Jump to content
BANGKOK

jacob29

Member
  • Content Count

    243
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

256 Excellent

About jacob29

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I already have a tracking app on my phone, including registration of my number with Thai chana. I didn't need to cross the border to achieve this, and I'm struggling to see how doing a border run would have made the process any smoother.
  2. Which is why purging the non-trivial number of residual tourists is going to have an impact. There are more about than you seem to assume. I mean look at the immigration lines leading up to the amnesty for starters.
  3. How did we read the same article, yet come to such different conclusions? I see nothing in there, about needing to purge existing tourists to make it easier to track people. The colonel obviously sees a need to clear people out, I think he cited national security reasons before, I just can't believe you are buying that argument. It has no basis in reality, you can't track someone better if they hop over a border, versus renewing at immigration.
  4. and yet some have remained open, which would have been an economic decision, which means it has been worth staying open for some.
  5. Wrong, there would be no amnesty if the tourist sector (or someone outside of immigration) didn't force the hand of immigration. It was very clear, they were resisting it.
  6. Are you saying Bangkok post had an article suggesting they wanted to flush out existing tourists, as a means to help pave the way to track new tourists? Did they actually explain how it helps, or did you just decide to run with it?
  7. Easily achieved by requiring it for extensions made at immigration, absolutely no benefit derived forcing people to cross the border. Where do you come up with these crackpot ideas?
  8. I doubt those bars and restaurants care about a few immigration officials concerned about 'national security'. It's mostly a question of who has the larger influence, immigration or the hotel/tourist sector. I remained in a large hotel that had about 10 foreigners keeping it on life support while many others closed (estimating 10% occupancy). They get a huge bump on weekends from Bangkok tourists now, but I'm not sure of the economics of having close to zero during the week should all the foreigners vacate. Fair to assume the foreign residents are laregly on tourist visa's given it's not a particularly cheap hotel.
  9. Immigration does, but ask the tourist sector if they want to clear people out. Nobody new is coming, why even mention it at this stage? It's not happening. It's going to be months before new ones come, your choice is to slash the already low tourist base, or allow them to keep spending. Seems like a no brainer.
×
×
  • Create New...