9 years overstay

[anotheruser]

On 5/6/2017 at 6:19 AM, colinneil said:

My friend has a problem, how many times is that one posted?

If anybody is on nine years overstay, they deserve a stay in theI IDC.

It shows a total disregard for the law, total lack of respect for Thailand.

Many things here are not to our liking, but as we chose to live here, we have to put up with them.

I don't agree with this. I understand the sentiment but Thai immigration should use the threat of incarceration to get people to come in. If you surrender and can pay the flight and 20,000 to leave they should let you do it.

 

What do we care if somebody spends time in IDC isn't is better to allow these people to simply leave and never come back? I believe even America let's people go back to Mexico and waives punitive measures in order to attract people to voluntarily leave.

[anotheruser]

On 5/6/2017 at 4:10 PM, BritTim said:

Presumably, the British gentleman in question was due to be detained by the authorities on arrival back in the UK. I can understand why, in such a case, the Thais would wish to ensure the gentleman arrived at his intended destination. The position of those being deported for overstay is surely rather different. I could imagine many countries not wanting to receive a deportee but, with him not expected to face criminal proceedings anywhere, I cannot see why the Thai authorities should really care where he ends up. The main thing is that he has left, and will be unable to return should that have been decided.

Because it discourages people with criminal records to stay in the country. Deportation is a very good way to return people to where they may face criminal charges. If you leave voluntarily you choose where you go. 

 

If you are a criminal holed up in a country hiding out you get sent to face the music. This system is in place by design and can be used to bring criminals to justice when extradition isn't an option or viable. This is to encourage those type of people to leave while they still can.

 

Deportation for example would be a good way to bring somebody like "Boss" to justice. 

Edited May 10, 2017 by anotheruser

[muzmurray]

7 hours ago, anotheruser said:

I don't agree with this. I understand the sentiment but Thai immigration should use the threat of incarceration to get people to come in. If you surrender and can pay the flight and 20,000 to leave they should let you do it.

 

What do we care if somebody spends time in IDC isn't is better to allow these people to simply leave and never come back? I believe even America let's people go back to Mexico and waives punitive measures in order to attract people to voluntarily leave.

 

" If you surrender and can pay the flight and 20,000 to leave they should let you do it."

 

That is exactly what they do do !!!

[dentonian]

7 hours ago, anotheruser said:

If you surrender and can pay the flight and 20,000 to leave they should let you do it.

As I understand the situation, some get themselves into a financial position where they can't even afford that.

If they handed themselves in, they'd face in indefinite period in IDC.

Keeping a low profile and remaining free appears a better option to some.

 

I don't condone overstaying, but in given situations I can understand why.

[maxman71]

On 5/10/2017 at 8:25 PM, lamyai3 said:

Close friends!!? What if he'd died in jail? If they really had to interfere and make an intervention "for his own good" they might have completed the favour and funded him a ticket home....

I understand your sentiment, but the other side of the coin is his close friends (and I) tried repeatedly to reason with him and advised him to return home on his own accord. But he steadfastly refused and continued to act irresponsibly. His mates as well as myself had also given him money along the way before it was understood he was just blowing it on booze and women. At some point, the case for letting someone hit rock bottom takes hold. Yet another point of view others had at the time held that we should have done nothing and minded our own business. So go figure. I think the course of action taken at the time was wise and prudent given the circumstances; none of us were this guy's "wet nurse"; this is a grown man we're talking about.

[JackThompson]

7 hours ago, maxman71 said:

I understand your sentiment, but the other side of the coin is his close friends (and I) tried repeatedly to reason with him and advised him to return home on his own accord. But he steadfastly refused and continued to act irresponsibly. His mates as well as myself had also given him money along the way before it was understood he was just blowing it on booze and women. At some point, the case for letting someone hit rock bottom takes hold. Yet another point of view others had at the time held that we should have done nothing and minded our own business. So go figure. I think the course of action taken at the time was wise and prudent given the circumstances; none of us were this guy's "wet nurse"; this is a grown man we're talking about.

Seems to me, there were indeed two choices, and one was to do nothing.  But if "trying to help" by snitching him out, then getting him out of IDC and on a plane back home would have to be part of that plan - or else, it amounts to simply "bleeping" someone over.  If that extra step is too much to ask (and it might indeed be too much for this fellow) - fair enough, then don't do anything.  But what happened in this case wasn't "him hitting rock bottom" - it was his acquaintances throwing him down a well.

[FritsSikkink]

On ‎10‎/‎05‎/‎2017 at 10:31 PM, anotheruser said:

I don't agree with this. I understand the sentiment but Thai immigration should use the threat of incarceration to get people to come in. If you surrender and can pay the flight and 20,000 to leave they should let you do it.

 

What do we care if somebody spends time in IDC isn't is better to allow these people to simply leave and never come back? I believe even America let's people go back to Mexico and waives punitive measures in order to attract people to voluntarily leave.

What about leaving when your visa is about to expire?

[IMA_FARANG]

Reading these posts, I as a human being, feel sorry for whoever it is.

But we, as human beings, are responsible for abiding by the rules of our society.

We have to accept that, if not we are just animals.

I have lived 70 years, and I have lost loved ones to accidents and even in war.

It wasn't easy, but I have tried to live by and follow the rules of human society.

I can feel pity, but I also can honestly say I never deliberately broke a law.

 

[maxman71]

On 6/6/2017 at 9:24 PM, JackThompson said:

Seems to me, there were indeed two choices, and one was to do nothing.  But if "trying to help" by snitching him out, then getting him out of IDC and on a plane back home would have to be part of that plan - or else, it amounts to simply "bleeping" someone over.  If that extra step is too much to ask (and it might indeed be too much for this fellow) - fair enough, then don't do anything.  But what happened in this case wasn't "him hitting rock bottom" - it was his acquaintances throwing him down a well.

Jack, this plan was hatched between his two close mates and the guy's elderly father back in the UK who had sent him money on several occasions. They all were in fear for his well being as I was albeit I only knew this fellow for several months. Had nothing been done, it was a good possibility he would have ended up beaten or killed by a few locals who were after him or left to forage in the streets. Had one of these outcomes occurred, it would be a safe assumption that many commenters would question why didn't somebody do something, perhaps even yourself. He was in IDC for about one month before his father was able to get the money together for his plane ticket and coordinate with the British Consulate and Thai Immigration to fly him home. The last I heard from the guy was via an email he sent after he was back in the UK and he was greatful someone looked after him to get him home. Not withstanding all of this, you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

[Ian1980]

Is not a vital question: but this guy, with 9 years overstay, where he lives? In major cities or in the deep forest of Isaan?

[JackThompson]

1 hour ago, maxman71 said:

Had nothing been done, it was a good possibility he would have ended up beaten or killed by a few locals who were after him ...

I have heard of people running to the police/ jail to avoid death by vigilantes in some countries.  Glad it worked out in the end, he only was there a month, and he didn't meet the same fate in Immigration-Jail.

[Woldenersen]

The new law does NOT apply for people who already overstayed BEFORE the new law got applied.

 

So he can leave now and will NOT be banned if hw overstayed 9 years.

[pontious]

10 minutes ago, Woldenersen said:

The new law does NOT apply for people who already overstayed BEFORE the new law got applied.

 

So he can leave now and will NOT be banned if hw overstayed 9 years.

I bet he will.

[Jdietz]

Keep believing.. grace period has finished a long time ago.

[Woldenersen]

1. If you have already overstayed beyond your permitted date before the order’s enforced date (20 March 2016), you may surrender to the authorities at the Immigration Checkpoint (land border, seaport, and airport). You must pay a fine of 500/day, but not exceeding 20,000 baht before you are allowed to leave the Kingdom of Thailand.

[FritsSikkink]

52 minutes ago, Woldenersen said:

The new law does NOT apply for people who already overstayed BEFORE the new law got applied.

 

So he can leave now and will NOT be banned if hw overstayed 9 years.

Nonsense, he will be banned.

[darrendsd]

1 hour ago, Woldenersen said:

The new law does NOT apply for people who already overstayed BEFORE the new law got applied.

 

So he can leave now and will NOT be banned if hw overstayed 9 years.

Complete nonsense i'm afraid, there was a grace period before the new laws came into affect however that finished a long time ago

 

He will be banned, that is 100%

[moana]

I wonder what happens if this "friend" crosses to Laos (illegally of course, which is super easy) and turns himself in to immigration there. He will then be deported from Laos, but what about his status in Thailand? If he later just buys a flight ticket to Thailand and shows up at the airport with a new passport, will they connect the dots? Knowing Thai dot connecting abilities, they may not, and this scheme could work. Wonder if it's ever been done.

[BritTim]

6 hours ago, moana said:

I wonder what happens if this "friend" crosses to Laos (illegally of course, which is super easy) and turns himself in to immigration there. He will then be deported from Laos, but what about his status in Thailand? If he later just buys a flight ticket to Thailand and shows up at the airport with a new passport, will they connect the dots? Knowing Thai dot connecting abilities, they may not, and this scheme could work. Wonder if it's ever been done.

I do not know the answer for sure. However, I strongly suspect Laos would take one look at the passport, levy a fine, and return his "friend" to Thailand.

[Get Real]

9 hours ago, Woldenersen said:

The new law does NOT apply for people who already overstayed BEFORE the new law got applied.

 

So he can leave now and will NOT be banned if hw overstayed 9 years.

Where did you get that totally sensless information? Not one thing correct!

[moana]

4 hours ago, BritTim said:

I strongly suspect Laos would take one look at the passport

He could also "lose" his passport.

[chrisinth]

12 hours ago, Woldenersen said:

The new law does NOT apply for people who already overstayed BEFORE the new law got applied.

 

So he can leave now and will NOT be banned if hw overstayed 9 years.

 

That would be great. Bit like over-stayers being 'grandfathered' in.

 

Not sure where you got your information, but I would wager it is extremely incorrect and really bad advice to anyone out there reading this who are on over-stay.

[Get Real]

3 hours ago, moana said:

He could also "lose" his passport.

First you halfway suggest that he should enter Laos illegally. After that you make the hint og that he can throw his passport, so that Laos immigration would not see what´s transpired.
Do you have any more illegal, hidden in plain text, advise that you can give for free?

[Prince77]

Did not bother to read all 14 pages of this post. If your friend is a German national he should contact http://www.dhv-thailand.de/ - an association which helps German nationals  who got into trouble at no one's fault.(although it was your friend's own fault).

 

They will help and coordinate with his relatives in his home country to get the money for the penalty and flight ticket. Once guaranteed they will accompany your friend to the airport and advise further procedure.

 

I would do everything to avoid detention. Good news: your friend does not have to queue at Immigration - just mention your friend is on overstay he he can jump the queue.

 

Good luck

 

[moana]

1 hour ago, Get Real said:

you halfway suggest

Suggest? I didn't suggest one single thing. Any suggestions would most likely be moot anyway, since it's been a while since this thread was opened. Plus, obviously the guy doesn't have a problem with law breaking.

 

I was wondering about the outcome of a less than unlikely scenario, which was probably done in the past, out of sheer curiosity. Save your morality lessons.

[Woldenersen]

13 hours ago, Get Real said:

Where did you get that totally sensless information? Not one thing correct!

From immigration website ^^

[faraday]

3 minutes ago, Woldenersen said:

From immigration website ^^

Post up the link then.

[Woldenersen]

6 minutes ago, faraday said:

Post up the link then.

http://www.thaiembassy.org/amman/en/services/64031-Thailand-Overstay-Measures.html

[sanemax]

5 minutes ago, Woldenersen said:

http://www.thaiembassy.org/amman/en/services/64031-Thailand-Overstay-Measures.html

That link doesnt say what you suggested that it said

[overherebc]

Another year old thread.