Valid Tourist Visa Activity Now Triggers Immigration-Computer Hold

[JackThompson]

It appears those here for beyond a certain time on Tourist Visas (not only visa-exempts, anymore) now have a computer "hold" placed on crossings in or out of Thailand.  I have been living "mostly in Thailand" for the past year+.  Before that time, I had a couple 6-9 mo periods in Thailand, with multi-month breaks elsewhere, and 2 visa-exempts on returns after those breaks.  I have never been on overstay. 

 

I was Leaving Thailand via Arayaprathet-Poipet, and the IO was unable to clear me thorough.  I was directed to speak to a supervisor.  I was asked if going to do an "in-out" - I replied "No, I am on the way to Phnom Penh."  He seemed relieved at this.  We discussed my history in Thailand, my previous passport, etc (yes, they can see it all).

 

He said that even with a valid tourist visa, "the computer" might not allow me to return.  I asked what I could "do better" to help, noting that I am a bit short of 50 years of age.  Specifics on how much time out of Thailand would make a difference, etc, were not offered - I suspect the IOs are not told the 'rules' that set off a computer-warning, or are forbidden to share this info.

 

"Flying back" was suggested, but I will not risk being sent to the other side of the planet - or spending up to 7 days in detention to challenge an incorrect decision (show the money, the foreign-origin of my funds, etc -  but get a stamp saying "denied for not enough money" anyway, as has happened to others) - so this is not an option. 

 

I was directed back to the Immigration booth (they have booths at this crossing now), and the next IO had to ask a few questions of supervisors to deal with whatever the computer was putting in his way.

 

Everyone involved was polite and professional. 

 

I will follow up here on my experience returning (not via Poipet-Aranyaprathet), and add to an ongoing thread on getting my next Tourist Visa visa in Phnom Penh.

 

This new issue may also explain what happened to the poster here:

 

[oMega69]

I hope my documents of retire founds from abroad will be enof if they Grill me at the boarder next time i will return from Lao . .

I had TR visas since 2004 ^^

[ClearM1nd]

Yeah, i think its exactly the same situation. Hope u will get a new visa without a problem  

[BritTim]

I strongly suspected this was the case. I have once heard the immigration officer talking briefly with a supervisor about my history when I entered, and once asked by an immigration officer why I was spending so much time in Thailand. On neither occasion was there any drama, but I had the distinct impression they were responding to a computer alert.

[hawker9000]

More evidence that possession of a valid visa is not the sacrosanct guarantee that some keep insisting it is...  When it comes to foreigners anymore, EVERYTHNG is on the table.

[Thaidream]

It appears their modus operandi is to hassle people who are using tourist visas to stay in Thailand on an indefinite basis. I have yet to hear of anyone actually being denied entry with a valid tourist visa, but between limits imposed by Embassies/Consulates and the Io hassle when entering- many people will get the hint and move on and not return to Thailand. This is preciously what they want to happen. Thailand is becoming a place for retirees, legally married to Thais; or those  who can afford elite Visas only.  It's too bad really.

[Suradit69]

5 minutes ago, hawker9000 said:

More evidence that possession of a valid visa is not the sacrosanct guarantee that some keep insisting it is...  When it comes to foreigners anymore, EVERYTHNG is on the table.

" EVERYTHNG is on the table. "

 

Well to be fair, neither a tourist visa nor visa exempt entry was intended for someone who spends years living here even if it's less than 12 months per year.

[hawker9000]

12 minutes ago, Suradit69 said:

" EVERYTHNG is on the table. "

 

Well to be fair, neither a tourist visa nor visa exempt entry was intended for someone who spends years living here even if it's less than 12 months per year.

 

Well, to be even more fair, why could this determination not be made at the embassy or consulate before issuing the visa?  Even better, a clear, unambiguous, published policy with a "cutoff" or "not more than" criteria?  But I do agree that tourist visas are not intended to facilitate permanent residence, and those abusing them just make it more difficult for everyone else, just as do the long overstayers.

[MobileContent]

Cambodian Borders seems to be always some kind of problems.

 

The OP should be fine to just fly into Thailand.

 

Our company faces no such problems and we normally fax a copy of our clients passport (genuine tourists) a day before.

[JackThompson]

1 hour ago, hawker9000 said:

 

Well, to be even more fair, why could this determination not be made at the embassy or consulate before issuing the visa?  Even better, a clear, unambiguous, published policy with a "cutoff" or "not more than" criteria?  But I do agree that tourist visas are not intended to facilitate permanent residence, and those abusing them just make it more difficult for everyone else, just as do the long overstayers.

 

Agree on the first part - I could plan accordingly with "clear rules," as I did in every other country where I have lived.  Overstays are on the record of the offender, so should not affect anyone else.

 

I don't see how people "using" (not abusing) them to stay most of the year make anything hard on others.  We didn't make the "non-rules."  They can either create new criteria for Tourist Visas, or turn off the "alerts" for people not disobeying the standing rules.

[JackThompson]

1 hour ago, MobileContent said:

Cambodian Borders seems to be always some kind of problems.

 

The OP should be fine to just fly into Thailand.

 

Our company faces no such problems and we normally fax a copy of our clients passport (genuine tourists) a day before.

 

I have considered returning via Laos, but not sure it would make any difference if "The Computer" (networked) is the problem.  There is no way I would risk being "sent home" from the airport (that IO's computer will get the same alert).  I don't even know what a "last minute round trip" to LA and back to Phnom Penh would cost. 

 

The only definition I have of "genuine tourist" is what the visa-laws say.  Per the law, I have non-Thai sourced income, enough of it to show on demand, and even my bank-books to show it is all foreign-sourced - so that should be the end of the question unless or until the laws change. 

 

But there is the matter of a Supervisor's decision.  Anyone have a comparison on friendliness of the crossings at Koh Kong / Had Lek - VS - Palin / Ban Packard?

[louse1953]

2 hours ago, Suradit69 said:

" EVERYTHNG is on the table. "

 

Well to be fair, neither a tourist visa nor visa exempt entry was intended for someone who spends years living here even if it's less than 12 months per year.

Exactly.Tourist visas are for tourists.He admitted living in Thailand.There are other visas available.

[billd766]

3 hours ago, hawker9000 said:

More evidence that possession of a valid visa is not the sacrosanct guarantee that some keep insisting it is...  When it comes to foreigners anymore, EVERYTHNG is on the table.

 

I suspect that it is not so much being in possession of a valid visa which is the problem. It is more a case of having the CORRECT valid visa for your personal situation that may be the problem.

 

AFAIR a tourist visa is just what it says, a visa for tourists, a Non Imm B visa is for business, an Ed visa is for Education, a Non Imm O visa is one that can be converted to a Marriage or Retirement extension. I am happy to be corrected if I have got it wrong.

 

Each type is issued for a specific reason and has its own set of rules and conditions attached.

 

Back in the older days the Government and Immigration were lax and people could get away with endless border runs with sometimes an under the table payment. In the last few months this government has clamped down and is insisting that the current laws be obeyed (though most laws have been around but not enforced for years).

 

Why they are doing so I really don't know other than

 

1   they can

2   they want to be seen as doing something

3   they are trying to close a security problem

 

I am not paranoid as some posters seem to be and I keep my nose clean, follow the rules and I don't seem to have a problem. Maybe this is because I have a retirement extension and I can still pay my way, do my 90 day reports on time and don't cause any problems. I don't know.

 

It seems to me that the people who are complaining the most are those still doing border runs and finding it harder to do so.

[JackThompson]

5 minutes ago, billd766 said:

I suspect that it is not so much being in possession of a valid visa which is the problem. It is more a case of having the CORRECT valid visa for your personal situation that may be the problem.

 

AFAIR a tourist visa is just what it says, a visa for tourists, ...

 

"Tourist - defined as "not working / receiving income from Thai sources" and "Has the funds to support themselves" (hence: show 20K Baht).  There is no other definition / time-limit on the law-books.

 

5 minutes ago, billd766 said:

Each type is issued for a specific reason and has its own set of rules and conditions attached.

 

Back in the older days the Government and Immigration were lax and people could get away with endless border runs with sometimes an under the table payment. In the last few months this government has clamped down and is insisting that the current laws be obeyed (though most laws have been around but not enforced for years).

 

There are still plenty of "under the table" / "illegal" options out there for many visa-types.  Those "getting caught" in these changes are those of us following the laws - not the undesirables.  To catch the bad-guys requires catching them - people 'not in language-class' on Ed-Visas, 'working illegally', etc.  This activity cannot be identified at a border.

 

5 minutes ago, billd766 said:

...

I am not paranoid as some posters seem to be and I keep my nose clean, follow the rules and I don't seem to have a problem. Maybe this is because I have a retirement extension and I can still pay my way, do my 90 day reports on time and don't cause any problems. I don't know.

 

It seems to me that the people who are complaining the most are those still doing border runs and finding it harder to do so.

 

"In/Out" Border-runners, vs those who get Tourist Visas and return - yes.  Though even the visa-exempt entries the border-runners use(d) are flagged based on undefined rules - not clear laws and regulations, so many frequent visitors have been caught up in the net.   In the past, they were told to "go get a visa" - now that seems not to work, either.

[billd766]

quote "Tourist - defined as "not working / receiving income from Thai sources" and "Has the funds to support themselves" (hence: show 20K Baht).  There is no other definition / time-limit on the law-books.

 

Yes there IS a time limit.

 

Tourist visas are issued for a limited period of time only and are usually SETV but they can be METV. Usually for 30, 60 or 90 days at a time and are obtained from a Thai embassy or consulate outside of the country.

 

A visa on arrival length depends on the tourists country and are either 15 or 30 days if you arrive by air or 15 days crossing a land border.

 

quote " There are still plenty of "under the table" / "illegal" options out there for many visa-types.  Those "getting caught" in these changes are those of us following the laws - not the undesirables.  To catch the bad-guys requires catching them - people 'not in language-class' on Ed-Visas, 'working illegally', etc.  This activity cannot be identified at a border."

 

If you are using under the table/illegal options then you are not following the laws or you wouldn't need to do it. If doesn't matter where you get caught if you are still breaking the law or don't you believe that the law should apply to you?

[Dumbastheycome]

As  has been noted above the extensions or reissue of tourist  visa  at  land crossing points of entry have  incrementally  become restricted over  many years and information as to that has also been widely announced.

This is not  some  deliberate vendetta aimed at  farang specifically  but part of a long term strategy  to  eliminate  illegal workers from  neighbouring  countries. Immigration rules  are theoretically applied  to any  non Thai wishing to enter and so  does  not  have some special  category for  farang.

Obviously those  tourists arriving  by air  are more likely to be  genuine and so the criteria  is applied differently to  land border  hoppers.

The fact that it inconveniences farang or any other who just  wish to indulge in whatever in Thailand long term is of no concern to Thai Immigration to the point where gratuitous  payments are also increasingly unlikely to achieve a desired  result.

For those hat have grown accustomed to  having  cake and  eating it too may be limited unless they comply  with the legitimate avenues  of long/er stay.

 

[JackThompson]

4 minutes ago, billd766 said:

quote "Tourist - defined as "not working / receiving income from Thai sources" and "Has the funds to support themselves" (hence: show 20K Baht).  There is no other definition / time-limit on the law-books.

 

Yes there IS a time limit.

 

Tourist visas are issued for a limited period of time only and are usually SETV but they can be METV. Usually for 30, 60 or 90 days at a time and are obtained from a Thai embassy or consulate outside of the country.

 

A visa on arrival length depends on the tourists country and are either 15 or 30 days if you arrive by air or 15 days crossing a land border.

 

quote " There are still plenty of "under the table" / "illegal" options out there for many visa-types.  Those "getting caught" in these changes are those of us following the laws - not the undesirables.  To catch the bad-guys requires catching them - people 'not in language-class' on Ed-Visas, 'working illegally', etc.  This activity cannot be identified at a border."

 

If you are using under the table/illegal options then you are not following the laws or you wouldn't need to do it. If doesn't matter where you get caught if you are still breaking the law or don't you believe that the law should apply to you?

 

I am not violating Any laws / using those methods - hence why I had the experience described.  If I, for example, paid illegally to "pretend to go to school and learn French," I would not have had this experience.  Those who do that, are having no problems at all.

 

The time limits you mention are "per visa."  There is no law stating how many Tourist Visas you can have in a span of time, an interim-period between them, count per-year, etc.  If there were such laws, we could plan accordingly.

[elviajero]

I honestly can't see immigration starting to deny entry to visa holders based on previous visa numbers, especially at the airport, unless they set and publish a limit. Either they have to limit people via the consular services, or put an official stamp in the passport giving notice that future entries will be denied!

[itsuptome]

2 hours ago, elviajero said:

I honestly can't see immigration starting to deny entry to visa holders based on previous visa numbers, especially at the airport, unless they set and publish a limit. Either they have to limit people via the consular services, or put an official stamp in the passport giving notice that future entries will be denied!

 

This is likely correct in my view. When a story like this is posted to Thaivisa the self-appointed Farang Visa Police always come out of the woodwork to assert that long stay visitors on tourist visas are basically criminals, despite the visas issued being valid and legal and despite Immigration honoring those visas in practically every example.

 

While no one can say for certain, if this policy is going to change it's highly likely that Immigration will publish a written notice beforehand as that is what they usually do with policy changes (changes regarding in-out visa exempt runs and handling of overstayers being two examples in the past two years).

 

Could these border warnings be a prelude to that? Certainly.

 

Until then though, it's pointless to lecture people on what the "true" intent of a tourist visa is. In fact it's counterproductive because it can cause confusion. Clear explanations of the visa conditions, entitlements, and application process along with how they are assessed upon entry are what should be provided.

[sometimewoodworker]

13 hours ago, hawker9000 said:

More evidence that possession of a valid visa is not the sacrosanct guarantee that some keep insisting it is...  When it comes to foreigners anymore, EVERYTHNG is on the table.

 

A valid visa is never, and has never been a guarantee of entry to any country. It is always at the discretion if the IO. 

 

However most countries require the refusal to be based on immigration rules 

[baboon]

15 hours ago, Thaidream said:

It appears their modus operandi is to hassle people who are using tourist visas to stay in Thailand on an indefinite basis. I have yet to hear of anyone actually being denied entry with a valid tourist visa, but between limits imposed by Embassies/Consulates and the Io hassle when entering- many people will get the hint and move on and not return to Thailand. This is preciously what they want to happen. Thailand is becoming a place for retirees, legally married to Thais; or those  who can afford elite Visas only.  It's too bad really.

I am legally married to a Thai and hold a multiple entry Non O. This has not stopped me being grilled from time to time. Why I come and go so often, why I don't come and go often enough, am I working, why am I not working. How do they know I won't work illegally  (How do you know a dog won't bite you next week?), why I used their checkpoint this time, why I used Suvarnabhumi last time, why I couldn't have used their checkpoint last time and Suvarnabhumi this time...

 

It isn't just holders of visa exempts and tourist visas who get 'the treatment'...

[bkkcanuck8]

2 hours ago, sometimewoodworker said:

 

A valid visa is never, and has never been a guarantee of entry to any country. It is always at the discretion if the IO. 

 

However most countries require the refusal to be based on immigration rules 

 

Agree with the first line, but not the second.

 

Most countries immigration have discretion to refuse entry to people based on reasonable suspicions that they might be violating the "purpose" of the visa (i.e. working illegally or criminal activity).   Frequency or length of visit are not considered "reasons" upon themselves for refusal unless there are specific time restrictions published (i.e. tourist limited to 6 months out of year) only as a basis of reasonable suspicion of activity not permitted on that visa.  Most people have the mistaken belief that because they have not had issues with "a certain country" that the immigration of that country is better -- but the truth is probably that for whatever reason you have not triggered any scrutiny yet because you are within a certain profile.  Immigration deals with an incredible number of people a day and does not have time to scrutinize everyone, so they are only looking to further scrutinize people if they have been alerted by certain behavior (being evasive when questioned; not having sufficient documentation such as where they are staying etc.) while letting the majority through the net.  

[sometimewoodworker]

8 minutes ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

 

Agree with the first line, but not the second.

 

Most countries immigration have discretion to refuse entry to people based on reasonable suspicions that they might be violating the "purpose" of the visa (i.e. working illegally or criminal activity).   Frequency or length of visit are not considered "reasons" upon themselves for refusal unless there are specific time restrictions published (i.e. tourist limited to 6 months out of year) only as a basis of reasonable suspicion of activity not permitted on that visa.  Most people have the mistaken belief that because they have not had issues with "a certain country" that the immigration of that country is better -- but the truth is probably that for whatever reason you have not triggered any scrutiny yet because you are within a certain profile.  Immigration deals with an incredible number of people a day and does not have time to scrutinize everyone, so they are only looking to further scrutinize people if they have been alerted by certain behavior (being evasive when questioned; not having sufficient documentation such as where they are staying etc.) while letting the majority through the net.  

You are in fact agreeing with me on both parts  as there in most countries there is a rule permitting refused entry based on believing the visa holder is trying to enter for a different purpose than the visa is granted for.

[Thaidream]

It appears the immigration computer is tracking entries and exits regardless of the type of visa held and after a certain number -alerts the IO to question the person entering or exiting.  Denial of entry is possible, but the IO  needs a valid reason to actually deny entry. If a person has a valid reason for entry especially with a multiple O visa- the IO has to allow the entry, especially if entering at an airport.   I would certainly carry proof of income; proof of address; and sufficient money in my pocket, if entering and exiting often. Frankly, I find the constant questioning intrusive and it will drive people out of Thailand- which is why they do it.

[thaitero]

I think it is totally unclear when their computer flags people.
IMO it is not only based on x amount entries. Most likely there are other unknown variables also in their computerprogram.

[SaintLouisBlues]

19 hours ago, hawker9000 said:

More evidence that possession of a valid visa is not the sacrosanct guarantee that some keep insisting it is...  When it comes to foreigners anymore, EVERYTHNG is on the table.

 

Of course it isn't. A visa merely gives you the right to travel to the country (to any country that issues a visa). On arrival an Immigration officer will determine whether to admit you or not. Some countries (eg. Australia) demand a visa before you can step on a plane and fly there, which is why there's so much screening at the point of departure. It's still open for an Australian (in Australia) or American (in the US) immigration official to deny entry

 

As the Thai Consulate in Sydney's web site clearly states: " Possession of a visa alone does not guarantee entry into Thailand" http://www.thaiconsulatesydney.org/Home/visa 

[swampdonkey]

More evidence that possession of a valid visa is not the sacrosanct guarantee that some keep insisting it is...  When it comes to foreigners anymore, EVERYTHNG is on the table.

There is a difference between the correct visa
and a valid visa.
A tourist visa is not for someone who is spending most of their time living in Thailand

[bkkcanuck8]

19 hours ago, hawker9000 said:

More evidence that possession of a valid visa is not the sacrosanct guarantee that some keep insisting it is...  When it comes to foreigners anymore, EVERYTHNG is on the table.

 

As a prior posting made clear, a visa is not a right or a guarantee that you may enter the country.  Typically it is just pre-boarding vetting that you meet certain standards as part of vetting you before you board a flight to the country in question.  Most often it is vetting the individual that they will abide by the visa and will not be a burden on the country they are visiting.  Most often it is vetting that you are financially qualified and are unlikely to overstay the visa or do something not permitted on the visa.  

 

Embassy staff would not have access to the full breadth of information that may be available on actual entry:

   - criminal record search

   - intelligence reporting which could be summarized as "persona non-grata"

   - and many countries would not have access to your entry/exit or immigration notes.  

 

For this type of thing, they would likely need to forward the information to the civil service in the home country and then get authorization back -- something that would be not typically possible as a one-day turn-around for typical visa issuing.  

 

In most countries the immigration officers have wide discretion of rejecting entry and they could do that at any interaction.  It does however typically raise the bar on screening a little though in reality.   

 

 

[baboon]

43 minutes ago, SaintLouisBlues said:

 

Of course it isn't. A visa merely gives you the right to travel to the country (to any country that issues a visa). On arrival an Immigration officer will determine whether to admit you or not. Some countries (eg. Australia) demand a visa before you can step on a plane and fly there, which is why there's so much screening at the point of departure. It's still open for an Australian (in Australia) or American (in the US) immigration official to deny entry

 

As the Thai Consulate in Sydney's web site clearly states: " Possession of a visa alone does not guarantee entry into Thailand" http://www.thaiconsulatesydney.org/Home/visa 

Well I'll tell you what: Let's make the entry system into a coin toss, visa or not. Then see how the country thrives.

[KenKadz]

If we knew who (individual - contractor - organization) was performing the IT (internet technology) and programing work for Thai Immigration we might have a better understanding of all the situation.

Thai immigration officers are doing their jobs according to the information they are supplied by the  computer system.

Remember in Thailand a person gets a job/contract through family contacts, not necessarily education, work history, or other Western concepts like being able to do the job.

And every young man in Thailand will tell you he is a *computer expert*.