Longer visa exemption extensions begin August 29, 2014

[AYJAYDEE]

The point is, you can't call somebody who was acting perfectly lawful by getting back to back tourist visas for lack of an obtainable residential visa an abuser of a system. This system was in place for many, many years. They can't act like they didn't know about it for a looong time and now are basically "shocked" that people were just following the laws that were put in place by them.

The thing is, I have no problem if they tell people now you are not welcome here anymore if you just want to stay for extended times, not working. BUT then make the rules crystal clear and tell that to people. And not: well, we are suspecting that you might be working, we don't like your face, whatever. Do what you must, but BE CLEAR, that's really all people are asking for. Tell people how long they can stay in the country with tourist status per year, how many exempts, etc..

no one is acting shocked. everyone knew that lots of folks were acting contrary to the intent of the rules. and just because abuse is ignored doesnt mean it isnt abuse.

[Pattaya46]

it means that everyone leaving Thailand while on a 30-days extension must exit from Thailand by plane!

A direct consequence could be: people on this extension are refused to exit at a land border...

you can leave the country at any border what is open, you cant refuse people to leave thailand

If you got an extension because you showed a plane ticket,

Thai Immigration is in right to expect that you will use this ticket...

And yes they can refuse someone to leave Thailand.

Read this forum, it happened many times during recent weeks, mainly with people from Phuket.

[phylofx]

The point is, you can't call somebody who was acting perfectly lawful by getting back to back tourist visas for lack of an obtainable residential visa an abuser of a system. This system was in place for many, many years. They can't act like they didn't know about it for a looong time and now are basically "shocked" that people were just following the laws that were put in place by them.

The thing is, I have no problem if they tell people now you are not welcome here anymore if you just want to stay for extended times, not working. BUT then make the rules crystal clear and tell that to people. And not: well, we are suspecting that you might be working, we don't like your face, whatever. Do what you must, but BE CLEAR, that's really all people are asking for. Tell people how long they can stay in the country with tourist status per year, how many exempts, etc..

no one is acting shocked. everyone knew that lots of folks were acting contrary to the intent of the rules. and just because abuse is ignored doesnt mean it isnt abuse.

You don't know what the intent of the rules were, so better not speculate and call something abuse where is none, Maybe the intent was to give aforementioned people the option to basically be tourists as long as they choose because it is advantageous to the country if you are putting lots of money in the thai economy for many months or years as opposed to only thirty days or not at all? Maybe that's why the lifted the exemption limit again a few years ago? So, as mentioned, better not claim to know about the intents of thai gov and call perfectly abiding people abusers of a system that was put or kept in place for a reason. Edited July 21, 2014 by phylofx

[KevWaters]

whats the point of a tourist visa if after 29 Aug you can get 30 days on arrival and then extend for 30 days ..?

You don't have to go to an Immigration Office.

No ticket out of the country within 30 days of arrival would be needed.

You could get 90 days total with a 30 day extension

And it's 900 baht cheaper.

[AYJAYDEE]

The point is, you can't call somebody who was acting perfectly lawful by getting back to back tourist visas for lack of an obtainable residential visa an abuser of a system. This system was in place for many, many years. They can't act like they didn't know about it for a looong time and now are basically "shocked" that people were just following the laws that were put in place by them.

The thing is, I have no problem if they tell people now you are not welcome here anymore if you just want to stay for extended times, not working. BUT then make the rules crystal clear and tell that to people. And not: well, we are suspecting that you might be working, we don't like your face, whatever. Do what you must, but BE CLEAR, that's really all people are asking for. Tell people how long they can stay in the country with tourist status per year, how many exempts, etc..

no one is acting shocked. everyone knew that lots of folks were acting contrary to the intent of the rules. and just because abuse is ignored doesnt mean it isnt abuse.

You don't know what the intent of the rules were, so better not speculate and call something abuse where is none, Maybe the intent was to give aforementioned people the option to basically be tourists as long as they choose because it is advanteous to the country if you are putting lots of money in the thai economy for many months or years as opposed to only thirty days or not at all? Maybe that's why the lifted the exemption limit again a few years ago? So, as mentioned, better not claim to know about the intents of thai gov and call perfectly abiding people abusers of a system that was put or kept in place for a reason.

if they wanted to allow tourist to be tourists as long as they choose, they would have had a longer period for the tourist visa and the visa exempt. it was abuse pure and simple.

[phylofx]

The point is, you can't call somebody who was acting perfectly lawful by getting back to back tourist visas for lack of an obtainable residential visa an abuser of a system. This system was in place for many, many years. They can't act like they didn't know about it for a looong time and now are basically "shocked" that people were just following the laws that were put in place by them.

The thing is, I have no problem if they tell people now you are not welcome here anymore if you just want to stay for extended times, not working. BUT then make the rules crystal clear and tell that to people. And not: well, we are suspecting that you might be working, we don't like your face, whatever. Do what you must, but BE CLEAR, that's really all people are asking for. Tell people how long they can stay in the country with tourist status per year, how many exempts, etc..

no one is acting shocked. everyone knew that lots of folks were acting contrary to the intent of the rules. and just because abuse is ignored doesnt mean it isnt abuse.

You don't know what the intent of the rules were, so better not speculate and call something abuse where is none, Maybe the intent was to give aforementioned people the option to basically be tourists as long as they choose because it is advanteous to the country if you are putting lots of money in the thai economy for many months or years as opposed to only thirty days or not at all? Maybe that's why the lifted the exemption limit again a few years ago? So, as mentioned, better not claim to know about the intents of thai gov and call perfectly abiding people abusers of a system that was put or kept in place for a reason.

if they wanted to allow tourist to be tourists as long as they choose, they would have had a longer period for the tourist visa and the visa exempt. it was abuse pure and simple.

It really doesn't matter what label you attach to people or what your opinion is. It is what it is, it was put in place by thai gov, known about and accepted for many years. People were acting perfectly lawful and it served the country for a long time. If they now think it doesn't anymore that's absolutely fine, just make the rules crystal clear, review them internally, and then proclaim them. Not scaring off tens if not hundreds of thousands of tourists through lack of care would be a plus,

[OMGImInPattaya]

I think they should consider a 90-day visa free stay similar to other countries. It would make life much easier for many tourists. And they should also scrap the 90-day reporting or allow people to do the report online. It seems to be wasting the time of both visa holders and immigration staff.

what countries?

Singapore and Malaysia come immediately to mind (I'm sure they're others), at least for Western passport holders.

[wilcopops]

o one is acting shocked. everyone knew that lots of folks were acting contrary to the intent of the rules. and just because abuse is ignored doesnt mean it isnt abuse.

You don't know what the intent of the rules were, so better not speculate and call something abuse where is none, Maybe the intent was to give aforementioned people the option to basically be tourists as long as they choose because it is advanteous to the country if you are putting lots of money in the thai economy for many months or years as opposed to only thirty days or not at all? Maybe that's why the lifted the exemption limit again a few years ago? So, as mentioned, better not claim to know about the intents of thai gov and call perfectly abiding people abusers of a system that was put or kept in place for a reason.

if they wanted to allow tourist to be tourists as long as they choose, they would have had a longer period for the tourist visa and the visa exempt. it was abuse pure and simple.

It really doesn't matter what label you attach to people or what your opinion is. It is what it is, it was put in place by thai gov, known about and accepted for many years. People were acting perfectly lawful and it served the country for a long time. If they now think it doesn't anymore that's absolutely fine, just make the rules crystal clear, review them internally, and then proclaim them. Not scaring off tens if not hundreds of thousands of tourists through lack of care would be a plus,

At present the "changes" are un researched dictums coming from on top from those with preconceived ideas about what the problems are and what the causes may be.

​

What is needed is a thorough review from the bottom up that would bring about visa hangs that relate to the needs of Thailand and its visitors.

all we have at present is a mish-mash of conflicting ideas and practices that aren't even consistent from day to day at any single border.

[wilcopops]

It seems to me that the "extra" 30 days is a knee-jerk or band-aid response to various panic attacks in the tourist industry caused by the previous I/O measures

[AYJAYDEE]

I think they should consider a 90-day visa free stay similar to other countries. It would make life much easier for many tourists. And they should also scrap the 90-day reporting or allow people to do the report online. It seems to be wasting the time of both visa holders and immigration staff.

what countries?

Singapore and Malaysia come immediately to mind (I'm sure they're others), at least for Western passport holders.

not all western passports

[wilcopops]

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

so 3 back to back tourists = 180 days plus 60 non-visa = 240 days?

I think it may change the kind of visas people are asking for now that all g7 visitors can stay for 2 months without the need for a visa.........couple this with some tourist visas and the visa runners, who won't show up for another month.....looks like a busy time for immigration. i hope they are all well versed in ALL the new regs!

G7 citizens can stay for 30 days X 3 without a visa, not 2 months as you have stated, I am currently on my 3rd 30 days & will require to get an Non Imm 'O' visa in Laos at the end of july

Which border crossing do those rules apply to? Certainly not all.

not if the I/O rules apply - I'm saying that any 30 day in future will be extendable in the country to 60 days so the new total will loo like my first post.

If they allow I/O after 60 days then it might extend to 3 visa exempts plus their extra 30 days which would mean another possible 180 days in total bringing the whole thing to over a year as a tourist.

Edited July 21, 2014 by wilcopops

[djhotsox]

Wouldn't it just be simpler to make the visa exemption 60 days instead of having to extend it?

Then they make no money......the visa exemption is free.....the extension is 1900 baht.

[wilcopops]

so 3 back to back tourists = 180 days plus 60 non-visa = 240 days?

I think it may change the kind of visas people are asking for now that all g7 visitors can stay for 2 months without the need for a visa.........couple this with some tourist visas and the visa runners, who won't show up for another month.....looks like a busy time for immigration. i hope they are all well versed in ALL the new regs!

G7 citizens can stay for 30 days X 3 without a visa, not 2 months as you have stated, I am currently on my 3rd 30 days & will require to get an Non Imm 'O' visa in Laos at the end of july

please not I'm talking about the longer extension time on a visa exempt entry. this might end up as 3 X 60 = 180 days

[wilcopops]

so 3 back to back tourists = 180 days plus 60 non-visa = 240 days?

I think it may change the kind of visas people are asking for now that all g7 visitors can stay for 2 months without the need for a visa.........couple this with some tourist visas and the visa runners, who won't show up for another month.....looks like a busy time for immigration. i hope they are all well versed in ALL the new regs!

If it is a triple entry it is not back to back.

I have seen it considered so, in Sawanakhet, last year! Don't be mad at me, it's what they did.

I believe tourist visas have been specifically mentioned as "back-to-back"

[gk10002000]

This 30 days versus 7 days will be great for me. I typically go to LOS once or twice a year when between my contracts here in the USA. Once I did a 7 day extension. easy enough. 30 days will be great as I never really know when my next contract starts up again. Getting a tourist visa in advance and mailing my passport around doesn't work well for me because I usually don't stay 60 dayr or more and I rarely know in advance by more than a few days when my work contract will end. One of the reasons I first went to Thailand and continue to go to Thailand is the ease of traveling and entering the country without needing any prior visa. Now, having the flexibility of extending 30 days via the local immigration office versus making a visa run is great.

[ParadiseLost]

How they want to handle the people who own a Condo in thailand, or may be more Condos? they cant refuse them enter Thailand,

All this people have the right to check their propertys or to live in their Condo,

They may be have to leave every 30/60 days but they have the right to enter Thailand again.

Or Thailand will break international contracts and agreements and the country will have to pay compensation!

Thy can not change the rules for Investors, and if they only try then it will be a huge impact of the building bussines in Thailand, ghosttowns in Phuket and attaya

I am not so sure about all the 'rights' you claim people have - the only ones with any rights are Thai citizens.

The USA allows (retired) foreigners to purchase property, but get this - it does not include any visa rights...

[ParadiseLost]

Has there been any mention of re-instating the 30 days exemption entry at land borders?

It makes little sense to only give 15 days as the loophole which originally caused the change has now effectively been closed...

[MikeN]

Pazz is pointing out the fact that the IATA database is still mentioning the old rule, that has been abolished for some years now.

I'm talking about the individual airlines - they will be wise to it soon.

It is still 30 days visa exempt entry, the only change is now you can get a 30 day extension instead of 7 days. Airlines would not let you fly if you had a return ticket for say, 35 days, because it was later than the 30 day exemption. They did n't care if you told them you can get another 7 days extension. Why should they suddenly change their mind just because the extension is now 30 days ? The visa fee period is still only 30 days !

(and to be cynical, the airlines would prefer you got an original return ticket for within 30 days, then charge you extra to change the ticket if you did get an extension )

[JLCrab]

I think they should consider a 90-day visa free stay similar to other countries. It would make life much easier for many tourists. And they should also scrap the 90-day reporting or allow people to do the report online. It seems to be wasting the time of both visa holders and immigration staff.

The possibility of having the 90-day report done online is something immigration is considering.

I asked if there was any chance of getting any of the non-immigration visas done online and the answer was, "No, but 90-day report, maybe."

Regarding the 90 day report required in Section 37 of The Immigration Act of Thailand (2522) it also says in paragraph 5.:

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

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

Director General

So someone would have to make the interpretation and determination that an online email would equal a letter.

[Tomtomtom69]

Pazz is pointing out the fact that the IATA database is still mentioning the old rule, that has been abolished for some years now.

I'm talking about the individual airlines - they will be wise to it soon.

It is still 30 days visa exempt entry, the only change is now you can get a 30 day extension instead of 7 days. Airlines would not let you fly if you had a return ticket for say, 35 days, because it was later than the 30 day exemption. They did n't care if you told them you can get another 7 days extension. Why should they suddenly change their mind just because the extension is now 30 days ? The visa fee period is still only 30 days !

(and to be cynical, the airlines would prefer you got an original return ticket for within 30 days, then charge you extra to change the ticket if you did get an extension )

You can easily pay like $100 more and get a flexible ticket that doesn't cost anything to change. I just changed my ticket for like the 8th time and haven't paid a dime. But oh yeah that's right that's because I choose to fly a decent airline called THAI not Air Asia.

Also, as long as you possess a return ticket, even if it's not exactly within 30 days the airline still normally lets you board. There could well be overzealous airline staff in such situations that check to make sure your outbound ticket is no later than the amount of time you're allowed on a visa free stay, but I've never encountered any. After all there's nothing stopping a traveller from changing a flight over the phone the minute they leave the check-in counter, which is something I might do if I was ever in that situation.

[Mario2008]

Most airlines have not only different clases like economy and business, but also different ticket classes.

The ticket class comes with certain restirctions. The chepaest class for instance you can't change and have to return within 30 days for a return ticket. While the person next to you in economy might have paid more for the ticket and has more options, like being able to change the date (for a fee) and the person enxt to him might have an even more expensive ticket that allows changing the return date for free.

It is all how ceratin you are of your travel plans and which ticket is (still) available.

[hawker9000]

Pazz is pointing out the fact that the IATA database is still mentioning the old rule, that has been abolished for some years now.

I'm talking about the individual airlines - they will be wise to it soon.

It is still 30 days visa exempt entry, the only change is now you can get a 30 day extension instead of 7 days. Airlines would not let you fly if you had a return ticket for say, 35 days, because it was later than the 30 day exemption. They did n't care if you told them you can get another 7 days extension. Why should they suddenly change their mind just because the extension is now 30 days ? The visa fee period is still only 30 days !

(and to be cynical, the airlines would prefer you got an original return ticket for within 30 days, then charge you extra to change the ticket if you did get an extension )

You can easily pay like $100 more and get a flexible ticket that doesn't cost anything to change. I just changed my ticket for like the 8th time and haven't paid a dime. But oh yeah that's right that's because I choose to fly a decent airline called THAI not Air Asia.

Also, as long as you possess a return ticket, even if it's not exactly within 30 days the airline still normally lets you board. There could well be overzealous airline staff in such situations that check to make sure your outbound ticket is no later than the amount of time you're allowed on a visa free stay, but I've never encountered any. After all there's nothing stopping a traveller from changing a flight over the phone the minute they leave the check-in counter, which is something I might do if I was ever in that situation.

"even if it's not exactly within 30 days" ... "but I've never encountered any"

Well I have. Very bad advice. Esp. right now. The rule is that if you don't have a visa, your return (or onward) ticketing has to be within the 30d window. If you choose to ignore this, you're just rolling the dice. And if anything I have to guess the airlines are becoming more vigilant about this just now... Further, while up until now this has been labeled as something IOs don't ever check, THAT'S changing, too, at least if you're somebody whose passport history of goings & comings excites their interest. (And come 12 AUG, I would expect it to change a bit more...)

[Maestro]

Removed an irrelevant post.

[chrisinth]

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

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

Well if Immigration is following ThaiVisa, I have a message for Immigration: "How about giving longtime married expat residents of Thailand, who have demonstrated good citizenship, a reasonable pathway to permanent residency at a reasonable cost?"

A 100,000 baht non-refundable application fee is not reasonable; it is gambling. Also, selling a five year permit to stay for a 2 million baht fee via the new Elite Card is not reasonable. Other countries have a reasonable road to permanent residency; why not Thailand?

I think you need to look at your figures again before ranting at immigration............................

Don't just take a typical ThaiVisa style potshot at me. If I have errors, please be so kind as to specifically point them out and offer corrections for the benefit of all.

I try to put on a worthwhile suggestion and all you have done is flame me. Thanks a lot.

Woah!! Apologies if you thought that was a flame, it wasn't. You were ranting at immigration with the wrong figures.

Thanks for the posters for posting the right ones.

[ScottMallon]

I think they should consider a 90-day visa free stay similar to other countries. It would make life much easier for many tourists. And they should also scrap the 90-day reporting or allow people to do the report online. It seems to be wasting the time of both visa holders and immigration staff.

The possibility of having the 90-day report done online is something immigration is considering.

I asked if there was any chance of getting any of the non-immigration visas done online and the answer was, "No, but 90-day report, maybe."

Regarding the 90 day report required in Section 37 of The Immigration Act of Thailand (2522) it also says in paragraph 5.:

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

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

Director General

So someone would have to make the interpretation and determination that an online email would equal a letter.

Believe what you want.

What I was told by the #2 official is that immigration is considering making it possible to file the 90-day report online. If they did this, they could easily modify the current 90-day regulation. Considering what I was told and my own instincts, if I were to make a wager, I would bet that it will happen at some point.

[JLCrab]

So the #2 official is saying that, should such a change occur, it is in conformance with the explicit text of the Act as 'a letter'. People come on here and mention all sorts of changes they would like to see without having the slightest idea what is law or Act, what ministerial regulation, and what is in the purview of a Police Order.

I don't have the slightest idea whether this will occur or not -- I make a point of visiting the local IMM office for 90 day report.

Edited July 21, 2014 by JLCrab

[ScottMallon]

So the #2 official is saying that should, such a change occur it is in conformance with the explicit text of the Act as 'a letter'. People come on here and mention all sorts of changes they would like to see without having the slightest idea what is law, what ministerial regulation, and what is in the purview of a Police Order.

I don't have the slightest idea whether this will occur pr not -- I make a point of visiting the local IMM office for 90 day report.

You decipher what was said however you choose. Like I said, believe what you want, it makes no difference to me. If they want it done, it'll get done.

I'm not just "mentioning it." It was said. My own way of looking at what I'm told by those in charge is to take them at their word. Especially now.

I mail my report in and would jump on doing it online.

Edited July 21, 2014 by ScottMallon

[JLCrab]

So the #2 official is saying that should, such a change occur it is in conformance with the explicit text of the Act as 'a letter'. People come on here and mention all sorts of changes they would like to see without having the slightest idea what is law, what ministerial regulation, and what is in the purview of a Police Order.

I don't have the slightest idea whether this will occur pr not -- I make a point of visiting the local IMM office for 90 day report.

Like I said, believe what you want. If they want it done, it'll get done.

I'm not just "mentioning it." It was said. You don't want to believe it, then don't. My own way of looking at what I'm told by those in charge is to take them at their word. Especially now.

I mail my report in and would jump on doing it online.

What you said above is that they are considering allowing an online submission of the 90 day report and I agreed that may occur because someone will decide that the online submission conforms with the 'send a letter' in Section 37-5 of the Immigration Act and therefore requires no change in the Immigration Act.

Edited July 21, 2014 by JLCrab

[Maestro]

From the English translation of the Immigration Act B.E. 2522 (1982); highlighting in bold is mine:

Section 37
...
5. If the alien stays in the Kingdom longer than ninety days, such
alien must notify the competent official at the Immigration Division , in writing ,
concerning his place of stay , as soon as possible upon expiration of ninety days.
The alien is required to do so every ninety days. Where there is an Immigration
Office , the alien may notify a competent Immigration Official of that office.
...
In making notification under this Section , the alien may make
notification in person or send a letter of notification to the competent official , in
accordance with the regulations prescribed by the Director General .

Notification online would need a change in the "regulations prescribed by the Director General", ie the Director General of the Police Department, stating that such online notification is considered to be a notification in writing and thus conforming to Section 37 of the Immigration Act.

[mrtoad]

So the #2 official is saying that should, such a change occur it is in conformance with the explicit text of the Act as 'a letter'. People come on here and mention all sorts of changes they would like to see without having the slightest idea what is law, what ministerial regulation, and what is in the purview of a Police Order.

I don't have the slightest idea whether this will occur pr not -- I make a point of visiting the local IMM office for 90 day report.

Like I said, believe what you want. If they want it done, it'll get done.

I'm not just "mentioning it." It was said. You don't want to believe it, then don't. My own way of looking at what I'm told by those in charge is to take them at their word. Especially now.

I mail my report in and would jump on doing it online.

What you said above is that they are considering allowing an online submission of the 90 day report and I agreed that may occur because someone will decide that the online submission conforms with the 'send a letter' in Section 37-5 of the Immigration Act and therefore requires no change in the Immigration Act.

It certainly would be an excellent option for the 90 day report.