Red Warning Stamp at Vientienne

[jazzbo]

The gentleman -- who has posted on this topic -- was using the UDHR to question the validity of establishing limitations on visas and therefore the validity of Red Warnings Stamps... I merely replied.

[Moonrakers]

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.

That's just not true. If married to a Thai there is no financial requirement to be granted a Non-O visa.

[sylver]

...

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.

I admire your honesty. Few have actually read that declaration and perhaps even fewer would admit they don't know actually know what it is about.

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.

Yet, the freedom to leave a country does suggest the ability of entering another country, doesn't it? Not being able to enter and be in other countries would make it fairly difficult to leave your own.

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.

I don't recall mentionning anything about foreigners taking any part in the Thai government nor foreigners having access to public services in Thailand equal to those of the Thais. And I also did not call for a "borderless world," considering that it would be a lot more than just the freedom to move and be in different places (consider for instance the commercial aspects of borders, which are not )

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.

I am aware that I am taking a rather broad view of human rights, and that I tend to err on the side of freedom, but my interpretation of those rights is not exactly unsupported. There has been a lot of arguments about the spirit of the law. Reading again articles 1, 2, 13, 23 and 28, I get the idea of a brotherhood of men, where people are not discriminated against on the basis of where they come from or where they were born, but on the basis of what they do. A world where people are free to move and live their lives as they see fit, as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others.

A world were people are considered to be an asset rather than a liability.

And you know, that wouldn't be such a bad world.

[sylver]

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.

That's just not true. If married to a Thai there is no financial requirement to be granted a Non-O visa.

Thaivisa page on the Non immigrant O visa indicates a THB 40,000/month requirement. Is that not true?

[Moonrakers]

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.

That's just not true. If married to a Thai there is no financial requirement to be granted a Non-O visa.

Thaivisa page on the Non immigrant O visa indicates a THB 40,000/month requirement. Is that not true?

Any financial requirement is only needed when applying for an extension of stay (1 year) based on marriage. When actually applying for the visa itself at a Thai consulate or Embassy abroad there is absolutely no requirement to show proof of funds whatsoever, even without the formentioned extension of stay, the Non-O visa is good for 90 days and then the visa can even be extended for another 60 days, again with no requirement to show any proof of funds.

In short, those who are legally married to a Thai national should not be affected by the recent change in tourist visa regulations whatsoever.

Edited October 19, 2009 by Moonrakers

[sylver]

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".

The "Red warning stamps at Vientienne" is discussing the ability of foreigners to enter and stay in Thailand long term through repeated use of the tourist visa, and the fact that by limiting issuance of the said tourist visa, the Thai governement is denying at term (assuming they follow through with the warnings) entry to a large number of foreigners who wish to live in Thailand and do not fit in other categories.

You may or may not agree with what I am saying, but if you care to read my posts carefully, you may find that they are in fact discussing this very topic.

[sylver]

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.

lol.

I will wait a bit to give the Thai government some time to address other somewhat more pressing violations of the said declaration. To give a couple examples, there are a bunch of people in northern Thailand who do not have a nationality (article 15) and Thai jails are notorious for being somewhat short on article 5. Then I heard some mentions that article 21, #3 has been subject to some abuse in recent years.

I would think twice about cutting in front of a 10 wheeler that went past a red light. Still, I believe that it should have stopped and allowed me to go through when it was my turn. Don't you?

Edited October 19, 2009 by sylver

[thaiphoon]

You may or may not agree with what I am saying, but if you care to read my posts carefully, you may find that they are in fact discussing this very topic.

Actually, Sylver, you discussions are well off topic on this thread. This thread was set up for FACTUAL information on people's visits to Vientianne to try to ascertain the pattern of issue of Red Stamps from Vientianne. The thread was not set up for general discussion on back to back tourist visas. There is a separate thread for that here:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Crackdown-To...at-t297046.html

I see that you only joined Thaivisa 2 days ago. Perhaps you have not looked through this thread from the beginning. If you have you will see messages and reminders from the Mods what this thread is for. Please respect that and post general discussions points in the other thread. Postings have already been deleted here for being off topic. Your points are interesting, but this thread is not really the right place for those discussions. Thank you for your understanding.

Edited October 19, 2009 by thaiphoon

[beechguy]

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.

That's just not true. If married to a Thai there is no financial requirement to be granted a Non-O visa.

Thaivisa page on the Non immigrant O visa indicates a THB 40,000/month requirement. Is that not true?

No, that amount refers to an extension of stay based on marriage. This is another example that you do not know what you are writing about. Perhaps you need to do some more research before posting more off topic items.

Edited October 19, 2009 by beechguy

[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".

The "Red warning stamps at Vientienne" is discussing the ability of foreigners to enter and stay in Thailand long term through repeated use of the tourist visa, and the fact that by limiting issuance of the said tourist visa, the Thai governement is denying at term (assuming they follow through with the warnings) entry to a large number of foreigners who wish to live in Thailand and do not fit in other categories.

You may or may not agree with what I am saying, but if you care to read my posts carefully, you may find that they are in fact discussing this very topic.

I read the document you referred to, and your interpretation has no basis on fact, much like the rest of your posts.

Perhaps you should read the other posts more carefully. I haven't seen that anyone was denied a visa, only that some were given a red stamp along with their visa. I won't speculate on the future, as I would prefer to base my posts on the current facts, apparently something you have little regard for.

Now, again the topic is about receiving red stamps from Vientienne, if you want to start a political discussion on Thai immigration policy, why not start another thread?

Edited October 19, 2009 by beechguy

[sylver]

You may or may not agree with what I am saying, but if you care to read my posts carefully, you may find that they are in fact discussing this very topic.

Actually, Sylver, you discussions are well off topic on this thread. This thread was set up for FACTUAL information on people's visits to Vientianne to try to ascertain the pattern of issue of Red Stamps from Vientianne. The thread was not set up for general discussion on back to back tourist visas. There is a separate thread for that here:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Crackdown-To...at-t297046.html

I see that you only joined Thaivisa 2 days ago. Perhaps you have not looked through this thread from the beginning. If you have you will see messages and reminders from the Mods what this thread is for. Please respect that and post general discussions points in the other thread. Postings have already been deleted here for being off topic. Your points are interesting, but this thread is not really the right place for those discussions. Thank you for your understanding.

Sorry about that. My mistake.

To get back on topic, I was over in Vientienne a few days ago. I was issued a double entry without red stamp. However a fellow frenchman who sat next to me on the bus back had a red stamp with "7" as the limit.

I am not sure why he got one and I didn't. I am in my early thirties and do not have employment or business in Thailand, whereas my fellow traveller seemed somewhat older and works in the Thai film industry on an intermitent basis, but I doubt they could infer that from our respective passports, so that's probably not the explanation.

[sylver]

... I haven't seen that anyone was denied a visa, only that some were given a red stamp along with their visa. I won't speculate on the future, as I would prefer to base my posts on the current facts, apparently something you have little regard for.

...

Text of the red stamp states that the recipient is denied further tourist visas. "The Embassy may not accept the application next time."

So as of right now, based on available evidence, a person receiving a red stamp is denied further visa application. You are welcome to speculate that this might change in the future, but as of right now, if your passport as a red stamp, your next application is denied. To me, this looks very much one of those "current facts".

...

Now, again the topic is about receiving red stamps from Vientienne, if you want to start a political discussion on Thai immigration policy, why not start another thread.

I saw nothing in the first post nor in the post title that would limit the discussion to that. However, I understand from Thaiphoon's explanation that it originated from another thread for that specific purpose (which I didn't know) and I will therefore stop discussing the broader subject of immigration policy on this thread.

[thaiphoon]

Sorry about that. My mistake.

To get back on topic, I was over in Vientienne a few days ago. I was issued a double entry without red stamp.

No problem, let's move on ...

It would be helpful if you could let us know how many tourist visas/entries you have previously had, and if they were from Vientiane.

Edited October 19, 2009 by thaiphoon

[beechguy]

... I haven't seen that anyone was denied a visa, only that some were given a red stamp along with their visa. I won't speculate on the future, as I would prefer to base my posts on the current facts, apparently something you have little regard for.

...

Text of the red stamp states that the recipient is denied further tourist visas. "The Embassy may not accept the application next time."

So as of right now, based on available evidence, a person receiving a red stamp is denied further visa application. You are welcome to speculate that this might change in the future, but as of right now, if your passport as a red stamp, your next application is denied. To me, this looks very much one of those "current facts".

...

Now, again the topic is about receiving red stamps from Vientienne, if you want to start a political discussion on Thai immigration policy, why not start another thread.

I saw nothing in the first post nor in the post title that would limit the discussion to that. However, I understand from Thaiphoon's explanation that it originated from another thread for that specific purpose (which I didn't know) and I will therefore stop discussing the broader subject of immigration policy on this thread.

It says "May not", not "will not". Correct? Until someone returns to Vientienne with that stamp in their passport and gets denied a visa, it's speculation, not fact. Also, that does not mean they may not apply at another location. So, still it's also possible they will not be denied entry to Thailand. As I said before, perhaps you should do a little more research before writing about something you apparently know little about.

Edited October 19, 2009 by beechguy

[sylver]

It says "May not", not "will not". Correct? Until someone returns to Vientienne with that stamp in their passport and gets denied a visa, it's speculation, not fact. Also, that does not mean they may not apply at another location. So, still it's also possible they will not be denied entry to Thailand. As I said before, perhaps you should do a little more research before writing about something you apparently know little about.

Indeed it says "may".

However the verb "may" has several meanings. It can express possibility, as in "we may go to the beach" or it can express permission as in "you may not reproduce this document without written autorization from the author". "May" is somewhat more formal than "can" or "must", but its meaning is unfortunately just as inescapable.

- "May I leave the table?"

- "No, you may not"

This does not mean that there is a chance you won't be able to leave the table. It means that you are not authorized to do so.

Or the classic:

"You can go, but you may not" which means that the person has the physical ability to go, but not the permission.

In the context of a red stamp in a passport, it is unfortunately rather clear that "may" expresses permission, not possibility, and that in this case, the permission is denied.

I invite you to check it up in a good dictionary (Webster or Encarta would be fine, def #3 on both) or in a good English grammar.

Now, I would appreciate if you could refrain from trying to make your points by attempting to discredit me rather than debating my points on their own merits. I am here to exchange ideas and information. Not to get in a fight with strangers.

[loganberry]

Can somebody give me some additional insight here as to the "red stamp" and back to back tourist visa from Vientiane, please?

My visa history here begins with a couple visits using regular 30-day entry stamps (no visa). Then when I moved here I was on a Non-immigrant Student visa for a year before switching over to a Non-B upon getting hired locally. Back in May 2009, I stopped working and have gone to Vientiane twice since May 2009 for a tourist visas (single entry).

I am due for another visa run in Vientiane next week and am concerned about whether or not I will get the red stamp, like everyone else. If one happens to get the red stamp upon receiving a double entry tourist visa... then will the stamp keep one from using that second entry or will the stamp only (in theory) keep one from applying for another tourist visa? Also, how do I apply for the double-entry tourist visa this time? I have never requested it before as I thought it was not free like the single entry tourist visas. If I can get a double entry tourist visa this time and be able to truly use a full 6 months without having to pay for the visa fees as before.... that would be nice. At least if I got the red stamp I would have 6 more months to find suitable work or head home.

Another thing, are they really counting visa entries from old passports in their IT system? If not, then wouldn't getting a new passport temporarily patch the situation for a while before needing to switch visas or getting yet another new passport?

Insight on all these questions would help a lot. Planning on getting my plane tickets for Vientiane tomorrow.

Loganberry

[sylver]

Sorry about that. My mistake.

To get back on topic, I was over in Vientienne a few days ago. I was issued a double entry without red stamp.

No problem, let's move on ...

It would be helpful if you could let us know how many tourist visas/entries you have previously had, and if they were from Vientiane.

I had 2 tourist visas in that passport for a total of 3 entries. A double entry from Vientienne and a single from KL. The new visa brings that total to 5. However, it should be noted that my previous passport was stolen less than a year ago, so this passport is almost new, with a few short trips overseas and some visa runs, but I am pretty sure a quick look in their computer would indicate a somewhat larger number of tourist visas.

The other French guy had 5 entries when he asked for a tourist visa.

It might be that not putting a red stamp on my passport was a mistake, but most likely I suspect they have a quota to fill out. There were about 300+ people that day (typical for Vientienne) and I would guess more than half of them are staying on tourist visas long term. (just a wild guess) If most of them had a red stamp, I imagine there would have been more of a commotion.

[thaiphoon]

Can somebody give me some additional insight here as to the "red stamp" and back to back tourist visa from Vientiane, please?

My visa history here begins with a couple visits using regular 30-day entry stamps (no visa). Then when I moved here I was on a Non-immigrant Student visa for a year before switching over to a Non-B upon getting hired locally. Back in May 2009, I stopped working and have gone to Vientiane twice since May 2009 for a tourist visas (single entry).

I am due for another visa run in Vientiane next week and am concerned about whether or not I will get the red stamp, like everyone else. If one happens to get the red stamp upon receiving a double entry tourist visa... then will the stamp keep one from using that second entry or will the stamp only (in theory) keep one from applying for another tourist visa? Also, how do I apply for the double-entry tourist visa this time? I have never requested it before as I thought it was not free like the single entry tourist visas. If I can get a double entry tourist visa this time and be able to truly use a full 6 months without having to pay for the visa fees as before.... that would be nice. At least if I got the red stamp I would have 6 more months to find suitable work or head home.

Another thing, are they really counting visa entries from old passports in their IT system? If not, then wouldn't getting a new passport temporarily patch the situation for a while before needing to switch visas or getting yet another new passport?

Insight on all these questions would help a lot. Planning on getting my plane tickets for Vientiane tomorrow.

Loganberry

With two single entry tourist visas in your passport don't suspect you would have problem applying for double entry tourist visa this time. If you do get red stamped it would not invalidate the visa given. You apply for your extensions and do a border run in the middle as normal giving you nearly 6 months stay. What happens after that nobody yet knows.

Should only be single entry tourist visas that are issued free under central policy, but for some reason Vientiane issues double entry tourist visas free of charge. On visa application form just put "2" against the line "Number of Entries Requested".

Obtaining new passport from abroad may potentially circumvent the system count, but have not seen a report of someone doing that. If obtaining new passport in Thailand, immigration would need to transfer current permission to stay stamp from old passport to new passport, and at same time they make note in new passport of old visa details. That seems to be a trigger altering the embassy to previous passport entries.

Edited October 19, 2009 by thaiphoon

[Maestro]

Yes, let’s stay on topic: red warning stamp with a tourist visa at the Thai consulatie in Vientiane, Laos.

1. Facts:

1.1. Several Royal Thai Embassies and Consulates have announced increased screening of tourist visa applicants. Some have uploaded a PDF file with the following text on their websites:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Tourist-visa...image10695.html

1.2. The Thai consulate in Vientiane has added the following red warning stamp to the newly issued tourist visa in some cases:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Tourist-2-en...image10608.html

2. Open questions:

2.1. On what basis -- if any -- does the consulate decide whether or not to add the warning stamp to the visa?

2.2. How many applicants get this stamp?

3. Wait and see:

3.1. What will happen if a passport holder with this warning stamp goes back to the Thai conslulate in Vientiane and applies for a new tourist visa?

3.2. What will happen if he applies for a new tourist visa at another Thai consulate?

--

Maestro

[Maestro]

The announcement made by some consulates on their websites gives an indication about how the decision to add the read warning stamp and perhaps subsequently refuse a new tourist visa is made.

Source: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/post-a93293-tvisa.PDF.html

The announcement makes it clear that not all applicants are refused a visa or -- as is happening -- in the first instance get a warning stamp, but only those applicants of whom the consulate thinks that they may be working illegally in Thailand. This has been the consensus so far in the discussions in this topic, I believe. The unfortunate part for the applicant is that the consulate does not have to prove their suspicions.

It will be for the passport holder with a warning stamp to convince the consulate with his next application that he is a genuine tourist and will use the new visa for nothing else except tourist travel. If he can prove the same for his past visits to Thailand with a tourist visa, his case will be that much stronger.

Replying to a question in another topic I made some suggestions as to how an applicant for a tourist might be able to dispel a consulate's suspicions that he might not be a genuine tourist:

...submit the following to the Thai consulate with your application for a tourist visa:

– itinerary of your past tourism travel in Thailand, with copies of transportation tickets, hotel bills, etc.

– itinerary of planned tourism travel in Thailand during the visits with the new visa you are applying for, with copies of transportation and flight reservations where available

– evidence of funds for your travel in Thailand based on the new visa

– covering letter addressed to “His Excellency The Consul” explaining your situation and affirming that you will not work illegally or otherwise engage in illegal activities whilst in Thailand

--

Maestro

[Maestro]

An off-topic post about “UDHR however mostly related to political asylum issues” has been deleted.

From this point forward, any post that is not strictly on the topic of “tourist visa with red warning stamp in Vientiane” should be deleted without notice to the poster or in the topic. Anybody who wishes to discuss human rights, asylum issues, etc. in Thailand should feel free to start a separate topic in another forum, eg in General Topics”, but in this topic it definitely has to end now.

--

Maestro

[jazzbo]

... as the word has not so far appeared in this topic I will add it: Discretion, as in:

It must be noted that the grant or refusal of the Thailand Visa is at the sole discretion of The Royal Thai Embassy/Royal Thai Consulate-General... (from XYZ Visa Service wording)

The word is more readily seen in the requirements for Extension of Visa at Immigration as in "The extension of stay as well as the change of certain type of visa is solely at the discretion of the Immigration officer"... but I am sure it is in or is implied in the Thai Original: Issuance of any Visa, Red Warning Stamp or not, and whether all requirements are otherwise met or not, is at the full discretion of the Issuing Officer.

[beechguy]

It says "May not", not "will not". Correct? Until someone returns to Vientienne with that stamp in their passport and gets denied a visa, it's speculation, not fact. Also, that does not mean they may not apply at another location. So, still it's also possible they will not be denied entry to Thailand. As I said before, perhaps you should do a little more research before writing about something you apparently know little about.

Indeed it says "may".

However the verb "may" has several meanings. It can express possibility, as in "we may go to the beach" or it can express permission as in "you may not reproduce this document without written autorization from the author". "May" is somewhat more formal than "can" or "must", but its meaning is unfortunately just as inescapable.

- "May I leave the table?"

- "No, you may not"

This does not mean that there is a chance you won't be able to leave the table. It means that you are not authorized to do so.

Or the classic:

"You can go, but you may not" which means that the person has the physical ability to go, but not the permission.

In the context of a red stamp in a passport, it is unfortunately rather clear that "may" expresses permission, not possibility, and that in this case, the permission is denied.

I invite you to check it up in a good dictionary (Webster or Encarta would be fine, def #3 on both) or in a good English grammar.

Now, I would appreciate if you could refrain from trying to make your points by attempting to discredit me rather than debating my points on their own merits. I am here to exchange ideas and information. Not to get in a fight with strangers.

I considered those definitions, and I am debating your points on their lack of merit. The fact remains, at this point no one has reported being denied a visa, only being issued the additional red stamp. And even if one does have a visa application denied, they can gain entry by "visa exempt" or "visa on arrival" status, or apply for a visa at another location. Hardly a situation of human rights violation as you tried to imply.

If you do a search, you will find that similar stamps have been issued at Penang, and they have been more or less strict in cycles since 2007. Personally, I don't have a visa problem, but for others, hopefully Vientienne won't become as strict in the future.

Edited October 20, 2009 by beechguy

[jazzbo]

as to how an applicant for a tourist [visa] might be able to dispel a consulate's suspicions that he might not be a genuine tourist...

The problem, Kuhn Maestro, is that for most of the persons in question here they are NOT genuine tourists, they are de facto residents and do not travel around the country visiting wats, museums, and horticultural gardens.

[lazygourmet]

as to how an applicant for a tourist [visa] might be able to dispel a consulate's suspicions that he might not be a genuine tourist...

The problem, Kuhn Maestro, is that for most of the persons in question here they are NOT genuine tourists, they are de facto residents and do not travel around the country visiting wats, museums, and horticultural gardens.

Spot on... and off topic (so do I!)... Following your definition, I am a fake tourist for last the nine years that I am residing in Thailand.

But I am traveling, I am visiting temples where I even have friends monks, I am visiting museum when my artists friends organize exhibitions and horticultural gardens, don't need, we have already two rai with a pool in the middle! No need to work, I am living on a family trust fund... What about you? Happy with your miserable 9 to 5 live?

Back to the red stamp, once again, use an agent!

To all the people that I recommended that way, since I did it myself ten days ago... it always worked without hassle

[sylver]

...

I considered those definitions, and I am debating your points on their lack of merit. The fact remains, at this point no one has reported being denied a visa, only being issued the additional red stamp. And even if one does have a visa application denied, they can gain entry by "visa exempt" or "visa on arrival" status, or apply for a visa at another location.

...

"Only being issued an additionnal red stamp". The red stamp states that you may not obtain further tourist visas. Meaning, that your future applications are denied in advance, in this location or others. You may speculate that they don't mean what they wrote, but as of right now, it's what it says. Your future tourist visa applications are denied.

That you can gain entry through visa on arrival if your visa application has been denied is speculation on your part.

[CobraSnakeNecktie]

getting off topic again but no a warning stamp at one consulate does not mean denial at other consulates. Penang issued these warnings for years and no problem to go to another consulate like KL, Khota Baru or Ventiane

[jazzbo]

... and what makes you so presumptuous to know anything about my existence? ...whether you will granted a tenth year Tourist Visa is solely at the discretion Embassy or Consul Official.

[jazzbo]

and, Kuhn LaGo, if you are in fact not here on a Tourist Visa, what is the big deal?

[beechguy]

...

I considered those definitions, and I am debating your points on their lack of merit. The fact remains, at this point no one has reported being denied a visa, only being issued the additional red stamp. And even if one does have a visa application denied, they can gain entry by "visa exempt" or "visa on arrival" status, or apply for a visa at another location.

...

"Only being issued an additionnal red stamp". The red stamp states that you may not obtain further tourist visas. Meaning, that your future applications are denied in advance, in this location or others. You may speculate that they don't mean what they wrote, but as of right now, it's what it says. Your future tourist visa applications are denied.

That you can gain entry through visa on arrival if your visa application has been denied is speculation on your part.

As to one of your other post, I do not need to try to discredit you, you have done a good enough job with your interpretation of that document you referenced. Plus the fact you do not know the difference in requirements for an "O" visa versus an "extension of stay". If you are going to be critical of a system, shouldn't you at least know factual information? If you want ignore my opinion, that's fine, but if you notice, several other people have questioned your posts as well.

So, show us some evidence where someone has been denied an entry, or a visa for that matter, based on the red stamp. I just base my opinions on past history, but then if you could be bothered to do some research you would find the same information.

Edited October 20, 2009 by beechguy