Immigration Confirms The End Of Border Runs From Oct 1, 2006

[Soju]

Where are you getting your figures from? You have already stated that you deal with only the high end tourist market, how this qualifies you to come up with facts and figures with regard to the affected group, is beyond me.

Yep, I have no dealing with this group at all; but we can do some basic analysis if we lay out a framework.

Since there is at most going to be 15m tourists (the TAT WISHES!) next year, we can estimate that 1% of 15m = 150,000 people.

So...if this is such a big deal, then I am going to aritrarily decide that 1% of tourism is a big deal; less than that is not a big deal. A personal decision I know, but I took a poll of myself on it, and there was 100% consent.

I know I know, it could have been biased, so I took a recount, and came up with the same result.

So... if it affects more than 150,000 people it is a big deal. My own guess is that you aren't going to have 150,000 ppl in that group.

Of total first quarter arrivals, Asians made up around 50% of that group. Japanese, Koreans and Chinese on tour packages (e.g. Koreans are almost 80% coming on group tours) are not affected by this for the most part. That said, there are Asian longstays, but as I have repeatedly tried to make clear; the people who have the financial capacity to longstay have no problem getting a different type of visa, one would hope.

This is DIRECTLY FROM THE TAT:

According to Tourism Authority of Thailand statistics, in 2004, a total of 568,620 visitors stayed in Thailand for more than 30 days. This was up by 7.15% from 2003 and comprised 4.88% of total visitor arrivals.

The top five markets for longstay were Japan (73,882 or 8.4% increase), UK (62,364 or 6.47% increase), the US (44,498 or 9.82% increase), Germany (39,151 or 1.30% increase), and China (33,337 or 18.33% increase). Another major market is Sweden (17,304 or 7.99% increase).

According to the TAT analysis, the following trends were apparent:

58.29% or 331,440 of longstay visitors remained in Thailand for 1-2 months. They were mainly from the UK, Japan, Germany and the US. 19.08% or 108,487 stayed for 2-3 months, mainly from Japan, the UK, the US and Germany.

7.04% or 40,038 stayed for 3-4 months, mainly from Japan, the UK, China and the US.

1.9% or 11,128 stayed for 10 months to one year, mainly from Japan, India, China and the US.

2.51% or 14,285 stayed for over one year, mainly from India, China, Japan and the US.

i.e. the TOTAL number of people in 2004 staying longer than 3 months was about 65,000 people based on the arrival/departure documentation. AFAIK they count it by passport, not by arrival/departure card, so people doing visa runners will get counted in that group. I could be wrong on that though.

I suppose that visa runners might be counted in the other group, if that is the case then no one short of an insider with access to Dep Imm data could give us what the answer is.

So... 65,000 people in 2004, and some of these won't be coming in on visa on arrivals either, so actually the real number is lower again. So therefore, by my own criteria, not a big deal. If you want to set your own criteria or rules and persent something then be my guest. I'll listen, I am interested. But i just don't see however I look at it that OVERALL this is going to have a major impact on tourism (6% of GDP) or the country even though isolated areas within the economy may be affected adversely; which legal ones I honestly don't know and cannot think of.

BTW I do have clients in the lower end of the market e.g. a large hyper market; however I doubt they could care less about this issue as their target is Thai, not foreigner and therefore tourists are a non issue for them so I cannot comment on the impact there.

You seem to be zeroing in only on the longstay tourists in your calculations. But many are worried that not just the longstay, but the frequent tourists will be affected. Two totally different types of tourists and which you may or may not need to address in your business model. Also you need to factor in how the negative publicity from this will affect overall tourism. If a legitimate tourist is denied entry back into Thailand after just hoping over to Myanmar for a few hours of shopping, while having left all his money and belongings at his hotel in Thailand, he's going to have one heck of a time getting his things and himself back to his home country after totally ruining his vacation. You don't think several scathing trip reports from people like him about Thailand's poorly thought out new immigration policy won't have an effect on other tourists who wouldn't even be affected by this ruling? The bad publicity will have an effect far beyond just that one tourist. I know of 10 people who decided to go to Thailand only because of me and my reports of the country. Word-of-mouth advertising is the bread-and-butter of the tourist industry. I wouldn't go so far as to say this will have a huge impact on Thailand's tourism. I doubt it will. But I certainly wouldn't limit it to only 1% either. In the end though, it'll be hard to measure what effect it does have because as always they'll be too many other factors influencing tourism at the same time, some positive and some negative.

[jdinasia]

I wonder if Thailand counts people that do the monthly border-runs as a tourist each time?

If so .... the 150,000 mentioned above would be a BIG number when all told .... 150,000x12 ....

[sriracha john]

High people, eye've read thru this entire thread and wanted 2 way in w/my thoughts. 1st eye will say that eye'm hear on a retirement visa sew this visa situation doesn't effect me.

I say bee nice to these effected dudes, dudes

Singing

"Eye am 50 going on 17"

First there was The Dude.... then Terry57..... and now, snakestick....

English can be such a plaything....

Edited September 12, 2006 by sriracha john

[Soju]

The posts are still coming in to and fro...

so I'll have to wait a second or two in order to know...

Nothing to do but wait and see...

IF I timed it right in order to be...

The 500th post to this thread..................

-------------------------------

now then,

who'll be the lucky winner in the 50,000th view of the thread Lottery?

===============

*edit* ah well, 501 it is....

Just how do you propose knowing who's the 50,000th viewer of this thread? Could be lots of people trying to claim that prize.

Good luck on trying to make the 1,000th post to this thread. At this rate it shouldn't be long before you'll have the opportunity.

[bendix]

[

First there was The Dude.... then Terry57..... and now, snakestick....

English can be such a plaything....

5555555 . . . . priceless!

[manjara]

Was thinking about this and was wondering will the real enforcement of this rule be at the land border crossings, Aranya prathet ,Malaysia and Mae Sai.

If coming through immigration at the airport eveyone is coming from outside the country, just a thought.

LL

Good point, what will happen if you already have 2 extensions and you go on a day trip to Myanmar (1 day visa ). Will you be stuck in Myanmar or in no-mans land? Or will they check your passport before you leave and stop you?

I'm not against enforcing a limit on the number of days you can stay as a tourist in thailand, but it needs to be balanced with simplifying and easing the process of getting longer stay visas.

Saying that it is just as difficult, if not more so, in European countries, is not an answer. There's a lot of casual travel to Thailand for extended periods, and if it is made more difficult, then that traffic will go elsewhere. Maybe that's what Thailand wants?

I don't know what the effect on the Thai economy would be, but it must be significant, based on purely anecdotal evidence.

Many (farang) people I have spoken to are viewing this as the straw that breaks the camels back. They were already liking Thailand less and less, and this pushes them into doing something about moving elsewhere.

I'm fully legal with a visa and WP, condo, wife, kids etc, but I'm not sure how long I will be staying. I still have to report to the Police station every 3 months, buy a special permit to leave the country, pay more taxes than a Thai, and prove every year that I have enough money to support my family.

Here's some changes in the visa law I'd like to see:

- Proof of ability to support to include holdings in Thai investment funds (i.e. the retirement and marriage amounts can be made up of investments, not just bank balance)

- Online reporting of residence instead of in-person reporting to Police station

- Automatic multiple re-entry

- Automatic renewal of visa on payment of tax (i.e. show you are still married, and paid tax = visa for next year)

[Gumballl]

Instead of visa, bring a mastercard or gringo express when you enter LOS.

Ok... good, i got your attention.... for those of you griping over the new regs, please read the other sane posts. Get a real visa. Those of you who enter LOS without a visa (tourist, O, B, etc) get a stamp in the passport... this stamp is a VOA (a visa-on-arrival).

Want to stay in LOS for a year... get 4 multiple-entry tourist visas... duh!!!

No it is not!!! The stamp you get to enter thailand WITHOUT a visa is just a permission to stay 30 days stamp. The Visa on Arrival (VOA) is a completely different thing and is only available at a limited number of entry points into Thailand.

ok, maybe I am wrong. But you gotta love my humour!

Anyhow, I will be in LOS soon (mid October). I want one of these VOAs. I have never had one before. How do I get one? Do I merely ask the gov't agent at the immigration check-point that I want a VOA instead of the show-up-and-get-a-30-day stamp in my passport? Or do I have to slip him some tea-money?

[bendix]

I do see a lot of people offering advise to people with a tourist visa. They say get a real visa. As far as I know it, a tourist visa is a real visa.

Presently, border runs are legal. Thailand has decided to change the rules. Thats all.

Imagine what would happen if they told farangs with a non-immigrit visa that 90 day reporting was out the window as well as annual extensions to their visa. Now have to leave the country to get a new visa. Then you non-immigrit people would be crying too.

So have a little compassion for those who have been legally living here on a tourist visa. This was not really expected. You never know, non-immigrit visa holders could find themselves in a similiar situation if someone in Bangkok wants to change the rules.

Then, while the non-immigrit visa holders are crying at immigration, the ones with a tourist visa will be saying som nam nah.

Richard, with all due respect, border runs may be technically legal but I think they are better described as an exploited loophole. All the government is doing is closing that loophole to ensure compliance with the spirit of the law as well as the actual letter of the law.

And when you say 'have compassion for those who have been legally living here on a tourist visa', that's a bit of a contradiction in terms. You can't legally live here on a tourist visa. Such people are exploiting the loophole to 'live' here.

In fact, as has been pointed out before, they are not technically on a tourist visa. If they were,t here would be no problem. They are on the 30 day entry permit (or whatever it's called) and then go to the border to get a new one every month. That is not a visa.

This rule change does not affect anyone on a tourist visa. In fact, I'd suggest it's aimed at ensuring people do get proper tourist visas. It is aimed clearly at those who are abusing a loophole to stay here indefinitely.

And that's not a bad thing

[richard10365]

I suppose, if people with tourist visa found out they would not be allowed back into Thailand when they were in a neighboring coutry, one of their options would be to contact their embassy in the country they are now in.

If enough people went their embassies to ask for money to go home, then maybe these governments of other countries would get involved and ask Thailand why the sudden new rules. Maybe putting pressure on them to change it back or face similiar immigration laws against Thai people abroad.

Or, maybe I should just wake up.

[jdinasia]

I do see a lot of people offering advise to people with a tourist visa. They say get a real visa. As far as I know it, a tourist visa is a real visa.

Presently, border runs are legal. Thailand has decided to change the rules. Thats all.

Imagine what would happen if they told farangs with a non-immigrit visa that 90 day reporting was out the window as well as annual extensions to their visa. Now have to leave the country to get a new visa. Then you non-immigrit people would be crying too.

So have a little compassion for those who have been legally living here on a tourist visa. This was not really expected. You never know, non-immigrit visa holders could find themselves in a similiar situation if someone in Bangkok wants to change the rules.

Then, while the non-immigrit visa holders are crying at immigration, the ones with a tourist visa will be saying som nam nah.

Richard, with all due respect, border runs may be technically legal but I think they are better described as an exploited loophole. All the government is doing is closing that loophole to ensure compliance with the spirit of the law as well as the actual letter of the law.

And when you say 'have compassion for those who have been legally living here on a tourist visa', that's a bit of a contradiction in terms. You can't legally live here on a tourist visa. Such people are exploiting the loophole to 'live' here.

In fact, as has been pointed out before, they are not technically on a tourist visa. If they were,t here would be no problem. They are on the 30 day entry permit (or whatever it's called) and then go to the border to get a new one every month. That is not a visa.

This rule change does not affect anyone on a tourist visa. In fact, I'd suggest it's aimed at ensuring people do get proper tourist visas. It is aimed clearly at those who are abusing a loophole to stay here indefinitely.

And that's not a bad thing

I see your avatar is back ... and you still have not heeded the advice it gives!

The law as it has been enforced to date is by definition 'legal' and people who have been making border-runs have been doing it 'legally' <loophole or no> Closing a loophole that allows this to happen 'legally' is of course acceptable to Thailand if they are willing to pay the price. Nobody knows what that price may eventually be ...

[snakestick]

It's knot going 2 be pretty when the 1st dude gets told he can't come back into Thailand from Bodia, Myanmar, Malaysia oar at the airport. This situation will knot be nice and it looks like this will happen 2 many many dudes. I don't like how this is looking. Dew U? Eye think that when this happens 2 some1 one time, it'll be the last time as that person will look elsewhere 2 hang and thus Thailand loses business

Edited September 12, 2006 by snakestick

[A_Traveller]

I do see a lot of people offering advise to people with a tourist visa. They say get a real visa. As far as I know it, a tourist visa is a real visa.

Presently, border runs are legal. Thailand has decided to change the rules. Thats all.

Imagine what would happen if they told farangs with a non-immigrit visa that 90 day reporting was out the window as well as annual extensions to their visa. Now have to leave the country to get a new visa. Then you non-immigrit people would be crying too.

So have a little compassion for those who have been legally living here on a tourist visa. This was not really expected. You never know, non-immigrit visa holders could find themselves in a similiar situation if someone in Bangkok wants to change the rules.

Then, while the non-immigrit visa holders are crying at immigration, the ones with a tourist visa will be saying som nam nah.

Richard, with all due respect, border runs may be technically legal but I think they are better described as an exploited loophole. All the government is doing is closing that loophole to ensure compliance with the spirit of the law as well as the actual letter of the law.

And when you say 'have compassion for those who have been legally living here on a tourist visa', that's a bit of a contradiction in terms. You can't legally live here on a tourist visa. Such people are exploiting the loophole to 'live' here.

In fact, as has been pointed out before, they are not technically on a tourist visa. If they were,t here would be no problem. They are on the 30 day entry permit (or whatever it's called) and then go to the border to get a new one every month. That is not a visa.

This rule change does not affect anyone on a tourist visa. In fact, I'd suggest it's aimed at ensuring people do get proper tourist visas. It is aimed clearly at those who are abusing a loophole to stay here indefinitely.

And that's not a bad thing

I see your avatar is back ... and you still have not heeded the advice it gives! No it's not that one, 4 seasons are us though, guess the Stingray gag didn't work

The law as it has been enforced to date is by definition 'legal' and people who have been making border-runs have been doing it 'legally' <loophole or no> Closing a loophole that allows this to happen 'legally' is of course acceptable to Thailand if they are willing to pay the price. Nobody knows what that price may eventually be ...

Based on reviewing the act, unless the commission has approved these changes then they won't happen, second, there is no provision in the act for 90 days in 90 days out, and I note no one has been able to come to the board and provide a regulation specifing this. I don't say this won't happen, I think eventually it will, but there is a legal process including these individuals

- Under Secretary of Ministry of Foreign Affairs

- Director General , Police Department

- Director General , Labour Department

- Director General , Public Prosecution Department

- Secretary General , Board of Investment Committee

- Secretary General , National Security Council

- Director , Tourist Organization of Thailand

- Commander of Immigration Division as member and secretary {the source}

Link to Immigration Act Immigration_Act.pdf

Regards

[Arsenal]

I suppose, if people with tourist visa found out they would not be allowed back into Thailand when they were in a neighboring coutry, one of their options would be to contact their embassy in the country they are now in.

If enough people went their embassies to ask for money to go home, then maybe these governments of other countries would get involved and ask Thailand why the sudden new rules. Maybe putting pressure on them to change it back or face similiar immigration laws against Thai people abroad.

Or, maybe I should just wake up.

You should just wake up.The Western embassies in Bangkok are overwhelmed as it is by the number of visitors (British Embassy quotes 750,000 p.a) and would pleased to see the back of those who if not living here illegally are in flagrant breach of the spirit of Thai immigration laws.The ways to legalise status have been pointed out numerous times on this forum.My own take is that Thailand is unlikely much longer to be a residence haven for westerners lacking the financial wherewithal(lets say income of at least Bt 3mill per anum).Some decent people sadly will have to return to thier home countries and others (mostly the krajork element) will find another bolt hole.Times have moved on and Thailand is a middle income country, unlike Cambodia, Laos etc.

[jdinasia]

I suppose, if people with tourist visa found out they would not be allowed back into Thailand when they were in a neighboring coutry, one of their options would be to contact their embassy in the country they are now in.

If enough people went their embassies to ask for money to go home, then maybe these governments of other countries would get involved and ask Thailand why the sudden new rules. Maybe putting pressure on them to change it back or face similiar immigration laws against Thai people abroad.

Or, maybe I should just wake up.

You should just wake up.The Western embassies in Bangkok are overwhelmed as it is by the number of visitors (British Embassy quotes 750,000 p.a) and would pleased to see the back of those who if not living here illegally are in flagrant breach of the spirit of Thai immigration laws.The ways to legalise status have been pointed out numerous times on this forum.My own take is that Thailand is unlikely much longer to be a residence haven for westerners lacking the financial wherewithal(lets say income of at least Bt 3mill per anum).Some decent people sadly will have to return to thier home countries and others (mostly the krajork element) will find another bolt hole.Times have moved on and Thailand is a middle income country, unlike Cambodia, Laos etc.

Have you been to Thailand outside of Suk/Silom .... or areas of Phuket etc?

[Arsenal]

I suppose, if people with tourist visa found out they would not be allowed back into Thailand when they were in a neighboring coutry, one of their options would be to contact their embassy in the country they are now in.

If enough people went their embassies to ask for money to go home, then maybe these governments of other countries would get involved and ask Thailand why the sudden new rules. Maybe putting pressure on them to change it back or face similiar immigration laws against Thai people abroad.

Or, maybe I should just wake up.

You should just wake up.The Western embassies in Bangkok are overwhelmed as it is by the number of visitors (British Embassy quotes 750,000 p.a) and would pleased to see the back of those who if not living here illegally are in flagrant breach of the spirit of Thai immigration laws.The ways to legalise status have been pointed out numerous times on this forum.My own take is that Thailand is unlikely much longer to be a residence haven for westerners lacking the financial wherewithal(lets say income of at least Bt 3mill per anum).Some decent people sadly will have to return to thier home countries and others (mostly the krajork element) will find another bolt hole.Times have moved on and Thailand is a middle income country, unlike Cambodia, Laos etc.

Have you been to Thailand outside of Suk/Silom .... or areas of Phuket etc?

Don't patronise me.I have been in every Thai province (except two) on frequent occasions over 30 years.I am aware there is still poverty upcountry but it is on a much much smaller scale than when I first arrived in Thailand.

[snakestick]

I suppose, if people with tourist visa found out they would not be allowed back into Thailand when they were in a neighboring coutry, one of their options would be to contact their embassy in the country they are now in.

If enough people went their embassies to ask for money to go home, then maybe these governments of other countries would get involved and ask Thailand why the sudden new rules. Maybe putting pressure on them to change it back or face similiar immigration laws against Thai people abroad.

Or, maybe I should just wake up.

You should just wake up.The Western embassies in Bangkok are overwhelmed as it is by the number of visitors (British Embassy quotes 750,000 p.a) and would pleased to see the back of those who if not living here illegally are in flagrant breach of the spirit of Thai immigration laws.The ways to legalise status have been pointed out numerous times on this forum.My own take is that Thailand is unlikely much longer to be a residence haven for westerners lacking the financial wherewithal(lets say income of at least Bt 3mill per anum).Some decent people sadly will have to return to thier home countries and others (mostly the krajork element) will find another bolt hole.Times have moved on and Thailand is a middle income country, unlike Cambodia, Laos etc.

sew then based on your take 80% of all foreigners wood knot be welcome as at least that many on all types of visas don't have income of 3 mil baht per year. so this is what you're saying. sounds far fetched 2 me dude

Edited September 12, 2006 by snakestick

[jdinasia]

then you are aware that the average family in Thailand exists on less than 20,000 baht/month? Far less!

So you have been here! Good start! have you lived here?

Your concept of a middle income country is kinda strange!

Edited September 12, 2006 by jdinasia

[bendix]

I see your avatar is back ... and you still have not heeded the advice it gives!

The law as it has been enforced to date is by definition 'legal' and people who have been making border-runs have been doing it 'legally' <loophole or no> Closing a loophole that allows this to happen 'legally' is of course acceptable to Thailand if they are willing to pay the price. Nobody knows what that price may eventually be ...

jdinasia, I see your powers of observation are as acute as your perceptions of this subject are accurate.

You will see the avatar has changed. Sadly, some small-minded puritans with no sense of humour complained to the mods that the chubby man mouthed a naughty word. I was asked to change it. Sad really, because some people with bigger minds thought it was funny.

Were you one of the complainers, by any chance?

[oz457]

That's not such a good news for Thailand! I'm coming to thailand every 2 months to buy merchandise and send it out by container. If I'm not allowed to get into Thailand any more afer 2 or 3 visits, I'll have to do my purchases somewhere else. It seems China is going to be my next destination.

Sorry for the business with Thailand. I'll have to tell this the companies I'm trading with.

If you're doing business here, you can get non-immigrant B visa. This ruling should have no affect on people coming on genuine business trips. All you need is a letter from one of your suppliers to submit with your visa application.

How to apply for NON-B visa:

http://www.thaivisa.com/294.0.html

Example letter for NON-B visa:

http://www.thaivisa.com/332.0.html

I seem to be missing something. From reading those links, the Non-B visa seems to be for someone who wants to get a work visa in Thailand. But it sounds like oz457 is just a businessman who comes to Thailand to conduct business, possibly with various suppliers and/or buyers. This type of situation is very common. There is absolutely no employment involved in such cases. Requiring these people to get a work visa just to conduct normal business is really asking way too much. Businesses will go elsewhere unless they relax the rules for such cases.

Okay, this my personal situation:

I went to the Bangkok Internations Gifts and Furniture show in April 2006. About 2,5 months later, I went to Thailand a second time to look around for new merchandise, suppliers and business opportunities. I also took 2 weeks off so, I finally ended going to Laos for 10 days. This means I have 1 VOA in April for the show, 1 VOA for the visit in June, and 1 VOA after coming back from Laos, to fly back home.

There is a new show coming up in October (Bangkok International Gifts and Furniture show

http://www.thaitradefair.com/fairin/bigoct06/

Does this mean I won't be allowed into the Kingdom? If not, I'll just go back and go to the show in Hong Kong or China, to do my business over there?

I'm not willing to spend another 30 euro's every time I have to go to Thailand. This means, I have to spend more money, just to do my purchases? No way.

Can someone comment on the above and tell me if indeed I won't be granted without a non-immigrant O visa?

If I'm not allowed, it pisses me off! I'm spending yearly about 10.000.000 baht on merchandise (last year 9.4 milj). I'm going to call some of the companies I'm trading with. If they don't pay the visa for me, my business destination will change. I'm bloody serious about changing country, because I was already considering this, as the Thai's make it more and more difficult to do business.

Last time, there were problems with wooden merchandise that needed to be funigated because of new regulations.

[jdinasia]

I see your avatar is back ... and you still have not heeded the advice it gives!

The law as it has been enforced to date is by definition 'legal' and people who have been making border-runs have been doing it 'legally' <loophole or no> Closing a loophole that allows this to happen 'legally' is of course acceptable to Thailand if they are willing to pay the price. Nobody knows what that price may eventually be ...

jdinasia, I see your powers of observation are as acute as your perceptions of this subject are accurate.

You will see the avatar has changed. Sadly, some small-minded puritans with no sense of humour complained to the mods that the chubby man mouthed a naughty word. I was asked to change it. Sad really, because some people with bigger minds thought it was funny.

Were you one of the complainers, by any chance?

No ... but your post is a trifle

again ... LEGAL ... is based on the law .... and th folks that have been making border runs have been LEGAL ... <so far>

[bendix]

sew then based on your take 80% of all foreigners wood knot be welcome as at least that many on all types of visas don't have income of 3 mil baht per year. so this is what you're saying. sounds far fetched 2 me dude

Are ewe rarely on a retirement visa, dude? That's knot &lt;deleted&gt;-knee.

Dew peeps over 50 rarely rap like yew?

[joka]

I want to know what the definition of "live" is. No matter where you go, you are "living" there. You may or may not be a resident.

My devils advocate response to the "moneyed"......eat the rich!

[snakestick]

Yes that is write dude, eye am on a retirement visa. Eye'm 51 years of old butt eye still think the new rules are lousy four reasons eye outlined earlier

[kopkun]

This thread is a wonderful demonstration of just how many deeply unpleasant foreigners there are living in Thailand at the moment. Unfortunately, they all appear to be on long-term visas so will not be affected by the latest crackdown - yet.

However, all those on retirement visas who are currently laughing at/applauding the plight of people doing visa runs may find the situation less amusing when the Thai government decides it doesn't want its country full of elderly foreigners staggering between the beach and the public hospitals. If the excuse for cracking down on visa-runners is that some of them are working illegally (most of them teaching short term, so at least passing on a skill), then the excuse for getting rid of the retirees will be that some of them are becoming a burden on the Thai health system. An increasing number of farangs have been turning up at public hospitals with serious illnesses and no money and getting treatment free. This, understandably, annoys the hel_l out of the Thai authorities. Refusing treatment to foreigners having heart attacks would cause too much bad publicity, so it would be much more convenient to simply withdraw retirement visas or insist on comprehensive medical insurance at each renewal (and just check out the cost of that if you're 70 and have a prexisting medical condition).

It is a deeply unpleasant character trait to get satisfaction from others' misfortune. It's also pretty stupid when the same misfortune probably awaits you a little further down the line.

[bendix]

No ... but your post is a trifle

again ... LEGAL ... is based on the law .... and th folks that have been making border runs have been LEGAL ... <so far>

Yes, you're right. It's all academic. All laws are constantly evolving beasts. Legislators and lawyers write them, they are implemented, tried and tested, and people seek to find ways around them.

I accept that. Legal drafting is fraught with such issues.

But noone can deny that the people drafting the legislation imagined an entire cottage industry developing (visa run coach trips, dodgy travel agents sending passports out of the country etc) when it was drafted.

They're just closing it up, that's all. It doesnt seem unreasonable to me.

Tourists can still come here for short visits WITHOUT a visa. If tourists want to come longer and more times a year, then they can get the proper tourist visa. If people want to marry, that's easy too. If people want to work, or do business, that's possible too. If people want to retire, easy. If people want to invest, easy for for not much money.

All they are doing is stopping people living here when they are pretending to be short-term tourists.

is that so unreasonable?

[A_Traveller]

It should be noted that the law was drafted in the mid-seventies, and at that time and for some ten to fifteen years afterwards, a key driver for TAT was, singles {men mainly} come to Thailand, you know it makes sense...

The style of marketing that TAT has subsequently spent a fortune trying to erase.

On a drafting point the law supports, without amendment, the present situation, and the proposed one, but such a change, especially the 90 days in 90 days out 'rule' would, IMHO, require the Commission's approval.

Regards

/spelling//

Edited September 12, 2006 by A_Traveller

[oz457]

Okay, this my personal situation:

I went to the Bangkok Internations Gifts and Furniture show in April 2006. About 2,5 months later, I went to Thailand a second time to look around for new merchandise, suppliers and business opportunities. I also took 2 weeks off so, I finally ended going to Laos for 10 days. This means I have 1 VOA in April for the show, 1 VOA for the visit in June, and 1 VOA after coming back from Laos, to fly back home.

There is a new show coming up in October (Bangkok International Gifts and Furniture show

http://www.thaitradefair.com/fairin/bigoct06/

Does this mean I won't be allowed into the Kingdom? If not, I'll just go back and go to the show in Hong Kong or China, to do my business over there?

I'm not willing to spend another 30 euro's every time I have to go to Thailand. This means, I have to spend more money, just to do my purchases? No way.

Can someone comment on the above and tell me if indeed I won't be granted without a non-immigrant O visa?

If I'm not allowed, it pisses me off! I'm spending yearly about 10.000.000 baht on merchandise (last year 9.4 milj). I'm going to call some of the companies I'm trading with. If they don't pay the visa for me, my business destination will change. I'm bloody serious about changing country, because I was already considering this, as the Thai's make it more and more difficult to do business.

Last time, there were problems with wooden merchandise that needed to be funigated because of new regulations.

Regarding the above, I have sent the following letter to the Thai embassy here in Belgium:

Dear Sir or Madam,

I seek your help as there is a lot of confusion regarding the new visa regulations that will start on October 1st 2006.

I'm doing business with Thailand and need to travel to Thailand on a regular basis. So far, I was using the Visa on Arrival stamp that granted me 30 days stay.

Here's a history of the visits:

Arrival 1 april 2006 Departure 24 april 2006 (visit of the Bangkok International Gifts Trade fair)

Arrival 20 june 2006 Departure 15 july 2006 (visit of different supplyers, merchandise check and visit to Thai export center)

Arrival 25 july 2006 Departure 9 august 2006 (returning from personal travel to Laos Republic)

My next visit is planned on October 14 2006 to visit the Bangkok International Gifts Trade fair of 17 - 24 oct.

Based on this information, will I be granted a VOA of do I need to apply for a Visa in Belgium? Who will pay the expense of this visa, as in the past this was of no cost.

Kind regards.

Edited September 12, 2006 by oz457

[jdinasia]

No ... but your post is a trifle

again ... LEGAL ... is based on the law .... and th folks that have been making border runs have been LEGAL ... <so far>

Yes, you're right. It's all academic. All laws are constantly evolving beasts. Legislators and lawyers write them, they are implemented, tried and tested, and people seek to find ways around them.

I accept that. Legal drafting is fraught with such issues.

But noone can deny that the people drafting the legislation imagined an entire cottage industry developing (visa run coach trips, dodgy travel agents sending passports out of the country etc) when it was drafted.

They're just closing it up, that's all. It doesnt seem unreasonable to me.

Tourists can still come here for short visits WITHOUT a visa. If tourists want to come longer and more times a year, then they can get the proper tourist visa. If people want to marry, that's easy too. If people want to work, or do business, that's possible too. If people want to retire, easy. If people want to invest, easy for for not much money.

All they are doing is stopping people living here when they are pretending to be short-term tourists.

is that so unreasonable?

Ahhhhhh I see the avatar changed again .....

Umm Nope ... but this post of yours changes what you said before. If it was legal <and probably still will be legal on some level I guess> then it was legal.

I just don't see the new implementation of these regulations happening ... or i they do being ultimately good for Thailand

[steveromagnino]

then you are aware that the average family in Thailand exists on less than 20,000 baht/month? Far less!

So you have been here! Good start! have you lived here?

Your concept of a middle income country is kinda strange!

Seems reasonable to me to call Thailand middle income.

If it is good enough for World Bank (Thailand is lower middle income) then it is good enough for me.

I've yet to see any significant evidence that this affects anymore than 1% of the total tourist arrivals; people posting on Thaivisa is hardly representative of the vast majority of tourists coming here once a year on some package tour or cheap flight and staying a few days.

And the majority are AFAIK perfectly capable of going to a consulate and sorting out a visa prior to arriving and therefore completely unaffected by this as far as I understand it. This is just about visa on arrival, isn't it?

And yet there is still the familiar 'this is going to make Thailand broke, I'm taking my money elsewhere' tirade which has been a common theme

- when the social order campaign was introduced

- when the price of NEP barfines went up

- when they stopped selling beer 2-5pm

- when they increased the price of work permits and visas

- when the price of departure fee was increased to 700b

- when they started enforcing property law

- when they started cracking down on false teacher qualifications

Somehow, I don't think the country will go broke this time; it didn't as a result of people stopping coming here and moving to Phillipines etc when each of these other things happened, and I don't think it will happen this time either.

It is an ongoing step towards introducing some order into the arrivals process, which anyone can see is currently a total mess with no control at all. THe current process has people who are 'tourists' and yet are working and staying years at a time. If anyone can actually justify this in any terms other than economic (which I feel is hardly compelling) then I'd be interested to know.

I doubt it is in response to imitating other countries as has been suggested. It may even be at the encouragement of certain western countries keen to get better control on air travel. Who knows.

The added minor effort for most of getting a visa if they intend to stay a decent period is not that big a deal IMHO, and I stand by my estimate of not more than 1% of the total tourist pool being affected. We need not make conclusions about boat owners and the like in Phuket; the people I know with boats will not stop coming here to stay in their fancy villa with their fancy boat moored nearby; they will send their staff to sort them out a visa at the consulate or get an elite card, or in one case he only comes once a year anyway. So, perhaps it is best not to project the issues of a small group of people who couldn't be bothered to get a visa before on all tourists. If enough boat owners and villa owners start complaining, then something will change. Let them speak for themselves.

It could have been implemented a whole lot better; I would agree there, but it is still a month until it gets actually implemented; let's see how it pans out.

Again...get the right visa and it is a non issue. Turn up at the airport and you takes ya chances.

[Smithson]

All they are doing is stopping people living here when they are pretending to be short-term tourists.

is that so unreasonable?

The saying they want to stop ppl working in bars and restraunts in Pattaya, I haven't seen any foriegners doing this. The reality is ppl are working as teachers, doing export or surviving of their savings/investments. I can't see how kicking these ppl out will do any good.