The Multiple Entry Tourist Visa Topic (METV)

[Pattaya46]

Even funds in a bank is just silly.

Why that? I my country, bank is the place where most people put their money, so it seems rather logical to ask proof that we have enough money "in the bank". That can be on very various ways though: saving, deposit, insurance, stock, investment,... but still "money in the bank".

[JLCrab]

The killer with the metv is the requirements. Most of them such as money in bank and proof of empliyment, while supid , can be satisfied. In time if metv becomes available other than just your home country then it could be a popular usefull visa. All depends if the initial silly requirements are maintained over time

There are two possible explanations as to intended consequences of the introduction of the METV visa and removal of the DETV and TETV.

Possibility A: Reduction of large number of visitors previously using DETV/TETV to stay longterm. If this is the case, requirements will stay in place and we'll see few METV issued.

Possibility B: Attempt to financially qualify long stay visitors. If this is the case, requirements for documentation will be loosened as they prove completely unworkable. Expect to still have to show sufficient funds in a bank or brokerage account.

My guess is on B - you'll see that Portland, Oregon already has this figured out . . . .

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/870290-metv-from-london-embassy/page-7#entry10075516

I just wonder how long it will take other embassies and consulates to come round to this point of view.

However from that same now closed topic:

Portland Honorary Consulate still has on its website for applicants applying by mail:

You must be physically in the United States at the time of application.

which when I noted that on a previous METV topic prompted the query: Well how can they tell?

[alocacoc]

Actually, i find it fair they ask for some proof of money. What i not understand, that they don't ask for a health insurance.

[elviajero]

Why that? I my country, bank is the place where most people put their money, so it seems rather logical to ask proof that we have enough money "in the bank". That can be on very various ways though: saving, deposit, insurance, stock, investment,... but still "money in the bank".

I agree. When the websites say "in the bank" I think that's generic. It's meant to be the money used to fund the stay so I'm sure that as long as the money is accessible it would be accepted.

Edited November 14, 2015 by elviajero

[jspill]

Digital Nomads included as long as they are entering on holiday/vacation for tourism and leisure purpose.

They're not employed by a resident entity in Thailand, so they're always defined as tourists. See the world tourism organisation's definition, point (9) http://www2.unwto.org/content/testing-collapsed-text

[JB300]

Appreciate it only came into effect yesterday but does anybody know somebody who's gone in to get one yet or is going to be applying for one soon?

Edited November 14, 2015 by JB300

[elviajero]

Digital Nomads included as long as they are entering on holiday/vacation for tourism and leisure purpose.

They're not employed by a resident entity in Thailand, so they're always defined as tourists. See the world tourism organisation's definition, point (9) http://www2.unwto.org/content/testing-collapsed-text

What DN's are defined as is irrelevant. They are restricted under the terms of the visa to the activity of tourism. A holiday/vacation is time taken away from work and no definition of leisure or tourism includes the activity of working regardless of the location of the business/employer.

Someone that lives in a foreign country and operates their foreign based business/employment may well be labelled a tourist, and I'm sure Thailand has no issue with holidaying tourists that keep up with their business/job whilst on holiday; however, someone living permanently in a country is not on holiday and if they are working for any entity they break the terms of the visa and the law that granted it.

[ubonjoe]

Some posts are staring to take this topic off topic. Topic is not about who is a real tourist or not. If you want to discuss that post a topic on the general forum or the pub.

[alocacoc]

Strange, the Consulate in Salzburg offers 2 METV. One is valid for 6 Months, the other 1 Year. Both costs 150 Euro. And the requirements looks very lax.

http://www.thaiconsulate-salzburg.at/visabestimmungen.pdf

[jspill]

however, someone living permanently in a country is not on holiday and if they are working for any entity they break the terms of the visa and the law that granted it.

If that entity isn't resident in Thailand you can't say for sure if they're breaking any laws or not. Visa terms stating 'employment prohibited' haven't been explicitly defined as including offshore entities.

[ubonjoe]

Strange, the Consulate in Salzburg offers 2 METV. One is valid for 6 Months, the other 1 Year. Both costs 150 Euro. And the requirements looks very lax.

http://www.thaiconsulate-salzburg.at/visabestimmungen.pdf

The one year visa is under the non immigrant visa category It appears to be a non-o visa. Perhaps a mistake or a translation error. It also says that it allows 90 day entries.

[mngmn]

Digital Nomads included as long as they are entering on holiday/vacation for tourism and leisure purpose.

They're not employed by a resident entity in Thailand, so they're always defined as tourists. See the world tourism organisation's definition, point (9) http://www2.unwto.org/content/testing-collapsed-text

What DN's are defined as is irrelevant. They are restricted under the terms of the visa to the activity of tourism. A holiday/vacation is time taken away from work and no definition of leisure or tourism includes the activity of working regardless of the location of the business/employer.

Someone that lives in a foreign country and operates their foreign based business/employment may well be labelled a tourist, and I'm sure Thailand has no issue with holidaying tourists that keep up with their business/job whilst on holiday; however, someone living permanently in a country is not on holiday and if they are working for any entity they break the terms of the visa and the law that granted it.

BUT by the letter of the law, anyone who comes to Thailand for a couple of weeks on the beach and answers a work email is breaking the law and in theory could be deported!

The real problem here is that definitions of "tourist", "employed" and "work" have not kept pace with technology and the increased opportunity for travel.

[leighd7]

So where do you stand now on one way tickets here, before ok if had valid visa. but the requirements for METV state different ?

[oncearugge]

It is interesting to note that those using serial TV's both to live and "work" in Thailand were warned in 2013 !

http://vientiane.thaiembassy.org/upload/pdf/TouristVisa2013.pdf

[jspill]

It is interesting to note that those using serial TV's both to live and "work" in Thailand were warned in 2013 !

http://vientiane.thaiembassy.org/upload/pdf/TouristVisa2013.pdf

Common sense dictates that refers to people working for an entity resident in Thailand, not digital nomads.

[JLCrab]

So either there is a big difference between Portland and Washington or there is a typo somewhere.

[elviajero]

Digital Nomads included as long as they are entering on holiday/vacation for tourism and leisure purpose.

They're not employed by a resident entity in Thailand, so they're always defined as tourists. See the world tourism organisation's definition, point (9) http://www2.unwto.org/content/testing-collapsed-text

What DN's are defined as is irrelevant. They are restricted under the terms of the visa to the activity of tourism. A holiday/vacation is time taken away from work and no definition of leisure or tourism includes the activity of working regardless of the location of the business/employer.

Someone that lives in a foreign country and operates their foreign based business/employment may well be labelled a tourist, and I'm sure Thailand has no issue with holidaying tourists that keep up with their business/job whilst on holiday; however, someone living permanently in a country is not on holiday and if they are working for any entity they break the terms of the visa and the law that granted it.

BUT by the letter of the law, anyone who comes to Thailand for a couple of weeks on the beach and answers a work email is breaking the law and in theory could be deported!

The real problem here is that definitions of "tourist", "employed" and "work" have not kept pace with technology and the increased opportunity for travel.

I'm sure that the Thai authorities and anyone else with a modicum of common sense can see the difference between a holidaying tourist and a tourist living in the country long term.

No, there is no problem with any of those definitions. The problem for, DN's, is that the law hasn't been changed to cater for their ability to work remotely, and until it does they are breaking the terms of a tourist visa issued for the purpose of holiday/vacation, leisure and tourism if they live here and operate their business.

[uptheos]

It's interesting, you have to have 5k in the bank but you don't need to take it with you.

Maybe they assume you'll use your debit card, but there again maybe you won't

Ridiculous!

[alocacoc]

I wish, there would be an end about the DN discussion. It's pointless and off-topic.

[jspill]

The problem for, DN's, is that the law hasn't been changed to cater for their ability to work remotely

There wasn't a law against it in the first place, so yes nothing has changed.

Edited November 14, 2015 by jspill

[ubonjoe]

What DN's are defined as is irrelevant. They are restricted under the terms of the visa to the activity of tourism. A holiday/vacation is time taken away from work and no definition of leisure or tourism includes the activity of working regardless of the location of the business/employer.

Someone that lives in a foreign country and operates their foreign based business/employment may well be labelled a tourist, and I'm sure Thailand has no issue with holidaying tourists that keep up with their business/job whilst on holiday; however, someone living permanently in a country is not on holiday and if they are working for any entity they break the terms of the visa and the law that granted it.

BUT by the letter of the law, anyone who comes to Thailand for a couple of weeks on the beach and answers a work email is breaking the law and in theory could be deported!

The real problem here is that definitions of "tourist", "employed" and "work" have not kept pace with technology and the increased opportunity for travel.

I guess you missed this post I made earlier.

Some posts are staring to take this topic off topic. Topic is not about who is a real tourist or not. If you want to discuss that post a topic on the general forum or the pub.

[bbi1]

Sydney seems to still be offering Double Entry Tourist Visas for $90 while Canberra has stopped it & now offers METV for $225, if you look & compare their application forms between the 2 of them.

If you look at their tourist visa page it only mentions a single entry visa and the METV.

See: http://www.thaiconsulatesydney.org/Home/visa

You need to enter your home country to get the info.

Edit: Ooops Entered Australia the first time for above info. Used US and it shows a single and double entry visa with no METV. So perhaps they will do a 2 entry for a non Australian.

If you compare "Form A" from Sydney & Canberra, Aussies & others qualified to use "Form A" only have a choice of a Single Entry or Double Entry tourist visa, just like before. No mention of a METV.

Sydney: http://www.thaiconsulatesydney.org/Content/attach-file/VISA_FORM_A_FINAL_2015.pdf

[JomtienEats]

What DN's are defined as is irrelevant. They are restricted under the terms of the visa to the activity of tourism. A holiday/vacation is time taken away from work and no definition of leisure or tourism includes the activity of working regardless of the location of the business/employer.

Someone that lives in a foreign country and operates their foreign based business/employment may well be labelled a tourist, and I'm sure Thailand has no issue with holidaying tourists that keep up with their business/job whilst on holiday; however, someone living permanently in a country is not on holiday and if they are working for any entity they break the terms of the visa and the law that granted it.

BUT by the letter of the law, anyone who comes to Thailand for a couple of weeks on the beach and answers a work email is breaking the law and in theory could be deported!

The real problem here is that definitions of "tourist", "employed" and "work" have not kept pace with technology and the increased opportunity for travel.

I guess you missed this post I made earlier.

Some posts are staring to take this topic off topic. Topic is not about who is a real tourist or not. If you want to discuss that post a topic on the general forum or the pub.

I'd be grateful if you could delete all the off-topic posts, or move them to a separate thread. This is an important change to the visa regime, and I think most of us would like to follow it without having to wade through too many off-topic posts, this post included.

[elviajero]

Sydney seems to still be offering Double Entry Tourist Visas for $90 while Canberra has stopped it & now offers METV for $225, if you look & compare their application forms between the 2 of them.

If you look at their tourist visa page it only mentions a single entry visa and the METV.

See: http://www.thaiconsulatesydney.org/Home/visa

You need to enter your home country to get the info.

Edit: Ooops Entered Australia the first time for above info. Used US and it shows a single and double entry visa with no METV. So perhaps they will do a 2 entry for a non Australian.

If you compare "Form A" from Sydney & Canberra, Aussies & others qualified to use "Form A" only have a choice of a Single Entry or Double Entry tourist visa, just like before. No mention of a METV.

Sydney: http://www.thaiconsulatesydney.org/Content/attach-file/VISA_FORM_A_FINAL_2015.pdf

You don't. You have the choice of several visa types and then the separate choice of entry numbers. The double entry is not specific to any of the visa types.

Edited November 14, 2015 by elviajero

[ubonjoe]

Sydney seems to still be offering Double Entry Tourist Visas for $90 while Canberra has stopped it & now offers METV for $225, if you look & compare their application forms between the 2 of them.

If you look at their tourist visa page it only mentions a single entry visa and the METV.

See: http://www.thaiconsulatesydney.org/Home/visa

You need to enter your home country to get the info.

Edit: Ooops Entered Australia the first time for above info. Used US and it shows a single and double entry visa with no METV. So perhaps they will do a 2 entry for a non Australian.

If you compare "Form A" from Sydney & Canberra, Aussies & others qualified to use "Form A" only have a choice of a Single Entry or Double Entry tourist visa, just like before. No mention of a METV.

Sydney: http://www.thaiconsulatesydney.org/Content/attach-file/VISA_FORM_A_FINAL_2015.pdf

I seems they have not updated their application forms to show the METV yet. You need to go by what is on the website.

The edited part to my post was latter recinded in another post because I clicked transit visa in error.

[The manic]

So with this METV once you have it!

You can stay for 6 months, enter and re enter as often as you like but must leave every 60 days?

Do we know if the 60 days can be extended by 30 days like old TV? Thus would make it similar to old multi 60 day TV albeit can only be obtained in home country.

Cheers

Who says you can stay only for 6 months? The visa is valid for 6 months so if you enter the 3rd time before the expiry & extend for 30 days at Chaeng Wattana after those 2 months are expiring, you will get about 9 months before needing to get a new visa. In essence it would be similar to the old 3 entry tourist visa which you could get hardly anywhere except a few lucky cities around the world.

I have the old triple entry tourist visa from London but I assume they have been cancelled now and replaced by the new MEV.

[uptheos]

So with this METV once you have it!

You can stay for 6 months, enter and re enter as often as you like but must leave every 60 days?

Do we know if the 60 days can be extended by 30 days like old TV? Thus would make it similar to old multi 60 day TV albeit can only be obtained in home country.

Cheers

Who says you can stay only for 6 months? The visa is valid for 6 months so if you enter the 3rd time before the expiry & extend for 30 days at Chaeng Wattana after those 2 months are expiring, you will get about 9 months before needing to get a new visa. In essence it would be similar to the old 3 entry tourist visa which you could get hardly anywhere except a few lucky cities around the world.

I have the old triple entry tourist visa from London but I assume they have been cancelled now and replaced by the new MEV.

If it's current I would imagine you can use it.

[ubonjoe]

I have the old triple entry tourist visa from London but I assume they have been cancelled now and replaced by the new MEV.

If you have one now it is still valid until it expires.

But you will only be able to get a METV now.

[ubonjoe]

Some posts have been removed for being off topic.

Edit: And more since this post.

Please stay on topic.

[bbi1]

So with this METV once you have it!

You can stay for 6 months, enter and re enter as often as you like but must leave every 60 days?

Do we know if the 60 days can be extended by 30 days like old TV? Thus would make it similar to old multi 60 day TV albeit can only be obtained in home country.

Cheers

Who says you can stay only for 6 months? The visa is valid for 6 months so if you enter the 3rd time before the expiry & extend for 30 days at Chaeng Wattana after those 2 months are expiring, you will get about 9 months before needing to get a new visa. In essence it would be similar to the old 3 entry tourist visa which you could get hardly anywhere except a few lucky cities around the world.

I have the old triple entry tourist visa from London but I assume they have been cancelled now and replaced by the new MEV.

I actually think the METV could be ok considering that it was nearly impossible to get a triple entry tourist visa from nearly all cities across the world except a select few. Now everyone in essence could get a visa to stay for 9 months before needing a new one. Only thing is the METV is a bit expensive compared to the old system but doesn't bother me at all. Proof of bank funds no issue for me. Proof of employment doesn't seem to be an issue in my country. The only thing concerning is having to have airline tickets for each entry/exit that you will make when usually you can do all of this within Thailand (or land border crossing) on the old system which gave greater flexibility.