4 minutes ago, possum1931 said:

OK I will not say you are wrong, but out of curiosity, I would like to know how many countries try accused people and convict them on one persons opinion? How many of these countries would be first world?

It will not be one persons opinion, there will at least be one supervisor involved.

 

In how many countries in the world does an IO not have the right to deny access to somebody?

2 hours ago, NanLaew said:

Since denial of entry at an airport is exactly the same as denial of entry at a land border in that the person denied entry hasn't been allowed to enter, he is still technically in the other country... or the bit of no mans land between each country's border posts. As long as he/she qualifies to re-enter the other country, that's what will happen. If they have somehow overstayed their welcome, their visa has expired or any other reason they no longer qualify to re-enter the other country, then they would probably be detained by the Immigration of the other country and deported from the other country.

 

I think there's a very good reason why Lao Airlines refuse to carry anyone who had been denied entry to Thailand on any of their flights regardless of how eminently qualified they are to enter Laos.

On the contrary, a person refused entry for "not enough money" recently flew right back to Laos - hit the ATM on the way out and pulled out 20K baht - which they would not let him do to prove he had the money before being refused-entry, of course.

 

2 hours ago, Lovethailandelite said:

Quite honesty you sound as if you haven't a clue about what they can and do actually do here if they want too. This isn't a Nanny state where you cry unfair and someone comes running to save you under some human rights act.

So "rule of law" = "nanny state" now?  I am politically far from supportive of "nanny states" - but definitely favor the rule-of-law.  Capital and tourists with money do not flow to states where "the law" is "what so-and-so says the law is today."   Based on this account, a certain clique is not happy with the law "as is" and is attempting to make their own.  Hopefully those who do make the laws eventually put them in their rightful place as enforcers of the law - not authors of it.

 

1 hour ago, Khun Robert said:

Every year I see lots of Foreigners coming into Thailand and living the dream of Scuba Dive master and/or Scuba Dive Instructor.

It would be easy to find them right where they work - and they should be caught, and prosecuted.
Refusing-entry to people at airports based on no evidence would not be effective to stop the former (high season - would not be "too many" visas - would look like any other tourist) and would be counter-productive given 99% of those caught-up in the net and refused, would not be illegal dive-instructors or English teachers. 

31 minutes ago, tryasimight said:

I guess there are.

But I don't think Thailand exists for the sole purpose as being a country that someone can pick to live in simply because they choose to do so regardless of what the outdated colonial thinking might be. 

It's a sovereign nation and has every right to determine who enters and who does not, like every other country.

There is a lot more to the world than money.....don't you think that the oft quoted general dislike of many Thais to the farang contingent is because they see farang men coming here......having sex with their women, flashing their money around and leaving again? Money doesn't come into it from their perspective.

I'd feel the same if a group of foreigners came to my country for the same reasons.

"having sex with "their" women"??? These women are human beings in their own right, and have the right to have sex with any man they like as long as it is consensual to both, and there is no underage involved. Maybe if some of these guys would treat "their" women with respect and not walkout on them leaving them to bring up the kids, there would not be so many of "their" women going out with Farangs.

38 minutes ago, 007 RED said:

I should be interested to know what law there is that states you cannot have more than ‘x’ Tourist Visas in your passport.  If such a law exists, then the IO would have endorsed the OP’s passport accordingly and not refused entry under Section 13(3) of the Immigration Act which relates to obtaining work.

As I said, we don’t have all the facts so we shouldn’t jump to conclusions.

007 correct, why did you think the IO used section 12(3)?  Because he  had no evidence of and couldn't apply the other sections 12 (1) to (12). And because neither foreigner or the IO will be able to disprove 12(3) no appeal will be allowed.

15 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

On the contrary, a person refused entry for "not enough money" recently flew right back to Laos - hit the ATM on the way out and pulled out 20K baht - which they would not let him do to prove he had the money before being refused-entry, of course.

 

So "rule of law" = "nanny state" now?  I am politically far from supportive of "nanny states" - but definitely favor the rule-of-law.  Capital and tourists with money do not flow to states where "the law" is "what so-and-so says the law is today."   Based on this account, a certain clique is not happy with the law "as is" and is attempting to make their own.  Hopefully those who do make the laws eventually put them in their rightful place as enforcers of the law - not authors of it.

 

It would be easy to find them right where they work - and they should be caught, and prosecuted.
Refusing-entry to people at airports based on no evidence would not be effective to stop the former (high season - would not be "too many" visas - would look like any other tourist) and would be counter-productive given 99% of those caught-up in the net and refused, would not be illegal dive-instructors or English teachers. 

No evidence? So far all we know is from the OP, and is he telling the whole story? Maybe he has been working in the (recent) past, and was it his intention to return to work.

21 minutes ago, possum1931 said:

OK I will not say you are wrong, but out of curiosity, I would like to know how many countries try accused people and convict them on one persons opinion? How many of these countries would be first world?

Again with all due respect in USA alone there have been many convicted to death penalty and life imprisonment on the testimony of just a single eye witness. In many cases with the advent of modern technology and science those testimonies were proven incorrect.

1 hour ago, tryasimight said:

And be prepared for the consequences when you don't respect the rules

The poster was not talking about breaking rules, he was talking about disrespecting them, their are rules that I will respect and some I will disrespect, and I will certainly not obey any rule that I disrespect if I think I will get away with it, as long as I am not doing anything to the detriment of ordinary people.

I'm coming on "Visa on arrival" (30 days) since several years to Thailand. I always stay between 10 and 15 days.

In 2016 I entered Thailand 10 times that way, in 2017 so far 6 times. Never had an issue. I hope I won't have one when I enter the next time IF this is a "new" rule....

19 minutes ago, asean said:

Possum with all due respect. A lunatic walked into a Thai police station with a knife last month and the officer used his discretion to not shoot him instead calming him down and sympathizing. I have witnessed a lot of favourable discretion with Thai officers. Discretion that would have been impossible in the west.

I have seen similar.  Thai street-cops are much more professional than most I witnessed in the USA.  From a high window, looked down and saw a drug-bust go down of a moving-car - cut-off and stopped without anyone getting hurt - no shooting.  They were very effective - serious pros.  I have great respect for them.   It's why Thailand is generally a safe country.

 

Most Immigration people are nice too.  It's just a few who seem to belong to some sort of anti-foreigner mentality, and seem to have risen to supervisory positions at airports.  At Poipet, I think it is more of a penance for letting in the attackers who attacked the shrine in Bangkok.

1 minute ago, lemonwaterjoe said:

I'm coming on tourist visa since several years to Thailand. I always stay between 10 and 15 days.

In 2016 I entered Thailand 10 times that way, in 2017 so far 6 times. Never had an issue. I hope I won't have one when I enter the next time IF this is a "new" rule....

Just as a matter of interest where do you obtain these Tourist Visas ? 

1 minute ago, perthperson said:

Just as a matter of interest where do you obtain these Tourist Visas ? 

My pardon, I mean "Visa on Arrival" (30 days)....already corrected my post.

Just now, lemonwaterjoe said:

My pardon, I mean "Visa on Arrival" (30 days)....already corrected my post.

 

Really ?    There are no 30 day VOAs !  

 

If you have been using serial visa exempt entries you can expect to be questioned by immigration any time soon .....

1 hour ago, asean said:

The best thing to do is go home and try again. Otherwise you will be wasting a lot of time and money on the appeal which will not be succesfull.

 

OP, i think you should follow the advice noted above.  i only turned 50 recently and spent 8 months a year in thailand for 10 years before that.  so i know what it is like to deal with the 'visa game'.  now i'm on the non imm O, extension of stay for retirement.  i say this just so you know i'm not one of the TV members that is constantly bashing those that use tourist visas to enter the country.  as in, 'you got caught, go home'.  it isn't fun to fly to thailand and then spend a day or two in detention and fly home.  you'll just have to call this one, 'a life experience' (not a real good one either).

 

if it helps any, i spent several hours in detention in los angeles airport (USA, my passport country) as they refused me entry until i could produce a business credit card.  they wanted proof that i had a job, to enter my own country, my business card was not sufficient  !!!  i used some profanity in response and they locked me up.

 

 

 

 

38 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

There are these things called "Tourist Visas."  You have to leave after 60 or 90 (if extended) days, and apply for another.  There is no limit in the law on their use.  Those in charge could create a limit any time they chose.  They haven't.  Some aren't happy about that, evidently, and think they can make up their own law, to spite their bosses.

 

Absolutely.  They can change the law with regard to Tourist Visas any time they choose.  They haven't, so the law as-is, stands.  Maybe they don't want a public-debate about the effects of changing that law, and what Thais would suffer as a result - such as those who won't get a payday from the OP's spending. 
 

Where does the money "go" - exactly?  How can we know some aren't really "illegally working" here?  Evidently, showing you "have money" isn't good enough, or the OP would be in the clear.  How do we know that some of that money is not going in the pocket of someone who is behind all this harassment of people on Tourist Visas at airports?  It appears those who wish to stop serial Tourist-Visa users don't have full-control of the system - just jurisdiction in some areas - so it makes me wonder what their motivation is.  Hatred?  Money?  Resentment of people who can afford to retire when young?  We are left only guessing - but Money is a powerful motivator, and tends to win most bets in such cases where logic otherwise fails.

1/ Yes there is a limit on their use it is in the name. Tourist.

2/ The OP by discretion of the officer did not pass the test of "financial gain to the country". 

3/ Money goes to TPC wholly owned by TAT

 

I do not understand why you call it harassment of people with tourist visas at the airport. The OP did not have a tourist visa. Many people mistake the 30 day visa waiver extended to nationals of some countries as a tourist visa. It is not a tourist visa. This is why it is called a Tourist Visa Exemption.

33 minutes ago, perthperson said:

 

Really ?    There are no 30 day VOAs !  

 

If you have been using serial visa exempt entries you can expect to be questioned by immigration any time soon .....

 

Sorry for the confusion, I do mean the 30 days visa every tourist gets (for some countries it might be 15 days) when I arrive at the airports and walk to the immigration and get a stamp inside my passport.

 

So I do this for at least 3-4 years now and I always stay between 10 and 15 days.

In 2016 I entered Thailand 10 times that way, in 2017 so far 6 times. Never had an issue. I hope I won't have one when I enter the next time IF this is a "new" rule....

27 minutes ago, perthperson said:

 

Really ?    There are no 30 day VOAs !  

 

If you have been using serial visa exempt entries you can expect to be questioned by immigration any time soon .....

Correct!! USA has 90 day visa exemptions too and i got busted on my fifth back to back and not allowed entry.

3 hours ago, Thai Ron said:

Nope

He had to buy a ticket back to the UK or he would be sent to IDC

Presumably an EU citizen can return to anywhere in the EU.

I don't know why Immigration doesn't think outside the box in cases like this. They have the resources to treat these situations differently.

 

If I had a say,, unless the person had serious disregard or was clearly in the wrong, they should be allowed entry if only suspected of working. However, with the entry they should also be put on a 'watchlist' database available to the Immigration Investigation department. If the database is used randomly for impromptu visits of the 'suspects', and they are actually caught working then the book can be thrown at them.

 

An important point to this would be that the 'suspects' are informed about what is happening at point of entry. Keep those wrong-doers on their toes and the 'innocents' aware that they might get a visit.

7 minutes ago, MaeJoMTB said:

Presumably an EU citizen can return to anywhere in the EU.

has to be the country on his passport. When a person is being deported there is no guarantee that another country will accept them because of their deport status on their passport. The airlines do not want to risk paying the fine at the other end so they only send to country of citizenship.

Just now, asean said:

has to be the country on his passport. When a person is being deported there is no guarantee that another country will accept them because of their deport status on their passport. The airlines do not want to risk paying the fine at the other end so they only send to country of citizenship.

 

I have the right to live and work in any EU country, as does every EU citizen.

13 minutes ago, lemonwaterjoe said:

Sorry for the confusion, I do mean the 30 days visa every tourist gets (for some countries it might be 15 days) when I arrive at the airports and walk to the immigration and get a stamp inside my passport.

You are still not quite getting the distinction of the word "visa"  The 30 day stamp you are allowed on entry is not a visa..it is a permission of stay.  Visas can only be issued outside of the country.

I know this sounds like nit-picking but the legal distinctions are significant.

1 minute ago, Lovethailandelite said:

Those that don't like it are mostly those that cannot afford it and hate the fact that others can. Much like the 'Never buy a property in Thailand' crowd. Most couldn't afford a decent deposit to buy one.

 

Claiming you owned a house in Thailand as a foreigner, would be a reason to refuse you entry on a Tourist VISA IMHO because you clearly aren't a tourist.

9 minutes ago, midas said:

I'm on an annual retirement Visa and all I can say is out of the scores of other retirees I speak to they simply shake their head whenever this is mentioned and ask why would anyone want to pay money upfront.

This organisation doesn't have any large overheads and it gives the impression that they are here today but could be gone tomorrow

Midas i fully understand how some people can think that way. But i know many people paying a lot more than that and with a lot of headaches and hassles.

The organisation with a billion baht authorized capital is fully owned by the Tourism Authority of Thailand a government body. Chances are they are here to stay. Before it was a private company under takcorp. There is no law as to how much profit a business can make.

8 minutes ago, MaeJoMTB said:

 

I have the right to live and work in any EU country, as does every EU citizen.

not if you have been deported. because it the airline staff that keep your passport and hand it to the immigration officials at the other end and they tell them you are a deport. Many countries entry requirements as if you have ever been deported from anywhere. The airlines do not want to run the risk of paying the fine at the other end. So they will only deport you to your country of citizenship. No one here questioned your right to work in an EU country. But I might be wasting my time here.

6 minutes ago, midas said:

annual retirement Visa

 

Where do you get this Visa ?  For sure you are not getting an annual Visa from within Thailand 

25 minutes ago, asean said:

1/ Yes there is a limit on their use it is in the name. Tourist.

2/ The OP by discretion of the officer did not pass the test of "financial gain to the country". 

3/ Money goes to TPC wholly owned by TAT

 

I do not understand why you call it harassment of people with tourist visas at the airport. The OP did not have a tourist visa. Many people mistake the 30 day visa waiver extended to nationals of some countries as a tourist visa. It is not a tourist visa. This is why it is called a Tourist Visa Exemption.

"The OP did not have a tourist visa "

 

sorry but to save me going back 11 pages in this thread when exactly was this gem of information revealed?

Eight hours ago when this thread was started everyone was emphatic that he / she had a tourist visa

2 minutes ago, Asiantravel said:

"The OP did not have a tourist visa "

 

sorry but to save me going back 11 pages in this thread when exactly was this gem of information revealed?

Eight hours ago when this thread was started everyone was emphatic that he / she had a tourist visa

apologies i stand corrected. He actually states he had a tourist visa. Just had too many. Visas are issued by MFA and Immigration decides entry or extension. Having a visa does not guarantee entry.

1 hour ago, asean said:

007 correct, why did you think the IO used section 12(3)?  Because he  had no evidence of and couldn't apply the other sections 12 (1) to (12). And because neither foreigner or the IO will be able to disprove 12(3) no appeal will be allowed.

Sorry, but once again neither you, or I, are in possession of the full facts and we should not jump to conclusions.  With no disrespect, you are making assumptions that the IO did not have any evidence to support his/her refusal under Section 12(3).  As I said in an earlier post, if the OP unfortunately had a CV or certificates in his luggage when the IO inspected his bag(s) then this would be sufficient grounds for the IO to suspect that the OP may be intending to seek work.

FYI… Section 12 of the Immigration Act B.E. 2522 only comprises 11 paragraphs, not 12 as you indicated.  Also you are incorrect when you state that "no appeal will be allowed".  Section 22 of the Immigration Act gives the individual the right to appeal against IO’s decision to refuse entry.  If the OP exercises his right to an appeal, then the IO will need provide evidence to support his/her grounds for refusing entry.

5 minutes ago, perthperson said:

 

Where do you get this Visa ?  For sure you are not getting an annual Visa from within Thailand 

Okay it's an annual extension if you want to be perfectly correct

The point is it's very hasslefree. I go up to the immigration office once a year and it's all over within minutes

8 minutes ago, dddave said:

You are still not quite getting the distinction of the word "visa"  The 30 day stamp you are allowed on entry is not a visa..it is a permission of stay.  Visas can only be issued outside of the country.

I know this sounds like nit-picking but the legal distinctions are significant.

 

No, it's not nit-picking. I fully understand that these are significant legal distinctions. So thanks for clarifying.

 

Nevertheless I'm still confused why I can enter that way every 6-8 weeks and stay 10-15 days without ever having any issue in comparison to the thread starter.