Entry denied Bangkok Airport

[scubascuba3]

One of the guys said so which is enough for me. You want an audio recording or vlog of it?

 

 

[perthperson]

1 minute ago, scubascuba3 said:

One of the guys said so which is enough for me. You want a audio recording ot vlog of it?

Obviously you will believe anything -- I have a bridge for sale in London -- Please place your bid. 

Edited July 19, 2017 by perthperson

[scubascuba3]

Do you mistrust everyone? His story seems legit, i think most level headed people will believe it

[overherebc]

I think the part of 12 (16) covers the no appeal

, or when the Minister considers it improper to allow any alien etc etc.

[ubonjoe]

7 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

Interesting....tapatalk won't isn't including the post i relied to, oh well

Perhaps you should be using the ThaiVisa connect app instead of tapatalk.

[perthperson]

2 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

Do you mistrust everyone? His story seems legit, i think most level headed people will believe it

The gullible might --- especially  those who are scamming  the system themselves. 

[scubascuba3]

Possibly, tapatalk appear to have just issued an update which obviously wasn't tested properly.

[ubonjoe]

5 minutes ago, overherebc said:

I think the part of 12 (16) covers the no appeal

, or when the Minister considers it improper to allow any alien etc etc.

Section 16 would include those that are blacklisted.  So no appeal for denial of entry.

The minister of interior could ban everybody from a certain country under section 16 as well.

 

[overherebc]

17 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

Section 16 would include those that are blacklisted.  So no appeal for denial of entry.

The minister of interior could ban everybody from a certain country under section 16 as well.

 

I read it as 'no cash to show and suspicion of working' so improper to allow.

Anyway the chances of appeal are less than impossible so the whole thing is academic.

Now we can get back on topic, internet cafes. ??

[ubonjoe]

2 minutes ago, overherebc said:

I read it as 'no cash to show and suspicion of working' so improper to allow.

Only 2 and 9 of section 12 cover the funds.

You are confusing section 16 with section 12 that only has 11 paragraphs.

[overherebc]

10 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

Only 2 and 9 of section 12 cover the funds.

You are confusing section 16 with section 12 that only has 11 paragraphs.

Still don't think anyone is ever going to manage an appeal when in lock up at the airport. 

Anyone who got as far as getting a lawyer approved to come and see them there would be on a plane out before the lawyers arrived and would be in a world of hurt on any return to Thailand.

When the big guy knocks you down with one punch why stand up and get another one or two or three.

[overherebc]

25 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

Only 2 and 9 of section 12 cover the funds.

You are confusing section 16 with section 12 that only has 11 paragraphs.

Section 16 has only one paragraph and I stated one part of it. My suggestion is that 'improper to allow' would be a fall back for Imm'  to cover an appeal on 12 (2) and (9).

[BritTim]

42 minutes ago, overherebc said:

Section 16 has only one paragraph and I stated one part of it. My suggestion is that 'improper to allow' would be a fall back for Imm'  to cover an appeal on 12 (2) and (9).

I think it clear that the Minister himself has absolute discretion to admit or exclude anyone he chooses. I guess he could  issue an order that says "entry is barred to anyone an immigration official decides to deny entry", but I am pretty sure no such order has been given, and it would certainly be contrary to the intent of Section 16. I think Section 22, providing the right to appeal exclusion under Section 12 with only two specified exceptions, is pretty clear personally.

[brewsterbudgen]

From your posts it is fairly obvious that none of you have or run a restaurant/coffee shop
or have the faintest idea what you are talking about.
My wife's shop is no where near a school or university nor does it sit "virtually empty" all day
so when the parasites invade they occupy seats that paying customers cannot, and believe it
or not this has an adverse affect on her business, please don't post nonsense when you don't
know what you are talking about. Thank you.

Not really sure who you're referring to, but while I might never have run my own coffee shop, I do have quite a good understanding of the Starbucks business model in Bangkok, which is what my post referred to.

[overherebc]

51 minutes ago, BritTim said:

I think it clear that the Minister himself has absolute discretion to admit or exclude anyone he chooses. I guess he could  issue an order that says "entry is barred to anyone an immigration official decides to deny entry", but I am pretty sure no such order has been given, and it would certainly be contrary to the intent of Section 16. I think Section 22, providing the right to appeal exclusion under Section 12 with only two specified exceptions, is pretty clear personally.

I still reckon that trying to submit an appeal from lock up at the airport would be a total waste of time, dare I say on a par with quoting Queen's Regs to your RSM.

[phuketjock]

51 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Not really sure who you're referring to, but while I might never have run my own coffee shop, I do have quite a good understanding of the Starbucks business model in Bangkok, which is what my post referred to.

Having "quite a good understanding of the Starbucks business model" does not in any way mean

that you have foggiest idea how to actually run a coffee shop or any other business, what the heck

is a business model anyway Starbucks is a real business all over the world not a model, sounds like

American business school yuckspeak to me?

[brewsterbudgen]

Having "quite a good understanding of the Starbucks business model" does not in any way mean
that you have foggiest idea how to actually run a coffee shop or any other business, what the heck
is a business model anyway Starbucks is a real business all over the world not a model, sounds like
American business school yuckspeak to me?

Indeed. I'm just saying Starbucks made an error when they put up signs restricting the time students could spend there. Students and other "nomads" make up a high proportion of their market. I understand your situation is not strictly comparable.

[jspill]

8 hours ago, phuketjock said:

obvious that none of you have or run a restaurant/coffee shop

or have the faintest idea what you are talking about.

By this line of logic if one isn't a a digital nomad then they have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to digital nomads, i.e. if they use cafes, what kind of people they tend to be, their general habits, finances, expenditure, etc. 

[scubascuba3]

Strange how sometimes off topic is allowed and other times it isn't. One of the mysteries of life

 

 

[phuketjock]

3 minutes ago, jspill said:

By this line of logic if one isn't a a digital nomad then they have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to digital nomads, i.e. if they use cafes, what kind of people they tend to be, their general habits, finances, expenditure, etc. 

I think I know where you are going but not 100%.

You don't need to know anyone to see the effect that their behaviour has on other people, and

by observing their general habits it is possible to form an opinion on what kind of people they

are which is basically what i was commenting on. And if their observed expenditure was

anything to go by their finances were not in great shape, who knows they could have just been

really keenok?

[BritTim]

8 hours ago, overherebc said:

I still reckon that trying to submit an appeal from lock up at the airport would be a total waste of time, dare I say on a par with quoting Queen's Regs to your RSM.

No disagreement there. I have already said as much in my posts. That does not make the actions of the officials right.

[YetAnother]

On 7/12/2017 at 0:31 PM, ubonjoe said:

Suspicion is not mentioned in the immigration act.

 

How do these people prove a negative?

"Discretion of the immigration official"

Introduces the wild human factor; some or most or all of these people do not work here ,how do they prove that?

They could still be working here even if they have finances...

So the approach is flawed

((Yes,I know,western logic; the constant trap here))

[Tony125]

On 7/14/2017 at 1:21 PM, JackThompson said:

I think is is post-id #6 - "Does it make sense to appeal if I don't have a monthly income. I traveling more than 1,5 years in Asia with my savings."

This is not an unreasonable possibility.  He isn't from a poor part of the world, after all. 

That said, I absolutely support the arrest and prosecution of people working-illegally and the people who hire them.  If that's what the OP was up to, this action at Immigration solved nothing.  The OP could just come back another way; and even if he didn't, nothing would happen to the traitor who hired him, who would just make another illegal-hire.

 

 

Article from NY Post    http://nypost.com/2017/07/20/thailand-is-sick-of-backpackers-begging-for-money-to-get-home/

[JackThompson]

5 hours ago, Tony125 said:

Article from NY Post    http://nypost.com/2017/07/20/thailand-is-sick-of-backpackers-begging-for-money-to-get-home/

Glad the 20K Baht requirement is getting some print (since almost no one knows about it who doesn't read specialized forums), but the headline and lack of context of the piece is very deceptive.  In both of these cases, the person in question was not short of funds.  The person with the Tourist Visa had 25K Baht in cash.  The one on the ED had plenty on plastic - all they had to do was let him access an ATM to prove it.    Many others have begged to go to an ATM to prove their worth, and were denied.  The fact that these travelers were denied ATM-access, though that would take less officer-resources than detention, shows that this 'crackdown' clearly is NOT about the title of this piece - the odd "beg-packer."   The article could as well have been written by a PR Firm.

 

As to the article's title, if a foreigner is seen begging, they should be questioned and have their names added to an Immigration "watch for" list (assuming they are not already on overstay or otherwise breaking the law), subject to additional financial proof requirements if attempting to enter the country in the future.   A list of additional required financial proofs, to be shown upon entry, for those with a history of staying for longer periods, is perfectly reasonable - provided that list of required documents is published and uniformly accepted.

Edited July 21, 2017 by JackThompson

[tonray]

3 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

Glad the 20K Baht requirement is getting some print (since almost no one knows about it who doesn't read specialized forums), but the headline and lack of context of the piece is very deceptive.  In both of these cases, the person in question was not short of funds.  The person with the Tourist Visa had 25K Baht in cash.  The one on the ED had plenty on plastic - all they had to do was let him access an ATM to prove it.    Many others have begged to go to an ATM to prove their worth, and were denied.  The fact that these travelers were denied ATM-access, though that would take less officer-resources than detention, shows that this 'crackdown' clearly is NOT about the title of this piece - the odd "beg-packer."   The article could as well have been written by a PR Firm.

 

As to the article's title, if a foreigner is seen begging, they should be questioned and have their names added to an Immigration "watch for" list (assuming they are not already on overstay or otherwise breaking the law), subject to additional financial proof requirements if attempting to enter the country in the future.   A list of additional required financial proofs, to be shown upon entry, for those staying for longer periods is perfectly reasonable - provided that list of required documents is published and uniformly accepted.

I think this was a trial balloon to see what kind of blowback they got, before implementing full scale. I expect more of it and then they will see if it drastically reduces tourism or not. If not, they will make it more than random checks.

[JackThompson]

10 minutes ago, tonray said:

I think this was a trial balloon to see what kind of blowback they got, before implementing full scale. I expect more of it and then they will see if it drastically reduces tourism or not. If not, they will make it more than random checks.

Someone reported there are electronic-billboards informing travelers, who just got off the plane, that they need the 20K Baht.  Yet no ATM from which to obtain the funds is available.  Why not put ATMs under flashing signs - and a big "down arrow" pointing to the ATM? 

Even better, have the ATM-fees from that machine donated to needy-children, or cancer-research, or similar - which would smooth-over any hard-feelings about the policy (and the high-fees for foreign-withdrawals).

 

A more interesting article would have been: (headline) "Catch 22 in Thailand's Airports?"  (sub-head) "Travelers Arriving at Bangkok Airports Must Show Cash - But ATM Machines are Conspicuously Absent.  Is it a set-up?" ...

 

(article text beings with) "When entering a banana republic, one might expect that Immigration Officials would play entrapment-games, but some travelers have been shocked to see this sort of scheme playing out in one of the premier tourist-destinations in the world.  Risking its reputation as friendly to foreigners, Thailand's Airport Immigration have begun a new policy of arbitrarily asking to see 'Cash On Arrival' - while withholding the means to obtain that cash. The state of modern banking means that people no longer have to risk robbery by carrying large amounts of cash, or purchasing Travelers Checks to fund their time in a foreign country.  But Thailand has created a 1970s-era zone between the airplane and Immigration, leaving travelers no way to meet this generally unknown requirement to enter the country ..."

Edited July 21, 2017 by JackThompson

[007 RED]

The stupid thing is that the Junta has been actively promoting Thailand 4.0 and that it expects Thailand to be a ’cashless’ economy with the introduction of electronic banking etc. 

So why don’t they have CC machines available on the IO’s desk so that he/she can check the fund availability?  Don't answer that question... I already know the answer.

[phuketrichard]

a good explanation of the 20,000 baht rule

http://www.thaitravelblogs.com/2017/07/q-a-from-the-tat-about-reports-that-some-tourists-were-refused-entry-to-thailand/

 

[chrisinth]

13 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

Someone reported there are electronic-billboards informing travelers, who just got off the plane, that they need the 20K Baht.  Yet no ATM from which to obtain the funds is available.  Why not put ATMs under flashing signs - and a big "down arrow" pointing to the ATM? 

Even better, have the ATM-fees from that machine donated to needy-children, or cancer-research, or similar - which would smooth-over any hard-feelings about the policy (and the high-fees for foreign-withdrawals).

 

A more interesting article would have been: (headline) "Catch 22 in Thailand's Airports?"  (sub-head) "Travelers Arriving at Bangkok Airports Must Show Cash - But ATM Machines are Conspicuously Absent.  Is it a set-up?" ...

 

(article text beings with) "When entering a banana republic, one might expect that Immigration Officials would play entrapment-games, but some travelers have been shocked to see this sort of scheme playing out in one of the premier tourist-destinations in the world.  Risking its reputation as friendly to foreigners, Thailand's Airport Immigration have begun a new policy of arbitrarily asking to see 'Cash On Arrival' - while withholding the means to obtain that cash. The state of modern banking means that people no longer have to risk robbery by carrying large amounts of cash, or purchasing Travelers Checks to fund their time in a foreign country.  But Thailand has created a 1970s-era zone between the airplane and Immigration, leaving travelers no way to meet this generally unknown requirement to enter the country ..."

Although your hypothetical article may have been written tongue in cheek, it contains a lot of truth. Your point about having ATMs available pre-immigration check are pointedly valid as well.

 

As has been observed by many on this thread, these rules for showing finances are not new. With this in mind (and understanding that MFA & Immigration are different departments) for something as important as tourism and the absolute negative global publicity that these incidents generate, would it not be reasonable for the Thai government to work together and make these requirements known?

 

How much trouble would it be to add a line to the tourist visa application form? Or even issue a flyer with every visa issued at all embassies and consulates informing the proud owners of their new visas that getting the stamp/sticker (or even, coming soon, their e-visa) that the paperwork is only the first step to getting into the country? Currently this is not done at all issue points.

 

And yes, I do realize what they are trying to do. But would it not be easier to have people properly pre-informed and to provide the opportunity of proving finances by having ATMs available before the entry check with something exactly like Jack suggests? 

 

We are privileged to have all the information available here on TV but don't forget that a lot more people aren't ................ 

[chrisinth]

14 minutes ago, phuketrichard said:

a good explanation of the 20,000 baht rule

http://www.thaitravelblogs.com/2017/07/q-a-from-the-tat-about-reports-that-some-tourists-were-refused-entry-to-thailand/

 

Interesting article but in none of the replies to the questions regarding proof of funds does it say that the proof must be in currency or traveler checks.

 

So for me, being a tourist reading that before a first trip to Thailand, I would assume a bank book/statement, credit/debit card, etc would be sufficient proof of funds.

 

This, as has been repeatedly reported, is not the case.