SURVEY: Is limiting visas to 2 land crossings per year a good idea?

[chainarong]

Question is how would a 10 year visa, now  being mooted work , allocated 2 per year, and million in the bank , just asked??????????????????

[chainarong]

I don't think the questions in the survey cover the subject , should read ,will this effect your stay in Thailand. Yes or No

[ubonjoe]

7 minutes ago, chainarong said:

Question is how would a 10 year visa, now  being mooted work , allocated 2 per year, and million in the bank , just asked??????????????????

I suggest your read the link posted in the OP (or read the OP instead of just the topic title). It is only for visa exempt entries at land borders. It does not effect those with valid visas for entry.

[recom273]

19 hours ago, louse1953 said:

Typical,looking at the issue from your point of view and thinking they should look at your big picture.Why not look at it from Thai govts view point and the reasons why.

 

Typical TV response - I can only give my opinion, I can't see the side of the Thai government because I'm not them ..  It's an Internet forum, and we can agree to disagree, but from where I stand - it's my opinion, that no thought is given to the consequence of these decisions ( as is evident with regards to the Chinese tours ) and no one organization sings to the same hymn sheet.

 

In this case, I agree, it's all good .. There is a rule on southern borders that is enforced from time to time. When leaving Thailand, you have to stay out of the country over night ( not even 24 hours ) .. I have an ME O visa and I like to go to Malaysia for long weekends, often every 4-6 weeks, but there are times when I just want to nip over the border to refresh my visa or do a quick bit of shopping - I need to warn the wife I may be called to stay out over night and stay in some flea pit motel on the border? What is the reasoning behind this? 

 

With lower numbers of 30 day border hoppers and long stayers on ME tourist visas hopefully this "rule" will be forgotten.

 

 

[phuketrichard]

personally i think they did this wrong.

 

It affects many working off shore they spend their down time in Thailand.and also using thailand as a hub to visit nearby countries.

 

Would rather see a ruling  "no more than 180 days in thailand on visa exempts /year (in a 365 day period)

 

 

[ubonjoe]

19 minutes ago, phuketrichard said:

personally i think they did this wrong.

 

It affects many working off shore they spend their down time in Thailand.and also using thailand as a hub to visit nearby countries.

 

Would rather see a ruling  "no more than 180 days in thailand on visa exempts /year (in a 365 day period)

 

 

I think those working off shore fly in not overland.  Most tourists would not need to do more than 2 visa exempt entries at border crossings.

[jeab1980]

Can Iask please what is your idea of a "real tourist" how many months before tourists aren't tourists?. I ask beacuse if person wants to see Thailand in all its many different faces Ibelive a year would be needed. So does that make someone not a tourist then?. We have traveled to Europe/Australia/America and have travelled all over these places to see the real people and real places not just the tourist place. In America we stayed 9 month not long enough but we were still tourists. We did what work we needed to be do on internet whilst away maybe half a day a week each. But we were still tourists. 

[islandguy]

I have some young friends doing a 4 country two month trip next month with a 'classic' Thailand hub itinerary. They plan on doing one land crossing and the rest by air. I think with the change in peoples travel styles and the greater availability of budget airlines most people can manage to still travel with this new rule. I do feel sorry for the real backpacker types who want to move freely without any set plan for longer trips. That kind of trip is the most life changing experience from my personal experience. 

 

Air Asia's ASEAN ticket book helps to do this kind of trip with multiple countries and mostly border crossing by air.

[JackThompson]

19 hours ago, WhamBam said:

this is going to impact a lot on filipino's working as maids, teachers, hospital assistants and similar.  Their embassy has sent out a circular warning them to be prepared to look and move elswhere for employment.

 

A lot of places take months to process work permits and often many promised WP do not get issued.  These people are often on very low wages and find it financially difficult to travel to get TV's to keep them here for 90 days so they resort to border crossings every 15 days. 

I feel thailand is going to have a great shortage of 'cheap labour' when these Filipinos (and possibly those from Cambodia) can no longer enter the country due to the new visa run regulations.

 

I like Filipino people, but if they are working here on the cheap, that means folks from Issan and elsewhere cannot work those jobs for a decent-wage.  And where do the foreigners' wages go when paid?  How much is sent out of the Thai economy in remittances to foreign countries?

 

This country is the only place on Earth where Thai people have the right to live and work - and they should be able to find work without someone sneaking in and undercutting them at the jobsite, then siphoning their paycheck-money out of the Thai economy, undermining local businesses.

 

The right of people to have their own country should be respected.  I wish I had a country to call my homeland, but anyone can come in to the place listed on my passport and take citizens' careers away from them - so I don't.

[4evermaat]

I do agree that the OP could have been phrased a bit differently to specify that it is referring to Visa Exempt (VE) entries overland instead of using the term 'visa'.  But in any case, all gov't must protect their national interests and Thailand is clearly clamping down on the free-for-all, unlimited lax VE over the past 2.5 years and now it is just official.   

 

The neighbor countries are either exempt or will slip 1-2 pink notes into their passport and be let in, just as before.  The rest of us have a couple of VE samples to see if we like the country, and then either we get a visa to stay longer or possibly even slip some notes into the passport to get more consecutive land VE privilege.  Or fly in, as I think the airport VEs are unaffected.

 

In regards to the long-stayers appearing snobbish towards those who do not have a long stay reason to qualify for an extension/non-imm visa, all countries have immigration rules.  Loopholes come and go, and it would be naive to think that the unlimited overstay + unlimited VEs would last indefinitely.   I'm sure when Cambodia, Laos, et. al. get to a certain developmental stage, they will also adjust their immigration rules.

Edited December 26, 2016 by 4evermaat

[WhamBam]

4 hours ago, JackThompson said:

 

I like Filipino people, but if they are working here on the cheap, that means folks from Issan and elsewhere cannot work those jobs for a decent-wage.  And where do the foreigners' wages go when paid?  How much is sent out of the Thai economy in remittances to foreign countries?

 

This country is the only place on Earth where Thai people have the right to live and work - and they should be able to find work without someone sneaking in and undercutting them at the jobsite, then siphoning their paycheck-money out of the Thai economy, undermining local businesses.

 

The right of people to have their own country should be respected.  I wish I had a country to call my homeland, but anyone can come in to the place listed on my passport and take citizens' careers away from them - so I don't.

And how many of these Issan women and other Thai are going to be able to teach English?
Granted some Filipino English teachers might not be brilliant at their jobs but they are a better option than an Issan woman with a spattering of English and no qualifications at all.

 

How many of these Issan women will work as maids / nannies, living in 24 hours a day 6 days a week under the conditions many Filipino maids work under? How reliable do you think they will be and how many weeks would they last before leaving?

 

If there were so many reliable Thai to fill these jobs don't you think the employers would employ them?

[JackThompson]

13 minutes ago, WhamBam said:

And how many of these Issan women and other Thai are going to be able to teach English?
Granted some Filipino English teachers might not be brilliant at their jobs but they are a better option than an Issan woman with a spattering of English and no qualifications at all.

 

How many of these Issan women will work as maids / nannies, living in 24 hours a day 6 days a week under the conditions many Filipino maids work under? How reliable do you think they will be and how many weeks would they last before leaving?

 

If there were so many reliable Thai to fill these jobs don't you think the employers would employ them?

 

If the demand for English teachers is limited to legal workers, their pay should improve, and more Thais will seek the qualifications.

 

As to the maids and nannies, if the conditions are as bad as you describe, time to end that.  Perhaps those hiring them will need to hire 2 Thais for 2 shifts or, (gasp) do their own parenting 1/2 the time, allowing those employed to have a life with some dignity.  If the pay is good, and the working conditions decent, they will stay.  If the pay is low and conditions degrading, they are fortunate to have farms to return to.  Of course the employers will choose the best ratio of labor/baht, which is exactly why the "poor desperate illegal" hire-option must be removed from the list of choices.

 

I am reminded of letters between British factory owners and nobles during the dark industrial period.  They complained that workers who had small farms and land who could feed themselves and have a place to live without "wages," could not be exploited to the extent desired - so conspired to drive them off their land (see "enclosure acts), making them homeless, helpless and willing to do anything just to eat. 

 

That may come off as leftist, but I am not one.  I merely see the dark conditions which made socialist ideas popular.  The best way to avoid totalitarian-socialism - and demands for such from the populace - is to ensure ordinary folks can earn decent lives through work.

[hawker9000]

18 hours ago, jeab1980 said:

Can Iask please what is your idea of a "real tourist" how many months before tourists aren't tourists?. I ask beacuse if person wants to see Thailand in all its many different faces Ibelive a year would be needed. So does that make someone not a tourist then?. We have traveled to Europe/Australia/America and have travelled all over these places to see the real people and real places not just the tourist place. In America we stayed 9 month not long enough but we were still tourists. We did what work we needed to be do on internet whilst away maybe half a day a week each. But we were still tourists. 

This argument pops up on TV incessantly, and there's very little point to it.  I agree that this is totally arbitrary, but visa-exempt entry (and tourist visas as well) are simply not intended for those planning to remain in the country indefinitely.  It's THAT abuse by some foriegners, among others, that drives the need for SOME kind of definition by SOMEONE, with which many are guaranteed to disagree.  Everyone, even every IO, can have his own definition.  Thai authorities certainly don't care what a foreigner's definition might be.  But, to give the devil his due, at least this 2 crossings per year limit is published and objective; which makes it an improvement over IOs making up their own minds about what they're going to allow and not allow on a given day at a given time in a given place governed by caprice, whim, and, dare I say it, individual "discretion". 

Edited December 26, 2016 by hawker9000