If possible, either damage your passport or report it stolen. When you get a new passport you will have no problem going back to Lao and getting another visa.

I would NOT report it stolen, unless it really is. This raises the possibility you "sold" it and/or it is in the hands of criminals. Issuing officials may, in some cases, issue you a short-term passport requiring you return home for a normal one. Not sure why you might have to damage / launder a passport to get a replacement, either. Just ask for a new one, pay the fee, and they will issue it and cancel your old one.

This depends on your country's Embassy / FA policies, of course. Nations that subsidize the costs might have issues. Perhaps a list of nations which are reluctant to issue new passports absent "laundry accidents" is in order. But maybe they keep a database: "John Doe keeps having laundry accidents, almost exactly every 2 years, while living in Thailand."

"Not sure why you might have to damage / launder a passport to get a replacement, either. Just ask for a new one, pay the fee, and they will issue it and cancel your old one."

I've never heard of an Embassy replacing a perfectly good passport that is neither expired or that has empty pages left in it, unless there is only 6 months validity left on one's passport.

Not correct, you can renew your UK Passport at anytime, it states this on the Government website

I renewed mine 4 months ago, 3 years and 10 pages left on the old one, no questions were asked

I

If possible, either damage your passport or report it stolen. When you get a new passport you will have no problem going back to Lao and getting another visa.

I would NOT report it stolen, unless it really is. This raises the possibility you "sold" it and/or it is in the hands of criminals. Issuing officials may, in some cases, issue you a short-term passport requiring you return home for a normal one. Not sure why you might have to damage / launder a passport to get a replacement, either. Just ask for a new one, pay the fee, and they will issue it and cancel your old one.

This depends on your country's Embassy / FA policies, of course. Nations that subsidize the costs might have issues. Perhaps a list of nations which are reluctant to issue new passports absent "laundry accidents" is in order. But maybe they keep a database: "John Doe keeps having laundry accidents, almost exactly every 2 years, while living in Thailand."

"Not sure why you might have to damage / launder a passport to get a replacement, either. Just ask for a new one, pay the fee, and they will issue it and cancel your old one."

I've never heard of an Embassy replacing a perfectly good passport that is neither expired or that has empty pages left in it, unless there is only 6 months validity left on one's passport.

There are many reasons why you may require your passport replaced, and why most countries do not make it too difficult.

- If you are constantly using your passport, but have a month where you don't plan to you may schedule replacing it early to make sure it will last when you need it. With the limited number of pages available in Canadian passports - it is quite easy for some people (including my father) to completely fill a passport in less than a year....

- You are planning travel across a number of different countries - which require visas which will rapidly deplete the number of pages available (and some require at least 6 pages left).

- You are required to replace your passport whenever your picture is out of date - which may cause problems for facial recognition (significant weight gain/loss; facial hair change, etc.).

Note: I have chosen the 5 year passport since the there is no longer a passport with extra pages - both would last the same amount of time (about 4 years) before they are full..... and I don't come close to using it as often as other people I know.

Some people have a very elastic concept of what it is to be "a tourist" and to stay in a country - any country - on a "tourist visa". An elasticity understandably not shared by ANY immigration officials ANYWHERE in the world!

YOU are a tourist also, just because you qualify for a visa that Immigration have kindly provided that doesn't mean you are any different from people that survive here on Tourist visas

Remember, that long term visa you are on can easily be taken away if Immigration decide to change the rules

Don't think you are any different to anybody who stays here on TV's because you are not, you can be kicked out at any time like everyone else

We are not all tourists we are visitors. Tourism is a valid reason to visit, but many claiming to be here for tourism are blatantly lying on their application forms in order to 'survive here'. I know because I did it for years.

Of course Thailand could revoke the permission to stay for any of us but why on earth would they!

Some people have a very elastic concept of what it is to be "a tourist" and to stay in a country - any country - on a "tourist visa". An elasticity understandably not shared by ANY immigration officials ANYWHERE in the world!

YOU are a tourist also, just because you qualify for a visa that Immigration have kindly provided that doesn't mean you are any different from people that survive here on Tourist visas

Remember, that long term visa you are on can easily be taken away if Immigration decide to change the rules

Don't think you are any different to anybody who stays here on TV's because you are not, you can be kicked out at any time like everyone else

We are not all tourists we are visitors. Tourism is a valid reason to visit, but many claiming to be here for tourism are blatantly lying on their application forms in order to 'survive here'. I know because I did it for years.

Of course Thailand could revoke the permission to stay for any of us but why on earth would they!

Ok so let's call it a visitor if it makes you happy,

If Immigration think the people who are surviving here on TV's are lying why do they keep letting them in? They know the score and could refuse people who have stayed here longterm on TV's if they wish

Staying here on TV's is a legal way of staying here no matter what people think until Immigration state otherwise

Edited June 23, 201610 yr by darrendsd

many claiming to be here for tourism are blatantly lying on their application forms in order to 'survive here'. I know because I did it for years.

Tourism is defined as the activities of persons identified as visitors. A visitor is someone who is making a visit to a main destination outside his/her usual environment for less than a year for any main purpose [including] holidays, leisure and recreation, business, health, education or other purposes….This scope is much wider than the traditional perception of tourists, which included only those travelling for leisure

http://www.tourismsociety.org/page/88/tourism-definitions.htm

As long as we leave at least once a year (we do better than that and leave every 90 days) and aren't employed by a resident entity in Thailand, then we're tourists.

I hope this lifts the burden of guilt off your shoulders for those years of blatant lying... you actually weren't.

Ok so let's call it a visitor if it makes you happy,

If Immigration think the people who are surviving here on TV's are lying why do they keep letting them in? They know the score and could refuse people who have stayed here longterm on TV's if they wish

Staying here on TV's is a legal way of staying here no matter what people think until Immigration state otherwise

I don't think they want to get to the situation where they are denying visa holders entry at the border. The onus is clearly on the Embassies/Consulates to regulate the issuing of visas. If they were entirely happy with the situation there wouldn't be limits at Vientiane and other local Embassies/Consulates.

I agree that it is legal if the application was made on the basis of legitimate tourism. Someone living in a country full time for years is not a tourist.

The visa system is very straightforward. Tourist visa are meant for short term visits by people that live in their home country. Non immigrant (and PE visa) are designed for people that qualify to stay long term.

The following is a guideline is for visa exempt entry but is relevant to the view that immigration have on tourism.

1.2.2 The alien must not enter the Kingdom by exploiting 30­ day visa exemptions undertaking method “in­out” or called by foreigners as “Visa run”. Aliens use the advantage of Tourist Visa Exemption by leaving Thailand and returning immediately for the purpose of extending their stay, which is considered from the tourism point of view to be longer than necessary and not in line with the purpose permitted while entering country.

Source: Guideline for inspection of citizen from certain countries that are not required to obtain a visa when entering the Kingdom of Thailand

many claiming to be here for tourism are blatantly lying on their application forms in order to 'survive here'. I know because I did it for years.

Tourism is defined as the activities of persons identified as visitors. A visitor is someone who is making a visit to a main destination outside his/her usual environment for less than a year for any main purpose [including] holidays, leisure and recreation, business, health, education or other purposes….This scope is much wider than the traditional perception of tourists, which included only those travelling for leisure

http://www.tourismsociety.org/page/88/tourism-definitions.htm

As long as we leave at least once a year (we do better than that and leave every 90 days) and aren't employed by a resident entity in Thailand, then we're tourists.

I hope this lifts the burden of guilt off your shoulders for those years of blatant lying... you actually weren't.

The only definition of tourism that counts is that of Thailand, which doesn't exist, but I appreciate the thought.

The visa system is very straightforward. Tourist visa are meant for short term visits by people that live in their home country. Non immigrant (and PE visa) are designed for people that qualify to stay long term.

Sounds logical for any other country but Thailand isn't like other countries. It doesn't set any limits, seems to make up rules on the spot and / or change them on a regular basis. It's also heavily dependent on tourism revenue, and as a protectionist country has set everything up so that tourists can't really be a burden to the system even if they live here for years. It's quite a unique case.

The following is a guideline is for visa exempt entry but is relevant to the view that immigration have on tourism

It's telling though that the only clear limits ever set are for visa-free travel. Not really the same.

The only definition of tourism that counts is that of Thailand, which doesn't exist, but I appreciate the thought.

So you weren't lying to immigration all those years then if no definition exists.

Some people have a very elastic concept of what it is to be "a tourist" and to stay in a country - any country - on a "tourist visa". An elasticity understandably not shared by ANY immigration officials ANYWHERE in the world!

YOU are a tourist also, just because you qualify for a visa that Immigration have kindly provided that doesn't mean you are any different from people that survive here on Tourist visas

Remember, that long term visa you are on can easily be taken away if Immigration decide to change the rules

Don't think you are any different to anybody who stays here on TV's because you are not, you can be kicked out at any time like everyone else

We are not all tourists we are visitors. Tourism is a valid reason to visit, but many claiming to be here for tourism are blatantly lying on their application forms in order to 'survive here'. I know because I did it for years.

Of course Thailand could revoke the permission to stay for any of us but why on earth would they!

I have never seen a time-limit on the definition of what a tourist is....

A tourist is a person who travels for the most part for pleasure. Though it is funny we are arguing over some english definition when the actual laws are written in Thai.

A tourist visa allows someone to travel to Thailand for 3 or 6 months during one visit. If it does not specify the absolute maximum of how many or how often you can visit, then leaving and re-entering for another visit is valid. You might think you are the arbiter of Thai regulations but the people who actually are are the ones issuing back-to-back visas, so I fail to see how your definition trumps theirs?

If the immigration officer has a suspicion that you are working illegally and not traveling for pleasure he might require you to prove that you have the funds available that mean you are not working.

Edited June 23, 201610 yr by bkkcanuck8

The visa system is very straightforward. Tourist visa are meant for short term visits by people that live in their home country. Non immigrant (and PE visa) are designed for people that qualify to stay long term.

Sounds logical for any other country but Thailand isn't like other countries. It doesn't set any limits, seems to make up rules on the spot and / or change them on a regular basis. It's also heavily dependent on tourism revenue, and as a protectionist country has set everything up so that tourists can't really be a burden to the system even if they live here for years. It's quite a unique case.

The following is a guideline is for visa exempt entry but is relevant to the view that immigration have on tourism

It's telling though that the only clear limits ever set are for visa-free travel. Not really the same.

It's the Tourist Visa Exempt Scheme. People entering with our without a visa are supposed to be here for tourism. It's exactly the same.

The visa system is very straightforward. Tourist visa are meant for short term visits by people that live in their home country. Non immigrant (and PE visa) are designed for people that qualify to stay long term.

Sounds logical for any other country but Thailand isn't like other countries. It doesn't set any limits, seems to make up rules on the spot and / or change them on a regular basis. It's also heavily dependent on tourism revenue, and as a protectionist country has set everything up so that tourists can't really be a burden to the system even if they live here for years. It's quite a unique case.

The following is a guideline is for visa exempt entry but is relevant to the view that immigration have on tourism

It's telling though that the only clear limits ever set are for visa-free travel. Not really the same.

It's the Tourist Visa Exempt Scheme. People entering with our without a visa are supposed to be here for tourism. It's exactly the same.

You can argue as much as you want about what Tourism means, at the end of the day it is Immigration that decide who gets let in on which visa no matter how many visas that person has had, be it Tourist visas or others

To many people on here who think they should be setting the rules, it is Thais that decide not us

You can argue as much as you want about what Tourism means, at the end of the day it is Immigration that decide who gets let in on which visa no matter how many visas that person has had, be it Tourist visas or others

To many people on here who think they should be setting the rules, it is Thais that decide not us

I believe you are the one trying to claim 'define' us all as tourists and creating the debate.

If the last sentence applies to me you are wrong. I'm just telling you how it is. I have lived through what they have done since '06 and it is crystal clear that long term tourism is getting harder through the actions of immigration. They don't have to say or define anything as the actions tell it all.

I bought my condo 10years ago when the visa situation wasn't an issue. You would think that if you invest in a country and never break the rules , that you wouldn't be threatened with exclusion of enjoying your investment. But then again I think rationally.

I have never seen a time-limit on the definition of what a tourist is....

A tourist is a person who travels for the most part for pleasure. Though it is funny we are arguing over some english definition when the actual laws are written in Thai.

A tourist visa allows someone to travel to Thailand for 3 or 6 months during one visit. If it does not specify the absolute maximum of how many or how often you can visit, then leaving and re-entering for another visit is valid. You might think you are the arbiter of Thai regulations but the people who actually are are the ones issuing back-to-back visas, so I fail to see how your definition trumps theirs?

If the immigration officer has a suspicion that you are working illegally and not traveling for pleasure he might require you to prove that you have the funds available that mean you are not working.

Does that mean immigration don't have a definition of what a tourist is and how long they should stay?

Everything that has been done since 2006 is restricting (limiting) the ability of many to stay here long term as a tourist with or without a visa. The "ones issuing back to back visa" are imposing limits.

Suspicion of working is not allayed by cash in the bank, but by onward flights, hotel bookings and gaps between visits. The usual things a tourist could supply.

As I've already said I don't see the day that immigration will start denying visa holders at the border. Any further visa restrictions/limits will likely happen via the Embassies and Consulates.

I'm sure that long term use of tourist visas will always exist for those that can afford to rotate applications in Asia or return home.

You can argue as much as you want about what Tourism means, at the end of the day it is Immigration that decide who gets let in on which visa no matter how many visas that person has had, be it Tourist visas or others

To many people on here who think they should be setting the rules, it is Thais that decide not us

I believe you are the one trying to claim 'define' us all as tourists and creating the debate.

If the last sentence applies to me you are wrong. I'm just telling you how it is. I have lived through what they have done since '06 and it is crystal clear that long term tourism is getting harder through the actions of immigration. They don't have to say or define anything as the actions tell it all.

I am not trying to define tourism I am stating that if Immigration let you in and the MFA continue to issue repeated TV's then that is their choice and they are happy to let people stay here longterm using TV's this way

I have seen plenty of reports on here of people being asked questions when trying to enter on Visa Exempts but none on TV's, I think that says something, don't you?

I have been here since 06 also, maybe it is maybe it isn't harder to stay here longterm on TV's or other (legal) means, when I get denied I will know it's the former :-)

I am not trying to define tourism I am stating that if Immigration let you in and the MFA continue to issue repeated TV's then that is their choice and they are happy to let people stay here longterm using TV's this way

I have seen plenty of reports on here of people being asked questions when trying to enter on Visa Exempts but none on TV's, I think that says something, don't you?

I have been here since 06 also, maybe it is maybe it isn't harder to stay here longterm on TV's or other (legal) means, when I get denied I will know it's the former :-)

Letting people in with visas makes sense without questioning because it is the job of the Embassies/Consulates to regulate the visas. Which they are doing.

I think stopping back to back visa exempt entry, limiting the number of visas from one place, and having to buy twice as many visas qualifies as harder.

I am not trying to define tourism I am stating that if Immigration let you in and the MFA continue to issue repeated TV's then that is their choice and they are happy to let people stay here longterm using TV's this way

I have seen plenty of reports on here of people being asked questions when trying to enter on Visa Exempts but none on TV's, I think that says something, don't you?

I have been here since 06 also, maybe it is maybe it isn't harder to stay here longterm on TV's or other (legal) means, when I get denied I will know it's the former :-)

Letting people in with visas makes sense without questioning because it is the job of the Embassies/Consulates to regulate the visas. Which they are doing.

I think stopping back to back visa exempt entry, limiting the number of visas from one place, and having to buy twice as many visas qualifies as harder.

It is still at the discretion of the I/O if to let you in, they can see all your history on their screen, if they think you are taking the P, they won't let you in, that has not happened so far with people with TV's

As for stopping b2b VE Entry's this is not true at least for some land crossings, Thai Visa Service state 3 b2b are allowed at Ban Laem

I am not trying to define tourism I am stating that if Immigration let you in and the MFA continue to issue repeated TV's then that is their choice and they are happy to let people stay here longterm using TV's this way

I have seen plenty of reports on here of people being asked questions when trying to enter on Visa Exempts but none on TV's, I think that says something, don't you?

I have been here since 06 also, maybe it is maybe it isn't harder to stay here longterm on TV's or other (legal) means, when I get denied I will know it's the former :-)

Letting people in with visas makes sense without questioning because it is the job of the Embassies/Consulates to regulate the visas. Which they are doing.

I think stopping back to back visa exempt entry, limiting the number of visas from one place, and having to buy twice as many visas qualifies as harder.

It is still at the discretion of the I/O if to let you in, they can see all your history on their screen, if they think you are taking the P, they won't let you in, that has not happened so far with people with TV's

As for stopping b2b VE Entry's this is not true at least for some land crossings, Thai Visa Service state 3 b2b are allowed at Ban Laem

Yes it is, but I doubt immigration want the hassle of denying many visitors at the border which is why they regulate visas via the Embassies.

I meant using "b2b VE Entries" as a way to stay long term. As it was prior to '06.

I am not trying to define tourism I am stating that if Immigration let you in and the MFA continue to issue repeated TV's then that is their choice and they are happy to let people stay here longterm using TV's this way

I have seen plenty of reports on here of people being asked questions when trying to enter on Visa Exempts but none on TV's, I think that says something, don't you?

I have been here since 06 also, maybe it is maybe it isn't harder to stay here longterm on TV's or other (legal) means, when I get denied I will know it's the former :-)

Letting people in with visas makes sense without questioning because it is the job of the Embassies/Consulates to regulate the visas. Which they are doing.

I think stopping back to back visa exempt entry, limiting the number of visas from one place, and having to buy twice as many visas qualifies as harder.

It is still at the discretion of the I/O if to let you in, they can see all your history on their screen, if they think you are taking the P, they won't let you in, that has not happened so far with people with TV's

As for stopping b2b VE Entry's this is not true at least for some land crossings, Thai Visa Service state 3 b2b are allowed at Ban Laem

Yes it is, but I doubt immigration want the hassle of denying many visitors at the border which is why they regulate visas via the Embassies.

I meant using "b2b VE Entries" as a way to stay long term. As it was prior to '06.

Which is exactly the point I have been trying to make regarding longterm "tourists"

If you have a valid TV no matter how many you have in your PP, this could be 9 or 10 (start with 3 at PP, then 3 at Vientiane then 3 at Savankhet for example) you will have no problem gaining entry

Therefore Thailand has no issue in letting people do this at this time, if that will change who know's but at the moment it seems fine

Which is exactly the point I have been trying to make regarding longterm "tourists"

If you have a valid TV no matter how many you have in your PP, this could be 9 or 10 (start with 3 at PP, then 3 at Vientiane then 3 at Savankhet for example) you will have no problem gaining entry

Therefore Thailand has no issue in letting people do this at this time, if that will change who know's but at the moment it seems fine

I agree about the entries, but my point is that limiting tourist visa in Vientiane etc shows they are not happy with long term tourists.

I would also say that if they were happy with or wanted to encourage long term 'tourism' they would have a visa/extension of stay to cater for it.

All I am saying is that it's getting harder.

Which is exactly the point I have been trying to make regarding longterm "tourists"

If you have a valid TV no matter how many you have in your PP, this could be 9 or 10 (start with 3 at PP, then 3 at Vientiane then 3 at Savankhet for example) you will have no problem gaining entry

Therefore Thailand has no issue in letting people do this at this time, if that will change who know's but at the moment it seems fine

I agree about the entries, but my point is that limiting tourist visa in Vientiane etc shows they are not happy with long term tourists.

I would also say that if they were happy with or wanted to encourage long term 'tourism' they would have a visa/extension of stay to cater for it.

All I am saying is that it's getting harder.

They have, the TE, some people want it some not

Maybe it is maybe it isn't getting harder but if people want to stay here on that option then they have to work a little more at it

Immigration are still letting people in with lots of TV's so they are obviously not making it to hard, if they were they would limit it to say 2 SETV entry's per year

I think stopping back to back visa exempt entry, limiting the number of visas from one place, and having to buy twice as many visas qualifies as harder.

Well 30 day extensions was an improvement, it used to be 7. So it got easier there. Plus 30 days from land borders when it used to 15.

There hasn't really been any change in the limits one place set, Vientiane was 3-4 max back in '09 when I came. And when you can just go to Savannakhet or elsewhere it's a non-issue.

There are more tourists each year so we'll hear more reports of problems at borders, but as a percentage it might have stayed about the same.

At the end of the day we're still here and it's still pretty easy, if it has really gotten harder well I'd take the glass half full perspective and say it was too easy before. But I'm not convinced it has.

If I'm still here when I turn 50 I won't suddenly turn into the bringer of bad news for the under 50s, I'll be encouraging them and giving them tips.

Edited June 23, 201610 yr by jspill

I think stopping back to back visa exempt entry, limiting the number of visas from one place, and having to buy twice as many visas qualifies as harder.

Well 30 day extensions was an improvement, it used to be 7. So it got easier there. Plus 30 days from land borders when it used to 15.

There hasn't really been any change in the limits one place set, Vientiane was pretty 3-4 max back in '09 when I came. And when you can just go to Savannakhet or elsewhere it's not really an issue.

There are more tourists each year so over time we'll hear more reports of problems at borders, but as a percentage it might have stayed about the same.

At the end of the day we're still here and it's still pretty easy, if it has really gotten harder well I'd take the glass half full perspective and say it was too easy before.

If I'm still here when I turn 50 I won't suddenly turn into the bringer of bad news for the under 50s, I'll be encouraging them and giving them tips.

Agreed. Increasing to 30 was an improvement probably to bring it in line with tourist visa entries and increase revenue. It was a re-adjustment back to 30 from when it was reduced to 15 in '08.

If they continue limiting people to 3 or 4 SETV's then they have halved the time you can stay with visas from Vientiane since last year.

It was too easy before. That's why they've made the changes since '06. But as you weren't here you probably can't appreciate the changes.

I help people with visas everyday. But I'm also prepared to tell it how it is.

Which is exactly the point I have been trying to make regarding longterm "tourists"

If you have a valid TV no matter how many you have in your PP, this could be 9 or 10 (start with 3 at PP, then 3 at Vientiane then 3 at Savankhet for example) you will have no problem gaining entry

Therefore Thailand has no issue in letting people do this at this time, if that will change who know's but at the moment it seems fine

I agree about the entries, but my point is that limiting tourist visa in Vientiane etc shows they are not happy with long term tourists.

I would also say that if they were happy with or wanted to encourage long term 'tourism' they would have a visa/extension of stay to cater for it.

All I am saying is that it's getting harder.

They have, the TE, some people want it some not

Maybe it is maybe it isn't getting harder but if people want to stay here on that option then they have to work a little more at it

Immigration are still letting people in with lots of TV's so they are obviously not making it to hard, if they were they would limit it to say 2 SETV entry's per year

@darendsd : if i am right , you must wait 3 months before aplying for another single entry visa. it makes only 2 possible setv per year

I have never seen a time-limit on the definition of what a tourist is....

A tourist is a person who travels for the most part for pleasure. Though it is funny we are arguing over some english definition when the actual laws are written in Thai.

A tourist visa allows someone to travel to Thailand for 3 or 6 months during one visit. If it does not specify the absolute maximum of how many or how often you can visit, then leaving and re-entering for another visit is valid. You might think you are the arbiter of Thai regulations but the people who actually are are the ones issuing back-to-back visas, so I fail to see how your definition trumps theirs?

If the immigration officer has a suspicion that you are working illegally and not traveling for pleasure he might require you to prove that you have the funds available that mean you are not working.

Does that mean immigration don't have a definition of what a tourist is and how long they should stay?

Everything that has been done since 2006 is restricting (limiting) the ability of many to stay here long term as a tourist with or without a visa. The "ones issuing back to back visa" are imposing limits.

Suspicion of working is not allayed by cash in the bank, but by onward flights, hotel bookings and gaps between visits. The usual things a tourist could supply.

As I've already said I don't see the day that immigration will start denying visa holders at the border. Any further visa restrictions/limits will likely happen via the Embassies and Consulates.

I'm sure that long term use of tourist visas will always exist for those that can afford to rotate applications in Asia or return home.

Immigration has a bunch of little tests which are primarily focused on finding out if you are working while on a tourist visa or visa-exempt status, or involved in criminal activity.

The "visa-exempt" (not the same as tourist visa) is there to allow someone to easily visit for tourism purposes -- with little worry about having to justify that they are a tourist. Most people actually have to work to make a living and therefore only have 2 - 5 weeks off for vacation. Immigration has very little worry that those that are taking 2 to 5 weeks off are going to come to Thailand to work illegally. Allowing for most people to not have to worry or plan and just hop on a plane and have a holiday -- increases the volume of tourism substantially (you see this right now with Vietnam implementing visa waivers for more countries).

If you are going to come here for more time than that then most countries will want you to go through the process of getting a visa (more of a vetting process). You will also have to be prepared to answer more questions to make sure that you are not a risk for working illegally or involved in criminal activity.

Immigration is there to protect Thailand from people jumping the queue and working illegally and potentially displacing local workers. They are also there to make sure criminals are kept out. What they want is to make sure people who will be a burden are not allowed to stay.

The criteria that countries use for who may come in using a visa-waiver is based on two primary conditions:

1. Security - Is the country unstable -- a potential source of terrorists or criminal activity that require more detailed vetting

2. Overstays - People entering the country to work illegally. If a certain thresh-hold on overstays is hit a country may revoke the ability to use visa-waiver to visit forcing people to get a visa and thus get more detailed vetting to make sure they are not coming to work illegally.

In both cases the result is revoking a countries citizens the ability to use visa-waiver and forcing them to get visas which require a more detailed vetting.

Edited June 23, 201610 yr by bkkcanuck8

Which is exactly the point I have been trying to make regarding longterm "tourists"

If you have a valid TV no matter how many you have in your PP, this could be 9 or 10 (start with 3 at PP, then 3 at Vientiane then 3 at Savankhet for example) you will have no problem gaining entry

Therefore Thailand has no issue in letting people do this at this time, if that will change who know's but at the moment it seems fine

I agree about the entries, but my point is that limiting tourist visa in Vientiane etc shows they are not happy with long term tourists.

I would also say that if they were happy with or wanted to encourage long term 'tourism' they would have a visa/extension of stay to cater for it.

All I am saying is that it's getting harder.

They have, the TE, some people want it some not

Maybe it is maybe it isn't getting harder but if people want to stay here on that option then they have to work a little more at it

Immigration are still letting people in with lots of TV's so they are obviously not making it to hard, if they were they would limit it to say 2 SETV entry's per year

@darendsd : if i am right , you must wait 3 months before aplying for another single entry visa. it makes only 2 possible setv per year

There is no requirement to wait 3 months to apply for another tourist visa.

There are some embassies and consulates that have that requirement but it is certainly a requirement set by the MFA.

I think stopping back to back visa exempt entry, limiting the number of visas from one place, and having to buy twice as many visas qualifies as harder.

Well 30 day extensions was an improvement, it used to be 7. So it got easier there. Plus 30 days from land borders when it used to 15.

There hasn't really been any change in the limits one place set, Vientiane was 3-4 max back in '09 when I came. And when you can just go to Savannakhet or elsewhere it's a non-issue.

There are more tourists each year so we'll hear more reports of problems at borders, but as a percentage it might have stayed about the same.

At the end of the day we're still here and it's still pretty easy, if it has really gotten harder well I'd take the glass half full perspective and say it was too easy before. But I'm not convinced it has.

If I'm still here when I turn 50 I won't suddenly turn into the bringer of bad news for the under 50s, I'll be encouraging them and giving them tips.

Only for G7 countries, not everyone.

Which is exactly the point I have been trying to make regarding longterm "tourists"

If you have a valid TV no matter how many you have in your PP, this could be 9 or 10 (start with 3 at PP, then 3 at Vientiane then 3 at Savankhet for example) you will have no problem gaining entry

Therefore Thailand has no issue in letting people do this at this time, if that will change who know's but at the moment it seems fine

I agree about the entries, but my point is that limiting tourist visa in Vientiane etc shows they are not happy with long term tourists.

I would also say that if they were happy with or wanted to encourage long term 'tourism' they would have a visa/extension of stay to cater for it.

All I am saying is that it's getting harder.

They have, the TE, some people want it some not

Maybe it is maybe it isn't getting harder but if people want to stay here on that option then they have to work a little more at it

Immigration are still letting people in with lots of TV's so they are obviously not making it to hard, if they were they would limit it to say 2 SETV entry's per year

@darendsd : if i am right , you must wait 3 months before aplying for another single entry visa. it makes only 2 possible setv per year

@Silverado

Not sure where you have got that from? I was saying if they wanted to make it harder that's what they could do, not that they are dong it

Edited June 24, 201610 yr by darrendsd

@darendsd : if i am right , you must wait 3 months before aplying for another single entry visa. it makes only 2 possible setv per year

@Silverado

Not sure where you have got that from? I was saying if they wanted to make it harder that's what they could do, not that they are dong it

Even if it was true you can do at least 3 visa exempts in a year (probably more), extending them doesn't count as another entry, so 6 months a year on exemptions / extension, plus 6 months on the two possible SETVs = living in Thailand 365 days a year.