Climate Activists Rally at UN Bangkok Against Corporate Greenwashing

[Liquorice]

5 hours ago, Rob Browder said:

There is no "been here too much" legal-reason for denial. 

Immigration have published guidelines which include refusal of entry for repeat VE entries.
If they consider the purpose of your visit is not solely for tourism purposes, they can refuse entry.

[Yagoda]

On 10/13/2024 at 9:47 AM, NanLaew said:

Correct. The basic biodata of name and date of birth will reveal one's entire immigration record and previous passports.

However.

 

I came in on a Temporary US Passport earlier this year, and they wanted to also see my Invalid (hole punched) passport which I conveniently brought. They looked at my prior visas and extensions. 1 minute. Have a good time.

[raz0r21]

lets summarize this then:

 

• There should be no problem entering visa exempt for OP after being out of Thailand for 4 months.
• Having a Tourist Visa would improve odds considerably.
• A new passport will probably not have any effect (but it could, since the IO would not have to scroll through several pages of stamps and start to get concerned).
• To guarantee entry, there are several services available (for a price).

• With any questions on arrival it's a good idea to have clear itinerary, accommodation, 20k baht cash etc.

• Airline at departure may/will require proof of onward flight.

• If denied entry, there is a chance that you could be sent to a neighboring country (if you are guaranteed entry in said country). In other cases, you will be sent home to your home country at your own expense.

[DrJack54]

4 minutes ago, raz0r21 said:

lets summarize this then:

Pretty good summary. Not so much 

your last point. The norm would be flown back to where you departed or passport country. 

[Liquorice]

44 minutes ago, raz0r21 said:

Airline at departure may/will require proof of onward flight.

I'd just add that for that onward flight to be of any use if entry we're denied, ensure that flight departs from the same airport you land at.

[Bvor]

2 hours ago, Liquorice said:

Immigration have published guidelines which include refusal of entry for repeat VE entries.

Guidelines following MFA 60 day visa exempt implementation?.............please provide link. 

[Liquorice]

2 hours ago, Bvor said:

Guidelines following MFA 60 day visa exempt implementation?.............please provide link. 

Immigration guidelines for VE entries.
The fact it's now 60 day entries and not 30 days doesn't change the guidelines.
It's a PDF file, which can't be posted.

 

MFA are not responsible for Immigration entries and internal affairs.

Edited yesterday at 06:06 AM by Liquorice

[transam]

6 hours ago, DrJack54 said:

As I pointed out in my first reply you should not have an issue entering visa exempt given you have been out of Thailand for few months.

Then what for next semi extended stay after that? 

Thailand provides options (too many in my book) .....you can obtain a METV that provides a stay up to 9 months. Granted need to bounce every 60/90 days..

Sweet deal. 

Why is it "Too many in your book"...?  🤔

[Bvor]

27 minutes ago, Liquorice said:

It's a PDF file, which can't be posted.

Yes I acknowledge  the immigration,MFA, foreign embassy disconnect............... where can I find this PDF file?

I am trying to prepare myself for possible IO interrogation re "not a tourist too many visits"  I do have many years of successful TR's and VE's.  Going forward I want to holiday 6 x 30 days (minus 1 day  = 179 days) per calender year. the rest of the time I spend in Oz where I am an old age pensioner with house, car, family - none of which I have in Thailand cos I not want to live/work in LOS. Non O retirement is an overkill for me and  tying up 800,000 in a Thai bank I lose 44,000 baht Oz bank interest. As the title would seem to suggest the  Multi Entry Tourist Visa appears the" logical " visa in my circumstances ie 6 holiday visits per year - but there are reports of IO problems re "not a tourist too many visits". It would appear that I am at the mercy of IO lucky dip as to whether or not they override approved embassy evisa.

Any thoughts re my dilemma. 

 

[DrJack54]

2 hours ago, Bvor said:

As the title would seem to suggest the  Multi Entry Tourist Visa appears the" logical " visa in my circumstances ie 6 holiday visits per year - but there are reports of IO problems re "not a tourist too many visits". It would appear that I am at the mercy of IO lucky dip as to whether or not they override approved embassy evisa.

Any thoughts re my dilemma. 

Indeed the METV would be good fit for you. You could achieve the 6 months and would have zero issues.

Especially as you want to limit time per year in Thailand to under 6 months. 

Where you are located in Thailand comes into play sightly as you do require exits from Thailand every 2 months or 3 with an extension. 

[Rob Browder]

8 hours ago, Liquorice said:

Immigration have published guidelines which include refusal of entry for repeat VE entries.
If they consider the purpose of your visit is not solely for tourism purposes, they can refuse entry.

I haven't seen a passport with "not entering for tourist purposes" stamped in it as the reason for denial of entry.  They have also done this routine to those with Tourist-Visas.  Also, "tourist" is not defined.  If they set some solid criteria for "tourist," then fine - so everyone can plan accordingly - X time in Y months, or whatever. 

Instead, there is no consistency, which creates fear, which just "coincidentally" markets agent-services which benefit them - and they ONLY do this where the agent-services are needed to bypass it.

[Rob Browder]

6 hours ago, raz0r21 said:

There should be no problem entering visa exempt for OP after being out of Thailand for 4 months.

Agree - except this one - if one stayed for long periods, prior.  If, for example, one was here throughout Covid on covid-extensions, they seem to really hate that.  Why?  There were few jobs available then - no "illegal tour guide" opportunities and such - so it's not that they think they were "working illegally."

But, for a year+ the IOs had to live on their salary-income only - no doubt resulting in the loss of fancy cars, angry mia nois, etc.  Hence, great resentment that those farangs "Got Away with living in Thailand ALL that time!" 

[Liquorice]

2 hours ago, Bvor said:

Going forward I want to holiday 6 x 30 days (minus 1 day  = 179 days) per calender year. the rest of the time I spend in Oz where I am an old age pensioner with house, car, family - none of which I have in Thailand cos I not want to live/work in LOS. Non O retirement is an overkill for me and  tying up 800,000 in a Thai bank I lose 44,000 baht Oz bank interest.

Am I understanding this correctly.

You're concerned about losing interest, but opting for 6 visits and associated return flight costs?

 

The METV is only valid for 6 months to enter Thailand, for your 6 x 30 day visits, you'd need to apply twice.
VE entry now grants a stay of 60 days. Have you considered 3 x 60 day VE entries as an alternative.

 

Copy and paste of Immigration Guideline document for VE entries;

 

Urgent Addendum

For official use Police Tel. 0 2286 0814

No. 0029.171/2076 Date: 24 June 2014 Subject: Guideline for inspection of citizen from certain countries that are not required to obtain a visa when entering the Kingdom of Thailand

 

To keep permission of entering in compliance with immigration law and provision concerned, it is deemed expedient to impose additional procedures of inspecting and permitting ordinary passport holders from certain countries who are not required to obtain a visa when entering Thailand for tourism purposes,

1. Information checking

1.1 Purpose of entering the Kingdom The alien must enter the Kingdom with the sole purpose of tourism, and not for work.

1.2 Record of entry and stay within the Kingdom 1.2.1 A number of entry into the Kingdom

1.2.2 The alien must not enter the Kingdom by exploiting 30­day visa exemptions undertaking method “in­out” or called by foreigners as “Visa run”. Aliens use the advantage of Tourist Visa Exemption by leaving Thailand and returning immediately for the purpose of extending their stay, which is considered from the tourism point of view to be longer than necessary and not in line with the purpose permitted while entering country.

2. Reason to believe that entry into Kingdom is not for the purpose of tourism

2.1 Alien will be interviewed and requested to show evidence of the purpose of tourism such as tickets, pocket money, booking slip, traveling plan.

2.2 The criterion as in 2.1 if deemed necessary to record as an evidence, the alien may be required to fill out the form as attached in the annex hereto.

3. Reason to reject or permit entry to Thailand 3.1 Upon complete evidence of entering the Kingdom for tourism purpose and not for working purpose, alien shall be granted for permission to stay for 15, 30 or 90 days as set out in the bilateral agreements.

3.2 Without valid reason compiled to lack of evidence required by the immigration officer, the alien shall be refused to enter the Kingdom, pursuant to immigration law provision.

[Bvor]

17 minutes ago, Liquorice said:

Am I understanding this correctly.

You're concerned about losing interest, but opting for 6 visits and associated return flight costs?

 

The METV is only valid for 6 months to enter Thailand, for your 6 x 30 day visits, you'd need to apply twice.
VE entry now grants a stay of 60 days. Have you considered 3 x 60 day VE entries as an alternative.

 

Losing bank interest was not my only focus (was just saying) when not wanting to go the non O journey.

As I have said I want to do approx 30 day swings which suits ME  considering issues of holidays, cost, health and home in oz

Jetstar fares ok with me as is cost of two evisa METV's per year which should be hassle free entry compared to 6 VE's @30 day ea or 3 VE's @ 60 days ea.

For me peace of mind outweighs the extra cost but of course each to their own.

Thx for the VE guidelines.  

[Bday Prang]

On 10/13/2024 at 5:14 PM, Rob Browder said:

It is 100% legal to get a new passport

In the UK it is perfectly legal to apply for a new passport at anytime, No need to wait until its full or approaching its expiry date. 

Simply not liking the photo is a good enough reason.  Not quite sure how immigration  would respond to a reply like that though 

[Bday Prang]

 

1 hour ago, Liquorice said:

Without valid reason compiled to lack of evidence required by the immigration officer

 How much do  they pay for the translation services,? too much.  in my opinion, This particular effort isn't too bad to be honest, but some I have seen are at best , liable to be misunderstood, and at worst virtually incomprehensible.  Who are these legal translations intended for ?  

              They all seem to follow a common style, it seems to me that somebody, presumably  quite senior once  got their hands on a thesaurus and spent some time looking up elaborate synonyms for some common words. They then took it upon themselves to instruct their subordinates (incorrectly) as to how these words should be used in translations,  to emphasise the legal gravitas of the document, and to help them look a little bit cleverer than they actually are.  

               Nobody questions the boss here, so the lackys dutifully obeyed, and due to them operating beyond their intellect nothing looks out of the ordinary to them so it just continues. 

               Would it really cause such a loss of face to have these things proof read by a native English speaker?  I mean if one is going to do something why not do it properly for gods sake ? 

[Dan O]

On 10/13/2024 at 9:02 PM, Middle Aged Grouch said:

Far to much power given at the sole discretion of the immigration officer in his glass cage at the airport. Those people are free do refuse entry even for people with a valid visa on any absurd excuse. This amongst other absurd immigration hassles or forms,  need urgent reform and change if Thailand wants to get back somewhat of it's past popularity with foreigners (and our money).

It's called doing their job just like in every other country in the world. They are there to use their discretion and assess the person in front if them for risk. I have to laugh at people that make the claims you made or the ever popular "rogue" officer or "irrational female officer". The problem generally lies with the traveller's and their history, not the imm officer. 

[Dan O]

19 hours ago, Rob Browder said:

I haven't seen a passport with "not entering for tourist purposes" stamped in it as the reason for denial of entry.  They have also done this routine to those with Tourist-Visas.  Also, "tourist" is not defined.  If they set some solid criteria for "tourist," then fine - so everyone can plan accordingly - X time in Y months, or whatever. 

Instead, there is no consistency, which creates fear, which just "coincidentally" markets agent-services which benefit them - and they ONLY do this where the agent-services are needed to bypass it.

Only 2 groups of people that seem to worry.  First group are the people playing the system with excessive border runs and trying to live in country without a proper visa. They don't mind playing the system until they get caught and want to cry foul.

 

Second group are the newbies that read the complaints of the first group on line and then aren't sure about their trip.

 

There's no need to define tourism as it isn't rocket science.  The time allowed is clearly stated in the visa you travel on or in the regs for visa exempt entry or visa on arrival. 

[NanLaew]

20 hours ago, Rob Browder said:

Agree - except this one - if one stayed for long periods, prior.  If, for example, one was here throughout Covid on covid-extensions, they seem to really hate that.  Why?  There were few jobs available then - no "illegal tour guide" opportunities and such - so it's not that they think they were "working illegally."

But, for a year+ the IOs had to live on their salary-income only - no doubt resulting in the loss of fancy cars, angry mia nois, etc.  Hence, great resentment that those farangs "Got Away with living in Thailand ALL that time!" 

 

A fair few foreigners were properly milking the Covid extensions. Immigration should have stopped issuing them when it was obvious that most countries had reopened their borders, with or without quarantine on arrival, while Qatar were flying throughout the 'lock down'.

[bigt3116]

On 10/15/2024 at 7:41 AM, Liquorice said:

Immigration have published guidelines which include refusal of entry for repeat VE entries.
If they consider the purpose of your visit is not solely for tourism purposes, they can refuse entry.

 

Under Section 12 ?

 

Section 12 : Aliens which fall into any of the following categories are excluded from entering into the Kingdom :
1. Having no genuine and valid passport or document used in lieu of passport ; or having a genuine and valid passport or document used in lieu of a passport without Visaing by the Royal Thai Embassies or Consulates in Foreign countries ; or from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs , excepting if a visa is not required for certain types of aliens in special instances.
Visaing and visa exemption will be under the learn and conditions as provided in the Ministerial Regulations.
2. Having no appropriate means of living following entrance into the Kingdom.
3. Having entered into the Kingdom to take occupation as a laborer or to take employment by using physical without skills training or to work in violation of the Ministerial Regulations.
4. Being mentally unstable or having any of the disease as prescribed in the Ministerial Regulations.
5. Having not yet been vaccinated against smalllpox or inoculated or undergone any other medical treatment for protection against disease and having refused to have such vaccinations administered by the Immigration Doctor.
6. Having been imprisoned by the judgement of the Thai Court ; or by a lawful injunction ; or by the judgement of the Court of foreign country , except when the penalty is foe petty offense or negligence or is provided for as an exception in the Ministerial Regulations.
7. Having behavior which would indicated 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.
8. Reason to believe that entrance into the Kingdom was for the purpose of being involved in prostitution , the trading of woman of children , drug smuggling , or other types of smuggling which are contrary to the public morality.
9. Having no money or bond as prescribed by the Minister under him
10. Being a person prohibited by the Minister under Section 16.
11. Being deported by either the Government of Thailand that of or other foreign countries ; or the right of stay in the Kingdom or in foreign countries having been revoked ; or having been sent out of the Kingdom by competent officials at the expense of the Government of Thailand unless the Minister shall consider exemption on an individual special case basis.
The examination and diagnosis of disease of a physical or mental nature , including protective operations as against disease , shall be conducted by the Immigration Doctor.

[Liquorice]

39 minutes ago, bigt3116 said:

 

Under Section 12 ?

 

Section 12 : Aliens which fall into any of the following categories are excluded from entering into the Kingdom :
1. Having no genuine and valid passport or document used in lieu of passport ; or having a genuine and valid passport or document used in lieu of a passport without Visaing by the Royal Thai Embassies or Consulates in Foreign countries ; or from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs , excepting if a visa is not required for certain types of aliens in special instances.
Visaing and visa exemption will be under the learn and conditions as provided in the Ministerial Regulations.
2. Having no appropriate means of living following entrance into the Kingdom.
3. Having entered into the Kingdom to take occupation as a laborer or to take employment by using physical without skills training or to work in violation of the Ministerial Regulations.
4. Being mentally unstable or having any of the disease as prescribed in the Ministerial Regulations.
5. Having not yet been vaccinated against smalllpox or inoculated or undergone any other medical treatment for protection against disease and having refused to have such vaccinations administered by the Immigration Doctor.
6. Having been imprisoned by the judgement of the Thai Court ; or by a lawful injunction ; or by the judgement of the Court of foreign country , except when the penalty is foe petty offense or negligence or is provided for as an exception in the Ministerial Regulations.
7. Having behavior which would indicated 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.
8. Reason to believe that entrance into the Kingdom was for the purpose of being involved in prostitution , the trading of woman of children , drug smuggling , or other types of smuggling which are contrary to the public morality.
9. Having no money or bond as prescribed by the Minister under him
10. Being a person prohibited by the Minister under Section 16.
11. Being deported by either the Government of Thailand that of or other foreign countries ; or the right of stay in the Kingdom or in foreign countries having been revoked ; or having been sent out of the Kingdom by competent officials at the expense of the Government of Thailand unless the Minister shall consider exemption on an individual special case basis.
The examination and diagnosis of disease of a physical or mental nature , including protective operations as against disease , shall be conducted by the Immigration Doctor.

Your point being?

[pomchop]

On 10/9/2024 at 10:04 PM, DrJack54 said:

So your last stay ended  June 2024.

Should have no issue flying direct to BKK airport. 

With any questions from io on arrival it's good idea to have clear itinerary eg accommodation etc..

Airline at departure may/will required proof of onward flight.

Here is one option "onwardticket.com" 

 

better yet if you have suffient frequent flyer miles book a departure ticket and than change or cancel it and get your miles reinstated for no fee no problem with most airlines.

[Caldera]

2 hours ago, NanLaew said:

A fair few foreigners were properly milking the Covid extensions. Immigration should have stopped issuing them when it was obvious that most countries had reopened their borders, with or without quarantine on arrival, while Qatar were flying throughout the 'lock down'.

 

That suggestion is almost too idiotic to take it seriously, but I'll bite for the sake of argument.

 

What would have been the benefit of stopping those Covid extensions, for Thailand? Wasn't tourist spending down by enough already in your opinion?

 

I don't think Thailand suffered an uptick in crime due to some foreigners enjoying a prolonged stay during that special time. These foreigners also didn't qualify for any freebies that were to the Thai people's detriment. By and large, they spent money and seemed to have a great time (or at least a better time than they would have had elsewhere).

 

I think the Thai government's timing for phasing out the Covid extensions was perfect. Praise where praise is due.

Edited 15 hours ago by Caldera

[Rob Browder]

21 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

 

 How much do  they pay for the translation services,? too much.  in my opinion, This particular effort isn't too bad to be honest, but some I have seen are at best , liable to be misunderstood, and at worst virtually incomprehensible.  Who are these legal translations intended for ?  

...

               Would it really cause such a loss of face to have these things proof read by a native English speaker?  I mean if one is going to do something why not do it properly for gods sake ? 

The primary issue is, the police cannot make laws.  There is no "not a real tourist" reason in the law to deny entry, and the law instructs that immigration may ONLY deny for the specific reasons listed.  The law was written in a way designed to prevent the very corruption taking place now.  It was only ever "enforce-able" due to a lack of legal oversight of police-procedures.  See above:

3 hours ago, bigt3116 said:

Under Section 12 ?

 

As well, the terms of the Visa-Exempt entry were re-defined when it was changed to 60-days, to include other reasons for entry - making this document no-longer applicable, even if it ever had legal weight. 

 

Further, this statement begins by defining "tourism" as "not working here" - which makes sense.  But then, they bring up an undefined "in/out" aka "visarun" and some vague "time" factor.  How many days between leaving and returning is acceptable?  Had they simply defined that one term, everyone could have complied easily.

 

But, even if they had - how to deny-entry based on "did not stay out long enough before returning," when this was never a legal reason to deny entry?  And, in the most glaring example of hypocrisy and corrupt-intent, this "problem" can be solved by paying them off through agents - including at the nation's capital-city airports - whereby "visaruns" are magically transformed into 100% acceptable "tourism."

[bigt3116]

4 hours ago, Liquorice said:

Your point being?

 

My point is this; "immigration have published guidelines which include refusal of entry for repeat VE entries."

 

Has no basis in fact or law. As you may be aware, generally people are refused entry under 12(2), rightly or wrongly, those are the rules that have been promulgated

 

Your "guidelines" has no substance in law, let alone refusal of entry.

 

Bar stool talk until you post a link to immigration policy.

[Liquorice]

49 minutes ago, bigt3116 said:

Bar stool talk until you post a link to immigration policy.

Just in case you hadn't noticed, we can no longer post PDF' or word documents.

 

49 minutes ago, bigt3116 said:

Your "guidelines" has no substance in law, let alone refusal of entry.

You previously posted section 12 of the Immigration Act.

 

5 hours ago, bigt3116 said:

1. Having no genuine and valid passport or document used in lieu of passport ; or having a genuine and valid passport or document used in lieu of a passport without Visaing by the Royal Thai Embassies or Consulates in Foreign countries ; or from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs , excepting if a visa is not required for certain types of aliens in special instances.
Visaing and visa exemption will be under the learn and conditions as provided in the Ministerial Regulations.

Have you any clue under section 12 (1) what is in the terms and conditions as provided in the Ministerial regulations.
If you could post a link to those Ministerial regulations, I'd be much obliged.

Edited 11 hours ago by Liquorice

[bigt3116]

8 hours ago, Liquorice said:

Just in case you hadn't noticed, we can no longer post PDF' or word documents

 

Yes aware of that, that is why I converted mine to a JPEG to post. (You can do the same).

 

On 10/15/2024 at 5:19 PM, Liquorice said:

3.2 Without valid reason compiled to lack of evidence required by the immigration officer, the alien shall be refused to enter the Kingdom, pursuant to immigration law provision.

 

Cool you posted some guidelines, and yet they have to be applied within Immigration law, so denial of entry has to be under Section 12, which does not include "too many entries" that is my point.

 

🙂

[bigt3116]

On 10/15/2024 at 7:27 PM, Bday Prang said:

Would it really cause such a loss of face to have these things proof read by a native English speaker?  I mean if one is going to do something why not do it properly for gods sake ? 

 

god's