Almost denied rentry at Don Muang airport yesterday

[FiestyFarang]

If it was me I would get a multi entry Tourist Visa or as you are coming here so often a multi entry Retirement Visa that way you can relax on the flight over knowing you will be allowed in. Australia might have said the same thing for someone travelling so often under a similar situation. You have to admit it looks a little suspicious that you are coming here under the waiver system.

[Monkeyrobot]

Its crap I am an Aussie and was there in Aug-14 and also Jan-15 and entered both times on VOA got 30 days as I have been doing for 20 years. Thailand is now turning into a far more severe state of fear and intimidation.

This is what I love about people. They are absolutely, positive, for sure 100%, without question they are right. Even when they are absolutely, positively, for sure 100%, without question wrong. And then go on the internet spreading fallacies. Gotta love BS.

He has it wrong VOA 15 days not for Australian passport holders . Visa exempt 30 days no charge. Or he can obtain a tourist visa single or double outside the country, some people think you get a VOA when they enter it is Visa exempt for Aussies.

[JDGRUEN]

OP... all this aggravating and argumentative issue is -- is a matter of proper terminology - in part. As has been pointed out as an Australian you are allowed a 30 day Exemption for not having a visa bought prior. The VOA Visa on Arrival is similar but for people from other countries as has been pointed out on the graphic previously posed above. It is not a big deal -- just get used to using the correct terminology ...

Next... if you are age 50 or over and plan on coming and going in and out of Thailand several times in the future .... for not a lot of money (200 USD equivalent - in Aussie dollars) you can get a Category 'O' Non Immigrant Multi-Entry Visa... good for one year term and extendable to a total of 15 months - if managed the right way. You must Exit Thailand at least every 90 days and upon return - and reentry to Thailand you will be granted another 90 day permission to stay .. then repeat - repeat - through the one year - up to 15 month term of the Visa. People sporting 'Multi 'O' Visas usually skate right through airport and land immigration. Also - it does not matter if you exit and reenter Thailand in 30 minutes - 30 days, 90 days, etc. as long as the Visa term has not expired. And you can exit and reenter as many times as you wish within that one year /15 month term of the visa. The visa date starts on purchase of the visa - the day it is stamped - or the sticker is glued into your passport. It does not start on the day you first enter Thailand on that visa.

From your travels this sounds like a good one for you .... Available in Australia at a Thai Consulate or Embassy. Very Low documentation required - usually just proof that you have money reserves / income to sustain yourself for a year in Thailand. Not related to the famous 800,000 baht you hear about for Retirement Extensions (another subject)...

If you are under age 50 - there are single and 2 and 3 Tourist Visas available in your home country... A 1 and 2 entry Tourist Visa is available in Vientiane, Laos,, at the Thai Embassy there.

Thai immigration is whether supported by actual rules or not are (whether right or wrong) have recently been scrutinizing people who have many 30 day Exemptions in their passport. They have the power to do this ... They have the power to make arbitrary decisions - we don't. So - you play the game or be terminally frustrated or go other places.

[hawksway]

Seems like you went to the VOA Desk instead of regular Immigration Control.

[slipperylobster]

Or to put it more simply......Some members bored on a Sunday Night with nothing better to do!

Ouch. the truth hurts.

[bkkbarnstormer]

As a general observation I have noted that immigration does seem to pay more attention to numbers of visa exempt entries in passports at Don Mueang than Suvarnabhumi - presumably because those on visa runs are more likely to use cheap airlines from DM.

[gregk0543]

I have been to Thailand 10 times on visa exempt in the last year. Mostly 3 or 4 days at a time and longest 3 weeks. I live in Myanmar and I am going there on business or transiting. Lots of stamps in my passport havent been asked a question yet by Thai Immigration.

The only questions I have been asked is by the airline check in staff in Myanmar or in Aust who sometimes like to check I have a return flight or onward booking.

Mostly I do but once I didnt because that ticket was in Thailand. I have had numerous times over the years when those check in staff are worse than immigration and have caused me grief. Once I had to rush off and get a ticket online quickly and once I had to talk to higher authorities.

Those airline check in staff are really above the law.

[steven100]

Question answered .. no VOA. IMM official checking you out because of many Visa exemptions.

Enough said.

[nzexpat]

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

I have been to Thailand 10 times on visa exempt in the last year. Mostly 3 or 4 days at a time and longest 3 weeks. I live in Myanmar and I am going there on business or transiting. Lots of stamps in my passport havent been asked a question yet by Thai Immigration.

The only questions I have been asked is by the airline check in staff in Myanmar or in Aust who sometimes like to check I have a return flight or onward booking.

Mostly I do but once I didnt because that ticket was in Thailand. I have had numerous times over the years when those check in staff are worse than immigration and have caused me grief. Once I had to rush off and get a ticket online quickly and once I had to talk to higher authorities.

Those airline check in staff are really above the law.

OR just maybe the airline check in staff are expert in using the IATA data base ?

Try it for yourself !

http://www.iatatravelcentre.com/passport-visa-health-travel-document-requirements.htm

[gemguy]

Well then, it is more or less agreed upon....you are suspect of working in Thailand...not coming or going too often to their liking...so they tried their crafty immigration officer skills on you..

"You"...the chosen one, amongst all the others...while it could have been another immigration officer while that other officer was not in the mood to do his job with such enthusiasm...so.... sigh, sigh... another foreigner .....smile, smile...... stamp, stamp ....and....... "Next" ..."Please step forward".

Cheers

Edited April 26, 2015 by gemguy

[MyFriend You]

Its crap I am an Aussie and was there in Aug-14 and also Jan-15 and entered both times on VOA got 30 days as I have been doing for 20 years. Thailand is now turning into a far more severe state of fear and intimidation.

He say Tomahto I say Tomayto.........."Visa Exempt" 30 day entry for Aussies "Visa on Arrival" for 15 days only for certain countries CAN/US/UK/AUS/NZ are not one of these countries, we can get Visa Exempt for 30 days.

[Too]

Hello!

Have you got any other arrival + departure stamps in your passport than the Thai ones?

If not, The Thai Immigration might suspect you of coming here to work illegally.

I've got more than 20 Thai arrival + departure (visa-exempt) stamps in my passport along

with lots of Malaysian, Lao, Vietnamese and Indonesian arrival + departure stamps / visas,

and I've been questioned only twice at the land borders.They let me in in the end with no

problem. I've never ever been stopped at any airports here.

Maybe you should have your onward ticket and/or 20,000B or A$800 cash at hand upon

arrival to make sure that they let you in. I would say that they have no reason to deny you

entry into The Kingdom.

Edited April 26, 2015 by Too

[Suradit69]

I rarely obtain tourist visas to enter Thailand as I use the VOA method.

Visas on Arrival are not available to Australians. You mean a visa exempt entry.

Its crap I am an Aussie and was there in Aug-14 and also Jan-15 and entered both times on VOA got 30 days as I have been doing for 20 years. Thailand is now turning into a far more severe state of fear and intimidation.

No you've never been given a VOA. You've been using Visa Exempt Entries.

Immigrations is simply reacting to the serial abuse of Visa Exempt Entries and Ed Visas. I'm sure Australia is equally vigilant when it comes to who they admit. Following the rules does not imply any fear or intimidation either here or in Australia unless...

Australian law requires the detention of all non-citizens who are in Australia without a valid visa (unlawful non-citizens). This means that immigration officials have no choice but to detain persons who arrive without a visa (unauthorised arrivals), or persons who arrive with a visa and subsequently become unlawful because their visa has expired or been cancelled (authorised arrivals). Australian law makes no distinction between the detention of adults and children.

Edited April 26, 2015 by Suradit69

[alyx]

Again, I hear almost every day of folks packing up their belongings and heading for other, simpler places.

I'm not slamming all of Thailand, I'd like to stay, but this visa nonsense compounded by what I see as a dismal political future (which WILL trickle down) makes it too uncomfortable a place to live any more.

Both Mexico and Dominican Republic have VERY relaxed expat regulations - a tourist visa lasts 180 days in Mexico, up to FOUR YEARS (that's right, four years!) in Dominican Republic, and both are one visa run and the clock starts all over. Spanish is MUCH easier to learn, and Latin chicks are HOT and AVAILABLE. The oceans are cleaner, the cost of living is now cheaper than Thailand. It's getting downright expensive to live here.

Heavy sigh . . . Thailand, what happened to you?

Maybe one should consider other aspects......pros and cons don't stop there....unfortunately

[No Apologist]

Again, I hear almost every day of folks packing up their belongings and heading for other, simpler places.

I'm not slamming all of Thailand, I'd like to stay, but this visa nonsense compounded by what I see as a dismal political future (which WILL trickle down) makes it too uncomfortable a place to live any more.

Both Mexico and Dominican Republic have VERY relaxed expat regulations - a tourist visa lasts 180 days in Mexico, up to FOUR YEARS (that's right, four years!) in Dominican Republic, and both are one visa run and the clock starts all over. Spanish is MUCH easier to learn, and Latin chicks are HOT and AVAILABLE. The oceans are cleaner, the cost of living is now cheaper than Thailand. It's getting downright expensive to live here.

Heavy sigh . . . Thailand, what happened to you?

I'm afraid I must totally agree with you on this. There are forum members who continually say it's 'easy' to get the right visa - and I'm happy for them; but it hasn't been that way for me the last year or 2. Myself, I've never worked in Thailand once in 5 years, but have entered very frequently, as for years they were completely friendly and encouraging me to stay here. My job, is as a touring performing artist - never in Thailand, always in Europe/UK. But, good luck explaining that to a paranoid I/O at the airport, these days. 'You work Thailand!' they say, no matter how many times I try to explain it. I just have too many entries, and that I'm out of Thailand 4-6 months a year seems to mean nothing to them.

My frustration is, that for the first 4 years I lived here, all they said was 'Welcome to Thailand!' every time, encouraging me to stay as long as I wanted; and of course, I set up deep ties here. But suddenly, it was like I was a criminal of some kind, for having trusted in that. Especially after the coup.

So, for guys like you and me, I think you're right. I know it's their country, but it's heartbreaking to see that welcoming spirit replaced with paranoia, since the coup. They only seem to want retirees, and people who come 30 days every few years, and leave immediately. And, the new leadership, as you mentioned...it's more than questionable in the direction it's heading.

Edited April 26, 2015 by No Apologist

[No Apologist]

Following the rules does not imply any fear or intimidation either here or in Australia unless...

It really can involve some fear and intimidation, actually. If it hasn't for you, I'm glad for you (no sarcasm meant). But, I've been treated to some major paranoia over the last year, and I've never worked in Thailland, or taken advantage of anything deceptively. I just have a different situation, workwise, which there isn't a checkbox for. Not independently wealthy at all, but earning enough in Europe half the year, to then spend the second half here. It's really been frustrating for some of us at this time, who aren't retired, aren't married - and still just trying our best to do the right thing to be here. For guys like us, the friendly spirit is definitely gone. The automatic assumption that we're lying and taking advantage of the country, can be really disheartening.

Edited April 26, 2015 by No Apologist

[Maestro]

Removed an abusive post.

[hawker9000]

I have always been under the impression that the only country you have a legal right to enter is your country of citizenship. Even then ,immigration officers can detain you and transfer you to law enforcement if there is any serious concerns on legal issues.

You do NOT have any legal or God give right to enter any other country, even if you have a valid visa. The final decision is up to immigration officers, who act as border security for people entering. Immigration officers are not law enforcement, they are part of the border security apparatus.

That's not really true. Immigration need a legal reason to deny entry. As long as you meet the conditions of entry, and don't fall into any categories excluding entry then they can't stop you.

Suspicion of working illegally is all the reason they need. But having said that, I don't know what rights those denied entry actually have to any kind of escalation to a superior or appeal of the denial, or to being allowed to present supporting documents and actually have them taken into consideration. During the timeframe beginning a couple of months before the military takeover, there've been accounts posted by individuals claiming everything from mere warnings to backroom interviews to a relative few outright denials with no opportunity to present documents supporting tourist status. Oil workers who are regular visitors as well as those at the southern checkpoints seem to have had the most problems (but that's not to say these problems are commonplace, which would be an overstatement). One has to address the question from a practical perspective as well as a technical perspective as being legally entitled to some kind of appeals process doesn't ensure it's going to be practical for the average arriving tourist. Ubonjoe seems to know the most about all this - I would look for his advice before anyone else's here and pretty much consider it the last word on the subject.

[stevenl]

I have been to Thailand 10 times on visa exempt in the last year. Mostly 3 or 4 days at a time and longest 3 weeks. I live in Myanmar and I am going there on business or transiting. Lots of stamps in my passport havent been asked a question yet by Thai Immigration.

The only questions I have been asked is by the airline check in staff in Myanmar or in Aust who sometimes like to check I have a return flight or onward booking.

Mostly I do but once I didnt because that ticket was in Thailand. I have had numerous times over the years when those check in staff are worse than immigration and have caused me grief. Once I had to rush off and get a ticket online quickly and once I had to talk to higher authorities.

Those airline check in staff are really above the law.

No, not above the law, they are doing what they are required to do by law.

[graexx]

Thanks everyone - that clarifies it for me. Also, for the good insights into the Thai visa/immigration situation.

I'll also consider the Category 'O' Non Immigrant Multi-Entry Visa in future.

Graexx

[watcharacters]

Take your money elsewhere.

Check Post # 22.

That's a worthwhile post.

[elviajero]

I have always been under the impression that the only country you have a legal right to enter is your country of citizenship. Even then ,immigration officers can detain you and transfer you to law enforcement if there is any serious concerns on legal issues.

You do NOT have any legal or God give right to enter any other country, even if you have a valid visa. The final decision is up to immigration officers, who act as border security for people entering. Immigration officers are not law enforcement, they are part of the border security apparatus.

That's not really true. Immigration need a legal reason to deny entry. As long as you meet the conditions of entry, and don't fall into any categories excluding entry then they can't stop you.

Suspicion of working illegally is all the reason they need. But having said that, I don't know what rights those denied entry actually have to any kind of escalation to a superior or appeal of the denial, or to being allowed to present supporting documents and actually have them taken into consideration. During the timeframe beginning a couple of months before the military takeover, there've been accounts posted by individuals claiming everything from mere warnings to backroom interviews to a relative few outright denials with no opportunity to present documents supporting tourist status. Oil workers who are regular visitors as well as those at the southern checkpoints seem to have had the most problems (but that's not to say these problems are commonplace, which would be an overstatement). One has to address the question from a practical perspective as well as a technical perspective as being legally entitled to some kind of appeals process doesn't ensure it's going to be practical for the average arriving tourist. Ubonjoe seems to know the most about all this - I would look for his advice before anyone else's here and pretty much consider it the last word on the subject.

I stand by what I said. Immigration officers (IO) don't make the law they only enforce it. IO's have a legal right to deny entry, but only if the alien can't satisfy the requirements for entry or are excluded under Section 12 of the Immigration Act (IA). The IA doesn't give IO's the right to deny entry for reasons of their own.

I agree that working illegally (IA: Section 12: 3.) is a reason for an IO to legally exclude someone from entering the country and so "Suspicion of working" gives the right to pull someone aside and interview them. Anyone suspected of working is given the opportunity to demonstrate otherwise at that interview. I don't think an IO would exclude someone on suspicion alone because they'd have to justify the exclusion up the line.

If the Alien can't submit whats required to satisfy the IO, and the IO wants to exclude an Alien entry, the Alien can appeal.

IA: Section 22 : In the instance where the competent official discovers that an alien is forbidden from entering into the Kingdom under the provisions of Section 12 , the competent official shall have authority to order said alien by written notification to leave the Kingdom. If said alien is not satisfied with the competent official’s order , he ( alien ) may appeal to the Minister. The order of the Minister shall be final. Appealling cases are not allowed under Section 12 (1) or (10) , but if the Minister does not have an order within seven days beginning from the date of submitting the appeal, it is considered that the Minister has ordered that said alien is not forbidden from entering into the Kingdom under Section 12. Appeal must be submitted the competent official within forty – eight hours beginning from the time of received said order from the competent official and must comply with the pattern ( and a fee must be paid ) an provided in the Ministerial Regulations. When appeal is submitted by the alien concerned , the competent official shall delay deportation of said alien until an order for said case is receive from the Minister. While processing under order of the competent official or while waiting for an order from the Minister , as the case may be , the provisions of Section 20 shall not be applied.

The process of appeal may not be "practical", but it's never likely to be an issue for "average tourists".

Refusing entry is a big deal, especially at an airport, and I don't believe immigration are picking on average tourists or excluding people without legal reason. The reports I read of people having problems at borders is because they are trying to circumvent the system.

The message from immigration is clear, and not new, that they want everyone entering on a visa. The Tourist Visa Exempt Scheme is a privilege and it's intention is to promote genuine tourism. Anyone entering with a visa, or the "average tourist" entering under The Tourist Visa Exempt Scheme, is unlikely to be bothered by immigration. However, I wouldn't consider "Oil workers who are regular visitors", or other frequent visitors using the visa exempt scheme, to be average tourists. And it's perfectly reasonable for immigration to check that they are genuine tourists. If these frequent visitors want to avoid questions they should get a visa.

Edited April 27, 2015 by elviajero

[hawker9000]

I have always been under the impression that the only country you have a legal right to enter is your country of citizenship. Even then ,immigration officers can detain you and transfer you to law enforcement if there is any serious concerns on legal issues.

You do NOT have any legal or God give right to enter any other country, even if you have a valid visa. The final decision is up to immigration officers, who act as border security for people entering. Immigration officers are not law enforcement, they are part of the border security apparatus.

That's not really true. Immigration need a legal reason to deny entry. As long as you meet the conditions of entry, and don't fall into any categories excluding entry then they can't stop you.

Suspicion of working illegally is all the reason they need. But having said that, I don't know what rights those denied entry actually have to any kind of escalation to a superior or appeal of the denial, or to being allowed to present supporting documents and actually have them taken into consideration. During the timeframe beginning a couple of months before the military takeover, there've been accounts posted by individuals claiming everything from mere warnings to backroom interviews to a relative few outright denials with no opportunity to present documents supporting tourist status. Oil workers who are regular visitors as well as those at the southern checkpoints seem to have had the most problems (but that's not to say these problems are commonplace, which would be an overstatement). One has to address the question from a practical perspective as well as a technical perspective as being legally entitled to some kind of appeals process doesn't ensure it's going to be practical for the average arriving tourist. Ubonjoe seems to know the most about all this - I would look for his advice before anyone else's here and pretty much consider it the last word on the subject.

I stand by what I said. Immigration officers (IO) don't make the law they only enforce it. IO's have a legal right to deny entry, but only if the alien can't satisfy the requirements for entry or are excluded under Section 12 of the Immigration Act (IA). The IA doesn't give IO's the right to deny entry for reasons of their own.

I agree that working illegally (IA: Section 12: 3.) is a reason for an IO to legally exclude someone from entering the country and so "Suspicion of working" gives the right to pull someone aside and interview them. Anyone suspected of working is given the opportunity to demonstrate otherwise at that interview. I don't think an IO would exclude someone on suspicion alone because they'd have to justify the exclusion up the line.

If the Alien can't submit whats required to satisfy the IO, and the IO wants to exclude an Alien entry, the Alien can appeal.

IA: Section 22 : In the instance where the competent official discovers that an alien is forbidden from entering into the Kingdom under the provisions of Section 12 , the competent official shall have authority to order said alien by written notification to leave the Kingdom. If said alien is not satisfied with the competent official’s order , he ( alien ) may appeal to the Minister. The order of the Minister shall be final. Appealling cases are not allowed under Section 12 (1) or (10) , but if the Minister does not have an order within seven days beginning from the date of submitting the appeal, it is considered that the Minister has ordered that said alien is not forbidden from entering into the Kingdom under Section 12. Appeal must be submitted the competent official within forty – eight hours beginning from the time of received said order from the competent official and must comply with the pattern ( and a fee must be paid ) an provided in the Ministerial Regulations. When appeal is submitted by the alien concerned , the competent official shall delay deportation of said alien until an order for said case is receive from the Minister. While processing under order of the competent official or while waiting for an order from the Minister , as the case may be , the provisions of Section 20 shall not be applied.

The process of appeal may not be "practical", but it's never likely to be an issue for "average tourists".

Refusing entry is a big deal, especially at an airport, and I don't believe immigration are picking on average tourists or excluding people without legal reason. The reports I read of people having problems at borders is because they are trying to circumvent the system.

The message from immigration is clear, and not new, that they want everyone entering on a visa. The Tourist Visa Exempt Scheme is a privilege and it's intention is to promote genuine tourism. Anyone entering with a visa, or the "average tourist" entering under The Tourist Visa Exempt Scheme, is unlikely to be bothered by immigration. However, I wouldn't consider "Oil workers who are regular visitors", or other frequent visitors using the visa exempt scheme, to be average tourists. And it's perfectly reasonable for immigration to check that they are genuine tourists. If these frequent visitors want to avoid questions they should get a visa.

You'll take the last word I'm sure, and you're welcome to it as I don't see any point in re-igniting this already exhaustively argued subject which often as not seems to come down to an extremely subjective definition of "tourist", which shouldn't exclude frequent visitors as long as they're not working or actually residing in Thailand, but somehow does in the minds of some (ex. your exclusion of oil workers, even though there is supposedly NO limit on the number or frequency of visa exempt entries, esp. when NOT back-to-back). Many threads on it; some running dozens & dozens of pages. But IMO this is a case of denial. Thai IOs (that is to say, the occasional IO, not all of them and I don't think most of the time) have become infamous for their capricious exercise of "discretion" and lack of consistency. (Yes, yes, I know. 'Happens in other countries as well.) But for sure there ARE certainly those foreigners who DO abuse the system, and they DON'T make life easier for the vast majority playing by the rules.

Edited April 27, 2015 by hawker9000

[quandow]

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

What visa nonsense ?

Follow the rules and obtain the appropriate visa (if required) and any issues that do arise are usually not the mistake of immigration.

Are you serious?!? Almost DAILY we read from forum members how they are detained and questioned, or how THIS immigration office interprets rules completely differently from THAT immigration office, or what border crossing will give you more days . . .

One year I was mis-stamped coming back into Thailand at Swampy by five days (I always look closely, and it appeared to be within an acceptable time frame), and when I went to get another re-entry visa, this mistake entirely negated my retirement visa and I had to do the process all over again. Even the official at immigration admitted it was their mistake, but too bad for me!

Did you really mean that reply?