Prohibited Entry KBV international

[cruisemonkey]

I'm surprised the officer didn't just extort 2000 baht from the OP - as the Immigration supervisor at Phuket (HKT) did to me recently.

 

I'm not coming back to Thailand. The idiots are 'cutting their own throats'.

Edited August 20, 2016 by cruisemonkey

[Jk2005]

Yeah I don't think involving a lawyer in any way is a good idea. Ultimately immigration officers make the decision and if I involved a lawyer, even to "remind" them of the law, who knows what would have happened. I would surely bet that they would think I'm opposing them and it wouldn't have been good. 

 

I can't comment any more about opposition to authority in Thailand.

[greenchair]

Hey, everyone looks like cambodia wants to pick up the foreigners that thailand no longer wants. They are offering 3 year visa on arrival. They said, the foreigners help their people to develop in many areas and increase the Cambodians income and ability to compete internationally. It's only going to be a few years and with a bit of help from foreigners, it will be just as comfy as thailand. Importantly they are welcoming to both Chinese and native English speakers to help them with languages. I am making plans for sure. 

These are the benefits we will receive. 

No telephone tracking. 

No, 90 reporting 

3 years multiple entry that can be renewed. 

Freedom to have a business. 

Easier access to wp for people that want to teach English or Chinese. 

We can visit thailand once a year so we don't have to have too many stamps that make us criminals to be locked up. 

And so on.

[elviajero]

8 hours ago, dbrenn said:

As others have said, section 12(2) of the Immigration Act is for insufficient funds. There is no section in the Immigration Act that allows them to refuse people entry for "too many in-outs", so it looks like they are trying to say people who do too many in-outs (with no visible means of income like a work permit) must therefore have insufficient funds. Not logical, but that's Thai bureaucracy for you.

There is. They could use Sections 12.1 or 12.10.

[Jk2005]

2 hours ago, gregk0543 said:

If we examine the  pattern of your entries, extensions and exits over the two year period  with what you are saying 2

to 3 visits to USA of 6 weeks per year. you are spending about 9 months of each  year in Thailand doing almost back to backs.

 It is close enough for them to be suspicious that you are indeed working in Thailand or not a legitimate tourist so using the allowances instead of getting another visa.

 

But they werent being nice about it. They could have say given you 15 days entry and told you to get a proper visa.

 

So did they ask you how you supported yourself doing this?

What your occupation was etc?

 

Anyway you have crossed the undefined line in that officers eyes and you know yourself you must have been close to it.

You should be fine if you apply for an appropriate visa and plan longer breaks between visits to Thailand. Stay away a month between visits for example.

 

I Knew it was ultimately going to happen, but I was given no warning on prior entries. They didn't ask if I work here (which I don't) and they didn't ask how I supported myself. They did however talk to my girlfriend for quite a while and she explained to them that I stay in Chiang Rai with her and we travel back and forth to the US like I stated. 

 

They did ask what I do in Thailand, and my response was pretty basic. "My girlfriend lives here and I stay with her." That was the extent of that interrogation. 

 

If they would have asked my occupation, I would have explained to them, they just didn't ask. 

 

1 hour ago, JackThompson said:

 

Yes it was wrong.  He did have the funds to show - but it also appears to be the usual false-reason penciled-in for denying a lawful entry at airports - a pattern we have seen reported again and again. 

 

I assume on the last VE-entry, a "last time" warning was not issued?  Absent that, this was completely inexcusable behavior - treating someone who broke no law as a criminal.  They had his passport - was he going to "run away" and try to escape the airport and risk an actual criminal offense?  Of course not.

 

This is yet one more example demonstrating why I will only enter Thailand via land-borders under the current, unknown / undefined, Immigration-checkpoint rules.  The OP was lucky to be allowed to book his last-minute ticket to Singapore - not to the USA (his Passport-country), as has happened to others in similar situations.  As to the next trip, be aware that one's return-journey option might only be to the USA if that was the point of origin.  I would go to KL or similar, go through immigration there, and only then move on to Thailand.

 

I surely wasn't running away. Lol. They could have escorted me to a hotel and let me sleep there. I was clearly obeying whatever they were telling me. I'm going to the US from Singapore tomorrow. And ion planning to return mid October. Last minute decision out of confusion. But it gives me time to visit family and friends and get my documents in order for my return. I'm flying back through Singapore.

 

it would have been great if they would have let me pass immigration fly to BKK and return to the US that way. Would save a headache of having to travel through Singapore.

[elviajero]

3 hours ago, manarak said:

 

no... the call to the lawyer would not be made with the goal of making a legal case, but having a professional lawyer talk to the officers, possibly reminding them about the exact regulations and directives how to handle travelers, possibly refering the officers to a more competent senior officer.

This might resolve the issue on the spot, I have seen this happen before.

They are being denied entry because of too many visa exempt entry which has been authorised under ministerial regulations and they would, IMO, have had no hope of having an appeal (even via a lawyer) upheld.

 

It would be better for all if they went back to a published limit on visa exempt entries because at the moment it is entirely at the discretion of the IO's.

 

IMO the only thing they have done wrong is to use 12. 2 as the reason for denial when the actual reason was due to "out/in"(back to back) visa exempt entries, but "having no appropriate means of living" is so ambiguous that it could easily be applied to the OP as well.

[elviajero]

8 hours ago, midas said:

 

"  they wouldn't know about the denied entry as they are not connected to the immigration system. "

 

 I find it hard to believe and even if it is true now surely it's only a matter of time before they decide to consolidate as much information as possible electronically?

A visa doesn't guarantee entry to the country so even if the consular service issued a visa to someone that's blacklisted they still wouldn't get in to the country. 

[impulse]

5 minutes ago, elviajero said:

A visa doesn't guarantee entry to the country so even if the consular service issued a visa to someone that's blacklisted they still wouldn't get in to the country. 

 

Which is a good heads up for people who think they can game the system by getting a visa because the embassies/consulates don't know their situation- because they're not on the same system.  The guy stamping you in does.

 

The only thing worse than getting denied a visa would be to get turned around at the border after paying for the plane ticket and spending a couple of days traveling.

[Maestro]

44 minutes ago, elviajero said:

There is. They could use Sections 12.1 or 12.10.

 

Neither of the two would apply to a foreigner who has, in the opinion of the immigration officer, made too many entries into Thailand or spent too much time in the country for the purpose of tourism, ie with tourist visas or visa-exempt. Only Section 12(3) would suit the purpose and has been used by immigration in the past for this.

[kingstonkid]

As to Embassies not having the info do not believe that.

 

I can tell you as one that worked in an embassy in the dark ages (late 90's) that we knew everything there was about anyone who had been denied or queried.  Even if the got a new passport.

 

That being said the comment that they made about you should have gotten a "real visa" tells me that there will not be an issue although they may ask questions.  

 

Make sure you explain yourself indepth when you go to get the visa and take all your bank info.

[NanLaew]

The OP should also keep in mind that despite returning on a new. clean passport with a visa, his main biometrics (name, date of birth, place of birth and his picture) are already in the Immigration database. For that reason I would recommend entering at Suvarnabhumi instead of any southern airport where the chance of encountering an overzealous Immigration cop with a poor handle on the regulations he is supposed to enforce seems to be higher.

[ubonjoe]

2 minutes ago, kingstonkid said:

As to Embassies not having the info do not believe that.

 

I can tell you as one that worked in an embassy in the dark ages (late 90's) that we knew everything there was about anyone who had been denied or queried.  Even if the got a new passport.

 

That being said the comment that they made about you should have gotten a "real visa" tells me that there will not be an issue although they may ask questions.  

 

Make sure you explain yourself indepth when you go to get the visa and take all your bank info.

I am sure that was not a Thai embassy.

[dbrenn]

1 hour ago, elviajero said:

There is. They could use Sections 12.1 or 12.10.

 

I don't see how 12(1) or 12(10) could apply in the case of someone doing too many in-outs ....

 

12(1)  Having no genuine and valid passport or document used in lieu of passport ; or having a genuine and valid passport or document used in lieu of a passport without Visaing by the Royal Thai Embassies or Consulates in Foreign countries ; or from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs , excepting if a visa is not required for certain types of aliens in special instances.

 

12(10)  Being a person prohibited by the Minister under Section 16

And section 16 states:  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.

 

http://www.immigration.go.th/nov2004/en/doc/Immigration_Act.pdf

[dbrenn]

1 hour ago, Maestro said:

 

Neither of the two would apply to a foreigner who has, in the opinion of the immigration officer, made too many entries into Thailand or spent too much time in the country for the purpose of tourism, ie with tourist visas or visa-exempt. Only Section 12(3) would suit the purpose and has been used by immigration in the past for this.

 

I see, and you are right - 12(3) would be harder to refute, as it states: "Having entered into the Kingdom to take occupation as a laborer or to take employment by using physical without skills training or to work in violation of the Ministerial Regulations."

 

I presume that the onus of proof of no intention to work would be on the 'too frequent' tourist?

[NanLaew]

55 minutes ago, kingstonkid said:

As to Embassies not having the info do not believe that.

 

I can tell you as one that worked in an embassy in the dark ages (late 90's) that we knew everything there was about anyone who had been denied or queried.  Even if the got a new passport.

 

That being said the comment that they made about you should have gotten a "real visa" tells me that there will not be an issue although they may ask questions.  

 

Make sure you explain yourself indepth when you go to get the visa and take all your bank info.

 

What Thai Embassy were your working in?

 

Agreed on the OP (and anyone else) giving a proper explanation when asked, "What you do in Thailand?" and not take advantage of language deficiencies by telling them about staying with your girlfriend. They really do want to know what the OP's occupation is, ie. source of income. Don't try and be evasive as they will see it as taking the piss and you're not meaning to do that now are you?

[elviajero]

1 hour ago, Maestro said:

 

Neither of the two would apply to a foreigner who has, in the opinion of the immigration officer, made too many entries into Thailand or spent too much time in the country for the purpose of tourism, ie with tourist visas or visa-exempt. Only Section 12(3) would suit the purpose and has been used by immigration in the past for this.

 Section 12 : Aliens which fall into any of the following categories are excluded from entering into the Kingdom :

1. Having no genuine and valid passport or document used in lieu of passport ; or having a genuine and valid passport or document used in lieu of a passport without Visaing by the Royal Thai Embassies or Consulates in Foreign countries ; or from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs , excepting if a visa is not required for certain types of aliens in special instances.
Visaing and visa exemption will be under the learn and conditions as provided in the Ministerial Regulations. 

 

10. Being a person prohibited by the Minister under Section 16. 

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. 

 

Section 12.1 says that visa exemption is under ministerial regulations so if the ministerial regulations say that a foreigner can be denied for overusing visa exempt entry this could be used.

Section 16. If the Minister decides to exclude foreigners overusing visa exempt entry then Section 12.10 could be used.

[elviajero]

17 minutes ago, dbrenn said:

 

I see, and you are right - 12(3) would be harder to refute, as it states: "Having entered into the Kingdom to take occupation as a laborer or to take employment by using physical without skills training or to work in violation of the Ministerial Regulations."

 

I presume that the onus of proof of no intention to work would be on the 'too frequent' tourist?

 

Below is the guideline issued to immigration officers. As I understand it they can deny entry if they believe the person is not entering for tourism OR are suspected of working OR doing 'visa runs' (in/out).

 

12.3 could be used for suspicion of work, but not if the reason is in/out visa runs. The OP was denied because he overused visa exempt entry so IMO 12.1 or 12.10 should be used and not 12.3.

 

Quote

 

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

 

To keep permission of entering in compliance with immigration law and provision concerned, it is deemed expedient to impose additional procedures of inspecting and permitting ordinary passport holders from certain countries who are not required to obtain a visa when entering Thailand for tourism purposes,

 

1. Information checking

1.1 Purpose of entering the Kingdom

The alien must enter the Kingdom with the sole purpose of tourism, and not for work.

1.2 Record of entry and stay within the Kingdom

1.2.1 A number of entry into the Kingdom
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.

2. Reason to believe that entry into Kingdom is not for the purpose of tourism

2.1 Alien will be interviewed and requested to show evidence of the purpose of tourism such as tickets, pocket money, booking slip, traveling plan.
2.2 The criterion as in 2.1 if deemed necessary to record as an evidence, the alien may be required to fill out the form as attached in the annex hereto.

3. Reason to reject or permit entry to Thailand

3.1  Upon complete evidence of entering the Kingdom for tourism purpose and not for working purpose, alien shall be granted for permission to stay for 15, 30 or 90 days as set out in the bilateral agreements.

3.2  Without valid reason compiled to lack of evidence required by the immigration officer, the alien shall be refused to enter the Kingdom, pursuant to immigration law provision. 

 

 

[Jk2005]

37 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

 

What Thai Embassy were your working in?

 

Agreed on the OP (and anyone else) giving a proper explanation when asked, "What you do in Thailand?" and not take advantage of language deficiencies by telling them about staying with your girlfriend. They really do want to know what the OP's occupation is, ie. source of income. Don't try and be evasive as they will see it as taking the piss and you're not meaning to do that now are you?

 

 

I surely wasn't evading any question. I was clearly asked "what do you do in Thailand?"  I told them exactly what I do. My employment outside of the country was not questioned, nor was i withholding. My career allows me to work when I'm home and literally "chill" and live with my girlfriend the rest of the time.

 

If they would have asked for any information about my employment or my financial documents I would have given it to them. They spoke to my girlfriend on the phone numerous times and there wasn't a language barrier there.

Edited August 20, 2016 by Jk2005

[gdgbb]

On 19/08/2016 at 10:32 PM, thaitero said:

Huh, What a story. Thanks for sharing.

i quess people like OP should use suvarnhabhum if possible.

 

...or get a visa, it's not that difficult.

[gdgbb]

5 hours ago, Jk2005 said:

 

 

 

 

I surely wasn't running away. Lol. They could have escorted me to a hotel and let me sleep there.

 

 

No they couldn't, not without stamping you into the country which they weren't going to do.

[Postmaster]

Sorry to make things worse for you but I have been told that the Thai Consuls in individual countries are not on line to entry-Immigration details in Thailand and I don't know for sure whether this is important in your case.  You may get the Home Visa but the real test is when you arrive at the port of entry in Thailand. You could still get a refusal.  Anyone can refute or contribute to this because it is just what I have heard that's all.

[BritTim]

3 hours ago, Postmaster said:

Sorry to make things worse for you but I have been told that the Thai Consuls in individual countries are not on line to entry-Immigration details in Thailand and I don't know for sure whether this is important in your case.  You may get the Home Visa but the real test is when you arrive at the port of entry in Thailand. You could still get a refusal.  Anyone can refute or contribute to this because it is just what I have heard that's all.

 

What you say is accurate. That said, there has been considerable reluctance by immigration to refuse entry to those with visas. The only exception that is not really rare is refusing entry to those who are on education visas and who cannot speak any Thai after "learning" it for a year or two. I would not be surprised if they start refusing entry to long stay Thai residents that have been using tourist visas, but that has not happened yet.

[Witblitz]

2 hours ago, BritTim said:

 

What you say is accurate. That said, there has been considerable reluctance by immigration to refuse entry to those with visas. The only exception that is not really rare is refusing entry to those who are on education visas and who cannot speak any Thai after "learning" it for a year or two. I would not be surprised if they start refusing entry to long stay Thai residents that have been using tourist visas, but that has not happened yet.

A person living on tourist visa's is not a long term" resident " this is the crux of what immigration is attempting to stop hence the reason they deny entry to people who have deemed to have had too many in's and out's 

 

Its not rocket science to understand this, Ed visa were clamped down because people abused this visa, and the same thing will happen with visa waivers and too many toursits visas as people are abusing the system 

[JackThompson]

4 hours ago, Witblitz said:

A person living on tourist visa's is not a long term" resident " this is the crux of what immigration is attempting to stop hence the reason they deny entry to people who have deemed to have had too many in's and out's 

 

Its not rocket science to understand this, Ed visa were clamped down because people abused this visa, and the same thing will happen with visa waivers and too many toursits visas as people are abusing the system 

 

If this is what they want to stop, they need to establish clear rules for exactly how long a person can live in the Kingdom per year with 'tourist' status per year.  Currently, there is no legal limit.  Similar clear rules for 'visa exempts' are badly needed, to avoid exactly the situation experienced by the OP.  Many might have thought his annual time in the USA would have prevented what occurred.

 

Hopefully they will eliminate the "50 year old" rule for "Non-O based on retirement" extensions, so that persons can prove foreign-sourced incomes, and who are not 'elite' (99% of the potential pool of applicants), can use something other than Tourist Visas to stay here.  I'd be looking to buy a condo the day after such a change went into effect.   Given the current uncertainty, I have to play 'minimalist' - ready to pull-up-stakes in a jiffy - which restricts my investments here.

 

Let's hope they do not change the law on use of Tourist Visas in the meantime, and force us to spend our retirement somewhere else.  Thailand is my first-choice for where I would like to spend the remainder of my days.  The younger a person begins living in Thailand, the more years they will spend foreign-capital into the Thai economy, supporting local jobs by doing so.  It's a "win-win" scenario.

[dbrenn]

Most countries, including those of the western world, don't have clear rules on how long repeat tourists can stay either. It's discretionary, and depends on both the circumstances of the individual and the opinion of 'balanced probabilities' formed by the immigration officer.

 

Thailand seems to lack legal wording around what constitutes bona fide tourists, hence the rather loose categorisation of the OP as someone with 'insufficient funds' or 'intention to work' as has been used to refuse entry to others. 

 

[Ronuk]

We have all been guilty of playing the system here over the years. I think all that is happening now is the system is being tightened up. A tourist visa and visa exempt entries were never, ever meant to be used for living here. Everybody knows that but people did and continue to do it. I am not blaming people for doing it as the authorities allowed it to happen but now all that appears to be changing with lots of other things too, particularly to do with houses and companies formed to buy them. I personally think there are more people being turned away at immigration than we hear about. TV members are in a tiny minority of the people that travel in and out of the country so unless your a member here and post your experiences, it wouldn't be heard about.There are options for those under 50 but are not married or not working legally but they cost. I fail to see what is wrong with that? You cannot just have a free for all and mass immigration with no control. Where do you draw the line? No matter what the cost is, someone won't be happy because they have become accustomed to doing it cheaply!  I would love to be able to spend my whole time in my place in Florida but unfortunately the system says I can't, so I don't. There is no retirement option and no visa extensions for years on end for me, the same as there isn't in the UK for non EU citizens.
I doubt you will ever see a defined rule on what constitutes a tourist from a long term stayer here other than what immigration already states. That will always be at the discretion of the IO stamping you in because you will always get variants in time spent out of the country etc plus the rule is there to enable you to extend your stay for a period of time but again, that was never meant to be abused over and over again.
There is no problem with those on marriage and retirement extensions. It is a problem for those under 50 yes but as I said, they have the PE option if they want to stay long term. Maybe this is what immigration is heading towards, who knows? I would of thought if people can afford to retire and not work for months and years on end, a visa that can cost as little as 50,000 baht a year and no issues is a pretty good investment for being able to come and go as they please and no problems with Immigration? I don't see anything 'Elite' in that. It's less than 1000bht a week or 140 baht a day to be legal and have zero issues  (That's a whole lot cheaper and far less painless than being married  )
People can always hope and wish for the rules to change in there favour but personally, I really don't see that happening anytime soon. Lets be brutally honest here, there are not many country's where you can just turn up and live full time with no issues and just a payment up front needed.

[JackThompson]

30 minutes ago, Ronuk said:

...

There are options for those under 50 but are not married or not working legally but they cost. I fail to see what is wrong with that? You cannot just have a free for all and mass immigration with no control. Where do you draw the line?

 

The same place they are drawn for those over 50.  That's 1900 Baht/yr for the extension and prove you have the money to afford to be here.  Simple. 

 

30 minutes ago, Ronuk said:

 

 I would love to be able to spend my whole time in my place in Florida but unfortunately the system says I can't, so I don't. ... I doubt you will ever see a defined rule on what constitutes a tourist from a long term stayer here other than what immigration already states. That will always be at the discretion of the IO stamping you in because you will always get variants in time spent out of the country etc plus the rule is there to enable you to extend your stay for a period of time but again, that was never meant to be abused over and over again.

 

 

But "abuse" is undefined, which is the problem.  In the USA, you get 6-mo per year on a tourist-visa which may be valid up to 10 years. In any case, there is no reasonable comparison between the USA, EU, and Thailand.  People retire here because it is relatively inexpensive - not so in the EU or USA.  Take away that incentive, and the retirees (99%) will go elsewhere.

 

30 minutes ago, Ronuk said:

There is no problem with those on marriage and retirement extensions. It is a problem for those under 50 yes but as I said, they have the PE option if they want to stay long term. Maybe this is what immigration is heading towards, who knows? I would of thought if people can afford to retire and not work for months and years on end, a visa that can cost as little as 50,000 baht a year and no issues is a pretty good investment for being able to come and go as they please and no problems with Immigration? I don't see anything 'Elite' in that. It's less than 1000bht a week or 140 baht a day to be legal and have zero issues  (That's a whole lot cheaper and far less painless than being married  )

 

Why not count how much it costs per minute and claim "anyone who can afford to live in Thailand has that much."  Please.  The TE must be paid as a lump-sum, up-front, in cash.  The way the TE topic keeps cropping-up everywhere reminds me of the "product placement" in the movie "The Truman Show." 

 

Only wealthy or foolish people would pay an "expense" of 500K baht or more for a temporary visa.  It is not an "investment," but rather an "expense" - money that is gone forever.  For those wealthy enough to do that, and can afford to retire in places like USA resort-towns -  enjoy, and I hope there is a good Thai restaurant there.  For the rest of us, this is not an option.

 

As to the marriage comparison, that "temporary visa" option's total-costs depend on if your wife has a job and independent income to support her family.  You may need to explain what "retirement savings" are, and why western folks need such a strange thing. 

 

30 minutes ago, Ronuk said:

Lets be brutally honest here, there are not many country's where you can just turn up and live full time with no issues and just a payment up front needed.

 

There are many, many countries where you can "just show up and stay."  Some require border-hops, others do not.  Some have a funds "in the bank" requirement, and others require nothing.  Some have "how long per year" rules, published, which are clear and easy to understand.  I have lived in several such countries, but I prefer Thailand.  Hopefully I can stay and retire here, rather than one of the others.

 

No other countries I know of offer an exorbitant "fee" for a visa, because no one but a few wealthy people could/would pay for it, and they are looking to maximize the foreign-capital injections from ex-pats - not capture only a fraction of potential revenue.  This was undoubtedly why Thailand set up the 1900 Baht annual retirement-extension system.  They only need to adapt it to include modern realities - younger people with offshore-incomes.

 

To say the least, it takes real chutzpah to present Thailand's TE-visa novelty as something "better" than what countries with comparable economic-realities offer - visas under 15K Baht / yr, and/or investment-based "show you are solvent" tests that allow you to keep your money.  But for those with the "spare money" for it, have a hey-day.

[MobileContent]

On 8/20/2016 at 5:26 AM, JB300 said:

As an aside, why did they send you back to Singapore & not insist on you returning back to the US? 

 

Would have thought that unless you have "Right" (PR etc...) to enter Singapore, ICA could easily have refused you entry & left you stuck in no-mans land again!

 

 

 

Normally Singapore doesn't do that. They will just take you aside and you explain your situation and if you have no been banned into Thailand for an offence they don't mind you enter the country.

 

The OP problem seems to be just not having a correct visa.  I would have insisted on buying a flight to Penang, apply for a tourist visa and then fly back to Bangkok.

[Ronuk]

It is what is here.That's the crux of it. Because you don't like it or agree with it, makes no difference.You either live with the rules or go some where where the rules suit. There is a freedom of choice and nobody forces anybody to stay here. As for cheaper to live here than in Florida, I don't agree at all. I can live a much cheaper and better life in Florida than I ever could here. Depends how you define your lifestyle I suppose. How I like to live, like for like, Florida is much cheaper. The 6 month rule puts a stop it though so I cannot do it.
In another post you say it costs you 30-40,000 baht a year to live here (  Not legally according to immigration rules) by staying continually on Tourist visas. Am I missing something when you then consider the TE option exorbitant for £200 more a year? Just because it needs to be paid up front doesn't make it exorbitant.
Just because this country or that country decides to do it a different way and to be honest, it's immaterial, that's not the worry of Thailand to make our stay a lot easier.
You say you have been here a year or so and already expect the system to change to suit you? You could be disapointed!

[Witblitz]

17 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

 

There are many, many countries where you can "just show up and stay."  Some require border-hops, others do not.  Some have a funds "in the bank" requirement, and others require nothing.  Some have "how long per year" rules, published, which are clear and easy to understand.  I have lived in several such countries, but I prefer Thailand.  Hopefully I can stay and retire here, rather than one of the others.

 

No other countries I know of offer an exorbitant "fee" for a visa, because no one but a few wealthy people could/would pay for it, and they are looking to maximize the foreign-capital injections from ex-pats - not capture only a fraction of potential revenue.  This was undoubtedly why Thailand set up the 1900 Baht annual retirement-extension system.  They only need to adapt it to include modern realities - younger people with offshore-incomes.

 

To say the least, it takes real chutzpah to present Thailand's TE-visa novelty as something "better" than what countries with comparable economic-realities offer - visas under 15K Baht / yr, and/or investment-based "show you are solvent" tests that allow you to keep your money.  But for those with the "spare money" for it, have a hey-day.

 

So name some of the many,many where you can just show up and stay ?

 

Per you remarks about Thailand TE visa....Europe has a similar program called a "golden visa" and yes its for wealthy people only, fact is if you have money you can set your self up in in most countries no problem as the fact is most countries including Thailand don't want poor people living there full time,  some one who springs THB 500k for a 5 year visa is hardly wealthy...it works out at less than 3 beers a day.

 

Thailand has more than enough visa options which allow both long and short term stays and does have investment based visa's.