"Back to Back" -- please define

[aTomsLife]

Like the title says.  What constitutes a back to back visa?  Ex.)  If someone's visa ends on 1 March and returns with another 60 days on 15 March, would that be considered "back to back"?  

 

I figure there isn't a concrete definition, but I'm curious what people feel is a safe bet:  2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months?

 

As for my situation:

 

Would arrive by air.

 

Can produce financial records detailing a (passive) income originating overseas, which is wired in every couple of months. There's a trail a mile long at this point.  

 

 

Ideally, I would like to attain three tourist visas a year for a total of 210 days, or 8 months.

 

Beginning 1 December:

 

1st Visa 90 days (60+30)

 

Depart 2 to 4 weeks (regional travel). 

 

2nd Visa 90 days (60+30)

 

Depart 2 to 4 weeks (regional travel).

 

3rd Visa up to 60 days or September 1, whichever comes first.  

 

Depart 3 months (travel to home country). 

 

*Restart cycle*

 

 

Thank you.

[larsjohnsson]

It's up to the Immigration officer. He/she will probably ask you a few questions. And then decide. There doesn't exist any rule that say if you have been outside Thailand a certain amount of days, you are allowed to come back again.
Why would a tourist or someone that doesn't stay here have their income from abroad wired here every couple of months? Edited August 6, 2014 by larsjohnsson

[aTomsLife]

I have my income wired here because I DO stay here. . . . as a tourist.  Otherwise a simple trip to the ATM would cost $30.  

 

Thanks for the serious part of your answer, though. 

[ubonjoe]

Since you are entering on a tourist visa you don't don't need to be concerned about the back to back thing. Immigration is only concerned about in/out visa exempt entries.

[BKKSnowBird]

I think you would be fine but need to wait until see what happens on the 12th.

Curious if they do something like the EU. No more than 90 in a 180 day span.

[ubonjoe]

I think you would be fine but need to wait until see what happens on the 12th.

Curious if they do something like the EU. No more than 90 in a 180 day span.

Nothing is going to happen on August 12 other than it being the Queens birthday.

The 12th is only the date that immigration set to start officially enforcing the in/out rule for visa exempt entries.

[aTomsLife]

Since you are entering on a tourist visa you don't don't need to be concerned about the back to back thing. Immigration is only concerned about in/out visa exempt entries.

 

Thank you. Good to hear that tourists won't wind up dolphins amongst the TEFL tunas.  

[NamKangMan]

Since you are entering on a tourist visa you don't don't need to be concerned about the back to back thing. Immigration is only concerned about in/out visa exempt entries.

 

How long before they start on the "in/out" 60 day Tourist Visas from the Thai Embassies?  I think it's only a matter of time. 

 

There was a story recently about a dozen or so people with 60 day Tourist Visas being refused entry at the Malaysian boarder.

[bangkoklasse]

I would be very surprised if people can go out and in with back 2 back tourist visas year after year in the future. And stay here 9-11 months every year 

[ubonjoe]

 

Since you are entering on a tourist visa you don't don't need to be concerned about the back to back thing. Immigration is only concerned about in/out visa exempt entries.

 

How long before they start on the "in/out" 60 day Tourist Visas from the Thai Embassies?  I think it's only a matter of time. 

 

There was a story recently about a dozen or so people with 60 day Tourist Visas being refused entry at the Malaysian boarder.

 

All the people that were turned back had passports full of in/out visa exempt entries. That was an anomaly at the Malaysian border only,

They may start questioning people that have several tourist visa entries but I don't expect they will be turning people back.

[aTomsLife]

I would be very surprised if people can go out and in with back 2 back tourist visas year after year in the future. And stay here 9-11 months every year 

 

You could be right.  Then again, putting an end to the 'exempt in-out' could very well solve 90% of the problem concerning westerners working illegally.  If that's the case, there would be little reason to implement a further crack down.

 

If someone's able to leave and stay gone 2 to 4 weeks at a time every 90 days, it's almost certain they aren't working at a Thai school.  And while someone employed by a language school could pull it off time-wise, surely it would be cost prohibitive.

 

Maybe I'm focusing too much on the teacher end of it, though.  I've never been to Phuket or Pattaya, so maybe this is a bigger problem down there than I'm aware of.    

[NamKangMan]

 

 

Since you are entering on a tourist visa you don't don't need to be concerned about the back to back thing. Immigration is only concerned about in/out visa exempt entries.

 

How long before they start on the "in/out" 60 day Tourist Visas from the Thai Embassies?  I think it's only a matter of time. 

 

There was a story recently about a dozen or so people with 60 day Tourist Visas being refused entry at the Malaysian boarder.

 

All the people that were turned back had passports full of in/out visa exempt entries. That was an anomaly at the Malaysian border only,

They may start questioning people that have several tourist visa entries but I don't expect they will be turning people back.

 

 

 

I disagree with you ubonjoe. 

 

I think the next logical step (yes - I know many things defy logic here) would then be to stop back to back 60 day Tourist Visas. 

 

If what you say is correct, all the visa crack down has done is push the users of the free 30 day visa exemption stamps onto the paid 60 day Tourist Visas from the various Thai Embassies. 

 

Sure, Thailand would be happy with the extra revenue, but it negates the whole purpose of the "visa crack down" - does it not?  The same people are still in the country, just paying a small amount of money for a 60 day Tourist Visa.

 

It's only a matter of time before the Thai Embassies start refusing to issue 60 day Tourist Visas because someone's passpart is already full of them, in the way they used to be full of 30 day visa exemption stamps, otherwise, the visa crach down has achieved nothing but raise some more revenue. 

 

That said, maybe that's all the visa crack down was disigned to do - push people from free, to pay. 

 

[NamKangMan]

 

I would be very surprised if people can go out and in with back 2 back tourist visas year after year in the future. And stay here 9-11 months every year 

 

You could be right.  Then again, putting an end to the 'exempt in-out' could very well solve 90% of the problem concerning westerners working illegally.  If that's the case, there would be little reason to implement a further crack down.

 

If someone's able to leave and stay gone 2 to 4 weeks at a time every 90 days, it's almost certain they aren't working at a Thai school.  And while someone employed by a language school could pull it off time-wise, surely it would be cost prohibitive.

 

Maybe I'm focusing too much on the teacher end of it, though.  I've never been to Phuket or Pattaya, so maybe this is a bigger problem down there than I'm aware of.    

 

 

 

"Then again, putting an end to the 'exempt in-out' could very well solve 90% of the problem concerning westerners working illegally." - why? 

 

They just go to a Thai Embassy, stay overnight, pick up their passport the next day, and have a 60 day Tourist Visa and come back to Thailand.  It's been happening for years. 

 

How does this "solve 90% of the problem concerning westerners working illegally?"

 

I would be surprised if they soon do not turn their attention to back to back 60 day Tourist Visas, where an individual would be refused at a Thai Embassy, rather than the boarder and/or airport.

Edited August 6, 2014 by NamKangMan

[ubonjoe]

The problem with any tightening of tourist visas is that there are many real tourists that have several entries on a tourist visa. Or start with a single entry and then get a new one.

[inutil]

Absolutely true. The OP himself has stated clearly in his first post that he's misusing the visa to effectively live in Thailand. If he wants to live in Thailand then he needs to go through the correct channels. Its amazing how he thinks his shit doesnt stink because he's not working illegally as if that makes some kind of huge difference. He also doesnt understand that teachers here are sent on these stupid visa runs because of their employers reluctance to either fork over the cash for a non-immi B or just terrified at the prospect of organising the relevant documents (think of it like a carrot to keep the poor schmuck on an endless 'probation period' and on their toes).

 

No one wants to work illegally, but this is Thailand, and the advantages are usually in the hands of the Thai employers over the employee. So if its in their interest to keep you on a short leash and withhold the visa for reasons... then they can and will do this. Ask yourself this. Why on earth would any employee want to be illegal and have no recourse or protection against their employer? 

 

If they are serious, then the next thing to be looked at will be the back to back single/double entry tourist visa. Because you can bet your ass that youre local backpacking tefler is now popping to Laos or Phnom Penh and doing exactly this every 60 or 90 days. And unlike the OP  theyll be doing it because its in their employers interest to keep them working illegally, not because theyre trying to game the system.  

 

Edited August 6, 2014 by inutil

[aTomsLife]

 

 

I would be very surprised if people can go out and in with back 2 back tourist visas year after year in the future. And stay here 9-11 months every year 

 

You could be right.  Then again, putting an end to the 'exempt in-out' could very well solve 90% of the problem concerning westerners working illegally.  If that's the case, there would be little reason to implement a further crack down.

 

If someone's able to leave and stay gone 2 to 4 weeks at a time every 90 days, it's almost certain they aren't working at a Thai school.  And while someone employed by a language school could pull it off time-wise, surely it would be cost prohibitive.

 

Maybe I'm focusing too much on the teacher end of it, though.  I've never been to Phuket or Pattaya, so maybe this is a bigger problem down there than I'm aware of.    

 

 

 

"Then again, putting an end to the 'exempt in-out' could very well solve 90% of the problem concerning westerners working illegally." - why? 

 

They just go to a Thai Embassy, stay overnight, pick up their passport the next day, and have a 60 day Tourist Visa and come back to Thailand.  It's been happening for years. 

 

How does this "solve 90% of the problem concerning westerners working illegally?"

 

I would be surprised if they soon do not turn their attention to back to back 60 day Tourist Visas, where an individual would be refused at a Thai Embassy, rather than the boarder and/or airport.

 

 

Fair points all.  

 

I was, and continue operating under the assumption that people who apply for multiple 60-day visas will have to start showing where they get their income from.  Otherwise, as Ubonjoe points out, Thailand would be cutting into its legitimate tourism industry, not only losing money but generating bad publicity that could snowball.

 

Throughout this whole process, it's been stressed that Thailand is open for business, i.e., open to *real* tourists. 

 

There is no maximum amount of days one can spend in the kingdom as a bona fide tourist for a reason: Thailand wants tourists.  So cracking down on 60-day visa holders like me is purposeless. 

Of course they could implement a maximum number of days a foreigner is allowed per year, but I've yet to hear talk of that...

[ubonjoe]

Absolutely true. The OP himself has stated clearly in his first post that he's misusing the visa to effectively live in Thailand. If he wants to live in Thailand then he needs to go through the correct channels. Its amazing how he thinks his shit doesnt stink because he's not working illegally as if that makes some kind of huge difference. He also doesnt understand that teachers here are sent on these stupid visa runs because of their employers reluctance to either fork over the cash for a non-immi B or just terrified at the prospect of organising the relevant documents (think of it like a carrot to keep the poor schmuck on an endless 'probation period' and on their toes).

 

No one wants to work illegally, but this is Thailand, and the advantages are usually in the hands of the Thai employers over the employee. So if its in their interest to keep you on a short leash and withhold the visa for reasons... then they can and will do this. Ask yourself this. Why on earth would any employee want to be illegal and have no recourse or protection against their employer? 

 

If they are serious, then the next thing to be looked at will be the back to back single/double entry tourist visa. Because you can bet your ass that youre local backpacking tefler is now popping to Laos or Phnom Penh and doing exactly this every 60 or 90 days. And unlike the OP  theyll be doing it because its in their employers interest to keep them working illegally, not because theyre trying to game the system.  

 

He does not appear to be living here full time. He looks like a tourist to me. He has never left and re-entered on the same day.

Trips for over 2 weeks out of the country and then 3 months out.

[aTomsLife]

Absolutely true. The OP himself has stated clearly in his first post that he's misusing the visa to effectively live in Thailand. If he wants to live in Thailand then he needs to go through the correct channels. Its amazing how he thinks his shit doesnt stink because he's not working illegally as if that makes some kind of huge difference. He also doesnt understand that teachers here are sent on these stupid visa runs because of their employers reluctance to either fork over the cash for a non-immi B or just terrified at the prospect of organising the relevant documents (think of it like a carrot to keep the poor schmuck on an endless 'probation period' and on their toes).

 

No one wants to work illegally, but this is Thailand, and the advantages are usually in the hands of the Thai employers over the employee. So if its in their interest to keep you on a short leash and withhold the visa for reasons... then they can and will do this. Ask yourself this. Why on earth would any employee want to be illegal and have no recourse or protection against their employer? 

 

If they are serious, then the next thing to be looked at will be the back to back single/double entry tourist visa. Because you can bet your ass that youre local backpacking tefler is now popping to Laos or Phnom Penh and doing exactly this every 60 or 90 days. And unlike the OP  theyll be doing it because its in their employers interest to keep them working illegally, not because theyre trying to game the system.  

 

 

Show us where it officially states a max limit to the number of days a tourist can spend in the kingdom.  Oh that's right, you can't, because there is no limit. I'm doing nothing illegal.  You're the one who needs to get over himself, trying to interpret policies here that the Thais themselves haven't implemented. 

 

And you're also wrong thinking I don't know what a TEFLer goes through.  Before giving up on the Thai education system and embracing the tourist life, I taught at both a technical college and at the pratom level.  I never had problems with visas.  And the only teachers I come across who do have visa issues are those without degrees, i.e., those who are here illegally.  

 

It's ridiculous how you direct your ire at me though, when it's the very people you're sticking up for who caused this issue to pop up on the radar in the first place.  Your argument would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic.  Run along now.   

[inutil]

 

Absolutely true. The OP himself has stated clearly in his first post that he's misusing the visa to effectively live in Thailand. If he wants to live in Thailand then he needs to go through the correct channels. Its amazing how he thinks his shit doesnt stink because he's not working illegally as if that makes some kind of huge difference. He also doesnt understand that teachers here are sent on these stupid visa runs because of their employers reluctance to either fork over the cash for a non-immi B or just terrified at the prospect of organising the relevant documents (think of it like a carrot to keep the poor schmuck on an endless 'probation period' and on their toes).

 

No one wants to work illegally, but this is Thailand, and the advantages are usually in the hands of the Thai employers over the employee. So if its in their interest to keep you on a short leash and withhold the visa for reasons... then they can and will do this. Ask yourself this. Why on earth would any employee want to be illegal and have no recourse or protection against their employer? 

 

If they are serious, then the next thing to be looked at will be the back to back single/double entry tourist visa. Because you can bet your ass that youre local backpacking tefler is now popping to Laos or Phnom Penh and doing exactly this every 60 or 90 days. And unlike the OP  theyll be doing it because its in their employers interest to keep them working illegally, not because theyre trying to game the system.  

 

He does not appear to be living here full time. He looks like a tourist to me. He has never left and re-entered on the same day.

Trips for over 2 weeks out of the country and then 3 months out.

 

 

He clearly is. His intention is to continually return to thailand. Anyone could take a 'holiday' for two weeks in Phnom Penh and then pop back whilst continuing to live and work in the country. And i reckon thats exactly what will be happening. 

[aTomsLife]

 

 

Absolutely true. The OP himself has stated clearly in his first post that he's misusing the visa to effectively live in Thailand. If he wants to live in Thailand then he needs to go through the correct channels. Its amazing how he thinks his shit doesnt stink because he's not working illegally as if that makes some kind of huge difference. He also doesnt understand that teachers here are sent on these stupid visa runs because of their employers reluctance to either fork over the cash for a non-immi B or just terrified at the prospect of organising the relevant documents (think of it like a carrot to keep the poor schmuck on an endless 'probation period' and on their toes).

 

No one wants to work illegally, but this is Thailand, and the advantages are usually in the hands of the Thai employers over the employee. So if its in their interest to keep you on a short leash and withhold the visa for reasons... then they can and will do this. Ask yourself this. Why on earth would any employee want to be illegal and have no recourse or protection against their employer? 

 

If they are serious, then the next thing to be looked at will be the back to back single/double entry tourist visa. Because you can bet your ass that youre local backpacking tefler is now popping to Laos or Phnom Penh and doing exactly this every 60 or 90 days. And unlike the OP  theyll be doing it because its in their employers interest to keep them working illegally, not because theyre trying to game the system.  

 

He does not appear to be living here full time. He looks like a tourist to me. He has never left and re-entered on the same day.

Trips for over 2 weeks out of the country and then 3 months out.

 

 

He clearly is. His intention is to continually return to thailand. Anyone could take a 'holiday' for two weeks in Phnom Penh and then pop back whilst continuing to live and work in the country. And i reckon thats exactly what will be happening. 

 

 

"His intention is to continually return to thailand."

 

Indeed it is--as a tourist.

 

 

[inutil]

 

Absolutely true. The OP himself has stated clearly in his first post that he's misusing the visa to effectively live in Thailand. If he wants to live in Thailand then he needs to go through the correct channels. Its amazing how he thinks his shit doesnt stink because he's not working illegally as if that makes some kind of huge difference. He also doesnt understand that teachers here are sent on these stupid visa runs because of their employers reluctance to either fork over the cash for a non-immi B or just terrified at the prospect of organising the relevant documents (think of it like a carrot to keep the poor schmuck on an endless 'probation period' and on their toes).

 

No one wants to work illegally, but this is Thailand, and the advantages are usually in the hands of the Thai employers over the employee. So if its in their interest to keep you on a short leash and withhold the visa for reasons... then they can and will do this. Ask yourself this. Why on earth would any employee want to be illegal and have no recourse or protection against their employer? 

 

If they are serious, then the next thing to be looked at will be the back to back single/double entry tourist visa. Because you can bet your ass that youre local backpacking tefler is now popping to Laos or Phnom Penh and doing exactly this every 60 or 90 days. And unlike the OP  theyll be doing it because its in their employers interest to keep them working illegally, not because theyre trying to game the system.  

 

 

Show us where it officially states a max limit to the number of days a tourist can spend in the kingdom.  Oh that's right, you can't, because there is no limit. I'm doing nothing illegal.  You're the one who needs to get over himself, trying to interpret policies here that the Thais themselves haven't implemented. 

 

And you're also wrong thinking I don't know what a TEFLer goes through.  Before giving up on the Thai education system and embracing the tourist life, I taught at both a technical college and at the pratom level.  I never had problems with visas.  And the only teachers I come across who do have visa issues are those without degrees, i.e., those who are here illegally.  

 

It's ridiculous how you direct your ire at me though, when it's the very people you're sticking up for who caused this issue to pop up on the radar in the first place.  Your argument would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic.  Run along now.   

 

 

Three quick corrections:

 

1. What ire? 

2. I have all the documents my side to legally work in Thailand as a teacher. 

3. I like the clampdowns. They close loopholes that were used AGAINST me whether by schools, agencies, or supply and demand (wages and conditions from the mass of native english speaking talent that can be drawn upon utilising said loopholes). Alas, i think the back to back tourist visa is also a loophole, and until that one is shut down, teachers with the right credentials will still be 'encouraged' to do exactly that. 

Edited August 6, 2014 by inutil

[tookwan cottage]

Based on this helpful and commendable anecdotal update today, it appears that proof of financial stability is the key.

[larsjohnsson]

The problem with any tightening of tourist visas is that there are many real tourists that have several entries on a tourist visa. Or start with a single entry and then get a new one.

Yes, but a "real tourist" don't have 3 tourist visas plus extensions every year. 90 + 90 + 60 days a year. And then do it every year. Edited August 6, 2014 by larsjohnsson

[aTomsLife]

 

 

Absolutely true. The OP himself has stated clearly in his first post that he's misusing the visa to effectively live in Thailand. If he wants to live in Thailand then he needs to go through the correct channels. Its amazing how he thinks his shit doesnt stink because he's not working illegally as if that makes some kind of huge difference. He also doesnt understand that teachers here are sent on these stupid visa runs because of their employers reluctance to either fork over the cash for a non-immi B or just terrified at the prospect of organising the relevant documents (think of it like a carrot to keep the poor schmuck on an endless 'probation period' and on their toes).

 

No one wants to work illegally, but this is Thailand, and the advantages are usually in the hands of the Thai employers over the employee. So if its in their interest to keep you on a short leash and withhold the visa for reasons... then they can and will do this. Ask yourself this. Why on earth would any employee want to be illegal and have no recourse or protection against their employer? 

 

If they are serious, then the next thing to be looked at will be the back to back single/double entry tourist visa. Because you can bet your ass that youre local backpacking tefler is now popping to Laos or Phnom Penh and doing exactly this every 60 or 90 days. And unlike the OP  theyll be doing it because its in their employers interest to keep them working illegally, not because theyre trying to game the system.  

 

 

Show us where it officially states a max limit to the number of days a tourist can spend in the kingdom.  Oh that's right, you can't, because there is no limit. I'm doing nothing illegal.  You're the one who needs to get over himself, trying to interpret policies here that the Thais themselves haven't implemented. 

 

And you're also wrong thinking I don't know what a TEFLer goes through.  Before giving up on the Thai education system and embracing the tourist life, I taught at both a technical college and at the pratom level.  I never had problems with visas.  And the only teachers I come across who do have visa issues are those without degrees, i.e., those who are here illegally.  

 

It's ridiculous how you direct your ire at me though, when it's the very people you're sticking up for who caused this issue to pop up on the radar in the first place.  Your argument would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic.  Run along now.   

 

 

Three quick corrections:

 

1. What ire? 

2. I have all the documents my side to legally work in Thailand as a teacher. 

3. I like the clampdowns. They close loopholes that were used AGAINST me whether by schools, agencies, or supply and demand (wages and conditions from the mass of native english speaking talent that can be drawn upon utilising said loopholes). Alas, i think the back to back tourist visa is also a loophole, and until that one is shut down, teachers with the right credentials will still be 'encouraged' to do exactly that. 

 

 

Writing that I think my shit doesn't stink set the tone for the rest of what you wrote; that ire.

Then you got on a soapbox about teachers, as if the question concerns whether people want to work illegally.  The point is, there are thousands of degreeless teachers here exploiting the system, and they're the ones who caught the authorities' attention in the first place. Not long-term tourists.

 

I never accused you specifically of being here illegally.  You're projecting.  It was you who said as much about me, by asserting that I was misusing the visa system as a tourist, even though I'm well within the law. 

[aTomsLife]

 

The problem with any tightening of tourist visas is that there are many real tourists that have several entries on a tourist visa. Or start with a single entry and then get a new one.

Yes, but a "real tourist" don't have 3 tourist visas plus extensions every year. 90 + 90 + 60 days a year. And then do it every year.

 

 

I didn't know you were in charge of defining what a "real tourist" is.  The Thai government is truly blessed to have someone like you to interpret their unwritten policies for them.  Keep it up.  Maybe they'll let you run for PM next year.  

[bangkoklasse]

 

Absolutely true. The OP himself has stated clearly in his first post that he's misusing the visa to effectively live in Thailand. If he wants to live in Thailand then he needs to go through the correct channels. Its amazing how he thinks his shit doesnt stink because he's not working illegally as if that makes some kind of huge difference. He also doesnt understand that teachers here are sent on these stupid visa runs because of their employers reluctance to either fork over the cash for a non-immi B or just terrified at the prospect of organising the relevant documents (think of it like a carrot to keep the poor schmuck on an endless 'probation period' and on their toes).

 

No one wants to work illegally, but this is Thailand, and the advantages are usually in the hands of the Thai employers over the employee. So if its in their interest to keep you on a short leash and withhold the visa for reasons... then they can and will do this. Ask yourself this. Why on earth would any employee want to be illegal and have no recourse or protection against their employer? 

 

If they are serious, then the next thing to be looked at will be the back to back single/double entry tourist visa. Because you can bet your ass that youre local backpacking tefler is now popping to Laos or Phnom Penh and doing exactly this every 60 or 90 days. And unlike the OP  theyll be doing it because its in their employers interest to keep them working illegally, not because theyre trying to game the system.  

 

He does not appear to be living here full time. He looks like a tourist to me. He has never left and re-entered on the same day.

Trips for over 2 weeks out of the country and then 3 months out.

 

 

You can live in a country without leaving and re-enter the same day. When staying 9+ months in one country every year. And 2-3 months in another country, it's obvious which country you live in.

 

I lived 50 + years in Sweden without leaving and re-enter the same day  The country you live in, is the country where you stay the longest time every year. Not the country you are born in.

Edited August 6, 2014 by bangkoklasse

[chrisinth]

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

 

 

 

 

Since you are entering on a tourist visa you don't don't need to be concerned about the back to back thing. Immigration is only concerned about in/out visa exempt entries.

 

How long before they start on the "in/out" 60 day Tourist Visas from the Thai Embassies?  I think it's only a matter of time. 

 

There was a story recently about a dozen or so people with 60 day Tourist Visas being refused entry at the Malaysian boarder.

 

All the people that were turned back had passports full of in/out visa exempt entries. That was an anomaly at the Malaysian border only,

They may start questioning people that have several tourist visa entries but I don't expect they will be turning people back.

 

 

 

I disagree with you ubonjoe. 

 

I think the next logical step (yes - I know many things defy logic here) would then be to stop back to back 60 day Tourist Visas. 

 

If what you say is correct, all the visa crack down has done is push the users of the free 30 day visa exemption stamps onto the paid 60 day Tourist Visas from the various Thai Embassies. 

 

Sure, Thailand would be happy with the extra revenue, but it negates the whole purpose of the "visa crack down" - does it not?  The same people are still in the country, just paying a small amount of money for a 60 day Tourist Visa.

 

It's only a matter of time before the Thai Embassies start refusing to issue 60 day Tourist Visas because someone's passpart is already full of them, in the way they used to be full of 30 day visa exemption stamps, otherwise, the visa crach down has achieved nothing but raise some more revenue. 

 

That said, maybe that's all the visa crack down was disigned to do - push people from free, to pay. 

 

 

 

If they were really serious about tourist visas, the most logical step would be to stop multiples.

 

That would solve any back to back/out-in issues where the 'visitor' does a border run to activate the next 60 day entry.

 

But that's not going to happen. To be honest, I am surprised at how quiet TAT has been throughout. I would be willing to put money on it that they will get involved heavily at a later stage if there is a move against tourist visas.

[larsjohnsson]

 

The problem with any tightening of tourist visas is that there are many real tourists that have several entries on a tourist visa. Or start with a single entry and then get a new one.

Yes, but a "real tourist" don't have 3 tourist visas plus extensions every year. 90 + 90 + 60 days a year. And then do it every year.
 

 
I didn't know you were in charge of defining what a "real tourist" is.  The Thai government is truly blessed to have someone like you to interpret their unwritten policies for them.  Keep it up.  Maybe they'll let you run for PM next year.  

So why did you start the thread when you already know that evetything you do is legal and the immigration like it and will allow it ?

A real tourist get VAT refund when shopping in Thailand. You can't get it because you stay too long and are not a tourist according to those rules

[aTomsLife]

 

 

Absolutely true. The OP himself has stated clearly in his first post that he's misusing the visa to effectively live in Thailand. If he wants to live in Thailand then he needs to go through the correct channels. Its amazing how he thinks his shit doesnt stink because he's not working illegally as if that makes some kind of huge difference. He also doesnt understand that teachers here are sent on these stupid visa runs because of their employers reluctance to either fork over the cash for a non-immi B or just terrified at the prospect of organising the relevant documents (think of it like a carrot to keep the poor schmuck on an endless 'probation period' and on their toes).

 

No one wants to work illegally, but this is Thailand, and the advantages are usually in the hands of the Thai employers over the employee. So if its in their interest to keep you on a short leash and withhold the visa for reasons... then they can and will do this. Ask yourself this. Why on earth would any employee want to be illegal and have no recourse or protection against their employer? 

 

If they are serious, then the next thing to be looked at will be the back to back single/double entry tourist visa. Because you can bet your ass that youre local backpacking tefler is now popping to Laos or Phnom Penh and doing exactly this every 60 or 90 days. And unlike the OP  theyll be doing it because its in their employers interest to keep them working illegally, not because theyre trying to game the system.  

 

He does not appear to be living here full time. He looks like a tourist to me. He has never left and re-entered on the same day.

Trips for over 2 weeks out of the country and then 3 months out.

 

 

You can live in a country without leaving and re-enter the same day. When staying 9+ months in one country every year. And 2-3 months in another country, it's obvious which country you live in.

 

I lived 50 + years in Sweden without leaving and re-enter the same day  The country you live in, is the country where you stay the longest time every year. Not the country you are born in.

 

 

My country of legal residence is not Thailand, therefore I don't officially live here.  

 

Now if you wanna play semantics, and say live as in exist, sure: I exist in Thailand.  Eight months a year, as a tourist.  

That is fact.  

 

Regardless of your or Webster's or Oxford's definition of the word.  The Thai government classifies me as a tourist, so that is what I legally am, so that is what I call myself.

If/when they change their policies, then I'll change my perspectives--as well as my travel plans.       

[aTomsLife]

 

 

 

The problem with any tightening of tourist visas is that there are many real tourists that have several entries on a tourist visa. Or start with a single entry and then get a new one.

Yes, but a "real tourist" don't have 3 tourist visas plus extensions every year. 90 + 90 + 60 days a year. And then do it every year.
 

 
I didn't know you were in charge of defining what a "real tourist" is.  The Thai government is truly blessed to have someone like you to interpret their unwritten policies for them.  Keep it up.  Maybe they'll let you run for PM next year.  

So why did you start the thread when you already know that evetything you do is legal and the immigration like it and will allow it ?

A real tourist get VAT refund when shopping in Thailand. You can't get it because you stay too long and are not a tourist according to those rules

 

 

As in the title, I started the thread to find out if there was a minimum number of days one needed to leave the country in order to REMAIN qualified for a tourist visa. Ubonjoe answered my question, while you and a couple of others wanna challenge me about something that is not your business. Asking for help wasn't an invitation to critique my entire existence here.

 

It was a simple question.  In so many words: IS WHAT I PLAN TO DO LEGAL?  The answer appears to be YES. 

 

All this other nonsense about me misusing tourist visas is BS I didn't sign up to debate.  And on that note I'm through debating it: it's not my problem if some of you can't keep hold of the plot.