? if so, call Siam Legal to help you understand. ????????????

Just to nit-pick a bit, an METV allows you to stay for about eight months  However, you can validly claim that the METV was not originally created with that in mind. The hope was that it would be mainly used by those making multiple discrete trips to Thailand, not by long stay tourists.

 

That aside, the government has, at times, issued visas targeted directly at long stay tourists. For instance, during Covid, they created the special tourist visa to allow you to stay nine months straight in Thailand without leaving. Actually, even the Thailand Elite Easy Access visa is essentially a glorified tourist visa, in theory allowing you to stay up to 20 years.

[Dan O]

5 hours ago, wmlc said:

Then you would be a resident of Thailand for tax purposes as you would be living here for more than 180 days in one calendar year. Again then not a tourist but now a resident. Being a resident should mean getting a proper long term visa. Guess you just don’t know about the laws in Thailand do you. This is what the Thai government does not want. Long term tourists and digital nomads without the proper visa. If the people that you describe have all these investments, they would then qualify for the LTR visa right or an investment visa. Hence getting the proper visa to stay long time. Sorry but you are wrong in everything you said. The Thai immigration does not  want long term tourists without the proper visas. End of story. Anytime you want to debate about Thai law with me, you better educate yourself more than this before you comment. 
 

in summary, don’t use a tourist visa to stay long term. It’s not designed for that and it’s not sustainable like it used to be years ago when you could do unlimited visas, runs, border hops, combined with 30 extensions using agencies every step of the way.     

The 180 day tax issue now doesnt really exist its just an ongoing statement thats taken on a life of its own and that isnt really true. 

[wmlc]

27 minutes ago, Dan O said:

The 180 day tax issue now doesnt really exist its just an ongoing statement thats taken on a life of its own and that isnt really true. 

Ok so the revenue code in Thailand was written by someone with a mind of his own then? 

 

27 minutes ago, Dan O said:

The 180 day tax issue now doesnt really exist its just an ongoing statement thats taken on a life of its own and that isnt really true. 

You really are clueless aren’t you ? Under section 41 of the Revenue Code an individual Thai citizen or foreigner who lives in Thailand for one or more periods totaling at least 180 days in any tax (calendar) year is, for tax purposes, deemed a resident of Thailand and subject to tax on all assessable income derived from sources within the country and  .……..  continue to read on.  Go to read more on your own. God the guys on this site love to argue without any basis. How do you regulars who actually know what you are talking about get on here without losing your mind. It’s like you take all the trolls in the world, lock them up in a large stadium and then force them to sign up for ASEAN Now, then keep them  locked up until they troll on here for 1000 days before you let them out.????????????????

Edited July 28, 2023 by wmlc

[Paul Catton]

2 minutes ago, wmlc said:

Oh my Buddha 

Exactly.

Final response upon this thread,

Ducks in a row, take that shot while standing on firm ground.

Fortunately, my ducks are sorted, Opal has no immediate desire to return to a notable family from the Chiang Mai Province and my debate was between BritTim and I regarding legalities under Section 12.

 

I brought in Section 12 (appendix 10), However Section 12 (appendix 2) raises grounds for rejection to any who try to garner the System. 

 

Having 20,000 Baht on your person under Section 12 (appendix 9) does not override appendix 2.

 

The days of having an old Cavalier attitude have well since passed. 

Trying to live long-term in Thailand is not really functional unless you meet the ever escalating stringent criteria. 

 

At the end of the day, any person using a "temporary pass" to Thailand, being an SETV, Single Entry Tourist Visa, or any other entry such as  Visa Exempt, Visa on arrival etc, persons should determine for themselves are they a tourist, are they looking to be resident, or being nomadic, trying to get their long term stay sanctioned   

 

[Dan O]

52 minutes ago, wmlc said:

Ok so the revenue code in Thailand was written by someone with a mind of his own then? 

 

You really are clueless aren’t you ? Under section 41 of the Revenue Code an individual Thai citizen or foreigner who lives in Thailand for one or more periods totaling at least 180 days in any tax (calendar) year is, for tax purposes, deemed a resident of Thailand and subject to tax on all assessable income derived from sources within the country and  .……..  continue to read on.  Go to read more on your own. God the guys on this site love to argue without any basis. How do you regulars who actually know what you are talking about get on here without losing your mind. It’s like you take all the trolls in the world, lock them up in a large stadium and then force them to sign up for ASEAN Now, then keep them  locked up until they troll on here for 1000 days before you let them out.????????????????

Lets be a little clearer for you. Staying in Thailand for 180 days or more for the tax purposes you posted only applies if you have income deemed applicable while living in Thailand.  If you dont have income in this category  and stay in Thailand 180 days you are not taxed or a "taxable resident" just due to the fact that you live in the country. Slight difference there.

[metisdead]

Inflammatory posts, troll posts and the replies have been removed.

[freedomnow]

2 hours ago, Dan O said:

That works like that as the various visa's and exempt entry have a specific amount of time assigned to them. METV grant you they time and quantity of entries as part of that visa. 

Yes, a few days shy of 9 months = METV.

[paulikens]

58 minutes ago, sallecc said:

Did they force you to pay for the return flight? Is it direct flight from Phuket to Penang, or transfer via KL? How is the detention accomodation at Phuket airport? I heard it's better than BKK... It sucks they kept you there so long, probably the rule is to use same airline and same return point.

They told me I had to pay for it.   yes i had to use the same airline and back to Penang.    as for the detention room what can i say? it was a detention room, its not gonna be like the hilton. there was 6 of us in there as well. 2 on the bunk beds (Thankfully i was first in so took the bottom bunk) one on a sofa that was in there and the rest on chairs.  I've been in better places put it that way. lol

[paulikens]

35 minutes ago, wmlc said:

If the passenger can’t pay for their own flight the airline that flew the passenger to Thailand is on the hook to pay for your flight back to where they got you. 

Well i was told i had to pay for it. cuz i questioned that but they weren't budging.

[BritTim]

1 hour ago, paulikens said:

Well i was told i had to pay for it. cuz i questioned that but they weren't budging.

If you do not budge, they will eventually have to take you without advance payment. However, if you have the ability to pay, they will usually find a way to force you. Often, the officials at your arrival airport (Penang in this case) would side with the airline, and threaten to lock you up until you pay.

 

As an aside, you can sometimes use this payment issue to your advantage. If you wanted to go somewhere other than Penang, the airline is allowed to take you there, but must agree. You can tell them that you will willingly go to, say, Vientiane, paying without protest, but refuse to pay to be taken somewhere you do not wish to go. If the airline flies to your chosen destination, the airline representative will usually agree to this.

[0james0]

12 hours ago, wmlc said:

God the guys on this site love to argue without any basis

So true. 

[HighPriority]

1 hour ago, 0james0 said:

So true. 

I’m laughing because I didn’t realise how many lawyers we had in here… ????

I mean, it’s ok to say “I read the regulations as this…” and I can also understand someone else saying “I take them to mean that…”  but the categoric statements and claims of absolutes… ????????

[wmlc]

On 7/28/2023 at 8:56 PM, Dan O said:

Let’s be a little clearer for you. Staying in Thailand for 180 days or more for the tax purposes you posted only applies if you have income deemed applicable while living in Thailand.  If you dont have income in this category  and stay in Thailand 180 days you are not taxed or a "taxable resident" just due to the fact that you live in the country. Slight difference there.

We were discussing Thai investments, but this also applies to all  income you bring into the country from abroad as per section 41 of the revenue code. If you don’t know because you didn’t read the back discussion, then you should not post an arbitrary comment like this. You are not a lawyer either or you don’t work in a Thai law firm. Therefore, what you say is really not relevant to me anyways. Let me educate you:

 

Under section 41 of the Revenue Code an individual Thai citizen or foreigner who lives in Thailand for one or more periods totaling at least 180 days in any tax (calendar) year is, for tax purposes, deemed a resident of Thailand and subject to tax on all assessable income derived from sources within the country, whether paid within or outside Thailand, and on assessable income derived from foreign sources to the extent that it is brought into Thailand in a year in which income is received. A non-resident individual is subject to tax only on assessable income from Thai sources, regardless of payment location.

Edited July 29, 2023 by wmlc

[wmlc]

12 hours ago, HighPriority said:

I’m laughing because I didn’t realise how many lawyers we had in here… ????

I mean, it’s ok to say “I read the regulations as this…” and I can also understand someone else saying “I take them to mean that…”  but the categoric statements and claims of absolutes… ????????

Thank god my claims of absolutes are accurate or my law firm’s clients would all be fictional. 

[wmlc]

On 7/28/2023 at 7:35 PM, Dan O said:

The 180 day tax issue now doesnt really exist its just an ongoing statement thats taken on a life of its own and that isnt really true. 

So which is it, it’s not true or does it depend on the category of income to determine whether it applies or not?  Are you even able to get it right? It’s best to move on mate as you won’t win. 

Edited July 29, 2023 by wmlc

[Dan O]

7 hours ago, wmlc said:

So which is it, it’s not true or does it depend on the category of income to determine whether it applies or not?  Are you even able to get it right? It’s best to move on mate as you won’t win

I do have it right. Im not trying to "win" like you, just providing info.

 

You can move on if you don't like my answer.

 

Also you don't need to be so full of yourself and arrogant. Its not a good look and no one cares. This is an open forum for everyone.

[Dan O]

7 hours ago, wmlc said:

We were discussing Thai investments, but this also applies to all  income you bring into the country from abroad as per section 41 of the revenue code. If you don’t know because you didn’t read the back discussion, then you should not post an arbitrary comment like this. You are not a lawyer either or you don’t work in a Thai law firm. Therefore, what you say is really not relevant to me anyways. Let me educate you:

 

Under section 41 of the Revenue Code an individual Thai citizen or foreigner who lives in Thailand for one or more periods totaling at least 180 days in any tax (calendar) year is, for tax purposes, deemed a resident of Thailand and subject to tax on all assessable income derived from sources within the country, whether paid within or outside Thailand, and on assessable income derived from foreign sources to the extent that it is brought into Thailand in a year in which income is received. A non-resident individual is subject to tax only on assessable income from Thai sources, regardless of payment 

You are very arrogant so your going on ignore. 

[Red Phoenix]

On 7/28/2023 at 7:11 PM, BritTim said:

They never do these days, unless they are pretty sure you do not have it. The last thing they want is for you to show them a lot of cash, and then tell you that you cannot enter sue to lack of money,

That's an interesting point!  So when you risk being refused entry, it might be useful to show the Immigration Officer the bundle of cash you have with you.  When you detect hesitance in the Imm Officers behavior to stamp you in, showing the cash non-asked (pretending to do it because you want to show him that you meet the requirements) should then already take away one bogus reason for denying you entry.