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

[IvanLaw]

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

I'm all for law and order.

Thank you,

Who's Order?

[marcusd]

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.

Yes I agree. If in Europe, the USA, Australia, you get a fixed term then bigger off no excuses, no chances. So why ask about Thailand where it is relatively simple

[sustento]

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

An extension isn't a visa.

[davidstipek]

OP.. With the sarcastic replies you seem to have drawn... I think Best Option to do is to visit a Immigration Office. Like we have here in Chiang Mai... Ask anyone at counter to get que number to talk To Staff Member who's sole duties are to take care of whatever Visa you have in you Passport.

Then ask your questions... (Have a List so you not forget anything as you will get English answer, Correct answer) Bring a gift of some kind... like Basket fruit or Cakes. As they will not get paid (collect money) for spending time with you. If what you are requesting done could be accomplished at Immigration Office, they will tell you also insure you get required Paperwork on your person before you leave, same if cannot.

For your sake I believe this will be your best option.... But do not wait till last moment to do... Give your self a backdoor to exit if need be you are required to leave Thailand.

OK??

Edited June 2, 2014 by davidstipek

[AYJAYDEE]

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.

so , if youre out of money you get to stay??

[SoiBiker]

so , if youre out of money you get to stay??

Yep. But I don't think you'd like the accomodation much.

[sustento]

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.

so , if youre out of money you get to stay??

[David48]

^^ sustento ... thanks for that ... a view I've never seen, nor hope never to!

[FritsSikkink]

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.

so , if youre out of money you get to stay??

Yes, in jail

Edited June 2, 2014 by FritsSikkink

[Gonsalviz]

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.

* sorry to be pedantic... but it could be both, either Visa on Arrival (list of countries here) or Visa exempt...

If he/she had a visa and it has expired there is no such thing as being visa exempt. He/she has to leave and get another. If it is only a 30 day extension required it may be done at any local immigration office.

[aboctok]

You are granted a visa as part of the process of being permitted to enter a country. It is not the same thing as permission to remain there. When we talk of being in a country "on" some visa, we are talking loosely; when you enter a country, any visa you used becomes exactly that: USED. It becomes an historical document, without any ongoing function, other than being an important record of the circumstances under which you entered the country. Getting a new visa (sometimes loosely called renewing a visa) is often very easy, in its natural context, which is OUTSIDE the country—because a visa is only about getting permission to enter.

So the original question is really about the issue of permission to stay. When you enter a country, an immigration officer grants you permission to stay for a definite period. This period typically is in accordance with the period advised in the visa, but it is the time granted by the immigration officer at the time of entry, that counts.

In light of that, the answer to the original question is fairly short. Immigration authorities in most countries prefer to exercise some control over the aliens (foreign people) who are in their country, by regulating the time granted for such people to complete their stay and then leave. If the stated purpose for entry is tourism, the expectation is that a holiday can reasonably be completed within the time allowed. If this proves to be insufficient, and the traveler evinces an objective of remaining longer, then immigration probably consider themselves entitled to doubt the veracity of the stated purpose of entering the(ir) country. Some travelers probably feel gratified to be allowed to exit and then re-enter, without great travail.

I think that just about covers it?

Edited June 2, 2014 by aboctok

[JohnThailandJohn]

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

I'm all for law and order.

It would seem the law is probably about wanting people to get tourist visas before they come, like most countries. Because you don't need or are entitled to a visa on arrival, the 30-days you are granted is your free tourist pass into the Kingdom, if you planned to be a tourist longer then you get a tourist visa before you come. The rules were not designed to provide continual stay for people who either have no plans or change their plans ... most (the vast majority) of real tourist have plans and have a finite number of days to vacation and have made arrangements only for that time from plane tickets to hotel stay.

My guess is your real question is, why doesn't Thailand make it easier to stay in the country under the false pretense of being a tourist. If Thailand wanted foreigners here indefinitely then they wouldn't have time limits ...not sure there is any country that doesn't have limits on foreigners staying in the country on tourist visas.

Edited June 2, 2014 by JohnThailandJohn

[hawker9000]

Again. This total fiction that anyone wanting to stay more than 30d cannot be a "tourist". If a country wants to have non-renewable 30d visa-exempt entries, all they have to do is put that in writing where travelers can see it. The guessing game really isn't necessary, unless the actual agenda us to persecute everyone for the sins of a few (or coverup the inability of local law enforcement to accurately target actual offenders). I realize that many smug expats aren't particularly concerned about all this, but suspect their day is coming).

Edited June 2, 2014 by hawker9000

[Maestro]

Removed an off-topic post about the Philippines.

[Maestro]

Question (as asked by the OP):

why do I have to leave the Kingdom to renew my tourist visa?

Answer:

You don't, since a tourist cannot be renewed.

Question (which the OP apparently meant to ask):

Why do I get visa-exempt permission to stay for only 30 days?

Answer (in the words of Lt Gen Phanu Kerdlaphon, until a few days ago the national commander of Thai Immigration):

"Thirty days should be enough for a normal tourist. If they really want to travel around the country for more than 30 days, then they must show us a plausible plan. If officers are suspicious, then they will carry out checks...If you are coming here not as a tourist, then please get the correct visa."

Source: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/725773-immigration-boss-confirms-the-out-in-visa-run-is-dead/

[Maestro]

Again. This total fiction that anyone wanting to stay more than 30d cannot be a "tourist". If a country wants to have non-renewable 30d visa-exempt entries, all they have to do is put that in writing where travelers can see it...

A traveller who plans to stay longer than 30 days in Thailand for the purpose of tourism can and should get a tourist visa. This information is in writing on the websites of the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs and on the websites of most Thai embassies and consulates where travellers can see it.

[neverdie]

You must leave because you are an alien. Aliens are only permitted, under the rules of the law, to remain in the Kingdom of Thailand for short periods of time.

[David48]

Question (as asked by the OP):

why do I have to leave the Kingdom to renew my tourist visa?

Answer:

You don't, since a tourist cannot be renewed.

Question (which the OP apparently meant to ask):

Why do I get visa-exempt permission to stay for only 30 days?

Answer (in the words of Lt Gen Phanu Kerdlaphon, until a few days ago the national commander of Thai Immigration):

"Thirty days should be enough for a normal tourist. If they really want to travel around the country for more than 30 days, then they must show us a plausible plan. If officers are suspicious, then they will carry out checks...If you are coming here not as a tourist, then please get the correct visa."

Source: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/725773-immigration-boss-confirms-the-out-in-visa-run-is-dead/

Worth a second viewing ... well said.

[jacko45k]

It is a permission to enter and remain in the country.

You were vetted on that basis and it was issued to allow you in once (or twice or three times) with each stay for a limited duration.

You have used it, you need to leave or get a new one.

You have to also look up the definition of tourist.. they are expected to go at some point.

[wabothai]

Hundreds of times i have asked why.....never have i gotten an answer.

[Tomtomtom69]

Well, I am a newbie.

1. I know, just go with it, No argument from me, there.

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

3. I'm not asking for anyone on this Forum to attempt to change the law or give encouragement to try to circumvent any statures, either.

4. I understand most Countries have their rules, and laws and to follow the laws is the best advice.

For all you newbies, my advice is skip the vindictive replies.

For the long staying guests, just because you've been here longer doesn't qualify you to reply to a question belligerently. A simple I don't know, is fine.

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.

It would be but there's no point in having an argument about changing Thailand's immigration laws, particularly those pertaining to short term stays. I think Thailand would be better off if they started copying China (which in turn is slowly following the west) by placing a greater emphasis on attracting foreign talent to stay long term (including as permanent residents) rather than just as tourists. Tourism is important, but guess what? China requires tourists from nearly every country to apply for a visa in advance, except in specific circumstances (nationals of 45 countries can enter a number of major cities in China for up to 72 hours without a visa if they have a ticket to a third country, are entering Hainan for up to 21 days I believe and on a tour, entering from Hong Kong to Guangdong for up to 5 days etc.) and yet about 3 times more tourists manage to visit China than Thailand every year.

Cambodia and the Philippines are just two regional countries that allow you to stay long-term, without all the hassle that Thailand poses. Even Vietnam allows one to stay fairly long with in country extensions for a while before a visa run may be required (9-12 months I believe).

[JSixpack]

Because you do. Welcome to your first lesson in attitude adjustment that will enable you to think more like a Thai, a step in the long journey towards peace, contentment, and happiness in Thailand.

[Tomtomtom69]

....

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).

Thais also can't get a visa waiver for the USA, Canada, Australia or NZ. In the case of NZ, some years ago Thais got a 90-day visa waiver, whilst NZers got a reciprocal 90 day visa waiver to enter Thailand, but due to larger numbers of illegal workers and overstayers, the NZ government decided to cancel the visa waiver and impose a visa requirement on Thai citizens, back in 1996 I believe. Thailand responded by reducing the visa-free limit for NZers down to 30 days from 90 days previously.

Apart from a few reciprocal agreements like this, generally speaking tourism is more important for Thailand than for these other countries hence the reason why Thailand is more generous towards allowing Europeans/Americans/Australians etc. to enter Thailand temporarily than they are towards Thais entering those countries temporarily. 6-8% of Thai GDP has been mentioned as coming from tourism, though depending on what industries are included in the makeup of tourism, 10 or more % is likely (especially if you include prostitution, though not all customers are foreigners although there is also such a thing as domestic tourism, which I assume is included in these GDP calculations).

Consequently, it doesn't really matter to the Thai government that their citizens need a visa to access Europe or North America/Australia etc. when citizens of those countries can enter visa free. In any case, 30 days is what most of these countries get without a visa to Thailand, 90 days is standard for Thais that are able to get a visa for any of these countries, although some are more generous than others. In some cases though, particularly European countries from what I've heard, Thais may only get a 15 day visa or whatever that is based on the travel itinerary they submit. Australia on the other hand, routinely hands out 3-month visas even if a Thai only needs to spend a week there; for subsequent visits a 12-month multi entry with a 3-month per time stay limit is often granted. The USA is the most generous (no idea why) when they hand out 10-year visas with a 6-month per time visit limitation. Personally I think that since that is not reciprocated for Americans coming to Thailand, that visa type should be revoked, not withstanding the fact that Thai passports are normally only valid for 5 years thus a 10-year visa is largely redundant given that one would need to travel with both a new passport and their old one containing their valid US visa.

Apparently Thais need to prove that they are flying into and out of the UK to obtain a tourist visa, saying you are going by train/car is not enough (though one could conceivably go by these methods are the visa has been issued but this would probably mean throwing away a previously purchased air ticket). To travel to say Switzerland, an application for a visa needs to go via the Swiss Embassy and if travel is done via another EU Schengen state (such as Austria) the visa will be annotated Schengen + 1 or something, which seems strange given that how would the authorities there know which other countries you are visiting, if you're already inside the Schengen area? Passport controls have been made obsolete now. So yeah the requirements for Thais are far more stringent than for citizens of those countries coming here.

It's also a lot easier for citizens of those and other countries to spend extended periods inside Thailand, unlike the 90 day limitation for non-Schengen citizens inside the Schengen zone.

[Tomtomtom69]

No idea why both the OP and others are so Thai centric (other than this being TV), in terms of not suggesting other countries as an option. I have already suggested Cambodia and the Philippines. There is thus no need to argue about Thai immigration laws. They are what they are based on them intending to serve the country's needs and yet they continue to be abused.

As I've already said before, if one wants to stay long-term in a country whether as a tourist, business traveller, retiree or any other type of person without any hassle, there's a great country called Cambodia right next to Thailand that allows you to stay basically indefinitely, one year at a time.

[peterquixote]

....

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).

Thais also can't get a visa waiver for the USA, Canada, Australia or NZ. In the case of NZ, some years ago Thais got a 90-day visa waiver, whilst NZers got a reciprocal 90 day visa waiver to enter Thailand, but due to larger numbers of illegal workers and overstayers, the NZ government decided to cancel the visa waiver and impose a visa requirement on Thai citizens, back in 1996 I believe. Thailand responded by reducing the visa-free limit for NZers down to 30 days from 90 days previously.

Apart from a few reciprocal agreements like this, generally speaking tourism is more important for Thailand than for these other countries hence the reason why Thailand is more generous towards allowing Europeans/Americans/Australians etc. to enter Thailand temporarily than they are towards Thais entering those countries temporarily. 6-8% of Thai GDP has been mentioned as coming from tourism, though depending on what industries are included in the makeup of tourism, 10 or more % is likely (especially if you include prostitution, though not all customers are foreigners although there is also such a thing as domestic tourism, which I assume is included in these GDP calculations).

Consequently, it doesn't really matter to the Thai government that their citizens need a visa to access Europe or North America/Australia etc. when citizens of those countries can enter visa free. In any case, 30 days is what most of these countries get without a visa to Thailand, 90 days is standard for Thais that are able to get a visa for any of these countries, although some are more generous than others. In some cases though, particularly European countries from what I've heard, Thais may only get a 15 day visa or whatever that is based on the travel itinerary they submit. Australia on the other hand, routinely hands out 3-month visas even if a Thai only needs to spend a week there; for subsequent visits a 12-month multi entry with a 3-month per time stay limit is often granted. The USA is the most generous (no idea why) when they hand out 10-year visas with a 6-month per time visit limitation. Personally I think that since that is not reciprocated for Americans coming to Thailand, that visa type should be revoked, not withstanding the fact that Thai passports are normally only valid for 5 years thus a 10-year visa is largely redundant given that one would need to travel with both a new passport and their old one containing their valid US visa.

Apparently Thais need to prove that they are flying into and out of the UK to obtain a tourist visa, saying you are going by train/car is not enough (though one could conceivably go by these methods are the visa has been issued but this would probably mean throwing away a previously purchased air ticket). To travel to say Switzerland, an application for a visa needs to go via the Swiss Embassy and if travel is done via another EU Schengen state (such as Austria) the visa will be annotated Schengen + 1 or something, which seems strange given that how would the authorities there know which other countries you are visiting, if you're already inside the Schengen area? Passport controls have been made obsolete now. So yeah the requirements for Thais are far more stringent than for citizens of those countries coming here.

It's also a lot easier for citizens of those and other countries to spend extended periods inside Thailand, unlike the 90 day limitation for non-Schengen citizens inside the Schengen zone.

I enjoyed the convoluted but matter of fact response from Tom Tom.

I met a Thai girl in 2011, and married her, and we came to New Zealand.

I had an entire family pumping for her, and within 18 months she was a resident.

They NZ my country sent her out voting papers

And little me. I just went back to Thailand with her and I supported her entire family.

In response the Thailand Immigration service gave me a fine Immigration for pouring money into the citizens Maha Sarakham.

because I had not transferred money to Thailand bankers.

Read Pheu Thai.

What fool would give money to Thailand , you know what will happen.

You Soi dogs immigration Thailand

Just supporting an entire village family does not reach the brains of these impoverished Thai Immigration people.

For the idiots on Thai Visa who say this is and this is the law, especially precious administrators,

I say get of this Thai Visa go and eat lunch and get out.

And keep the girly virus off my computer Thai Visa.,

Knock Knock on the door administrator

Edited June 3, 2014 by peterquixote

[samran]

Hundreds of times i have asked why.....never have i gotten an answer.

...that you liked.

[hawker9000]

Again. This total fiction that anyone wanting to stay more than 30d cannot be a "tourist". If a country wants to have non-renewable 30d visa-exempt entries, all they have to do is put that in writing where travelers can see it...

A traveller who plans to stay longer than 30 days in Thailand for the purpose of tourism can and should get a tourist visa. This information is in writing on the websites of the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs and on the websites of most Thai embassies and consulates where travellers can see it.

Fine, then just simply state that back-to-back visa-exempt entries are no longer to be given at all, anywhere, to anybody, and state the minimum acceptable time BETWEEN consecutive visa-exempt entries (a week, a month, a year, whatever). Simple. Easy to understand. None of the cash-in-hand, hotel reservations, tourist itinerary drivel. Just get rid of all this noise and eliminate the ambiguity & guesswork.

I've seen border runners discussed as the primary culprits, but haven't seen the clear prohibitions I mention above. Are you saying that those (i.e., all back-to-back 30d visa-exempt entries) ARE in fact now prohibited? If you fly out to KL, Vientiane, PP, HK, or wherever, how long before you can again enter Thailand on a visa-exempt 30d stamp?

[Tomtomtom69]

....

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).

Thais also can't get a visa waiver for the USA, Canada, Australia or NZ. In the case of NZ, some years ago Thais got a 90-day visa waiver, whilst NZers got a reciprocal 90 day visa waiver to enter Thailand, but due to larger numbers of illegal workers and overstayers, the NZ government decided to cancel the visa waiver and impose a visa requirement on Thai citizens, back in 1996 I believe. Thailand responded by reducing the visa-free limit for NZers down to 30 days from 90 days previously.

Apart from a few reciprocal agreements like this, generally speaking tourism is more important for Thailand than for these other countries hence the reason why Thailand is more generous towards allowing Europeans/Americans/Australians etc. to enter Thailand temporarily than they are towards Thais entering those countries temporarily. 6-8% of Thai GDP has been mentioned as coming from tourism, though depending on what industries are included in the makeup of tourism, 10 or more % is likely (especially if you include prostitution, though not all customers are foreigners although there is also such a thing as domestic tourism, which I assume is included in these GDP calculations).

Consequently, it doesn't really matter to the Thai government that their citizens need a visa to access Europe or North America/Australia etc. when citizens of those countries can enter visa free. In any case, 30 days is what most of these countries get without a visa to Thailand, 90 days is standard for Thais that are able to get a visa for any of these countries, although some are more generous than others. In some cases though, particularly European countries from what I've heard, Thais may only get a 15 day visa or whatever that is based on the travel itinerary they submit. Australia on the other hand, routinely hands out 3-month visas even if a Thai only needs to spend a week there; for subsequent visits a 12-month multi entry with a 3-month per time stay limit is often granted. The USA is the most generous (no idea why) when they hand out 10-year visas with a 6-month per time visit limitation. Personally I think that since that is not reciprocated for Americans coming to Thailand, that visa type should be revoked, not withstanding the fact that Thai passports are normally only valid for 5 years thus a 10-year visa is largely redundant given that one would need to travel with both a new passport and their old one containing their valid US visa.

Apparently Thais need to prove that they are flying into and out of the UK to obtain a tourist visa, saying you are going by train/car is not enough (though one could conceivably go by these methods are the visa has been issued but this would probably mean throwing away a previously purchased air ticket). To travel to say Switzerland, an application for a visa needs to go via the Swiss Embassy and if travel is done via another EU Schengen state (such as Austria) the visa will be annotated Schengen + 1 or something, which seems strange given that how would the authorities there know which other countries you are visiting, if you're already inside the Schengen area? Passport controls have been made obsolete now. So yeah the requirements for Thais are far more stringent than for citizens of those countries coming here.

It's also a lot easier for citizens of those and other countries to spend extended periods inside Thailand, unlike the 90 day limitation for non-Schengen citizens inside the Schengen zone.

I enjoyed the convoluted but matter of fact response from Tom Tom.

I met a Thai girl in 2011, and married her, and we came to New Zealand.

I had an entire family pumping for her, and within 18 months she was a resident.

They NZ my country sent her out voting papers

And little me. I just went back to Thailand with her and I supported her entire family.

In response the Thailand Immigration service gave me a fine Immigration for pouring money into the citizens Maha Sarakham.

because I had not transferred money to Thailand bankers.

Read Pheu Thai.

What fool would give money to Thailand , you know what will happen.

You Soi dogs immigration Thailand

Just supporting an entire village family does not reach the brains of these impoverished Thai Immigration people.

For the idiots on Thai Visa who say this is and this is the law, especially precious administrators,

I say get of this Thai Visa go and eat lunch and get out.

And keep the girly virus off my computer Thai Visa.,

Knock Knock on the door administrator

I think my post was anything but convoluted, yours probably more so, but I still like it! It's an interesting experience you've outlined here. I'm a little confused as to why you got a fine from immigration though? Could you explain this a bit further?

[crazygreg44]

For the long staying guests, just because you've been here longer doesn't qualify you to reply to a question belligerently. A simple I don't know, is fine.

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 are repeating a standing error - your error :

Once you like to stay, you are not a tourist any more. At least that's what the thai government will think of you when you tell them you'd like to stay. They will think, he wants to become a resident, okay, we've got laws for that and he can simply follow them.

and that's the same in every other country. A TOURIST status means that you , after having seen their temples, beaches, tasted their beer, toured through the locales, did a few hop-on, hop-off's . . after that you MUST LEAVE . . . . .(because you quit being a "touring" being after a certain spell of time, here in Thailand the usual 3 months like in every other country as well. 90 day visas are the norm in most countries to enter on TOURIST purposes )

So, please, behave like a TOURIST ( it is very easy!) : LEAVE and come back any time you like, with the proper visa !

Edited June 5, 2014 by crazygreg44

[cooked]

Let's try again, shall we? You need a visa for many countries if you wish to ENTER that country, it may or may not give you the right to stay for a certain period of time. You can't get a visa if you are inside the country, Everything clear up to now?

You can't get a visa to enter the country if you are inside the country. You can get permission to stay, extensions of permissions to stay, but when these permissions are used up you have to leave and start again.

That's why you can't get a visa without leaving the country (unless it's an exit visa for some countries).