Visa Runs

[Xeralf]

Because that's the law. It's no more irrational than some of the laws that pertain in your home country.

Sorry, I could not help but comment on this one.

If you say "it is not more irrational" you are saying "it is more rational".

First -Really?

Second, -Easy comment, easy to say...

Which country exactly?

Which law exactly?

Third - Even if that were the case: two wrongs do not make a right.

I am not against this visa policy as an initial or "by default" policy. However, in many cases [e.g. parents] it makes life for both, the Thai and non-Thai, unnecessarily "more" difficult.

Xeralf

[Sateev]

I would think Non Immigrant is someone that is NOT an Immigrant. Therefor NOT living in Thailand. Just a thought?

Could have fooled me! I have lived here for years now on a non-immigrant visa with no need for visa runs. No, non-immigrant simply means you are not living here on a permanent resident status. Foreigner living in Thailand, not becoming a Thai. Living here/not immigrating here. There is a difference and the descriptor is apt.

Well, actually, you may have ARRIVED here on a non-immigrant visa, but I'm willing to bet that you are here on an extension of stay, which says nothing about your status as immigrant or non-immigrant. You are, in fact, an immigrant, although NOT a permanent resident. You weren't an immigrant when you entered, but the officer who granted you your first extension of stay, made you one.

As has been pointed out, non-immigrant VISAS are issued for purposes like VISITING a family member (O), or working here temporarily ( B ), education (ED), etc. Some people use them to achieve de facto, but not legal, immigration, if you get my drift.

Just saying...

[SurfRider]

.

"what the official reason for making people do this is? Who benefits from it and why? What does it achieve?"

I've always assumed it's just another money deal. Presuming that the MANY visa-run operators are paying taxes on their income, it's a huge cash-cow for the government.

I was told by one of the veteran visa-run operators that they buy Cambodian Visas for 300 baht less than the visa-runner can buy it for. That 300 Baht or a potion of it could easily find its way to some "facilitator" -- multiply that by tens of thousands of visa-runners - another huge cash cow.

Near the Poipet Cambodian border, there's a building where all the visa-run vehicles stop to obtain a Cambodian Visa -- that building is not near any population center. It was clearly put there to facilitate the visa-run business. Only the agent of the visa-run company is allowed inside, while you wait outside where vendors sell you various foods, beverages, etc.

Who knows what happens in that building? (if you catch my drift)

Of course, we all know that corruption doesn't exist in Thailand, so I could be wrong . . .

.

[Jingthing]

I would think Non Immigrant is someone that is NOT an Immigrant. Therefor NOT living in Thailand. Just a thought?

Could have fooled me! I have lived here for years now on a non-immigrant visa with no need for visa runs. No, non-immigrant simply means you are not living here on a permanent resident status. Foreigner living in Thailand, not becoming a Thai. Living here/not immigrating here. There is a difference and the descriptor is apt.

Well, actually, you may have ARRIVED here on a non-immigrant visa, but I'm willing to bet that you are here on an extension of stay, which says nothing about your status as immigrant or non-immigrant. You are, in fact, an immigrant, although NOT a permanent resident. You weren't an immigrant when you entered, but the officer who granted you your first extension of stay, made you one.

As has been pointed out, non-immigrant VISAS are issued for purposes like VISITING a family member (O), or working here temporarily ( B ), education (ED), etc. Some people use them to achieve de facto, but not legal, immigration, if you get my drift.

Just saying...

No, you're wrong. All retirees here are NON-IMMIGRANTS, even if living here full time for 30 years. A real immigrant in any country has immigrant status. Retirees here never have anything but annual permissions to stay one more year, as in super long term TOURISTS. Some countries offer retirement visa programs that lead to residency or increased status over the years. Thailand offers nothing like that.

Those extensions we are talking about are simply extensions of the original NON-IMMIGRANT visas.

Edited June 19, 2011 by Jingthing

[Sateev]

I would think Non Immigrant is someone that is NOT an Immigrant. Therefor NOT living in Thailand. Just a thought?

Could have fooled me! I have lived here for years now on a non-immigrant visa with no need for visa runs. No, non-immigrant simply means you are not living here on a permanent resident status. Foreigner living in Thailand, not becoming a Thai. Living here/not immigrating here. There is a difference and the descriptor is apt.

Well, actually, you may have ARRIVED here on a non-immigrant visa, but I'm willing to bet that you are here on an extension of stay, which says nothing about your status as immigrant or non-immigrant. You are, in fact, an immigrant, although NOT a permanent resident. You weren't an immigrant when you entered, but the officer who granted you your first extension of stay, made you one.

As has been pointed out, non-immigrant VISAS are issued for purposes like VISITING a family member (O), or working here temporarily ( B ), education (ED), etc. Some people use them to achieve de facto, but not legal, immigration, if you get my drift.

Just saying...

No, you're wrong. All retirees here are NON-IMMIGRANTS, even if living here full time for 30 years. A real immigrant in any country has immigrant status. Retirees here never have anything but annual permissions to stay one more year, as in super long term TOURISTS. Some countries offer retirement visa programs that lead to residency or increased status over the years. Thailand offers nothing like that.

Perhaps you'd like to rephrase that to, "No, I disagree".

In any case, application for Permanent Residence in Thailand requires, I believe, three years continuous living here on extensions of stay. Is that not like the programs that lead to residency (albeit, ridiculously difficult to attain)?

If it's based on semantics that you disagree, then we can agree on that. But there is NO mention of immigration status associated with Permission to Stay.

Thanks.

[Indegestion]

I think the U.K. should apply Thai Regs. Its not that difficult here, just no State handouts to Aliens.

[Jingthing]

Perhaps you'd like to rephrase that to, "No, I disagree".

In any case, application for Permanent Residence in Thailand requires, I believe, three years continuous living here on extensions of stay. Is that not like the programs that lead to residency (albeit, ridiculously difficult to attain)?

If it's based on semantics that you disagree, then we can agree on that. But there is NO mention of immigration status associated with Permission to Stay.

Thanks.

No, because you are wrong, and you are still even more wrong. Why beat around the bush and not say what you mean? People on retirement extensions are NOT ELIGIBLE to apply for permanent residence.

Next ...

[Sateev]

Perhaps you'd like to rephrase that to, "No, I disagree".

In any case, application for Permanent Residence in Thailand requires, I believe, three years continuous living here on extensions of stay. Is that not like the programs that lead to residency (albeit, ridiculously difficult to attain)?

If it's based on semantics that you disagree, then we can agree on that. But there is NO mention of immigration status associated with Permission to Stay.

Thanks.

No, because you are wrong, and you are still even more wrong. Why beat around the bush and not say what you mean? People on retirement extensions are NOT ELIGIBLE to apply for permanent residence.

Next ...

Sorry, but 'hissy fit' does not meet my definition of irrefutable logic. And there is no bush being beaten around.

I see now that you have made this about you, because you are here on an extension of stay based on retirement, as indicated in your answer to my post. The original post was about the reason for visa runs on B visas.

Your comparison to immigrant visa procedures in other countries is not valid, simply because Thailand, to my knowledge, HAS NO 'immigrant visa'. That is distinct from saying that Thailand has no immigrants that are not Permanent Residents legally. People who have entered on any visa, and who stay on permission to stay for the required time, and who meet the requirement for PR, who apply for Permanent Resident status, are indeed immigrants, and are using that de facto status as a basis for application for PR. Never mind that their chances of getting it are slim.

By the way, there is NO prohibition of retired persons applying for PR. If they meet the investment requirement, have family or other humanitarian need, etc., they are eligible.

The argument revolves around the legal, and the de facto meaning of the word 'immigrant'. Because the US, and many other countries have both 'immigrant visas' and 'non-immigrant visas', it's easy to see how you got confused. For purposes of my post, I refer to the dictionary, not the various legal, definition of 'immigrant'. OK?

Resorting to the imperious, "No, you are wrong. Next!" is childish.

More?

[Jingthing]

People on retirement extensions are not eligible applicants for permanent residence. FACT.

This isn't about semantics. If you are continuous extensions of Non-Immigrant visas which are conditional every year or whatever period, you are simply not ever an immigrant.

im·mi·grant

1.

a person who migrates to another country, usually for permanent residence.

Edited June 19, 2011 by Jingthing

[SurfRider]

.

Shouldn't these off-topic rants about immigrant vs. non-immigrant visa status, visa procedures in other countries, etc., be deleted and the thread returned to the original query: "Visa Runs, Why?"

[tombkk]

Sorry, but 'hissy fit' does not meet my definition of irrefutable logic. And there is no bush being beaten around.

Your comparison to immigrant visa procedures in other countries is not valid, simply because Thailand, to my knowledge, HAS NO 'immigrant visa'.

Yes, Thailand does, but:

"Immigrant visas under section 41 are theoretically issued to foreigners who have obtained permission to permanently reside in the kingdom by the immigration consideration committee according to the agreement of the minister in charge, but presently this kind of visa is not issued as there are no cases of foreigners receiving residence permission through embassies abroad. Applications have to be made after arriving in Thailand."

Source: http://www.immigration.go.th/, click on English, click on Visa, take the drop-down menu in Thai and look for the number "41" in one of the options.

By the way, there is NO prohibition of retired persons applying for PR. If they meet the investment requirement, have family or other humanitarian need, etc., they are eligible.

They may be eligible for other reasons, but if the other reasons don't exist, it does not matter how long they stay in Thailand: On a retirement visa alone, you cannot apply for PR.

Resorting to the imperious, "No, you are wrong. Next!" is childish.

I agree.

[Sateev]

.

Shouldn't these off-topic rants about immigrant vs. non-immigrant visa status, visa procedures in other countries, etc., be deleted and the thread returned to the original query: "Visa Runs, Why?"

Yes. Sorry.

[weedspecialist]

I think the U.K. should apply Thai Regs. Its not that difficult here, just no State handouts to Aliens.

True dat, true dat mon!!

Or regulate the outflowin' money directed to countrys like LOL - sorry LOS;

(..not that i really would want to have any regulations what to do with my funds or where to do it, but then: we already have that situation here, look at several visarequirements..)

Anyway, there would be starting a very loud chant at each and every corner around here - could be heard even back in EU, maybe that's what 'em need, could be some kinda fun..

[PoorSucker]

This is an interesting subject. I am in a slightly different situation. I have a multiple entry two year work permit yet I still have to report to Immigration every 90 days. This is to verify?? my address. I honestly don't see the logic in it as if I was to leave Thailand and re-enter the new reporting period starts from the day I re-enter. Note that I can put on the entry card at the airport my address is Bangkok and nothing more (not my full address) and I have no problems getting back in. I don't have to show my work permit with my address in it. So the conclusion is that this 90 day reporting and IMHO the 90 day visa run is nothing more than government bloody-minded useless bureaucracy. As someone said earlier it is to create jobs and let farangs know who is on top of the pecking order. My 2 satangs worth.

multiple entry two year work permit?

There is nothing like that.

Do you have extension of stay for one year and a multiple re-entry permit and a WP for 2 years ?

You can not ever get a extension of stay over 1 year at immigarations in Thailand.

[IMA_FARANG]

-----------------------------------------

Tax laws used to have to do with it, that's where the myth comes from. In the late 1980s, we had to file a tax report if we stayed over 90 days in the kingdom, and we even had to pay taxes (based on the amount of money we presumably spent) if we stayed longer than 180 days. That was on tourist visa. Without the tax report, immigration at the airport wouldn't let you leave the country.

Alas, this was more than 20 years ago.

-----------------------------------------

Yes, that's what it was. I was here for a 18 month period from 1977 to 1979. I had forgotten the exact details of why I had to leave every 90 days on my tourist visa then until you mentioned that old tax requirement.

What I expect happened is that the tax requirement was canceled...but the immigration rules were never changed when that tax requirement was canceled. So today the immigration still wants 90 day reporting for those living long term in Thailand.

I know that doesn't make a lot of sense, but it now seems to me that what started it was that now long repealed tax requirement.

Before you start ranting about the Thai laws here's a historical fact for you Brits to consider.

A law was passed during the time of Napolean's threat to England requiring landowners living near the Channel coast to maintain a signal fire on their property that could be lit to warn of any approaching French invasion fleet. They were to be paid an annual fee to maintain that signal fire ready for the French invasion.

That law was finally repealed by Parliment in the 1950's...nearly 150 years after the threat from Napolean was long gone. There were landowner's still collecting the annual fee when the law was repealed. Their families had been collecting that money for well over a century.

[lopburi3]

The requirement for 90 day address reporting is written into the 2522 Immigration Act of Thailand under section 37/5

5. If the alien stays in the Kingdom longer than ninety days, such alien must notify the

competent official at the Immigration Division , in writing , concerning his place of stay , as soon as

possible upon expiration of ninety days. The alien is required to do so every ninety days. Where there is

an Immigration Office , the alien may notify a competent Immigration Official of that office.

The provision of ( 3 ) and ( 4 ) shall not apply to any cases under Section 34 by any conditions as

prescribed by the Director General.

In making notification under this Section , the alien may make notification in person or send a

letter of notification to the competent official , in accordance with the regulations prescribed by the

Director General .

[Postmaster]

I have wondered about OPs question, too. I can't make sense of it either.

The best I can come up with is that the authorities don't want to make things easy for foreigners.

As has been stated in several messages posted before yours, the visa is not for long term residents. It is for people who need to travel to Thailand frequently on business and it saves them from the need to get new visas each time.

Rather than blaming Thai authorities (a popular cathartic exercise here at TV) for making things difficult for foreigners, why not blame the foreigner for planning to essentially take up full-time residence without qualifying for it or without obtaining the sort of visa that would allow him to do so?

Everyone in the world does not have some innate right to take up residence in Thailand. Even those who don't really qualify quite often find ways to play the system anyway. To first say "I've found a way to circumvent the spirit of the law," and then whine/whinge because circumventing the law is inconvenient is, at best, petulant tantrum-throwing.

As someone said earlier it is to create jobs and let farangs know who is on top of the pecking order. My 2 satangs worth.

Keeping track of foreigners living in Thailand makes perfect sense unless of course you were worried about the pecking order in the first place. One way or another every country tries to monitor foreigners within their borders. Does it create jobs? Sure. Does it make paranoid foreigners who want to believe it is they who are superior feel challenged? Apparently it does. A win-win-win situation.

There has to be controls. Just try getting a Visa for your girlfreind to go to YOUR OUNTRY. If you follow the procedure here the Thais are very reasonable. At Chonburi Immigration Office in Soi 5 Jomtien Beach they are particularly helpful and efficient. I am sure it is a lot lot harder for farangs in the UK!

[jimlek]

Because that's the law. It's no more irrational than some of the laws that pertain in your home country.

Can anyone tell me please.I have a air asia ticket N.Z.-K.L.-B.K.K.,but no onward ticket.Will I be allowed into the L.O.S.for a visa on arrival?Thai embassy's visa info says no.Air asia says they will not let me board @K.L.

Can anyone give me correct advice please?Thanks.

[lopburi3]

You are unlikely to be checked by Immigration but airline, as said, may not allow you on board without a visa or onward ticket within 30 days visa exempt entry period. But not sure they check closely at KL. It would be better to have a tourist visa prior to travel.

[KamnanT]

Because that's the law. It's no more irrational than some of the laws that pertain in your home country.

Can anyone tell me please.I have a air asia ticket N.Z.-K.L.-B.K.K.,but no onward ticket.Will I be allowed into the L.O.S.for a visa on arrival?Thai embassy's visa info says no.Air asia says they will not let me board @K.L.

Can anyone give me correct advice please?Thanks.

Probably should be in a new thread but as it's here now:

If you are travelling on an NZ passport, I assume you are talking about a visa exempt entry, not a visa on arrival - these are different. New Zealanders are not eligible for a visa on arrival.

Depends on the airline but if they are paying attention at the check-in, they will realise that in order to qualify for visa exempt entry into Thailand, you need to be in possession of a confirmed and issued onward ticket for within 30 days of your arrival date. If you do not have one, they can refuse to allow you to board your flight. Air Asia is one of the airlines that appears to pay attention, particularly in KL.

[tombkk]

Passport holders of certain countries (incl NZ) are exempt from visa requirements if they hold an onward ticket showing departure within 30 days. Any airline allowing to board a passenger without visa, or without qualification for visa on arrival or visa exemptiom, is responsible to provide outward transportation if required.

While immigration officers might not care upon arrival, the airline is taking an unneccesary risk if they allow passengers to board without qualifying, as the problem might arise later.

[traveller0815]

.

"what the official reason for making people do this is? Who benefits from it and why? What does it achieve?"

I've always assumed it's just another money deal. Presuming that the MANY visa-run operators are paying taxes on their income, it's a huge cash-cow for the government.

I was told by one of the veteran visa-run operators that they buy Cambodian Visas for 300 baht less than the visa-runner can buy it for. That 300 Baht or a potion of it could easily find its way to some "facilitator" -- multiply that by tens of thousands of visa-runners - another huge cash cow.

Near the Poipet Cambodian border, there's a building where all the visa-run vehicles stop to obtain a Cambodian Visa -- that building is not near any population center. It was clearly put there to facilitate the visa-run business. Only the agent of the visa-run company is allowed inside, while you wait outside where vendors sell you various foods, beverages, etc.

Who knows what happens in that building? (if you catch my drift)

Of course, we all know that corruption doesn't exist in Thailand, so I could be wrong . . .

.

>>> Holy guacamoly, it still exists?? Yeah, well, never touch a running system, i agree:

Already about 4yrs ago that building - way more than walking distance away from the border - was called somewhat " Honorary ?? Consulate Of Cambodia" and nothing but a big scam extracting even more money (EUR and USD only please) of shitloads of (young) european, american, australian.... tourists - the kao-san-road-type of course.

At this time i used to go on visarun there from bkk, of course NOT using any of these "agencies" but a nice half-empty 1.cl ac bus from morchid for no money having some fun with "regular inmates" - get my drift..?!

Yes, certainly the agencys carry you to their - well, POC's aka partnersincrime, extracting even more money out of the pockets of one mainly young tourist, entirely unfamiliar with location and protocol by cashing in minimum 30.- USD per visa plus another 5 or 10.- USD if one hadn't a photo, stopping at that so called "Consulate".

Some of these hustlers even "caught" insecure looking tourists a few meters from the thai border exit hauling them back to that jokebuilding mentioned above. The visa one got there where valid but you could (& most likely still can) easily buy them on your own just a few meters after leaving .th on the right hand in a small ugly concrete-bunker losing "just" 20.- USD for that crap, no problem at all...

...if you avoided sucessfully all the cretins in official-looking-cambodia-style-immigration uniforms that is, trying to convince you during that 50 meters that they would do the job for you "special vip offer" just for 30.- USD, there you go..! Sounds familiar??

So here we have one (more) reason for these otherwise totally and absolute useless hassling around across the country (..aka "visatours", for another example: samui to small malaysian borderpost, way more than 400 km one way and back in just about 12 hrs, driving agency-minibusses like hell, one of the best things one can do for environment - except of flooding atomicplants i guess..).

OF COURSE I CAUGHT YOUR DRIFT MAN, AND KNOW THIS: OF COURSE YOU ARE WRONG AS THERE IS CERTAINLY NO CORRUPTION AND TOURIST-SCAM IN .TH, ESPECIALLY NOT IN CLOSE COOPERATION (P.O.C's; sic.) WITH BEIGHBOURING BORDER OFFICIALS!!

WASN'T, ISN'T AND NEVER WILL BE...!!

...IN ETERNITY;

AMEN

[jdinasia]

I understand the requirements involved with the types of visa, I just don't get the purpose of having to leave and re enter the country every 90 days when you've been issued a visa which lasts for a year.

It's not a complaint as such. It seems a small price to pay to be able to live in Thailand for a year, I just don't understand what benefit comes of it? There must be a reason why the government requires people to do visa runs, I just can't work out what that reason is?

Does it help them keep tabs on who's in or out of the country at any one time? I know a lot of things happen in Thailand without any obvious rhyme or reason, but there must be an official reason for this? Surely?

They aren't granting you a visa to live in Thailand. They aren't granting you a 1 year visa. They aren't granting you a visa to work in Thailand. They are granting you a visa to conduct business in Thailand that allows you to stay in Thailand up to 90 days at a time with as many entries and exits as you wish during that first 12 months. (if you leave and re-enter the country on the day before the visa itself expires you can stretch it to 15 months but you may not leave and re-enter during that last 3 months without a re-entry permit.)

[traveller0815]

...I think the reason is that the Thai government does not want people living in Thailand who are not "productive" in their minds ...

...For them (as for most countries) it is a simple economic decision - how do we get people here who will pay more in than they cost us.

>>> Good one beachboy, if they really want to get rid of all the "unproductives" in .th, hell then WHERE TO with about 30 million people - even lots more probably, catch my drift ...lol...!!?

I don't cost nothing to nobody except myself, not even to my gouvernment back home as i'm entirely living off my nicely (in europe, certainly) deposited savings.

But i do pay tax here, i do - in average - spent very high monthly living costs without claiming a job (!!!) and of course there is some additional sort of moneytransfer to .th's benefit although i'm keeping it low otherwise - dealing with professionals in that matter - one would be sucked empty (moneywise of course) in no time...!

You are perfectly right, they just want people coming "..who will pay more in..." - so who would these be??

A 100 points for the right answer:

Tourists, coming for 2 or 3 weeks, throwing around shitloads of foreign currency (at a ridiculous exchange rate now, btw), the best "victim" one can want, having no idea about regular prices, fares etc, easy to cheat on. That visatour-business is just one of these scams, entirely enabled by ancient regulations as we could learn recently.

But then, i'm probably wrong and therefore truly compunctious as there is - as stated before already: ...CERTAINLY NO CORRUPTION AND TOURIST-SCAM IN .TH, ESPECIALLY NOT IN CLOSE COOPERATION WITH BEIGHBOURING BORDER OFFICIALS!!

WASN'T, ISN'T AND NEVER WILL BE...!!

...IN ETERNITY;

AMEN

(Bloodyhell, obviously the "quotomat" doesn't work too well, but yeah, got it, same old whining: it's .th ... aka TIT..!! )

Edited June 19, 2011 by traveller0815

[Maestro]

...Tourists, coming for 2 or 3 weeks, throwing around shitloads of foreign currency (at a ridiculous exchange rate now, btw)...

Yes, the exchange rate is ridiculous, isn't it? On my first visit to Thailand, many years ago, I got 6.21 Baht for one Swiss Franc. Today, I get 35 Baht. Ridiculous, but I am not complaining.

[Maestro]

Back to the original question:

I understand the requirements involved with the types of visa, I just don't get the purpose of having to leave and re enter the country every 90 days when you've been issued a visa which lasts for a year...

Your bafflement is due to a simple misunderstanding. From the website of the Immigration Bureau:

The visa expiration date is shown on the visa. Depending on the alien’s nationality, visas can be issued for any number of entries, from as little as one entry to as many as multiple (unlimited) entries, for the same purpose of travel.

• This generally means the visa is valid, or can be used from the date it is issued until the date it expires, for travel for the same purpose, when the visa is issued for multiple entry.
  
• This time period from the visa issuance date to visa expiration date as shown on the visa, is called visa validity. If you travel frequently as a tourist for example, with a multiple entry visa, you do not have to apply for a new visa each time you want to travel to Thailand.
  
• The visa validity is the length of time you are permitted to travel to a port-of-entry in Thailand to request permission of the immigration officer to permit you to enter Thailand. The visa does not guarantee entry to Thailand.
  
• The Expiration Date for the visa should not be confused with the authorized length of your stay in Thailand, given to you by the immigration officer at port-of-entry. The visa expiration date has nothing to do with the authorized length of your stay in Thailand for any given visit.
  
• Each time you arrive at the port-of-entry, an immigration officer decides whether to allow you to enter and how long you can stay. Only the immigration officer has the authority to permit you to enter Thailand.
  

You assumed erroneously that the multiple-entry non-B visa, valid for one year, was intended to let you stay in Thailand for one year, whereas in fact a visa is always only for travel to Thailand, never a permission to stay in Thailand. The validity period of the visa is the period during which it can be used for travel, as often as you need or wish, during this period, nothing more.

You don't have to do any "visa runs". Just like anybody else travelling to Thailand, with any type of visa or visa-exempt, you must leave the country not later than on the last day of your permission to stay, which when entering with a non-B visa is 90 days. If you want to travel to Thailand again the same day you left, this is your choice, it is not a requirement imposed by the visa.

[traveller0815]

...Tourists, coming for 2 or 3 weeks, throwing around shitloads of foreign currency (at a ridiculous exchange rate now, btw)...

Yes, the exchange rate is ridiculous, isn't it? On my first visit to Thailand, many years ago, I got 6.21 Baht for one Swiss Franc. Today, I get 35 Baht. Ridiculous, but I am not complaining.

>>> Everybody is very happy for you and your swissfrank, we really are, extremely good for you, almost unbelieveable swiss performance, amazing,perfect,suppa, i so wish i were swiss...satisfied..??

Your outrageous analysis over "many years" shows knowledge of an well educated and experienced economist, what can i say, i'm just out of words..!

But as there still are a few other nationalities on this planet fact is that for everybody earning his money in USD, EUR, GBP just for example "prices went up" more then 25% in some 1 1/2 yrs due to far worse exchangerates - ok, you just didn't notice at all, fine by me!

No problem for me anyway, i do have sufficient funds for the rest of my life, also no problem to cut my expenses here by 25%, did it already in fact - but anyone having relatively small pension would love to get another of your sophisticated economical statements, i guess..!?

Edited June 19, 2011 by traveller0815

[Suradit]

"This is my first time of living outside the UK,"

You can forget all about western ways of thinking and logic and whats reasonable and fair or even common sense, they just dont apply out here.

You will soon learn to stop questioning and just accept thats the way it is and you have to roll with it.

Or you could pretend this is 1850, that your world view is divinely inspired and that you've been given the unenviable task of living amongst the heathen as a shining example of moral rectitude. Then you can join ThaiVisa and whine/whinge endlessly about how horrible it is to live here. There's western logic & thinking in all its glory.

[mabuse]

"This is my first time of living outside the UK,"

You can forget all about western ways of thinking and logic and whats reasonable and fair or even common sense, they just dont apply out here.

You will soon learn to stop questioning and just accept thats the way it is and you have to roll with it.

Or you could pretend this is 1850, that your world view is divinely inspired and that you've been given the unenviable task of living amongst the heathen as a shining example of moral rectitude. Then you can join ThaiVisa and whine/whinge endlessly about how horrible it is to live here. There's western logic & thinking in all its glory.

Well, nobody - at least nobody i know – feels himself beeing divinely inspired discussing about the info & facts we learned here:

90day interval for several visatyps seems to be based on some sort of ancient (i.e not longer existing, possibly originating from about 1850, there u go!) regulations...

It's pretty much useless to send tourists, expats, whatsoever all across the country wasting time and energy plus polluting our environment in a very much senseless way...

Writing the year 2011 one should believe there are numerous more clever ways to keep track about a foreigners whereabouts – as long he himself is willing to of course, because all that visarunning dosn't ensure in any way that everybody really is documented.

If one doesn't go out ...well, he just doesn't go, that's that.

What's about reporting at next immioffice or even next bigger-but-local policestation, just for example...??

A good part of all them organisated visaruns are highly overprised (well organised) rip-offs, working out over yrs with more or less anticipation of ...well, not a few number of so called public servants. (..btw if anyone is in neeed, i know a touroperator in samui who is as reliable as they even come around here, just pm me..)

So the question was: what are them visaruns good for anyway??

Answer as far we were able to work one out: TO SUBSTITUTE TOUROPERATORS, SOME OFFICIALS AND A BUNCH OF HUSTLERS ….with neverending tourist's money..!

So if any divine inspired genius is holding back info about a real intelligent reason to do it the way it's done now spit it out then .....just: there is none!!

Nobody is whining or even stating it was horrible to live here – u just have to know the waiting traps on your way – as long as u even have one - so to avoid them as good as possible by SHARING INFO – anything wrong 'bout that??

Gotta problem with people who try NOT to dump their (more or less) arduosly gathered savings in a corrupt swamp..?If yes than why – u a tour operator... lol...??!

dam_n, waste time - gotta go and make contact with MY supreme beeing, as the missus is already waiting for the walking atm to go shopping!

Cheers

[tombkk]

Maestro: Very well said about the visa runs. Nobody is obliged to do it, and if people want to stay in the country for more than 90 days, there are reasons to extend the permission to stay.

For all the complainers: Name one country in the western world that allows you stay stay indefinitely on a tourist visa.