Denied entry at Don Meung even with a valid 60 day Tourist Visa

[cleopatra2]

3 minutes ago, jackdd said:

There are many different concepts of making money through corruption.

A very common form across probably all government institutions in Thailand: People have to pay for their rank or job position. A promotion might cost them several hundred thousand baht. Do you think that his boss thinks he saved this money from his 15k THB per month salary? His boss is fully aware he got this money by collecting bribes and when his underling wants the promotion he demands his share.

 

Then there are more direct forms of payment, let's take for example the money that immigration police collects for a certificate of residence which should actually be free. One person collects this, but i'm quite sure that this is shared between the people working at the office and not just kept by the person who collects it, because this is demanded openly for all colleagues to see.

I dont dispute corruption exist, however I do not see any evidence that denial of entry is part of this.

I fail to understand what is gained by the IO , and considering the number of people going through immigration without issue to the proportion of those reported denied. There is not even a preponderance of evidence to suggest otherwise

[jackdd]

22 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

I dont dispute corruption exist, however I do not see any evidence that denial of entry is part of this.

I fail to understand what is gained by the IO , and considering the number of people going through immigration without issue to the proportion of those reported denied. There is not even a preponderance of evidence to suggest otherwise

We don't have real evidence, but it's the most logical implication.

 

Situation: The immigration officer denies somebody entry because "he spent too much time in the country with tourist visa", tells a person to "get a non-immigrant visa" and because too much time on tourist visas is no legal reason to deny somebody the IO stamps another arbitrary reason in this persons passport.

 

Possible reasons people came up with:

1) The IO doesn't like foreigners, or maybe this one foreigner in particular

2) It is to make money.

If you have any other possible reasons please let us know.

 

Reason 1:

Possible, but unlikely. The senior of the IO is involved in denying somebody entry, so both of them (and maybe more people involved) would need an aversion against foreigners, and there is no real benefit to them.

 

Reason 2:

This is way more likely than reason 1.

We have reports of people who bribed the IO and were let in, but i think that this is not the real purpose.

The real purpose is probably that the whole immigration machinery is supposed to get more money through unofficial channels.

 

We can see from other reports that the immigration offices try to push people towards agents, by making extensions difficult if applied in persons, because they get money from agents.

Of course somebody might intervene now with the argument that the IO at the airport doesn't have much to do with the immigration offices who get money from agents.

 

Yes, the low level IOs don't. But this just leds to the conclusion that somebody who profits from agent applications and has the power to tell immigration at the airport what to do is the source for this tactic.

We don't see this at land borders (except Poipet) and we don't see this at for example Chiang Mai airport. So this limits the range of possible suspects, we can say it does probably not come from Big Joke, or somebody else who has power over immigration across the country, but somebody lower.

 

This person might have told the immigration officers at Bangkok airports to deny a certain amount of people per month, and chose a number higher than the number of people who really violate the law. People who spend a lot of time in the country using tourist visas are the easiest to pick on (many will believe it, only a small number will post on Thaivisa about it) and are most likely to switch to a non-o visa from which this person indirectly gets money.

[stevenl]

"This is way more likely than reason 1.

We have reports of people who bribed the IO and were let in, but i think that this is not the real purpose.

The real purpose is probably that the whole immigration machinery is supposed to get more money through unofficial channels."

Getting a non-immigrant visa doesn't make them any money.

 

All very far fetched, and in the rest of your post you go even further of the rails IMO.

[cleopatra2]

23 minutes ago, jackdd said:

We don't have real evidence, but it's the most logical implication.

 

Situation: The immigration officer denies somebody entry because "he spent too much time in the country with tourist visa", tells a person to "get a non-immigrant visa" and because too much time on tourist visas is no legal reason to deny somebody the IO stamps another arbitrary reason in this persons passport.

 

Possible reasons people came up with:

1) The IO doesn't like foreigners, or maybe this one foreigner in particular

2) It is to make money.

If you have any other possible reasons please let us know.

 

Reason 1:

Possible, but unlikely. The senior of the IO is involved in denying somebody entry, so both of them (and maybe more people involved) would need an aversion against foreigners, and there is no real benefit to them.

 

Reason 2:

This is way more likely than reason 1.

We have reports of people who bribed the IO and were let in, but i think that this is not the real purpose.

The real purpose is probably that the whole immigration machinery is supposed to get more money through unofficial channels.

 

We can see from other reports that the immigration offices try to push people towards agents, by making extensions difficult if applied in persons, because they get money from agents.

Of course somebody might intervene now with the argument that the IO at the airport doesn't have much to do with the immigration offices who get money from agents.

 

Yes, the low level IOs don't. But this just leds to the conclusion that somebody who profits from agent applications and has the power to tell immigration at the airport what to do is the source for this tactic.

We don't see this at land borders (except Poipet) and we don't see this at for example Chiang Mai airport. So this limits the range of possible suspects, we can say it does probably not come from Big Joke, or somebody else who has power over immigration across the country, but somebody lower.

 

This person might have told the immigration officers at Bangkok airports to deny a certain amount of people per month, and chose a number higher than the number of people who really violate the law. People who spend a lot of time in the country using tourist visas are the easiest to pick on (many will believe it, only a small number will post on Thaivisa about it) and are most likely to switch to a non-o visa from which this person indirectly gets money.

Where is the evidence.

An instruction from senior officers is unsupported. If this was the case, a , it would be legal , b , it would apply at every border checkpoint.

 

Whilst PoiPet checkpoint do operate a denied entry for 2 crossings , to suggest that this is due to some form of money making scheme is absurd.

Firstly last time I came through PoiPet 18 months ago , there was a note in the cubicle explaining that only 2 crossings allowed.

Secondly , there are more lucrative opportunities present at this border , that would dwarf any profit from denying tourists. You would expect the IO to want hoards of tourist crossing to hide any nefarious activities.

[jackdd]

51 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Getting a non-immigrant visa doesn't make them any money.

But getting a subsequent extension does after they made you use an agent.

 

19 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

An instruction from senior officers is unsupported. If this was the case, a , it would be legal , b , it would apply at every border checkpoint.

a) It would still be illegal because it's against the written law

b) Read again what i wrote, i gave a possible explanation for this already.

 

19 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

Whilst PoiPet checkpoint do operate a denied entry for 2 crossings , to suggest that this is due to some form of money making scheme is absurd.

I did never say or suggest this (i assume you are referring to the max. 2 visa exempts per year at land borders rule, which applies to all land borders).

 

When i say Poipet i'm talking about people who were allowed to leave Cambodia, but are then denied entry to Thailand because the Thai IO says that the traveller has to spend at least a night in Cambodia or has to leave from an Airport, this has happened to people on non-immigrant visas as well and is probably not related to what's happening at Bangkok airports.

Edited January 11, 2019 by jackdd

[JackThompson]

4 hours ago, jackdd said:

When i say Poipet i'm talking about people who were allowed to leave Cambodia, but are then denied entry to Thailand because the Thai IO says that the traveller has to spend at least a night in Cambodia or has to leave from an Airport, this has happened to people on non-immigrant visas as well and is probably not related to what's happening at Bangkok airports.

Yes.  And some who did what the IO said, and came back the next day, then were given official denials-of-entry - a completely unnecessary step, since they could just go back where they came from - done only to be cruel and vindictive, in order to put a record in the immigration-system which could make problems for that traveler in the future.

 

Yes.  I believe someone is paying off those who run certain entry points - and who is not willing to put up the cash to pay them all off.  When you consider how bribe-pliable that agency is, literally anyone or group with deep pockets and an anti-Western and/or corrupt agenda could be pulling it off.  It could be foreign, domestic, people on-the-take from agents and such - who knows?  But, the recommendations for a "Non-Imm Visa" in a few reports would indicate it is likely those benefiting from the "extra fee" money tied to those.

Edited January 11, 2019 by JackThompson

[Hoppyone]

On 7/5/2018 at 6:48 PM, ssizz said:

Thank you for the reply. If I were to stay the 60 days and I go to get a 30 day extension will they see anything on their system that will get me into trouble?  I'm just afraid they might have put something on "the system" of what happened today. 

 

Was what happened today just because I was unlucky? My previous stays were July&Aug17 on Visa exempt, Nov&Dec on Visa exempt, Jan&Feb on exempt, Mar&Apr on tourist visa, then May&June on Visa exempt. The lady said I stayed here too long without a proper work or education visa and that in the future I will be denied entry doing any tourist or visa exempts. If I decide to get a future Tourist Visa in Laos and its granted successfully, should I cross over on a land border instead of flying in to Don Meung to avoid this issue?

They are treating visitors with a lot of entries into Thailand they then will normally treat you as not a genuine tourist ,been happening a lot more over the last 2 years when entering via airports 

[vinegarbase]

On 1/11/2019 at 4:47 AM, JackThompson said:

I believe someone is paying off those who run certain entry points

I have debated between them getting pay offs or it is just a matter of them wanting to avoid work. If it becomes known for denials there will be a lot less traffic so they can laze around on their cell phone all day and get paid.

[Caldera]

7 hours ago, vinegarbase said:

I have debated between them getting pay offs or it is just a matter of them wanting to avoid work. If it becomes known for denials there will be a lot less traffic so they can laze around on their cell phone all day and get paid.

I doubt it, I'd guess the ever increasing number of short-term visitors far exceeds the number of long-term visitors they can deny under their fantasy rules.

 

It might well be as simple as them receiving a kickback from the private company that runs the airport detention facilities. Each detainee has to pay, more detainees means more money.

[JackThompson]

Poipet became nuts after hard-line Bangkok staff were sent there, after a bomber bribed his way in at that location.  They brought their anti-serial-tourists agenda with them.

 

But some reports indicate "fixers" can currently get you through Poipet for 20K Baht, which suggests many hands must be greased.  When Sadao was working things at 200 Baht/visitor, the higher-ups were not covered, and they "cracked down" to stop the scheme.

 

22 hours ago, vinegarbase said:

I have debated between them getting pay offs or it is just a matter of them wanting to avoid work. If it becomes known for denials there will be a lot less traffic so they can laze around on their cell phone all day and get paid.

Or, avoiding work unless they get paid extra to do their job.  But even if the front-line IO might like to do the right thing, a person up the chain could also be saying "I won't approve unless ..." - insert list of unpublished requirements.  Agent-apps could go directly to the supervisor, skipping the front-line crew.

[lkv]

2 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

Poipet became nuts after hard-line Bangkok staff were sent there, after a bomber bribed his way in at that location.  They brought their anti-serial-tourists agenda with them.

 

But some reports indicate "fixers" can currently get you through Poipet for 20K Baht, which suggests many hands must be greased.  When Sadao was working things at 200 Baht/visitor, the higher-ups were not covered, and they "cracked down" to stop the scheme.

 

Inflation. Before, 20K got you in with the bomb, now it gets you in as a tourist.????

[Tomtomtom69]

On 7/5/2018 at 7:53 PM, Cadbury said:

Go to Vietnam and stay there. They don't carry on with all this visa crap.

They are more tolerant of it, for now. However, they don't allow you to re-enter for 2 months if you are from a 15-day visa exempt country and attempt to re-enter within this time period of a previous visa exempt entry.

 

Vietnam tolerates 9 months of continuous stays (2 3-month extensions of a 3-month visa) but then you have to do a visa run. No idea how tolerant Vietnam is of really long-term "travelers". However, most countries in the region that are more accepting than Thailand of long-term stays are less developed than Thailand is and will eventually catch up. Vietnam used to issue 1-year business and tourist visas like 15 years ago but these are now no longer issued. A 1-year business visa can sometimes still be issued with a sponsor for a hefty fee, but only some agents do them now and some travelers have reported problems at immigration using anything longer than a 3-month visa. Of course those on legitimate 1-year work visas are fine.

 

Cambodia has also started to crack down on things - 1-year visas for those without a legitimate purpose (like studying, working or being retired) are no longer available. The best you can hope for now is a 6-month visa then you have to do a visa run.

[sead]

On 7/5/2018 at 7:31 PM, Chou Anou said:

Gotta love ThaiVisa. Everyone's bending over backwards to tell this guy how he can keep abusing the Thai immigration system, with nobody stopping to say: if you've continually been in Thailand since 2017, you are NOT a tourist, and you're abusing a system (visa-exempt stays and tourist visas) meant for tourists. I'd love to sit down with the OP over a beer and hear his opinion on immigrants to his country and their (real or imagined) abuse/skirting of his country's immigration laws.

I dont see me same as an Syrian immigrant in Sweden. I am contributing to the airlines, stewardesses,  tuk tuk drivers, hotels and workers, food malls and etc etc. An immigrant in Sweden is NOT