The Logic Behind The Visa Crackdown

[george]

The logic behind the visa crackdown

Or is it another financial own goal? Many myths are already growing up about the recent announcement that foreigners can only live in Thailand for 90 days out of 180 (in any six months period) if they insist of utilising the 30 day visa on arrivals available at border posts and immigration checkpoints. Three in a row and that’s your lot mate for the time being!

Some say the recent arrest and deportation of an alleged American pedophile, who had been teaching in Thai schools, prompted the immigration bureau to take a closer look at illegal working in general and the inadequate checks made on foreign teachers.

Others claim that on a recent trip to Pattaya, senior immigration police from Bangkok were horrified to see all those advertisements promoting visa runs to the Cambodian border. In reality, the visa crackdown is just a reminder that the Thais every now and again have doubts about their own hospitality policy. Are they in fact too open and welcoming? This nationalistic thinking in the Thai bureaucracy goes back a long way, at least until the 1970s when (as old hands remember) there was a rather similar crackdown during the administration of a military backed coup.

The squeeze on the visas on arrival is aimed at three distinct, howbeit overlapping, groups of farangs. The first are those using the visas on arrival to work in Thailand illegally.

In Pattaya, there are probably hundreds of such individuals running bars, teaching English without a work permit and so on. One of the problems is that work permits are not normally available for running a bar – too small an investment to count – and it’s hardly the farang teacher’s fault if the school chooses to hire him or her without adequate checks as there’s such a shortage of English speakers.

The second group are foreign men under 50 years of age. Thai immigration takes the view that they are too young to retire and, unless they have a work permit, are likely living here without paying taxes as they would have to do in their own country. Some of these guys marry a Thai national and immigration sources say they will carry out more checks in future to see if the couple really are in love. There’s also a suspicion that some men in this group could be international criminals who have been using the automatic visa on arrival at border posts to come and go more or less undetected.

The final group are the backpackers or, to be polite, the budget traveller. Their problem is shortage of cash rather than illegal working. There may well be hundreds of such men in Pattaya who can afford, just about, the monthly visa runs to Aranyaprathet or Pong Nam Ron. The Thai government is saying this market needs clearing out as they contribute next to nothing to the Thai economy.

Some of them run out of money altogether and go into overstay. When they are inevitably arrested sooner or later, the Thais have to feed them while they are held in jail. If they fall ill, they can become a further burden to the state. As when visa extension charges were raised from 500 baht to 1,900 baht a couple of years ago, some commentators are prophesying the end of mass tourism as we know it. It’s argued that everyone is going to uproot themselves and go to live in countries which will welcome them with open arms, such as Malaysia or Cambodia. So how likely is this? Not too likely.

Not everyone who has been using the visas on arrival to live here is short of cash. They can for instance switch to living here on 60 day tourist visas or 90 days non immigrant visas, all of which can be extended for one or two months according to type .

Some can obtain a multi entry visa when they return to their home country, assuming they do. In other words, some richer farangs have been using the visa on arrival as an easy, non bureaucratic way of residing here. They can find alternatives now that they must.

Some men over 50 will probably switch to the so-called one year retiremernt visa provided they have the necessary cash and pension income. The farangs in real trouble with the new regulations are those who are trapped here on small or inadequate budgets. Many are nice guys, but frankly they contribute little to the local economy. Their option as things now stand is to mix visas on arrival (for three months) with a single entry 90 day tourist visa from Penang.

In other words, the recent announcement about squeezing the visas on arrival will certainly cause difficulties. But it’s hardly the end of Thailand as a mass tourist destination centre. Anyway, what we don’t know is how long this latest crackdown will last. Nothing is forever as they say.

-- Pattaya Today 2006-10-01

[biggle]

why do they want high quality tourists who stay in the sheraton , royal cliff? in the long term it's the low quality types who fall in love and marry prostitutes and come back year after year , buying houses in nong khai etc that they should be trying to attract . people with real money dont need to come back to thailand year after year ,they can go anywhere they like and have a good time .

[Maizefarmer]

Thanks GEORGE - a good informative writeup.

Yes - overstay is much more common than I think a lot of people realise.

I used a Thai family relative to make some phone calls because I am trying to get some stats for "overstayers" - which I will post when I get them, but the figure quoted off the top of the head of the guy that was spoken to at Immigration (who is a desk bound middle ranking officer in Bangkok) is that it is over 1000 persons per week in total!

Off the top of his head he said that as far as he could recall, the majoirty of those who overstay are North and West Africans - and that group represents the group that overstays by the longest - running into months and years, and by and large the only time they get picked up is when they run into problems with the police and land up at IDC.

Then come the Arab countries - again many of them are overstaying by months and years.

Then he added, this ignores "overstayers" from Cambodia, Myanmar and Laos - dont even ask us what the situation is as far as those nationals go - we dont have statistics - just guesstimates!

Then come the Europeans - the overwhelming majoirty of which are overstaying by a few days. But within that group are a bunch who have decided to "Stay" - and when they come to leave you see they have been here 6 - 12 months or they have been here years and years - and they mostly come to light when leaving the country at the boder post.

He made no judegemtn about these people when asked but said the issue as far as the Thai authorities was, what were they doing in all that time, and how were they financing their stay?

Tim

Edited October 2, 2006 by Maizefarmer

[Thai-Spy]

One greater motivation of the Thai authorities is one the author overlooks in our view. While we acknowledge that there are financial and legalistic implication, it seems the overall goal is to bring the farang into one of two clearly defined categories.

The first is the typical international traveler; this excludes both the backpacker who has limited economic utility, and it also sests aside the truly well-heeled who will always be welcome. The normal mom-and-pop international tourist are hardly affected by these regulations and are, as always, encouraged to gawk and spend.

(And we also want to keep in mind the growing influence of the mainstream mainland Chinese traveller. While not presently on the list of the "39 exempt nations". the PRC may eventually press for this status. The Thai action may be partially pre-emptive.)

The second category is perhaps best described as the regularisation of the ex-pat. Foreigners are being encouraged by these regulations, although not in so many words, to forge tighter bonds with the mainstream of Thai society whether by marriage, investment or entrepreneurship.

The message from Thailand is that if your interests tend towards long-stay, you need to be prepared to participate and contribute to Thai society on something beyond a purely retail-spending level. Those without the means or interest to integrate are left free to pursue their dreams elsewhere. And please do not doubt that the regulations are mild in comparisons with police sweeps that could be arranged (and have been on a small scale in the past) if the motivation behind them was simply xenophobia.

Of course there will always be cases of well-intentioned persons whose lives don't neatly fit into a visa category. They have our sympathy but no national policy can ever be tailored to every individual and we hope they can find some form of accomodation in the new regulations.

In fairness you have to recognize that there is a notable undesirable foreign element in Thailand. You cannot expect any nation to endure indefinitely an image as the flophouse of the world.

[drummer]

why do they want high quality tourists who stay in the sheraton , royal cliff? in the long term it's the low quality types who fall in love and marry prostitutes and come back year after year , buying houses in nong khai etc that they should be trying to attract . people with real money dont need to come back to thailand year after year ,they can go anywhere they like and have a good time .

Well, thats kind of missing the forest for the trees... they DO NOT WANT the people who fall in love with prostitutes at all. Those are dirty, dirty people that Thailand is better off without, regardless of how much money they have.

How many Asians do you see partaking in the sex industry? I don't mean how many do - how many do you actually see? It is a loss of face for Thailand for people to see it.

[drummer]

Thanks GEORGE - a good informative writeup.

Yes - overstay is much more common than I think a lot of people realise.

Ummmm..... this has nothing whatsoever to do with overstay, except insofar as these new laws encourage people to break the law altogether (rather than bending it by staying with visa runs)

Permanent overstayers will not be affected by the new visa rules - they don't have visas at all!

[Thai-Spy]

why do they want high quality tourists who stay in the sheraton , royal cliff? in the long term it's the low quality types who fall in love and marry prostitutes and come back year after year , buying houses in nong khai etc that they should be trying to attract . people with real money dont need to come back to thailand year after year ,they can go anywhere they like and have a good time .

Well, thats kind of missing the forest for the trees... they DO NOT WANT the people who fall in love with prostitutes at all. Those are dirty, dirty people that Thailand is better off without, regardless of how much money they have.

How many Asians do you see partaking in the sex industry? I don't mean how many do - how many do you actually see? It is a loss of face for Thailand for people to see it.

A good reply if judgemental. What has to be kept in mind is the fact that "whore-marriers" (for want of a better term) don't marry the first whore they meet, as a rule. Part of the Thai desire to control or expel a certain type of foreigner is rooted in the wish to eliminate a certain set of social ills that those foreigners create or exacerbate. We could take Pattaya as the prime example, but it's probably too early to risk pulling this thread so far off topic by opening that can of worms (again).

[Smithson]

I'm not sure the backpackers are so bad, they may not spend so much but their impact is minimal, generally they want to see the culture so they don't disturb things too much.

Many of them are students between studies, they go onto to be qualified professional who return with their families and spend much, while still enjoyin the culture, food etc.

[drummer]

A good reply if judgemental. What has to be kept in mind is the fact that "whore-marriers" (for want of a better term) don't marry the first whore they meet, as a rule. Part of the Thai desire to control or expel a certain type of foreigner is rooted in the wish to eliminate a certain set of social ills that those foreigners create or exacerbate. We could take Pattaya as the prime example, but it's probably too early to risk pulling this thread so far off topic by opening that can of worms (again).

The point is that it is a loss of face. Farang are 'high profile' here and having them go around with their hillbilly wife is percieved as a loss of face for respectable Thailand. I'm not speaking from my own point of view here- just replying to an ealier comment - that Thailand should want these people because of money. My point is that when face saving is involved, money is not very important to Thais.

[drummer]

Thai-Spy: i submit that the real reason for these changes is xenophobia and face saving, and the rest is rationalization. (I may use some harsh sounding words - please do not take any offence to the words I choose - no offence is meant for Thais or Thailand.

In fairness you have to recognize that there is a notable undesirable foreign element in Thailand. You cannot expect any nation to endure indefinitely an image as the flophouse of the world.

If prostitution was the problem, then why not do something about it, instead of the farang? Instead, we have laws designed to expel many/most longstay foreigners.

Of course, the reason that Thailand doen not make prostitution illegal, de facto, is that it is very much a part of Thai culture. The Chinese sex tourists that come down are no problem because you can't see them. The Europeans, however, frequent have outdoor bars and loud, noisy, neon-lit areas to engage in prostitution. Of course, thailand could, again, merely outlaw prostitution anywhere where it could be seen, but that is again not what they are doing.

The message from Thailand is that if your interests tend towards long-stay, you need to be prepared to participate and contribute to Thai society on something beyond a purely retail-spending level.

Translate: become culturally Thai or leave. Fair enough.

A lot of Americans have the same attitude. And, as an American, while Thailand is known and is proud of its hospitality, the US is a nation of immigrants. America is, in theory, very proud of its multicultural history, and it is often refferred to as a big melting pot where everyone adds.

Thailand at least been Thai specifically as far back as history goes. (I tend to lean more havily on the linguistic evidence, and discard the theory that Thais come from Mongolia - it is possible, though, but really a non sequiter)

While isolationism ('Thai Rak Thai' = Thais love Thais or Thailand for Thais) is a good way to cement national identity (culture, language, etc) and maintain uniform opinions, and thus minimizing conflict (such as in Pattani) it does have its drawbacks. The world is getting small these days. The movement of people, goods and ideas is faster, easier and cheaper than ever before, and getting faster by the day.

By setting limits on what is off limits to others, one automatically limits foreign investment and trade. Japan became the powerhouse it is by anticipating technology. Thailand seems to not be following in its footsteps.

One greater motivation of the Thai authorities is one the author overlooks in our view. While we acknowledge that there are financial and legalistic implication, it seems the overall goal is to bring the farang into one of two clearly defined categories.

The first is the typical international traveler; this excludes both the backpacker who has limited economic utility, and it also sests aside the truly well-heeled who will always be welcome. The normal mom-and-pop international tourist are hardly affected by these regulations and are, as always, encouraged to gawk and spend.

This is the thrust of my argument, as it relates directly to Thailand. These 'classes' of traveller are made up by prejudiced thought.

In my experience, most Thais think that backpackers are poor, uneducated, dirty, etc etc. Quite the contrary is true. If you talk to backpackers on Khaosan road, you find that most of either in college or college graduates. They are paying for their trip either through their own work or through parental funding (or both) Many are on Around-the-World tickets, and visit Europe, Most Americans 'backpack' through Europe rather than Asia. (Europe does not seem to mind!) They are far more educated than most any other tourist group, except perhaps the well-heeled traveler. Moreover, they are travelling largely to experience new things and to understand foreign cultures... in other words they are the ones who are here to understand Thai people. Classing these people as undesirable would seem to contradict the last statement I quoted.

... Except insofar as one would want to show Thailand as a high class, rich country.

This leads me to the next point about backpackers... that their economic input is negligible. Again, go to Khaosan Rd and ask the average backpacker how much they have to spend. When I came out here, as a backpacker, I had $1,000 US/month. Most have more. (I saved up the money myself and travelled out here to 'broaden my horizons' ... something that not enough Americans do!) While this may not seem like a lot, consider the numbers of backpackers that come through yearly. I don't have access to those statistics, but the number is considerable. The economic impact of backpackers, who bring in cash directly to Thailand, who do not export money to foreign countries, who eat in Thai restaurants, stay in Thai owned guesthouses, buy handmade Thai artifacts.... in short, pump their money direcetly to Thai people. Contrast this to the more well heeled traveller who stays in the Hilton (Paris Hilton needs a new dress, right?)

I would submit that the economic impact of the budget traveller, to Thai people, is far greater than the well heeled traveller.

Also, I know many mom-and-pop type tourists who would classify themselves as 'backpackers.'

Looking at the issue logically, the motivating factor seems to be Thailand being seen as a cheap place. Backpackers are cheap, right? so if you just get ris of the backpacker then you well only have the well heeled traveller, increasing Thailand's face. It is the only logical line of reasoning that easily explains everything. Unfortunately, it does not work ike that. it is Thailand's middle class that represents it to the world.

The second category is perhaps best described as the regularisation of the ex-pat. Foreigners are being encouraged by these regulations, although not in so many words, to forge tighter bonds with the mainstream of Thai society whether by marriage, investment or entrepreneurship.

I beg to differ somewhat. Foreigners are being encouraged somewhat ... less so than before the rewrite, but Thailand is still hass fairly generous visa laws. (The US does not have a VOA at all!) and making people become legal is a great move for Thailand. Having the rule of law enforced does encourtage business and investment from abroad (and does indeed increase Thailand's 'face' internationally)

However, if attracting investment was a motivation, then Thailand would be making it easier to become legal. Significantly simplifying the process. Instead, there are more laws, more buearacracy, more roadblocks for investment... not less. it is harder to stay here on legitimate business, not easier.

Those without the means or interest to integrate are left free to pursue their dreams elsewhere. And please do not doubt that the regulations are mild in comparisons with police sweeps that could be arranged (and have been on a small scale in the past) if the motivation behind them was simply xenophobia.

To use an extreme case, genocide is not merely xenophobic in nature. it nearly always includes political and economic considerations - which are often more important than the xenophobia, although that aspect is always an important contributing factor. I certainly do not mean to link Thailand with something as grotesque as genocide, just to point out that the most extreme case of xenophobia never lies purely on prejudice.

I have tried to make the case that economics is not a valid explanation of the new laws, that the reason is largely an attemt to remedy Thailand's preceived 'face' in the international community, driven by prejudiced assumptions. Thus prejudice (of foreigners, as well as misunderstanding of foreigners - a directly related issue) a.k.a. xenophobia, is the real cause.

I am proud to consider myself a Buddhist, and one of the things that lead me to Buddhism, long before I came to Asia, is the philosophy to strive to see things the way they really are. An open mind, a mix of ideas, and open debate is a great way to achieve more accurate knowledge.

[Sunbelt Asia]

We had a record today... A 80 year old man who has been doing visa runs, every month for 40+ years!

He now will get an extension of stay based on retirement. He just never got around to getting it before.

www.sunbeltasiagroup.com

[Donnyboy]

We had a record today... A 80 year old man who has been doing visa runs, every month for 40+ years!

He now will get an extension of stay based on retirement. He just never got around to getting it before.

www.sunbeltasiagroup.com

jees, pity the buses dont have frequent miles!!

[Firefan]

Holy smoke! 500 visa runs later..... Cheers!

We had a record today... A 80 year old man who has been doing visa runs, every month for 40+ years!

He now will get an extension of stay based on retirement. He just never got around to getting it before.

www.sunbeltasiagroup.com

[PeaceBlondie]

The opening post was well written, and by Western logic, does seem to "explain logically" the recent changes to immigration law or its enforcement.

The reasons for these changes may not be logical, or evident. Maybe the Immigration Police Bureau wants to reduce its workload, transferring more people to the MFA to get visas. Maybe the changes were the last dying breath of TRT to gather votes for November's elections. Maybe there are 39 reasons.

Maybe it's just a flash in the pan and the changes will simmer down within a few months. Maybe....who knows?

[Maizefarmer]

We had a record today... A 80 year old man who has been doing visa runs, every month for 40+ years!

He now will get an extension of stay based on retirement. He just never got around to getting it before.

www.sunbeltasiagroup.com

jees, pity the buses dont have frequent miles!!

He should apply or PR - in the right sympathetic ear, I am sure he would be given serious consideration if his affairs are in order and he can demonstrate 40yrs of 30 days runs - he will get such a high score for "period of time spent already" - I dont know any ex-pat who has been here that long without PR and only 1 that has!!

Good for him

Tim

[jdinasia]

The opening post was well written, and by Western logic, does seem to "explain logically" the recent changes to immigration law or its enforcement.

The reasons for these changes may not be logical, or evident. Maybe the Immigration Police Bureau wants to reduce its workload, transferring more people to the MFA to get visas. Maybe the changes were the last dying breath of TRT to gather votes for November's elections. Maybe there are 39 reasons.

Maybe it's just a flash in the pan and the changes will simmer down within a few months. Maybe....who knows?

I agree ---- who knows!

[lapamita]

[@RUNNER

The whole post was written in caps. Removed the post to avoid deafness.

Edited October 5, 2006 by dr_Pat_Pong

[fruittbatt]

While the laws will undoubtedly force wannabee long-term residents to make appropriate economic provisions and get the correct visas, I think many farangs are smarting under the lack of lead time involved in implementing these changes.

Three weeks notice was simply not long enough for some to transfer money in term deposits etc. Those who had expected to swap to retirement visas in the near future would also appear to be temporarily disqualified due to the unreasonable provision of having their 800,000 baht in the bank for three months already. Many retirees also keep their money offshore as long as possible precisely because of the lousy interest rates on savings accounts in Thailand, and because they can also earn better interest on term deposits elsewhere.

I do hope that Thai Immigration will be able to advise such people in order to keep them and their substantial ( if temporarily offshore) assets in Thailand.

[biggle]

why do they want high quality tourists who stay in the sheraton , royal cliff? in the long term it's the low quality types who fall in love and marry prostitutes and come back year after year , buying houses in nong khai etc that they should be trying to attract . people with real money dont need to come back to thailand year after year ,they can go anywhere they like and have a good time .

Well, thats kind of missing the forest for the trees... they DO NOT WANT the people who fall in love with prostitutes at all. Those are dirty, dirty people that Thailand is better off without, regardless of how much money they have.

How many Asians do you see partaking in the sex industry? I don't mean how many do - how many do you actually see? It is a loss of face for Thailand for people to see it.

A good reply if judgemental. What has to be kept in mind is the fact that "whore-marriers" (for want of a better term) don't marry the first whore they meet, as a rule. Part of the Thai desire to control or expel a certain type of foreigner is rooted in the wish to eliminate a certain set of social ills that those foreigners create or exacerbate. We could take Pattaya as the prime example, but it's probably too early to risk pulling this thread so far off topic by opening that can of worms (again).

Just about everybody i know in Pattaya is a "whore-marrier"

[Chang_paarp]

why do they want high quality tourists who stay in the sheraton , royal cliff? in the long term it's the low quality types who fall in love and marry prostitutes and come back year after year , buying houses in nong khai etc that they should be trying to attract . people with real money dont need to come back to thailand year after year ,they can go anywhere they like and have a good time .

It is interesting to note that the data I have seen from a number sources the "backpacker" market spends more money per visit than the 5* visitor, as they tend to stay longer and they go on the tours and try to experience the culture. Whereas the 5* folk tend to live in the hotel or resort and do not go far from there. This is why in some markets they are trying to attract the backpacker as much as the 5* visitor, some even more so.

Well, thats kind of missing the forest for the trees... they DO NOT WANT the people who fall in love with prostitutes at all. Those are dirty, dirty people that Thailand is better off without, regardless of how much money they have.

How many Asians do you see partaking in the sex industry? I don't mean how many do - how many do you actually see? It is a loss of face for Thailand for people to see it.

It has nothing to do with face the asian sex market is there, it just looks different, think about the ladies from the eastern bloc, a Thai lady with long black hair is just not exotic to many asians. The local (Thai) sex market is many times bigger than the the one aimed at the westerner, it just looks different and is not noticed by the uninitiated.

[tropo]

I've heard that the maximum overstay fine now stands at 50,000 baht. Can anyone confirm this?

[Firefan]

500 B per day up to max 20.000. Cheers!

[Smithson]

The backpackers are a large part of tourism, especially when you get away from the beaches.

There also not the ones in Nana and Cowboy every night, simply because they can't afford it.

If they stop coming it'll affect alot of small businesses, but I'm not sure how much the new ruling will affect backpackers.

[Noel]

We had a record today... A 80 year old man who has been doing visa runs, every month for 40+ years!

He now will get an extension of stay based on retirement. He just never got around to getting it before.

www.sunbeltasiagroup.com

If true, not so many years ago he would have had to have been doing 'visa runs' twice per month...

[britmaveric]

Well, thats kind of missing the forest for the trees... they DO NOT WANT the people who fall in love with prostitutes at all. Those are dirty, dirty people that Thailand is better off without, regardless of how much money they have.

How many Asians do you see partaking in the sex industry? I don't mean how many do - how many do you actually see? It is a loss of face for Thailand for people to see it.

Completely wrong!!!!

[Unknown]

why do they want high quality tourists who stay in the sheraton , royal cliff? in the long term it's the low quality types who fall in love and marry prostitutes and come back year after year , buying houses in nong khai etc that they should be trying to attract . people with real money dont need to come back to thailand year after year ,they can go anywhere they like and have a good time .

I agree, they should not be that choosy.

It is not the rich foreigners, on a private level, who participate to the development of Thailand.

But the medium class people and well, calling them low quality types is maybe a bit too Thai...

[John K]

It is amazing all this started when Thaksin started to experience intense heat. I wonder if this is Thaksin saying “If I must go so do you.”

[Nam Kao]

>>>>My point is that when face saving is involved, money is not very important to Thais.

Money is #1, trust me

[Thaddeus]

It's a census.... they want all the long term non-thais to have a record on a database... nothing more, this was the best way to get that.

[tartempion]

The logic behind the visa crackdown

Some men over 50 will probably switch to the so-called one year retiremernt visa provided they have the necessary cash and pension income. The farangs in real trouble with the new regulations are those who are trapped here on small or inadequate budgets. Many are nice guys, but frankly they contribute little to the local economy. Their option as things now stand is to mix visas on arrival (for three months) with a single entry 90 day tourist visa from Penang.

-- Pattaya Today 2006-10-01

The 800k or 65k/month is a rather high amount to qualify.

20 to 30k is often sufficient to live a decent life in a village.

Many retirees have a retirement income between 30k and 60k, These are not welcome here. I suppose they don't help the thai economy at a sufficient level...

Backpackers who "only spend" 30k or less are not welcome to stay over 90 days neither: they do not contribute to the economy of Thailand??? They forget young student backpackers are the future of our societies.

But Thailand dreams of getting 15 million "good" tourists next year, all attracted by this brand new world class airport....

Me thinks the thai authorities could use some lessons in economy.