47 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

          That's the second time I have heard 180 days mentioned today.  Earlier this afternoon  I was tempted by a bit of clickbait on you tube  about these new visa regs.    A so,called "visa expert" had produced a video giving out information about it all this.

           He was implying that there was an  overriding 180 day per year limit  on time spent in Thailand, and that this limit applied to holders of tourist visas and included multiple entry visas too. !

            Anybody else heard of a 180 day / year limit?   

             

 

No such animal that I'm aware of.

 

He may have been "implying" the as yet unimplemented 180- day income tax liability rules and thus muddying these new guidelines (not rules) for immigration officers?

3 minutes ago, GanDoonToonPet said:

 

I believe it's an old law that was rarely enforced. The 'limit' now seems to be 157 days if you want to pay for the 7 day extension at the end, otherwise 150 days 

 

Since I have gone over the 180 days in a calendar year several times over the years, it may be an old law so rare as to not actually exist?

 

Always ready to acknowledge its spurious existence if someone has personal experience of having to comply with it.

 

9 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

     He was implying that there was an  overriding 180 day per year limit  on time spent in Thailand, and that this limit applied to holders of tourist visas and included multiple entry visas too

There is no "180 day rule" that you referred to. 

Not unheard of that an immigration officer may refer to "180 rule". 

It's gobbledygook. 

3 hours ago, DrJack54 said:

There is no "180 day rule" that you referred to. 

Not unheard of that an immigration officer may refer to "180 rule". 

It's gobbledygook. 

That's what I thought, Those self appointed experts should be banned from you tube 

Anyone heard anything about some of the pretty serious changes [if true] highlighted in this recent news story? If they are actually factual its is going to shake things up for even long stay visa holders. 

 

https://www.chiangraitimes.com/politics/thailand-policy-shifts/

5 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

That's what I thought, Those self appointed experts should be banned from you tube 

 

 

Whilst there may not be a 'rule' I would suggest that an IO could easily view 180+ days as residing here and, quite rightly, expect you to have the appropriate visa/permission to stay.

Phuket Immigration spells out ‘visa-free’ crackdown

In this article they will be looking at anyone with over 150 days on visa exempt

https://www.thephuketnews.com/phuket-immigration-spells-out-visa-free-crackdown-98324.php

On 11/17/2025 at 1:09 PM, StayinThailand2much said:

 

I wonder, what happens if they deny entry, giving one a form 'Refused for not enough funds', and that person refuses to sign it... 😆

Some who did this reported being booted without a refusal stamp.  Others reported getting the refusal-stamp, anyway. 

If I were in that position, I would sign nothing that did not say they were denying me for the illegal-reason they made up and told me - "spending too much time in Thailand" - but I doubt they will ever write down "We are violating the Immigration Act, and thus breaking our oath as officers, to get payoffs to follow the law."

On 11/18/2025 at 3:26 PM, Tod Daniels said:

Finally got an image of that 7 day extension you get when you've already had a visa exempt entry with a 30 day extension and are on a second visa exempt entry 

It is NOT an "application for extension not approved" stamp that gives you a week to get outta Dodge 😮 

It's actually a regular "extension of stay permitted until" stamp that is just issued for a week 😛 

Here's one from IT Square Laksi Plaza from yesterday 

Ah, so back to what they were doing in Jomtien a few years back - though for an extra 2K fee (no receipt), you got the full 30-days.  I think that office-specific scam was shut down after a month or so.

 

Any news if having an agent file for the extension gets the full 30-days, yet - or are they still haggling over the brown-envelope fee?

On 11/17/2025 at 10:13 PM, pub2022 said:

It’s ridiculous to argue about visas by claiming Thais need tourist money to survive. That idea is twenty years out of date. Go back to your home country and see for yourself how things are going there — you might realize the ‘third world’ isn’t Thailand anymore.

It's ridiculous to argue that denying-entry to those coming to spend money in Thai businesses does not cut revenue to those businesses, and thus de-employ Thais.  It absolutely does hurt Thai people - and for no upside at all (except brown-envelopes to IOs).

 

Go back to your home country and see you get more for an hour in the lowest-paid job, than a min-wage Thai earns in a day.  Westerners aren't coming here on tourist-entries, to compete for illegal-jobs with Cambodians and Burmese.

 

That said, Thailand is very nice for a low-wage / low-cost country, which is why so many come here to spend their money - because the money "goes further" than back home.

On 11/19/2025 at 10:53 AM, Hummin said:

As I said when they implemented the 60 days where you could extend 30. visitors starts abusing the system, and new rules appears. Give and take 

Where "abusing" is "spending too much money in Thailand" (without giving immigration a cut of it - see "safe entry" and "border run services").  And, where the stated-reason for the denial is illegal under the Thai Immigration Act, so is the actual "abuse" occurring.

 

Taking nations with lower-than-Thailand min-wage off the "visa exempt" list would be the sane thing to do.  Then, no worries about a significant number coming to "work illegally" / "without funds to support."

 

On 11/19/2025 at 9:38 PM, redwood1 said:

The under 50s have had it rough in Thailand for a long time...They have had a break for a few years....Now I guess the tide has turned against the under 50s again....

There is the DTV now - wish they had it when I was under 50.

Just now, Rob Browder said:

There is the DTV now - wish they had it when I was under 50.

 

I was thinking the same thing. I wish it existed in the 1997 to 1999 timeframe.

19 minutes ago, Rob Browder said:

Go back to your home country and see you get more for an hour in the lowest-paid job, than a min-wage Thai earns in a day.  Westerners aren't coming here on tourist-entries, to compete for illegal-jobs with Cambodians and Burmese.

 

In general yes - but not completely.  i know of westerners who are professional photographers (jobs that Thais can do), who run restaurants (jobs that Thais can do), manage hotels (again , job's Thais can do), run Dive Clubs ... have Dive boats ... all job's that Thais can do.

 

I do note thou, those westerners (that I know) did not do such on a visa exempt, but rather they obtained proper work visas.

 

As for the Cambodians and Burmese, ... one could argue they are the one's who take the jobs that the Thai people do NOT want to take. The Cambodians and Burmese take lower paying jobs that the Thais do not want to do.

 

So its not all so cut and dry.

 

19 minutes ago, Rob Browder said:

 

That said, Thailand is very nice for a low-wage / low-cost country, which is why so many come here to spend their money - because the money "goes further" than back home.

 

Agree.

4 minutes ago, oldcpu said:

I do note thou, those westerners (that I know) did not so such visa exempt, but rather obtained proper work visas.

Yes - of course.  I also worked here legally in the past, for a good wage.  For specialty professions, they pay more than the going Thai-wage to hire a foreigner.  In the case of business-owners, they create Thai-jobs in exchange for the permission to work.

 

It's denying entry to folks spending non-Thai-sourced money, which is beyond stupid - just pure greed, without the slightest care of the consequences to their fellow Thais.

 

7 minutes ago, oldcpu said:

As for the Cambodians and Burmese, ... one could argue they are the one's who take the jobs that the Thai people do NOT want to take. The Cambodians and Burmese take lower paying jobs that the Thais do not want to do.

I've heard that excuse in my country - and worked one of those jobs right up until the day I was replaced with a foreign worker for less than 1/2 of what we made (construction trades).   What this really means is, "We don't want to pay decent wages to Thais for the job, so we paid-off govt officials to let us hire foreigners, who will work for much less."  

 

In most businesses, the cost of goods/services at the retail-price level is not significantly affected by paying decent wages, even if 100% passed to the customer - but, skim that pay-difference off of 1000+ workers, and it makes a nice bonus for traitors.

sooo it's a rather disturbing crack down on real tourists, seems they don't understand that someone has enough time and $$ to just hangout at the beach, stay in nice enough hotels and eat at good restaurants  for more than the "normal" 10 day tourist holiday. I generally like to avoid winter in the NE USA for 4 or 5 months each year in SE Asia, mostly in Thailand. But to the point when there's talk about 150 days maximum stay r they saying in 1 calendar year? or 12 months? or??

thanks for ur replies

 

15 minutes ago, CaptMiguel said:

I generally like to avoid winter in the NE USA for 4 or 5 months each year in SE Asia, mostly in Thailand.

Thailand is not the only country in SE Asia so go to Vietnam or Malaysia for a month or two in between.

 

16 minutes ago, CaptMiguel said:

But to the point when there's talk about 150 days maximum stay r they saying in 1 calendar year? or 12 months? or??

It's whatever the agent who is checking you at passport control decides it is.

10 hours ago, CaptMiguel said:

sooo it's a rather disturbing crack down on real tourists, seems they don't understand that someone has enough time and $$ to just hangout at the beach, stay in nice enough hotels and eat at good restaurants  for more than the "normal" 10 day tourist holiday. I generally like to avoid winter in the NE USA for 4 or 5 months each year in SE Asia, mostly in Thailand. But to the point when there's talk about 150 days maximum stay r they saying in 1 calendar year? or 12 months? or??

thanks for ur replies

 

Calendar year.

Seems like the Lao borders have "come to their senses" at least a bit 
AND 
They are letting people with valid multi-entry visas bounce out/back 

Here's a stamp from someone with a 6 month METV who was allowed to bounce out/back at Chiang Khong/Huay Xai up in Chiang Rai on the 21st 

So at least there's something positive 🙂 

12 hours ago, oldcpu said:

I was thinking the same thing. I wish it existed in the 1997 to 1999 timeframe

Why?  there was no need for it back then,    People could pretty much come and go as they pleased with no hassle at all

10 hours ago, BrandonJT said:

It's whatever the agent who is checking you at passport control decides it is

not wishing to be pedantic but   "agent"  ?      surely you mean "officer" ?

9 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

Why?  there was no need for it back then,    People could pretty much come and go as they pleased with no hassle at all

 

That started changing from mid-1997 to mid-1999 (approx). At that time, they started cracking down on those doing border runs.  I know as i had encountered such at that time (as at age-43 to age-45, I was doing 30-day visa exempt border runs).  And its not as if i did not have adequate money (I had enough to live on without working)  - but there simply was no suitable visa.

 

30-day visa exempt border runs are not fun.

11 hours ago, CaptMiguel said:

sooo it's a rather disturbing crack down on real tourists, seems they don't understand that someone has enough time and $$ to just hangout at the beach, stay in nice enough hotels and eat at good restaurants  for more than the "normal" 10 day tourist holiday. I generally like to avoid winter in the NE USA for 4 or 5 months each year in SE Asia, mostly in Thailand. But to the point when there's talk about 150 days maximum stay r they saying in 1 calendar year? or 12 months? or??

thanks for ur replies

 

4 or 5 months ?    150 days would therefore  be ok for you 

2 minutes ago, oldcpu said:

30-day visa exempt border runs are not fun

 They are what you make of them ,

 But you are talking rubbish, you could have negated the need for 30 day border runs with a multiple entry non O visa that would have given 90 days permission to stay   A triple entry tourist visa would have also been a better option than 30 day VE border runs in my opinion easily available from neighbouring countries at that time and would give a stay of 60 days per entry , each extendable by another 30 days one could get almost 9 months use out of one of those

3 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

 They are what you make of them ,

 But you are talking rubbish, you could have negated the need for 30 day border runs with a multiple entry non O visa

 

I was under age-50. Did not qualify for non-O. Re-read my post. 

 

 

3 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

 

that would have given 90 days permission to stay   

 

No. again, re-read my post.

 

3 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

A triple entry tourist visa would have also been a better option than 30 day VE border runs in my opinion easily available from neighbouring countries at that time and would give a stay of 60 days per entry , each extendable by another 30 days one could get almost 9 months use out of one of those

 

i did back-to-back tourist visas until Thai immigration would no longer give me one.  

 

Believe me, I tried.

 

I do not believe you were in Thailand at that time ( I was ) hence you do not know.

.

25 minutes ago, oldcpu said:

 

I was under age-50. Did not qualify for non-O. Re-read my post. 

 

 

 

No. again, re-read my post.

 

 

i did back-to-back tourist visas until Thai immigration would no longer give me one.  

 

Believe me, I tried.

 

I do not believe you were in Thailand at that time ( I was ) hence you do not know.

.

Think what you want pal I really don't care,   

             Anybody ( like myself)  who was actually here in those days knows that it was not necessary to be  here to obtain a non o Non O  ME  as they were issued  in ones home country, neither was it necessary  to be above 50 years old to get a ME Non O ,  that age requirement only appeared about 12 or so years ago.  And a few years later they were withdrawn completely around the time that e-visas started.

             Thai tourist visas  (up to 3 entries were possible back then) ,  again  have never been issued  by immigration, they need to be applied for in one's own country,    You may well have "tried"  but obviously did not try hard enough

Even back to back tourist visas were not a problem until relatively recently 

Of course I can only comment on visas issued in the UK.  It may be different depending on which lesser country you unfortunately  originate from

 

 

4 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

Anybody ( like myself)  who was actually here in those days knows that it was not necessary to be  here to obtain a non o Non O  ME  as they were issued  in ones home country, neither was it necessary  to be above 50 years old to get a ME Non O ,  that age requirement only appeared about 12 or so years ago.  

Agreed.  I was here for several years under 50 on a non-O from the UK, Hull consulate, those were the good days.  As I recall the only requirement was to know a Thai person, no proof just a name and number, which they didn't call.

12 hours ago, CaptMiguel said:

sooo it's a rather disturbing crack down on real tourists, seems they don't understand that someone has enough time and $$ to just hangout at the beach, stay in nice enough hotels and eat at good restaurants  for more than the "normal" 10 day tourist holiday. I generally like to avoid winter in the NE USA for 4 or 5 months each year in SE Asia, mostly in Thailand. But to the point when there's talk about 150 days maximum stay r they saying in 1 calendar year? or 12 months? or??

thanks for ur replies

 

 

I'd happily pay 10000 baht for a 179 day Snowbird Visa .......only one allowed per year.

 

I'd do that every year with no worries.

 

They'd be getting that 10k every year.....not like the absurdly cheap one-off 10k for the 5 year, all year, DTV (bung that one up to at least 50k).

 

Anyone care to pass my suggestion on to the relevant authority?

 

 

 

Have we had confirmation, that it is 30 days, not 60 days, at land borders now?

1 hour ago, Upnotover said:

Agreed.  I was here for several years under 50 on a non-O from the UK, Hull consulate, those were the good days.  As I recall the only requirement was to know a Thai person, no proof just a name and number, which they didn't call.

                It was just my luck, I had been using  the Non O ME for years  and then when I was about  48/49 they  they changed the rules to 50 years old  and I was denied one ,  The requirements were indeed virtually non existent but it was not the same for all countries, A Belgian guy I knew told me they had to supply financial info  and other nationalities have mentioned differences  

               Good old days indeed  I was using Hull consulate at the time as I was actually working in Hull.  They could have just refused and sent my passport back unstamped all visa fees being non refundable an all that but fair play to them they phoned me up to explain the situation and asked if I would consider a triple entry tourist.  A level of customer service unimaginable these days from anybody.                  Once I had reached 50 they had phased them out but ME tourist visas were good enough for me

 

15 minutes ago, Scottie37 said:

Have we had confirmation, that it is 30 days, not 60 days, at land borders now?

I have not heard that , but I did hear that land entries on visa exempt  cannot be extended