The Multiple Entry Tourist Visa Topic (METV)

[elviajero]

4 minutes ago, jackdd said:

Source? I did never see anybody being denied entry with a visa for something else than mentioned in section 12 of the immigration act, so to me it seems like people can only be denied for one of the reasons listed there

The reasons do not have to be listed there.

 

Most long term tourists are denied entry under section 12.2. That is a catch all that can be used because the visitor hasn't provided 'appropriate' evidence of their means to fund a long stay.

 

Section 10 links to section 16, and section 16 give the minister/immigration the power to deny anyone/group from entering for reasons not "listed" in section 12.

[riclag]

I make many  arrangements on bookings dot com ,several for each month that I’m here ,8 months.Fortunately you can cancel these anytime .Make copies along with your bank account.Also have a copy of a cheap ticket out of the country for the 59 th day of your first 60.I also bring along my bank statement when I do my required exit out and come in

[jackdd]

32 minutes ago, elviajero said:

The reasons do not have to be listed there.

This is your personal opinion, or do you have a source for this?

 

32 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Most long term tourists are denied entry under section 12.2. That is a catch all that can be used because the visitor hasn't provided 'appropriate' evidence of their means to fund a long stay. 

That this is just used by some IOs to exploit the law is quite obvious when you read reports of people who were not even asked for any proof before being denied. A tourist visa gives you 60 days to stay, 65k per month are considered enough for a retirement extension, so if a tourist has 130k THB or equivalent in his pocket he could objectively not be denied for not having enough money, and having it in cash in his pocket would also not leave any doubts if he really has it. But an IO might still deny somebody like this.

 

32 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Section 10 links to section 16, and section 16 give the minister/immigration the power to deny anyone/group from entering for reasons not "listed" in section 12.

Are we reading the same law? Section 16 clearly says that if the minister (not a competent official!) considers it improper any alien might be denied.

 

So to me it seems a law which gives an IO the power to deny anybody at will does not exist in Thailand.

[elviajero]

1 hour ago, jackdd said:

1 hour ago, elviajero said:

The reasons do not have to be listed there.

This is your personal opinion, or do you have a source for this?

It is fact, not opinion. The source is section 12.10 and section 16 of the immigration act.

 

1 hour ago, jackdd said:

That this is just used by some IOs to exploit the law is quite obvious when you read reports of people who were not even asked for any proof before being denied. A tourist visa gives you 60 days to stay, 65k per month are considered enough for a retirement extension, so if a tourist has 130k THB or equivalent in his pocket he could objectively not be denied for not having enough money, and having it in cash in his pocket would also not leave any doubts if he really has it. But an IO might still deny somebody like this.

Not its not. It's the reason used by virtually every officer at every border, as confirmed by many many reports over the years. It is a legitimate reason based on the fact that the visitor has stayed too long.

 

There is little or no acceptable proof that could be provided at the border. In order to stay long term with a visa/permit you have to prove your income/cash to consular services or immigration. Waiving a bank statement or cash at the border doesn't qualify.

 

You are confusing section 12.9 which requires you carry 10K/20K in cash with section 12.2 which allows an IO to deny entry because the person hasn't proven their 'appropriate' means of providing a long term living. Even if you have cash in your pocket you can still be denied, legitimately, under section 12.2.

 

We are not discussing a tourist staying 60 days, we are discussing a tourist staying months/years. It is the total time stayed that counts, not each individual entry. Anyone that wants to stay months/years needs to have a long term visa or permit to stay and have proven their financial status.

 

1 hour ago, jackdd said:

1 hour ago, elviajero said:

Section 10 links to section 16, and section 16 give the minister/immigration the power to deny anyone/group from entering for reasons not "listed" in section 12.

Are we reading the same law? Section 16 clearly says that if the minister (not a competent official!) considers it improper any alien might be denied.

Cleary we aren't! 

 

Who do you think the minister and immigration bosses empower to enforce anyone the minister wants to deny entry to!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!? Section 12.10 gives immigration the power to deny anyone/group barred under section 16.

 

If the minister decided to deny entry to all Germans, for example, he would instruct immigration accordingly who would instruct the border IO's.

 

You said only reasons listed in section 12 can be used to deny entry. You're wrong and I have proven you wrong.

 

1 hour ago, jackdd said:

So to me it seems a law which gives an IO the power to deny anybody at will does not exist in Thailand.

No one is claiming they can deny entry at will. They can only deny entry under sections 12/16 of the immigration act. 

 

Again. Section 12.2 is a catch all that can be applied legitimately to every long term visitor entering for tourism.

[jackdd]

20 minutes ago, elviajero said:

the person hasn't proven their 'appropriate' means of providing a long term living

Why did you add "long term" in the sentence? The law does not say "long term"

In the end it depends on how you interpret "appropriate", it seems you have another interpretation than i do. In my opinion it just means "enough money", but i can't give you anything official proving my point, do you have anything for your point? If both of us don't have a court ruling or similar regarding this discrepancy, a discussion does not make much sense.

 

11 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Who do you think the minister and immigration bosses empower to enforce anyone the minister wants to deny entry to!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!? Section 12.10 gives immigration the power to deny anyone/group barred under section 16.

Sure, he could empower them to do this, but obviously he didn't do this, or did you ever see a long term tourist getting denied just for being a long term tourist under section 12.10?

 

14 minutes ago, elviajero said:

You said only reasons listed in section 12 can be used to deny entry. You're wrong and I have proven you wrong. 

What is wrong?

As you concluded by yourself already in an earlier post 12.10 links to 16.

So let's say the minister personally declares me as enemy of the state and i arrive in Thailand i would get a "denied entry under section 12.10" stamp, not "16", so what i said is still correct.

Did we ever have any reports of somebody being denied entry under something else than section 12? I think that's just not possible by Thai law.

[JackThompson]

One thing from further up in the thread:

20 hours ago, elviajero said:

The visa is designed for people that live outside of Thailand that want to make multiple short visits over 6 months.

 

If that were really the design-plan, they could have set the stay-period for entries from the visa to 7 days, or maybe 15 days - and forbidden extensions of those entries.  Instead, they set it for 60-days, with 30-day extensions permitted, and with unlimited use for the duration of its validity-period.  From what I can see, the limits as set by the creators of the ME-Tourist-Visa were to primarily to ensure the person getting one Had Money To Spend.  What the IOs in Bangkok Airports want is something else.

 

2 hours ago, elviajero said:

they can deny entry simply because the visitor hasn't proven their ability to maintain a long stay. 

 

For this, what needs to be shown as evidence should be specified.  An income letter from one's embassy?  One fellow was let in after an interrogation, after showing USD $5K in cash - enough for his entire stay.  Maybe that amount in Travelers Checks is the best solution for those who are here more than a few short trips, and want to enter at the Bangkok airports. 

 

2 hours ago, elviajero said:

A 20 something Filipino will quickly get stopped from repeatedly entering back to back as a tourist; whereas, a 40 something westerner is more likely to be left alone.

 

Yes, because wages are higher in Thailand.  Scrutiny of those who have better income-opportunities in the destination country than in their home-country - even "under the table" wages - is logical.  This follows from known-patterns in the violation of Visa-terms.

 

I can certainly understand the authorities wanting visitors who come to Thailand to be spending foreign-sourced capital into the economy - not the reverse, "sending money home," and making the nation poorer by so-doing.  If that is the issue, they need to reconsider their issuance of low-pay work-visas, which are responsible for most of this type of harm to the country's economy and blue-collar working-class citizens.

 

2 hours ago, elviajero said:

misuse of tourist visas

 

That would need to be defined and the reason for denial of entry would need to reference that definition - but there is nothing in the Immigration Act that fits.  The Minister could choose to identify such a group and define-terms, but that is a specified legal reason for denial in the Immigration Act, which has not been reported stamped in the passports of rejected persons. 

 

2 hours ago, elviajero said:

Are you a suggesting that all typical/genuine tourists holidaying in Thailand stop flying in to BKK/DMK, or is your advice aimed at long term tourists that know they are pushing their luck? If its the latter doesn't that demonstrate that long term tourists are the target because they have stayed too long as a tourist? 

A short "few days" occasionally seem to be allowed in without issue.  Beyond that, we just don't know. 

 

The OP was spending 6 Mo home every year, and still faced potential rejection of entry.  We had reports of IOs saying "180 days" for awhile so, would 5 months have been OK?  Maybe not, since another visitor (older, retired German female) was given hell for using a Visa-Exempt + Tourist Visa every year to get 5 months.  There is no known definition of "acceptable," at those checkpoints, which is the root of the problem.  They even hate "snowbirds" now, it seems.

 

2 hours ago, elviajero said:

Where is your evidence that long term tourists do not, on occasion, get denied entry at every land border?

 

Land-borders excepting Poipet/Aranya, of course.  Regarding entering with a Tourist Visa - the evidence is a complete lack of reports of such occurring.  We would have heard about it, if it happened often.  The only recent case I can think of, was a denied-person attempting entry by land from Malaysia - but he admitted having repeated overstays .  Solution = "Don't Overstay" - even a day or two.

 

Even with Visa-Exempt land-border entries, 2x per calendar year seem to be readily admitted now, though some Malaysian crossings insist on one night out before returning.

 

2 hours ago, elviajero said:

Carrying 10K/20K is good advice, but it only satisfies part of the law and is usually only requested when they have a long term tourist in front of them and are considering denying entry, which can still happen even if the visitor has the cash.

Setting aside Visa-Exempts, which have additional restrictions - even with a Tourist Visa this is true at problem entry points.  They may use another reason to deny-entry without asking for relevant evidence, or force the person to buy an airline-ticket they don't need, or interrogate them for a couple hours, etc.  Still, better to have the cash to reduce the odds of denied-entry.

But, as I said above, we have no idea where the line is between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" at these select checkpoints - so the only stress-free solution for visitors with stays beyond "occasionally, for a few days," is avoid those checkpoints entirely, or take one's chances in the airport-immigration lottery-gamble.

[elviajero]

3 hours ago, jackdd said:

4 hours ago, elviajero said:

the person hasn't proven their 'appropriate' means of providing a long term living

Why did you add "long term" in the sentence? The law does not say "long term"

In the end it depends on how you interpret "appropriate", it seems you have another interpretation than i do. In my opinion it just means "enough money", but i can't give you anything official proving my point, do you have anything for your point? If both of us don't have a court ruling or similar regarding this discrepancy, a discussion does not make much sense.

Because the law (12.2) is only relevant to someone that has stayed 'long term' without providing details of an appropriate means of living. And, therefore, only applies to long term tourists.

 

Section 12

(2) ไม่มีปัจจัยในการยังชีพตามควรแก่กรณีที่เข้ามาในราชอาณาจักร (Having no appropriate means of living following entrance into the Kingdom.)

 

"Clause 2" is effectively saying that the person does not have an appropriate way of sustaining their stay, e.g, work/job

mai mee bpat-jai nai gaan yang cheep dtaam kuan ... - dtaam kuan (appropriate/as it should be) being the key to understanding the intent of the clause. Most peoples means of living is a job/income/cash in the bank, and a long term tourist hasn't provided confirmation of those to either a consulate or immigration. Again, waving a bank statement at the border isn't going to, in most cases, cut it.

 

Anyone that gets permission to stay long term has to have a job, or income, or money in a Thai bank, buy a PE visa, or get a long term visa by providing financials to a consulate. Those are considered the appropriate ways (means) of living following entry.

 

Get a Thai person to translate the Thai script for you and they will confirm what I've said.

 

IF your interpretation of not having enough money was right the clause would at the very least mention money. People often confuse the 10K/20K rule that applies to 12.9 (Having no money or bond as prescribed by the Minister under him) with 12.2.

[elviajero]

4 hours ago, jackdd said:

4 hours ago, elviajero said:

Who do you think the minister and immigration bosses empower to enforce anyone the minister wants to deny entry to!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!? Section 12.10 gives immigration the power to deny anyone/group barred under section 16.

Sure, he could empower them to do this, but obviously he didn't do this, or did you ever see a long term tourist getting denied just for being a long term tourist under section 12.10?

I didn't say they have done this. You said the reason for denial must be one listed in section 12. I was proving to you that IF the minister instructs immigration to deny a person/group the reason is not always listed in section 12.

 

"Obviously" -- You have no idea what instructions/permissions the minister has granted immigration bosses to empower their IO's with.

 

They don't need to use section 12.10 because, as I have repeatedly said, 12.2 is a catch all that applies to all long term tourists and is a legitimate reason to deny entry.

[elviajero]

4 hours ago, jackdd said:

4 hours ago, elviajero said:

You said only reasons listed in section 12 can be used to deny entry. You're wrong and I have proven you wrong. 

What is wrong?

As you concluded by yourself already in an earlier post 12.10 links to 16.

So let's say the minister personally declares me as enemy of the state and i arrive in Thailand i would get a "denied entry under section 12.10" stamp, not "16", so what i said is still correct.

Did we ever have any reports of somebody being denied entry under something else than section 12? I think that's just not possible by Thai law.

I guess they could state section 12.2 or section 16, but they'd probably use 12.6. 

 

Where you are wrong is stating that a clause needs to exist in section 12 listing every reason someone is denied entry.

 

12.2 is the most common reason for denied entry followed by 12.3 (suspicion of working).

[jackdd]

28 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Section 12

(2) ไม่มีปัจจัยในการยังชีพตามควรแก่กรณีที่เข้ามาในราชอาณาจักร (Having no appropriate means of living following entrance into the Kingdom.)

 

"Clause 2" is effectively saying that the person does not have an appropriate way of sustaining their stay, e.g, work/job 

mai mee bpat-jai nai gaan yang cheep dtaam kuan ... - dtaam kuan (appropriate/as it should be) being the key to understanding the intent of the clause.

The problem with many of your arguments is that you modify them, or forget to mention things, maybe on purpose, maybe not.

In this case you "forgot" กรณี which translates to something like "case"

So actually a correct translation would be: Having no appropriate means of living following entrance into the Kingdom for his case (case most likely as in "tourism" or "business").

This totally changes what you say. What are appropriate means of living when entering the country for tourism purposes? Has to be money, because you may not work

 

23 minutes ago, elviajero said:

"Clause 2" is effectively saying that the person does not have an appropriate way of sustaining their stay, e.g, work/job 

You say work/job, so having money is not an appropriate way for you?

 

13 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Most peoples means of living is a job/income/cash in the bank, and a long term tourist hasn't provided confirmation of those to either a consulate or immigration

This here is the METV topic, and everybody with a METV has provided prove of money in the bank and in most countries also a job waiting for them when they come back, so what you said is not the case. And in case the tourist has a wad of cash in his pocket when arriving he could also easily prove this to the IO, but the IO just does not want to see this, he just wants to deny the foreigner or at least give him a bad feeling.

 

 

[elviajero]

3 hours ago, JackThompson said:

On 9/26/2018 at 5:40 PM, elviajero said:

The visa is designed for people that live outside of Thailand that want to make multiple short visits over 6 months.

 

If that were really the design-plan, they could have set the stay-period for entries from the visa to 7 days, or maybe 15 days - and forbidden extensions of those entries.  Instead, they set it for 60-days, with 30-day extensions permitted, and with unlimited use for the duration of its validity-period.  From what I can see, the limits as set by the creators of the ME-Tourist-Visa were to primarily to ensure the person getting one Had Money To Spend.  What the IOs in Bangkok Airports want is something else.

It was announced as a visa to promote tourism and aimed at the Asian market. It was designed to make it easier for visitors (local to Thailand) to visit frequently. If they intended the METV to be for people to stay 6 months in the country they would have created a visa allowing a stay of 6 months. 

 

3 hours ago, JackThompson said:

6 hours ago, elviajero said:

they can deny entry simply because the visitor hasn't proven their ability to maintain a long stay. 

 

For this, what needs to be shown as evidence should be specified.  An income letter from one's embassy?  One fellow was let in after an interrogation, after showing USD $5K in cash - enough for his entire stay.  Maybe that amount in Travelers Checks is the best solution for those who are here more than a few short trips, and want to enter at the Bangkok airports. 

As said already. Long term permission to stay requires a job/income/cash in the bank and we have to jump through various hoops to prove our standing. You can't honestly believe that a decision should be made at the border. If that were the case why do we all bother getting embassy letters, seasoning funds etc.

 

As it is up to the IO who they let in and who they don't, some will get let in by showing $5K when others won't. But as I have explained, the issue is not that you have $5K, but that you have stayed a long time without jumping through the hoops.

 

3 hours ago, JackThompson said:

6 hours ago, elviajero said:

misuse of tourist visas

 

That would need to be defined and the reason for denial of entry would need to reference that definition - but there is nothing in the Immigration Act that fits.  The Minister could choose to identify such a group and define-terms, but that is a specified legal reason for denial in the Immigration Act, which has not been reported stamped in the passports of rejected persons. 

Maybe that will be included if they re-write the immigration act, but for now they can legitimately use 12.2. If you have misused tourist visas to stay long term, you have also not provided an appropriate means of living in the country, so you can be denied entry under 12.2.

 

You claim in thread after thread that IO's are acting unlawfully/independently, when you have absolutely no idea what orders they receive or from whom. I think we are lucky that IO's aren't more officious and that they still tolerate many long term tourists.

 

[elviajero]

1 hour ago, jackdd said:

2 hours ago, elviajero said:

Section 12

(2) ไม่มีปัจจัยในการยังชีพตามควรแก่กรณีที่เข้ามาในราชอาณาจักร (Having no appropriate means of living following entrance into the Kingdom.)

 

"Clause 2" is effectively saying that the person does not have an appropriate way of sustaining their stay, e.g, work/job 

mai mee bpat-jai nai gaan yang cheep dtaam kuan ... - dtaam kuan (appropriate/as it should be) being the key to understanding the intent of the clause.

The problem with many of your arguments is that you modify them, or forget to mention things, maybe on purpose, maybe not.

In this case you "forgot" กรณี which translates to something like "case"

So actually a correct translation would be: Having no appropriate means of living following entrance into the Kingdom for his case (case most likely as in "tourism" or "business").

This totally changes what you say. What are appropriate means of living when entering the country for tourism purposes? Has to be money, because you may not work

We can argue about the "correct translation" all day. However, it is effectively saying that because you can't work as a tourist you haven't got a demonstrable appropriate means of sustaining a living whilst living in the country so long.

 

1 hour ago, jackdd said:

2 hours ago, elviajero said:

"Clause 2" is effectively saying that the person does not have an appropriate way of sustaining their stay, e.g, work/job 

You say work/job, so having money is not an appropriate way for you?

Work/job was an example of an appropriate way people sustain a living. Of course having money is appropriate, but waving a bank statement or cash at the border isn't acceptable to the authorities as proof that you have the means to sustain such a long stay.

 

1 hour ago, jackdd said:

2 hours ago, elviajero said:

Most peoples means of living is a job/income/cash in the bank, and a long term tourist hasn't provided confirmation of those to either a consulate or immigration

This here is the METV topic, and everybody with a METV has provided prove of money in the bank and in most countries also a job waiting for them when they come back, so what you said is not the case. And in case the tourist has a wad of cash in his pocket when arriving he could also easily prove this to the IO, but the IO just does not want to see this, he just wants to deny the foreigner or at least give him a bad feeling.

As far as I know immigration are not denying entry to METV holders. They are, at the moment, simply warning/telling those staying too long using METV's to get an appropriate visa. 

 

So far it is only the occasional SETV holder or, more often, those entering under visa exemption that are being denied entry under 12.2. I think immigration are on dodgy ground denying entry to a METV holder under 12.2., but we'll see how it goes. The METV is certainly not designed as a way to live long term so immigration have justification to deny entry to those that do. The requirements to get the visa proves that fact.

[BritTim]

3 hours ago, elviajero said:

Work/job was an example of an appropriate way people sustain a living. Of course having money is appropriate, but waving a bank statement or cash at the border isn't acceptable to the authorities as proof that you have the means to sustain such a long stay.

 

What would you say is appropriate for those entering the country as a tourist for 60 days to use as proof of the means to sustain themselves during their stay? (I am assuming, here, that there is no evidence of significant overstays on previous visits.) Is it appropriate for an immigration official to take the view that your previous visits have been of a combined length such that they will not accept any form of proof that you have an appropriate means of supporting your intended 60-day stay?

[elviajero]

45 minutes ago, BritTim said:

What would you say is appropriate for those entering the country as a tourist for 60 days to use as proof of the means to sustain themselves during their stay? (I am assuming, here, that there is no evidence of significant overstays on previous visits.) Is it appropriate for an immigration official to take the view that your previous visits have been of a combined length such that they will not accept any form of proof that you have an appropriate means of supporting your intended 60-day stay?

1. A lot more than 20K.

2. Yes, no country is going to put it’s IO’s in a position of vetting bank statements etc. at the border.

 

Most tourists holidaying in a country like Thailand would have hundred/s of thousands of baht at their disposal for their holiday.

 

The 20K is not meant as an amount expected to cover a 60 day stay for tourism, but as readily available money on entry.

 

But we are not discussing tourists staying 60 days, we are discussing people staying months/years without demonstrating to immigration an appropriate way to fund their stay.

 

In simple terms immigration — when denying entry under 12.2 — are saying that they don’t have proof of how the person is funding such a long visit. The kind of proof legitimate long term stayers have to prove.

 

[Caldera]

8 hours ago, elviajero said:

They don't need to use section 12.10 because, as I have repeatedly said, 12.2 is a catch all that applies to all long term tourists and is a legitimate reason to deny entry.

 

You've said it repeatedly, but it is nothing more than your personal interpretation of section 12.2. By  merely repeating your opinion, you don't elevate speculation to fact.

 

So far, I haven't seen any actual evidence presented by you. You cannot point to any ministerial regulation or police order to that effect that has been made public, so you've been making ridiculous claims of secret orders that you clearly wouldn't have any actual inside knowledge of either.

 

If I had to speculate myself, based on knowing how many things work in Thailand: Orders are deliberately vague (e.g. "scrutinize long-term tourists"). They can and will be interpreted differently by different officials. That's what we see, no need to dream anything up that isn't there!

[ubonjoe]

This topic is about applying for a multiple entry tourist visa and the requirement to do that application.

The last 2 or 3 pages have evolved into back and forth bickering about immigrations requirements for entry to the country that is off topic. The same discussion has been done in other topics that are about entering the country.

Any further off topic bickering posts will be removed without notice. Time to end it now.

 

Edit: And now a post has been removed. More of them will be removed without notice.

[BritTim]

3 hours ago, elviajero said:

But we are not discussing tourists staying 60 days, we are discussing people staying months/years without demonstrating to immigration an appropriate way to fund their stay.

 

The reason why I qualified this as someone who had no significant overstays was that this could require the official to consider the stay might be more than 60 days. If there is no possible way the visa holder can satisfy the immigration official of an ability to fund a 60-day stay (say, US$10,000 in cash plus black credit cards) after some number of stays, then I think it ought to be spelled out as a maximum number of 60-day stays after which an official can choose to deny entry based on refusing to consider the arrival's financial status. It is not satisfactory to say that each immigration official can make up their own mind about the pattern of entries that allows the arrival's financial status to be ignored, but to deny entry because there is believed to be a problem with financing the stay.

[Patsawi]

Hi,

 

Thank you all for your reactions and advice.

 

For Jackdd : I entered Thailand in Suvarnabhumi Airport

 

Maybe I can request a METV for 6 months next year and change it in Thailand (I didn't know that it was possible), but I am always travelling around, so I might have problems when I will do the 90 days stamp ?

Or I have to go back to the same Immigration office every 3 months ?

I was thinking that the AO visa is for people who are staying in the same place permanently.

 

 

[ubonjoe]

2 hours ago, Patsawi said:

Maybe I can request a METV for 6 months next year and change it in Thailand (I didn't know that it was possible), but I am always travelling around, so I might have problems when I will do the 90 days stamp ?

Or I have to go back to the same Immigration office every 3 months ?

I was thinking that the AO visa is for people who are staying in the same place permanently.

If you leave the country prior to staying more than 90 consecutive days you do not need to do a report.

You can do 90 day reports online, by mail or in person at the office where you are registered as living.

The is no requirement to stay at the same place all the time if you have OA visa or extension of stay based upon retirement.

[Patsawi]

Thank you ubonjoe, good to hear that !

[jethro69]

Entered a week ago with the 3rd Metv in current passport, no questions asked, of course you have your precautions. Anyway next year change passport it's getting crowded. BTW, and it's what I hate, I have to state unemployed in my application, I have more in my account than the 5 people who handle my visa earn together in a year ????

[Dick Crank]

I decided the metv hassle was not worth it for me

 

reasons:

1. don't want to transfer that amount of money into my account

2. Don't want to book plane flights in and out now months beforehand

 

i just do the standard visa 3 months with extension. Get another in cambo or Vietnam.

 

dont want to stay in Thailand more then three months at a time anyhow. If that's a problem I just stay out of country. Problem solved and less hassle.

 

[masterblaster]

If I may take this in a slightly different direction for a short bit...

 

I'm staying in a condo in Chiang Mai on an METV, and the owner filed a TM-30 so I have a stamped receipt. From attempting to digest the many (sometimes conflicting) comments on this subject, my take is the following:

 

1. When I leave Thailand for the 60 day in/out requirement, upon returning I'm supposed to take that receipt to immigration here in CM within 24 hours to have it stamped again, or renewed, or something like that.

 

2. However, if I have no intention of doing an extension of stay on this METV it's just a waste of time since I'll never need proof of TM-30, apparently people at borders/airports have no interest.

 

That about sum it up? Thanks in advance, as always.

 

[scubascuba3]

If I may take this in a slightly different direction for a short bit...
 
I'm staying in a condo in Chiang Mai on an METV, and the owner filed a TM-30 so I have a stamped receipt. From attempting to digest the many (sometimes conflicting) comments on this subject, my take is the following:
 
1. When I leave Thailand for the 60 day in/out requirement, upon returning I'm supposed to take that receipt to immigration here in CM within 24 hours to have it stamped again, or renewed, or something like that.
 
2. However, if I have no intention of doing an extension of stay on this METV it's just a waste of time since I'll never need proof of TM-30, apparently people at borders/airports have no interest.
 
That about sum it up? Thanks in advance, as always.
 

Yes. I'm in the same situation, the owner registers the TM30 when i first arrive, i don't bother telling her about my visa runs until the final one because i subsequently go to jomtien to get a 30 day extension. No problems

[ubonjoe]

39 minutes ago, masterblaster said:

2. However, if I have no intention of doing an extension of stay on this METV it's just a waste of time since I'll never need proof of TM-30, apparently people at borders/airports have no interest.

Correct 

If you never expect to do anything at immigration you can skip doing the TM30 reports.

[masterblaster]

Cheers guys, you always come through and it's appreciated.

 

[elviajero]

On 9/28/2018 at 2:17 AM, Caldera said:

 

You've said it repeatedly, but it is nothing more than your personal interpretation of section 12.2. By  merely repeating your opinion, you don't elevate speculation to fact.

 

So far, I haven't seen any actual evidence presented by you. You cannot point to any ministerial regulation or police order to that effect that has been made public, so you've been making ridiculous claims of secret orders that you clearly wouldn't have any actual inside knowledge of either.

 

If I had to speculate myself, based on knowing how many things work in Thailand: Orders are deliberately vague (e.g. "scrutinize long-term tourists"). They can and will be interpreted differently by different officials. That's what we see, no need to dream anything up that isn't there!

I am quoting the published law (evidence)! Evidence that is backed up by reports from TVF members over the years. 

 

I haven't claimed that there are "secret orders". I am stating a fact that no one knows all the orders that IO's are working to, and that immigration do not have to tell you or anyone else what those orders are.

 

Immigration issued guidance to IO's in June 2014 that found it's way in to the public domain. The orders are not vague, but clearly prove that IO's are empowered to decide -- on a case by case basis -- who gets in and who doesn't.

Visa Exempt Entry Guidance.pdf

 

If they decide to deny entry they typically use section 12.2 (not having the appropriate means to live) or 12.3 ('suspicion' of working). 12.2 being the most common and a legitimate reason to deny a long term 'tourist'. 

 

I'm happy to repeat anything you don't understand, but feel free to carry on speculating!

[elviajero]

On 9/28/2018 at 3:58 AM, BritTim said:

 

The reason why I qualified this as someone who had no significant overstays was that this could require the official to consider the stay might be more than 60 days. If there is no possible way the visa holder can satisfy the immigration official of an ability to fund a 60-day stay (say, US$10,000 in cash plus black credit cards) after some number of stays, then I think it ought to be spelled out as a maximum number of 60-day stays after which an official can choose to deny entry based on refusing to consider the arrival's financial status. It is not satisfactory to say that each immigration official can make up their own mind about the pattern of entries that allows the arrival's financial status to be ignored, but to deny entry because there is believed to be a problem with financing the stay.

They are not looking at each entry in isolation. As I have tried to explain. It goes beyond having enough cash in your pocket, credit cards etc. When denied under 12.2 you are denied because you have not provided immigration, or a consulate, proof of an appropriate way of funding your long term stay. 5 x 60 day stays would mean someone had stayed nearly 10 months; the fact they left the country for a few hours/days during that time doesn't change the cumulative stay. Someone that wants to stay 10+ months should have a long term visa/permit to stay and has to prove their financials to get it. Tourists using VE or TR's haven't done that and doing so on entry clearly isn't acceptable or practical. 

 

We are abusing the system by using VE/TR's to stay long term -- and we all know it! It's long been tolerated by immigration, and IMO it is better for all that immigration do not impose strict published limits and at least some can continue to take advantage of a lax system.

[BritTim]

3 hours ago, elviajero said:

They are not looking at each entry in isolation. As I have tried to explain. It goes beyond having enough cash in your pocket, credit cards etc. When denied under 12.2 you are denied because you have not provided immigration, or a consulate, proof of an appropriate way of funding your long term stay. 5 x 60 day stays would mean someone had stayed nearly 10 months; the fact they left the country for a few hours/days during that time doesn't change the cumulative stay. Someone that wants to stay 10+ months should have a long term visa/permit to stay and has to prove their financials to get it. Tourists using VE or TR's haven't done that and doing so on entry clearly isn't acceptable or practical. 

 

We are abusing the system by using VE/TR's to stay long term -- and we all know it! It's long been tolerated by immigration, and IMO it is better for all that immigration do not impose strict published limits and at least some can continue to take advantage of a lax system.

Basically, what you are saying is the current immigration lottery is fine, because it allows people who are lucky in the choice of immigration line they use to still get in. If the "rules" applied by the stricter immigration officials were made official limits, there would be no possibility for someone to get lucky. I think this conflicts directly with the spirit of the Immigration Act that makes clear that entry should be denied under specific criteria, with only the Minister having discretion to admit or deny entry outside of the clearly defined rules. Giving any official the power to override the published rules goes against that.  I am confident that the Immigration Act was written the way it is because of the greater scope for corruption that occurs when an immigration official is allowed to say "I can deny you entry, and there is nothing you can do about it, but give me some money and I will help you".

 

 

As you have pointed out correctly, immigration officials have officially been told to prevent people using visa exempt entries to stay long time in Thailand. However, the intervention by the Prime Minister to say those rules on visa exempt entries should "be applied flexibly", combined with the no appeal rule for visa exempt entries, allows the corruption the Immigration Act tried to avoid. Officials are much more leery about trying to deny entry to those with visas, first because there are no published rules giving them the power to arbitrarily do so, and second because there is an appeal procedure that could end up making the official look bad if denying entry on spurious grounds.

[JackThompson]

11 hours ago, elviajero said:

I am quoting the published law (evidence)! Evidence that is backed up by reports from TVF members over the years.

What the law and published rules say, and what happens (is reported) when dealing with some bad-apple IOs, are sometimes very different things. 

 

Hopefully the new director puts and end to that discrepancy, so that those who go to the trouble of getting an METV can be assured the ability to use it at all points of entry without any unexpected problems.