Problem At BKK Airport [Multiple Entry Tourist Visa]

[impulse]

There are several visa options for the OP. None of them are as cheap and easy as a tourist visa or visa exempt.

He may have been given a hard time for no published black and white reason. It may suck. But that's the reality of it. The writing's been on the wall for at least a couple of years. If you're planning to be a de-facto resident of Thailand, the tourist visa, visa exempt and visa on arrival are going to cause scrutiny at immigration. What constitutes a de-facto resident seems to be subject to political winds and the mood of the IO and their supervisors.

Accept it and plan accordingly, or get ready for a major disappointment.

A visa exempt entry of course is free.

I don't think his other options for a visa will cost more that getting tourist visas for entry. A multiple entry non-o visa would only be 5000 baht and it can give a total stay of 15 months, To get the same stay on tourist visas would cost much more than that.

If the OP is already having problems coming in on an up to date tourist visa, I don't think visa exempt is an option any more.

Just out of curiosity, what are the qualification criteria for a non-o that would allow the OP or someone in his situation to spend 15 months? As I recall, there's investment, employment, marriage, visiting Thai kids, and Elite. None of them cheap. I believe the visa is cheap, but meeting the criteria for qualifying would push it above the cost of the string of tourist visas that already seems to be causing problems for the OP.

Edited February 6, 2016 by impulse

[MobileContent]

Absolute nonsense. the OP is the type of person Thailand needs . He has the income and wants to spend it in Thailand. If Immigration keeps up this charade all the money will flow to other countries. Thailand is a developing country and is attempting to invoke a developed countries immigration policy. A huge mistake. There is already a flow of former expats to other countries and it will continue until the authorities get the word as expats vote with their feet. Thailand's reputation is already suffering from a poor Immigration policy; police raids on senior citizens and an increase on crime against foreigners as well as the usual scams.

They don't need farangs anymore they have Chinese.

Chinese tour tourists don't drink; don't do drugs, don't patron brothels, don't overstay and don't commit crimes.

They just come, spend money and GO!

You really know nothing about Chinese tourists. Just go at night to Chinatown and see the hundreds of hookers and the underground bars and clubs. Was their this week and Nana Plaza is nothing compared to Chinatown. One KTV after another in the small Sois and a lot of Chinese pimps and KTV owners with their Thai managers. A lot of the girls for sale are under-aged but they are from China, Vietnam and Laos.

[BangkokKen]

Absolute nonsense. the OP is the type of person Thailand needs . He has the income and wants to spend it in Thailand. If Immigration keeps up this charade all the money will flow to other countries. Thailand is a developing country and is attempting to invoke a developed countries immigration policy. A huge mistake. There is already a flow of former expats to other countries and it will continue until the authorities get the word as expats vote with their feet. Thailand's reputation is already suffering from a poor Immigration policy; police raids on senior citizens and an increase on crime against foreigners as well as the usual scams.

They don't need farangs anymore they have Chinese.

Chinese tour tourists don't drink; don't do drugs, don't patron brothels, don't overstay and don't commit crimes.

They just come, spend money and GO!

You really know nothing about Chinese tourists. Just go at night to Chinatown and see the hundreds of hookers and the underground bars and clubs. Was their this week and Nana Plaza is nothing compared to Chinatown. One KTV after another in the small Sois and a lot of Chinese pimps and KTV owners with their Thai managers. A lot of the girls for sale are under-aged but they are from China, Vietnam and Laos.

No indeed I did not know Chinese package holidays included brothels tours!

[Buddumber]

Absolute nonsense. the OP is the type of person Thailand needs . He has the income and wants to spend it in Thailand. If Immigration keeps up this charade all the money will flow to other countries. Thailand is a developing country and is attempting to invoke a developed countries immigration policy. A huge mistake. There is already a flow of former expats to other countries and it will continue until the authorities get the word as expats vote with their feet. Thailand's reputation is already suffering from a poor Immigration policy; police raids on senior citizens and an increase on crime against foreigners as well as the usual scams.

They don't need farangs anymore they have Chinese.

Chinese tour tourists don't drink; don't do drugs, don't patron brothels, don't overstay and don't commit crimes.

They just come, spend money and GO!

You really know nothing about Chinese tourists. Just go at night to Chinatown and see the hundreds of hookers and the underground bars and clubs. Was their this week and Nana Plaza is nothing compared to Chinatown. One KTV after another in the small Sois and a lot of Chinese pimps and KTV owners with their Thai managers. A lot of the girls for sale are under-aged but they are from China, Vietnam and Laos.

No indeed I did not know Chinese package holidays included brothels tours!

yeah mostly they come to thailand to play bridge

[4evermaat]

current exchange rates at a good money changer will give (750myr/1.17)*10 is approximately Baht 6400

at a bad money changer 1.05 >> about 7140 baht

Depends on what embassy you go to. Savannakhet laos is still 5000 THB.

[hawker9000]

Like it or not, there's a case to be made that "Tourist" isn't the valid visa for anyone spending 3-9 months in a country 3 or 4 years in a row, regardless of where their income comes from and the expiration date on their tourist visa.

There are other visa options available. They all cost money or require significant investment.

It sucks, but it's probably the only way to guaranty a future associated with Thailand for 3-9 months a year. Otherwise, it seems there's always going to be a risk of getting turned away on any given entry.

And from reading hundreds of posts, it seems to be getting riskier, or at the least- more uncomfortable at immigration.

Actually there is NO such case to be made. Just the caprice, inconsistency, and abuse of discretion that has characterized Thai Immigration for some time now. Multi-entry TOURIST VISAS are offered currently, and provide for up to 9 months of stay (if the last entry occurs at the end of the 6-month validity and a 30d extension is then obtained), LEGALLY. Some here seem to just love getting behind their keyboards and yammering on about "who is a tourist and who's not".

[jspill]

• There are no official (announced) limits on tourist visa extensions (other than one per entry), visits or the cumulative duration of stay.
• I think if you go to immigration you will get another extension and you'll be able to use your third entry as long as it's on or before the 'enter before' date.

Since 2006 immigration have been cracking down on long term "tourists" so this report doesn't surprise me at all!

Thailand has never stated they're cracking down on long term tourists, all press releases and news articles have mentioned illegal workers and criminals.

OP was still let in eventually. He's also essentially a digital nomad, good to see they get let in.

[jspill]

Like it or not, there's a case to be made that "Tourist" isn't the valid visa for anyone spending 3-9 months in a country 3 or 4 years in a row, regardless of where their income comes from and the expiration date on their tourist visa.

There are other visa options available. They all cost money or require significant investment.

It sucks, but it's probably the only way to guaranty a future associated with Thailand for 3-9 months a year. Otherwise, it seems there's always going to be a risk of getting turned away on any given entry.

And from reading hundreds of posts, it seems to be getting riskier, or at the least- more uncomfortable at immigration.

People seem to get caught up in the word 'tourist' and imagine that has to mean short vacations, trips to the beach, museums etc. The world is changing, 20 something year olds are touring the world with passive income and staying up to a year in each place.

If it's anything up to a year in a destination, you're a tourist by the UNWTO definition of tourism.

Many countries now call it a 'visitor' - visitor visas to the US last ten years and one can stay up to 6 months at a time.

[sunnyjim5]

• There are no official (announced) limits on tourist visa extensions (other than one per entry), visits or the cumulative duration of stay.
• I think if you go to immigration you will get another extension and you'll be able to use your third entry as long as it's on or before the 'enter before' date.

Since 2006 immigration have been cracking down on long term "tourists" so this report doesn't surprise me at all!

Thailand has never stated they're cracking down on long term tourists, all press releases and news articles have mentioned illegal workers and criminals.

OP was still let in eventually. He's also essentially a digital nomad, good to see they get let in.

Are the days of the perpetual "tourist" AKA "digital nomad" numbered ?

[jspill]

There are several visa options for the OP. None of them are as cheap and easy as a tourist visa or visa exempt.

He may have been given a hard time for no published black and white reason. It may suck. But that's the reality of it. The writing's been on the wall for at least a couple of years. If you're planning to be a de-facto resident of Thailand, the tourist visa, visa exempt and visa on arrival are going to cause scrutiny at immigration. What constitutes a de-facto resident seems to be subject to political winds and the mood of the IO and their supervisors.

Accept it and plan accordingly, or get ready for a major disappointment.

Scrutiny is for illegal workers (those taking jobs from locals) and criminals. There are a lot of criminals (really they should address the reasons those criminals are attracted to Thailand, and how easy the country makes it for them to operate, but that's a different discussion) and a recent terrorism attack so it's understandable. This notion that it's a faux pas to live here long term on tourist visas so far only really exists on Thaivisa.

If Thailand ever clarifies how long I can be a de facto resident on tourist visas, then I'll use a different visa option. It'd be easy for them to set some time limit at which point you have to buy the Elite card or get married, but they never have, and show no signs of doing so. In OP's case they couldn't even give him a limit or long term solution when they had him standing right there.

[jspill]

Are the days of the perpetual "tourist" AKA "digital nomad" numbered ?

People have been telling me that on Thaivisa for a good six years now, I'd say no. Maybe your days will be up before then.

[bbi1]

Absolute nonsense. the OP is the type of person Thailand needs . He has the income and wants to spend it in Thailand. If Immigration keeps up this charade all the money will flow to other countries. Thailand is a developing country and is attempting to invoke a developed countries immigration policy. A huge mistake. There is already a flow of former expats to other countries and it will continue until the authorities get the word as expats vote with their feet. Thailand's reputation is already suffering from a poor Immigration policy; police raids on senior citizens and an increase on crime against foreigners as well as the usual scams.

I am afraid it is you that is talking nonsense.Thailand has long ago left behind the impoverished developing country level that might have made your assumptions credible.The money flow to other countries as a result of enforcing a perfectly reasonable immigration system is negligible.

"Thailand has long ago left behind the impoverished developing country level" - I guess you've never seen the countless homeless beggers alone the street living in a country where the poor starve with no government handouts like the Western world, no food or homeless shelters, no prospects for getting a job, no prospects for getting out of poverty.

[impulse]

There are several visa options for the OP. None of them are as cheap and easy as a tourist visa or visa exempt.

He may have been given a hard time for no published black and white reason. It may suck. But that's the reality of it. The writing's been on the wall for at least a couple of years. If you're planning to be a de-facto resident of Thailand, the tourist visa, visa exempt and visa on arrival are going to cause scrutiny at immigration. What constitutes a de-facto resident seems to be subject to political winds and the mood of the IO and their supervisors.

Accept it and plan accordingly, or get ready for a major disappointment.

Scrutiny is for illegal workers (those taking jobs from locals) and criminals. There are a lot of criminals (really they should address the reasons those criminals are attracted to Thailand, and how easy the country makes it for them to operate, but that's a different discussion) and a recent terrorism attack so it's understandable. This notion that it's a faux pas to live here long term on tourist visas so far only really exists on Thaivisa.

If Thailand ever clarifies how long I can be a de facto resident on tourist visas, then I'll use a different visa option. It'd be easy for them to set some time limit at which point you have to buy the Elite card or get married, but they never have, and show no signs of doing so. In OP's case they couldn't even give him a limit or long term solution when they had him standing right there.

Do what you want. I honestly hope it works out for you. But I have a pretty nice collection of goodies I've purchased from long stay tourists and visa runners that had to liquidate when their loophole got too small and they had to go home. And I've only been here for 5 years. (Edit: Some of them were really nice guys and it was heart breaking to hear their stories and see them lose out on their dreams)

If immigration told me (like they told the OP) that I had outstayed my welcome, I'd be taking them seriously and crafting a Plan B during the grace period they let me back in. Maybe they'll let him in next time. Maybe not. If he does get in, nothing lost. If not, the Plan B will come in real handy.

Edited February 7, 2016 by impulse

[BritTim]

Are the days of the perpetual "tourist" AKA "digital nomad" numbered ?

That is a really good question. My own sense is that it may be, but Thai officials are split on the issue

If I look at the original METV conditions (though they have been watered down in some cases) they seem to look for a guarantee that the traveler is planning to return to home country. There are also indications, not only that visa exempt entries are being counted by the immigration computers (and generating alerts) but also tourist visa entries and tourist entry extensions. We are seeing people entering on valid visas being quizzed where this did not happen in the past. Some put this down to "power trips" by individual immigration officials, but I think they are following instructions to be suspicious of those spending too long in Thailand on tourist visas.

The existing immigration law does not currently provide for a restriction on long-term tourists, but I do see things moving in that direction.

[BangkokKen]

Are the days of the perpetual "tourist" AKA "digital nomad" numbered ?

That is a really good question. My own sense is that it may be, but Thai officials are split on the issue

If I look at the original METV conditions (though they have been watered down in some cases) they seem to look for a guarantee that the traveler is planning to return to home country. There are also indications, not only that visa exempt entries are being counted by the immigration computers (and generating alerts) but also tourist visa entries and tourist entry extensions. We are seeing people entering on valid visas being quizzed where this did not happen in the past. Some put this down to "power trips" by individual immigration officials, but I think they are following instructions to be suspicious of those spending too long in Thailand on tourist visas.

The existing immigration law does not currently provide for a restriction on long-term tourists, but I do see things moving in that direction.

I think what they are trying to say is ; ''Nomads are very welcomed on Elite Visa'

If you want us to let you stay in peace here, pay the price.

[TheSpade]

A visa exempt entry of course is free.

I don't think his other options for a visa will cost more that getting tourist visas for entry. A multiple entry non-o visa would only be 5000 baht and it can give a total stay of 15 months, To get the same stay on tourist visas would cost much more than that.

I'm not sure any of the other visa, aside from possible the Elite Visa (which I'm not that interested in right now as I plan to spend more time in other parts of the world later in the year), are possible from me.

No Thai family / gf / kids.

No interest in studying here to get education visa.

Not old enough for retirement.

The new multi-entry tourist visa sure...but with a triple entry already in the passport just doesn't make sense right now.

Do what you want. I honestly hope it works out for you. But I have a pretty nice collection of goodies I've purchased from long stay tourists and visa runners that had to liquidate when their loophole got too small and they had to go home. And I've only been here for 5 years. (Edit: Some of them were really nice guys and it was heart breaking to hear their stories and see them lose out on their dreams)

If immigration told me (like they told the OP) that I had outstayed my welcome, I'd be taking them seriously and crafting a Plan B during the grace period they let me back in. Maybe they'll let him in next time. Maybe not. If he does get in, nothing lost. If not, the Plan B will come in real handy.

Who builds their dreams around a country they don't actually have any legal or long term right to be in?

Madness.

Certainly not me

I'm not tied to Thailand long term.

If I can't come anymore I'll be sad but it will forced me to go visit other parts of the world again so could be a good thing.

I would like to see out a few more months though and make use of my tourist visa.

However I honestly doubt that I will ever not be able to come here on tourist visas because of my history of being here long term before.

I can't see immigration banning people who come regularly or have a certain number of trips / extensions.

They may quiz people and make it more difficult with certain loopholes to jump through like certain money in the bank, return flights home, proof of income etc but that's all fine because I can provide all that no problem.

Or maybe I just have to take longer breaks between time in Thailand. Come here for 6 months and elsewhere for another 6 before coming back.

No major drama. But just good to know what the rules are and how to keep in check.

[JLCrab]

Like it or not, there's a case to be made that "Tourist" isn't the valid visa for anyone spending 3-9 months in a country 3 or 4 years in a row, regardless of where their income comes from and the expiration date on their tourist visa.

There are other visa options available. They all cost money or require significant investment.

It sucks, but it's probably the only way to guaranty a future associated with Thailand for 3-9 months a year. Otherwise, it seems there's always going to be a risk of getting turned away on any given entry.

And from reading hundreds of posts, it seems to be getting riskier, or at the least- more uncomfortable at immigration.

People seem to get caught up in the word 'tourist' and imagine that has to mean short vacations, trips to the beach, museums etc. The world is changing, 20 something year olds are touring the world with passive income and staying up to a year in each place.

If it's anything up to a year in a destination, you're a tourist by the UNWTO definition of tourism.

Many countries now call it a 'visitor' - visitor visas to the US last ten years and one can stay up to 6 months at a time.

Once again, only part of the UNWTO definition of Tourist (actually 'Visitor') is quoted. The complete definition is:

A visitor is a traveller taking a trip to a main destination outside his/her usual environment, for less than a year, for any main purpose (business, leisure or other personal purpose) other than to be employed by a resident entity in the country or place visited. A visitor (domestic, inbound or outbound) is classified as a tourist (or overnight visitor), if his/her trip includes an overnight stay, or as a same-day visitor (or excursionist) otherwise

'Usual environment is defined as:

The usual environment of an individual, a key concept in tourism, is defined as the geographical area (though not necessarily a contiguous one) within which an individual conducts his/her regular life routines

So it is implied that after up to one year of travel, the 'visitor' returns back to his/her 'usual environment'. One definition of 'usual environment' might be the country of one's passport and the adjacent countries including non-contiguous countries but not countries 5000 km away.

[jspill]

Like it or not, there's a case to be made that "Tourist" isn't the valid visa for anyone spending 3-9 months in a country 3 or 4 years in a row, regardless of where their income comes from and the expiration date on their tourist visa.

There are other visa options available. They all cost money or require significant investment.

It sucks, but it's probably the only way to guaranty a future associated with Thailand for 3-9 months a year. Otherwise, it seems there's always going to be a risk of getting turned away on any given entry.

And from reading hundreds of posts, it seems to be getting riskier, or at the least- more uncomfortable at immigration.

People seem to get caught up in the word 'tourist' and imagine that has to mean short vacations, trips to the beach, museums etc. The world is changing, 20 something year olds are touring the world with passive income and staying up to a year in each place.

If it's anything up to a year in a destination, you're a tourist by the UNWTO definition of tourism.

Many countries now call it a 'visitor' - visitor visas to the US last ten years and one can stay up to 6 months at a time.

Once again, only part of the UNWTO definition of Tourist (actually 'Visitor') is quoted. The complete definition is:

A visitor is a traveller taking a trip to a main destination outside his/her usual environment, for less than a year, for any main purpose (business, leisure or other personal purpose) other than to be employed by a resident entity in the country or place visited. A visitor (domestic, inbound or outbound) is classified as a tourist (or overnight visitor), if his/her trip includes an overnight stay, or as a same-day visitor (or excursionist) otherwise

'Usual environment is defined as:

The usual environment of an individual, a key concept in tourism, is defined as the geographical area (though not necessarily a contiguous one) within which an individual conducts his/her regular life routines

So it is implied that after up to one year of travel, the 'visitor' returns back to his/her 'usual environment'. One definition of 'usual environment' might be the country of one's passport and the adjacent countries including non-contiguous countries but not countries 5000 km away.

That's why I wrote up anything up to a year. As long as one returns to their home country once a year, they're a tourist by the UNWTO definition. It doesn't say how long they go back for though, or that they return home for good.

I left the UK at 23 and now six years later I've been home roughly once a year or so briefly for Christmas or some other special occasion. As a result I seem to be defined as a tourist, also for the reason that I'm not employed by a resident entity in Thailand.

[JLCrab]

(Forgetting the nested quotes above) ... and the return to the 'usual environment' which was omitted in the first UNWTO mention above is why getting consecutive multiple METV's may become a problem down the road. However, for one who says the purpose of one's visit here can be for pleasure because working for him is a pleasure, I know these definitions and regulations are but putty in one's hands.

[Tomtomtom69]

cross a land border then there is no incentive to stop your entry

There is a far higher chance of being denied entry at a land border than the airport.

Not in my experience. At the airport they can deny you entry and put you straight on a plane. At land borders (other than at the Burmese borders if you're attempting to go out and come back to Thailand the same day on a "day pass" to the Myanmar side, in which case they won't let you leave) they would have to negotiate with the other side, i.e. the Lao, Cambodian, Malaysian or Burmese authorities (in the case you entered Myanmar on a visa), which would be difficult and time consuming. They can't just leave you hanging in no man's land and apart from deportations of nationals of neighboring countries by truck, I have never heard of Thai immigration deporting a third country foreigner who legally entered at a land border crossing. Almost certainly at least a one week stamp would be given in order to allow said foreigner to depart by air (or land) for his country of residence.

Therefore the chance of getting denied at an airport are actually higher. Most of the stories of foreigners getting questioned happens at the airport. This is not surprising for the following reasons:

1) Thai immigration at airports have more resources than at land borders

2) They are much more likely to speak English

3) They can just put someone who is denied entry on a plane

4) There is no need to negotiate with a foreign country on taking back the foreigner who was just denied; by putting the individual who was denied entry straight onto a plane for his home country/country of residence, it's just like he were returning home

[Tomtomtom69]

so you stayed nine months last year and Thailand. Just try staying in another country more than six months without paying income tax or becoming a resident. Up to now Thailand has been one of the easiest places for long-term stay and emigration is simply trying to come in line with other countries, which normally consider six months the maximum stay for a tourist.

Long-term tourists here have been living in a "fools paradise" . You cannot blame emigration because they're having a real job trying to sort things out with proper emigration procedures. I don't think there's any country easier for genuine retirees or people married to Thais. You should appreciate the fact that you don't have to pay tax here. If you retire to Australia or New Zealand for example, you will have to pay tax on your full income.

Forget about this theoretical 183 days residence tax nonsense.

It simply doesn't apply in Thailand. As long as you don't have a non-B or non-O and work permit and are thus legally working here, you don't pay taxes and you CAN'T even pay taxes if you wanted to, without these documents.

Western countries may be different (although again I doubt this if you are say an international student and not working) but in Thailand, resident, shmesident, it's irrelevant. If you aren't working here you are usually defined as being a "tourist" by Thai immigration and the Thai authorities in general. It doesn't matter that you've just spent 290 days out of 365 days in Thailand, as long as you don't have a legal working visa and work permit, you are neither liable, nor eligible to pay taxes. Nor are you likely to be considered a "resident" either.

[impulse]

Forget about this theoretical 183 days residence tax nonsense.

It simply doesn't apply in Thailand. As long as you don't have a non-B or non-O and work permit and are thus legally working here, you don't pay taxes and you CAN'T even pay taxes if you wanted to, without these documents.

Western countries may be different (although again I doubt this if you are say an international student and not working) but in Thailand, resident, shmesident, it's irrelevant. If you aren't working here you are usually defined as being a "tourist" by Thai immigration and the Thai authorities in general. It doesn't matter that you've just spent 290 days out of 365 days in Thailand, as long as you don't have a legal working visa and work permit, you are neither liable, nor eligible to pay taxes. Nor are you likely to be considered a "resident" either.

Thai tax guys seem to disagree.

Taxpayers are classified into “resident” and “non-resident”. “Resident” means any person residing in Thailand for a period or periods aggregating more than 180 days in any tax (calendar) year. A resident of Thailand is liable to pay tax on income from sources in Thailand as well as on the portion of income from foreign sources that is brought into Thailand. A non-resident is, however, subject to tax only on income from sources in Thailand.

http://www.rd.go.th/publish/6045.0.html

They may not enforce it just yet, but it's pretty black and white. Could also be the next loophole that slams shut. I can only imagine the stampede toward the first class departure lounge if they decide to tax retirees' pensions and investment income. Which is why I suspect they haven't enforced it... Still just a little scary.

Edit: And anyone can pay taxes in Thailand. There's even a form for it. But since paying taxes doesn't give legal status to stay in the country, I imagine they gather a lot of dust at the revenue office.

Edited February 7, 2016 by impulse

[JLCrab]

Re: the above UNWTO 'usual environment', while this is an unofficial website, it says that persons traveling on B1/B2 Visitor visas to US should generally wait 5-6 months between visits unless there is some genuine need. see Travel

http://www.immihelp.com/visitor-visa/tourist-visa-faq.html

[mngmn]

• There are no official (announced) limits on tourist visa extensions (other than one per entry), visits or the cumulative duration of stay.
• I think if you go to immigration you will get another extension and you'll be able to use your third entry as long as it's on or before the 'enter before' date.

Since 2006 immigration have been cracking down on long term "tourists" so this report doesn't surprise me at all!

Thailand has never stated they're cracking down on long term tourists, all press releases and news articles have mentioned illegal workers and criminals.

OP was still let in eventually. He's also essentially a digital nomad, good to see they get let in.

Are the days of the perpetual "tourist" AKA "digital nomad" numbered ?

Yes quite possibly in Thailand. They will just take their money somewhere else. Edited February 7, 2016 by mngmn

[elviajero]

• There are no official (announced) limits on tourist visa extensions (other than one per entry), visits or the cumulative duration of stay.
• I think if you go to immigration you will get another extension and you'll be able to use your third entry as long as it's on or before the 'enter before' date.

Since 2006 immigration have been cracking down on long term "tourists" so this report doesn't surprise me at all!

Thailand has never stated they're cracking down on long term tourists, all press releases and news articles have mentioned illegal workers and criminals.

OP was still let in eventually. He's also essentially a digital nomad, good to see they get let in.

So you missed the announcement back in 2006 when they restricted tourists entering under the tourist visa exempt scheme to stay a maximum of 90 in 180 days.

You can deny reality all you like but since 2006 immigration have been making it harder for 'tourists' to stay long term. The latest being the abolition of longer term tourist visas being available locally to Thailand, and a definite policy of encouraging long term tourists to get a 'proper' visa. I would fill in the bits in between but there seems little point.

[elviajero]

cross a land border then there is no incentive to stop your entry

There is a far higher chance of being denied entry at a land border than the airport.

Not in my experience. At the airport they can deny you entry and put you straight on a plane. At land borders (other than at the Burmese borders if you're attempting to go out and come back to Thailand the same day on a "day pass" to the Myanmar side, in which case they won't let you leave) they would have to negotiate with the other side, i.e. the Lao, Cambodian, Malaysian or Burmese authorities (in the case you entered Myanmar on a visa), which would be difficult and time consuming. They can't just leave you hanging in no man's land and apart from deportations of nationals of neighboring countries by truck, I have never heard of Thai immigration deporting a third country foreigner who legally entered at a land border crossing. Almost certainly at least a one week stamp would be given in order to allow said foreigner to depart by air (or land) for his country of residence.

Therefore the chance of getting denied at an airport are actually higher. Most of the stories of foreigners getting questioned happens at the airport. This is not surprising for the following reasons:

1) Thai immigration at airports have more resources than at land borders

2) They are much more likely to speak English

3) They can just put someone who is denied entry on a plane

4) There is no need to negotiate with a foreign country on taking back the foreigner who was just denied; by putting the individual who was denied entry straight onto a plane for his home country/country of residence, it's just like he were returning home

Have you had a lot of experience being denied entry at airports and land borders? I think if we apply the opposite to just about everything you've written it would make you right.

If you are denied entry you are not deported. You are asked to leave, which at an airport involves non immigration people and red tape. At a land border the IO can, illegally, just deny entry and send the person back to the country they came from.

If denied entry you do not have to return to your "home country/country of residence". As long as you leave you are free to fly anywhere. You cannot just be put on a plane. If you are denied you can appeal in which case immigration would have to accommodate you until the appeal was decided.

It is far easier for immigration to deny entry at a land border and no negotiation is done or necessary. And as they reportedly don't always follow procedure at land borders it makes it even easier and likely.

Edited February 7, 2016 by elviajero

[elviajero]

so you stayed nine months last year and Thailand. Just try staying in another country more than six months without paying income tax or becoming a resident. Up to now Thailand has been one of the easiest places for long-term stay and emigration is simply trying to come in line with other countries, which normally consider six months the maximum stay for a tourist.

Long-term tourists here have been living in a "fools paradise" . You cannot blame emigration because they're having a real job trying to sort things out with proper emigration procedures. I don't think there's any country easier for genuine retirees or people married to Thais. You should appreciate the fact that you don't have to pay tax here. If you retire to Australia or New Zealand for example, you will have to pay tax on your full income.

Forget about this theoretical 183 days residence tax nonsense.

It simply doesn't apply in Thailand. As long as you don't have a non-B or non-O and work permit and are thus legally working here, you don't pay taxes and you CAN'T even pay taxes if you wanted to, without these documents.

Western countries may be different (although again I doubt this if you are say an international student and not working) but in Thailand, resident, shmesident, it's irrelevant. If you aren't working here you are usually defined as being a "tourist" by Thai immigration and the Thai authorities in general. It doesn't matter that you've just spent 290 days out of 365 days in Thailand, as long as you don't have a legal working visa and work permit, you are neither liable, nor eligible to pay taxes. Nor are you likely to be considered a "resident" either.

Absolute nonsense. If you live in Thailand more than six months in a tax year you are potentially liable for tax on income brought in to the country.

Many DN's and other remote workers living here full time claiming to be 'tourists' are potentially evading tax. You only need a tax ID to pay tax.

Resident for tax doesn't make you resident in the eyes of immigration. They consider anyone without PR a non-resident even though many of us reside/live here. We are non-immigrants being granted temporary permission to stay for various reasons that includes tourism.

[jspill]

• There are no official (announced) limits on tourist visa extensions (other than one per entry), visits or the cumulative duration of stay.
• I think if you go to immigration you will get another extension and you'll be able to use your third entry as long as it's on or before the 'enter before' date.

Since 2006 immigration have been cracking down on long term "tourists" so this report doesn't surprise me at all!

Thailand has never stated they're cracking down on long term tourists, all press releases and news articles have mentioned illegal workers and criminals.

OP was still let in eventually. He's also essentially a digital nomad, good to see they get let in.

So you missed the announcement back in 2006 when they restricted tourists entering under the tourist visa exempt scheme to stay a maximum of 90 in 180 days.

You can deny reality all you like but since 2006 immigration have been making it harder for 'tourists' to stay long term. The latest being the abolition of longer term tourist visas being available locally to Thailand, and a definite policy of encouraging long term tourists to get a 'proper' visa. I would fill in the bits in between but there seems little point.

But then they cancelled that 90 in 180 days rule and it never came back... so I don't see how you draw a conclusion from that.

Anyway the 90 in 180 days wasn't a 'we don't like long term tourists' decision, it was a 'we think people are working physically in the country taking jobs from Thais, or involved in criminal activity, on visa exemptions' decision.

Then they realised there were other ways to rectify that without penalising tourists long term tourists who use them, so they cancelled it.

They've also given out free tourist visas at several points since 2006...

[jspill]

Not in my experience. At the airport they can deny you entry and put you straight on a plane. At land borders (other than at the Burmese borders if you're attempting to go out and come back to Thailand the same day on a "day pass" to the Myanmar side, in which case they won't let you leave) they would have to negotiate with the other side, i.e. the Lao, Cambodian, Malaysian or Burmese authorities (in the case you entered Myanmar on a visa), which would be difficult and time consuming. They can't just leave you hanging in no man's land and apart from deportations of nationals of neighboring countries by truck, I have never heard of Thai immigration deporting a third country foreigner who legally entered at a land border crossing. Almost certainly at least a one week stamp would be given in order to allow said foreigner to depart by air (or land) for his country of residence.

Therefore the chance of getting denied at an airport are actually higher. Most of the stories of foreigners getting questioned happens at the airport. This is not surprising for the following reasons:

1) Thai immigration at airports have more resources than at land borders

2) They are much more likely to speak English

3) They can just put someone who is denied entry on a plane

4) There is no need to negotiate with a foreign country on taking back the foreigner who was just denied; by putting the individual who was denied entry straight onto a plane for his home country/country of residence, it's just like he were returning home

I agree, and would add that they are just being more relaxed and / or corrupt in general at airports. I'm pretty sure I could come through via the Laos border more easily, either from them just not caring, or being open to persuasion. Look at the terrorist bomber who came over the border with Cambodia.

[jspill]

Absolute nonsense. If you live in Thailand more than six months in a tax year you are potentially liable for tax on income brought in to the country.

Many DN's and other remote workers living here full time claiming to be 'tourists' are potentially evading tax. You only need a tax ID to pay tax.

Resident for tax doesn't make you resident in the eyes of immigration. They consider anyone without PR a non-resident even though many of us reside/live here. We are non-immigrants being granted temporary permission to stay for various reasons that includes tourism.

It's legal to not pay tax as a digital nomad if you simply don't remit funds in the financial year that they're earned.

It's also not possible to pay taxes without a work permit, and not possible to get a work permit for working online. I'm sure if Thailand wanted me to pay taxes they'd find a way to enable me to.