Red Warning Stamp at Vientienne

[tropo]

Philippines is famous for being "unfriendly" for years now. Some even reported problems when applied for a single entry. Not the place to go.

Wrong! The Philippines is easy.

Wrong Tropo.

We talking about getting a new visa for stay in Thailand from the Thai embassy in Philippines (not for stay in PH. - we all know they are very friendly).

Use the search engine and you find houndreds of posts saying that Thai embassy in Manilla rejects visa application en mass.

A misunderstanding?

(dont worry mate, you get your visa next week without any "extra's")

Sorry about that. Yes, the Manila Embassy is probably one of the worst around. I've been there myself and have commented about it on this forum many times.

[tropo]

Just got a double entry from Vientiane with the red stamp. The stamp says I have entered 6 times on tourist visas which is true. Not all entries are in this passport ....

Did you present your current and old passports with your application, or did the embassy ask to see your old passport, or did the embassy already know the number of entries you had made from their computer?

I suspect they count 2 entries into Thailand for each double entry visa

[thaiphoon]

Just got a double entry from Vientiane with the red stamp. The stamp says I have entered 6 times on tourist visas which is true. Not all entries are in this passport ....

Did you present your current and old passports with your application, or did the embassy ask to see your old passport, or did the embassy already know the number of entries you had made from their computer?

I suspect they count 2 entries into Thailand for each double entry visa

That is most probably true. I was asking how the embassy knew he had 6 entries when they were spread over 2 passports. If he did not present his first passport (or was asked for it) then the embassy is now seemingly 'on the ball' with its IT system ... which I guess spells danger for many folks.

Edited October 16, 2009 by thaiphoon

[lazygourmet]

Just got a double entry from Vientiane with the red stamp. The stamp says I have entered 6 times on tourist visas which is true. Not all entries are in this passport ....

Did you present your current and old passports with your application, or did the embassy ask to see your old passport, or did the embassy already know the number of entries you had made from their computer?

I suspect they count 2 entries into Thailand for each double entry visa

As I mentioned before, I strongly suggest that you use an agent. There might be a reason why there are so many now, compare to the previous years... where they were none!

Previously, I always did the process by own. Luckily enough (and this mainly due to my laziness!), I decided to use one this time... and everything works smoothly.

For sure, some of the money that I gave to him ended in a Thai official pocket

[tropo]

Just got a double entry from Vientiane with the red stamp. The stamp says I have entered 6 times on tourist visas which is true. Not all entries are in this passport ....

Did you present your current and old passports with your application, or did the embassy ask to see your old passport, or did the embassy already know the number of entries you had made from their computer?

I suspect they count 2 entries into Thailand for each double entry visa

That is most probably true. I was asking how the embassy knew he had 6 entries when they were spread over 2 passports. If he did not present his first passport (or was asked for it) then the embassy is now seemingly 'on the ball' with its IT system ... which I guess spells danger for many folks.

They didn't know about any double entry tourist visas from his old passport.

2 double entry tourist visas in current passport = 4 entries plus another 2 entries for his current double entry visa = 6 times in total by the time he applies again.

The warning is to inform the next official who will process his application that he has made 6 entries. It worked out this way for another applicant a few weeks ago who had a lot of visas in his passport.

[jimjuum]

Hi ,

Just back from Laos and with a lovely red stamp in my passport .

Passport History

1x Non O (Hull ) 2004

1x single (60+30) Savankhet 2005

1x Non B (3 years consec) 2005-2008

1x double (Veint)2008-2009

New Double and Stamp(Veint) 2009-

'6 times on Tourist visa '

Before 2004 holiday visas (transit in and out in 30 days ) on old passports

So by my reconning they counted my Non O from England as No1 , Single from Savan , No2

Not counted the 3 years working legally (paying tax etc )

then a double as two (No3+No4) the New Double as No5+No6 !

No border hops !

No Multi back to backs !!

Did the right thing ! came to Thailand on an O , found a job , changed Tourist visa to a NON B , got a work permit , paid taxes etc ....

Got a new director at my school , who refused to complete the paperwork to allow me to extend visa ( off topic so will not enlighten about the Labour Depts reply when i returned my WP and told them i was STILL at the School)

Got a tourist (long stay visa -Thai gov not like the border hoppers at the time ) visa

went back early (only used 5 months -no ext on last one )

and still i get a red stamp !!

As for age ..........47

Appearance : Jeans , Short sleeved shirt and proper shoes !

Went with an Agent from Bangkok so i never saw my passport from leaving BKK till half way back down the country!

been down th Non B route .........and hit a road block (thai officails do not get tough with thai officals : Labour Dept v Directors of Schools )

Too young for retirement

return to England for a Non O .......But they counted my 1st Non O .....maybe not get back to Thailand !

Get married ?

Ed visa ?

What is an 'Honest Man " to do to get a visa to work and live in Thailand ?

[oMega69]

I think if you have a Swedish passport you not likely get the Red stamp becuse the good Swedish relationship with Thailand . . , well i guess so for my next trip

Or does we have any Swedish or Scandinavian that have been issued Red stamps here ?

[phetaroi]

While I understand the personal inconveniences that may be caused by what appears to be happening. I'm not so clear about various posters' attitudes about it.

Certainly there has been a ton of whining in the TV forums about Thailand being a country where laws are not abided by. Now the complaint seems to be that the laws are being more closely followed.

It appears to me that the people who are having a problem are people who have not been following the letter or even the spirit of the laws. For example, people who appear to be making a life out of being a "tourist" to Thailand.

I guess I want to ask a question, and I honestly don't know the answer...so it is a real question, not a rhetorical one. Which countries in the world are more liberal about things like tourist visas, retirement visas, and so forth? Almost certainly not the countries almost all of us are from. So which desirable countries are more liberal?

[fozzy58uk]

In reply to thaiphoon and tropo, they "see" your previous passport as your permission to stay stamp is on your first page of your new passport this shows you have previous entries on your old passport. I also had the entry stamp from Ban Laem on my 2nd entry from the previous passport. Therefore 1 entry on old passport plus 5 previous entries on this passport =6 previous in total plus present entry and one more in the future which will be a total of 8. NB note stamp says has entered 6 times not will have entered 6 times. To the poster who suggested using an agent, I did use an agent. So again this has no bearing on the result. My visa guy is very confident all will return to normal next March when we start to pay again. Once again, fingers crossed. hope this helps.

Edited October 18, 2009 by fozzy58uk

[fozzy58uk]

In reply to phetaroi, It is not whining to ask for clarification of the decision process. For many years the immigration dept has been happy for people to apply for multiple back to back tourist visas, particularly at Vientiane. If they have changed this, all well and good, but it would be nice to know what the criteria are and thus apply for a different visa. For many years now Penang has not issued back to backs, therefore I don't go there, though I would prefer to do so if it were possible. If Vientiane continues to refuse then I will, once again, find an alternative.

[tropo]

Which countries in the world are more liberal about things like tourist visas, retirement visas, and so forth? Almost certainly not the countries almost all of us are from. So which desirable countries are more liberal?

It's up to you to decide which countries are desirable, but many are easier. Here's 3 nearby: Cambodia, Malaysia and Philippines.

Now I have 2 questions for you: Which countries in the world have a visa system as complicated and so prone to changes as Thailand? Which other country has a 2 million post (approximate) count Internet forum dedicated to visas.

[tropo]

In reply to thaiphoon and tropo, they "see" your previous passport as your permission to stay stamp is on your first page of your new passport this shows you have previous entries on your old passport. I also had the entry stamp from Ban Laem on my 2nd entry from the previous passport. Therefore 1 entry on old passport plus 5 previous entries on this passport =6 previous in total plus present entry and one more in the future which will be a total of 8. NB note stamp says has entered 6 times not will have entered 6 times.

This is extremely confusing. What does a transfered (from old passport) permission to stay stamp say about previous visas.

How can you say the stamp doesn't count future entries for your new double entry tourist visa? Obviously when you apply again the stamp has the correct tally for the new application officer by the time you attempt to apply for a future tourist visa.

I've done some calculations from previous reports and they did include 2 entries for each tourist visa plus the 2 future entries for the new double entry tourist visa once used.

[sylver]

While I understand the personal inconveniences that may be caused by what appears to be happening. I'm not so clear about various posters' attitudes about it.

Certainly there has been a ton of whining in the TV forums about Thailand being a country where laws are not abided by. Now the complaint seems to be that the laws are being more closely followed.

It appears to me that the people who are having a problem are people who have not been following the letter or even the spirit of the laws. For example, people who appear to be making a life out of being a "tourist" to Thailand.

I guess I want to ask a question, and I honestly don't know the answer...so it is a real question, not a rhetorical one. Which countries in the world are more liberal about things like tourist visas, retirement visas, and so forth? Almost certainly not the countries almost all of us are from. So which desirable countries are more liberal?

You are missing the problem. The tourist visa by itself is not so much of a problem.

The problem is that Thai law is missing several categories of visa allowing foreign people to build a life in this part of the planet (part of the universal declaration of Human Rights, which has been agreed upon in Bangkok, for the whole asian region). The flexibility of the tourist visa was partly compensating for that problem.

Fixing the Tourist visa by itself isn't a problem, but doing so without fixing the issues that it was covering for is.

Do you think that liking Thailand and wanting to live here is a crime? Is working a crime? No, it's not. In fact, you have a human right to work. And since these rights are inalienable, any law to the contrary is wrong.

The problem here is that there is no real alternative to that crutch we call the tourist visa. Married people with children who don't make enough money (even though "not enough" could very easily be twice the national average income) have been using the tourist visa to keep their life together. People who have sufficient finances to support themselves and enjoy being here (genuine long term tourists - they exist)

Sorry, running out of time. I will complete that post later.

[phetaroi]

In reply to phetaroi, It is not whining to ask for clarification of the decision process. For many years the immigration dept has been happy for people to apply for multiple back to back tourist visas, particularly at Vientiane. If they have changed this, all well and good, but it would be nice to know what the criteria are and thus apply for a different visa. For many years now Penang has not issued back to backs, therefore I don't go there, though I would prefer to do so if it were possible. If Vientiane continues to refuse then I will, once again, find an alternative.

Fair enough, although in this case it may be a "be careful what you ask for" situaation.

[phetaroi]

Which countries in the world are more liberal about things like tourist visas, retirement visas, and so forth? Almost certainly not the countries almost all of us are from. So which desirable countries are more liberal?

It's up to you to decide which countries are desirable, but many are easier. Here's 3 nearby: Cambodia, Malaysia and Philippines.

Now I have 2 questions for you: Which countries in the world have a visa system as complicated and so prone to changes as Thailand? Which other country has a 2 million post (approximate) count Internet forum dedicated to visas.

Sorry, can't help you. I made it clear I was asking a question not making an argument.

In terms of this website, the 2 million posts are mostly NOT about visas.

[phetaroi]

...

I guess I want to ask a question, and I honestly don't know the answer...so it is a real question, not a rhetorical one. Which countries in the world are more liberal about things like tourist visas, retirement visas, and so forth? Almost certainly not the countries almost all of us are from. So which desirable countries are more liberal?

You are missing the problem. The tourist visa by itself is not so much of a problem.

The problem is that Thai law is missing several categories of visa allowing foreign people to build a life in this part of the planet (part of the universal declaration of Human Rights, which has been agreed upon in Bangkok, for the whole asian region). The flexibility of the tourist visa was partly compensating for that problem.

Fixing the Tourist visa by itself isn't a problem, but doing so without fixing the issues that it was covering for is.

Do you think that liking Thailand and wanting to live here is a crime? Is working a crime? No, it's not. In fact, you have a human right to work. And since these rights are inalienable, any law to the contrary is wrong.

The problem here is that there is no real alternative to that crutch we call the tourist visa. Married people with children who don't make enough money (even though "not enough" could very easily be twice the national average income) have been using the tourist visa to keep their life together. People who have sufficient finances to support themselves and enjoy being here (genuine long term tourists - they exist)

You'll note in my original post that I said I didn't understand the whole issue. You'll note that I said I was asking a legitimate question. So, I already admitted that I was missing the point.

No, liking Thailand and wanting to live here is not a crime. Nor, since you are not a Thai citizen is it your right.

No, working is not a crime. But since you are not a Thai citizen it is not a right you have to work in Thailand.

I imagine that you and I disagree on the definition of "tourist".

Don't get me wrong, I love that I can come here on a "retirement visa". But I just don't see it as a right; I see it as a distinct privilege.

[fozzy58uk]

To tropo, as I tried to make clear in my last post my current passport had my extension to stay transfer plus 5 previous entry stamps in it and two double entry visas. I clearly had six entries in my passport before I applied for my present visa. Thus the stamp saying I had previously entered 6 times. I was then still given a double entry. I now have 7 entry stamps in my passport and after my visa run to Ban Laem in January I will have 8.

When you get a new passport, you take it to immo, there your extension to stay is transferred to you new passport. My transfer stamp clearly states that my extension to stay was granted on the back of a Tourist visa issued in Vientiane.

Hope this helps. Good luck with your application. Worst case scenario seems to be a double entry with a red stamp. Thence 6 months to pursue other options.

[beechguy]

Phetaroi, I didn't think you were missing the point at all. Also, I've noticed people are getting the red stamps, but I haven't read of anyone not receiving a visa, and even a double entries still seems to be issued. So much for being strict.

As to the other posters nonsense, I doubt he could name one country that doesn't have some sort of policy or law restricting foreignors from engaging in employment or living in a country. Living or working in a country without proper permission is illegal, whether he likes it or not.

Edited October 18, 2009 by beechguy

[chiangrai]

hows about this one,

i am in the prosess of getting a new passport,

i am useing my old one while it's being printed,

so i am flexcibal about what stamp i can finish on,

i can get my permission to stay granted on a tourist visa or a 14 day exemption.

if i get it on an exempyion it would be better,....right?

how strict are they about the 4 exemption rule lately,

i want to book a cheap flight in advane but i don't know when i'll be asked to leave.

[thaiphoon]

hows about this one,

i am in the prosess of getting a new passport,

i am useing my old one while it's being printed,

so i am flexcibal about what stamp i can finish on,

i can get my permission to stay granted on a tourist visa or a 14 day exemption.

if i get it on an exempyion it would be better,....right?

how strict are they about the 4 exemption rule lately,

i want to book a cheap flight in advane but i don't know when i'll be asked to leave.

Is up to you. Whatever permission to stay you have in your old passport will have to be transferred to your new passport (by Thai immigration) when it is issued by your embassy so you can leave the country (you can't leave using old passport with arrival stamp in it).

Land crossing will give 15 day 'visa exempt' entry, which is what I think you are referring to. Reports suggest 4 back to backs is likely to trigger a report to Bangkok immigration for investigation into what you are doing.

Edited October 18, 2009 by thaiphoon

[sylver]

...

I guess I want to ask a question, and I honestly don't know the answer...so it is a real question, not a rhetorical one. Which countries in the world are more liberal about things like tourist visas, retirement visas, and so forth? Almost certainly not the countries almost all of us are from. So which desirable countries are more liberal?

You are missing the problem. The tourist visa by itself is not so much of a problem.

The problem is that Thai law is missing several categories of visa allowing foreign people to build a life in this part of the planet (part of the universal declaration of Human Rights, which has been agreed upon in Bangkok, for the whole asian region). The flexibility of the tourist visa was partly compensating for that problem.

Fixing the Tourist visa by itself isn't a problem, but doing so without fixing the issues that it was covering for is.

Do you think that liking Thailand and wanting to live here is a crime? Is working a crime? No, it's not. In fact, you have a human right to work. And since these rights are inalienable, any law to the contrary is wrong.

The problem here is that there is no real alternative to that crutch we call the tourist visa. Married people with children who don't make enough money (even though "not enough" could very easily be twice the national average income) have been using the tourist visa to keep their life together. People who have sufficient finances to support themselves and enjoy being here (genuine long term tourists - they exist)

You'll note in my original post that I said I didn't understand the whole issue. You'll note that I said I was asking a legitimate question. So, I already admitted that I was missing the point.

No, liking Thailand and wanting to live here is not a crime. Nor, since you are not a Thai citizen is it your right.

No, working is not a crime. But since you are not a Thai citizen it is not a right you have to work in Thailand.

So the Universal Human Rights are not applicable to Thailand? We were born free and equal in rights on the same planet. We have the freedom to move, which includes also movement between countries.

I agree that a lot of laws are contrary to the spirit of the human rights and that most countries seriously neglect the universal declaration of human rights they have signed and often added to their constitution. That doesn't make it right.

Not allowing "farangs" to live and work here is a minor violation compared to the countless number of considerably more critical violations of human rights perpetrated the world over, but that still doesn't make it right.

Anyway, my point wasn't to start a lofty discussion of the rights of man, but to state something which I think is pretty obvious:

There is nothing criminal in wanting to stay in Thailand and there is nothing criminal in wanting to work here. Farangs coming here, working and contributing to the Thai society does not constitute a problem, except for a xenophobic minority. Making a law that makes it criminal, and then saying that people doing it are criminals is a prime example of circular reasoning. And then you get the whole problem of dealing with those "criminals".

Immigration laws have been purported to solve a number of issues ranging from stopping terrorism to curbing prostitution and getting tax evasion under control, to quote the most common justifications for a tightening of immigration laws. I have yet to see any evidence that these measures are working in any way, and these purposes could be much better served through actions directly addressing the problems that immigration control are supposed to fix. If the Thai autorities really wanted to close the farang redlight areas, they could do so within a week. Terrorism doesn't require long term access to a country so immigration laws are irrelevant and tax collection would be better served with permissive immigration rules.

I imagine that you and I disagree on the definition of "tourist".

Don't get me wrong, I love that I can come here on a "retirement visa". But I just don't see it as a right; I see it as a distinct privilege.

I don't think we disagree on that definition. "A person who travels away from home for pleasure purposes." Implicitly, that would rule out foreigners living in Thailand and who plan to continue living in Thailand indefinitely.

The point is that practically speaking, there are very little alternatives for a foreigner wishing to stay legally in Thailand and pretty much all of them include no guarantee on the long term. Even the "easy" categories offer no guarantees. Maried and with kids? Still have to apply for visa every year. And it could be refused without any right of appeal. Retired? Still have to apply and justify of your finances regularly. And the requirements could easily change (and they do). Investment? Same deal. And same problems in regards to changing requirements and possible rejection.

And if you are younger than 50, not married to a Thai and don't have 10 millions bahts in spare change, your options get very scarce. As a matter of fact, they don't exist. There are many ways to go around the regulations, such as creating a company, getting a business visa to "investigate business opportunities in Thailand", or getting a tourist visa and going back and forth, or a few other similar scheme which all have in common the fact that you have to pretend being in one category or another. Why should someone start a company, hire employees and turn over 51% of the shares to some guy/girl whose only qualification is to be Thai just to be allowed temporarly in the country?

At the end of the day, being a tourist is the closest thing to a honest option. In Thailand for pleasure. Repeatedly.

It is a rather poor solution, but hey, a poor solution is a lot better than no solution at all. If someone endeavours to bring a new statute for foreigners which recognizes that we have the right to exist and live here safely and which lays out reasonable expectations from us (like paying fair taxes, respecting local laws...), I would be more than happy to apply.

[beechguy]

The fact is, every country establishes some sort of policy and law to control the movement of people in and out of it's borders, why should Thailand be any different.

At any rate, all of this is off topic, the fact is, people are only receiving red stamps, not being denied visas, or access to Thailand.

[tropo]

Which countries in the world are more liberal about things like tourist visas, retirement visas, and so forth? Almost certainly not the countries almost all of us are from. So which desirable countries are more liberal?

It's up to you to decide which countries are desirable, but many are easier. Here's 3 nearby: Cambodia, Malaysia and Philippines.

Now I have 2 questions for you: Which countries in the world have a visa system as complicated and so prone to changes as Thailand? Which other country has a 2 million post (approximate) count Internet forum dedicated to visas.

Sorry, can't help you. I made it clear I was asking a question not making an argument.

In terms of this website, the 2 million posts are mostly NOT about visas.

I answer your question and you think I'm trying to argue? The point is there are desirable countries which make the whole visa process a lot easier.

Why do you think people join this forum in the first place? To find out about Thai visas which are the most complicated on earth. Most of us hang around this room to keep in touch with the latest "modifications" that crop up almost daily here in Thailand.

Edited October 18, 2009 by tropo

[tropo]

To tropo, as I tried to make clear in my last post my current passport had my extension to stay transfer plus 5 previous entry stamps in it and two double entry visas. I clearly had six entries in my passport before I applied for my present visa. Thus the stamp saying I had previously entered 6 times. I was then still given a double entry. I now have 7 entry stamps in my passport and after my visa run to Ban Laem in January I will have 8.

When you get a new passport, you take it to immo, there your extension to stay is transferred to you new passport. My transfer stamp clearly states that my extension to stay was granted on the back of a Tourist visa issued in Vientiane.

Hope this helps. Good luck with your application. Worst case scenario seems to be a double entry with a red stamp. Thence 6 months to pursue other options.

I appreciate you taking the time to make it clear, but it still isn't. Now you're saying (I think) that you had 2 previous double entry tourist visa in your current passport before you applied for your current double entry tourist visa.

Entry stamps made without a tourist visa would not be counted.

2 previous tourist visas = 4 entries

Current tourist visa = 2 entries

That's how I work out the 6 entries on your warning stamp. This goes along with what I've seen from previous reports too.

If people are convinced (I'm not) that they take into consideration an old passport, the best way would be to apply for a new passport outside of Thailand to avoid any stamp transfers.

[phetaroi]

...

I guess I want to ask a question, and I honestly don't know the answer...so it is a real question, not a rhetorical one. Which countries in the world are more liberal about things like tourist visas, retirement visas, and so forth? Almost certainly not the countries almost all of us are from. So which desirable countries are more liberal?

You are missing the problem. The tourist visa by itself is not so much of a problem.

The problem is that Thai law is missing several categories of visa allowing foreign people to build a life in this part of the planet (part of the universal declaration of Human Rights, which has been agreed upon in Bangkok, for the whole asian region). The flexibility of the tourist visa was partly compensating for that problem.

...

Do you think that liking Thailand and wanting to live here is a crime? Is working a crime? No, it's not. In fact, you have a human right to work. And since these rights are inalienable, any law to the contrary is wrong.

The problem here is that there is no real alternative to that crutch we call the tourist visa. Married people with children who don't make enough money (even though "not enough" could very easily be twice the national average income) have been using the tourist visa to keep their life together. People who have sufficient finances to support themselves and enjoy being here (genuine long term tourists - they exist)

You'll note in my original post that I said I didn't understand the whole issue. You'll note that I said I was asking a legitimate question. So, I already admitted that I was missing the point.

No, liking Thailand and wanting to live here is not a crime. Nor, since you are not a Thai citizen is it your right.

No, working is not a crime. But since you are not a Thai citizen it is not a right you have to work in Thailand.

So the Universal Human Rights are not applicable to Thailand? We were born free and equal in rights on the same planet. We have the freedom to move, which includes also movement between countries.

I agree that a lot of laws are contrary to the spirit of the human rights and that most countries seriously neglect the universal declaration of human rights they have signed and often added to their constitution. That doesn't make it right.

Not allowing "farangs" to live and work here is a minor violation compared to the countless number of considerably more critical violations of human rights perpetrated the world over, but that still doesn't make it right.

Anyway, my point wasn't to start a lofty discussion of the rights of man, but to state something which I think is pretty obvious:

There is nothing criminal in wanting to stay in Thailand and there is nothing criminal in wanting to work here. Farangs coming here, working and contributing to the Thai society does not constitute a problem, except for a xenophobic minority. Making a law that makes it criminal, and then saying that people doing it are criminals is a prime example of circular reasoning. And then you get the whole problem of dealing with those "criminals".

Immigration laws have been purported to solve a number of issues ranging from stopping terrorism to curbing prostitution and getting tax evasion under control, to quote the most common justifications for a tightening of immigration laws. I have yet to see any evidence that these measures are working in any way, and these purposes could be much better served through actions directly addressing the problems that immigration control are supposed to fix. If the Thai autorities really wanted to close the farang redlight areas, they could do so within a week. Terrorism doesn't require long term access to a country so immigration laws are irrelevant and tax collection would be better served with permissive immigration rules.

...

The point is that practically speaking, there are very little alternatives for a foreigner wishing to stay legally in Thailand and pretty much all of them include no guarantee on the long term. Even the "easy" categories offer no guarantees. Maried and with kids? Still have to apply for visa every year. And it could be refused without any right of appeal. Retired? Still have to apply and justify of your finances regularly. And the requirements could easily change (and they do). Investment? Same deal. And same problems in regards to changing requirements and possible rejection.

And if you are younger than 50, not married to a Thai and don't have 10 millions bahts in spare change, your options get very scarce. As a matter of fact, they don't exist. There are many ways to go around the regulations, such as creating a company, getting a business visa to "investigate business opportunities in Thailand", or getting a tourist visa and going back and forth, or a few other similar scheme which all have in common the fact that you have to pretend being in one category or another. Why should someone start a company, hire employees and turn over 51% of the shares to some guy/girl whose only qualification is to be Thai just to be allowed temporarly in the country?

...

If someone endeavours to bring a new statute for foreigners which recognizes that we have the right to exist and live here safely and which lays out reasonable expectations from us (like paying fair taxes, respecting local laws...), I would be more than happy to apply.

I'm quite interested in your post from the perspective that I had not been aware of the document in the past. I guess I have heard of it somewhere along the line, but I had never read it. So, thank you for pointing me in that direction.

Where I perceive the problem is that I believe you are misreading the document.

For example, it says:

"Article 13:

• (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
  
• (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."
  

You'll note it says the right to freedom of movement and residence WITHIN the borders of each state and then adds you have a right to leave your country and return to your country. That does say or imply that you have the freedom to take up residence in another country.

Article 21 says:

• "(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
  
• (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country."
  

The key word here is "his country". It does not say is somebody else's country.

You're trying to read a "borderless world" into the document. It's not there.

You want your rights to be what you define them to be. That's not the way international law works.

[Phatcharanan]

You are missing the problem. The tourist visa by itself is not so much of a problem.

The problem is that Thai law is missing several categories of visa allowing foreign people to build a life in this part of the planet (part of the universal declaration of Human Rights, which has been agreed upon in Bangkok, for the whole asian region). The flexibility of the tourist visa was partly compensating for that problem.

Do you think that liking Thailand and wanting to live here is a crime? Is working a crime? No, it's not. In fact, you have a human right to work. And since these rights are inalienable, any law to the contrary is wrong.

The problem here is that there is no real alternative to that crutch we call the tourist visa. Married people with children who don't make enough money (even though "not enough" could very easily be twice the national average income) have been using the tourist visa to keep their life together. People who have sufficient finances to support themselves and enjoy being here (genuine long term tourists - they exist)

Sorry, running out of time. I will complete that post later.

Errrrrrrrrrr since when has there ever been a 'right' to build a life in a country foreign to your own???

There is NO Human Rights legislation allowing for that.

[jazzbo]

I agree, Kuhn Sylver, that you make some very valid points. Here is the link to the UDHR in Thai language script on the United Nations official website:

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDH...lations/thj.pdf

I suggest that you print out a copy or 2 and hand it to the Immigration Agent sitting behind the desk at Suvarnabhumi or Nong Khai and tell them that by provisions agreed upon by the Thai Government in 1948 you should be admitted entry to the Kingdom. Let us know how things work out.

[fozzy58uk]

To tropo, if you prefer to do your own calculations that is up to up to you. You are discounting the entry stamps I had before the issue of the first visa in my present passport. Why? They are plainly there for the immigration officer to see and count. I have entered Thailand 7 times on a tourist visa in this passport not 6 and my next entry will be my 8th not my 6th. This is not based on passports I have not seen nor reports of other people I do not know. This is based on my passport and my personal experience. Therefore I am reporting a fact not an opinion. Are more entries possible, I don't know, some posters have reported that it is. Would less entries receive a red stamp, I don't know. Surely if someone was applying for a new passport outside of Thailand it would make more sense to apply for a non-imm O on grounds of visiting friends. The reason I am on back to back TVs is that a don't plan to visit UK at the moment. When I do that is the visa I will apply for.

Edited October 19, 2009 by fozzy58uk

[Phatcharanan]

I agree, Kuhn Sylver, that you make some very valid points. Here is the link to the UDHR in Thai language script on the United Nations official website:

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDH...lations/thj.pdf

I suggest that you print out a copy or 2 and hand it to the Immigration Agent sitting behind the desk at Suvarnabhumi or Nong Khai and tell them that by provisions agreed upon by the Thai Government in 1948 you should be admitted entry to the Kingdom. Let us know how things work out.

[beechguy]

I agree, Kuhn Sylver, that you make some very valid points. Here is the link to the UDHR in Thai language script on the United Nations official website:

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDH...lations/thj.pdf

I suggest that you print out a copy or 2 and hand it to the Immigration Agent sitting behind the desk at Suvarnabhumi or Nong Khai and tell them that by provisions agreed upon by the Thai Government in 1948 you should be admitted entry to the Kingdom. Let us know how things work out.

Why bother, unless he is a criminal or some other valid reason to be refused entry, probably all he needs to do is apply for a visa, or complete an arrival card.

Again, this has nothing to do with "Red Warning Stamps at Vientienne".

Edited October 19, 2009 by beechguy