Tourist Visa Rules Changed?

[jeab1980]

2 hours ago, elviajero said:

What's your point?

Beacuse you stated in your opening line

That you suspected he was entering using visa exempt And not tourist visa as he said he was just pointing it out to you.

 

 

[elviajero]

55 minutes ago, jeab1980 said:

Beacuse you stated in your opening line

That you suspected he was entering using visa exempt And not tourist visa as he said he was just pointing it out to you.

The OP only says they they entered on Nov 8th and doesn't specify whether they were using a visa or the visa exempt scheme. Based on the questioning I am assuming it was the latter as people entering with tourist visas don't tend to get questioned.

[elviajero]

12 hours ago, muzmurray said:

I don't remember reading that in the rules? Most refusals are because of lack of funds?

 

If there is no published limit, how can one "overuse" the scheme?

There are no published rules that I know of for you to read. There is also no law within the Immigration Act that specifies that entry can be denied for x number of visa exempt entries. Most refusals are justified, probably for convenience, using Section 12.2 or 12.3. There is power to deny any specific group via Section 16 and Ministerial orders. IMHO they should be using Section 12.1 or Section 12.10, which directly refers to Section 16. 

 

There used to be a published limit but it was scrapped in 2008. Since then they seem to be happy leaving it to the individual borders and IO's to make the decision of when enough is enough. The old limit was scrapped because it was a nightmare to administer with IO's having to manually count the days from stamps in the passport. I beleive the system can now count entries but not days stayed.

 

As the limit seems to be discretionary it can't really be published!

[jeab1980]

Sure a bit of sense if you keep coming back to Thailand many times on exempt visa it looks a bit funny and Iwould expect you to be asked why you come so often with no visa or told no more. Why not if you come often just get a tourist visa from local embassy or thai consulate save many problem.

[rogeroc]

3 reasons,  hassle / cost (for less than 30 days) /  space in passport if you are only staying up to 60 days. If there is a tightening on Visa Exempt entries it seems logical that a tightening on SETV's will follow. Regular SETV is just as suspicious as regular Visa Exempt.

Edited November 15, 2016 by rogeroc

[thaitero]

5 minutes ago, rogeroc said:

3 reasons,  hassle / cost (for less than 30 days) /  space in passport if you are only staying up to 60 days. If there is a tightening on Visa Exempt entries it seems logical that a tightening on SETV's will follow. Regular SETV is just as suspicious as regular Visa Exempt.

No, With visa there is (or supposed to be) prescreening at embassy/consulate.

[BritTim]

22 minutes ago, rogeroc said:

3 reasons,  hassle / cost (for less than 30 days) /  space in passport if you are only staying up to 60 days. If there is a tightening on Visa Exempt entries it seems logical that a tightening on SETV's will follow. Regular SETV is just as suspicious as regular Visa Exempt.

 

15 minutes ago, thaitero said:

No, With visa there is (or supposed to be) prescreening at embassy/consulate.

 

In practice, apart from imposing limits on the number of tourist visas issued (which you seem to feel do not exist) what other prescreening  can a consulate reasonably do for a single entry tourist visa. Are they supposed to ask for the kinds of documentation now demanded for the METV?

[elviajero]

28 minutes ago, rogeroc said:

3 reasons,  hassle / cost (for less than 30 days) /  space in passport if you are only staying up to 60 days. If there is a tightening on Visa Exempt entries it seems logical that a tightening on SETV's will follow. Regular SETV is just as suspicious as regular Visa Exempt.

They've been tightening up on Toursit Visas for several years already via the Embassies/Consulates.

[muzmurray]

11 hours ago, elviajero said:

There used to be a published limit but it was scrapped in 2008.

 

That limit, (as you later stated), was for days in country, NOT the amount of entries - totally different. There has never been a limit on the amount of entries.

 

[ubonjoe]

15 minutes ago, muzmurray said:

 

That limit, (as you later stated), was for days in country, NOT the amount of entries - totally different. There has never been a limit on the amount of entries.

 

Indirectly the 90 days in 6 months rule did limit the number of entries that could be done.

[Mattd]

A friend of a friend had issues entering back at Suvarnabhumi airport the other day, basically he was pulled aside and was told this was because he was on his 6th visa exemption entry and had accumulated 180 + days in Thailand within one year (I'm assuming it is one year from the first entry, not a calendar year) then there is a flag that comes up on the system.

They did let him in, but he was told that next time he MUST get a visa, otherwise he will be refused entry.

Definitely seems to be a trend with all the other reports.

Can't say that I blame immigration, it isn't normal tourist behaviour to do this and it would raise suspicion as to why, the problem is that if somebody is under 50 and not married to a Thai or working here, then apart from getting tourist visas or the joining the Elite programme, then the legal options to stay in Thailand are nil, this particular guy is just waiting out for a new job in the Middle East and doesn't want to go back to UK, especially now!

Must be a lot of folks in this situation right now, with the downturn in the O & G industry, a lot still have the means to stay here, don't work, contribute to the economy etc.

Shame that there can't be some sort of visa for these folks, so that it becomes a win win situation.

 

 

 

Edited November 16, 2016 by Mattd
spelling

[muzmurray]

45 minutes ago, Mattd said:

Shame that there can't be some sort of visa for these folks, so that it becomes a win win situation.

 

There is, and you already mentioned it, the Elite scheme. The cost would be a drop in the ocean to most of the O&G guys.

[Mattd]

1 minute ago, muzmurray said:

 

There is, and you already mentioned it, the Elite scheme. The cost would be a drop in the ocean to most of the O&G guys.

Only if their long term plans include staying in Thailand for at least 5 years, otherwise not and a lot of these O & G guys do not necessarily have employment right now and no immediate prospects of one, so the 500,000 THB might not be such a drop in the ocean under the current situation, especially when they don't know where the next employment might be.

To my mind, the Elite programme is a perfect solution for a wealthy under 50 year old that isn't working, so therefore can get value out of it.

[claffey]

4 hours ago, Mattd said:

A friend of a friend had issues entering back at Suvarnabhumi airport the other day, basically he was pulled aside and was told this was because he was on his 6th visa exemption entry and had accumulated 180 + days in Thailand within one year (I'm assuming it is one year from the first entry, not a calendar year) then there is a flag that comes up on the system.

They did let him in, but he was told that next time he MUST get a visa, otherwise he will be refused entry.

Definitely seems to be a trend with all the other reports.

Can't say that I blame immigration, it isn't normal tourist behaviour to do this and it would raise suspicion as to why, the problem is that if somebody is under 50 and not married to a Thai or working here, then apart from getting tourist visas or the joining the Elite programme, then the legal options to stay in Thailand are nil, this particular guy is just waiting out for a new job in the Middle East and doesn't want to go back to UK, especially now!

Must be a lot of folks in this situation right now, with the downturn in the O & G industry, a lot still have the means to stay here, don't work, contribute to the economy etc.

Shame that there can't be some sort of visa for these folks, so that it becomes a win win situation.

 

 

 

'Shame that there can't be some sort of visa for these folks, so that it becomes a win win situation'..

 

Are you suggesting that people who contribute nothing to the country should be allowed to stay? What country are you from? How would you feel about your country allowing people to live there indefinitely without contributing to the country? Thailand has no obligation to people who are living here without the correct visa or work permit. 

[Mattd]

Of course I am not suggesting such, don't really see why you would insinuate that even!

However, if a person chooses to work in a place other than Thailand and then spend time here in between these work assignments, then what is so wrong with that?

I'd imagine that their contribution to Thailand is not insignificant, all of the purchases made attract 7% VAT, accommodation, food, supporting families etc. etc. 

Or maybe Thailand should stop any foreigners coming, without disparaging those retired here, then what more are they contributing in that sense?

Fact is that these type of people are not in Thailand as tourists in the pure sense of the word, but they are, without any doubt at all, contributing to the Thai Economy and for the large part abiding by Thai law.

I've lived in Thailand for nearly 28 years (so more than half of my life), the first 13 of those was in a similar situation, during that time, had a ball in my younger days, then got married, had children, property purchased and so on, the last 15 have been spent working here, paying income tax, social security and so on, to be frank, I don't see that there is much difference between the two, other than I don't have to leave, sure the seemingly (to me!!) vast amount of income tax that I've paid over the years has contributed to the economy, though with really no benefit to me other than being here.

As a footnote, the other big advantage for the Thai Economy is that the money being spent by these guys has been earned overseas, so it is 'free money' for the economy, which of course, is why tourism is so important to most countries.

Edited November 16, 2016 by Mattd
Addition

[Asiantravel]

1 hour ago, claffey said:

'Shame that there can't be some sort of visa for these folks, so that it becomes a win win situation'..

 

Are you suggesting that people who contribute nothing to the country should be allowed to stay? What country are you from? How would you feel about your country allowing people to live there indefinitely without contributing to the country? Thailand has no obligation to people who are living here without the correct visa or work permit. 

 

there are quite a few countries that not only allow undocumented immigrants to stay but on top of that give them welfare payments and in the USA even provide protection from their past criminal deeds.

Here in Thailand the foreigners you are referring to and questioning whether it's fair for them to be allowed to stay are not claiming any benefits and are only spending money.

 

[pjthefey]

3 minutes ago, Asiantravel said:

 

there are quite a few countries that not only allow undocumented immigrants to stay but on top of that give them welfare payments and in the USA even provide protection from their past criminal deeds.

Here in Thailand the foreigners you are referring to and questioning whether it's fair for them to be allowed to stay are not claiming any benefits and are only spending money.

 

 

Non-US citizens can't qualify for welfare payments. 

[Asiantravel]

8 minutes ago, pjthefey said:

 

Non-US citizens can't qualify for welfare payments. 

 

in that regard I was talking about United Kingdom

[SaintLouisBlues]

17 minutes ago, pjthefey said:

Non-US citizens can't qualify for welfare payments. 

What are you classing as "welfare"? Legal aliens are entitled to both unemployment payments and, if they've worked more than 10 years, Social Security once they reach (I think) age 62

[IMA_FARANG]

While there is no official established limits on visa exempt entries, they are monitored by computer.

Therefore a "notification" will be flashed to the immigration entry office rif you go over their preset computer limit.

i do not know what that limit is precisely, but people who do "visa runs" for a living have told me it is anything for 3 to 6 consectutive entries.

Many of the immigration officesr see this alert when you exceed the predetermined computer limit and will then give you a warning you should be using a tourist visa and not a visa free exempt entry (30 day entry),

So far from what we know no one has been denied entry for exceeding the limit on visa free entries, but there have been many "warning" notices given.

Also I lnow for a fact, that some people who have two or three  legal 60 day tourist visa s and have then extended that visa for another 30 day stay (legally) at their local immigration office in Thailand have been asked quite directly why they have so many 30 day extensions.

No one as far as i know, has ever been denied that legal 30 day extension, but they have been questioned as to the exact purpose of that legal 30 day extension.

So the extension process is definately getting less friendly recently for that legal 30 day extension to a 60 day Single Entry Tourist Visa.

Just a "word to the wise" here.

 

Edited November 16, 2016 by IMA_FARANG
correct spelling typo

[muzmurray]

23 hours ago, Mattd said:

Only if their long term plans include staying in Thailand for at least 5 years, otherwise not

 

18 hours ago, Mattd said:

I'd imagine that their contribution to Thailand is not insignificant, all of the purchases made attract 7% VAT, accommodation, food, supporting families etc. etc.

 

Which is it? Do they want to stay here or not? You have argued both sides!

[claffey]

18 hours ago, Asiantravel said:

 

in that regard I was talking about United Kingdom

And the UK are taking steps to fix that issue aren't they? In my opinion people should not be allowed to live here on a tourist visa. They should be on NON O visa if married and retirement visa if retired etc etc. Tourist visa and entry should be refused if people stay here for more than 180 days a year. Its good to see immigration clamping down on this. It will be life easier for people who are non Thai and resident here....

[whitelion87]

Hi everyone, thanks for all the responses!

 

The responses I have read here are in-depth and have done alot to make me feel more at ease.

 

As one response suggested, instead of using a visa-exempt entry in the near future, I will use a Tourist Visa for my next entry as entry seems to be less challanging and I'd rather not be asked questions. Although I agree I'm not exactly the typical tourist (I don't travel around Thailand, I hardly go out in fact and prefering to stay in my apartment most days) - but I prefer Thailand a lot more than NZ - it makes sense that IO would think I'm working (although I'm not and what kind of company would allow a foreigner to go back home so often anyway - ok a few I'm sure). Any suggestions on how to prove that I'm not working in Thailand? I could show the IO my online bank statement's from NZ showing weekly deposits into my account - but there'll always be a rebuttle I'm sure.

 

Upon asking for my second TR at the Auckland consulte-general in NZ, I had asked how long it would take for visa but conversation ended up going into what the process was like - the process was explained as her (the receptionist - it's a consulate, not embassy) does a background check against the blacklisted names through the consulate computers. If your name is blacklisted, you'd be denied the visa then and there (and denied a refund I suppose of the visa fee). Some checking of the applicarion form is done also. Once that is checked, she puts the visa stamp into the passport and takes the passport 'upstairs' to where the Consular-General will sign and stamp the visa - so it does seem quite simple - it's ready for pick up either the next day or within 3 days - I ask her to call when it's ready. Also, if I remember correctly, they've also done away with double entry TR visa's as well - only single or multiple available (each requiring differing amounts of financial information through the form of a bank statements - the figure 9,000NZD for multiple entry springs to mind).

 

Oh and just to clear up any confusion, I did in fact use a visa exempt to enter Thailand on the 8th of November. It's my second visa-exempt this year - and in total I have never stayed for the full 30 days on either of them (the first time was entering on the 22/10 and departing on the 3/11, and my second visa exempt entry was on the 8/11 until today..exepecting to leave on the 24th).

[muzmurray]

1 minute ago, claffey said:

And the UK are taking steps to fix that issue aren't they? In my opinion people should not be allowed to live here on a tourist visa. They should be on NON O visa if married and retirement visa if retired etc etc. Tourist visa and entry should be refused if people stay here for more than 180 days a year. Its good to see immigration clamping down on this. It will be life easier for people who are non Thai and resident here....

 

Unless you have permanent residency, you are not a resident here !

[Mattd]

1 hour ago, muzmurray said:

 

 

Which is it? Do they want to stay here or not? You have argued both sides!

Disagree, these were just used as examples, maybe that was a bad one, not all have families etc. (if they did then they have a visa route) they may just want to be here for the fun, could really be any reason, whatever it is they still spend money.

 

 

[ubonjoe]

12 minutes ago, claffey said:

It will be life easier for people who are non Thai and resident here....

 

10 minutes ago, muzmurray said:

Unless you have permanent residency, you are not a resident here !

In the context he used it he was correct. He was not referring to a persons legal status here.

Quote

 

resident

ˈrɛzɪd(ə)nt/

noun

1.

a person who lives somewhere permanently or on a long-term basis.

 

[claffey]

6 minutes ago, muzmurray said:

 

Unless you have permanent residency, you are not a resident here !

Don't be so pedantic... There are thousands of people living and working here and with Thai families who choose the easier route of having a work permit than the more expensive and arduous application for permanent residency.  My home country defines me as being non resident if I am outside the country for 180 days or more. With your pedantic interpretation of what it means to be resident I am technically, not living or resident anywhere! I work and live in Thailand. If an immigration officer asked me I would say that I am resident here...Ever seen signs in some places that give a cheaper price to residents? That means Thais and people who have work permits. 

[Mattd]

+1 on the definition of resident, I don't want to start a different thread, however, this from the Thai Revenue Department website and their definition of a resident in Thailand.

"Taxpayers are classified into “resident” and “non-resident”. “Resident” means any person residing in Thailand for a period or periods aggregating more than 180 days in any tax (calendar) year."

[muzmurray]

22 minutes ago, claffey said:

Don't be so pedantic... There are thousands of people living and working here and with Thai families who choose the easier route of having a work permit than the more expensive and arduous application for permanent residency.  My home country defines me as being non resident if I am outside the country for 180 days or more. With your pedantic interpretation of what it means to be resident I am technically, not living or resident anywhere! I work and live in Thailand. If an immigration officer asked me I would say that I am resident here...Ever seen signs in some places that give a cheaper price to residents? That means Thais and people who have work permits. 

 

So according to you, retirees and married people who do not work are not residents?

[muzmurray]

UbonJoe - OK with the definition of resident.

 

But, surely an O&G worker with a 4 on/4 off schedule should be classed as resident too? But according to Claffey, they should not even be allowed in the country to see their families or spend time here?