178 Days stay Thailand

[phuketjock]

23 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

Actually, the rules about entering with Tourist Visas haven't changed.  There is still no time-limit on their use.  It is the made-up rules of certain Immigration checkpoints which has changed.

Visa-Exempt rules have changed, however, and those changes have been published.  They are still fuzzy with regard to air-entry, but at least the 2x land-rule on their use is clear. 

Those following the rules are not "abusing" anything.  There is either a rule, or there isn't.  Rule "breaking" is the only "abuse" (overstaying, taking a Thai's job, etc)

That said, if current trends continue, I would not be surprised to see new rules come in the future - sending even more foreign-capital flows out of Thailand, and into Vietnam, the Philippines, Cambodia, etc.

I am sorry Jack but I disagree using exempt and short term tourist visas to facilitate long stays is to me 

abusing the system, nothing more, get the correct visa, or extension that fits your purpose or don't come.

Please don't blame people who are doing the right thing for the possible shortcomings of Thailand or any

other countries immigration system. You either follow the rules or fall foul of the rule enforcers, their choice.

Using tourist exempts/visa when you are not a tourist is abusing the system end of. 

Using Ed visas  to facilitate long stays when not having any intention of learning is abusing the system also.

Their country their rules Jack same all over the world.

Edited July 16, 2017 by phuketjock
addition

[perthperson]

11 minutes ago, phuketjock said:

I am sorry Jack but I disagree using exempt and short term tourist visas to facilitate long stays is to me 

abusing the system, nothing more, get the correct visa, or extension that fits your purpose or don't come.

Please don't blame people who are doing the right thing for the possible shortcomings of Thailand or any

other countries immigration system. You either follow the rules or fall foul of the rule enforcers, their choice.

Using tourist exempts/visa when you are not a tourist is abusing the system end of. 

Using Ed visas  to facilitate long stays when not having any intention of learning is abusing the system also.

Exactly !  As a Brit I can get a free 12 month Australian visa which allows 90 day stays. I am aware that if I "forget" and stay 91 days or longer my visa will be cancelled, a fine imposed and I will be deported, The chances of ever getting another visa would be vanishingly small. 

 

Come on Thailand -- catch up with the real world. 

Edited July 16, 2017 by perthperson

[JackThompson]

9 hours ago, phuketjock said:

I am sorry Jack but I disagree using exempt and short term tourist visas to facilitate long stays is to me 

abusing the system, nothing more, get the correct visa, or extension that fits your purpose or don't come.

Please don't blame people who are doing the right thing for the possible shortcomings of Thailand or any

other countries immigration system. You either follow the rules or fall foul of the rule enforcers, their choice.

Using tourist exempts/visa when you are not a tourist is abusing the system end of. 

Using Ed visas  to facilitate long stays when not having any intention of learning is abusing the system also.

Their country their rules Jack same all over the world.

I agree that those on ED who don't attend classes are breaking the rules.

 

I also agree that: "Their country their rules" - and should they choose to make rules which fit what some IOs are saying to people - "you cannot stay over 180 days as a Tourist" or "you have too many Tourist Visas" or "you can Only Fly In if ..." (Poipet) - then, of course, all foreigners would be bound by these restrictions. 

 

The problem boils down to defining what a "tourist" is in The Law and Ministerial Orders which govern "Tourist Visa" use - not by a definition you or I might assign to the word.  To my knowledge, "Tourist" is defined, with regard to visas, as "not working" and having "sufficient income" to support oneself.  Those recently rejected appear to be complying with both.  Yes, there could be additional evidence not presented - but the discussion about "what is abuse" is not in that context; you and others believe that using Tourist Visas as proscribed by law is, in and of itself, some form of abuse.

 

By law, there is no limit on how many Tourist Visas one can obtain, or how many times a person can enter with them, so using non-defined or non-prohibited criteria as the basis of not allowing a person to enter, then denying-entry by twisting the intent of the 'real' rules ("having sufficient means of support = carrying money in a money-belt" and then "intends to work illegally" asserted to spite having the required funds in cash) , Is the Only Abuse demonstrated in what we know about the recent reports. 

 

"They" (authorities) made the existing rules, and "They" have complete control over the rules and have changed some of them - showing this is a means by which "They" can actively tailor "Their Rules" to suit.  The 2x per calendar-year rule for land-border crossings on Visa Exempt is a perfect example. 

 

We can debate why serial Tourist Visa use is a "problem" (foreigners spending "too much" time and money here) - or if it is a "problem" why the Authorities don't end it with clear, published restrictions, allowing every traveler to prepare, accordingly.  But until they do that, what is being reported in recent posts is arbitrary and capricious, and the victims are not the abusers.

 

10 hours ago, perthperson said:

Exactly !  As a Brit I can get a free 12 month Australian visa which allows 90 day stays. I am aware that if I "forget" and stay 91 days or longer my visa will be cancelled, a fine imposed and I will be deported, The chances of ever getting another visa would be vanishingly small. 

Come on Thailand -- catch up with the real world. 

Your are discussing overstay - another topic entirely.  And as regards Tourist Visa policies of other nations - it is apples and oranges, in any case, due to the nature of wages, economies, etc.  I am sure North Korea is similarly cruel to those who miss their exit-date by one day - but do not think that is anything to be "proud" of.

[impulse]

12 hours ago, phuketjock said:

The rules you talk about have been the rules for years and are no myths, you have been living and working here 

under those rules, nothing has changed with the rules...

 

 

To claim that the rules haven't changed is wrong.  There have been significant changes in single, double and multi-entry tourist visas, significant changes in the rules about ED visa's, significant changes in the disposition of long overstays, changes in the rules regarding multiple border runs, and many others that affect a lot of people.  Beyond the discretionary, (often erratic) enforcement by some IO's, the penalties have also changed across the entire system.  Those are rule changes.

 

The extended stay picture is much different than it was 6 years ago when I arrived.  2 recent anecdotes about guys with current, valid tourist visa's being stopped at the airport indicate it may be continuing to tighten up.  Whether it's the rules that have changed, or the enforcement, is really not the debate.  The practical result is that people who used to stay in the Kingdom for decades at a time no longer have a program open that allows them to continue.  I'm not claiming that's good or bad.  Just that it has very profound implications for a lot of people pondering an extended stay in Thailand- whether they're already here or just planning to come.

 

When I got here 6 years ago, I met guys that had been living in Thailand for many years on ED visa's, guys that had lived here for decades on back to back border runs, single, double and multi-entry(?) tourist visas, and guys who lived on overstay knowing they could clear up a 10 year overstay for $600 and be back in the country the next day.  They lived that way because they did not qualify for any other long stay.  I've seen dozens liquidating an entire, decades long life because there was no "rule" that fit their circumstance any more.  Regardless of whether posters here think they needed to get the boot, it's heart wrenching to see someone's dreams crushed.

 

Again, I'm not opining whether the changes are good or bad.  I'm just saying that they've tightened up and seem to be tightening up even more.  The trend should be considered by anyone planning an extended stay in the Kingdom.

 

 

Edited July 17, 2017 by impulse

[phuketjock]

2 hours ago, JackThompson said:

I agree that those on ED who don't attend classes are breaking the rules.

 

I also agree that: "Their country their rules" - and should they choose to make rules which fit what some IOs are saying to people - "you cannot stay over 180 days as a Tourist" or "you have too many Tourist Visas" or "you can Only Fly In if ..." (Poipet) - then, of course, all foreigners would be bound by these restrictions. 

 

The problem boils down to defining what a "tourist" is in The Law and Ministerial Orders which govern "Tourist Visa" use - not by a definition you or I might assign to the word.  To my knowledge, "Tourist" is defined, with regard to visas, as "not working" and having "sufficient income" to support oneself.  Those recently rejected appear to be complying with both.  Yes, there could be additional evidence not presented - but the discussion about "what is abuse" is not in that context; you and others believe that using Tourist Visas as proscribed by law is, in and of itself, some form of abuse.

 

By law, there is no limit on how many Tourist Visas one can obtain, or how many times a person can enter with them, so using non-defined or non-prohibited criteria as the basis of not allowing a person to enter, then denying-entry by twisting the intent of the 'real' rules ("having sufficient means of support = carrying money in a money-belt" and then "intends to work illegally" asserted to spite having the required funds in cash) , Is the Only Abuse demonstrated in what we know about the recent reports. 

 

"They" (authorities) made the existing rules, and "They" have complete control over the rules and have changed some of them - showing this is a means by which "They" can actively tailor "Their Rules" to suit.  The 2x per calendar-year rule for land-border crossings on Visa Exempt is a perfect example. 

 

We can debate why serial Tourist Visa use is a "problem" (foreigners spending "too much" time and money here) - or if it is a "problem" why the Authorities don't end it with clear, published restrictions, allowing every traveler to prepare, accordingly.  But until they do that, what is being reported in recent posts is arbitrary and capricious, and the victims are not the abusers.

 

Your are discussing overstay - another topic entirely.  And as regards Tourist Visa policies of other nations - it is apples and oranges, in any case, due to the nature of wages, economies, etc.  I am sure North Korea is similarly cruel to those who miss their exit-date by one day - but do not think that is anything to be "proud" of.

I still stand by what I said Jack, of the 2 recent cases that all the current correct visa dodgers keep quoting.

1 had many previous tourist or exempt entries which probably made the io suspicious, and 1 had numerous

entries exempt and tourist visa + 2 days overstay and did not have the required funds. As Perthperson said

previously " if you follow the rules you are unlikely to have any problems ". 

[JackThompson]

1 hour ago, impulse said:

Again, I'm not opining whether the changes are good or bad.  I'm just saying that they've tightened up and seem to be tightening up even more.  The trend should be considered by anyone planning an extended stay in the Kingdom.

I agree that newcomer younger-folks might better opt for staying in Vietnam, Cambodia, or The Philippines, rather than make connections here which could be painful if broken.

 

The best example of how to handle the "Tourist Visa" issue, is the way the new "2x-Max at Land-borders in a calendar year" rule for Visa-Exempts was handled.  The rule was announced in the Gazette, in advance, and everyone entering at a land-border visa-exempt is handed a pamphlet explaining the new rule.  Very professional, and done right.  No surprises.

A rule for those staying here for longer periods on Tourist Visas might include a hard-limit, and/or a list of extra documentation needed to support an entry when more than "X days" in the this calendar-year have been spent in Thailand.  The rule(s) would be announced in the Gazette, and everyone entering on a Tourist Visa, when more than "(x / 2) days" have been spent in Thailand within a the current year, would get the pamphlet stating the rule(s).  A computer-alert would let the IO know to deliver the pamphlet.  Ideally, the IO would also say, "You have spent a lot of time in Thailand this year.  There are new rules.  You need to read this," when giving them the pamphlet.  If they try to come back for another Tourist Visa entry within that calendar year, they would (or should) know what to expect, and know with absolute certainty if they met the criteria for entry (or not).

 

I suspect the only reason this has not been done, to date, is that there is not a consensus within Immigration or between Immigration and the MFA, on what the limits or criteria should be, and how much (more) damage would be done to foreign-capital spending in Thailand - compounding the harm to many sectors already done by the attempted shift to "zero-dollar" poorer visitors.

 

A similar difficulty exists in creating a business-type visa / business-structure for companies that have offshore-clients (growing rapidly due to tech).  The potential is there for huge amounts of foreign-sourced capital to flow in from small companies that do not employ or sell to Thais (hence need 2M Baht in capital to cover potential liabilities).  A solution would require coordination and agreement between the MFA, Immigration, and Labor Ministry.

[ravip]

13 hours ago, JackThompson said:

Actually, the rules about entering with Tourist Visas haven't changed.  There is still no time-limit on their use.  It is the made-up rules of certain Immigration checkpoints which has changed.

Visa-Exempt rules have changed, however, and those changes have been published.  They are still fuzzy with regard to air-entry, but at least the 2x land-rule on their use is clear. 

Those following the rules are not "abusing" anything.  There is either a rule, or there isn't.  Rule "breaking" is the only "abuse" (overstaying, taking a Thai's job, etc)

That said, if current trends continue, I would not be surprised to see new rules come in the future - sending even more foreign-capital flows out of Thailand, and into Vietnam, the Philippines, Cambodia, etc.

"sending even more foreign-capital flows out of Thailand, and into..."

Just for the sake/fear of this no country should relax it's immigration rules. Always the priority for jobs should be for the locals, where ever possible.

One has to admit that Thais are not bad as some 'senior and experienced' TVF members accuse them of been- it is just their own inferiority complex that's at fault IMHO.

 

[JackThompson]

18 minutes ago, ravip said:

"sending even more foreign-capital flows out of Thailand, and into..."

Just for the sake/fear of this no country should relax it's immigration rules. Always the priority for jobs should be for the locals, where ever possible.

One has to admit that Thais are not bad as some 'senior and experienced' TVF members accuse them of been- it is just their own inferiority complex that's at fault IMHO.

 

As an ardent supporter of national-sovereignty, I completely agree that a nation's policies should always prioritize jobs for citizens.  Those policies should include immigration law, as well as international trade-rules.  I fully support the "self sustainability principle" - and this is one of the things that endears me to Thailand and the Great Rama IX, whose teachings on this subject should be an inspiration to every nation in the world.  In my mind, he holds a place in the company of the greatest patriots in world-history.

 

Immigration-flows into the USA and Europe have the opposite effect to that of visitors to Thailand, because those entering come without their own money, drain social-services, and offer to work at wages below the citizen-prevailing wages - thus making citizens poorer and/or unemployed.  In the two cases we recently discussed on this forum, both rejected-persons had their own money, and their presence here Creates More Jobs for Locals.  The days they spent out of the country meant less income for locals in the areas of Thailand where they stay. 

 

Should those two visitors, or any others, be found occupying Thai-jobs, I would hope they and their employers would be caught, arrested and face the full penalty of law.  In the case of Westerners, it is easy - simply check schools and water-sports venues.  That action, unlike arbitrary detention and expulsion from the airport, would provide a Real and Effective Deterrent to this abhorrent criminal activity.  I wish the same for those working illegally, and their employers, in my own country - for the sake of the citizens whose lives and families are destroyed by that activity, many of whom I know personally - and having suffered the effects of this myself.

 

This is why I suggested, as part of suggestions for Tourist-Visa rules, a requirement for additional documentation for those staying longer - which could erase any doubt that the persons entering are spending foreign-sourced funds here in Thailand.  Elsewhere, I have also opined that health-insurance should be required to enter the country, so that locals are never "on the hook" for foreigner's medical-costs.

Edited July 17, 2017 by JackThompson

[BritTim]

51 minutes ago, phuketjock said:

visa dodgers keep quoting.

1 had many previous tourist or exempt entries which probably made the io suspicious, ... " if you follow the rules you are unlikely to have any problems ". 

I am still unsure which rule you and PerthPerson are claiming is being broken by using serial tourist visas. Yes, I can see an official could be suspicious that someone of working age might be working illegally if spending long periods in Thailand. However, excluding people based on suspicion (offering them no realistic right of appeal) does not sit right with me. As Jack says, spell out what you require from people on entry, do not create a Russian roulette immigration system.

[perthperson]

5 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

In the two cases we recently discussed on this forum, both rejected-persons had their own money, and their presence here Creates More Jobs for Locals. 

How many jobs would these two have created ?  Exact numbers please in support of this ridiculous claim. 

[JackThompson]

3 minutes ago, perthperson said:

How many jobs would these two have created ?  Exact numbers please in support of this ridiculous claim. 

Every meal, every rent-payment, every moto/tuk-tuk/taxi ride. every purchase at a store, etc.  In the ED-Visa case, also include the folks at the school teaching Thai, sweeping the floor, and whoever gets paid rent on the classroom-space. 

All that money is pouring in from a foreign-account.  Add it up, and divide by the Thai median-wage, and that is the sum-total of job-losses and/or reduced-incomes.  The only ones who might be upset about all this, are the authorities in his home-country, where his funds originate.

 

Compare and contrast to someone working here legally - whose wages are paid in whole or part by Thai entities - recycled money, to the extent that person's employment is not involved in exports or recruiting additional tourists.  A person working here legally may perform a valuable function which benefits Thailand, but direct foreign-cash infusions from foreign-funds supported visitors are the ultimate job-creation activity. 

[phuketjock]

47 minutes ago, BritTim said:

I am still unsure which rule you and PerthPerson are claiming is being broken by using serial tourist visas. Yes, I can see an official could be suspicious that someone of working age might be working illegally if spending long periods in Thailand. However, excluding people based on suspicion (offering them no realistic right of appeal) does not sit right with me. As Jack says, spell out what you require from people on entry, do not create a Russian roulette immigration system.

I have not claimed any rules have been "broken " but I still say using multiple tourist

type visas/exempt entries for intended long stay is abusing the system. I think max

2 entries by land is quite clear to anyone with half a brain trying to abuse the tourist

visa/exempt entry, that their days are numbered, these correct visa dodgers are not 

interested that their actions are causing some io's to look at everyone because of

what they are doing they only see what they want and screw everyone else.

Then they come on forums like this and scream unfair, they are the ones treating

the system unfairly, get the correct visa for your situation or don't bother coming!!!

Edited July 17, 2017 by phuketjock
addition

[BritTim]

2 minutes ago, phuketjock said:

I have not claimed any rules have been "broken " but I still say using multiple tourist

type visas/exempt entries for intended long stay is abusing the system. I think max

2 entries by land is quite clear to anyone half a brain trying to abuse the tourist

visa/exempt entry, that their days are numbered, these correct visa dodgers are not 

interested that their actions are causing some io's to look at everyone because of

what they are doing they only see what they want and screw everyone else.

I am sorry, but you posted:

Quote

if you follow the rules you are unlikely to have any problems

You now seem to be changing your position to say that immigration officials inventing fictitious rules, because they disapprove of how some are operating within the published ones, is justified. That is not the same thing, and I am not in sympathy with that viewpoint either.

[ubonjoe]

A baiting inflammatory post and the resultant replies to it have been removed.

[phuketjock]

1 minute ago, BritTim said:

I am sorry, but you posted:

You now seem to be changing your position to say that immigration officials inventing fictitious rules, because they disapprove of how some are operating within the published ones, is justified. That is not the same thing, and I am not in sympathy with that viewpoint either.

Tim please don't misquote me, no one including you or me were present when the current 2 ne'er-do-wells

were rejected entry to Thailand and both admit having several previous "tourist" visas and exempt entries,

there is not, currently any evidence to suggest that either io invented any "fictitious" rules,1 of them quite

clearly did not meet the financial requirements and, it appears, was rejected for that, nothing fictitious there,

The other appears to have been unable to convince the io of his intention not to work in Thailand.

I use the word appear in both cases because we don't actually know what went on because none of us were

there. All we have the one sided disgruntled word of the 2 people rejected entry.

 

[phuketjock]

1 hour ago, BritTim said:

I am still unsure which rule you and PerthPerson are claiming is being broken by using serial tourist visas. Yes, I can see an official could be suspicious that someone of working age might be working illegally if spending long periods in Thailand. However, excluding people based on suspicion (offering them no realistic right of appeal) does not sit right with me. As Jack says, spell out what you require from people on entry, do not create a Russian roulette immigration system.

Every immigration authority in the world rejects people on suspicion, without right of appeal

I have seen it in many first hand. 

[BritTim]

1 minute ago, phuketjock said:

Every immigration authority in the world rejects people on suspicion, without right of appeal

I have seen it in many first hand. 

In most countries, the law explicitly gives immigration that right. In Thailand, officially, the immigration officials are supposed only to deny entry under Section 12 of the Immigration Law. Nowhere does that Section talk about suspicion or the official's discretion (though the law does elsewhere outline an appeal process). Thailand just allows its officials (in some cases) to ignore the law as written.

[phuketjock]

4 minutes ago, BritTim said:

In most countries, the law explicitly gives immigration that right. In Thailand, officially, the immigration officials are supposed only to deny entry under Section 12 of the Immigration Law. Nowhere does that Section talk about suspicion or the official's discretion (though the law does elsewhere outline an appeal process). Thailand just allows its officials (in some cases) to ignore the law as written.

Did you miss the part where it says "it is at the discretion of the immigration

officer on duty whether to allow entry or not to anyone" for whatever reason

he sees fit? As far as I know this is the LAW in any and every country I have

ever visited/worked. Immigration officials, whether we like it or not, are pretty

much all powerful in all countries in the world, including ours.

[perthperson]

5 minutes ago, BritTim said:

In most countries, the law explicitly gives immigration that right. In Thailand, officially, the immigration officials are supposed only to deny entry under Section 12 of the Immigration Law. Nowhere does that Section talk about suspicion or the official's discretion (though the law does elsewhere outline an appeal process). Thailand just allows its officials (in some cases) to ignore the law as written.

 

My Western home country issues 6 month tourist visas. If a tourist spends 6 months in country then within  a very short time attempts to reenter the country with another TV - they will be challenged and 'suspected' of scamming the system in an attempt to live in the country. The 'suspicion'  will very likely result in a refusal of entry.   There are no "explicit" laws which give the immigration officers a right to deny scammers but they can and do. Once a scammer is caught they will be refused any type of visa for a min of 10 years. 

[BritTim]

3 minutes ago, phuketjock said:

Did you miss the part where it says "it is at the discretion of the immigration

officer on duty whether to allow entry or not to anyone" for whatever reason

he sees fit? As far as I know this is the LAW in any and every country I have

ever visited/worked. Immigration officials, whether we like it or not, are pretty

much all powerful in all countries in the world, including ours.

Yes, I missed that. Perhaps, you can highlight it for me.

Quote

Section 12 : Aliens which fall into any of the following categories are excluded from entering into the Kingdom :

 

1. Having no genuine and valid passport or document used in lieu of passport ; or having a genuine and valid passport or document used in lieu of a passport without Visaing by the Royal Thai Embassies or Consulates in Foreign countries ; or from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs , excepting if a visa is not required for certain types of aliens in special instances.

Visaing and visa exemption will be under the learn and conditions as provided in the Ministerial Regulations.

2. Having no appropriate means of living following entrance into the Kingdom.

3. Having entered into the Kingdom to take occupation as a laborer or to take employment by using physical without skills training or to work in violation of the Ministerial Regulations.

4. Being mentally unstable or having any of the disease as prescribed in the Ministerial Regulations.

5. Having not yet been vaccinated against smalllpox or inoculated or undergone any other medical treatment for protection against disease and having refused to have such vaccinations administered by the Immigration Doctor.

6. Having been imprisoned by the judgement of the Thai Court ; or by a lawful injunction ; or by the judgement of the Court of foreign country , except when the penalty is foe petty offense or negligence or is provided for as an exception in the Ministerial Regulations.

7. Having behavior which would indicated possible danger to the public or likelihood of being a nuisance or constituting any violence to the peace or safety of the public or to the security of the public or to the security of the nation , or being under warrant of arrest by competent officials of foreign governments.

8. Reason to believe that entrance into the Kingdom was for the purpose of being involved in prostitution , the trading of woman of children , drug smuggling , or other types of smuggling which are contrary to the public morality.

9. Having no money or bond as prescribed by the Minister under him

10. Being a person prohibited by the Minister under Section 16.

11. Being deported by either the Government of Thailand that of or other foreign countries ; or the right of stay in the Kingdom or in foreign countries having been revoked ; or having been sent out of the Kingdom by competent officials at the expense of the Government of Thailand unless the Minister shall consider exemption on an individual special case basis.

 

The examination and diagnosis of disease of a physical or mental nature , including protective operations as against disease , shall be conducted by the Immigration Doctor.

Source: http://www.thailawforum.com/database1/immigration-law-mejesty-2.html

[phuketjock]

42 minutes ago, BritTim said:

Yes, I missed that. Perhaps, you can highlight it for me.

Source: http://www.thailawforum.com/database1/immigration-law-mejesty-2.html

Any immigration officer has the power, for whatever reason they so desire to refuse entry to anyone

that they think should not be allowed into the country.

If you are looking for specifics see UJ he is the resident expert on all things immigration.

Or as you have quoted section 12 of the immigration rule book, this would suggest that there at least

11 more sections try there.

I'm sorry I am not willing to waste my time finding answers to questions you can't be bothered to

research yourself.

Edited July 17, 2017 by phuketjock
addition

[roobaa01]

I have a question...is there anywhere a rule written down in the police or immigration act stating in reference to any visa category....the stay in thailand is limited to 90 days within 180 ????

 

wbr

roobaa01

[ubonjoe]

Just now, roobaa01 said:

I have a question...is there anywhere a rule written down in the police or immigration act stating in reference to any visa category....the stay in thailand is limited to 90 days within 180 ????

There is no such rule.

There was one from 2006 to 2008 that limited visa exempt entries to a total of 90 days in 6 months.

[phuketjock]

5 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

There is no such rule.

There was one from 2006 to 2008 that limited visa exempt entries to a total of 90 days in 6 months.

Yes I was pulled up on that one a couple of times before I retired, had to cut my time off short

to comply, or should I say immigration did.

[roobaa01]

@ubonjoe thk u very much for your reply

 

wbr

roobaa01

[ravip]

1 hour ago, phuketjock said:

Every immigration authority in the world rejects people on suspicion, without right of appeal

I have seen it in many first hand. 

 

1 hour ago, phuketjock said:

Did you miss the part where it says "it is at the discretion of the immigration

officer on duty whether to allow entry or not to anyone" for whatever reason

he sees fit? As far as I know this is the LAW in any and every country I have

ever visited/worked. Immigration officials, whether we like it or not, are pretty

much all powerful in all countries in the world, including ours.

Absolutely correct.

 

[BritTim]

11 hours ago, phuketjock said:

12 hours ago, BritTim said:

Yes, I missed that. Perhaps, you can highlight it for me.

Source: http://www.thailawforum.com/database1/immigration-law-mejesty-2.html

Any immigration officer has the power, for whatever reason they so desire to refuse entry to anyone

that they think should not be allowed into the country.

If you are looking for specifics see UJ he is the resident expert on all things immigration.

Or as you have quoted section 12 of the immigration rule book, this would suggest that there at least

11 more sections try there.

I'm sorry I am not willing to waste my time finding answers to questions you can't be bothered to

research yourself.

I have  researched this myself (unlike you who assumes Thai I immigration law, as written, must be the same as US immigration law). In total, the Immigration Act of 1979 has 92 Sections. I have read all of them multiple times, as much BS on the subject is cited all over the place. Let's see if anyone can cite an actual Thai law that gives immigration officials the right to deny entry other than according to Section 12. Only one person is given the authority to deny entry arbitrarily, and that is the Minister. Further, the law implies that anyone should be able to appeal denial of entry, and prescribes the procedure to be followed. Nowhere are any conditions stated within the law where officials are allowed to prevent the appeal.

[phuketjock]

9 hours ago, BritTim said:

I have  researched this myself (unlike you who assumes Thai I immigration law, as written, must be the same as US immigration law). In total, the Immigration Act of 1979 has 92 Sections. I have read all of them multiple times, as much BS on the subject is cited all over the place. Let's see if anyone can cite an actual Thai law that gives immigration officials the right to deny entry other than according to Section 12. Only one person is given the authority to deny entry arbitrarily, and that is the Minister. Further, the law implies that anyone should be able to appeal denial of entry, and prescribes the procedure to be followed. Nowhere are any conditions stated within the law where officials are allowed to prevent the appeal.

Well done Tim but why would i assume anything would be the same as US law, i know nothing about US immigration or any other US law and I am not the American you seemed to have assumed I was???

Edited July 18, 2017 by phuketjock
addition

[phuketjock]

11 hours ago, BritTim said:

I have  researched this myself (unlike you who assumes Thai I immigration law, as written, must be the same as US immigration law). In total, the Immigration Act of 1979 has 92 Sections. I have read all of them multiple times, as much BS on the subject is cited all over the place. Let's see if anyone can cite an actual Thai law that gives immigration officials the right to deny entry other than according to Section 12. Only one person is given the authority to deny entry arbitrarily, and that is the Minister. Further, the law implies that anyone should be able to appeal denial of entry, and prescribes the procedure to be followed. Nowhere are any conditions stated within the law where officials are allowed to prevent the appeal.

I urge you to tell an IO who refuses you entry that he cannot do that then come on here and tell us all about it.

Some food for thought taken from another thread on a similar subject.

Written by mvdf in reply to a post by Jack Thompson.

 

" I'm struggling to understand why you and others on this forum WONDER why IOs behave in a manner you deem inappropriate! 

 

I am Asian and when I travel to Schengen countries, the U.S., Australia etc I am occasionally interrogated, my travel history scrutinised, itinerary analysed...

 

Why is it that you think or expect westerners to be treated preferentially, kowtowed even, just because you come from first world countries? Immigration authorities in this region are entitled to interrogate, analyse, admit or expel, scrutinise all arriving human beings at ports of entry in the same exact manner we Asians are treated when we arrive at your airports! "

 

I wholeheartedly agree with the above.

Edited July 18, 2017 by phuketjock
addition

[JackThompson]

1 hour ago, phuketjock said:

I urge you to tell an IO who refuses you entry that he cannot do that then come on here and tell us all about it.

This is a constant threat of the nature of power, which must be checked by proper supervision and adherence to law.  Being right does not always mean "you win" in a power-game.  Does that mean we should abandon law, and just go with who has more firepower in every situation?  Should that be celebrated?  I do agree it must be recognized as a threat, and conflict avoided whenever possible.  In this case - many would be advised: don't fly in.

 

1 hour ago, phuketjock said:

Some food for thought taken from another thread on a similar subject.

Written by mvdf in reply to a post by Jack Thompson.

 

" I'm struggling to understand why you and others on this forum WONDER why IOs behave in a manner you deem inappropriate! 

I am Asian and when I travel to Schengen countries, the U.S., Australia etc I am occasionally interrogated, my travel history scrutinised, itinerary analysed...

 

Why is it that you think or expect westerners to be treated preferentially, kowtowed even, just because you come from first world countries? Immigration authorities in this region are entitled to interrogate, analyse, admit or expel, scrutinise all arriving human beings at ports of entry in the same exact manner we Asians are treated when we arrive at your airports! "

 

I wholeheartedly agree with the above.

First, Thai immigration law is not written they way as described by "mvdf" - and each country makes its own laws.  The Thais can change theirs in the future if they choose.  See my post here on why cheering for a 'crackdown' which warps laws is foolish - even if you agree with the objective/goal:
https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/993006-a-thank-you-to-thailand-immigration/?do=findComment&comment=12094544

 

Anyone who thinks "being asian" makes it harder to enter the USA or Europe is deluded.  Asian people are the highest-performing demographic in the USA, in education, financially, lowest-crime rates, etc.  If anything, not "being white" means you will get easier treatment, because of the fear of a racism charge.  When white people get the shaft, no one makes a news-story about 'racism' - we just get shafted, quietly.  Money is the only real 'privilege' factor; with that, you can go anywhere - and even buy a passport that is less-scrutinized.  But, if your country of origin has low-wages - yes, you may be suspected of traveling to a higher-wage nation for illegal employment. 

 

Setting aside national security concerns, the reason countries have different policies, is primarily because of people entering some for reasons of obtaining illegal employment.  In the case of those entering Thailand, people whose passport-country offers lower wages than are available in Thailand - people from poorer nations.  There is a defined list of countries in this group, whose citizens Cannot Obtain Visas in Vientiane, Penang, etc (there is a list of them).