Is this viable for 6 months stay in Thailand

[DrJack54]

15 minutes ago, JeffersLos said:

Unlimited 60 days entry, come and go every 60 days. No need for visas or extensions. This is the rule. 🙂

Your posts are seriously incorrect.

You are suggesting all form of tourist visas and even eg extensions from non O etc are obsolete.

Living in Thailand ongoing with continuous visa exempt entries will not work. 

Ridiculous posts from you

[JeffersLos]

6 hours ago, DrJack54 said:

Your posts are seriously incorrect.

You are suggesting

 

I'm not suggesting anything, I am posting facts.

 

VE's are 60 day long for 93 countries.

They are unlimited.

This in indefinite, as there is no defined end to this rule. 

 

Fact. Fact. Fact. 

 

VE means no visa, no extension. One shows up and gets 60 days. And they are unlimited in their number. 

 

Trolls can stop trolling these facts, please. Thank you. 

[oldcpu]

9 hours ago, JeffersLos said:

 

VE means no visa, no extension. One shows up and gets 60 days. And they are unlimited in their number. 

History in Thailand has shown that if one has multiple VE entries into Thailand,  then at the Thai border the IO can be concerned one is illegally working in Thailand while not being on a proper work Visa. They are known to have denied entry in such cases.

 

This too is fact. FACT.

 

It is very prudent to keep this fact in mind if attempting to conduct multiple entries into Thailand on VE. There will be suspicion by the IO.

 

If one is prepared for a denied entry, then fine.

 

But if one has multiple belongings and finances based in Thailand, prudence suggests caution. Being denied entry,  because one ignored historical fact, could cause massive inconvenience and unexpected expenses. 

 

Those who decide to push the VE approach to the maximum can do so, but beware of the risk. If the IO at the border suspects you may be working in Thailand  ( even if you are not ) they can deny you entry regardless of this change to the VE entry durations.

Edited Friday at 05:00 AM by oldcpu

[raz0r21]

Just be prepared with proof to back up that you are not working in Thailand, like income from abroad, bank statements, 20k baht cash or equivalent, hotel booking, flight out of thailand. The more you push VE entries, the more proof I would suggest to bring. Best to get a tourist visa if you stay for longer periods, they will start to ask for it after a while.

[GypsyT]

On 9/27/2024 at 6:58 AM, oldcpu said:

t is very prudent to keep this fact in mind if attempting to conduct multiple entries into Thailand on VE. There will be suspicion by the IO.

I take Thai baby from Isan with me to visit Vn every 60 days. I also stay at least a week in Vn, some times longer up to 30 day Thai limit. Mine is 45.

Works well for out & in using "Thai ONLY" line. Everybody's friendlier too. She handles both passports and feels empowered 😉

For Isan farmer this simple trip is priceless! First time out of the country!

I enjoy to see how happy they are and they show it other ways too....

[Rob Browder]

On 9/26/2024 at 7:51 PM, JeffersLos said:

 

As rare as hen's teeth, how many VE's arrive from the 93 countries everyday? Perhaps 2.5 million per month out of the 3 million that arrive here. 

 

Every IO decision is at the discretion of the IO, for every extension and every entry. Posters trying scare monger instead of listing the rules should be banned from the forum.

 

Unlimited 60 days entry, come and go every 60 days. No need for visas or extensions. This is the rule. 🙂

 

How many of those 3-M are here 6-mo per-year?  Why are you talking about scenarios with no relation to the OP?

 

Every entry may be legally-prevented by immigration if the entrant is in violation of one of the specified reasons permitted to deny entry. 

 

Immigration do not follow that law, because that would limit how many people they can force into their "pay for safe-entry" extortion racket (at both Bangkok airports), hence the problem.

[Rob Browder]

On 9/27/2024 at 11:58 AM, oldcpu said:

History in Thailand has shown that if one has multiple VE entries into Thailand,  then at the Thai border the IO can be concerned one is illegally working in Thailand while not being on a proper work Visa. They are known to have denied entry in such cases.

I agree with your conclusion, but ... Although working-illegally is a legal-reason to deny entry, the IOs almost always "rejection stamp" that the person entering did not have the money to afford their stay - even when their travel history makes that a ridiculous assumption, and even if they have the required 20K Baht in cash.  

 

Those rejected report the IO told them they come/stay "too much/long" in Thailand - which is not a legal reason to deny entry.  Upon their passport being returned to them, they find the "didn't have money" stamp was used to cover-up the crime committed.

[raz0r21]

49 minutes ago, Rob Browder said:

I agree with your conclusion, but ... Although working-illegally is a legal-reason to deny entry, the IOs almost always "rejection stamp" that the person entering did not have the money to afford their stay - even when their travel history makes that a ridiculous assumption, and even if they have the required 20K Baht in cash.  

 

Those rejected report the IO told them they come/stay "too much/long" in Thailand - which is not a legal reason to deny entry.  Upon their passport being returned to them, they find the "didn't have money" stamp was used to cover-up the crime committed.

 

I strongly suggest using a tourist visa (not a VE) when entering by air, especially if you have an extensive history of stays.

Edited yesterday at 12:41 PM by raz0r21

[JeffersLos]

3 hours ago, Rob Browder said:

Those rejected report the IO told them they come/stay "too much/long" in Thailand - which is not a legal reason to deny entry.  Upon their passport being returned to them, they find the "didn't have money" stamp was used to cover-up the crime committed.

 

😅😂🤣

 

nutter

[raz0r21]

2 hours ago, JeffersLos said:

 

😅😂🤣

 

nutter

 

He´s out of line, but he has a point. That is the only "valid" reason they can use to deny entry as far as I know. I could be wrong.

[Caldera]

13 hours ago, JeffersLos said:

 

nutter

 

Why? Falsifying evidence for an administrative procedure (in this case, denial of entry) as an official does constitute a crime: dereliction of duty. Look it up, it attracts up to three years in prison.

 

Of course you and I and the IOs in question know that in all likelihood they won't face any charges for this (i.e. get away with it), but calling the poster who pointed out that it is a crime a nutter is quite inappropriate.

 

Same with bent traffic cops who solicit bribes for imaginary infractions. They usually get away with it, but it's still a crime. 

[Chivas]

I'm on an intended 6 month trip this Autumn/Winter or just shy of it and going to rely on a VE entry extended by 30 days and then go Danang or Angeles City for a week and come back in on VE again (hopefully all ok) and extend again

 

Last exit of Thailand was March of this year so not expecting any issues

 

I will be getting an onward ticket again as because same as the last 2 visits I was on one way ticket (not that Etihad or Singapore remotely asked for it last 2 trips or the SETV for that matter)

Edited 13 hours ago by Chivas

[DrJack54]

6 minutes ago, Chivas said:

Last exit of Thailand was March of this year so not expecting any issues

Your plan is fine and good idea that the mini trip out of Thailand is for a week..

[Chivas]

1 minute ago, DrJack54 said:

Your plan is fine and good idea that the mini trip out of Thailand is for a week..

 

Yes I cant be bothered with these day trip border bounces and always fancied Danang anyway (been Angeles before) just thinking its closer and hotels are insanely cheap

[DrJack54]

4 minutes ago, Chivas said:

 

Yes I cant be bothered with these day trip border bounces and always fancied Danang anyway (been Angeles before) just thinking its closer and hotels are insanely cheap

Saigon is also a very good option.

Bui Vien st area.

[Rob Browder]

On 9/29/2024 at 7:40 PM, raz0r21 said:

 

I strongly suggest using a tourist visa (not a VE) when entering by air, especially if you have an extensive history of stays.

That's better than VE, but, if entering at Bangkok airports with an extensive stay-history (which I would never do), I would use their agent-service, to be assured of no issues:

 

[Rob Browder]

On 9/29/2024 at 10:50 PM, JeffersLos said:

 

😅😂🤣

 

nutter

There, with your blinders on, spitting smear-names at others.  People like you are why govt agencies are corrupt - why they are not held to account in our countries of origin - because you make excuses for them, and worship their "authority," instead of speaking the truth.  Every democide in history has people with such attitudes at the root of it - cheering them on - until it's their turn.