What counts as working?

[elviajero]

When you find one that forbids remote working let me know? There's work for a resident Thai entity without permission, and then there's tourists in Chiang Mai with YouTube channels about vegan food and cashing out Ad revenue to their Kasikorn... I don't think Thailand has an issue with them.

Many on a tourist visa have explained to IOs worked online and were not told they were breaking the law. I guess that's all anecdotal and you know better?

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/872808-telling-immigration-officers-you-work-online-if-questioned-at-border/

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/749038-with-a-thai-elite-visa-can-a-person-work-legally-as-a-digital-nomad/page-7#entry8314920

Could link many more examples. Let me know when you can link anyone being arrested for running blog about cats on their fourth tourist visa or whatever, and transferring Paypal funds into the Thai economy to spend on condo rent.

Our disagreement concerns legality not enforcement!

• I've already evidenced the law that doesn't allow working whether remote or not.
• As usual you are arguing the case for legality on the basis that the authorities are allowing the law to be broken, and it just further demonstrates your ignorance/naivety.
• "were not told they were breaking the law" So, that doesn't mean they are not breaking the law.
• Your links are always irrelevant and I doubt these two are any different.

The simple fact is that working is illegal but that online workers are currently tolerated by authorities, which is exactly what I tell people.

The onus is on you to prove that the immigration law does not apply to online worker, and the only way you can do that is with a Ministerial Regulation, that I don't know of, that exempts that online work. Otherwise as online work is work it's illegal.

[jspill]

The immigration act saying 'working prohibited' isn't convincing me that it applies to bloggers on holiday, and there's no set definition of how long one can be on holiday.

I think it only means we aren't allowed to work for Thai employers, as evidenced by no bloggers being rounded up and arrested, and from some statements like this:

Thai immigration officials say digital nomads OK to work on tourist visas - http://asiancorrespondent.com/2014/08/thai-immigration-officials-say-digital-nomads-ok-to-work-on-tourist-visas/

With respect I'll take the word of a Thai immigration official over a messageboard poster,

The tourist visa sticker in my passport says 'employment prohibited', I feel its common sense that means employment by a Thai entity.

[elviajero]

The immigration act saying 'working prohibited' isn't convincing me that it applies to bloggers on holiday, and there's no set definition of how long one can be on holiday.

I think it only means we aren't allowed to work for Thai employers, as evidenced by no bloggers being rounded up and arrested, and from some statements like this:

Thai immigration officials say digital nomads OK to work on tourist visas - http://asiancorrespondent.com/2014/08/thai-immigration-officials-say-digital-nomads-ok-to-work-on-tourist-visas/

With respect I'll take the word of a Thai immigration official over a messageboard poster,

The tourist visa sticker in my passport says 'employment prohibited', I feel its common sense that means employment by a Thai entity.

As the Act doesn't specify a time frame the law applies from the minute the foreigner enters the country, so a holidaying tourist cannot legally work. However, this is another dilemma for the authorities as they obviously don't want to stop holidaying tourists from keeping up with work and would need to formally define how long someone is considered a holidaying tourist in order to selectively prosecute anyone.

Why continue to deflect the debate to the authorities tolerance of online working. I have said/agreed many times that online work is currently being allowed.

• The CM immigration officer did not say operating an online business is legal as reported in the Asian Correspondent article.
• The Superintendent said; "If you are a ‘digital nomad’ running your own business on the internet, the immigration office says you can do this on a tourist visa."
• Notice he considers a DN as running a business.
• He said tourist visa. No mention of non immigrant visas so where does that leave the OP and others on non immigration visas and extensions?

So as your Visa only says "employment prohibited" I guess that means that self-employment is ok. That's great news for all the guys that want to run businesses with their wives. Maybe i should start a blog and pass the word on.

The same notice has been used on visas for many years and started before the advent online work/ers. I do, however, agree it refers to employment by a Thai entity, and it misled me in to believing I was legally entitled to work online for years. At the end of the day it's irrelevant as a tourists permit to stay is limited to tourism and not running a business.

Edited February 12, 2016 by elviajero

[jspill]

The CM immigration officer didn't say it's legal, but he didn't say it's illegal either. That was my point, it's a grey area, not illegal or legal. Unlawful is a better term, or 'ok' as the officer put it.

It's really not your place to say it's illegal, or tell me I'm breaking the law when it isn't clearly written in law anywhere and immigration officials can't even make their minds up. Interesting that you say you worked online here for years yet now argue against it so emphatically.

Edited February 12, 2016 by jspill

[elviajero]

The CM immigration officer didn't say it's legal, but he didn't say it's illegal either. That was my point, it's a grey area, not illegal or legal. Unlawful is a better term, or 'ok' as the officer put it.

It's really not your place to say it's illegal, or tell me I'm breaking the law when it isn't clearly written in law anywhere and immigration officials can't even make their minds up. Interesting that you say you worked online here for years yet now argue against it so emphatically.

No, he didn't say it's legal, because he can't, because it's not. If it was Immigration would have publicly announced the fact long ago and ended the need for the question and ongoing debate. Online workers are being given this pass because of many reasons, but IMO the number one is that you are considered a tourist. They cannot, and I am 100% sure don't want to, round up every tourist on holiday in Thailand for working whilst on their holiday.

It is my place to give my opinion and if you don't like it then end the debate. It is absolutely clear in the Immigration Act that your permission to stay is limited to tourism and tourism does not include operating a business from within the borders of the country.

The Immigration Officers that I speak to are clear on the subject and none of them seem to have a problem with DN's. Why would they.

Your last sentence clearly demonstrates that you don't read what I write as I've told you that several times in the past. I have nothing against DN's and could be classified as one as much as you are. The reason I am so vested in this subject is because it directly affects me, and the information I pass on is from personal experience as a 'DN' and employer of other DN's. All I am saying to you is that the law does not allow you to work, if you do you are breaking the law.

We then get back to the reasons why TIB and the DOL give online workers a free pass. It being a grey area isn't one.

Edited February 12, 2016 by elviajero

[jspill]

No, he didn't say it's legal, because he can't, because it's not.

That doesn't necessarily mean it's illegal though. Just no wording for it.

The Immigration Officers that I speak to are clear on the subject and none of them seem to have a problem with DN's. Why would they.

Then I'll continue doing it then until I hit 50, little over two decades to go :-)

It's your place to give an opinion but you stated your opinion as fact, not opinion, 'you are breaking the law' and 'I know this because I <am an employer, talked to people about it, etc. and other arguments from authority>'.

[sunnyjim5]

No, he didn't say it's legal, because he can't, because it's not.

That doesn't necessarily mean it's illegal though. Just no wording for it.

The Immigration Officers that I speak to are clear on the subject and none of them seem to have a problem with DN's. Why would they.

Then I'll continue doing it then until I hit 50, little over two decades to go :-)

It's your place to give an opinion but you stated your opinion as fact, not opinion, 'you are breaking the law' and 'I know this because I <am an employer, talked to people about it, etc. and other arguments from authority>'.

Remaining as a DN for a couple of decades will be a challenge !

How do you intend to maintain an ongoing "legal" presence in Thailand ?

[elviajero]

No, he didn't say it's legal, because he can't, because it's not.

That doesn't necessarily mean it's illegal though. Just no wording for it.

The Immigration Officers that I speak to are clear on the subject and none of them seem to have a problem with DN's. Why would they.

Then I'll continue doing it then until I hit 50, little over two decades to go :-)

It's your place to give an opinion but you stated your opinion as fact, not opinion, 'you are breaking the law' and 'I know this because I <am an employer, talked to people about it, etc. and other arguments from authority>'.

IMO it is fact that you are breaking the law.

I'm not arguing from a position of authority but from experience, and I have had to talk to relevant authorities to ascertain my personal and employees legal position. Based on my legal position I am absolutely sure of yours.

I wish you luck but I honestly think the tourist visa options will close a lot sooner than that. And if DN numbers grow too high I am convinced the action taken by immigration won't go in your favour. Visa challenges are not new. I spent nearly 15 years without an option for long term stay.