Denied entry (TR) at Suvarnabhumi - no stamp - options?

[JackThompson]

16 minutes ago, BadCash said:

 

Really!? Never heard that before... I have been coming for short holidays on Visa exemptions at least 10 times during the past 5 years, although it's usually been months in between holidays... I'm sure my friend has a lifetime total of 6 or more visa exemptions as well, although distributed differently (probably the most from 4-5 years ago, while mine are mostly 3-4 years old).

We don't know for sure what the cutoff-year is - how far back.  We did find out the count was "6" though.  If yours are more recent, perhaps we just learned something.  Immigration refuses to let us know what the precise criteria are that "cross the line" on visa-exempts (other than the new 2x / year at land-borders rule); therefore, we cannot assuredly avoid "crossing the line" (where ever it is) so everyone can be happy and relaxed entering the country (and IOs have an easier day, too). 

 

If there are rules on Tourist Visa entries, Non-O entries, etc - we simply don't know what they are, so cannot do the "right thing."  Those who have been told something in the way of "advice" by IOs report different responses, some quoting expired police-orders, etc.  Therefore, all we have are guesses.

Edited April 16, 2017 by JackThompson

[BadCash]

47 minutes ago, bamukloy said:

[...]

You cant really blame them..who at that age has savings to live several years as a tourist without working?

[...]

I know at least two people in their mid thirties with that kind of savings, and they're not billionares or unusual in any way... Anyway, if you have the funds, you have the funds. If they doubted the OP,  they could just ask to see some proof, like a bank statement, instead of just assuming he's working illegally? I'm not sure where the 20k cash fits in the picture? Surely anyone who is working here illegally or doing anything shady can provide that just as easily as someone who is staying here for an extended holiday?

Is there a definition of "work" used by the Thai immigration? Let's say I develop an app or website that just sits there year out and year in and ticks in money without me doing anything, is that work? Or if I have a million dollars in a bank account that just keeps on accruing interest without any effort on my part, is that work?

 

Also, nowadays people can study online, which is the case for myself. However, neither of the immigration officers seemed interested in seeing any proof when I told them about my situation. I'm clearly not working, yet I have saved funds and a monthly income. 

[hawker9000]

I think it's time to read the writing on the wall (like I already did a few years back) -- dancing the perma-tourist, visa shuffle in Thailand is not going to be possible much longer without a lot of hassle and expense. It was great fun while it lasted, but now, sadly, a losing strategy.

Time to pack it in and return to your home country and go back to work, until you can qualify for something more longer-term.

And trying to cut corners by arranging a quick marriage or starting a biz might lead to more grief than you expect...

"Writing's on the wall?" I'll say! 'Since 2014 when they started hassling the visa runners. I said THEN that was just the beginning, and sure 'nuff the dominos began to fall. Anybody that's just catching on now has been in smug denial or an extremely slow learner.

[NanLaew]

On 4/13/2017 at 7:44 PM, JackThompson said:

Yes, and with that smooth-move by the Airport-IO, several Thais lost their jobs, because the foreign-sourced income being spent into the economy by the OP, which supported those Thais, as been lost or suspended. 

Stop propagating this nonsense will you? As a collective, the likes of the OP aint shit on Thailand's GNP.

 

However, if he was a genuine tourist...

[BadCash]

28 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

Stop propagating this nonsense will you? As a collective, the likes of the OP aint shit on Thailand's GNP.

 

However, if he was a genuine tourist...

 

Not trying to argue with you, just trying to understand the logic here... If someone is living in Thailand, paying rent, electricity, food, entertainment, and so on, they must surely contribute at least as much as some cheap ass backpacker who sleeps in 100 baht/night guesthouses and eats 100 baht worth of street food per day? Yet I don't know of any rules that say backpackers aren't welcome, or that they are welcome only if they spend at least X amount of baht per day?

 

Either way, let's say someone is staying in Thailand for 12 months, using tourist visas and just going out a few days at a time to renew his visa, i.e. "bad". Another person is staying 6 months in Thailand and 6 months in Cambodia during the same 12 month period, i.e. "ok". Obviously, the first guy is spending more money in Thailand... but the second guy is welcome, the first guy is not... makes no sense.

Edited April 16, 2017 by BadCash

[scubascuba3]

Yes. The first time you enter Thailand with your new passport it will be 'linked' with any previous passports you have held to enter and exit Thailand. A new passport does not wipe or hide your previous history from there systems. Your local immigration has access to the same system of entry and exits etc. I have personally seen my own history for current and previous passports at Jomtien Immigration.

I emailed the UK passport office asking whether the new passport/number contained the old passport history and they replied
"Your new passport will not hold the previous travel details"

[stevenl]

 

I emailed the UK passport office asking whether the new passport/number contained the old passport history and they replied

"Your new passport will not hold the previous travel details"

 

 

Correct, the passport does not hold the details, the immigration computer does though.

 

sent using Tapatalk

 

 

 

[edwardandtubs]

2 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

 

I emailed the UK passport office asking whether the new passport/number contained the old passport history and they replied
"Your new passport will not hold the previous travel details"

 

The argument is that Thai immigration use your name, nationality and date of birth to link them. But how many Americans called John George Smith are there with the same date of birth? I think it would be difficult for them to link passports like that.

[BadCash]

4 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

 

I emailed the UK passport office asking whether the new passport/number contained the old passport history and they replied
"Your new passport will not hold the previous travel details"

 

It was mentioned earlier in this thread, although I don't know the source of the claim, that the Thai immigration link your new passport to your old history by running your name, date of birth and country of residence through their computer... so unless you change your name... :D 

[NanLaew]

11 minutes ago, BadCash said:

 

Not trying to argue with you, just trying to understand the logic here... If someone is living in Thailand, paying rent, electricity, food, entertainment, and so on, they must surely contribute at least as much as some cheap ass backpacker who sleeps in 100 baht/night guesthouses and eats 100 baht worth of street food per day? Yet I don't know of any rules that say backpackers aren't welcome, or that they are welcome only if they spend at least X amount of baht per day?

 

Either way, let's say someone is staying in Thailand for 12 months, using tourist visas and just going out a few days at a time to renew his visa. Another person is staying 6 months in Thailand and 6 months in Cambodia during the same 12 month period. Obviously, the first guy is spending more money in Thailand... but the second guy is "welcome"... makes no sense.

Beyond legitimate tourists, the only other ones that are welcome are Elite visa holders, married to Thai or retirees with sustainable income (and proof thereof) and those with real jobs who are paying taxes. Anyone claiming that they are contributing to Thailand's greater good by buying their beer and ciggies at the local 7-eleven, bar fining "my friend me" and eating at the local market are deluded.

[BadCash]

2 minutes ago, edwardandtubs said:

The argument is that Thai immigration use your name, nationality and date of birth to link them. But how many Americans called John George Smith are there with the same date of birth? I think it would be difficult for them to link passports like that.

Biometrics maybe? Just speculating...

[BadCash]

2 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

Beyond legitimate tourists, the only other ones that are welcome are Elite visa holders, married to Thai or retirees with sustainable income (and proof thereof) and those with real jobs who are paying taxes. Anyone claiming that they are contributing to Thailand's greater good by buying their beer and ciggies at the local 7-eleven, bar fining "my friend me" and eating at the local market are deluded.

Is there a definition of a "legitimate tourist" somewhere I can have a look at?

Edited April 16, 2017 by BadCash

[NanLaew]

3 minutes ago, edwardandtubs said:

The argument is that Thai immigration use your name, nationality and date of birth to link them. But how many Americans called John George Smith are there with the same date of birth? I think it would be difficult for them to link passports like that.

There's three criteria; name, dob and place of birth.

 

Not every American called John George Smith is trying to live in Thailand though.

[Thaidream]

Since the 1960's I have been in and out of Thailand many times, with many different passports and every type of visa known and some not even existing anymore. Somewhere in their computer is my whole history but I have a feeling that it's not available immediately unless they do a search.  I believe that what they see in your passport is what they base their impression on plus age and visual impression.

As I have said before, if I was single and below the age of 50- I would never go through the hassle of constant tourist visas. trips to embassy and consulates; fear of questions etc. etc. Too many other countries with ease of entry and ease of stay plus adequate infrastructure. Thailand is not the only game in the area and it has lost its advantage to more 'tourist' friendly places. I believe Thailand is just tired of people living here on exempt entries and tourist visas with many working illegally.

[NanLaew]

4 minutes ago, BadCash said:

Define "legitimate tourist". 

From google (you can do it yourself)

 

tour·ist

ˈto͝orəst/

noun

 

1. 1.

   a person who is traveling or visiting a place for pleasure.

   "the pyramids have drawn tourists to Egypt"

   synonyms:

   vacationer, traveler, sightseer, visitor, backpacker, globetrotter, day tripper, out-of-towner;  informalleaf peeper "the islands teem with tourists"
2. 2.

   short for tourist class.

verb

rare

 

1. 1.

   travel as a tourist.

   "American families touristing abroad"

Edited April 16, 2017 by NanLaew

[scubascuba3]

 

 

 

Correct, the passport does not hold the details, the immigration computer does though.

 

sent using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

Its a new passport number. So how do they link them? Maybe you can confirm without guessing.

 

If they do link they are guessing based on name and date of birth. They shouldn't link based on that. You could just say I've never been to Thailand before.

 

 

[BritTim]

1 minute ago, NanLaew said:

 

7 minutes ago, edwardandtubs said:

The argument is that Thai immigration use your name, nationality and date of birth to link them. But how many Americans called John George Smith are there with the same date of birth? I think it would be difficult for them to link passports like that.

There's three criteria; name, dob and place of birth.

 

Not every American called John George Smith is trying to live in Thailand though.

 

Right, and when in doubt, they can fall back on the stored photos from prior visits to Thailand.

 

I do not think having a common name like David Smith, means you do not have to worry about being on an Interpol watch list, and (although Thai officialdom is not the world's most efficient) I believe Thai immigration can confirm your identity when you enter the country.

[NanLaew]

1 minute ago, scubascuba3 said:

 

Its a new passport number. So how do they link them? Maybe you can confirm without guessing

 

See post #133 above.

[BadCash]

8 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

From google (you can do it yourself)

 

tour·ist

ˈto͝orəst/

noun

 

1. 1.

   a person who is traveling or visiting a place for pleasure.

   "the pyramids have drawn tourists to Egypt"

   synonyms:

   vacationer, traveler, sightseer, visitor, backpacker, globetrotter, day tripper, out-of-towner;  informalleaf peeper "the islands teem with tourists"
2. 2.

   short for tourist class.

verb

rare

 

1. 1.

   travel as a tourist.

   "American families touristing abroad"

Am I to believe that the Thai immigration uses this definition to decide who is welcome and who is not? Where does it say anything about the length of stay, etc, etc, etc. that separates a "legitimate tourist" from a non-legitimate tourist?

Edited April 16, 2017 by BadCash

[scubascuba3]

  Not trying to argue with you, just trying to understand the logic here... If someone is living in Thailand, paying rent, electricity, food, entertainment, and so on, they must surely contribute at least as much as some cheap ass backpacker who sleeps in 100 baht/night guesthouses and eats 100 baht worth of street food per day? Yet I don't know of any rules that say backpackers aren't welcome, or that they are welcome only if they spend at least X amount of baht per day?

 

Either way, let's say someone is staying in Thailand for 12 months, using tourist visas and just going out a few days at a time to renew his visa, i.e. "bad". Another person is staying 6 months in Thailand and 6 months in Cambodia during the same 12 month period, i.e. "ok". Obviously, the first guy is spending more money in Thailand... but the second guy is welcome, the first guy is not... makes no sense.

 

The guys who eat cheap arse street food are still supporting those Thais who sell it. It all makes a contribution, daft to think otherwise.

 

 

 

[ubonjoe]

3 minutes ago, BadCash said:

Am I to believe that the Thai immigration uses this definition to decide who is welcome and who is not? Where does it say anything about the length of stay, etc, etc, etc. that separates a "legitimate tourist" from a non-legitimate tourist?

I posted this earlier in the topic.

Wiki has a different definition for international tourism.

Quote

International tourism refers to tourism that crosses national borders. Globalization has made tourism a popular global leisure activity. The World Tourism Organization defines tourists as people "traveling to and staying in places outside their usual environment for not more than one consecutive year for leisure, business and other purposes".^[1] The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that up to 500,000 people are in flight at any one time.^[2]

 

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_tourism

[jspill]

17 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:

So, if you have a new passport (which has a new number such as UK) somehow their records are linked and they can see the old passport history?

They'd have to check. Quite often they're in a hurry and just have a cursory flip through of your passport pages looking for your visa sticker or first empty page to stamp. And don't check your old history on the computer unless your passport is full of visas. So it definitely helps to some extent to have a fresh passport. Pick a fast moving queue at passport control.

[stevenl]

 
Its a new passport number. So how do they link them? Maybe you can confirm without guessing.
 
If they do link they are guessing based on name and date of birth. They shouldn't link based on that. You could just say I've never been to Thailand before.
 
 

Plus place of birth.

sent using Tapatalk

[JackThompson]

1 hour ago, NanLaew said:

Stop propagating this nonsense will you? As a collective, the likes of the OP aint shit on Thailand's GNP.

 

However, if he was a genuine tourist...

Right, but to the "little people" whose income vanishes, it matters a whole lot.  This is true whether or not those few "little people" affected by this one visitor would register on a nationwide GNP in the "0.xxx" decimal-places.  I am talking about Thai (and Farang) individual lives harmed, not macro-economics - though when this affects thousands of travelers, the latter is also affected.  I would argue it has been affected, seeing all the empty condos around me.

 

Please link to the Thai-law or currently-active police-order defining "genuine tourist" or do not perpetuate the belief in this imaginary term.  Maybe, one day, it will be defined - but it is not now.

 

34 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

Beyond legitimate tourists, the only other ones that are welcome are Elite visa holders, married to Thai or retirees with sustainable income (and proof thereof) and those with real jobs who are paying taxes. Anyone claiming that they are contributing to Thailand's greater good by buying their beer and ciggies at the local 7-eleven, bar fining "my friend me" and eating at the local market are deluded.

Married to Thai now being harassed on Multiple Non-Os, if not carrying pictures and other "proof of a relationship" - at least in one case:

https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/978488-being-denied-entry-with-marriage-visa/

 

Yes, the Chinese they are bringing in with free-visa offers, who buy dinner at the 7-11 (near me - they fill up the place), are not contributing nearly as much as the Farangs who eat at restaurants (mostly empty), and have been Run-off by anti-market immigration policies. 

 

Do you know where the money that goes to "my friend me" goes?  To support a family in Issan, probably.  Ask them how they feel about their income being taken away. 

Ask the vendors at the "local market" how they feel about their business going under, and returning to subsistence farming (assuming they have a family with land) or worse. 

These lives are real Thai lives - not theoretical statistics.  Work options are few, especially for older people.  Age-discrimination is "legal" here.  Vending at markets is an important option for many.  

 

You will notice the construction jobs don't pay well, due to the Cambodians let in by the thousands and handed visas.  Maybe those in power should do something about that?  Want to bet the construction companies don't want to pay Thai wages, though it might add mere satangs per square-foot to do so? 

Edited April 16, 2017 by JackThompson

[NanLaew]

12 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

Right, but to the "little people" whose income vanishes, it matters a whole lot.  This is true whether or not those few "little people" affected by this one visitor would register on a nationwide GNP in the "0.xxx" decimal-places.  I am talking about Thai (and Farang) individual lives harmed, not macro-economics - though when this affects thousands of travelers, the latter is also affected.  I would argue it has been affected, seeing all the empty condos around me.

 

Please link to the Thai-law or currently-active police-order defining "genuine tourist" or do not perpetuate the belief in this imaginary term.  Maybe, one day, it will be defined - but it is not now.

 

Married to Thai now being harassed on Multiple Non-Os, if not carrying pictures and other "proof of a relationship" - at least in one case:

https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/978488-being-denied-entry-with-marriage-visa/

 

Yes, the Chinese they are bringing in with free-visa offers, who buy dinner at the 7-11 (near me - they fill up the place), are not contributing nearly as much as the Farangs who eat at restaurants (mostly empty), and have been Run-off by anti-market immigration policies. 

 

Do you know where the money that goes to "my friend me" goes?  To support a family in Issan, probably.  Ask them how they feel about their income being taken away. 

Ask the vendors at the "local market" how they feel about their business going under, and returning to subsistence farming (assuming they have a family with land) or worse. 

These lives are real Thai lives - not theoretical statistics.  Work options are few, especially for older people.  Age-discrimination is "legal" here.  Vendors at markets is an important option for many.  

 

You will notice the construction jobs don't pay well, due to the Cambodians let in by the thousands and handed visas.  Maybe those in power should do something about that?  Want to bet the construction companies don't want to pay Thai wages, though it might add mere satangs per square-foot to do so? 

I am sorry but the foreigners you are speaking of are just not that significant when it comes to paying the bills in Thailand. Restaurants and businesses owned and run by Thais for Thais are going out of business and by far outweigh the amount of farang owned and operated businesses catering to foreigners that are going tits up. Foreign companies and businesses are still investing in Thailand though.

 

With regard to guys on a 'marriage visa' getting denied entry, I already responded on that thread as follows:

 

Quote

To be honest, it is well over a year since many people started reporting being advised either by Immigration or regional Thai embassies that they only need a single entry O visa based on having a Thai spouse and they should get that converted to the appropriate long-stay enabling extension on their return to Thailand. Now, if people chose to ignore this, then they can hardly start complaining about actual enforcement. Nobody is being blind-sided or misled but most are maybe guilty of being lulled into a sense of false security with 'TiT' and mai bpen rai. However, considering that there's a new sheriff in town who's not about to lighten up anytime soon, some have been remiss in keeping their priorities straight.

 

I already copy/pasted the generic google definition of a tourist for BadCash. It may not be what Thai Immigration uses but it is pretty close to what I would consider a good definition. What is your definition?

Edited April 16, 2017 by NanLaew

[JackThompson]

13 minutes ago, stevenl said:

 

31 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

 
Its a new passport number. So how do they link them? Maybe you can confirm without guessing.
 
If they do link they are guessing based on name and date of birth. They shouldn't link based on that. You could just say I've never been to Thailand before.
 
 

Plus place of birth.

Be aware, if you've been through Immigration before, they have your picture each entry/exit and certainly passport-scans.  In theory, they could pull up pics with the name/birthdate and link using this.  I would NOT lie and say you haven't been here before.  Whatever their rules are, we have to follow them.  Inconsistency and un-published rules are the problem - no reason to compound their paranoia with deception.

[stevenl]

Married to Thai now being harassed on Multiple Non-Os, if not carrying pictures and other "proof of a relationship" - at least in one case:
https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/978488-being-denied-entry-with-marriage-visa/
 
Yes, the Chinese they are bringing in with free-visa offers, who buy dinner at the 7-11 (near me - they fill up the place), are not contributing nearly as much as the Farangs who eat at restaurants (mostly empty), and have been Run-off by anti-market immigration policies. 
 
Do you know where the money that goes to "my friend me" goes?  To support a family in Issan, probably.  Ask them how they feel about their income being taken away. 
Ask the vendors at the "local market" how they feel about their business going under, and returning to subsistence farming (assuming they have a family with land) or worse. 
These lives are real Thai lives - not theoretical statistics.  Work options are few, especially for older people.  Age-discrimination is "legal" here.  Vending at markets is an important option for many.  
 
You will notice the construction jobs don't pay well, due to the Cambodians let in by the thousands and handed visas.  Maybe those in power should do something about that?  Want to bet the construction companies don't want to pay Thai wages, though it might add mere satangs per square-foot to do so? 

Thai immigration does not need a definition of genuine tourist, they determine. And yes, it is looking more and more like non genuine tourists are not very welcome any more.

sent using Tapatalk

[JackThompson]

Just now, NanLaew said:

I am sorry but the foreigners you are speaking of are just not that significant when it comes to paying the bills in Thailand. Restaurants and businesses owned and run by Thais for Thais are going out of business and by far outweigh the amount of farang owned and operated businesses catering to foreigners that are going tits up. Foreign companies and businesses are still investing in Thailand though.

 

I already copy/pasted the generic google definition of a tourist for BadCash. It may not be what Thai Immigration uses but it is pretty close to what I would consider a good definition. What is your definition?

I think the several Thais who loose their income from each Farang who is denied entry are significant.  The money is lost to another country, so cannot be used to pay for Thai goods, services, salaries, etc.  As the Farang costs Thailand nothing (no freebies), it is a zero-sum game - each Farang lost = Thai incomes lost, including those in the supply chain.

 

I go by the Thai legal definition for Tourist Visas:  One obtains a Tourist Visa per the rules at the consulate, leaves after 60 days, or 90 days if extended, and does not work while in Thailand.  No restrictions are published on how soon they can return, so this is not part of the definition.  Visa-Exempt entries are more restricted than this, however, and may comport more closely to your idea of "tourist."

 

 

[BadCash]

48 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

I already copy/pasted the generic google definition of a tourist for BadCash. It may not be what Thai Immigration uses but it is pretty close to what I would consider a good definition. What is your definition?

 

Great, I should have no problems at immigration for the next 5 years then, since I'm an out-of-towner visiting Thailand for pleasure!

[NanLaew]

41 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

... I go by the Thai legal definition for Tourist Visas:  One obtains a Tourist Visa per the rules at the consulate, leaves after 60 days, or 90 days if extended, and does not work while in Thailand.  No restrictions are published on how soon they can return, so this is not part of the definition.  Visa-Exempt entries are more restricted than this, however, and may comport more closely to your idea of "tourist."

 

Great. I agree. Come for 60, or 90 days if extended and don't work.

 

But don't come back after a day trip to [insert regional country here] and then stay for another 60 days, or 90 days if extended.

 

Tourists also don't buy motorbikes, cars and condo's or have property leases, bank accounts and the like either.