"Back to Back" -- please define

inutil · August 6, 2014

Thats kinda the point though isnt it? You are within the law, but its actually things like this which lead to crackdowns and tightening of regulations. Its called a loophole. Loopholes are by their nature, legal. But against the spirit and intention of the law. You may well be a 'tourist' but its hard to imagine a 'tourist' living away from his native country for 9 months of the year (with up to 8 months - at least) being spent in a single country year after year. So im suggesting that perhaps you might be undermining your own point by proclaiming yourself 'a tourist' given that it might lead someone to ask the simple question: how is a tourist able to stay here for 2/3rds to 3/4s of the year... year after year? Arent they just defacto immigrants?

You suggest i got on my soapbox unfairly. But your earlier dolphin/tuna comment followed by your rejoinder on those pesky teachers making it hard for everyone else, only told one side of the story. I offered simply a fair correction.I didnt bring it up out of the blue. I brought it up because you seemed to be under the impression that having to do a visa run was some kind of deliberate attempt to flout the law and work under the counter. I was correcting a point you yourself (flippantly) initiated.

Secondly, and in addition, the reason i brought up my degree wasnt to show you im qualified, but to offer evidence to back up the claim that i am making in correcting your position. If i want to undermine the implication that teachers selfishly caused this issue you may be facing (point 1) and that the only people with these problems are teachers without degrees, (point 2) then possession of my degree clearly illustrates that (point 1), this benefited me not a jot, and (point 2), as a teacher with said documents and totally willing to complete the visa process, i was being hindered by forces completely outside of my control. So again, it was entirely relevant. It not only undermined your claim that only teachers without degrees have problems. But also further advanced my point that employers appear to be in no hurry to make their employees legal. Thus all teachers will possibly have had to deal with this nonsense depending upon factors completely outside of their qualifications.

This brings me to the last point. You also suggested that the in-out visa clampdown should stop 90% of the issues. Ive explained why it wont. Again, if its beneficial for the school to have their teacher exploit a visa loophole, then you can bet that they will do exactly this (see above). If it means giving them a week off once every 90 days (paid or unpaid) to do a full tourist run to the nearest Thai consulate handing out Double-entry tourist visas, then they will do exactly this and we are back at square one. Its a loophole. It will be looked at. And sooner no doubt rather than later. And the reason it will be looked at isnt because of the fly by night teacher, but because employers will try and find a way to flout legality through either a) hiring people ineligible for a work permit and encouraging them to do these back to back runs, or b ) hiring people eligible for a visa but for reasons on a case by case and instance by instance basis, appear reluctant to do so, thus encouraging them to do back to back visa runs. So i hope you understand: im simply correcting your own rather cheeky points holding teachers to blame for a situation completely outside of their control.

NamKangMan · August 6, 2014

OP, if you were "existing" here for 8 months of the year, on 30 day back to back visa exemtion stamps, you would be out the door, under the currect crack down.

It's only a matter of time before they turn their attention to those "existing" here for 8 months of the year on 60 day tourist visas.

Let's be honest, to Thai Immigration, a "tourist" is someone who flies into Thailand for sun, sea and sand - for 2 weeks. They also understand the concept of backpacking, and allow some latitude for that.

Their idea of a "tourist" is not someone who stays in Thailand 8 months of the year, with a couple of 2 week side trips to neighbouring countries to get a new visa, and who is in his 20's, 30's or 40's, and does this year after year.

I am not "challenging" you, I am a visa runner, like yourself. I have stated I disagree with ubonjoe, and given my reasons.

I'm not due for my next visa run for a while, but I can only imagine the queues at the Thai Embassies, now that all the 30 day visa exemption people are going to the 60 day visas. Don't you think this will be drawing attention, as it negates the crack down on the 30 day visa exemption people?

Personally, I think all of this visa crack down will fade away, but you should at least prepare to be refused, as I, and some of my friends have done, because it's a very real possibility.

Jonathan Fairfield · August 6, 2014

Maybe the OP could ask here: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/749363-thaivisacom-to-meet-with-immigration-commissioner/

Tomtomtom69 · August 6, 2014

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.

Some embassies and consulates have already stopped issuing back-to-back tourist visas, nothing new and there have been notices at consulates and embassies, including Yangon, Vientiane and Kunming to name a few, all of which were dated 2011 or something that states (in short): "There has been an increase in the number of foreigners coming to Thailand using tourist visas to work. We would like to remind applicants that a tourist visa is for tourism purposes only and numerous back-to-back visa applications can be refused if the applicant appears to be using a tourist visa for a purpose other than what it was designed for." The actual wording is slightly different but you get the idea - tourist visas will not be liberally handed out like they might have been in earlier days. So nothing new there. Red stamps are issued by some consulates as a warning to stop using back-to-back tourist visas and that this will be the last time one is issued - next time get a non-imm visa or something.

aTomsLife · August 6, 2014

Thats kinda the point though isnt it? You are within the law, but its actually things like this which lead to crackdowns and tightening of regulations. Its called a loophole. Loopholes are by their nature, legal. But against the spirit and intention of the law. You may well be a 'tourist' but its hard to imagine a 'tourist' living away from his native country for 9 months of the year (with up to 8 months - at least) being spent in a single country year after year. So im suggesting that perhaps you might be undermining your own point by proclaiming yourself 'a tourist' given that it might lead someone to ask the simple question: how is a tourist able to stay here for 2/3rds to 3/4s of the year... year after year? Arent they just defacto immigrants?

You suggest i got on my soapbox unfairly. But your earlier dolphin/tuna comment followed by your rejoinder on those pesky teachers making it hard for everyone else, only told one side of the story. I offered simply a fair correction.I didnt bring it up out of the blue. I brought it up because you seemed to be under the impression that having to do a visa run was some kind of deliberate attempt to flout the law and work under the counter. I was correcting a point you yourself (flippantly) initiated.

Secondly, and in addition, the reason i brought up my degree wasnt to show you im qualified, but to offer evidence to back up the claim that i am making in correcting your position. If i want to undermine the implication that teachers selfishly caused this issue you may be facing (point 1) and that the only people with these problems are teachers without degrees, (point 2) then possession of my degree clearly illustrates that (point 1), this benefited me not a jot, and (point 2), as a teacher with said documents and totally willing to complete the visa process, i was being hindered by forces completely outside of my control. So again, it was entirely relevant. It not only undermined your claim that only teachers without degrees have problems. But also further advanced my point that employers appear to be in no hurry to make their employees legal. Thus all teachers will possibly have had to deal with this nonsense depending upon factors completely outside of their qualifications.

This brings me to the last point. You also suggested that the in-out visa clampdown should stop 90% of the issues. Ive explained why it wont. Again, if its beneficial for the school to have their teacher exploit a visa loophole, then you can bet that they will do exactly this (see above). If it means giving them a week off once every 90 days (paid or unpaid) to do a full tourist run to the nearest Thai consulate handing out Double-entry tourist visas, then we are back at square one. Its a loophole. It will be looked at. And sooner no doubt rather than later. And the reason it will be looked at isnt because of the fly by night teacher, but because employers will try and find a way to flout legality through either a) hiring people ineligible for the visa, or hiring people eligible for a visa but for reasons on a case by case and instance by instance basis, appear reluctant to do so. So i hope you understand: im simply correcting your own rather cheeky points holding teachers to blame for a situation completely outside of their control.

Who says what I'm doing is a loophole? Only you, and other nosey westerners. Show me where even once the Thai government has raised such a concern. You can't, because the opposite is actually true. They've gone out of their way to say real tourists continue to be welcome, meaning people who aren't working here and have their own funds. They don't seem to care at all how long real tourists stays, so long as they're able to support themselves. Some nationalities even qualify for triple entry visas, which allow a stay of up to 270 days on a single visa. Do you see yet? The Thai government doesn't need you minding its business for it.

"how is a tourist able to stay here for 2/3rds to 3/4s of the year... year after year? Arent they just defacto immigrants?"

No, they are not de facto immigrants, because their legal status doesn't change. If there was automatic residency for people staying consecutive years, who were being granted stay based on a set of criteria, and I was accumulating time toward residency as a tourist, THAT would be a loophole. Also, you imply that because it isn't the norm, because most people don't have enough money to do what I'm doing, there's something inherently wrong about it That's just your own prejudice surfacing. Not my problem.

Your interpretation of my analogy is off base. Tuna is not meant to be a condescending jab (they're actually majestic animals, a top predator and a delicacy in many cultures). Again, it's a question of being able to grasp the plot: the analogy is about a hunted animal (tuna as teacher) leading to the capture of another (dolphin as tourist), not species hierarchy. lol.

Regardless of your situation, the simple truth is that by and large it's degreeless teachers who have the biggest visa headaches. Moreover, no one's forcing anyone to stay and work illegally. There are any number of countries that treat their TEFLers better than Thailand. You choose to stay here, and you choose to remain employed by people who don't respect you enough to get you legal. Don't whine to me about that. Put on your big boy pants and do something about it. Leave. If not from the country than at the end of the term at least from the school. There is no shortage of places hiring.

Likewise, if I can't stay legal on a tourist visa, I'm prepared to stay in another country.

"You also suggested that the in-out visa clampdown should stop 90% of the issues. I've explained why it wont."

And I explained how it could: upon application for even a second tourist visa inside of twelve months, the applicant must show funds originating from outside the country. A bank statement will suffice, just like it does for retirees.

Lastly, I couldn't disagree more with your last point. There's no way Thai schools are gonna give TEFLers one to two weeks off every three months. But time will tell, I guess.

aTomsLife · August 6, 2014

OP, if you were "existing" here for 8 months of the year, on 30 day back to back visa exemtion stamps, you would be out the door, under the currect crack down.

It's only a matter of time before they turn their attention to those "existing" here for 8 months of the year on 60 day tourist visas.

Let's be honest, to Thai Immigration, a "tourist" is someone who flies into Thailand for sun, sea and sand - for 2 weeks. They also understand the concept of backpacking, and allow some latitude for that.

Their idea of a "tourist" is not someone who stays in Thailand 8 months of the year, with a couple of 2 week side trips to neighbouring countries to get a new visa, and who is in his 20's, 30's or 40's, and does this year after year.

I am not "challenging" you, I am a visa runner, like yourself. I have stated I disagree with ubonjoe, and given my reasons.

I'm not due for my next visa run for a while, but I can only imagine the queues at the Thai Embassies, now that all the 30 day visa exemption people are going to the 60 day visas. Don't you think this will be drawing attention, as it negates the crack down on the 30 day visa exemption people?

Personally, I think all of this visa crack down will fade away, but you should at least prepare to be refused, as I, and some of my friends have done, because it's a very real possibility.

60-day Tourist Visas most certainly will go under the microscope next. But, and I repeat, people who can demonstrate financial independence will be issued a visa, if the sentiment that's currently being expressed by the Junta remains. This crackdown is entirely focused on rooting out people who're working illegally.

Tomtomtom69 · August 6, 2014

To me the OP might be spending a fair bit of time in Thailand (like myself) but that doesn't mean he is going to be classified as a visa runner. In fact, given his regional travel (well it might as well be Antarctica as far as Thai immigration is concerned because any foreign country means outside of Thailand) for a couple of weeks at a time, he should be OK. Also, tourist visas with more than 1 entry (2 or 3) are allowed, even intended to be used in that way. I am not sure how immigration would look at someone like his profile, if he had been living this way for the past 5-10 years, but if for the past 1-2 years it should be OK as that only means maybe 2 triple entry tourist visas have been used. As Ubonjoe has pointed out, lots of visa exempt entries, a combination of multiple visa exempt and tourist visas and/or (especially) no time spent outside the country (same day re-entries or only one overnight stay outside the country) then that would be considered suspicious.

NamKangMan · August 6, 2014

@ Tomtomtom69

"next time get a non-imm visa or something." - I'm under 50 years of age, single and self funded - there is no proper visa class for me to reside here.

NamKangMan · August 6, 2014

OP, if you were "existing" here for 8 months of the year, on 30 day back to back visa exemtion stamps, you would be out the door, under the currect crack down.

It's only a matter of time before they turn their attention to those "existing" here for 8 months of the year on 60 day tourist visas.

Let's be honest, to Thai Immigration, a "tourist" is someone who flies into Thailand for sun, sea and sand - for 2 weeks. They also understand the concept of backpacking, and allow some latitude for that.

Their idea of a "tourist" is not someone who stays in Thailand 8 months of the year, with a couple of 2 week side trips to neighbouring countries to get a new visa, and who is in his 20's, 30's or 40's, and does this year after year.

I am not "challenging" you, I am a visa runner, like yourself. I have stated I disagree with ubonjoe, and given my reasons.

I'm not due for my next visa run for a while, but I can only imagine the queues at the Thai Embassies, now that all the 30 day visa exemption people are going to the 60 day visas. Don't you think this will be drawing attention, as it negates the crack down on the 30 day visa exemption people?

Personally, I think all of this visa crack down will fade away, but you should at least prepare to be refused, as I, and some of my friends have done, because it's a very real possibility.

60-day Tourist Visas most certainly will go under the microscope next. But, and I repeat, people who can demonstrate financial independence will be issued a visa, if the sentiment that's currently being expressed by the Junta remains. This crackdown is entirely focused on rooting out people who're working illegally.

To my knowledge, there is no requirement on Thai Embassy staff to request financials from someone applying for a 60 day tourist visa. You may volunteer them, but I think it will hold little weight, as financials are not part of the official requirement for the 60 day tourist visa.

The staff will simply see you were granted a 60 day tourist visa, extended it by 1 month, left Thailand today, attended the Thai Embassy the same day, are applying for another 60 tourist visa, and they will rightly assume you are going back to Thailand tomorrow, after collecting your passport.

In this case, in the near future, if not already, I think the application will be rejected.

I have asked the question in the "interview with Thai Immigration" thread - "how long between visas is considered NOT "back to back" so I know how long I will have to be outside of Thailand, before re-entry.

inutil · August 6, 2014

Thats kinda the point though isnt it? You are within the law, but its actually things like this which lead to crackdowns and tightening of regulations. Its called a loophole. Loopholes are by their nature, legal. But against the spirit and intention of the law. You may well be a 'tourist' but its hard to imagine a 'tourist' living away from his native country for 9 months of the year (with up to 8 months - at least) being spent in a single country year after year. So im suggesting that perhaps you might be undermining your own point by proclaiming yourself 'a tourist' given that it might lead someone to ask the simple question: how is a tourist able to stay here for 2/3rds to 3/4s of the year... year after year? Arent they just defacto immigrants?

You suggest i got on my soapbox unfairly. But your earlier dolphin/tuna comment followed by your rejoinder on those pesky teachers making it hard for everyone else, only told one side of the story. I offered simply a fair correction.I didnt bring it up out of the blue. I brought it up because you seemed to be under the impression that having to do a visa run was some kind of deliberate attempt to flout the law and work under the counter. I was correcting a point you yourself (flippantly) initiated.

Secondly, and in addition, the reason i brought up my degree wasnt to show you im qualified, but to offer evidence to back up the claim that i am making in correcting your position. If i want to undermine the implication that teachers selfishly caused this issue you may be facing (point 1) and that the only people with these problems are teachers without degrees, (point 2) then possession of my degree clearly illustrates that (point 1), this benefited me not a jot, and (point 2), as a teacher with said documents and totally willing to complete the visa process, i was being hindered by forces completely outside of my control. So again, it was entirely relevant. It not only undermined your claim that only teachers without degrees have problems. But also further advanced my point that employers appear to be in no hurry to make their employees legal. Thus all teachers will possibly have had to deal with this nonsense depending upon factors completely outside of their qualifications.

This brings me to the last point. You also suggested that the in-out visa clampdown should stop 90% of the issues. Ive explained why it wont. Again, if its beneficial for the school to have their teacher exploit a visa loophole, then you can bet that they will do exactly this (see above). If it means giving them a week off once every 90 days (paid or unpaid) to do a full tourist run to the nearest Thai consulate handing out Double-entry tourist visas, then we are back at square one. Its a loophole. It will be looked at. And sooner no doubt rather than later. And the reason it will be looked at isnt because of the fly by night teacher, but because employers will try and find a way to flout legality through either a) hiring people ineligible for the visa, or hiring people eligible for a visa but for reasons on a case by case and instance by instance basis, appear reluctant to do so. So i hope you understand: im simply correcting your own rather cheeky points holding teachers to blame for a situation completely outside of their control.

Who says what I'm doing is a loophole? Only you, and other nosey westerners. Show me where even once the Thai government has raised such a concern. You can't, because the opposite is actually true. They've gone out of their way to say real tourists continue to be welcome, meaning people who aren't working here and have their own funds. They don't seem to care at all how long real tourists stays, so long as they're able to support themselves. Some nationalities even qualify for triple entry visas, which allow a stay of up to 270 days on a single visa. Do you see yet? The Thai government doesn't need you minding its business for it.

"how is a tourist able to stay here for 2/3rds to 3/4s of the year... year after year? Arent they just defacto immigrants?"

No, they are not de facto immigrants, because their legal status doesn't change. If there was automatic residency for people staying consecutive years, who were being granted stay based on a set of criteria, and I was accumulating time toward residency as a tourist, THAT would be a loophole. Also, you imply that because it isn't the norm, because most people don't have enough money to do what I'm doing, there's something inherently wrong about it That's just your own prejudice surfacing. Not my problem.

Your interpretation of my analogy is off base. Tuna is not meant to be a condescending jab (they're actually majestic animals, a top predator and a delicacy in many cultures). Again, it's a question of being able to grasp the plot: the analogy is about a hunted animal (tuna as teacher) leading to the capture of another (dolphin as tourist), not species hierarchy. lol.

Regardless of your situation, the simple truth is that by and large it's degreeless teachers who have the biggest visa headaches. Moreover, no one's forcing anyone to stay and work illegally. There are any number of countries that treat their TEFLers better than Thailand. You choose to stay here, and you choose to remain employed by people who don't respect you enough to get you legal. Don't whine to me about that. Put on your big boy pants and do something about it. Leave. If not from the country than at the end of the term at least from the school. There is no shortage of places hiring.

Likewise, if I can't stay legal on a tourist visa, I'm prepared to stay in another country.

"You also suggested that the in-out visa clampdown should stop 90% of the issues. I've explained why it wont."

And I explained how it could: upon application for even a second tourist visa inside of twelve months, the applicant must show funds originating from outside the country. A bank statement will suffice, just like it does for retirees.

Lastly, I couldn't disagree more with your last point. There's no way Thai schools are gonna give TEFLers one to two weeks off every three months. But time will tell, I guess.

Welll, lets be honest. I couldnt care less what you do, or who the (official) person suggesting such a thing might be. But theyre going to suggest it and youre going to be caught up in it. Its coming. Loophole or er... well, its a loophole. Sorry you dont like that word.

And just as they didnt care less how many times you popped in and out of Cham Yeam, or just as they didnt care how many tourist visas you had in your passport, or how long you overstayed so they currently dont care what a tourist is. Youre right. But the point isnt right now. Its whats coming. And its coming BECAUSE the loophole is still open, its just shifted to tourist visas and (suitably timed) back to back entries. You might find they suddenly feel a need to clarify the matter.

Secondly, thank you! at last! a clear and resounding denial that you arent slagging off teachers just trying to do their job. Tuna are poor majestic animals, just like dolphins, caught up in... oh wait, you clearly couldnt hold that in for long. Next paragraph starts well, and then slides invariably into "well, its their own fault for taking the job!" So, you know. Kinda validates my reasons for my interjections then after all. It seems you are blaming teachers and holding them culpable for a visa circus that existed long before them, and will continue to exist after they leave because, as i keep pointing it out, teachers arent the problem here. Its the employers failing to provide the paperwork and passing this problem down to the teachers.

Fortunately, its far more annoying, because these employers are in turn beholden to an immigration process that is a) sporadic; b.) unenforced; c) convoluted; d) expensive; e) drawn out; f) overly restrictive and absolutely in no way keeping with the reality of the wider TEFL market. Clearly the incentive on employers is to ignore the law and go the much more efficient route of sending the teacher off on a visa run. And so long as a loophole exists allowing them to do this, they'll go this way every time because its the rational thing for them to do. Even now! I know, right!??

Third. And slightly on the point, I teach in China now. I did leave. I left for several reasons, but i promise you, having 7 Cambodian visas taking up my brand new passport pages whilst being stonewalled by both the agency i worked for and the school i worked for, were at the forefront of my decision. I dont need this nonsense. I can work elsewhere, im legal as i said, so why carry on bashing my head against a wall? Of course it took more than a few months for the penny to really drop and realise that the procrastination was potentially endless, but why wouldnt i assume they'd be sorting it out and their assurances that theyre just waiting for the director to be in school/sign/someone to DRIVE the papers to the school? Im potentially legal. Hell, i even have an apostille on both my degree certificate and my criminal records check. Im supra-legal! Surely its in their interests to sort this out? Oh, wait, no it isnt (see above).

Fourth. Oh yes they will! You bet they will. I had a clause in my contract that allowed me to take up to 2 days off per month to do a visa run. I was also allowed to take as many days i needed if i planned on completing a full tourist visa run (but would lose pay for any time i took over those two days). Transport would be paid by the company, visa would be paid for by me. If you dont think agencies or schools will have more up-to-date clauses prepared reflecting those changes (4-5 working days every two months - with any extra time borne by employee) as standard cost of doing business with schools, youre naive.

Finally, the whole "showing finances" had everything to do with visa exempt stamps and nothing to do with back to back tourist visas. So once again, no it wont. People will still be sent to get their tourist visa by the school (at cost to the employee), and the loophole will be put under the spotlight. NamkangMan makes the excellent point that you wont be the first to have thought of this. And now that the visa exempt loophole is being shut down, those people, like yourself, or even those scurrilous teachers like me, will now switch their attention to other means. And the first and most obvious one will be the Tourist visa. Perhaps it will involve simply a hike in the price, or perhaps a maximum amount of days/renewals. Possibly it will involve a trip back to your home country in the future plus cancellation stamp. Or perhaps just a good old fashioned decently equipped bank account, but its going to be looked at soon. So fingers crossed. I want the loophole closed so employers will have to actually sort out the non-immi-B visa quickly and efficiently, and you want it closed so that teachers dont abuse it leading to further restrictions. Peace at last! peace at last!

aTomsLife · August 6, 2014

Welll, lets be honest. I couldnt care less what you do, or who the (official) person suggesting such a thing might be. But theyre going to suggest it and youre going to be caught up in it. Its coming. Loophole or er... well, its a loophole. Sorry you dont like that word.

And just as they didnt care less how many times you popped in and out of Cham Yeam, or just as they didnt care how many tourist visas you had in your passport, or how long you overstayed so they currently dont care what a tourist is. Youre right. But the point isnt right now. Its whats coming. And its coming BECAUSE the loophole is still open, its just shifted to tourist visas and (suitably timed) back to back entries. You might find they suddenly feel a need to clarify the matter.

Secondly, thank you! at last! a clear and resounding denial that you arent slagging off teachers just trying to do their job. Tuna are poor majestic animals, just like dolphins, caught up in... oh wait, you clearly couldnt hold that in for long. Next paragraph starts well, and then slides invariably into "well, its their own fault for taking the job!" So, you know. Kinda validates my reasons for my interjections then after all. It seems you are blaming teachers and holding them culpable for a visa circus that existed long before them, and will continue to exist after they leave because, as i keep pointing it out, teachers arent the problem here. Its the employers failing to provide the paperwork and passing this problem down to the teachers.

Fortunately, its far more annoying, because these employers are in turn beholden to an immigration process that is a) sporadic; b.) unenforced; c) convoluted; d) expensive; e) drawn out; f) overly restrictive and absolutely in no way keeping with the reality of the wider TEFL market. Clearly the incentive on employers is to ignore the law and go the much more efficient route of sending the teacher off on a visa run. And so long as a loophole exists allowing them to do this, they'll go this way every time because its the rational thing for them to do. Even now! I know, right!??

Third. And slightly on the point, I teach in China now. I did leave. I left for several reasons, but i promise you, having 7 Cambodian visas taking up my brand new passport pages whilst being stonewalled by both the agency i worked for and the school i worked for, were at the forefront of my decision. I dont need this nonsense. I can work elsewhere, im legal as i said, so why carry on bashing my head against a wall? Of course it took more than a few months for the penny to really drop and realise that the procrastination was potentially endless, but why wouldnt i assume they'd be sorting it out and their assurances that theyre just waiting for the director to be in school/sign/someone to DRIVE the papers to the school? Im potentially legal. Hell, i even have an apostille on both my degree certificate and my criminal records check. Im supra-legal! Surely its in their interests to sort this out? Oh, wait, no it isnt (see above).

Fourth. Oh yes they will! You bet they will. I had a clause in my contract that allowed me to take up to 2 days off per month to do a visa run. I was also allowed to take as many days i needed if i planned on completing a full tourist visa run (but would lose pay for any time i took over those two days). Transport would be paid by the company, visa would be paid for by me. If you dont think agencies or schools will have more up-to-date clauses prepared reflecting those changes (4-5 working days every two months - with any extra time borne by employee) as standard cost of doing business with schools, youre naive.

Finally, the whole "showing finances" had everything to do with visa exempt stamps and nothing to do with back to back tourist visas. So once again, no it wont. People will still be sent to get their tourist visa by the school (at cost to the employee), and the loophole will be put under the spotlight. NamkangMan makes the excellent point that you wont be the first to have thought of this. And now that the visa exempt loophole is being shut down, those people, like yourself, or even those scurrilous teachers like me, will now switch their attention to other means. And the first and most obvious one will be the Tourist visa. Perhaps it will involve simply a hike in the price, or perhaps a maximum amount of days/renewals. Possibly it will involve a trip back to your home country in the future plus cancellation stamp. Or perhaps just a good old fashioned decently equipped bank account, but its going to be looked at soon. So fingers crossed. I want the loophole closed so employers will have to actually sort out the non-immi-B visa quickly and efficiently, and you want it closed so that teachers dont abuse it leading to further restrictions. Peace at last! peace at last!

Sorry you don’t know what a loophole is, though your inability to understand doesn’t subject me to one, even if, as it appears, you really wish it would. I showed you the difference, but, well, whatever: better to stay ignorant, apparently.

Then again, you couldn't care less about me. Paragraph after paragraph you couldn't care less.

You do care, though: you care very much—at least about something: oh, yes, about appearing intelligent. Too bad everything you’ve written is out of context to the original post (look again and see), which is why we’re arguing in the first place.

Never mind whose fault it is, though.

On to your second paragraph. You’re hell bent on me being denied entry, as if it would be the end of the word. I assure you it won’t. There are only two months in question. I go home for three, and getting two 60-day tourist visas per year will never, I repeat never, be an issue. So worst case scenario, for an additional two months out of the year I climb the Himalayas or take on some other enriching adventure.

Oh yeah, though, I’m forgetting again—you don’t care. It’s just those lengthy paragraphs trick me into thinking you do.

As for me, I care very much. For one thing I care about this website; it’s a blessing. Just today I received expert advice. For free. Never mind that a bunch of imbeciles pushed things off topic making strawman arguments.

Which, sorry, is what you did, too, of course.

That said, your inability to understand my analogy is laughable. Especially for one so hell bent on looking intelligent. For the record, just because I admonish those working here illegally doesn’t mean I hold all TEFLers in the same regard. Most of my friends are teachers, in fact. And I’m sure I won’t see the grave without TEFLing again myself. (But not in Thailand, for reasons already established.)

Sucks to be stuck in the machine, I’m sure. Sorry about that. It’s a grinder, no doubt. Maybe that’s why you’re so angsty. Then again, maybe not. You did after all leave for China, which supports my views after all. One wouldn’t think so reading your post, but it does. Curious, that. Anyway, you agree with me. You don’t have to like it, but you do.

The rest is all prediction and you’re entitled to your opinions. Sure, you might lack credibility with some of our more observant readers, but not with me. I figure you’re due. After all the nonsense you’ve spewed you’re bound to get something right.

Though admittedly I hope not.

aTomsLife · August 6, 2014

Welll, lets be honest. I couldnt care less what you do, or who the (official) person suggesting such a thing might be. But theyre going to suggest it and youre going to be caught up in it. Its coming. Loophole or er... well, its a loophole. Sorry you dont like that word.

And just as they didnt care less how many times you popped in and out of Cham Yeam, or just as they didnt care how many tourist visas you had in your passport, or how long you overstayed so they currently dont care what a tourist is. Youre right. But the point isnt right now. Its whats coming. And its coming BECAUSE the loophole is still open, its just shifted to tourist visas and (suitably timed) back to back entries. You might find they suddenly feel a need to clarify the matter.

Secondly, thank you! at last! a clear and resounding denial that you arent slagging off teachers just trying to do their job. Tuna are poor majestic animals, just like dolphins, caught up in... oh wait, you clearly couldnt hold that in for long. Next paragraph starts well, and then slides invariably into "well, its their own fault for taking the job!" So, you know. Kinda validates my reasons for my interjections then after all. It seems you are blaming teachers and holding them culpable for a visa circus that existed long before them, and will continue to exist after they leave because, as i keep pointing it out, teachers arent the problem here. Its the employers failing to provide the paperwork and passing this problem down to the teachers.

Fortunately, its far more annoying, because these employers are in turn beholden to an immigration process that is a) sporadic; b.) unenforced; c) convoluted; d) expensive; e) drawn out; f) overly restrictive and absolutely in no way keeping with the reality of the wider TEFL market. Clearly the incentive on employers is to ignore the law and go the much more efficient route of sending the teacher off on a visa run. And so long as a loophole exists allowing them to do this, they'll go this way every time because its the rational thing for them to do. Even now! I know, right!??

Third. And slightly on the point, I teach in China now. I did leave. I left for several reasons, but i promise you, having 7 Cambodian visas taking up my brand new passport pages whilst being stonewalled by both the agency i worked for and the school i worked for, were at the forefront of my decision. I dont need this nonsense. I can work elsewhere, im legal as i said, so why carry on bashing my head against a wall? Of course it took more than a few months for the penny to really drop and realise that the procrastination was potentially endless, but why wouldnt i assume they'd be sorting it out and their assurances that theyre just waiting for the director to be in school/sign/someone to DRIVE the papers to the school? Im potentially legal. Hell, i even have an apostille on both my degree certificate and my criminal records check. Im supra-legal! Surely its in their interests to sort this out? Oh, wait, no it isnt (see above).

Fourth. Oh yes they will! You bet they will. I had a clause in my contract that allowed me to take up to 2 days off per month to do a visa run. I was also allowed to take as many days i needed if i planned on completing a full tourist visa run (but would lose pay for any time i took over those two days). Transport would be paid by the company, visa would be paid for by me. If you dont think agencies or schools will have more up-to-date clauses prepared reflecting those changes (4-5 working days every two months - with any extra time borne by employee) as standard cost of doing business with schools, youre naive.

Finally, the whole "showing finances" had everything to do with visa exempt stamps and nothing to do with back to back tourist visas. So once again, no it wont. People will still be sent to get their tourist visa by the school (at cost to the employee), and the loophole will be put under the spotlight. NamkangMan makes the excellent point that you wont be the first to have thought of this. And now that the visa exempt loophole is being shut down, those people, like yourself, or even those scurrilous teachers like me, will now switch their attention to other means. And the first and most obvious one will be the Tourist visa. Perhaps it will involve simply a hike in the price, or perhaps a maximum amount of days/renewals. Possibly it will involve a trip back to your home country in the future plus cancellation stamp. Or perhaps just a good old fashioned decently equipped bank account, but its going to be looked at soon. So fingers crossed. I want the loophole closed so employers will have to actually sort out the non-immi-B visa quickly and efficiently, and you want it closed so that teachers dont abuse it leading to further restrictions. Peace at last! peace at last!

Sorry you don’t know what a loophole is, though your inability to understand doesn’t subject me to one, even if, as it appears, you really wish it would. I showed you the difference already, but, well, whatever: better to stay ignorant, apparently.

Then again, you couldn't care less about me. Paragraph after paragraph you couldn't care less.

You do care, though: you care very much—at least about something: oh, yes, about appearing intelligent. Too bad everything you’ve written is out of context to the original post (look again and see), which is why we’re arguing in the first place.

Never mind whose fault it is, though.

On to your second paragraph. You’re hell bent on me being denied entry, as if it would be the end of the world. I assure you it won’t. There are only two months in question. I go home for three, and getting two 60-day tourist visas per year will never, I repeat never, be an issue. So worst case scenario, for an additional two months out of the year I climb the Himalayas or take on some other enriching adventure.

Oh yeah, though, I’m forgetting again—you don’t care. It’s just those lengthy paragraphs trick me into thinking you do.

As for me, I care very much. For one thing I care about this website; it’s a blessing. Just today I received expert advice. For free. Never mind that a bunch of imbeciles pushed things off topic making strawman arguments.

Which is what you did, too, of course.

That said, your inability to understand my analogy is laughable, especially for one so hell bent on looking intelligent. For the record, just because I admonish those working here illegally doesn’t mean I hold all TEFLers in the same regard. Most of my friends are teachers, in fact. And I’m sure I won’t see the grave without TEFLing again myself. (But not in Thailand, for reasons already established.)

Sucks to be stuck in the machine, I’m sure. Sorry about that. It’s a grinder, no doubt. Maybe that’s why you’re so angsty. Then again, maybe not. You did after all leave for China, which supports my views about TEFLing here. One wouldn’t think so reading your initial posts, but it does. Curious, that. Anyway, you agree with me. You don’t have to like it, but you do.

The rest is all prediction and you’re entitled to your opinions. Sure, you might lack credibility with some of our readers, but not with me. I figure you’re due. After all the nonsense you’ve spewed you’re bound to get something right.

Though admittedly I hope not.

inutil · August 6, 2014

Youre absolutely right. I concede the point. Good luck! hope it works out well for you!

apiwan · August 6, 2014

another thread turned into a slanging match.

The definition of a tourist in most people's minds is a 2 week holiday once a year. 4 weeks if your flush.
It is possible to stay a long time in Los. With not much money. Or for some with loads of money.

The only people in the UK for long periods of time are arabs and Russians.

And most of them are diplomats.

You would red flag doing back to back visa runs in any other country.

Why should Thailand be any different.

To the question.

I think a mouth out of the country at a time would be fair

zib · August 7, 2014

Since you're legally considered a resident if you stay in Thailand for more than 180 days in 1 year.. Doesn't this solve the tourist vs non-tourist debate?

jacksam · August 7, 2014

I like many have been abusing the system. Been here for almost 2 years using various visas. Mainly stamp on arrival. This suited men as I liked going of to HCM etc for a week every 30 days. Point is I should of already had a non imm o with extensions based on retirement.
As to the op I recently was in HCM and grabbed single entry tourist visa. The immigration lady (nice chick) stated...." you really should obtain a retirement visa" ...yes i know no such animal but knew what she meant.
Sort of bugs me in the forums about people wanting to do this and that in Thailand and stay for x months.
Fact is you can't do it in places like AU so why do we expect it in Thailand.
Oh I forgot do a 2 week teaching course or enroll in basket weaving school.
Point is get correct visa or nick off. I'm obtaining the non imm and extend shortly. My own fault for not doing it earlier

bobthomas · August 7, 2014

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.

This has already been happening for many years. It goes in cycles. One year and Thai Embassy- Let's say in Cambodia, allows back to back tourist 60's. The next year they say- "oh you did this last year- this is not the place to do this". and they give you one 60....or maybe none. Then they get perturbed when enough people apply for the double 60's and start turning everyone down.

aTomsLife · August 7, 2014

Since you're legally considered a resident if you stay in Thailand for more than 180 days in 1 year.. Doesn't this solve the tourist vs non-tourist debate?

If you can provide a link and/or any official proof at all, it certainly would end the debate.

All I could find was the following, which is about permanenet residency, and requires a consequitve stay of 3 years: http://www.thaivisa.com/residence-permit-thailand.html

As for the "certificate or residency," it isn't necessary to spend +180 days in the country to receive one. Tourists, within a week of arrival, could attain such a certificate to purchase condos.

aTomsLife · August 7, 2014

I like many have been abusing the system. Been here for almost 2 years using various visas. Mainly stamp on arrival. This suited men as I liked going of to HCM etc for a week every 30 days. Point is I should of already had a non imm o with extensions based on retirement.
As to the op I recently was in HCM and grabbed single entry tourist visa. The immigration lady (nice chick) stated...." you really should obtain a retirement visa" ...yes i know no such animal but knew what she meant.
Sort of bugs me in the forums about people wanting to do this and that in Thailand and stay for x months.
Fact is you can't do it in places like AU so why do we expect it in Thailand.
Oh I forgot do a 2 week teaching course or enroll in basket weaving school.
Point is get correct visa or nick off. I'm obtaining the non imm and extend shortly. My own fault for not doing it earlier

"I like many have been abusing the system. Been here for almost 2 years using various visas. Mainly stamp on arrival."

You and I are a different sort of visitor, as I've gone out of my way to avoid doing precisely what you admit to.

"Sort of bugs me in the forums about people wanting to do this and that in Thailand and stay for x months."

So it bugs you when people behave the way you have?

"Fact is you can't do it in places like AU so why do we expect it in Thailand."

As an American citizen, I am granted 90 days on arrival and can reapply for another 90 days, and fea$ibly $tay indefinitely. In other words, you are wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_requirements_for_United_States_citizens

In two weeks I'm going to visit a friend in England and will be granted 180 days on arrival, for tourism purposes. Yet people say that a tourist is someone who spends 2 to 4 weeks in a place. Thank goodness there are moderators like Ubonjoe who can explain things plainly. The lot of you seem intent to make things up based on your emotional response to an OP.

bobthomas · August 7, 2014

I think there is some latitude in both the enforcement and also the interpretation of the Visa laws. The whole of Thai society is based on a similar flexibility that provides you a way out of every possible problem a person may encounter. I think understanding that latitude is as important as knowing the actual Visa laws themselves- because the Visa laws and their enforcement are constantly changing.

I had a hard time getting in at the land border from Cambodia in 2006 because of all the Cambodian stickers. That was the big thing on the table back then. I must have had at least 25 of those things dating back to the late 1990's.

It pretty much looked like I wasn't going to get in- and rightly so, because the immigration officer has the right to "turn people away".

after continuing to look at every single page in the Passport- (the thing was like an inch thick!) and you could see in his eyes that he had never seen anything quite like the Novel sized book he was now holding- he then stumbled across a few Thai one year marriage Visas and instantly changed his attitude. His eyes lite up- he smiled this broad smile and said, "oh! Your married to a Thai! You got any kids? How many? I got 2 kids, etc. etc. etc." He stamped me in, in 2 seconds.

I am not advocating marrying a Thai. In fact- I may be ready to chew my arm off to get out of that particular situation- but

These Immigration officials at the border have to not only follow the latest (in an unending change of) immigration laws- but also have to determine if you might be a drug smuggler, criminal, terrorist, etc. etc.

They have to try to figure out the intent of the person trying to get into the country- and all they really have to go on, is the latest immigration criteria and what's in your Passport- (and to a lessor extent- but equally important), how you are dressed. how you act, your method of transportation and the location and type of border entry point.

In their minds- allowing entry to a non-immigrant entering by land- with countless trips through that border could prove to be more problematic than someone entering on a One year Business Visa- dressed in Armani- flying a high end air carrier from Switzerland.

and again- I am not advocating that we all dress like David Beckham!

But all of these things make up what you are.

So act accordingly- know the law- and the latitude

Last one to the language school buys the beer!

B

bobthomas · August 7, 2014