Why do I have to leave the Kingdom to renew a tourist visa?

[SoiBiker]

2. I like living in the Kingdom, I have no intention in breaking any laws.

If you're living here, you're not a tourist. Get a proper visa.

[Swiss1960]

....

But for the tourists who would like to stay and would prefer to not leave the Kingdom, for the purpose of renewing their visa, wouldn't it be a win/win situation if we could just go to the local Immigration office. We pay either way.

Again irrelevant, as others also pointed out. Tourist is tourist and the intention of a tourist Visa is short time and for that, enough Visa options exist. All your would / should / could and any negation thereof are irrelevant, as it is not within the Thai law as it is written right now.

Would you please also take note that the same rules exist for Visa into Europe / Schengen: It is not possible to get a tourist Visa that is longer than 90 day within a 180 day period and it is NOT possible to prolong such a Visa.

So you are actually asking the Thai government to be even more lenient tourists to their country than the European countris are with Thai tourists - you are certainly aware that Thai citizens can only apply for Visa through the Embassies, there are no Visa exempt or Visa on arrival possibilities for Thai citizens to Europe (Schengen).

Edited June 2, 2014 by Swiss1960

[cooked]

Duuuh. Wrong! A visa gives you permission to enter a country, cross its frontiers. So you can't get a visa IN the country, can you? You can get an extension of the permission to stay that a visa implies.

In some countries you can get a visa while inside the country. It is called an exit visa.

[harrry]

Duuuh. Wrong! A visa gives you permission to enter a country, cross its frontiers. So you can't get a visa IN the country, can you? You can get an extension of the permission to stay that a visa implies.

In some countries you can get a visa while inside the country. It is called an exit visa.

Which always caused fights in the old days of the Royal Lao Government as the visa you obtained for a large fee at the embassy had stamped on it in french 'Free to Leave" "free à quitter" and people used to always argue that it said freely given and so they were robbed. Of course without that stamp no one was allowed to leave so if they had working visas they had to get an exit visa.

Edited June 2, 2014 by harrry

[star kicker]

are you really a 'tourist' or are you someone using the tourist visa as a means of living/stating here for an extended period of time?

think about the answer to this question and as if by magic you will answer your original question.

[Rumblecat]

Yeah, that's the long and short of it.

You have to leave the country because it's a tourist visa. Meant for tourists, who are coming from out-with the country.

Sure, I guess they could make some money by allowing people to apply from it within the country, but that would just go against the whole point of the tourist visa- and the fact that people use tourist visas to live in the country is one of the reasons why there's a crackdown on abuse of them.

[guruavi]

why?

MONEY! easy as that.

[slygeeza]

footbetter, your posts make perfect sense, I dont know the answer and its unlikely you will get an answer on this forum unfortunately

[mihalis]

Not one country of heard of, allows you to renew a tourist visa, while your still in the country !! So why should Thailand differ

[duanebigsby]

I'm just asking, I'm not trying to start an argument. I understand it's the law. So what's the difference btwn a long staying tourist and a retired person living in the Kingdom?

A retired visa requires you show adequate finances, couldn't this be part of it? So, if a tourist can deposit the same amount as a retired farang, would that be OK?

I'm thinking that perhaps looking in a dictionary at the word "tourist" and the word "retirement" might be useful for you

.

You are clearly overthinking this.

You may think the rule is silly, but there may or may not be a reason behind it. It just IS.

Not too many years ago, it was illegal in B.C., Canada to carry your drink in hand if you moved tables in a restarurant, it required the waitress to do it for you.

stupid? Yes. The law? Yes.

[JB300]

Not one country of heard of, allows you to renew a tourist visa, while your still in the country !! So why should Thailand differ

You can (apply, no guarantee it will be successful) extend your Visa in Singapore once without leaving the country, but then you have to leave for a minimum of 5 days.

And extend Visas no problem in Philippines & Cambodia, come to think of it, Indonesia (once) as well

But it is the exception rather than the norm.

Edited June 2, 2014 by JB300

[Tatsujin]

I'm just asking, I'm not trying to start an argument. I understand it's the law. So what's the difference btwn a long staying tourist and a retired person living in the Kingdom?

A retired visa requires you show adequate finances, couldn't this be part of it? So, if a tourist can deposit the same amount as a retired farang, would that be OK?

Would that be OK to do what?

A tourist is not someone typically who stays long term, if someone wishes to stay long term in a country (such as ourselves) then we are not "tourists", we are semi-permanent residents (kind of).

So what's your point with the tourist visa? That Thailand should magically allow tourists to stay for 1 year at a time if they have cash? If so, just apply for a different visa, not a tourist visa . . . which is for tourists. Get it now?

[John1thru10]

I'm just asking, I'm not trying to start an argument. I understand it's the law. So what's the difference btwn a long staying tourist and a retired person living in the Kingdom?

A retired visa requires you show adequate finances, couldn't this be part of it? So, if a tourist can deposit the same amount as a retired farang, would that be OK?

The answer to all these questions is actually easy: the want you to be outside Thailand when asking to renew your visa, because then all they have to say is 'no' if they don't want you back in. No fuss, no expense. if they say that inside Thailand, then they are responsible for deporting you out to somewhere else. easiest to do it when you are already out. can't figure that out?

2nd, the difference between a long stay tourist, retirement, or visa exempt, is how much money you have without Thailand. if you are wealthy from things you've already done, like retirement savings or making money with a corporation within thailand legally, then the fees are much higher than a tourist visa. want to retire in thailand, show us you have (i think it's) 25,000 euro in the bank already, and that you also get x per month from outside thailand in a way you can prove and account for legally. want to be a first time tourist for 6 months: that's 2,500 baht or something. money, is your answer.

and 3rdly, no tourist option includes a check here if you are wealthy box for special treatment. if you are wealthy, it is presumed that you have the wherewithall to use google, and or that you would apply for a visa you can afford, of which there are many options.

Edited June 2, 2014 by John1thru10

[kovaltech]

Well, I guess you don't know the answer, either.

I'm all for law and order.

I think, globally seen, any country requires either to obtain a visa from your country of origin or a visa on arrival...

Thats all what a visa is; a permit to enter a country...

Just in short version: Visa is to obtain before entering ( meaning passing the immigration officer at the "border") or at arrival: ( at that same immigration officer.)

Exempt of visa is for some country's, then the immigration officer can stamp you in, without a so called Visa.

immigration offices give you an extension of stay, meaning you are in the country already...

They also can change your visa status from one to another.

So, short, visa before entering

extension when in country.

If your tourist visa is expired, including any possible extensions, then you are required to obtain an proper visa in "your" embassy ;-)

[captspectre]

Very few countries if any allow tourists to remain in the country for an indefinite period of time. Thailand has it own rules and that is just how it is.

in a few words, BECAUSE THEY SAY SO! plain and simple.

[sotsira]

But for the tourists who would like to stay and would prefer to not leave the Kingdom, for the purpose of renewing their visa, wouldn't it be a win/win situation if we could just go to the local Immigration office. We pay either way.

You can extend a Tourist Visa at a local Immigration office for 1900bt, usually for an extra 30 days.

But you can't obtain a new Tourist Visa within the country.

[MrWorldwide]

I'm just asking, I'm not trying to start an argument. I understand it's the law. So what's the difference btwn a long staying tourist and a retired person living in the Kingdom?

A retired visa requires you show adequate finances, couldn't this be part of it? So, if a tourist can deposit the same amount as a retired farang, would that be OK?

The answer to all these questions is actually easy: the want you to be outside Thailand when asking to renew your visa, because then all they have to say is 'no' if they don't want you back in. No fuss, no expense. if they say that inside Thailand, then they are responsible for deporting you out to somewhere else. easiest to do it when you are already out. can't figure that out?

2nd, the difference between a long stay tourist, retirement, or visa exempt, is how much money you have without Thailand. if you are wealthy from things you've already done, like retirement savings or making money with a corporation within thailand legally, then the fees are much higher than a tourist visa. want to retire in thailand, show us you have (i think it's) 25,000 euro in the bank already, and that you also get x per month from outside thailand in a way you can prove and account for legally. want to be a first time tourist for 6 months: that's 2,500 baht or something. money, is your answer.

and 3rdly, no tourist option includes a check here if you are wealthy box for special treatment. if you are wealthy, it is presumed that you have the wherewithall to use google, and or that you would apply for a visa you can afford, of which there are many options.

At the risk of getting into a bit of to-and-fro here, you and I appear to have a slightly different take on the requirements. Per the responses in this thread, its 800K in a Thai bank account OR 65K per month from a source outside Thailand:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/618358-non-imm-cat-o-to-retirement-visa-rules-financial-requirements/

At the time of writing, even with transfer fees, I believe you would need less than 20K Euro to satisfy the requirement but thats not my home currency - happy to hear from those who've made the transfer recently.

The surety amounts aren't 'fees' - they are a financial requirement (a tick in a box) and my understanding is that I can withdraw the 800K the day after being granted my visa. As with anything on this board, I'm happy to hear that I have the wrong info - all I ask is that we keep it civil.

[sustento]

Visas are issued by Embassies and Consulates. There are no Thai Embassies or Consulates in Thailand. Therefore in order to get a new visa you need to leave Thailand and travel to a country that has either a Thai Embassy or a Thai Consulate. It's not physically possible to get a visa inside Thailand.

[harrry]

I'm just asking, I'm not trying to start an argument. I understand it's the law. So what's the difference btwn a long staying tourist and a retired person living in the Kingdom?

A retired visa requires you show adequate finances, couldn't this be part of it? So, if a tourist can deposit the same amount as a retired farang, would that be OK?

The answer to all these questions is actually easy: the want you to be outside Thailand when asking to renew your visa, because then all they have to say is 'no' if they don't want you back in. No fuss, no expense. if they say that inside Thailand, then they are responsible for deporting you out to somewhere else. easiest to do it when you are already out. can't figure that out?

2nd, the difference between a long stay tourist, retirement, or visa exempt, is how much money you have without Thailand. if you are wealthy from things you've already done, like retirement savings or making money with a corporation within thailand legally, then the fees are much higher than a tourist visa. want to retire in thailand, show us you have (i think it's) 25,000 euro in the bank already, and that you also get x per month from outside thailand in a way you can prove and account for legally. want to be a first time tourist for 6 months: that's 2,500 baht or something. money, is your answer.

and 3rdly, no tourist option includes a check here if you are wealthy box for special treatment. if you are wealthy, it is presumed that you have the wherewithall to use google, and or that you would apply for a visa you can afford, of which there are many options.

Sorry....the government will not pay to deport you. That is entirely at your own cost.

[curtklay]

Newbee tink too mutt.

[hawker9000]

.

OK, thanks.

Let me rephrase the question;

What's the advantage of making the tourist leave, just to re-enter minutes later, if tharundefinitions what they choose?

The "out - in visa run" has been allowed in the past as a convenience. It's not the norm and in many countries you have to spend anything from 24hrs to 10 days in country B before you are allowed to return to country A. People who don't know this really haven't been around.

99% of tourists spend their vacates here a NEVER use a visa run. That's cuz they have jobs and responsibilities in their home countries. Family members depend on them and they just can't go larking off to Thailand for 6 months. Visa exempt works great for them.

Should there be a reason to stay longer, say a true interest in Thai culture, Buddhism, art, crafts, geography, etc., you make a serious itinerary, book hotels, and get a tourist visa in your home country = 60 days, extendable for 30 more in most cases - Voila! 90 days.

But that's not enough. There is a small group who feel they have a God given right to plop their butts down in Thailand and pretend to be tourists. Month after month they tour Pattaya or Phukett or Hua Hin or Samui etc.

Let's face it. They are living here illegally.

These are the very same guys you will hear complaining about how the Polish and Arabs are ruining the UK. Or how the Latinos are ruining the US. Or the Pakistanis are ruining Canada. They all wish their home countries would crack down on it.

Of course the first response is... wait for it... WE are not like the great unwashed hoards, WE BRING MONEY!!! money money money MONEY. HOLY GOD MONEY! WE GOT IT! boatloads and tonnes

HEY, is that why tourism is only 6% of Thailand's GNP? Just a quick look at the high rollers we got on here and it ought to be bumped up to 8% easy. OK 8% of billions and billions of BAHT. So it's actually small money.

As much as they can't understand Thailand's immigration laws, they really can't understand that some things are more important than money.

'nuff said

PS. to those who complain about corruption; have you ever tried to do a deal in Italy?

Now, there are pros... and there are PROS!

~

See, this just isn't true. The "tourist" moniker is in fact subjective.

Why is someone who wants to stay 60 or 90 days just relaxing on the beach and then moving on to another place in Thailand when the mood strikes less a tourist than the 30d stayer who (perhaps because he's traveling with family) arrives knowing exactly where he/they will be staying everyday with a detailed itinerary of temple visits, sight-seeing, etc?. Apologists are making it all up as they go along when it comes to who's a tourist and who's not.. Why are 3x 30d stayers better than one 90d stayer?

Because the long-stayer is more likely engaging in illegal employment or criminal activity? OK, then you admit it's about making subjective assumptions and crafting your own definition of what a "tourist" is simply to facilitate a badly thought out enforcement scheme.

Edited June 2, 2014 by hawker9000

[MikeandDow]

.

OK, thanks.

Let me rephrase the question;

What's the advantage of making the tourist leave, just to re-enter minutes later, if that's what they choose?

The "out - in visa run" has been allowed in the past as a convenience. It's not the norm and in many countries you have to spend anything from 24hrs to 10 days in country B before you are allowed to return to country A. People who don't know this really haven't been around.

99% of tourists spend their vacates here a NEVER use a visa run. That's cuz they have jobs and responsibilities in their home countries. Family members depend on them and they just can't go larking off to Thailand for 6 months. Visa exempt works great for them.

Should there be a reason to stay longer, say a true interest in Thai culture, Buddhism, art, crafts, geography, etc., you make a serious itinerary, book hotels, and get a tourist visa in your home country = 60 days, extendable for 30 more in most cases - Voila! 90 days.

But that's not enough. There is a small group who feel they have a God given right to plop their butts down in Thailand and pretend to be tourists. Month after month they tour Pattaya or Phukett or Hua Hin or Samui etc.

Let's face it. They are living here illegally.

These are the very same guys you will hear complaining about how the Polish and Arabs are ruining the UK. Or how the Latinos are ruining the US. Or the Pakistanis are ruining Canada. They all wish their home countries would crack down on it.

Of course the first response is... wait for it... WE are not like the great unwashed hoards, WE BRING MONEY!!! money money money MONEY. HOLY GOD MONEY! WE GOT IT! boatloads and tonnes

HEY, is that why tourism is only 6% of Thailand's GNP? Just a quick look at the high rollers we got on here and it ought to be bumped up to 8% easy. OK 8% of billions and billions of BAHT. So it's actually small money.

As much as they can't understand Thailand's immigration laws, they really can't understand that some things are more important than money.

'nuff said

PS. to those who complain about corruption; have you ever tried to do a deal in Italy?

Now, there are pros... and there are PROS!

~

See, this just isn't true. The "tourist" moniker is in fact subjective.

Why is someone who wants to stay 60 or 90 days just relaxing on the beach and then moving on to another place in Thailand when the mood strikes less a tourist than the 30d stayer who (perhaps because he's traveling with family) arrives knowing exactly where he/they will be staying everyday with a detailed itinerary of temple visits, sight-seeing, etc?. Apologists are making it all up as they go along when it comes to who's a tourist and who's not.

agree with you hawker she is just full of bull shit first statement (The "out - in visa run" has been allowed in the past as a convenience) old woman ranting its funny

[hanssna]

I have to get out of the country to get a new visum every year... Even though i have a work permit and a non B visum.

So I find it annoying myself to leave every year.

I understand there is no logic behind this...

but if you look for logic, you're in the wrong country.

Things are just the way they are.

[hawker9000]

Searching for logic & consistency in all this is a waste of time. That's true.

[Suradit69]

I know the OP is a newbie.

I know we are supposed to be support of the fact.

But to not have the basic concept of what a tourist is ... "Why do I have to leave the Kingdom to renew a tourist visa?"

Darwin Award does spring to mind ...

Does the OP have a 'Tourist Visa' ... which can be extended?

Or does he have a 'Visa on Arrival' * ?

* yes, I know it's a Visa exempt.

"Or does he have a 'Visa on Arrival' * ?

* yes, I know it's a Visa exempt."

No, "VOA" is not a "visa exempt." It's one or the other. Either someone comes from a country whose citizens are permitted to get a visa after arriving in Thailand, which means they are still getting a visa before reaching the immigrations officer who may then give them permission to stay, or someone from certain countries may be allowed to enter the country without getting a visa before being permitted to stay by an immigrations officer, which means they maybe exempted from the need for a visa for relatively short stays if they meet the requirements.

In one case you would be issued a visa and in one case you would not. Not rocket science.

Edited June 2, 2014 by Suradit69

[ggt]

You have to leave the KINGDOM...because the KINGDOM says so...any questions...?

[stgrhe]

Visas to Thailand is administrated by Thai consolates or their Embassy's consulat departments under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOD). Apart from the ministry itself MOD do not have any sub-branches in the country. Hence, all visas must be obtained outside of the country. This applies also to the so-called "visa on arrival" that can be obtained by certain nationalities, as it strictly speaking isn't a visa but a permission to stay in the country.

While in Thailand MOD have nothing to do with the rules under foreigners can stay in Thailand as that is the responsibility of the Immigration Bureau, which is a branch of the Thai police. Therefore, any extention one does in Thailand is not extension of a visa but an extention of the temporary permission to stay in Thailand.

Thus, an extension, which actually is a renewal, of a tourist visa must be done outside of Thailand.

[FritsSikkink]

Tourist come an go.

If you have a double entry tourist visa , you have to leave before you can enter again.

Not rocket science isn't it?

[moe666]

India requires anyone to leave for I believe 3 months or so out of six months because of the attacks on Mumbai several years ago. One can be in procession of a 10 year visa and guess what you will still be leaving

[moe666]

Visas to Thailand is administrated by Thai consolates or their Embassy's consulat departments under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOD). Apart from the ministry itself MOD do not have any sub-branches in the country. Hence, all visas must be obtained outside of the country. This applies also to the so-called "visa on arrival" that can be obtained by certain nationalities, as it strictly speaking isn't a visa but a permission to stay in the country.

While in Thailand MOD have nothing to do with the rules under foreigners can stay in Thailand as that is the responsibility of the Immigration Bureau, which is a branch of the Thai police. Therefore, any extention one does in Thailand is not extension of a visa but an extention of the temporary permission to stay in Thailand.

Thus, an extension, which actually is a renewal, of a tourist visa must be done outside of Thailand.

Sorry to tell you but wrong you can get an extension of a visa at immigration in country, for a multiply tourist visa after the one and only extension for 30 days received at immigration you must leave the country to activate the second visa good for another 60 days. These are separate visas standing on there own.