hawker9000
-
Posts
7369 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by hawker9000
-
-
12 minutes ago, gk10002000 said:
As i recall it was like 1800baht service fee for a visa agent to do a simple extension. Pay them, and of course the extension fee and stop worrying. Since you seem to be asking about office hours and location, I assume you can get around a little bit. Let the visa people do it and not worry about opening closing, standing in line, not having the correct documents, photo size/quality etc.
I thought it was illegal to have an "agent" obtain such things from Immigration for you.
-
Am totally uninformed about this and have never had any such personal experience (i.e., with being hospitalized or otherwise incapacitated and having permission to stay about to expire), but over the years I thought I'd seen mention now and then of being able to get some sort of doctor's written statement, substantiating medical condition and inability to travel, for which Immigration then has some sort of process.
-
3 hours ago, wump said:
To anyone who still doesn't believe the system exists: Have a closer look at your plane ticket. For the past 12+ months it would include some "Advance passenger screening fee" or something like that (under 'taxes and fees'). I think it's 30 Baht.
...which proves they collect a fee. And that is what the webpage says. LOL Yeah, who can argue with that?
-
On 12/19/2017 at 7:49 PM, Mattd said:
All airlines that fly in to Thailand must comply.
Source please.
-
7 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:
Thailand implemented their APPS (Advanced Passenger Processing System) on/about February, 2016.
Participating airlines typically transmit a preliminary passenger manifest 24 hours prior to departure to the RTP/Imm. center at Suan Phlu. There the Thai Immigration Bureau will pre-process every passenger arriving, departing or transiting through Thailand and reply back to the airline with boarding directive Such as, “Board if DOCS OK” or “Do not Board”.
Other non-participating airlines are required to transmit an actual passenger manifest after departure, which is reviewed for undesirables who would be flagged at arriving immigration.
Resolving the underlying issue with Thai Immigration may require some patience. It's not unheard of that names are mixed up. Maybe start with the Royal Thai Embassy in the U.K.?
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/New-immigration-screening-system-unveiled-30278217.html
So which airlines "participate" and which airlines don't? What's the "mandate" to "participate", if any? If the vast majority do, or all oceanic or long-haul flights do, I'm impressed. If just Thai-flagged airlines do, not so much. "Non-participating" is pretty much just a fancy term for "status-quo".
-
Just now, sanemax said:
As I previously stated, not everything revolves around money , whether it be aid money or money drug takers spend in Thailand on holiday , Thailand just doesnt want people with drug convictions coming to Thailand , maybes its to do with "In with the good, out with the bad" policy
"As I previously stated, not everything revolves around money"
Yeah, OK, you stated it. So? Does your not merely stating something, but previously stating it as well (oh my!) mean you've been to the mountain and received it on stone tablets or what? LOL
Oh, all right, almost everything... Like most other "policy statements", that whole "in with the good, out with the bad" thing is mostly just to feed the xenophobes and the gullible public. If the "bad" have enough money, they'll have only incrementally more trouble perhaps continuing to find their way "in". Obviously our heroine here didn't quite make that cut. That said, a step forward, even a baby step, even a baby step that stomps on less well-to-do druggies, is still a step forward. If some druggies are persuaded by it to take their crap elsewhere, great!
-
21 minutes ago, sanemax said:
Everything isnt always about money .
Thailand doesnt want drug takers , simple as that .
Mmmm. Maybe. I think what they don't want more is to lose some of their foreign assistance which might be based on cooperation in the "War on Drugs", and their international "standing" on all those "lists"... Pretty much the same story for human trafficking.
My only problem with that is the kabuki it tends to precipitate. Doing things "loudly" and for appearances' sake rather than with genuine substance. (And, of course, where the aid money actually ends up...)
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
5 hours ago, balo said:Good to know,, not even a good lawyer could do much in this case .
1 hour ago, BritTim said:Even five years ago, I would have 100% agreed with you. Things are really different now, for a variety of reasons. The requirement for airlines to provide passenger lists to Thailand in advance allows those on blacklists to be weeded out. These days it is not only the US that is able to stop passengers boarding at their origin.
Though everyone knows it's "possible", this is the first I've ever heard of a Thailand-bound passenger being denied boarding pursuant to it, rather than getting to Suvarnabhumi or some other point of entry and then being denied permission to enter there.
Life seems to be getting harder for those who think Thailand is still some kind of free-for-all for drug use and other misbehaviors, and those with a history of it. Contrary to the whining I KNOW we're now going to hear, I very much doubt that shutting down this segment of the tourist trade is going to hurt the economy much...
-
4
-
I'm kind of surprised that anyone who's "lived here" for any length of time would even bother to ask an "is it legal" question like this since that's such an esoteric concern.
-
19 hours ago, KhaoNiaw said:
First question: there's a fair chance she would have done. If you've never heard Thais letting other Thais have it in these kinds of situations, then you need to get out more.
Second question: some would, some wouldn't. Some would handle it in a much better way than the OP, and a few, but I bet it would only be a few, would end up in a more confrontational situation than the OP.Total BS
-
15 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:
Only had a quick read, but the overwhelming opinion is that the OP is in the wrong for being insulting.
Can add me to the majority opinion.
If he wants to survive in LOS better learn how to behave quick smart.
Yeap. If you're going to live here you need to learn how to be successfully intimidated. And, of course, Lesson #2, the majority here is ALWAYS right! Get with the program!
Just one question for the peanut gallery: If that had been a Thai man parking in the spot, do you suppose the lady would have given him the same hard time? Would a Thai man have recognized her "ownership" of the parking space?
-
10 hours ago, BritTim said:
Sure, there is a definition. According to the Working of Alien Act 2008:
Section 4 contains some exceptions, relating to diplomatic staff.
The literal wording of the Act makes almost any activity illegal. As a practical matter, enforcement is more pragmatic. In fact, there are quite a few areas (such as business meetings and attendance at trade shows) where the authorities have announced you will not be prosecuted for lack of a work permit. There are numerous other categories of work (for instance, digital nomads with exclusively overseas clients) that we know are tolerated based on lack of enforcement even though they can easily be found in co-working spaces. Driving yourself (and even driving friends without charging fares) is obviously acceptable, as is routine maintenance of your own property. Major structural alteration of a property, if it came to the attention of the authorities, and especially if a prelude to sale, would likely not be tolerated.
I do not think it is possible to draw a clear line between what is and is not tolerated. Pretty much everything is illegal under the latter of the law.
"As a practical matter, enforcement is more pragmatic. "
Or IOW, discretionary. If someone in a position to do so decides they WANT what you're doing to be an issue, then it WILL be an issue. As a foreigner, you DO get a vote; it just doesn't count.
-
1
-
-
18 hours ago, maximillian said:
If it wasn't backed by the worlds most powerful military and recognized as the key currency and petrol dollar it wouldn't be worth even 3 Baht/$ in a realistic open financial market.
Waiting for your angry response, yankee.
No anger. You're simply a troll. Pathetic, but hardly something to get all spun up about. Life just has these little cowpies.
-
6 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:
Read post 23.
I did. And just like I said, much easier to bring it IN than to take it back OUT again.
-
Just now, simoh1490 said:
That is simply not true, the realities are that it is perfectly easy to do, just so long as you follow the rules.
I see. And what rule is the OP breaking?
ROFL
-
Two lessons most expats eventually learn here:
- It's much easier to transfer money IN to Thailand than back out again.
- Inconsistency is simply baked into the culture. And that applies as much to banks as anything else. (So just keep trying until you find a bank that will accommodate your need.)
Deniers spend a lot of time trying to shout these down, but that only proves the reality.
-
Lol. Let's see how hard we can make this...
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, chickenslegs said:
OK, I'll ask the obvious question. A 6 year+ prison sentence is pretty severe. What did he do?
If you hadn't, I would have. Agree - they don't hand out 6+ for just failing the blood test... Selling?
-
"First world countries make excessive speeding a big deal..."
It's not that it's a "big deal". You don't get the chair for it. In the U.S. you pay a fine (generally hefty by Thai standards), attend traffic school (which costs MORE money), and that's the end of it unless you're an habitual offender. It's just that the Rule of Law, and equal treatment under the law, generally MEANS SOMETHING in the west. A certain US president and certain municipalities who decide they're not going to enforce immigration law kind of puts a big dent in this justice-for-all ethic. But with that exception, it's just a matter of law enforcement actually doing its job, whether it be a major crime or a simple infraction. (And police officers who take bribes, steal evidence, etc., AREN'T just simply temporarily assigned to "inactive posts" only to return after things "cool down".)
-
17 hours ago, genericptr said:
I'm struggling to understand the visa policies at this point. Do they even care if you travel home in between those visas or is this like a life time limit per citizen, but you can fool them because they're too stupid to keep records apparently when you buy a new passport?
I have an even more basic question. If the intent is to let a foreigner use tourist visas to reside in the country indefinitely, then why do they require them to not just visit some local immigration office, but instead actually LEAVE the country, AT LEAST 4 times a year, visit the Thai consulate THERE, obtain a new visa (with limits on the number of times this can be done at any one place), and then finally return and gain permission to enter from an Immigration Officer? 'Makes absolutely no sense.
-
7 hours ago, wood said:
Hello again UJ.
I follow these TM30 posts with interest and following my visit to Chang Wattana last week, I can confirm that they do expect the TM30 to be completed.
With the OP raising the point that the landlady has never been submitting the TM30, it does raise the question on where the hammer will fall if all offices do, at some point in the future, start asking why individuals have never presented the TM30.
Ultimately, I see it as my responsibility to ensure the TM30 is presented in accordance with requirements, I personally would not leave it to chance and "hope" someone else is doing it.
This may be the case for the better established hotels, who have procedure In place, but, who else can you really rely on to do this if you reside In some private accommodation of some sort.
The nightmare scenario is if immigration start retrospectively looking back at TM30 submissions and use them as a base for determination.
Is this likely ?
Food for thought...
Hotels and guest houses that are "registered" don't do TM30s. They must do the reporting of guest arrivals, and can do it via computer. I've never heard of a foreigner being fined by immigration because their hotel was not taking care of its reporting requirement (I HAVE heard of "crackdowns" on "unregistered" hotels & guesthouses not doing their reporting). Privately rented condos are the issue and I HAVE heard of foreigners staying in them being fined by Jomtien immigration for not doing the TM30 when the owner has failed to do it (although I don't think the fine is exorbitant). Owners often don't want to do the TM30s (and, along with their agents, will pretend they know nothing about them) because they're afraid that'll put them on the tax radar. Who knows about the future, but unless something's changed very recently, Chang Wattana does 30d extensions on tourist visas without asking for the TM30. Jomtien has been a different story for a long time now.
I sometimes wonder if when submitting an application for a 30d extension, and listing the hotel where you're staying, immigration actually goes and checks that out to see if you're "in the system" at that hotel. Somehow I doubt it.
-
8 hours ago, SicTransit said:
Every single thread about hiccups on arrival seems to attract righteous comments about the illegality of using tourist visas for residence purposes and lengthy discussions about the definition of “tourism”.
I hope posters saying that will realise one day that permanent residence implies much broader set of privileges than people carrying a tourist visa can ever expect. Social security, medical insurance, prospects for a citizenship to name a few. Hey, local prices even!
Thus, it’s preposterous to imply that staying in the country on legally obtained tourist visas for somewhat extended periods of time, just because you like the place and the people, not stealing jobs from local workforce, spending your own funds sourced from elsewhere and not breaking any written immigration laws is somehow illegal or “gaming” the system.It's both.
-
15 hours ago, JackThompson said:
I had a very extensive "exit interview" at the Poipet/Aranya crossing. I was not asked to show any evidence of my finances (though I had it). All was handled in a civil manner - no rude comments, as some have reported coming from IOs at airports. I did not deny that my travels outside of Thailand included the purpose of obtaining new Tourist Visas.
I never used an airport or Poipet after that, was here most of the time for another 2 years, and I never had any more questions.
It is the IOs who are not following the law who are "gaming" something - not people following the laws. Is a person "gaming" when they don't walk through dangerous neighborhoods full of drug-addicts at night? "Lawless areas" are dangerous - you never know what could happen where laws are not followed or enforced. When people in official uniforms are the ones not following the laws, it is an even more dangerous situation, having frightening implications for everyone's fragile, annual "permit of stay" renewals.
I suggest having a "Plan B" in case The Laws Are Amended by Ministerial Order. That would be the legitimate (civil-society) way to handle any changes regarding those staying here longer-periods of time on Tourist Visas. Hopefully, at least 90-days warning would be part of such changes.
"It is the IOs who are not following the law"
LOL And your point is??? You DO realize that the person standing in front of the IO does NOT get a vote, right? (And I'm sure IOs just LOVE legal advice and lectures from the arrivals.)
And actually, using a particular type of visa for any purpose other than that for which it is intended, IS illegal. And a tourist visa is not intended for permanent residence (duh).
Like I said boys & girls, bad advice, really bad advice... And from someone who's simply gotten away with it himself so far and is in denial himself.
-
2
-
1
-
-
Just now, JackThompson said:
Because they still are completely viable, as long as you enter via land-borders where the actual laws and ministerial-orders currently in-effect are followed.
I would advise all doing this, however, to always have a "Plan B" - since a new ministerial order could be published, at some point in the future, which changes the status-quo. Fortunately, Cambodia, Vietnam, and The Philippines are close by, and have very welcoming visa-offers - but lease-deposits and personal property that are not easily moved must be kept in the, "could be lost" category of one's personal finances.
An IO does not have the legal discretion to do deny-entry based on a lie, and ignore documentation proving otherwise - but they could very well "just do it" anyway, if they are of a certain mindset. This is why using points-of-entry where the actual laws are followed is crucial.
Bad advice. 'Trying to game the system by cherry-picking one's entry points. And you even give it out one side while advising to be sure and 'Have a Plan B' out the other.
Extension of 30 day visa exempt entry
in Thai Visas, Residency, and Work Permits
Posted · Edited by hawker9000
Absolutely, totally wrong. This post is misinformational and should be deleted before it touches off a flurry of wasted response. (It was never an "extension" in the first place, didn't have anything specific to do with visa exempt entries in the 2nd place, and really is essentially off-topic overall.)