Tourist visa holders denied entry to Thailand and left stranded in Malaysia

[AYJAYDEE]

I quote this from trip advisor:

"Help! Denied Tourist Visa at Thai embassy in Singapore

14 October 2013, 5:57

Today I was denied a Tourist visa at the Thai embassy in Singapore because they said I am not allowed to stay in Thailand for more than 90 days within a 6 months period. During 2013 I have stayed in Thailand close to 5 months, basically I had two 30 days visa on arrival, went back home to Sweden for 2 months and then I got a Thai Tourist visa (stayed 90 days) which just expired."

Was this posted on 14 Oct 2013 ?

So they still enforce that 90 days in 6 months rule ?

Or it is 6 months in a year ?

The truth my plan is to go to Thailand with a double visa, stay 2 months, go to Australia for holiday few days and go back 2 more months with the second entry.

What will happen ? Will I refuse entry at the airport because 2 more months would make 4 months in total ?

I don t want to go with a single visa +an extension, I wanted my halfway holiday in Australia, coz I am a tourist.

I see real tourists are not welcomed anymore . It doesn't look that Swedish guy is a criminal or an english teacher...

the 90 days in 6 months is BS. its just singapore that tries this. you will fly into bkk and be granted another 60 days on your second entry.

[RTH10260]

I'm going to do something a bit too lacking in this thread.... show a bit of compassion and understanding. To those facing difficulties and fears of future difficulties with Visas: I believe the vast majority of you are not involved in criminal enterprises and are causing no harm to Thailand in any way, shape or form. This will all pass over when somebody realizes the impact this is having on the economy.

To those sitting on their high horses looking down on others who aren't as able as yourselves to get Visas in such an easy manner: You're not more deserving to be in Thailand than any other law abiding person. Period.

I don't see a flood of foreigners in Thailand siphoning the welfare money from Thais or filling up the prisons in any significant number.

If you can afford to stay and live in Thailand without breaking any laws (not talking about immigration laws), I have no problem whatsoever with your wishes, and I wish you good luck. You should be allowed to stay in the country as long as you like.

Foreigners siphoning welfare money from Thais? Never will happen cause the foreigner will be expelled and returned to his home country should such an event appear on the horizon!

[max72]

I quote this from trip advisor:

"Help! Denied Tourist Visa at Thai embassy in Singapore

14 October 2013, 5:57

Today I was denied a Tourist visa at the Thai embassy in Singapore because they said I am not allowed to stay in Thailand for more than 90 days within a 6 months period. During 2013 I have stayed in Thailand close to 5 months, basically I had two 30 days visa on arrival, went back home to Sweden for 2 months and then I got a Thai Tourist visa (stayed 90 days) which just expired."

go to laos and get one there. the 90 day in 6 months is not in effect. singapore just pretends it is

This what I mean my friend when i say i hate (and not only me, but most people) this confusion.

I would like to have clear rules, not easy borders, hard borders, easy embassies, hard embassies, <deleted> is that ???

Are there laws in Thailand or not ?

Why that rule is enforced in Singapore and not in Laos ?

believe me , i tell you something, it is NOT the fact rules are relaxed or strict, the fact is that there are no fixed rules...everything depends on when, where, and on who has a good or bad mood.

Am I asking the moon ? Just clear rules . I want to understand them in order not to break any, ever....

[AYJAYDEE]

I quote this from trip advisor:

"Help! Denied Tourist Visa at Thai embassy in Singapore

14 October 2013, 5:57

Today I was denied a Tourist visa at the Thai embassy in Singapore because they said I am not allowed to stay in Thailand for more than 90 days within a 6 months period. During 2013 I have stayed in Thailand close to 5 months, basically I had two 30 days visa on arrival, went back home to Sweden for 2 months and then I got a Thai Tourist visa (stayed 90 days) which just expired."

go to laos and get one there. the 90 day in 6 months is not in effect. singapore just pretends it is

This what I mean my friend when i say i hate (and not only me, but most people) this confusion.

I would like to have clear rules, not easy borders, hard borders, easy embassies, hard embassies, <deleted> is that ???

Are there laws in Thailand or not ?

Why that rule is enforced in Singapore and not in Laos ?

believe me , i tell you something, it is NOT the fact rules are relaxed or strict, the fact is that there are no fixed rules...everything depends on when, where, and on who has a good or bad mood.

Am I asking the moon ? Just clear rules . I want to understand them in order not to break any, ever....

hating the confusion is understandable. you can ask all you like but i doubt asking on this site will do you much good. if the government wont listen to you, I dont see any solution to your problem. I guess its either put up with it or try another country for your holidays.

[RTH10260]

I'm going to do something a bit too lacking in this thread.... show a bit of compassion and understanding. To those facing difficulties and fears of future difficulties with Visas: I believe the vast majority of you are not involved in criminal enterprises and are causing no harm to Thailand in any way, shape or form. This will all pass over when somebody realizes the impact this is having on the economy.

To those sitting on their high horses looking down on others who aren't as able as yourselves to get Visas in such an easy manner: You're not more deserving to be in Thailand than any other law abiding person. Period.

I don't see a flood of foreigners in Thailand siphoning the welfare money from Thais or filling up the prisons in any significant number.

If you can afford to stay and live in Thailand without breaking any laws (not talking about immigration laws), I have no problem whatsoever with your wishes, and I wish you good luck. You should be allowed to stay in the country as long as you like.

does your home country allow me to come and stay indefinitely if I have enough money to support myself??

Yes, my country does. 90 days tourist visa, if you happen to overestay , without doing any wrongdoing, no pain, you just pay few dollars fine at the airport and welcome back soon.... Otherwise you can border runs for the rest of your life, no limits.

please indicate the country so i can check that. it doesnt sound right

Costa Rica. You just need to stay outside 72 hours after the 90 days visa expires.

But if you overstays, you just pay a very low fine. It used to be about 3 dollars A MONTH, now they increased it little bit , but still a piece of cake.

I have a canadian friend who has doing border runs to David,Panama for 20-25 years !

I see you mentioned those 72 hours aka 3 days out of country. Seems to me that this is what Thailand is essentially also requesting. Just they are not clearly declaring the time span.

Edited July 14, 2014 by RTH10260

[ericthai]

So far in the past few months there was a crackdown of varying degrees on the following:

• 30-day visa exempt stamps
• tourist visas
• NON-ED visas
• multi NON-B visas with no work permit
• medical extensions

For the love of God I can't understand why people with multi entry NON-Os happily cheer the crackdown. Those visas are clearly not intended for permanent stay (that's what 1-year extensions for) and this is why you have to do a border run every 90 days. You are abusing the system in the same way people on back to back tourist visas did, especially if you use the multi NON-O visa to circumvent the requirement of having funds in the Thai bank.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Non-o does not have to do a visa run every 90 days, all they need to do is report in and this can be done by mail.

Non-o is for long term stay why do you think they provide a 1 year extension. If not then it would only be a 60 or 90 day extension.

For a Mutli-B nothing has changed you need to have the correct paper work from your company, if you have a work permit this helps. In the last 20 years I never had an issue getting a non-B visa. Where is the crack-down on the Ed-visa? I think you are just making this stuff up now.

[AYJAYDEE]

So far in the past few months there was a crackdown of varying degrees on the following:

• 30-day visa exempt stamps
• tourist visas
• NON-ED visas
• multi NON-B visas with no work permit
• medical extensions

For the love of God I can't understand why people with multi entry NON-Os happily cheer the crackdown. Those visas are clearly not intended for permanent stay (that's what 1-year extensions for) and this is why you have to do a border run every 90 days. You are abusing the system in the same way people on back to back tourist visas did, especially if you use the multi NON-O visa to circumvent the requirement of having funds in the Thai bank.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Non-o does not have to do a visa run every 90 days, all they need to do is report in and this can be done by mail.

Non-o is for long term stay why do you think they provide a 1 year extension. If not then it would only be a 60 or 90 day extension.

For a Mutli-B nothing has changed you need to have the correct paper work from your company, if you have a work permit this helps. In the last 20 years I never had an issue getting a non-B visa. Where is the crack-down on the Ed-visa? I think you are just making this stuff up now.

multi entry non-o visa holders are required to leave the country every 90 days unless they are a candidate for a 60 day extension.

[RTH10260]

And vientiane is also one of those, I think the 6 months are only to be had in Europe or Usa.

Sent from my iPad so Please excuse any typos

No, wait

Validity it means it should be used FIRSTLY within those days.

It means it will expire if you don't use its first entry within 90 or whatever days.

At least this what I have understood when I asked last time .

Otherwise it wouldn't make sense. Triple entry with 90 days expiration would be a joke.

90 days is the limit to use the first entry.

My consulate tells me the last entry of a tourist has to be used by the end of validity of the the visa. Each entry valid 30days. Intended use especially for when entering by land crossing where visa exemption stamp would only last 14 days. Touristic purpose of course is reentry when visiting neighbouring coutries from TH. I guess the last entry may get a 30day extension at immigration in the country, so something like 120 days in the region based out of Thailand.

[RTH10260]

please indicate the country so i can check that. it doesnt sound right

Yes, the UK, invest GBP1m in bonds for a 3 year investment visa and then 2 years later buy UK Residency for GBP10m.

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21599408-london-has-more-lose-most-when-it-comes-scaring-oligarchs-honey-trapped

that is FAR MORE than I require to support myself.

Hint: they want that you support their budget, not yourself. And more likely the sort of person is also looking for a more stable country of residence than his home country.

[AYJAYDEE]

please indicate the country so i can check that. it doesnt sound right

Yes, the UK, invest GBP1m in bonds for a 3 year investment visa and then 2 years later buy UK Residency for GBP10m.

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21599408-london-has-more-lose-most-when-it-comes-scaring-oligarchs-honey-trapped

that is FAR MORE than I require to support myself.

Hint: they want that you support their budget, not yourself. And more likely the sort of person is also looking for a more stable country of residence than his home country.

that had nothing to do with my question. he was lamenting the fact that thailand does not allow under 50's to stay in thailand even if they can support themselves and I merely pointed out that many countries do not, including the UK.

[RTH10260]

Really scary.... I have at least 10 visas in my passport. I am flying to Vietnam for a short vacation/visa run on Wednesday.... Really sucks man.

according to current information a couple of days in VN makes you a bonafide tourist on returning to TH. And the current crackdown has been on land border crossings, not airports.

[krislarter]

No more Thai visa runs: Immigration will not let visa runners return after Aug 12

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/742834-no-more-thai-visa-runs-immigration-will-not-let-visa-runners-return-after-aug-12/

[Loptr]

Refusing entry to all people with tourist visas, how can you obtain a visa and then be denied entry to the country unless you fly into it?

Classic Thailand

How about in your country? do you think a Thai can get back to back visas and stay as long as they like. They probably cant" even get a visa in the first place.

Comparing Thailand to developed countries like the US and those in the EU is idiotic. Developed countries have difficult visa requirements because 1) many people wish to enter primarily to work and 2) these people could be a drain on government coffers if they ever needed assistance (welfare and the like). Thailand has immigrant labor problems, but in reality these immigrants are much more likely to be found on a construction site than on Thaivisa. There is a crackdown on immigrant labor, and people may or may not be getting shot at on the way out. Most of us on Thaivisa are bringing money in from abroad, or are working in a capacity that is not threatening native Thai employment (English teaching). We are not costing Thailand or its people anything at all by being here, and in many cases are greatly contributing to the local economy.

Furthermore, just because something is "the law of the land" does not make it automatically just and worthy of respect. Jim Crow was legal in the US, and slavery was once the law of the land in many places. does that mean those laws are worthy of respect? And, why should anyone in Thailand be faulted for having a cynical view of the law when Thai citizens and even the police, military, and government officials have such little respect for it? Rule of law does not really exist here, and to pretend otherwise is foolish. In this country, enforcement of laws and regulations has ALWAYS been lax, so why now? Why are tourist visas being issued but those that hold them are being refused entry?

You are correct, but for the wrong reason... There are no borders in the EU or the US anymore, while Thailand is trying to secure their borders... I salute them and their desire to maintain their sovereignty... It's about time...

[Loptr]

As the news of this spreads, more and more people will likely put of trips here as the confusion reigns.

I don't think so. People visiting here as "real" tourists are unlikely to be affected, particularly as they invariably arrive by air. As clearly stated in the OP, the eight people who were refused entry all had a history of border crossings and numerous Tourist Visas, so the official was clearly following orders not to allow bogus "tourists" into Thailand.

There are numerous ways that a person can arrange legal status in Thailand, and I certainly have no sympathy for anyone who uses tourist visas to carry out unlawful work in Thailand. I am of the opinion that once Thailand has rid itself of such bogus tourists, they may start to make things slightly easier for those of us who stay here legally - such as disposing of the pointless 90 day reporting ...!!

Not according to what is being said at the border. You are a tourist for only 30 days. It would appear 60 day visas are meaningless.

If you enter on a 60 day tourist visa, they are not going to come find you in 30 days... The additional 30 day extension may be in jeopardy... If immigration is going to refuse a tourist entry on a 60 day visa, they should stop issuing them... They are looking for back-to-back visa exempt entries or tourist visas... Real tourists should not have a problem...

Edited July 14, 2014 by Loptr

[RTH10260]

thailand has decided that they want to use the same criteria many other countries use. its not up to you or me to decide what level of development they have achieved and at what point they will change their criteria! you dont agree with their decision? let them know.

Fair enough but implying, as many have done, that someone with back to back tourist visas isn't a tourist or that it isn't allowed elsewhere is incorrect.

You are right in saying it isn't our decision. I own a company and pay taxes it isn't a concern for me. only amused to see the retirees/spouses cheering. I wonder if they will take it the same way if/when security deposit requirements start going up

Do retirement visas exist in YOUR country? no problem if thailand decides to scrap them then right?

After all many retirees "abuse" the visa by working and Thailand is in a stage of it's development where it doesn't really need old people from foreign countries staying here.

How do you know That ?

There are lots of guys with retirement visas who are working because they struggle to get the 700K THB !

There are others with ED visa who are not studying anything if not kamasutra, others with business visa doing no business, others with O marriage visas who have not lived with their spouses for years, etc etc

There are many more law breaking people amongst the "proper" visas categories than the ones with tourist visas, most of them are really..... tourists ...nothing more nothing less.

It looks like some guys here with a different type of visa rather than tourist feel superior and look down at the tourists who want to spend few months rather than 1 month in Thailand....

A note on the non O marriage visa: since August of last year, when applying at the consulate in my Farangland, one has to present a copy of the marriage document, and new also a signed copy of the Missus' Thai ID card to show you have her on the short lead. As documented elsewhere on TVF the Missus is required for the initial extension. Some immigration offices request her to turn up for the yearly renewal too. While at other offices it obviously can take a quarter of a century for the same request.

[hawker9000]

As the news of this spreads, more and more people will likely put of trips here as the confusion reigns.

I don't think so. People visiting here as "real" tourists are unlikely to be affected, particularly as they invariably arrive by air. As clearly stated in the OP, the eight people who were refused entry all had a history of border crossings and numerous Tourist Visas, so the official was clearly following orders not to allow bogus "tourists" into Thailand.

There are numerous ways that a person can arrange legal status in Thailand, and I certainly have no sympathy for anyone who uses tourist visas to carry out unlawful work in Thailand. I am of the opinion that once Thailand has rid itself of such bogus tourists, they may start to make things slightly easier for those of us who stay here legally - such as disposing of the pointless 90 day reporting ...!!

Not according to what is being said at the border. You are a tourist for only 30 days. It would appear 60 day visas are meaningless.

If you enter on a 60 day tourist visa, they are not going to come find you in 30 days... The additional 30 day extension may be in jeopardy... If immigration is going to refuse a tourist entry on a 60 day visa, they should stop issuing them... They are looking for back-to-back visa exempt entries or tourist visas... Real tourists should not have a problem...

Just a case of misunderstanding, miscommunication or misspeak (you choose the mis....). Not uncommon when dealing with thai officialdom. There are reports (such as the tourist visa holders trying to enter from Malaysia who are the topic of this thread) of some few travelers with bona fide Tourist Visas not being let in at all, but none that I've heard of whereby Tourist Visa holders were limited to 30d rather than the visa allowance of 60d, nor of Tourist Visa holders being denied the 30d extension. I think it would be kind of weird to have an IO deny entry to a visa holder, and then give them a 30d visa-exempt stamp instead.

And yet this is exactly the kind of misinformation that all the arbitrariness and confusion surrounding this new "enforcement" regime fosters. This looming 12 Aug airport imposition with no one really knowing exactly what's going to happen on & after that date only adds to this atmosphere of uncertainty. One senses that it should probably be taken seriously, but without knowing what's actually supposed to happen.

[ukrules]

And yet this is exactly the kind of misinformation that all the arbitrariness and confusion surrounding this new "enforcement" regime fosters. This looming 12 Aug airport imposition with no one really knowing exactly what's going to happen on & after that date only adds to this atmosphere of uncertainty. One senses that it should probably be taken seriously, but without knowing what's actually supposed to happen.

Well they had better get a full an concise set of rules together in advance of the August 12th changes as this will affect every airline across the world who operate flights into Thailand.

The airlines won't mess around, they will either allow or deny boarding based on the rules they have available at the time of departure.

If these rules are not clearly defined then there are going to liability issues and lawsuits looming. If the new regulations are not fully in place I would expect to see cancelled flights from many airlines.

Edited July 15, 2014 by ukrules

[kingscliff]

Had a great seven years here but think for me it's time to sell up and move on, I'm well under 50, not married to a Thai and have no interest in working or doing business in Thailand. I have a decent income from the UK and would be happy to register and pay tax on that income in Thailand if it was possible, I don't feel bitter about it Thailand has every right to tighten it's visa laws.

Same here. Under 50, been here 3.5 years with income from UK and had a great time and do not plan to work or do business here. Been thinking back and forth about moving to another country for a new experience and this new visa laws might have just made that decision easy.

[RTH10260]

if one has obtained a non-O multiple-entry visa due to marriage/family, they are in no way "abusing" anything by leaving and re-entering the country multiple times.

They are following the rules in order to be able to stay with loved ones.

Look at this from the point of view of the immigration officer:

• John received a single-entry NON-O visa and then applied for 1-year extension of stay based on marriage, showing 400k baht in the bank.
• Bob received a multi-entry NON-O from Savannakhet with no funds requirements and does a border run every 90 days

Which one of these is the correct way of permanently staying with the Thai family?

I know 90-day border runs on multi NON-O visas have been tolerated for decades but surely the necessity of border runs is in itself a symptom of not quite complying with the intent of the law.

There is an extra twist to the multiple entry nonO on marriage.

Wife lives with me in Farangland, I visit Thailand and stay at her property. While I would also qualify based on retirement I am free of showing income to get the visa, a small technical point. As for using the multiple entries, I travel back home every so often within the year. As the wife still has a job in Farangland, not living permanently in TH, I don't qualify for extension based on marriage.

are you sure you dont qualify because she works in farangland? I have never heard that. I have had many multiple entry non-o's and have applied for and received 60 day extensions based on marriage. not exactly the same as a 1 year extension I grant you but still.....?

[offtopic]

The main problem with getting the initial one year extension is finding a window where she can be away from work for approx six weeks, corresponding to the last month of my nonO, so that we can make it thru the paperwork and an unlikely home visit by immigration staffers. Then the planned date of issue should be convenient with me staying in TH for the renewal in future years.

Problem with work for my wife, she doesn't get six weeks off and would need to take an unpaid leave, not what empoyers like. Technically the employer also dictates when an employee may take their holidays, business needs first.

For me the nonO multiple entry will work fine as for the time being my healthcare provider in farangland expects to see me still a few times a year. Not to ignore that I wish to share some quality time with wife.

[/offtopic]

Edited July 15, 2014 by RTH10260

[AYJAYDEE]

[offtopic]

The main problem with getting the initial one year extension is finding a window where she can be away from work for approx six weeks, corresponding to the last month of my nonO, so that we can make it thru the paperwork and an unlikely home visit by immigration staffers. Then the planned date of issue should be convenient with me staying in TH for the renewal in future years.

Problem with work for my wife, she doesn't get six weeks off and would need to take an unpaid leave, not what empoyers like. Technically the employer also dictates when an employee may take their holidays, business needs first.

For me the nonO multiple entry will work fine as for the time being my healthcare provider in farangland expects to see me still a few times a year. Not to ignore that I wish to share some quality time with wife.

[/offtopic]

so the problem is with the extension , not with getting the original visa

[RTH10260]

Legal tourists are those that stay up to 60 days a time and then disappear, normally to home Farangland, for longer than 24 hours.

So what is reason to be for the 3 entries tourist visa allow up to 270 days? And the 30 days extensions to a 60 days Tourist Visa ?

Are these legal loopholes exploited without shame by cynical foreigners? Inconsistencies of the past that now the mighty junta will swiftly proceed to eliminate for the supreme good of the Kingdom? Excessively generous attitude by Immigration offices during the last 40 years ?

We will see in the due time. You know, "he who laughs last laughs best".

OK, I give you the 30 day extension for the tourist who will spend the time to find the local immigration office and queue up for the extension. One or two days of happiness.

As for the triple entry visa, it seems not to be available in everyones home country, and from what I have read the valid period may not always generate the number of days you mentioned.

[RTH10260]

Illegal are the people with work permits who are not working.

I think those people are very hard to find, but do you mean by any chance "people with No work permits who are working" ?

Sent from my iPad so Please excuse any typos

I really mean people who gets work permit but they don;t work, they have friends who make them the favor (the permanent tourists will pay them the expenses of course and something more) to issue them work permits but in fact they are permanent tourists.

I know few of those... but I am not a spy.

Those ones are breaking the rules , not people like me who just want to spend long holidays and don't need to work.

I wonder how that one works out in practice. Dear Friend may give them a job on paper and needs to pay salary, plus paperwork, and must run a large business to comply with number of Thai workers per expat. And the WP must somehow come from the Labour Departement (tea money?). And the taxman hovering somewhere?

Yes, they refund all these expenses of course. I don;t know all the details because I am not doing that, but I have a friend who has a company with 500 employees (mostly Thais, but some qualified foreigner too) who did the favour to a couple of friends to give them work permit for his companies, but those guys are not really working with him. They are lounging around Sukhumvit partying all year. They have money,they are young and they don't want to leave. I didn't ask every detail. But trust me, they have been around for about 10 years....

I don't spy because they are friends, but I wouldn't do that, because I spend only few months in Thailand (mostly Nov-Mar)

Thanks for the detail. The owner gets a sizable amount of black money back thru this arrangement.

[hawker9000]

And yet this is exactly the kind of misinformation that all the arbitrariness and confusion surrounding this new "enforcement" regime fosters. This looming 12 Aug airport imposition with no one really knowing exactly what's going to happen on & after that date only adds to this atmosphere of uncertainty. One senses that it should probably be taken seriously, but without knowing what's actually supposed to happen.

Well they had better get a full an concise set of rules together in advance of the August 12th changes as this will affect every airline across the world who operate flights into Thailand.

The airlines won't mess around, they will either allow or deny boarding based on the rules they have available at the time of departure.

If these rules are not clearly defined then there are going to liability issues and lawsuits looming. If the new regulations are not fully in place I would expect to see cancelled flights from many airlines.

Well, I have a question. The conventional wisdom has been that if an airline allows a passenger to board a flight to Thailand without a visa in his passport OR any onward ticketing within the 30d visa-exempt window (or whatever VE/VOA length of stay applies to that person), then the airline is responsible for returning that passenger to the place of origin should he be denied permission to enter. My question is, if the airline HAS done the required checking and the passenger DOES have the required onward ticketing OR has the visa in hand, then can Thailand still require them to return the passenger if he's denied entry? I understand that a Thai IO can deny entry for whatever reason, but does that automatically mean the airline is on the hook if they've exercised their due diligence? What exactly is the nature of this covenant between Thai Immigration and the airlines? Is it just an unwritten "if you don't do as we say you can't land here anymore" thing?

Edited July 15, 2014 by hawker9000

[AYJAYDEE]

And yet this is exactly the kind of misinformation that all the arbitrariness and confusion surrounding this new "enforcement" regime fosters. This looming 12 Aug airport imposition with no one really knowing exactly what's going to happen on & after that date only adds to this atmosphere of uncertainty. One senses that it should probably be taken seriously, but without knowing what's actually supposed to happen.

Well they had better get a full an concise set of rules together in advance of the August 12th changes as this will affect every airline across the world who operate flights into Thailand.

The airlines won't mess around, they will either allow or deny boarding based on the rules they have available at the time of departure.

If these rules are not clearly defined then there are going to liability issues and lawsuits looming. If the new regulations are not fully in place I would expect to see cancelled flights from many airlines.

Well, I have a question. The conventional wisdom has been that if an airline allows a passenger to board a flight to Thailand without a visa in his passport OR any onward ticketing within the 30d visa-exempt window (or whatever VE/VOA length of stay applies to that person), then the airline is responsible for returning that passenger to the place of origin should he be denied permission to enter. My question is, if the airline HAS done the required checking and the passenger DOES have the required onward ticketing OR has the visa in hand, then can Thailand still require them to return the passenger if he's denied entry? I understand that a Thai IO can deny entry for whatever reason, but does that automatically mean the airline is on the hook if they've exercised their due diligence? What exactly is the nature of this covenant between Thai Immigration and the airlines? Is it just an unwritten "if you don't do as we say you can't land here anymore" thing?

lol! that is a question and a half!!

[ukrules]

Well, I have a question. The conventional wisdom has been that if an airline allows a passenger to board a flight to Thailand without a visa in his passport OR any onward ticketing within the 30d visa-exempt window (if applicable to that person), then the airline is responsible for returning that passenger to the place of origin should he be denied permission to enter. My question is, if the airline HAS done the required checking and the passenger DOES have the required onward ticketing OR has the visa in hand, then can Thailand still require them to return the passenger if he's denied entry? I understand that a Thai IO can deny entry for whatever reason, but does that automatically mean the airline is on the hook if they've exercised their due diligence? What exactly is the nature of this covenant between Thai Immigration and the airlines? Is it just an unwritten "if you don't do as we say you can't land here anymore" thing?

This is what will lead to the lawsuits.

It's actually a lot more than just returning the passenger to their home country, that's the tip of the iceberg.

A lot of countries levy a fine (several 1000's of USD or equivalent) against the airline if a passenger is refused entrance based on visa requirements - this is why the ruleset needs to be very specific.

I don't know what the situation is in Thailand with regards to this but I'm sure someone who works for one of the airlines will be familiar with the rules when flying into Thailand.

[AYJAYDEE]

Well, I have a question. The conventional wisdom has been that if an airline allows a passenger to board a flight to Thailand without a visa in his passport OR any onward ticketing within the 30d visa-exempt window (if applicable to that person), then the airline is responsible for returning that passenger to the place of origin should he be denied permission to enter. My question is, if the airline HAS done the required checking and the passenger DOES have the required onward ticketing OR has the visa in hand, then can Thailand still require them to return the passenger if he's denied entry? I understand that a Thai IO can deny entry for whatever reason, but does that automatically mean the airline is on the hook if they've exercised their due diligence? What exactly is the nature of this covenant between Thai Immigration and the airlines? Is it just an unwritten "if you don't do as we say you can't land here anymore" thing?

This is what will lead to the lawsuits.

It's actually a lot more than just returning the passenger to their home country, that's the tip of the iceberg.

A lot of countries levy a fine (several 1000's of USD or equivalent) against the airline if a passenger is refused entrance based on visa requirements - this is why the ruleset needs to be very specific.

I don't know what the situation is in Thailand with regards to this but I'm sure someone who works for one of the airlines will be familiar with the rules when flying into Thailand.

i suspect it will put more workload on the consulates as i cant see them sending someone back that has a valid visa. how would the airline know if he was not going to be allowed in? even thailand wouldnt open a can of worms that smelly! would they? lol

[hawker9000]

Well, I have a question. The conventional wisdom has been that if an airline allows a passenger to board a flight to Thailand without a visa in his passport OR any onward ticketing within the 30d visa-exempt window (if applicable to that person), then the airline is responsible for returning that passenger to the place of origin should he be denied permission to enter. My question is, if the airline HAS done the required checking and the passenger DOES have the required onward ticketing OR has the visa in hand, then can Thailand still require them to return the passenger if he's denied entry? I understand that a Thai IO can deny entry for whatever reason, but does that automatically mean the airline is on the hook if they've exercised their due diligence? What exactly is the nature of this covenant between Thai Immigration and the airlines? Is it just an unwritten "if you don't do as we say you can't land here anymore" thing?

This is what will lead to the lawsuits.

It's actually a lot more than just returning the passenger to their home country, that's the tip of the iceberg.

A lot of countries levy a fine (several 1000's of USD or equivalent) against the airline if a passenger is refused entrance based on visa requirements - this is why the ruleset needs to be very specific.

I don't know what the situation is in Thailand with regards to this but I'm sure someone who works for one of the airlines will be familiar with the rules when flying into Thailand.

So you're saying that even if they (Thailand) cannot require the airline to return the passenger at airline expense, Thailand can possibly still impose this fine on the airline. Was such a fine levied against the airline when that Russian woman was refused entry? I've never heard of this. I can't imagine any country being able to do it where the airline can show it has met its credential-checking requirements. But you have a point: Thailand can abuse travelers with these arbitrary immigration policies that no one can understand all it wants, but airlines at some point can just pull the plug and start cancelling flights, especially the "budget" airlines, if the thais start messing too seriously with them. I imagine it wouldn't take a whole lot of that to finally get the attention of the wizards behind the silk curtain...

[ukrules]

Well, I have a question. The conventional wisdom has been that if an airline allows a passenger to board a flight to Thailand without a visa in his passport OR any onward ticketing within the 30d visa-exempt window (if applicable to that person), then the airline is responsible for returning that passenger to the place of origin should he be denied permission to enter. My question is, if the airline HAS done the required checking and the passenger DOES have the required onward ticketing OR has the visa in hand, then can Thailand still require them to return the passenger if he's denied entry? I understand that a Thai IO can deny entry for whatever reason, but does that automatically mean the airline is on the hook if they've exercised their due diligence? What exactly is the nature of this covenant between Thai Immigration and the airlines? Is it just an unwritten "if you don't do as we say you can't land here anymore" thing?

This is what will lead to the lawsuits.

It's actually a lot more than just returning the passenger to their home country, that's the tip of the iceberg.

A lot of countries levy a fine (several 1000's of USD or equivalent) against the airline if a passenger is refused entrance based on visa requirements - this is why the ruleset needs to be very specific.

I don't know what the situation is in Thailand with regards to this but I'm sure someone who works for one of the airlines will be familiar with the rules when flying into Thailand.

i suspect it will put more workload on the consulates as i cant see them sending someone back that has a valid visa. how would the airline know if he was not going to be allowed in? even thailand wouldnt open a can of worms that smelly! would they? lol

Well I would expect the central immigration department to issue a full clarification of any new regulations in precise detail to the airlines in advance of the August 12th changes, especially if it could have an impact on people being refused entrance. It's a very different thing to refuse entry at an airport than a land border. Certain international treaties come into play as well.

At that point everyone will know exactly what's going to change.

But this is Thailand and sometimes things don't work in the same way here as they do elsewhere.

[jpinx]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

I have been legitimately visiting Thailand on 30 day entries and/or tourist visas for years. I retired young and have plenty of money and for years I have been coming to Thailand three times a year and staying for one or two months each time, with periods of 2-4 months in between back in my home country. I come here because I like the place and have plenty of friends here to hang out with. I do not work while in Thailand.

I don't seem to fall into the category of people they are trying to keep out, but they are casting such a wide net that I'm afraid on my next trip I might have trouble.

I wonder when the TAT is going to chime in on this issue? Only after "legitimate" tourists start cancelling their trips en masse and start going elsewhere?

You have been abusing the system - time to get an Elite card or investment visa. TAT will be happy to help you -- they don't want system abusers either, no matter you're a millionaire

Please tell me how I have been abusing the system. I am a tourist. I do not work in Thailand, just spend money on things like hotels, food, beer. I just happen to have the ability to come more often than most people because of hard work and a significant measure of good luck. The Elite card is an overpriced scam invented by a disgraced former PM that the current government is trying to make sure never soils the country again by his influence. I am surprised it hasn't been cancelled yet. I am not investing in a business in Thailand because I am retired. I am just spending my money here four months a year. Where is the abuse on my part?

I don't want to get ahead of myself here. The Thai immigration authorities may very well not have a problem allowing me to enter the country on this basis, but the somewhat arbitrary nature of this crackdown makes me wonder. My point is that a lot of people who are not "system abusers" might get caught up in this net, and Thailand's reputation as a welcoming destination might be tarnished. Time for the TAT to start paying attention and asking immigration to calm the hell down.

No abuse on your part, you are long enough out of the country between visits. It doesn't qualify as a back-to-back visa run.

The rules are that you can have 90 day in Thailand in any 6 months. That's easily done with tourist visas and extensions, but that rule indicates an away period of about 3 months. If a rich young tourist wants to come more often - get the Elite card.. The Elite card allows you to stay indefinitely for a year, is valid for 5 years and assists with many things like work permits, investments, etc. The fact that it was started during a prior regime is immaterial and in spite of it having it's fair share of Thai-ish problems, I defy you to quote a real instance of a card holder having any serious problems or having his card cancelled through no fault of his own.

[oldthaihand99]

I have stayed in Thailand for 1 and a half years on tourist visas in the past (an indefinite tourist) without working here. I am now on an education visa as I am studying Thai. My girlfriend is pregnant at the moment and I am worried about when my education visa runs out. I make enough money back home to support us but not to qualify for a non O visa. What can I do? I realize they won't have any sympathy for splitting up a young family and I am worried I am going to have to leave my wife and young child here. Any ideas would be much appreciated.

Option 1) Well, you can MARRY your girlfriend then start doing the paperwork to take her and your child back to your home country.

You may have to move in with family back in your home country - but it can be done. Luckily - as you said, you make enough money back home while sitting here in Thailand. Chances are, there is additional public assistance in your home country to help you get your life together.

Option 2) Get MARRIED, then go back to your home country, save up enough for the non-O requirement (400k baht) then return. Might take up to a year and a couple months (depending on what you claim you already earn) - but staying with family will help minimize your spending while trying to save.

Additionally - taking a year away from your wife and kid might seem like forever - but military folks do this ALL THE TIME. It can be done.

Option 3) Live with the GF in Cambodia, PI, Laos, Vietnam or one of the other 200 some countries in the world that will welcome you & is not called Thaitanic, er, Thailand.