Tourist Visa Rules Changed?

[claffey]

48 minutes ago, muzmurray said:

 

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

No. It was an example. Let's include people who have permission to stay to live here. The point of my reply was that tourists should not be allowed to live here for more than 180 days a year, as then they would be 'living here' ...

[claffey]

49 minutes ago, muzmurray said:

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?

No, they should be allowed to visit Thailand as a tourist for less than 180 days a year. It's not me. It seems that immigration are starting to think so. I do think that people who are under 60 and 'live' here without working (on 'tourist stamps or visas) should not be allowed to stay here for more than 180 days a year. How can you be a 'tourist' if you live there all year, apart from a few quick visa runs... I didn't say that people shouldn't be allowed to see their families. I said they should get the correct visa in order to do so..Please don't twist my words to alter the meaning of my argument...

[claffey]

54 minutes ago, muzmurray said:

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?

Oil and gas workers are in a specialized industry and working offshore. They should be resident somewhere with the correct documentation and visas. 

[JackThompson]

5 hours ago, claffey said:

...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....

 

Why would it make it easier for those with Non-O visas?  Are people with other types of visas unable to find a place to live, or food to eat, because those on Tourist Visas have used-up all the rooms and food? 

 

No.  On the contrary, those here long-term on Tourist Visas supply foreign-capital to the market which keeps more Thais employed, which means everyone here has a Nicer Country to Live In.

 

We are all just foreigners here, and can see our means of stay revoked at any time, when our current "permission to stay" ends.   Ask the many who go to renew and find the rules have changed at a particular office, requiring docs they don't have, cannot get, etc. 

 

No PR and no Citizenship means you are crossing your fingers the powers-that-be allow you to continue being here.  We are all in the same boat.

 

4 hours ago, claffey said:

No, they should be allowed to visit Thailand as a tourist for less than 180 days a year. It's not me. It seems that immigration are starting to think so. I do think that people who are under 60 and 'live' here without working (on 'tourist stamps or visas) should not be allowed to stay here for more than 180 days a year. How can you be a 'tourist' if you live there all year, apart from a few quick visa runs

 

Back to the old question of "how long can you live somewhere can call yourself a tourist."  Why 180 days/yr.  Why not 30, or 7 days max per-year?    That would suit the new "quality tourists" from China, who don't patronize most of the businesses I see going under as Western Tourists migrate to Cambodia, Vietnam, and The Philippines.

 

It is a question of what one Does that defines their status - not how long they do it.  What makes my day at the beach on day 181 different from day 179 - or the restaurant where I bought lunch - do they not make profits on day 181?

[Asiantravel]

7 hours 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....

 

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

 

I am living here on a retirement Visa but I cannot for the life of me understand how others living here on a tourist visa even for the whole year has any impact whatsoever on my lifestyle. Please explain in more detail why it bothers you so much how long people stay here on a tourist visa provided they are not working illegally? I am really fascinated by your objection to this?

[elviajero]

On 11/16/2016 at 0:46 AM, 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.

 

Semantics! I was talking about limits to visa exempt usage.

 

It is highly unlikely that they will ever issue a limit on the number of entries as it is the time staying in the country as a 'tourist' that is the concern.

[elviajero]

9 hours ago, Mattd said:

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.

Anyone can come here for fun. The problem is that some want to stay/live here that don't meet the visas/permits being offered. Although tourism is all about money immigration policy isn't. The visas/permits being offered are more about controlling numbers.

[Ronuk]

1 hour ago, elviajero said:

Semantics! I was talking about limits to visa exempt usage.

 

It is highly unlikely that they will ever issue a limit on the number of entries as it is the time staying in the country as a 'tourist' that is the concern.

There is nothing to say that may limit the consecutive amount of Tourist visas you can use to stay here, no matter where you may aquire them from. In fact, I regard that as a distinct possibility in the very near future. 

[elviajero]

9 hours ago, Mattd said:

+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."

That definition is only relevant to the tax world. It has no relevance to immigration status or whether someone is resident.

[elviajero]

1 minute ago, Ronuk said:

There is nothing to say that may limit the consecutive amount of Tourist visas you can use to stay here, no matter where you may aquire them from. In fact, I regard that as a distinct possibility in the very near future. 

I agree. We have already seen changes and restrictions with tourist visas. IMO visas are/will be limited by number, and visa exempt entries limited by days in the country.

[muzmurray]

11 hours ago, elviajero said:

Semantics! I was talking about limits to visa exempt usage.

 

It is highly unlikely that they will ever issue a limit on the number of entries as it is the time staying in the country as a 'tourist' that is the concern.

 

And yet that is exactly what is almost happening, getting flagged by the system after 6 entries, (not days in country).

[claffey]

15 hours ago, Asiantravel said:

 

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

 

I am living here on a retirement Visa but I cannot for the life of me understand how others living here on a tourist visa even for the whole year has any impact whatsoever on my lifestyle. Please explain in more detail why it bothers you so much how long people stay here on a tourist visa provided they are not working illegally? I am really fascinated by your objection to this?

Its obvious. Immigration mistrusts them and they bring in new regulations that affect everybody...such as the new Foreign information form where they are asking for all sorts of private information... Or when they ask teachers to provide letters from universities they went to 30 years ago because teachers , on tourist visas were working illegally... etc etc etc... Let's not even mention the amount of sex pats who 'live' here who are on back to back tourist visas. They affect the reputation of 'foreigners' in Thailand and this affects us all in our day to day interaction with Thais as Thai people stereotype us as being the same....

[muzmurray]

40 minutes ago, claffey said:

Or when they ask teachers to provide letters from universities they went to 30 years ago because teachers , on tourist visas were working illegally...

 

Incorrect, the reason they ask for the letter from your university is because so many people had fake degrees, nothing to do with tourist visas.

[overherebc]

On 17/11/2016 at 10:18 AM, whitelion87 said:

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).

 

I flew bach from Auckland on the 13th, my multi non O had just expired and I had to spend a good few minutes explaining why I didn't have a visa or flight out booked. It was done in a pleasant way and after showing the 5 or so previous multi's I was allowed through.

I am assuming in your case you had a flight ticket?

[claffey]

2 hours ago, muzmurray said:

 

Incorrect, the reason they ask for the letter from your university is because so many people had fake degrees, nothing to do with tourist visas.

OK... I'll let you have the final word so as it seems to mean so much to you...

[claffey]

2 hours ago, muzmurray said:

 

Incorrect, the reason they ask for the letter from your university is because so many people had fake degrees, nothing to do with tourist visas.

Does that mean you agree with my other two points as you didn't reply to them?? 

[Asiantravel]

6 hours ago, claffey said:

Its obvious. Immigration mistrusts them and they bring in new regulations that affect everybody...such as the new Foreign information form where they are asking for all sorts of private information... Or when they ask teachers to provide letters from universities they went to 30 years ago because teachers , on tourist visas were working illegally... etc etc etc... Let's not even mention the amount of sex pats who 'live' here who are on back to back tourist visas. They affect the reputation of 'foreigners' in Thailand and this affects us all in our day to day interaction with Thais as Thai people stereotype us as being the same....

 

absolute hogwash. the Thai people couldn't give a stuff about what kind of visas people are on. You are trying to insinuate that those staying here on tourist visas automatically be regarded as suspicious characters. What about the foreigners who have lived here on other types of visa (retirement, business-related Visas, marriage -related visas)  who have committed really serious crimes?

Get real

 

[JackThompson]

9 hours ago, claffey said:

... Let's not even mention the amount of sex pats who 'live' here who are on back to back tourist visas. They affect the reputation of 'foreigners' in Thailand and this affects us all in our day to day interaction with Thais as Thai people stereotype us as being the same....

 

What you see on Walking St Pattaya and similar venues in Bangkok, are BY FAR mostly short-term visitors (i.e. "quality tourists" / "real tourists") spending like mad for a week or two, before returning to their boring lives back home.   The second largest group I you would find in "beer bars" and such, are mostly Retired ex-pats - though only the wealthier, potential "elite" ones, would be paying many barfines. 

 

One one hand, some say that those living here on Tourist Visas are "just scraping by" (spending only 4x+ the average Thai salary).  OTOH, some say these same folks have the spare cash to pay for $250/night+ sexcapades.  Seems any derogatory label is applied, even if they contradict one another.

 

If you wish to see all the "naughty" stuff gone from Thailand, prepare to see the number of short-term ("quality" / "real") tourists fall by huge numbers.   Also compare the amount of cash spent on that activity per-day to, say, visiting temples; do the math on the "foreign-money spent here" equation with that in mind.  I doubt the removal of such activities would affect many of those living here long-term on tourist-visas, as most of us have girlfriends.

 

Lastly, by far the largest percentage of those availing themselves to paid sexual activity in Thailand are the natives.  I doubt most Thai people are sufficiently ignorant of their own long-standing cultural traditions to be unaware of this. 

[muzmurray]

19 hours ago, claffey said:

OK... I'll let you have the final word so as it seems to mean so much to you...

 

The final word means nothing to me, what does is the truth and facts.