2nd exemption by air in 2017 after METV - am I risking it?

[bill38]

After talking to my friends, I decided to apply for a single entry visa. Will do it tomorrow at HCMC. 

 

I feel it's a bit of a waste but I can always get a re-entry permit when I leave.

 

[vongbali]

Only Indonesian citizens are eligible to apply for METV at the embassy in Jakarta.

So, you will get the visa by applying in your country only.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[Bastos60]

On 24-7-2017 at 11:14 AM, JackThompson said:

Given recent events at the airports affecting people who had stayed longer-periods in Thailand in the past, I would choose the following course of action:

1. Get a Thai Visa first from a consulate (HCMC is a good choice)
2. Enter by land (but not Poipet/Aranyaprathet)

The odds are that you'd have no problems flying in - not sure if they have a "detain quota" daily or what.  But I'd rather read fewer stories here about, "I was out of Thailand for X Months, and they accused me of coming to work, anyway," as has happened to others.  The folks at the airport may look at 9 months here as a potential "longer-term" stayer, whom they seem to want to keep out.

 

However you choose to enter, because you have spent significant time here in the past, I would carry 20K Baht worth of cash or travelers checks, proof of where you will be staying, and bank-account proof of where the money you spend over here originates.

Aren't they more strict when you cross by land?

As I understand his explanation he has been staying in vietnam since Februari, now 6 months later it should be fine for him to travel back to Thailand on a visa exemp,  IMO he has nothing to worry about, not even
since he has stayed in Thailand for longer-periods in the past.
Even better if he is able to get a TV from the Thai embassy in HCMC.

[BritTim]

1 hour ago, Bastos60 said:

Aren't they more strict when you cross by land?

As I understand his explanation he has been staying in vietnam since Februari, now 6 months later it should be fine for him to travel back to Thailand on a visa exemp,  IMO he has nothing to worry about, not even
since he has stayed in Thailand for longer-periods in the past.
Even better if he is able to get a TV from the Thai embassy in HCMC.

Once upon a time, airports were absolutely no problem at all, and some land borders iffy. Certain land crossings have always been good. With the problems now being encountered by some at airports, the land crossings have become more attractive.

 

One big advantage of land crossings is, should you be denied entry, this seems always to be done unofficially (no record in your passport or immigration's database) as an official rejection involves them in a lot of work. After an unofficial rejection, you return to the country you came from and reassess. Typically, you just try another land crossing. Rejection at an airport involves nasty stamps in your passport, and a record in immigration's database.

[Bastos60]

1 hour ago, BritTim said:

One big advantage of land crossings is, should you be denied entry, this seems always to be done unofficially (no record in your passport or immigration's database) as an official rejection involves them in a lot of work. After an unofficial rejection, you return to the country you came from and reassess. Typically, you just try another land crossing. Rejection at an airport involves nasty stamps in your passport, and a record in immigration's database.

 

Very interesting, never thought about it in this way.

[elviajero]

16 hours ago, Bastos60 said:

Aren't they more strict when you cross by land?

Yes. There is always a higher chance of being denied entry at a land border than the airport.

[elviajero]

15 hours ago, BritTim said:

One big advantage of land crossings is, should you be denied entry, this seems always to be done unofficially (no record in your passport or immigration's database) as an official rejection involves them in a lot of work. After an unofficial rejection, you return to the country you came from and reassess. Typically, you just try another land crossing. Rejection at an airport involves nasty stamps in your passport, and a record in immigration's database.

Often, but not "always" done unofficially.

 

Rejection at either a land border or airport can involve "nasty stamps", however, a stamp is not needed to make a denial "official". 

 

Being denied entry 'unofficially' at a land border does the traveller a favour regardless of whether or not the IO is saving paperwork. The reason IO's have to follow procedure more strictly at the airport is down to the fact that it's a big deal and involves outside people/airlines. The fact that it's a big deal is the reason why it's less likely to happen at an airport and why people tend to get warnings instead of denied entry. The warning would, probably, in many cases be a denied entry at a land border.

[JackThompson]

5 hours ago, elviajero said:

Yes. There is always a higher chance of being denied entry at a land border than the airport.

If so, why aren't there more reports of this?  There's Poipet, but that is an outlier.  The only land-border rejections I recall recently, are people sent back to an ATM for cash (usually coming in from Malaysia) - and one guy who didn't have an address to write on the arrival-card.  Recently - except for Poipet - as long as you have the cash to show, I'd wager that any land border is more likely to let you in than any airport.

EDIT - provided you don't violate the 2x/yr Visa-Exempt land-rule, of course. 

Edited August 9, 2017 by JackThompson

[elviajero]

3 hours ago, JackThompson said:

If so, why aren't there more reports of this?  There's Poipet, but that is an outlier.  The only land-border rejections I recall recently, are people sent back to an ATM for cash (usually coming in from Malaysia) - and one guy who didn't have an address to write on the arrival-card.  Recently - except for Poipet - as long as you have the cash to show, I'd wager that any land border is more likely to let you in than any airport.

EDIT - provided you don't violate the 2x/yr Visa-Exempt land-rule, of course. 

An IO at the airport has to follow official procedure. An IO at a land border can get away with simply turning someone away. On that basis, which border point do you think someone would have a greater chance of being denied entry?

[JackThompson]

2 hours ago, elviajero said:

An IO at the airport has to follow official procedure. An IO at a land border can get away with simply turning someone away. On that basis, which border point do you think someone would have a greater chance of being denied entry?

I would agree, if all IOs at all border-points (and/or their bosses) had similar attitudes.  I also think this used to be true in the past, but it seems that something has changed. 

 

Consider Poipet telling people they "must return by air" when this is not true.  The IOs at Poipet are so extreme, they threaten to block those on Multi-Non-Os from returning via their checkpoint.  What would be the IO's at Poipet's motivation to drive people into airport checkpoints, except that their ideological-brethren staff airports, and there is no way to just "turn around" and escape?   There is a reason airport-IOs take people to detention-cells, instead of to an ATM machine.  There is a reason Poipet IOs don't say, "Come back via Ban Laem, because it's less crowded."

 

My theory, based on the many derogatory and made-up-rule statements reported at specific checkpoints, is that a minority of IOs in the department (and other departments, Amphurs, etc) are on a self-declared "mission" to purge out longer-stayers, starting with those on Tourist-type permissions-of-stay; but they only control a portion of the apparatus.  They cannot get rules-changes (yet), but have begun taking action on their own, anyway.  Some airports, including many major ones, and the Poipet/Aranya crossing, appear to be firmly in their domain.   All the other land-borders, where few/any incidents of this kind are reported, are still run by those adhering to the laws as written, who seem to have neutral-to-positive views on our (farang) presence, here.

Edited August 10, 2017 by JackThompson

[darrendsd]

16 hours ago, elviajero said:

Yes. There is always a higher chance of being denied entry at a land border than the airport.

Given the vast majority of reports on this forum are from people being denied at Airports what you are saying holds no weight

 

Sure the I'O's at land borders don't have to go through the official process however if what you are saying is true then there would certainly be more reports on this forum along the lines of I got denied at X border and had to fly in

 

Apart from the odd cases of I/O's mass denying everyone on a certain day and the checkpoints at Sadao and Poipet what do you base your claim on? 

 

The vast majority of cases reported are at Airports so it stands to reason that you are more likely to be denied at Airports

[JackThompson]

7 minutes ago, darrendsd said:

Apart from the odd cases of I/O's mass denying everyone on a certain day and the checkpoints at Sadao  ...

Sadao wasn't the same thing, though - that was just about good 'ol corruption - putting money in peoples' pockets.  And at some points in time, national-security threats were an issue in that area.  I've seen no reports of bribes opening a means to entry at airports or Poipet, in recent years.

Edited August 10, 2017 by JackThompson

[darrendsd]

2 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

Sadao wasn't the same thing, though - that was just about good 'ol corruption - putting money in peoples' pockets.  And at some points in time, national-security threats were an issue in that area.  I've seen no reports of bribes opening a means to entry at airports or Poipet, in recent years.

Ok so people were not being denied at Sadao

 

But my point is that elviajero claims that people are more likely to be denied at land borders than Airports but given that there are more reports from Airports then Land Borders this doesn't seem to be the case

 

What does he base his claim on?

[JackThompson]

1 minute ago, darrendsd said:

Ok so people were not being denied at Sadao

But my point is that elviajero claims that people are more likely to be denied at land borders than Airports but given that there are more reports from Airports then Land Borders this doesn't seem to be the case ...

I think we agree in general on the issue at hand - just wanted to clarify on the Sadao case in particular.  I don't think they cared what nationality/ethnicity the people they were fleecing were.  The scary thing, and why I am glad that game is over, is that real dangerous "bad guys" could buy their way in.

[elviajero]

11 hours ago, JackThompson said:

I would agree, if all IOs at all border-points (and/or their bosses) had similar attitudes.  I also think this used to be true in the past, but it seems that something has changed

What has changed is that immigration have stopped people living in the country using visa exempt entry by doing monthly border hops. So you're not going to here about so many people being denied at the land borders because that loophole has been blocked. I think most reports at the airports are warnings and the instances of denied entry don't seem to have increased that much.

 

They are also tightening up on tourist visa use and anyone living here also have a higher chance of getting stopped at a land border than at the airport. Due to the restrictions on getting tourist visas locally the number of people doing this must have reduced too which is probably why we here lees reports. 

 

I made a simple point of fact. If an IO has the power to deny entry without formal procedure there is a higher chance of being denied entry.

[elviajero]

9 hours ago, darrendsd said:

Given the vast majority of reports on this forum are from people being denied at Airports what you are saying holds no weight

9 hours ago, darrendsd said:

The vast majority of cases reported are at Airports so it stands to reason that you are more likely to be denied at Airports

People can no longer use land borders to stay using visa exempt. Having blocked that avenue they have been focusing on airports more and more over recent years. However, the few reports on the forum are mostly warnings rather than denied entries.

 

9 hours ago, darrendsd said:

Sure the I'O's at land borders don't have to go through the official process however if what you are saying is true then there would certainly be more reports on this forum along the lines of I got denied at X border and had to fly in

You are missing the point. I simply said "There is always a higher chance of being denied entry at a land border than the airport." I guarantee that if 100 long term tourists entered through an airport less would be denied entry than the same 100 entering through a land border. That is because the land border IO's can simply turn people around without the official process.

 

 

[darrendsd]

4 minutes ago, elviajero said:

What has changed is that immigration have stopped people living in the country using visa exempt entry by doing monthly border hops. So you're not going to here about so many people being denied at the land borders because that loophole has been blocked. I think most reports at the airports are warnings and the instances of denied entry don't seem to have increased that much.

 

They are also tightening up on tourist visa use and anyone living here also have a higher chance of getting stopped at a land border than at the airport. Due to the restrictions on getting tourist visas locally the number of people doing this must have reduced too which is probably why we here lees reports. 

 

I made a simple point of fact. If an IO has the power to deny entry without formal procedure there is a higher chance of being denied entry.

You are making a "simple point of fact" without any evidence to back it up

 

We WOULD hear of people living here being denied entry at border points with either TV's or visa exempts whether they be official denials or not but we don't

 

We DO hear of plenty of people being denied entry at Airports, 3 in a week a few weeks ago if I remember right and plenty of other stories over the last couple of years

 

So therefore your claim that you are more likely to be denied at a land border is totally unfounded because you have no evidence to back up this claim whereas there is plenty of evidence of Airport denials

[elviajero]

56 minutes ago, darrendsd said:

You are making a "simple point of fact" without any evidence to back it up

LOL!!! Here's a simple example. 

• If I fly in and the IO denies me entry they likely have to follow formal procedures, involve supervisors, fill out paperwork and involve airline staff.
• If I cross by land and the IO denies me entry he can, based on numerous reports, simply tell me to go back to the neighbouring country without out all the hassles his colleague at the airport has.

Surely even you can understand that the land border IO is more likely to deny someone entry than his counterpart simple because he doesn't need to follow formal procedure.

 

56 minutes ago, darrendsd said:

We DO hear of plenty of people being denied entry at Airports, 3 in a week a few weeks ago if I remember right and plenty of other stories over the last couple of years

You will have noticed that over the last few years they have been cracking down on visa exempt entries at the airport too. Which is why you are hearing about more people being denied entry.

 

56 minutes ago, darrendsd said:

So therefore your claim that you are more likely to be denied at a land border is totally unfounded because you have no evidence to back up this claim whereas there is plenty of evidence of Airport denials

My claim is a fact based on reported practises by IO's at land borders over the years and basic probabilities.

Edited August 10, 2017 by elviajero

[darrendsd]

11 minutes ago, elviajero said:

LOL!!! Here's a simple example. 

• If I fly in and the IO denies me entry they likely have to follow formal procedures, involve supervisors, fill out paperwork and involve airline staff.
• If I cross by land and the IO denies me entry he can, based on numerous reports, simply tell me to go back to the neighbouring country without out all the hassles his colleague at the airport has.

Surely even you can understand that the land border IO is more likely to deny someone entry than his counterpart simple because he doesn't need to follow formal procedure.

 

You will have noticed that over the last few years they have been cracking down on visa exempt entries at the airport too. Which is why you are hearing about more people being denied entry.

 

My claim is a fact based on reported practises by IO's at land borders over the years and basic probabilities.

We are not talking about what IÓ's can and cannot do, we are talking about your "point of fact" that you are more likely to be denied at a land border

 

Official denial or not they WOULD be reported on here but they are not

 

The fact that there are far far more reports of denials at Airports than at land borders shows you are completely incorrect and you can't back up what you say despite you calling it a "point of fact" which now has changed to "basic probabilities"

 

Show some proof for your "point of facts", mine are the numerous reports of denials at Airports, what's yours?  "Basic probability's" at land borders?

 

I know you struggle with facts but please try on this ocassion

 

 

 

 

[BritTim]

2 hours ago, elviajero said:

You are missing the point. I simply said "There is always a higher chance of being denied entry at a land border than the airport." I guarantee that if 100 long term tourists entered through an airport less would be denied entry than the same 100 entering through a land border. That is because the land border IO's can simply turn people around without the official process.

I follow your logic, but I do not think it is that simple. Each land crossing has its own culture. When the senior official orders his staff to be strict about certain rules, obedient minions will usually enforce them. Thus, at Poipet, rules are applied that are not enforced elsewhere. Similarly, rules about showing money are enforced at land crossings in the South but not elsewhere.

 

When immigration officials are not under specific directives from above, default Thai behavior will tend to apply. Most Thais (immigration officials and others) are basically nice people who do not like giving travelers a hard time, and are definitely conflict averse. Unless there is something glaringly wrong, officials at land crossings with a relaxed culture will very, very rarely deny entry. Anecdotal evidence from this board and elsewhere (admittedly not conclusive) backs up this thesis.

[elviajero]

55 minutes ago, darrendsd said:

We are not talking about what IÓ's can and cannot do, we are talking about your "point of fact" that you are more likely to be denied at a land border

 

Official denial or not they WOULD be reported on here but they are not

 

The fact that there are far far more reports of denials at Airports than at land borders shows you are completely incorrect and you can't back up what you say despite you calling it a "point of fact" which now has changed to "basic probabilities"

 

Show some proof for your "point of facts", mine are the numerous reports of denials at Airports, what's yours?  "Basic probability's" at land borders?

 

I know you struggle with facts but please try on this ocassion

I am talking about what IO's can and can't do. That is exactly the point of fact!!! Facts about what they can and can't get away with at each type of entry point.

 

I am simply comparing one long term tourists chances of entry at a land border versus an air border, based on the history in their passport, and how IO's sometimes act at land borders that IO's at airports can't seem to get away with.

 

Again, to point out the obvious, reports at the airport are increasing and reports at borders decreasing because people can no longer use visa exempt entry to live in the country by doing land border bounces, and because less long term tourists are entering by land with TR's as their ability to get endless back to back visas from places like Vientiane has been cut off, and because the focus has for some time been moving on to air arrivals.

 

Your numbers of reports prove nothing unless you can quote how many entered via land and air, how many were denied at each border, and what history each traveller had, compare the two in percentage terms.

 

The fact that land border IO's have for years denied entry without following formal procedure is without dispute, and is the simple basis for my claim that someone is more likely to get denied at a land border. Effectively land border IO's have more 'unofficial' power.

 

[darrendsd]

22 minutes ago, elviajero said:

I am talking about what IO's can and can't do. That is exactly the point of fact!!! Facts about what they can and can't get away with at each type of entry point.

 

I am simply comparing one long term tourists chances of entry at a land border versus an air border, based on the history in their passport, and how IO's sometimes act at land borders that IO's at airports can't seem to get away with.

 

Again, to point out the obvious, reports at the airport are increasing and reports at borders decreasing because people can no longer use visa exempt entry to live in the country by doing land border bounces, and because less long term tourists are entering by land with TR's as their ability to get endless back to back visas from places like Vientiane has been cut off, and because the focus has for some time been moving on to air arrivals.

 

Your numbers of reports prove nothing unless you can quote how many entered via land and air, how many were denied at each border, and what history each traveller had, compare the two in percentage terms.

 

The fact that land border IO's have for years denied entry without following formal procedure is without dispute, and is the simple basis for my claim that someone is more likely to get denied at a land border. Effectively land border IO's have more 'unofficial' power.

 

No

 

You stated that is a FACT that you are more likely to be denied at a land border

 

You have provided no PROOF that this is indeed the case

 

You can dress it up as much as you want, yet again on this forum you state FACTS which you cannot prove,

 

The FACTS are that there are many many reports of people being denied at Airports and hardly any at land borders so it stands to reason that you are more likely to be denied by air and yes even though they have tightened up the rules at land borders you can still be denied if you have to many VE in the past

 

You will never change will you, you make claims of "facts" that you cannot provide proof of then when challenged about these claims and asked to provide  proof continue to post without actually providing any proof

Edited August 10, 2017 by darrendsd

[lkv]

1 hour ago, BritTim said:

Most Thais (immigration officials and others) are basically nice people who do not like giving travelers a hard time, and are definitely conflict averse. Unless there is something glaringly wrong, officials at land crossings with a relaxed culture will very, very rarely deny entry. Anecdotal evidence from this board and elsewhere (admittedly not conclusive) backs up this thesis.

I believe it's got to do with triggering the computer.

 

I have done an extensive search just now on several threads, all on this forum, ThaiVisa , all on denied entry, some on "almost denied entry and told get a visa next time", some about people advised to mix visa exempts with Tourist Visas by the IO's themselves,  some going back to 2014. I tried to avoid what I believe could be bored members of this forum posting under various new usernames, found a few though that were credible. Wanted to refresh my memory with what triggers what.

 

To sum it up:

 

- Three consecutive Visa Exempt entries will trigger an alarm on the 4th one.

- For non consecutive Visa Exempt entries, an alarm is triggered after 6, so on the 7th entry (not clear yet over what period but I believe it to be per passport life). So a new passport should reset it.

- Having had four (4) 30 day extensions over a rolling period of 12 months would trigger an alarm upon the next entry.

 

Other than that,

 

-I do not believe the system counts days (over 180), etc.

 

- There is no limit on entries using a tourist visa as long as the embassies or the consulates keep giving them.

 

-Most consulates/embassies would give two in a row without issues but some may put the red stamp on the third. And some abnoxious ones on the second.

 

If I missed something feel free to add. :))

 

PS: Ref Visa Exempts. Consecutive does not mean back to back or same day or how long should we wait between the entries. It  just means consecutive. So if you do let's say:

 

VE - Enter Aug 10 Leave Sep 8

VE - Enter Sep 20 Leave Oct 10

VE - Enter 20 Oct Leave 15 Nov

VE - Enter 15 Dec - triggers computer.

 

But if let's say you break the chain of visa exempts somewhere with a TR, then they are non consecutive so the higher limit of 6 would trigger the system on the 7th.

 

Hope it makes sense.

 

 

Edited August 10, 2017 by lkv

[lkv]

Deleted.

Edited August 10, 2017 by lkv

[darrendsd]

1 hour ago, lkv said:

I believe it's got to do with triggering the computer.

 

I have done an extensive search just now on several threads, all on this forum, ThaiVisa , all on denied entry, some on "almost denied entry and told get a visa next time", some about people advised to mix visa exempts with Tourist Visas by the IO's themselves,  some going back to 2014. I tried to avoid what I believe could be bored members of this forum posting under various new usernames, found a few though that were credible. Wanted to refresh my memory with what triggers what.

 

To sum it up:

 

- Three consecutive Visa Exempt entries will trigger an alarm on the 4th one.

- For non consecutive Visa Exempt entries, an alarm is triggered after 6, so on the 7th entry (not clear yet over what period but I believe it to be per passport life). So a new passport should reset it.

- Having had four (4) 30 day extensions over a rolling period of 12 months would trigger an alarm upon the next entry.

 

Other than that,

 

-I do not believe the system counts days (over 180), etc.

 

- There is no limit on entries using a tourist visa as long as the embassies or the consulates keep giving them.

 

-Most consulates/embassies would give two in a row without issues but some may put the red stamp on the third. And some abnoxious ones on the second.

 

If I missed something feel free to add. :))

 

PS: Ref Visa Exempts. Consecutive does not mean back to back or same day or how long should we wait between the entries. It  just means consecutive. So if you do let's say:

 

VE - Enter Aug 10 Leave Sep 8

VE - Enter Sep 20 Leave Oct 10

VE - Enter 20 Oct Leave 15 Nov

VE - Enter 15 Dec - triggers computer.

 

But if let's say you break the chain of visa exempts somewhere with a TR, then they are non consecutive so the higher limit of 6 would trigger the system on the 7th.

 

Hope it makes sense.

 

 

Most of what you say is probably correct however no limits on TV's as long as the embassy keep giving them is probably not, a visa from another country  does not guarantee entry, this is down to the I/O in Thailand

 

Also getting a new PP should reset the VE count, I don't believe this is true however I could (and hope) I am wrong

[BritTim]

1 hour ago, lkv said:

I believe it's got to do with triggering the computer.

To a large extent, I think this is true. Recall that computer alerts are not supposed to result in automatic denial of entry, but are supposed to advise the official to do increased scrutiny that the traveler is a genuine tourist.

 

Land crossings vary in how they respond to computer alerts. At Poipet, I think officials have been instructed to reject everyone who gets a computer alert.

 

When the official does decide to deny entry, they will always, if possible, say "the computer made me do it" although this is a lie. By blaming the system, it deflects the traveler's anger away from the official.

 

At most land crossings, there is a tendency for travelers to be stamped in even when there is a computer alert. This is especially true when one of the quota two visa exempt entries per year by land is being used..

 

I have a different opinion about what generates computer alerts. Most important, unless the immigration system erroneously fails to link old and new passports, I do not think a new passport makes any difference. However, this whole area is speculative. My conclusions from the limited data are certainly no more valid than yours.

[lkv]

1 hour ago, darrendsd said:

Most of what you say is probably correct however no limits on TV's as long as the embassy keep giving them is probably not, a visa from another country  does not guarantee entry, this is down to the I/O in Thailand

 

Also getting a new PP should reset the VE count, I don't believe this is true however I could (and hope) I am wrong

Let's look at it logically.

 

It has to reset somewhere.

 

Assuming it doesn't, and the system started around 2014, it will trigger too many alarms in the future from genuine tourists, more and more every year.

 

Many people travel on VE for short periods of time. I have Asian friends from other countries who come for 3-4 days for 3-4 times a year in Bangkok. On visa exempt all the time.

 

If it never resets, it will create chaos in Immigration.

 

A lot of "F2" overrides, as one poster was commenting in a 2014 post, having triggered the system by having 4 extensions in a year (the IO told him). He was let in, and the IO/supervisor did an override. Like in many many cases of people coming in on visa exempts, where they also did overrides.

 

There was another poster, he did like 20 visa exempts. They started to override the system at the 14th. He would have the same issue for the following 6. On each entry. He was let in on every one of them.

 

This guy was really travelling, in out in out non stop. I think he eventually got a multi non B from somewhere.

 

I'm just trying to work out what triggers the system.

 

A Russian woman was denied entry in 2014 in Phuket. This was in the papers.

 

She did 1 VE, followed by 1 TR, followed by 3 VE. She attempted a 4th VE. Got denied entry. She said she argued with them a lot in regards to buying a ticket there and then, showing them online accounts (in Russian), suggesting to translate the web page of the Bank in English etc. They just wouldn't have it. However, she did not have 20K cash nor a booked ticket but was able to book one if needed. They wanted to sent her back to Russia, she went back to KL (where she flew from).

 

Note that this is a 2014 story. 

 

 

Yes, the IO can deny entry even on a valid visa, I am aware, but as BritTim said, most don't, and most would just follow what the computer tells them to do (i.e. get a supervisor), and not start making arbitrary decisions.

 

 

 

Edited August 10, 2017 by lkv