60 day waiver more than two?

[Pompeygeezer]

I know the 60 days waiver is more than likely coming to an end so this slightly irrelevant but when they changed it last July they did say it was unlimited to how many you could do in a year.

                         And I was just wondering how true that turned out to be?  Is there anyone on here who has done more than 2 since last July?

[DrJack54]

You are referring to removal of limit of 2 per calendar year visa exempt via land. 

There is not limit via air. 

It is possible to have more than two visa exempt entries

[GanDoonToonPet]

1 hour ago, Pompeygeezer said:

Is there anyone on here who has done more than 2 since last July?

 

One here 😊

 

Actually it was 2 x 30 + 1 x 60 with extensions. After I flew back in from Cambodia for the 60, I was taken aside and questioned about the purpose of my stay and where I was staying; let in with a 'Get a visa next time.'

 

Flew back to the UK last Oct and stayed for 6 months. Flew back in a few weeks ago and was questioned at the immigration desk. Let in with a 'You can't keep doing this. Get a visa next time.'

 

I think the consensus is that after the first 60+30, questions will be asked. Seems to be a problem at airports only so, although I'd love to spend a week in Phnom Penh again, I'll probably do a border hop for the next one.

 

 

[Tod Daniels]

I think what confused people was back in July of 2024 when they went from free 30 day visa exempt entries for 55 countries (which you were allowed TWO per calendar year) to the 60 day visa exempt entries for 90+ countries, they rescinded that 2 free entries per calendar year 
BUT 
Having no official limit on visa exempt entries (by air or land) doesn't mean they're unlimited
AND
the officers at passport control got a LOT harder towards people milking 60 day visa exempt stamps to live here. 

THOUSANDS of people are denied entry every week (by air and land) most trying to get back in on a new free 60 day entry stamp.,

I'd say IF you are only interested in getting another 60 day entry stamp USE A SERVICE to bounce you out and back by land.. Services have it set up so their clients get out and back without hassle and without regard to their previous entry/stay history. <- That's why they cost more than the transportation to the border and back 😜 🙂 

[Pompeygeezer]

15 hours ago, DrJack54 said:

You are referring to removal of limit of 2 per calendar year visa exempt via land. 

There is not limit via air. 

It is possible to have more than two visa exempt entries

Yes. Although they say no limit via air but that is nonsense they question you more at the airport than via land.  As soon as you've had more than one via air,  they won't let you back in. So, no limit via air is utter BS.  they always use the get out clause of 'immigration officer's discretion'.  

[DrJack54]

9 minutes ago, Pompeygeezer said:

As soon as you've had more than one via air,  they won't let you back in.

Thats a nonsense. It's all about time spent in Thailand and time between visits 

If you enter visa exempt via air and then extend by 30 and do quick out/in via air visa exempt then yes you will be questioned. 

BTW: I wrote "no stated limit" 

 

There are other visa options to enter Thailand.

I, being Oz cannot even enter Vietnam visa exempt. Nor can USA. 

Being UK you have visa exempt to Thailand+ eg visa exempt to Vietnam and many other eVisa options such as METV and still complain

[Pompeygeezer]

6 hours ago, DrJack54 said:

Thats a nonsense. It's all about time spent in Thailand and time between visits 

If you enter visa exempt via air and then extend by 30 and do quick out/in via air visa exempt then yes you will be questioned. 

BTW: I wrote "no stated limit" 

 

There are other visa options to enter Thailand.

I, being Oz cannot even enter Vietnam visa exempt. Nor can USA. 

Being UK you have visa exempt to Thailand+ eg visa exempt to Vietnam and many other eVisa options such as METV and still complain

I didn't mean you when i said it's nonsense i mean the powers that be who claim it's unlimited via air. It isn't unlimited and it shouldn't matter if you fly in and out the same day.   iIt's either unlimited or it isn't(again I'm not aiming this at you but the powers that be) .  if you can't fly in and out in a short period of time (btw i haven't done this, I'm just making a point) then they should clarify that. Make the rules clear and concrete. Not this IO discretion BS

[DrJack54]

6 minutes ago, Pompeygeezer said:

, I'm just making a point) then they should clarify that. Make the rules clear and concrete. Not this IO discretion BS

Agree 100%. 

It woud be so easy for Thailand to state clear rules regarding visa exempt entry. Number etc. 

Almost seems they want cat and mouse game. 

[Rob Browder]

On 5/24/2025 at 9:55 PM, Pompeygeezer said:

they always use the get out clause of 'immigration officer's discretion'.  

Which is a big lie.  There are a limited number of stated reasons under Thai law for denying-entry, in a futile attempt to stop corrupt-practices.  None of those legal reasons include "come too often as a tourist."  They tell folks they are denying for that, but then put a stamp saying they didn't have the money - as if someone paying for long-haul flights (from UK, after 6-mo out, in your case) is "too poor" to be here. 

 

On 5/24/2025 at 10:33 PM, Pompeygeezer said:

Make the rules clear and concrete. Not this IO discretion BS

A sane "discretion" would be noting if the person's passport-country minimum-wage is 10x higher than what one can earn working illegally in Thailand - but, this somehow doesn't come into it, as millions of illegal workers are here from neighboring countries, and L-Visas are issued to millions more.  Note, the now-gone "2x / year max by land-borders" rule never applied to them - only to us.  There are no handouts to foreigners here, so nothing to lose allowing folks in who have no sane reason to work illegally here - only come to spend money. 

 

It only makes sense when one understands that "immigration" is just the "front operation" for the real action. If purchasing "safe entry" services via their agent-partners, or using an agent-van service, one can visa-exempt-enter in-perpetuity with same-day in/outs.  If the policy was stated clearly, many folks would just follow the rules, and not need agent-service.  As well, IOs could get into trouble for violating such for agent-partner payoffs.  Again, regarding the now-gone "2x by land" rule, this could not be bypassed by agent-van service - but with that rule gone, agent-van-runs are now unlimited.  Written clear policies inhibited the racket, while an absence of such, combined with their reported enforcement actions, make perfect sense in this context.

[Pompeygeezer]

Just now, Rob Browder said:

Which is a big lie.  There are a limited number of stated reasons under Thai law for denying-entry, in a futile attempt to stop corrupt-practices.  None of those legal reasons include "come too often as a tourist."  They tell folks they are denying for that, but then put a stamp saying they didn't have the money - as if someone paying for long-haul flights (from UK, after 6-mo out, in your case) is "too poor" to be here. 

 

A sane "discretion" would be noting if the person's passport-country minimum-wage is 10x higher than what one can earn working illegally in Thailand - but, this somehow doesn't come into it, as millions of illegal workers are here from neighboring countries, and L-Visas are issued to millions more.  Note, the now-gone "2x / year max by land-borders" rule never applied to them - only to us.  There are no handouts to foreigners here, so nothing to lose allowing folks in who have no sane reason to work illegally here - only come to spend money. 

 

It only makes sense when one understands that "immigration" is just the "front operation" for the real action. If purchasing "safe entry" services via their agent-partners, or using an agent-van service, one can visa-exempt-enter in-perpetuity with same-day in/outs.  If the policy was stated clearly, many folks would just follow the rules, and not need agent-service.  As well, IOs could get into trouble for violating such for agent-partner payoffs.  Again, regarding the now-gone "2x by land" rule, this could not be bypassed by agent-van service - but with that rule gone, agent-van-runs are now unlimited.  Written clear policies inhibited the racket, while an absence of such, combined with their reported enforcement actions, make perfect sense in this context.

100%