Overstay and new passport update

[Dave12345678910]

Hi all,

Thought I would clarifying a few things given the amount of rubbish advice (possible 5 years jail for 21 day overstay! really... + arrested and charged and found guilty! Of what! Uhmm).

Okay today I went to KL and back - return ticket 8k THB, 2hrs 10 min flight

1. Clearing overstay through DM. Staff very pleasant, wasn't even 5 min job. No hassles. Sorry no guard dogs or snipers on the roof.

2. KL airport. Again pleasant staff no visa or stamp needed if your just transferring flights. Smoking room second floor if that's your thing. Enough nice eateries etc. Hint Do your Duty Free shopping here. 3 hr wait for flight just enough to stretch you legs and freshen up.

3. Crunch time back into DM and customs. Nice young lady flicking through PS. Okay whole PS full of TV and visa runs with 5 - 6 overstays. I'm expecting a barged of questions. What flight did you come in on? Blah blah show boarding pass - uhmm I left that field blank! Do you speak Thai - nit noi. Stamp, stamp, stamp, Have a nice day! Added bonus I was first in line. Disembarking to having a smoke outside less then 15 mins half of which was talking to a bloke I met!

Smooth, seemliness process. Totally hassle free.

The Thai gov has definitely drawn a line in the sand toughening penalties. Its at 90 days by the way. There is always going to be overstays in one form or another. Bad health, sick kids, funds didn't transfer, accidents and just plain forgot or too drunk (better to go through sober and cop a fine:), list is endless.

Only thing I would advise, have proof of funds for backup and some genuine reason for being in Thailand and reason for an overstay.

All the best and don't start stressing over a few weeks overstay. Immigration are pretty friendly and helpful if your respectful.

[BritTim]

Thank you for your report, though some are going to claim you are triumphalist about your "offences". The risk of a 5-year ban is real. I suspect arrest and deportation with blacklisting is more likely to happen to certain nationalities. However, if you run into the wrong roadblock at the wrong time, no one on overstay is completely safe.

[casualobserver]

I thought one had to have an malaysian entry and exit stamp when doing the airasia KL bounce? nice shortcut if you don't but always thought it was required for some reason, then again arrival immigration then escalator walkway through the shopping center up to departures and then through passport and security again is usually less than 30 mins all in and better choice of food places outside the secure area if time permits

Edited March 28, 2016 by casualobserver

[BritTim]

I thought one had to have an malaysian entry and exit stamp when doing the airasia KL bounce? nice shortcut if you don't but always thought it was required for some reason, then again arrival immigration then escalator walkway through the shopping center up to departures and then through passport and security again is usually less than 30 mins all in and better choice of food places outside the secure area if time permits

You are correct that this can be insisted upon. You must leave Thailand and enter another country before returning. However, some (most?) immigration officials seem willing to overlook this if sure you really did fly out and back.

[Merylhighground]

Nice report, which will probably get the more 'Daily Mail' members frothing out, but I don't think jail time was in the deal unless you were caught while on over stay then you may have been looking at a possible five year ban as well as a possible stay in the IDC (but not five years).

As I read it you should have been banned from returning for a year (but I'm not much good at these things) but it seems like they are still in some 'amnesty period' as regards banning people after they have cleared.

Immigration are pretty friendly and helpful if your respectful.

Ive heard a few different reports from Suwannaphumi.

[D3030]

Hi all,

Thought I would clarifying a few things given the amount of rubbish advice (possible 5 years jail for 21 day overstay! really... + arrested and charged and found guilty! Of what! Uhmm).

Possible 5 years jail for 21 day overstay! really... + arrested and charged and found guilty! Of what! Uhmm). < Yes, sounds like rubbish!

Seemed clear, if on a less than 90 day overstay "after 20 March" and turned yourself in, or in your case, made it to DM airport, and flew out of Thailand.

You were allowed back as soon as you were able to, of course with whatever visa you were able to obtain. As others, now you have shared their post 20 March -- overstay, depart & return stories..

Maybe it was not clear, but I'm sure those unaware, it's still not to late to clear your less than 90 day overstay.

[Dave12345678910]

Thank you for your report, though some are going to claim you are triumphalist about your "offences". The risk of a 5-year ban is real. I suspect arrest and deportation with blacklisting is more likely to happen to certain nationalities. However, if you run into the wrong roadblock at the wrong time, no one on overstay is completely safe.

Certainly NOT triumphalist (keep Trump out of this). My point is these people spreading this have neither the knowledge or common sense. It is purely on hearsay. This hearsay can cause a lot of unnecessary stress. Maybe someone cannot afford to pay, maybe their working their butt off but cannot get that one step ahead. Maybe their kids medical bills come first. Heaps of reasons.

Do take a moment to think of the BS that these Immigration officers face day in day out without any real acknowledgement. There was a Viet pair of middle aged women in front of me who didn't understand why they should fill out departure forms. I could not do that job; the sheer patience dealing with people who cannot line up! Thumps up to them!

My experience, not hearsay, if there's a problem dig a little more and you will see why...

On the whole overstay thing, being on overstay is not a criminal offence! Sticking up a bank while overstay you're still in trouble and not a good idea. Dressing like a hood, bikie, whatever isn't doing you any favours. It adds strings to the prosecutors' bow.

Two things

1. 90 days is the line in the sand. Do it at your own peril.

2, we have been warned to carry PS or copies (was always the case)

[Dave12345678910]

Thank you for your report, though some are going to claim you are triumphalist about your "offences". The risk of a 5-year ban is real. I suspect arrest and deportation with blacklisting is more likely to happen to certain nationalities. However, if you run into the wrong roadblock at the wrong time, no one on overstay is completely safe.

[Maestro]

In a news topic, I posted on 19 March that immigration officers may well be allowed to use discretion in applying the overstay ban, and I post it now also in this topic in the visa forum.

The wording of neither the English translation nor the original Thai text of the Ministerial Order 1/2558 seems to give immigration officials any discretion not to impose the period of blacklisting specified in the Order, yet Immigration Bureau commissioner Pol Lt Natthorn Prohsunthorn has been quoted as saying that "the tougher law enforcement was intended to tackle foreigners entering the country illegally, working without work permits, and transnational criminals, while those entering legally and work legally won’t be affected."

As stated in the Order, it was issued "under section 16 of Immigration Act, B.E, 2522", so let us look at that section:

Section 16 : In the instance where for reason of national welfare or safeguarding the public peace ,
culture , morality , or welfare , or when the Minister considers it improper to allow any alien or any group
of alien to enter into the Kingdom , the Minister shall have power to exclude said alien or group aliens
from entering into the Kingdom.

It seems logical that when blacklisting a foreigner, immigration has to enter a reason for it in the database and from the above they will have the choice of the following:

• national welfare
• safeguarding the public peace
• safeguarding culture
• safeguarding morality
• safeguarding welfare
• the Minister considers it improper to allow any alien or any group of aliens to enter into the Kingdom

That's where the authority to exercise discretion in issuing a blacklist can be derived from. If immigration concludes that none of the above reasons apply to the overstaying foreigner, they can or must refrain from blacklisting him.

[elviajero]

In a news topic I posted on 19 March that immigration officers may well be allowed to use discretion in applying the overstay ban, and I post it now also in this topic in the visa forum.

The wording of neither the English translation nor the original Thai text of the Ministerial Order 1/2558 seems to give immigration officials any discretion not to impose the period of blacklisting specified in the Order, yet Immigration Bureau commissioner Pol Lt Natthorn Prohsunthorn has been quoted as saying that "the tougher law enforcement was intended to tackle foreigners entering the country illegally, working without work permits, and transnational criminals, while those entering legally and work legally won’t be affected."

As stated in the Order, it was issued "under section 16 of Immigration Act, B.E, 2522", so let us look at that section:

Section 16 : In the instance where for reason of national welfare or safeguarding the public peace ,

culture , morality , or welfare , or when the Minister considers it improper to allow any alien or any group

of alien to enter into the Kingdom , the Minister shall have power to exclude said alien or group aliens

from entering into the Kingdom.

It seems logical that when blacklisting a foreigner, immigration has to enter a reason for it in the database and from the above they will have the choice of the following:

• national welfare
• safeguarding the public peace
• safeguarding culture
• safeguarding morality
• safeguarding welfare
• the Minister considers it improper to allow any alien or any group of aliens to enter into the Kingdom

That's where the authority to exercise discretion in issuing a blacklist can be derived from. If immigration concludes that none of the above reasons apply to the overstaying foreigner, they can or must refrain from blacklisting him.

We still don't have any evidence that discretion is being applied or been granted.

IMO Section 16 gave the power for the MOI to impose bans on overstayers as a group (6). So anyone guilty of overstay is automatically included for that alone. The wording in the MOI order 1/2558 also cites ALL overstayers as putting the safety of people and national security at risk and that the order is to maintain the peace of the nation. I don't believe immigration would be required to or need to refer back to section 16.

The quote by the commissioner doesn't make any sense for several reasons, and I think he was just spouting the PR spin being used to justify introducing the bans. If we assume discretion is going to be applied based on his statement then no overstayer that entered the country legally would be banned, it is impossible to overstay if entering illegally so neither would they get banned, and you can't be working legally if on overstay so legal workers aren't affected anyway.

Although there is nothing in the order granting discretion my question would be whether or not the order is compulsory. The MOI is required by the immigration act to specify the group he wants banned presumably so that group are aware and can be identified by immigration, but I see no reason why discretional powers would need to be made public.

IMO the MOI order is black and white and easy to enforce. Everyone knows where they stand. If they continue to deal with short term overstayers as they always have then I don't see why anyone has anything to complain about.

Edited March 28, 2016 by elviajero

[bkkcanuck8]

In a news topic, I posted on 19 March that immigration officers may well be allowed to use discretion in applying the overstay ban, and I post it now also in this topic in the visa forum.

The wording of neither the English translation nor the original Thai text of the Ministerial Order 1/2558 seems to give immigration officials any discretion not to impose the period of blacklisting specified in the Order, yet Immigration Bureau commissioner Pol Lt Natthorn Prohsunthorn has been quoted as saying that "the tougher law enforcement was intended to tackle foreigners entering the country illegally, working without work permits, and transnational criminals, while those entering legally and work legally won’t be affected."

As stated in the Order, it was issued "under section 16 of Immigration Act, B.E, 2522", so let us look at that section:

Section 16 : In the instance where for reason of national welfare or safeguarding the public peace ,

culture , morality , or welfare , or when the Minister considers it improper to allow any alien or any group

of alien to enter into the Kingdom , the Minister shall have power to exclude said alien or group aliens

from entering into the Kingdom.

It seems logical that when blacklisting a foreigner, immigration has to enter a reason for it in the database and from the above they will have the choice of the following:

• national welfare
• safeguarding the public peace
• safeguarding culture
• safeguarding morality
• safeguarding welfare
• the Minister considers it improper to allow any alien or any group of aliens to enter into the Kingdom

That's where the authority to exercise discretion in issuing a blacklist can be derived from. If immigration concludes that none of the above reasons apply to the overstaying foreigner, they can or must refrain from blacklisting him.

IMHO, that is just a catch all section that gives immigration wide discretion on being a able to ban ANYONE and specify a vague overall reason. Most of that can be applied for pretty well any reason as a catchall. The press releases (reasons) would not typically be written by the sponsors of the bill or those that approved it but by a press/publications so reasons in any press releases (not stated in the bill itself) tend to be thought up after the fact by a different group of civil servants.

[gandalf12]

I thought one had to have an malaysian entry and exit stamp when doing the airasia KL bounce? nice shortcut if you don't but always thought it was required for some reason, then again arrival immigration then escalator walkway through the shopping center up to departures and then through passport and security again is usually less than 30 mins all in and better choice of food places outside the secure area if time permits

I have done the KL run in the past and never had a problem

[cesarm001]

Hi all

I overstay for 2 days before the 20 of March I pay 1000B and I got stamp on my passport as overstay for 2 days ..... Before the 20 of March .....I got stamp is that correct ????? I am not sure ???

No dramas at all i come back and all good ....

[BritTim]

Hi all

I overstay for 2 days before the 20 of March I pay 1000B and I got stamp on my passport as overstay for 2 days ..... Before the 20 of March .....I got stamp is that correct ????? I am not sure ???

No dramas at all i come back and all good ....

Nothing abnormal about your experience.

[Dave12345678910]

I thought one had to have an malaysian entry and exit stamp when doing the airasia KL bounce? nice shortcut if you don't but always thought it was required for some reason, then again arrival immigration then escalator walkway through the shopping center up to departures and then through passport and security again is usually less than 30 mins all in and better choice of food places outside the secure area if time permits

You are correct that this can be insisted upon. You must leave Thailand and enter another country before returning. However, some (most?) immigration officials seem willing to overlook this if sure you really did fly out and back.

Absolute rubbish!

I can fly into and out of Aus without a single mark on PS. Same KL.

No way any country can tell you or enforce you need to go another country before coming back. Just have exit stamp and then re-entry.

Use some practical knowledge - once you have left.

its not their business. Can go to Mars, any country, sleep in departure lounge. Whatever.

Proof of funds and genuine reason good enough.

Hearsay and Fact get overrun here

[Suradit69]

Crunch time back into DM and customs. Nice young lady flicking through PS.

Nice to hear your experience was fairly hassle free, but why would someone in Customs scrutinize your passport? Seems more likely it would have been an immigration officer rather than a customs officer ... unless you had some dodgy baggage.

[elviajero]

You are correct that this can be insisted upon. You must leave Thailand and enter another country before returning. However, some (most?) immigration officials seem willing to overlook this if sure you really did fly out and back.

Absolute rubbish!

I can fly into and out of Aus without a single mark on PS. Same KL.

No way any country can tell you or enforce you need to go another country before coming back. Just have exit stamp and then re-entry.

Use some practical knowledge - once you have left.

its not their business. Can go to Mars, any country, sleep in departure lounge. Whatever.

Proof of funds and genuine reason good enough.

Hearsay and Fact get overrun here

Try leaving via the Nong Khai border and returning without entering another country. I think you will find that a country (Thailand) will not let you re-enter Thailand without an exit stamp from Laos. So it looks like they can tell you to go to another country before coming back!

[johnatong]

You are correct that this can be insisted upon. You must leave Thailand and enter another country before returning. However, some (most?) immigration officials seem willing to overlook this if sure you really did fly out and back.

Absolute rubbish!

I can fly into and out of Aus without a single mark on PS. Same KL.

No way any country can tell you or enforce you need to go another country before coming back. Just have exit stamp and then re-entry.

Use some practical knowledge - once you have left.

its not their business. Can go to Mars, any country, sleep in departure lounge. Whatever.

Proof of funds and genuine reason good enough.

Hearsay and Fact get overrun here

Try leaving via the Nong Khai border and returning without entering another country. I think you will find that a country (Thailand) will not let you re-enter Thailand without an exit stamp from Laos. So it looks like they can tell you to go to another country before coming back!

The only reason that entry/exit stamps are not looked for at the International Airports is because many countries do not provide entry/exit stamps ! (The UK for example)

[Dumbastheycome]

In a news topic, I posted on 19 March that immigration officers may well be allowed to use discretion in applying the overstay ban, and I post it now also in this topic in the visa forum.

The wording of neither the English translation nor the original Thai text of the Ministerial Order 1/2558 seems to give immigration officials any discretion not to impose the period of blacklisting specified in the Order, yet Immigration Bureau commissioner Pol Lt Natthorn Prohsunthorn has been quoted as saying that "the tougher law enforcement was intended to tackle foreigners entering the country illegally, working without work permits, and transnational criminals, while those entering legally and work legally won’t be affected."

As stated in the Order, it was issued "under section 16 of Immigration Act, B.E, 2522", so let us look at that section:

Section 16 : In the instance where for reason of national welfare or safeguarding the public peace ,

culture , morality , or welfare , or when the Minister considers it improper to allow any alien or any group

of alien to enter into the Kingdom , the Minister shall have power to exclude said alien or group aliens

from entering into the Kingdom.

It seems logical that when blacklisting a foreigner, immigration has to enter a reason for it in the database and from the above they will have the choice of the following:

• national welfare
• safeguarding the public peace
• safeguarding culture
• safeguarding morality
• safeguarding welfare
• the Minister considers it improper to allow any alien or any group of aliens to enter into the Kingdom

That's where the authority to exercise discretion in issuing a blacklist can be derived from. If immigration concludes that none of the above reasons apply to the overstaying foreigner, they can or must refrain from blacklisting him.

IMHO, that is just a catch all section that gives immigration wide discretion on being a able to ban ANYONE and specify a vague overall reason. Most of that can be applied for pretty well any reason as a catchall. The press releases (reasons) would not typically be written by the sponsors of the bill or those that approved it but by a press/publications so reasons in any press releases (not stated in the bill itself) tend to be thought up after the fact by a different group of civil servants.

The greatest virtue of discretion is.....discretion.