Thai Embassy in Vientiane issues warning to visa runners

[Odysseus123]

Ah..Thai Visa..and immigration issues.

 

It's like 'Waiting For Godot' without the funny bits...l

[LivinLOS]

17 hours ago, fforest1 said:

So a persons value in life is based on how much money they have....

 

A very wealthy person would be a person who is highly valued as a person..Dispite any other qualities....

A person of modest means is a 2nd or 3rd class person whos presence is distasteful and they are lucky if they are even tolerated.... 

Your missing the point.. 

 

There are clear and easy ways for wealthy people to stay here.. If the person says "I am wealthy enough to stay here" that is the criteria Thai immigration sets for 'wealthy under 50s folks'.. If your not meeting the level they define as being rich enough, then they are saying there isnt a visa class. 

 

Its not 'my' measure of someones value.. Its Thai immigration's measure. They define the rules. 

[cleopatra2]

1 hour ago, JackThompson said:

There is nothing in immigration law or current ministerial orders, which references something like "profile of... tourist" regarding those attempting entry with a Tourist Visa. 

 

Such rules, though vague, do exist for visa-exempt entries.

 

Unfortunately, we don't even know how long that break would need to be - and we have cases of prior stayers who were interrogated and/or denied after being gone for 6 months or more. 

In some respects, it would be nice if the problem entry points would at least publish their unlawful profiling system, so those who are not willing to travel to law-abiding entry-points could at least know what is expected (how long to stay away and spend their money elsewhere).  I assume they cannot publish this, because it would require admitting they are acting outside of the law - similar to covering up their activity by using unrelated denial-of-entry stamps based on actual laws, when not demonstrably applicable to the person who is denied-entry. 

 

That would make condo rental-rates even more affordable for those with longer-stay options - just as changes to-date have cut them by 40%+ in some areas (Jomtien, where I used to live).  So, good for some expats - I lived in a better condo for less money year-on-year for several, due to this.

 

But, this would also unnecessarily strip even more Thais from gainful employment, beyond those who have lost their jobs to-date from the existing bad-policies.  I don't expect immigration to be looking after my best-interests - it's not their job - though it would be nice if they considered what the Thais affected by their policies would prefer.

 

It is ~10x of the cost of a 1-year's visas / extensions in Vietnam, Cambodia, or the PI - payable 5 or more years in-advance.  If it were 2x the cost, and available annually, that would be workable. 

But Thailand could still do much better than this, for many under-50s, by offering easy paths to opening businesses with offshore operations (not competing with Thai businesses, any more than they already are if the expat is living/working-remotely in Cambodia), and collecting business and personal taxes, instead.  This would inevitably lead to some Thai hires, as well.

section 34 of the immigration act states the various purposes to which an alien can be granted temporary stay

[farangx]

1 hour ago, JackThompson said:

There is nothing in immigration law or current ministerial orders, which references something like "profile of... tourist" regarding those attempting entry with a Tourist Visa. 

 

Such rules, though vague, do exist for visa-exempt entries.

 

Unfortunately, we don't even know how long that break would need to be - and we have cases of prior stayers who were interrogated and/or denied after being gone for 6 months or more. 

I see this a grey area, tourist's words against the IO.

 

1 hour ago, JackThompson said:

That would make condo rental-rates even more affordable for those with longer-stay options - just as changes to-date have cut them by 40%+ in some areas (Jomtien, where I used to live).  So, good for some expats - I lived in a better condo for less money year-on-year for several, due to this.

 

But, this would also unnecessarily strip even more Thais from gainful employment, beyond those who have lost their jobs to-date from the existing bad-policies.  I don't expect immigration to be looking after my best-interests - it's not their job - though it would be nice if they considered what the Thais affected by their policies would prefer.

 

I don't see immigration understanding the impact on the local economy due to their policies and actions.  They should just scrap the VOA fees for the Chinese tourists once and for all.  Even a fee reduction to 500b can reap huge rewards.  But they are just too dumb to see the benefits out of these.

 

1 hour ago, JackThompson said:

It is ~10x of the cost of a 1-year's visas / extensions in Vietnam, Cambodia, or the PI - payable 5 or more years in-advance.  If it were 2x the cost, and available annually, that would be workable. 

 

They can offer TE at 2 years, 3 years, 5 years and 10 years at a slightly reduced prorated rates with discount for the first renewal.  With this, I am sure they will have many takers because it reduces takers' commitment and losses if things don't pan out for them.  Even those on current retirement schemes can take advantage of it.

 

 

[JackThompson]

 

7 minutes ago, farangx said:

1 hour ago, JackThompson said:

Unfortunately, we don't even know how long that break would need to be - and we have cases of prior stayers who were interrogated and/or denied after being gone for 6 months or more. 

I see this a grey area, tourist's words against the IO.

If only one or two cases, maybe.  We have several - different types of people - some coming back from their home-countries, etc.

 

11 minutes ago, farangx said:

They should just scrap the VOA fees for the Chinese tourists once and for all.  Even a fee reduction to 500b can reap huge rewards. 

The rewards are tiny per-person in the case of those who decide they can afford a trip to Thailand because there is a VOA discount.  In fact, one purpose of the fee would be to keep out those who don't have much money to spend. 

 

Contrast this to those with higher income-streams, who would happily fork over 5K Baht for hassle-free 90-day stamps (no limits / made-up rules).  More, if it could be done easily, online, without having to leave the country, or waste a day at immigration to do it.  Expats could just set up an automated "bill pay" and forget it, creating a constant stream of recurring payments.  The primary impediment would no "agent" revenue involved.

 

8 minutes ago, farangx said:

1 hour ago, JackThompson said:

It is ~10x of the cost of a 1-year's visas / extensions in Vietnam, Cambodia, or the PI - payable 5 or more years in-advance.  If it were 2x the cost, and available annually, that would be workable. 

They can offer TE at 2 years, 3 years, 5 years and 10 years at a slightly reduced prorated rates with discount for the first renewal.  With this, I am sure they will have many takers because it reduces takers' commitment and losses if things don't pan out for them.  Even those on current retirement schemes can take advantage of it.

The first step to making the TE pay maximum-returns, would be cutting the per-year cost to maybe 2x that of what other countries in the region cost in visa-fees - so maybe 20K/yr for a 1-year visa, and less per-year if buying multiple years in-advance.  Airport-extras and such not included, of course, but could still be offered as package add-ons.

[farangx]

44 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

The first step to making the TE pay maximum-returns, would be cutting the per-year cost to maybe 2x that of what other countries in the region cost in visa-fees - so maybe 20K/yr for a 1-year visa, and less per-year if buying multiple years in-advance.  Airport-extras and such not included, of course, but could still be offered as package add-ons.

20K per year is rather cheap, that would kill the agents for those 800K gamers.  Perhaps 40K for the first year and 35K thereafter.  800Kers like me will be interested. Extras, add-ons are good.  I like to see 10 years and 20 years visa transferable with all 3 parties benefiting.

 

Edited December 18, 2018 by farangx

[baansgr]

Most countries welcome people that are going to contribute to the economy. Thailand only wants married over 50s. 

[Youlike]

On 12/17/2018 at 12:48 PM, AGareth2 said:

Sure

but these people are not tourists

What is the difference? Tourist can only stay 14 days to be genuine?

[thaibreaker]

On 12/17/2018 at 8:56 AM, at15 said:

malaysia is a good option. 90 day free entry for a lot of western countries. i have stayed in nice apartments outside of kl, in the 10,000 baht a month rent range. But you get a much larger place than thailand with a western kitchen, laundry room, den, etc. 

Partly wrong. Malaysia is good for a stay or three of 90 days each, but I assure you it`s not much easier staying long term there as a "tourist". I had my first 90 days stay there recently, and went to Vietnam for 5 days to renew it. When I got back, I was told I needed to stay out of the country (preferably my home country) next time for at least 4 weeks, but they granted me 90 days this second time. So I got only two 90 days entries, and will not be able to do a visarun next time.

 

They have a 10 year visa though, a second home visa, that has almost the same requirements as the one year visa based on retirement in Thailand. But people under 50 will have the same issue as in Thailand.

[farangx]

2 hours ago, thaibreaker said:

They have a 10 year visa though, a second home visa, that has almost the same requirements as the one year visa based on retirement in Thailand. But people under 50 will have the same issue as in Thailand.

This visa is also available to those under 50.

 

Some points worth noting about this MM2H (Malaysia My Second Home) programme.  

 

It is available to those below 50 years old and aged 50 years and above.  The amounts that need to be in a fixed deposit account in Malaysia are RM300K and RM150K respectively. 

 

These amounts will remain in the account for the duration of the visa.  After the first year about half the amount can be withdraw for house purchases and medical insurance, etc. subject to approval. After the second year, a partial withdrawal can be made for the purchase of a car.

 

Those over 50 receiving pension above RM10K a month can apply for exemption of this fixed deposit. They are also allowed to work up to 20 hours a week.

 

You are allowed to buy house(s) and/or apartments(s) which is different compared to here in Thailand.

 

FYI, the locals there speak English.

 

Edited December 18, 2018 by farangx

[farangx]

A few more things about this MM2H visa ....

 

There are no silly 90 days reportings, re-entry permits and yearly extensions.  This visa is valid for 10 years

[AtoZ]

On 12/17/2018 at 10:48 PM, JackThompson said:

One reason he still has money/investments, would be not blowing capital on raw-deals like the elite-visa.  A big wad of cash up-front, for "permission to spend money" in another country?  "One born every minute," must have been the inside-joke of those who invented that scheme.

 

In any case, the point of working is to save money so you can stop - unless you are a professional musician, painter, or something that is actually enjoyable to do "for a living."  The second best option is to own your own business.

This guy was fortunate enough that his parents set him up not to waste decades of his life doing mindless-chores for permission to eat and sleep indoors.  That life sucks, as most of us who have done it will admit.  I would not wish it on anyone, except maybe for a year, just to experience how dreadful and monotonous it is, so one can appreciate the beauty of not doing it afterwords. 

 

Life isn't fair, and I would be lying to say I am not envious of the guy - as I am of anyone who gets to Thailand when so young (even if they have to teach English to do it) - but kudos to his i parents for giving him the gift of a life of living one's dreams.

The 500,000 THB for elite visa would cost the young-ish guys millions when calculating lost opportunity / compounding income. It's an insult in a country where majority of locals earn less than 10,000 a month.

Edited December 18, 2018 by AtoZ

[JackThompson]

13 hours ago, baansgr said:

Most countries welcome people that are going to contribute to the economy. Thailand only wants married over 50s. 

Many countries welcome people who drag their country into low-wage poverty for the benefit of employers - but I am not recommending that for Thailand, though they are sadly heading down that path with the "L Visa" program. 

As to those of us here and not working Thai jobs - all are either contributing to the economy with foreign-sourced funds or living outdoors and not eating.  That said, a reasonable minimum-standard can be achieved by "pay as you go" visas/extensions, such as Cambodia offers, which do not pry into one's personal finances - merely provide a periodic verification that one "has money," signified by having the funds to pay for the next visa/extension.  Thailand could double their price, and still do well in terms of the self-funded expat market. 

 

13 hours ago, farangx said:

20K per year is rather cheap, that would kill the agents for those 800K gamers.  Perhaps 40K for the first year and 35K thereafter. 

The primary reason a reasonable solution is unlikely to be implemented, is the agent issue.  The current system is designed with a bar that is too high for the vast majority of people who would choose a lower-overhead destination like Thailand.  This discourages the majority of potential expats from coming/staying, and ensures many who do must use agents - funding the agent-immigration money pipeline.  The loses to the country from this policy are not counted - only the gains by crony-beneficiaries.

Thailand has some good defensive policies in place which reduce the potential-harms of globalization - such as not allowing foreigners to buy land or easily become full-citizens.  With those restrictions in place, and absent access to social-spending programs, foreigners here do not pose an existential threat - it's all upside, so should be maximized.

Edited December 19, 2018 by JackThompson

[JLCrab]

As regards Thailand's Immigration extension-of-stay policy and/or Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) visa policy I go numb when I see the following words or phrases:

 

They could

They should

They ought to

Don't they realize

They are just shooting themselves in  the foot

It's so stupid of them to ...

Boy are they dumb

It would be a win/win if they just ...

They would be much better off if ...

ETC.

Edited December 19, 2018 by JLCrab

[freedomnow]

3 hours ago, JLCrab said:

As regards Thailand's Immigration extension-of-stay policy and/or Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) visa policy I go numb when I see the following words or phrases:

 

They could

They should

They ought to

Don't they realize

They are just shooting themselves in  the foot

It's so stupid of them to ...

Boy are they dumb

It would be a win/win if they just ...

They would be much better off if ...

ETC.

Spot-on.

[SammyT]

On 12/17/2018 at 10:13 PM, JackThompson said:

Quote

This is a bit of a non-event really. I'm sure Thailand won't miss those who work here long term on tourist visas, no matter how much they claim they stimulate the local economy. 

Ask those who are losing their jobs which support their families about that, before you decide this is the case.  I have.  They want immigration to stop bringing in floods of people who don't support good jobs, and stop blocking those who do support good jobs (and whom they prefer to be around, generally).

Rubbish. People aren't losing their jobs because a select few people who want to live in Thailand long term without doing it through the official channels get turned away. This is not affecting regular tourists in any way possible. Just the ones who don't meet any other criteria and want to free-load here. 

 

You're being a bit dramatic suggesting people will lose their jobs because of this loophole tightening

[SammyT]

On 12/17/2018 at 9:57 PM, HueMungis said:

I’m 23 years old.  I was fortunate enough to inherit some properties in an area of Chicago that has become upscale.  I do the visa run things.  I’m too young for retirement, not naive enough to get married at 23 to a girl I met at a bar and a huge language barrier.  I don’t work, unless you count looking at the stock market and arranging funds here and there periodically.  I can buy an elite visa, but I just don’t think it is worth the investment for a few reasons.  I don’t mind doing visa runs because it gives me an excuse to go do something and leave the country.  I don’t mind standing in line at the airport for 15-20min, it’s not worth $15k USD, I can stand.  Who knows if I’ll even want to still be here in 3 years.  I can become a teacher  for a Non B, but

A) I don’t want to stand in front of a room of 40+ elementary school kids screaming, pretending to teach, but really being an overpaid babysitter.

B) I have no desire to “teach”

 

I’m not spending all my time getting drunk and causing trouble and giving farang a bad image, I go out once or maybe twice a week.  

 

Great story (if real, given you've made one post). But if you don't want to shell out for an elite visa, you can't be pissed if you suddenly find yourself denied entry on a tourist visa, given you quite rightly pointed out you don't want to do any of the above jobs you listed. 

 

Enjoy your inherited wealth - no hate from me in relation to that, only envy, but there aren't heaps of countries in the world that just make it open slather for anyone to come and live long term without contributing in some way to society.

[SammyT]

On 12/18/2018 at 12:07 AM, fforest1 said:

On 12/17/2018 at 7:53 PM, LivinLOS said:

Elite visa, Investor Visa.. 

 

If your wealthy enough for those they want you.. They set the level of wealth they desire, not you. 

So a persons value in life is based on how much money they have....

 

A very wealthy person would be a person who is highly valued as a person..Dispite any other qualities....

A person of modest means is a 2nd or 3rd class person whos presence is distasteful and they are lucky if they are even tolerated.... 

You clearly don't understand how immigration works the world-over do you? Most countries require some sort of investment by a long term resident, whether through contributing to the workforce or through investment. Have a look at your own home country's immigration requirement, you'll probably find some sort of investment visa there too. So yes, in answer to your question, I'm pretty sure Thailand doesn't want a "2nd or 3rd class" person living long term in their country, contributing minimally by not working or investing and doing it all under a tourist visa. 

 

I can't believe that some people struggle to understand that concept.

[SammyT]

21 hours ago, JackThompson said:

In some respects, it would be nice if the problem entry points would at least publish their unlawful profiling system, so those who are not willing to travel to law-abiding entry-points could at least know what is expected (how long to stay away and spend their money elsewhere). 

"Unlawful profiling system" LOL. Thai immigration officers don't have to accept people on tourist visas who they don't think are genuine tourists. People who have been here on multiple tourist visa with only 24 - 48 hours in between each one are always going to attract the ire of immigration officers. You seem pretty bent out of shape by this and your arguments are getting a little bit irrational. 

 

Good guys in, bad guys out!

[elliss]

   The right visa ,  which immigration prefer , 

is when the  application shows proof of 800,000  bht , in a Thai bank account . 555

[farangx]

On 12/17/2018 at 2:57 PM, HueMungis said:

I’m 23 years old.  I was fortunate enough to inherit some properties in an area of Chicago that has become upscale.  I do the visa run things.  I’m too young for retirement, not naive enough to get married at 23 to a girl I met at a bar and a huge language barrier.  I don’t work, unless you count looking at the stock market and arranging funds here and there periodically.  I can buy an elite visa, but I just don’t think it is worth the investment for a few reasons.  I don’t mind doing visa runs because it gives me an excuse to go do something and leave the country.  I don’t mind standing in line at the airport for 15-20min, it’s not worth $15k USD, I can stand.  Who knows if I’ll even want to still be here in 3 years.  

You got good inheritance, so what is 16K anyway.  A Leica camera body and 2 lens already cost more than that.  Besides, my guess on your returns from that few properties, you can easily get this pocket change back in a few months.  No reason for a 23yo to think much. What's the point of having money and not spend it? ????

[JackThompson]

27 minutes ago, SammyT said:

"Unlawful profiling system" LOL. Thai immigration officers don't have to accept people on tourist visas who they don't think are genuine tourists. People who have been here on multiple tourist visa with only 24 - 48 hours in between each one are always going to attract the ire of immigration officers. You seem pretty bent out of shape by this and your arguments are getting a little bit irrational. 

 

Good guys in, bad guys out!

I have yet to see "genuine tourist" defined in Thai law in the context of Tourist Visas.  As is, the only definition is best described by what is not permitted - such as working a Thai job.  Thai immigration officers can reject entry for valid reasons, not invented reasons covered-up by a stamp for a different reason (as they are doing now, at entry-points not following the law).

 

Some of those interrogated and/or denied entry had been gone for weeks or even months - not 48 hours or less.  At the honest checkpoints, the "number of hours" issue (which is not a law/rule) is not considered.

Good guys follow the written laws.  Bad IOs don't.  Given all but a few points of entry are staffed by Good IOs who do follow the law, my advise is for people to use those law-abiding entry-points - not buy into disinformation about supposed time-limits - so they can continue spending money in Thailand.
 

47 minutes ago, SammyT said:

Have a look at your own home country's immigration requirement

My passport-country is overrun with foreigners - some of whom are legal, and others not.  Wages have been wrecked, along with millions of citizen's lives.  Welfare budgets, school-budgets, hospital-budgets - literally shredded by this.

In Thailand, the effect of people from high-wage nations staying here is the exact opposite - spending foreign-sourced money into the economy, and creating Thai jobs, without a single baht of handouts spent on us.

 

58 minutes ago, SammyT said:

there aren't heaps of countries in the world that just make it open slather for anyone to come and live long term without contributing in some way to society.

Many do, actually.  Almost all of Latin America for a start, plus in SE Asia - Cambodia, Vietnam, The Philippines, and Cambodia.  It boils down to wage-levels.  Where wage-levels are lower, they want us to come and spend our money, to create better jobs for the citizens. 

 

Only a bent-system, which doesn't serve the economic-interests of their citizens, would this not be the case.  Hopefully, the "bent-ness" doesn't spread to the remaining good entry-points - though the damage done at the Bangkok airports is impossible to overcome.

 

56 minutes ago, SammyT said:

Rubbish. People aren't losing their jobs because a select few people who want to live in Thailand long term without doing it through the official channels get turned away. This is not affecting regular tourists in any way possible. Just the ones who don't meet any other criteria and want to free-load here.  

 

You're being a bit dramatic suggesting people will lose their jobs because of this loophole tightening

I know several, personally, who have.  I used to live in a Tourist area, where I watched entire blocks of businesses close, as a direct-result of immigration's policy shifts.  My wife and I knew several Thais who worked in those now-closed businesses, who were supporting families across Thailand - helping fund the modernization of family-farms, purchase durable-goods, etc.  Immigration took away their ability to do that - for no sane reason. 

 

The "package tour" types are not even close to a substitute - though the addition of one group would not necessitate the removal of the other.

 

Visitors were hassled / interrogated, threatened, denied-entry, or read about others suffering this on the Internet.  They all now live elsewhere (in the welcoming nations I gave above).  In my travels prior to coming to Thailand, I met several who had left due to the previous round of "arbitrary-denial tightening."  Consider the many more who never came in the first place, due to Thailand's "friendly" reputation being left in tatters. 

 

The loss of existing Thai-jobs - not to mention the potential jobs never created - is a tragic waste.  Especially when you consider that it is the children of the "good job employed" generation, who would have had a shot at a college-degree; the loss is inter-generational. 

And all of this, can be yours, for the greed of a few for tea-money.  So, yeah, the scams tick me off on many levels.

[HueMungis]

35 minutes ago, farangx said:

You got good inheritance, so what is 16K anyway.  A Leica camera body and 2 lens already cost more than that.  Besides, my guess on your returns from that few properties, you can easily get this pocket change back in a few months.  No reason for a 23yo to think much. What's the point of having money and not spend it? ????

Just $16k here, $16k there, that is how people who come into money lose it.  I am not sure what a Leica camera is, so that is irrelevant to me.  I'd rather take $16k and put it into index funds.  I am also in the process of purchasing the properties that both of my sisters inherited as well, there is a lot more I would want to do with $16k than put it toward a visa, especially when the costs are rising here.  There is also most likely going to be a recession in the US in the near future, could be big, could be small, I'd rather have a buffer to wait that period out.  I'd gladly pay 50K ฿ a year for hassle free entries throughout the year.  

[SammyT]

2 hours ago, JackThompson said:

I have yet to see "genuine tourist" defined in Thai law in the context of Tourist Visas. 

You're definitely clutching at straws here. It's pretty blatant that someone who is living here long term, in the same place using only tourist visas and border runs to survive is not a genuine tourist. You know the one, has a Thai gf who they have been living with for a year, or works from an apartment they have been renting for the last 9 months. It's pretty well common sense that this person isn't a "tourist" within the spirit of the visa laws. I suspect you're one of these people, hence why you are arguing the point so hard. 

[balo]

On 12/17/2018 at 9:57 PM, HueMungis said:

I’m not spending all my time getting drunk and causing trouble and giving farang a bad image, I go out once or maybe twice a week.

So what do you do in Thailand ? 23 years old , not married . What is the point in living here?  

 

[sanemax]

9 minutes ago, balo said:

So what do you do in Thailand ? 23 years old , not married . What is the point in living here?  

 

Ask him to show you 20 000 Baht in cash , if he cannot , refuse him entry

[JackThompson]

1 hour ago, SammyT said:

You're definitely clutching at straws here. It's pretty blatant that someone who is living here long term, in the same place using only tourist visas and border runs to survive is not a genuine tourist. You know the one, has a Thai gf who they have been living with for a year, or works from an apartment they have been renting for the last 9 months. It's pretty well common sense that this person isn't a "tourist" within the spirit of the visa laws. I suspect you're one of these people, hence why you are arguing the point so hard. 

Anyone can invent what they think a law might be intended to mean "in spirit" - but that isn't how law works, as there would be no equitable standard, allowing people to know they are "wrong" or "right" with certainty. 

 

IOs in different countries have different rules/criteria they are legally allowed to consider.  In Thailand, IOs have a few very specific reasons - only - for which they are permitted to deny entry to those entering with a Visa.  "Too much time as a tourist" is not among those specified reasons.  The Thais write the laws and ministerial orders - not us.  We follow their laws.  Yet there is not even a hint of a "time in-country as a Tourist" limit in the law.  The IO supervisors at a few entry points who are manufacturing the arbitrary time-limits myth are the ones in the wrong.  I do feel sorry for the lower-level IOs who are caught up in it; they must hate what they are ordered to do, but need to support their families.

 

I am married to a Thai on a Non-O Visa.  But I would not have been willing to marry my now-wife, without getting to know her and the culture - so I did spend quite a bit of time over some years here before we were married - 100% legally, using Tourist Visas.  There is no "fiance visa" - so Tourist Visa is the only option in such circumstances. It would have been a real shame if that hadn't been possible.  But, I entered at entry-points where Thai Law was and is respected, so it worked out.

 

I am now within a couple months from the age to get a retirement-visa, so this really isn't "about me."  The issue, for me, really is about the harm being done to the country and its citizens by a few bad-actors, who control a few key entry-points to the country.  Also, the thought that others would not be able to do what I did - or better yet, get here much younger than I did, and have more time to enjoy the good life.

[BritTim]

3 hours ago, SammyT said:

You're definitely clutching at straws here. It's pretty blatant that someone who is living here long term, in the same place using only tourist visas and border runs to survive is not a genuine tourist. You know the one, has a Thai gf who they have been living with for a year, or works from an apartment they have been renting for the last 9 months. It's pretty well common sense that this person isn't a "tourist" within the spirit of the visa laws. I suspect you're one of these people, hence why you are arguing the point so hard. 

I believe this is a disagreement about the conditions under which immigration should deny entry to those trying to enter with a tourist visa. On the one hand are people who think the official's decision should be determined by the relevant law (which is perfectly clear in the Immigration Act). On the other side are those who think Thai immigration laws ought to be more akin to most other countries and, regardless of what Thai law prescribes, seek to impose what they consider a more logical set of rules.

 

My own view is that Thai law ought to take precedence. If those laws are defective, they should be changed, at least to the extent of adding something to Section 12 of the Immigration Act like "Officials can deny entry if in their judgement the traveller is seeking to enter for reasons other than those specified on their visa". Currently no such provision exists and, on the contrary, the Immigration Act states that officials have no discretion with only the Minister allowed to make exceptions.

 

The current law (and failure to change it) may seem contrary to Western logic, but I believe it to be based on sound reasoning, even if rather outdated. It seeks to minimise the scope for corruption. Unfortunately, senior officials in Thailand have a lot of autonomy, even when their actions are not lawful. As a result, the attempt to prevent officials from having too much power and monetising that power is not very successful.

[SammyT]

1 hour ago, JackThompson said:

 

 

I am now within a couple months from the age to get a retirement-visa, so this really isn't "about me."  The issue, for me, really is about the harm being done to the country and its citizens by a few bad-actors, who control a few key entry-points to the country.  Also, the thought that others would not be able to do what I did - or better yet, get here much younger than I did, and have more time to enjoy the good life.

Yes, how dare they stop people from living here semi-permanently and long term on tourist visas, just because that's what you did. I doubt it is doing any harm to the country at all. Regular tourists will still come, even those who want to stay for the duration of two tourist visas will still come. It's just the long term residents who don't qualify for other things and are too cheap to stump up for an elite visa who won't come. And I'm pretty sure they're fine with that. The ex-bar girls will find someone else to marry.

[SammyT]

16 minutes ago, BritTim said:

I believe this is a disagreement about the conditions under which immigration should deny entry to those trying to enter with a tourist visa. On the one hand are people who think the official's decision should be determined by the relevant law (which is perfectly clear in the Immigration Act). On the other side are those who think Thai immigration laws ought to be more akin to most other countries and, regardless of what Thai law prescribes, seek to impose what they consider a more logical set of rules.

 

My own view is that Thai law ought to take precedence. If those laws are defective, they should be changed, at least to the extent of adding something to Section 12 of the Immigration Act like "Officials can deny entry if in their judgement the traveller is seeking to enter for reasons other than those specified on their visa". Currently no such provision exists and, on the contrary, the Immigration Act states that officials have no discretion with only the Minister allowed to make exceptions.

 

The current law (and failure to change it) may seem contrary to Western logic, but I believe it to be based on sound reasoning, even if rather outdated. It seeks to minimise the scope for corruption. Unfortunately, senior officials in Thailand have a lot of autonomy, even when their actions are not lawful. As a result, the attempt to prevent officials from having too much power and monetising that power is not very successful.

Completely agree with this. In New Zealand the immigration officials have the mandate to deny someone entry who they believe is flouting the conditions of their visa (i.e. not a tourist, intending to work on the tourist visa etc) or if they believe they are of bad character. A nice blanket law that allows them to use their professional discretion. 

 

No one has quite pointed out exactly what an IO here gets out of refusing someone entry who is repetitively using tourist visas. No one has said they've been asked for a bribe etc. I suspect it's not because the IO hates white people, I'm sure it's literally because they don't believe the person is a legitimate tourist, which they clearly aren't in the situations described by many above