Has anyone been denied entry with a valid tourist visa?

[lkv]

9 hours ago, JackThompson said:

One fellow - they rejected his entry on an METV - was told they did it because he used law-abiding land-borders for some previous METV entries. 

There are honest IOs at many entry-points, but the corrupt * IOs HATE them.

It's exactly land border activity that triggers a red flag in an airport.

 

If one exits repeatedly at Nong Khai every 60/90 days, on his last day of permission of stay, it's quite obvious what that person is doing, even to a school student.

 

I'm not discussing the legality of it, I am just stating what raises red flags when an IO flips through the passport.

Edited April 21, 2019 by lkv

[JackThompson]

6 hours ago, lkv said:

It's exactly land border activity that triggers a red flag in an airport.

 

If one exits repeatedly at Nong Khai every 60/90 days, on his last day of permission of stay, it's quite obvious what that person is doing, even to a school student.

 

I'm not discussing the legality of it, I am just stating what raises red flags when an IO flips through the passport.

There is no question what people "are doing" - they are following Thailand's immigration laws/rules as written.  If visitors did the same thing via air, the result would likely be problems in short-order. 

 

What the IOs at the airport hate, is that the law-abiding land border IOs let visitors "get away" with following the actual laws, as contrasted to the illegal rules airport IOs are imposing.

[Guest]

I've never even applied for a tourist visa (just a reasonable number of exemption stamps and a non-B). I understand how some people view these people as pushing the boundaries of tourism. Clearly, some IOs are taking it into their own hands to push back against people they see as gaming the system, using laughable fig leaves like 12(2).

 

But the bottom line is that these travelers are following the law. They meet the definition of "tourist," and they're entitled to apply for tourist visas. Sadly, the actions of these IOs reinforce the perception that Thailand is not a nation of laws, that there is hostility toward farangs, etc. 

 

There have been lots of good posts in this thread (kudos particularly to JackThompson), but one things really jumps out at me: the sophistry of IO apologists like elviajero (ironic given his name: "the traveler.").

 

On 4/12/2019 at 6:43 PM, BritTim said:

Immigration officials at most land crossings deny entry strictly according to the reasons given by Section 12 of the Immigration Act. At some airports, while citing Section 12 (2) of the Immigration Act as the reason for denied entry, this is actually a bogus use of that subsection, with the real reason being that the immigration official believes the tourist visa was wrongly issued by the consulate (not officially a valid reason for denied entry).

 

On 4/13/2019 at 3:06 AM, elviajero said:

And until you or others can provide evidence that these denials, at multiple borders, are unlawful your opinions should be ignored. Report after report prove you’re wrong.

Having read dozens of these threads and many other accounts elsewhere, the evidence is pretty compelling. Here's where the sophistry really jumps into high gear:

 

On 4/13/2019 at 3:06 AM, elviajero said:

If someone has spent too long in the country as a tourist, AND they qualify to be denied entry for any reason under the immigration act or regulation, they can be denied.

 

IO’s cannot, and do not, deny entry specifically for time spent as a tourist even though it’s the underlying reason, but there is nothing stopping them using other qualifying reasons, which is what happens.

As the saying goes, "I see what you did there." But it's laughable and includes two false premises. First is the whole "too long in the country as a tourist" canard. Second is that they're failing to meet some "reason" under the law. There's no intersection between the two here (at least not in the law itself), and yet you link them--and you even acknowledge that they can't deny entry based on previous lengths of stay in Thailand, but they do anyway. Simply claiming that there are "other qualifying reasons" is a joke, as the evidence presented in forums like these is that these people are being (falsely) accused of not having insufficient means to support themselves. Furthermore, the fact that the IOs are not interested in any documentation which would prove that the traveler has sufficient means makes this abundantly clear. The bottom line is that these people are being bounced because they've stayed too long and/or entered too often, but that there is no provision in the law preventing this, so the IOs are committing an act of fraud by disqualifying the traveler for a bogus reason.

 

elviajero essentially admits this:

On 4/13/2019 at 4:18 AM, acenase said:

How would somebody get out of 12 (2) since that seems to be the most common reason. 

On 4/13/2019 at 4:54 AM, elviajero said:

12 (2) is a catch all. In simple terms they are saying that you've lived in the country for a long time and you want to come in again, but most people need to work to live in a foreign country, or have money in the bank, or a passive income, and as you're not working they have no idea how you support yourself.

 

The underlying reason for denial is the time spent in the country; and although there is no law/regulation setting a specific limit IO's are under orders to deny entry using any law/regulation that qualifies.

 

In "simple terms," this argument is complete garbage. You acknowledge that the text of 12(2) has nothing to do with "you stay too long!" but is about appropriate support. What the IOs are doing by citing this as the cause, without actually investigating the support issue (and willfully ignoring evidence the travelers can provide that refutes that suspicion), is violating the law and the rights of travelers.

 

Look, I get that there is skepticism about folks spending a lot of time in Thailand and racking up lots of visas, extensions, and exemptions. It's perfectly legitimate for IOs to engage in investigations of suspicious behavior. The fact that there are "triggers" that flag travelers as suspicious based on the number of entries is fine. Maybe the person is engaged in criminal activity, smuggling, immigration violations (overstays), working illegally, etc. For single women there is often a suspicion of sex trafficking, and a female friend of mine has encountered heightened scrutiny in some countries. But that scrutiny must be confined to the law. Bring the drug sniffing dog. Check the financial documents. Ask questions to make sure the person is coming in of their own free will and not coming for a prohibited purpose. But that's it, especially on a visa (there is, arguably, more leeway to deny entry on a visa exemption).

 

On 4/14/2019 at 12:30 PM, elviajero said:

It doesn’t matter what the underlying reason is. As long as they follow formal procedure and deny entry quoting a qualifying law/regulation, there’s nothing you can do other than appeal at the time of denial. And that’s almost certainly a

waste of time.

Absurd. Simply quoting a law/regulation doesn't matter if it's not applicable. The substantive basis of the determination is relevant. How would you feel if I hated your skin color, religion, or hat, and denied you entry into my country by citing a law banning entry for unaccompanied minors, or farm animals, or corpses? You'd pull out your ID and protest "I'm 48 years old!" but I stick my fingers in my ears and close my eyes and scream "I am not listening!!!" I'd be breaking the law. 

 

It would be legislation by IO. As JackThompson insightfully writes:

On 4/15/2019 at 11:31 PM, JackThompson said:

What is desired, is if they simply Followed Their Own Rules / Laws - or changed them if they don't like them as-is. 
[...]

Given the inconsistency, and the twisting of rules inconsistent with their stated reasoning, it would appear the IO/Supervisors doing this to visitors are unable get the rule-changes they want, so are going around the rules to carry out their agenda.

Yep. And what's more, they're contravening the decisions of consular officers, who are responsible for determining whether to grant visa applications. If the IO disagrees with the decision to grant a traveler a visa, they need a firm basis in law to deny entry. 

 

All the arguments over whether people have stayed too long to be "tourists" are moot. Those are policy decisions, not discretionary decisions to be made arbitrarily by IOs at an airport or land border. You can make an argument that foreigners should be limited to 180 days a year, or no more than 90 days consecutively, or whatever. Or the publicized policies of consular officers should change, resulting in these travelers' visa applications being denied. Change the law. Make the policies clear, transparent, and consistent. The alternative is arbitrariness, corruption, and disrespect for the law.

 

On 4/13/2019 at 4:54 AM, elviajero said:

12 (2) is a catch all. In simple terms they are saying that you've lived in the country for a long time and you want to come in again, but most people need to work to live in a foreign country, or have money in the bank, or a passive income, and as you're not working they have no idea how you support yourself.

 

The underlying reason for denial is the time spent in the country; and although there is no law/regulation setting a specific limit IO's are under orders to deny entry using any law/regulation that qualifies.

It can be argued, it is being argued, and it's true. Again, you resort to sophistry here. It's pure argument by definition. Ah, they're being "pragmatists" to "weed out some of the worst offenders." Offenders of what? Your pragmatic view. Not the law itself, as you admit. If you think "long-term tourists" should be subjected to different rules, change the rules.

 

On the other hand, if you're like me, you want fairness and consistency. If you apply for a visa and you're deemed eligible, you don't want some power-hungry troll at the airport to veto that visa decision and make up a fake reason to deny you entry.

 

On 4/13/2019 at 4:54 AM, elviajero said:

A long term tourist can clearly afford to stay long term, but waving bank statements or wads of cash at the border is not the time nor place to demonstrate you're appropriate means of living, especially when the fact you're not supposed to be living in the country as a tourist renders it irrelevant.

So you admit that the border is not the appropriate place to be making those determinations (you're right: the consulate is, and they've decided to grant the visa), but you're apologizing for those determinations being fraudulently made by IOs. Again with the argument by definition here, also ("you're not supposed to be living in the country"), which JackThompson has appropriately debunked. You're not living. You're staying for a specific period (30/60/90 days) under the terms of your stamp/visa. The past is irrelevant. The law does not prohibit repeated stays. If you disagree with the law change it, or at minimum instruct consulates to make their determinations under different guidelines. The border is no place to be making policy.

 

Then again, you prove that it's all about money, anyway:

 

On 4/13/2019 at 4:54 AM, elviajero said:

Anyone wanting to stay long term has to buy their way in (Investment type visa) or show they have a job, money in the bank, or a foreign income. 

Under what policy? Sure, there are investment visas and elite visas. But show me the policy where a person granted a 60-day tourist visa can't get entry because they don't have 3 million baht.

 

Section 12 is pretty clear on the amount needed to prove one can sustain themselves during their stay (be it on an exemption or a visa). So you're OK with that amount...but only if it's once? And you're OK with the IO falsely declaring that a person lacks adequate support ("not enough money") when the real reason is ("you come too often"). But then you're also OK with a person buying their way in, as long as it's at a different price point?

 

Look, I get the "pragmatic" objections you have. You're entitled to them. But you're not only encouraging lawlessness (and defending it), but you're being a total hypocrite. According to you, one shouldn't be able to be in the country "long term" (even though they're complying with stay limits and being approved for visas by the government) simply by demonstrating that they meet the financial requirements of the law. But they should be able to be in the country "long term" if they meet some higher financial standard far being what a tourist would need to sustain themselves.

Edited April 22, 2019 by Guest
fixed a typo

[lkv]

19 minutes ago, GrumblesMcGee said:

Sadly, the actions of these IOs reinforce the perception that Thailand is not a nation of laws, that there is hostility toward farangs, etc. 

They reinforce the reality.

 

Thailand is not a nation of laws (or at least they can all be bended), and they keep their mouths shut when it comes to Chinese travellers (and some other preferred Asian nations), not to kill the golden goose.

 

Very good post btw.

Edited April 22, 2019 by lkv

[elviajero]

56 minutes ago, GrumblesMcGee said:

Look, I get the "pragmatic" objections you have. You're entitled to them. But you're not only encouraging lawlessness (and defending it), but you're being a total hypocrite. According to you, one shouldn't be able to be in the country "long term" (even though they're complying with stay limits and being approved for visas by the government) simply by demonstrating that they meet the financial requirements of the law. But they should be able to be in the country "long term" if they meet some higher financial standard far being what a tourist would need to sustain themselves

I'm not encouraging or defending lawlessness. And I'm not an apologist. I simply explain what they do and why they are in their right to do it as long as they follow formal procedure, which in virtually every case they do.

 

Everything immigration have done since 2006 is to discourage and reduce long term tourists. Limits on land borders, limits on tourist visas, etc; the evidence is overwhelming. What is happening at the airports is just a continuation of that clampdown; and to believe (Jack et al.) that the IO's are acting independently, or are part of an anti foreigner clique at the lawless unsupervised international airports, is laughable. His list of "bad entry points" grows every week. Soon the only option will be swimming the Mekong under cover of darkness!

 

The Thai visa system is very simple. Tourist visas are for short term visits for people holidaying in the country that go home to their lives/jobs in their home country. They are not, and have never been, meant to be used to live in the country. The authorities are at fault for letting me and others do that for years, but as the numbers of people doing it grew too high they decided to do something about it.

 

If you want to live in the country long term you need a long term visa/permit. VE or a SETV isn't one. Just because someone goes over the border every now and then does not mean they are not living in the country.

 

There is no way to prove you have the appropriate means to live in the country as a tourist, because it's a tourist entry and you're not meant to be living in the country. You are only asked to prove you have 'pocket money'. 20K isn't going last 60/90 days.

 

You and Jack can whinge and deny reality all you like, but if the Thai authorities want to give discretional power to their border force to deny entry to long term visitors (claiming they a visiting for tourism) using any qualifying reason they like in the immigration act; they can, and it's lawful if they follow formal procedure.

 

I've been helping people work around the system for years, but I am a pragmatist and instead of bleating about the nasty wasty IO's, I work around the problem until I hit a brick wall. The brick wall for long term tourism is nearly built!

Edited April 22, 2019 by elviajero

[elviajero]

53 minutes ago, lkv said:

1 hour ago, GrumblesMcGee said:

Sadly, the actions of these IOs reinforce the perception that Thailand is not a nation of laws, that there is hostility toward farangs, etc. 

They reinforce the reality.

 

Thailand is not a nation of laws (or at least they can all be bended), and they keep their mouths shut when it comes to Chinese travellers (and some other preferred Asian nations), not to kill the golden goose.

 

Very good post btw.

The reality is that there were over 5 million tourist entries last year by the top 17 (by number) western countries, and you think denying entry to a few long term tourists trying to live in the country (most admit the fact) with inappropriate visas creates a perception of hostility; LOL!

[Gweiloman]

I'm not encouraging or defending lawlessness. And I'm not an apologist. I simply explain what they do and why they are in their right to do it as long as they follow formal procedure, which in virtually every case they do.
 
Everything immigration have done since 2006 is to discourage and reduce long term tourists. Limits on land borders, limits on tourist visas, etc; the evidence is overwhelming. What is happening at the airports is just a continuation of that clampdown; and to believe (Jack et al.) that the IO's are acting independently, or are part of an anti foreigner clique at the lawless unsupervised international airports, is laughable. His list of "bad entry points" grows every week. Soon the only option will be swimming the Mekong under cover of darkness!
 
The Thai visa system is very simple. Tourist visas are for short term visits for people holidaying in the country that go home to their lives/jobs in their home country. They are not, and have never been, meant to be used to live in the country. The authorities are at fault for letting me and others do that for years, but as the numbers of people doing it grew too high they decided to do something about it.
 
If you want to live in the country long term you need a long term visa/permit. VE or a SETV isn't one. Just because someone goes over the border every now and then does not mean they are not living in the country.
 
There is no way to prove you have the appropriate means to live in the country as a tourist, because it's a tourist entry and you're not meant to be living in the country. You are only asked to prove you have 'pocket money'. 20K isn't going last 60/90 days.
 
You and Jack can whinge and deny reality all you like, but if the Thai authorities want to give discretional power to their border force to deny entry to long term visitors (claiming they a visiting for tourism) using any qualifying reason they like in the immigration act; they can, and it's lawful if they follow formal procedure.
 
I've been helping people work around the system for years, but I am a pragmatist and instead of bleating about the nasty wasty IO's, I work around the problem until I hit a brick wall. The brick wall for long term tourism is nearly built!

Good post. I used to have a regional job covering Asia and made Thailand my homebase, travelling in and out on visa exempt. I would typically stay 1-2 weeks in Thailand before leaving for a few days to a couple of weeks. Did this successfully for a few years, from around 2008-2013.
However I saw the writing on the wall and decided to go the retirement route. Since then, I have had nothing but incident and hassle free immigration encounters.
Thailand does not (or did not) have issues with long term tourists. They just wanted us to have the appropriate visa. Tourist visas (SETV or METV) are not the right kind of visa for long stay purposes.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[elviajero]

12 minutes ago, Gweiloman said:

Good post. I used to have a regional job covering Asia and made Thailand my homebase, travelling in and out on visa exempt. I would typically stay 1-2 weeks in Thailand before leaving for a few days to a couple of weeks. Did this successfully for a few years, from around 2008-2013.
However I saw the writing on the wall and decided to go the retirement route. Since then, I have had nothing but incident and hassle free immigration encounters.
Thailand does not (or did not) have issues with long term tourists. They just wanted us to have the appropriate visa. Tourist visas (SETV or METV) are not the right kind of visa for long stay purposes.
Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

You did the right thing!

 

I hate to be pedantic, but people often confuse visitor with tourist. We are all visitors (not tourists);  tourism is just one reason for allowing a visitor to enter.

 

The Thai authorities do not have issues with long term visitors, but they clearly have a problem with long term tourists.

Edited April 22, 2019 by elviajero

[lkv]

42 minutes ago, elviajero said:

There is no way to prove you have the appropriate means to live in the country as a tourist, because it's a tourist entry and you're not meant to be living in the country. You are only asked to prove you have 'pocket money'. 20K isn't going last 60/90 days.

 

Yes, there are ways to prove one's financial status, if they would be taken into account, like in some other more developed Immigration systems.

 

This however, is not a developed Immigration system, full of holes and inconsistencies, that reflects the level of the country itself, no matter how well they want to polish it, to look good.

 

Edited April 22, 2019 by lkv

[bmanly]

12 minutes ago, elviajero said:

You did the right thing!

What exactly, is the right visa for a person who visits every year to get away from winter at home for 4 to 5 Months? Thank you.

[Thailand Outcast]

28 minutes ago, Gweiloman said:

Good post. I used to have a regional job covering Asia and made Thailand my homebase, travelling in and out on visa exempt. I would typically stay 1-2 weeks in Thailand before leaving for a few days to a couple of weeks. Did this successfully for a few years, from around 2008-2013.
However I saw the writing on the wall and decided to go the retirement route. Since then, I have had nothing but incident and hassle free immigration encounters.
Thailand does not (or did not) have issues with long term tourists. They just wanted us to have the appropriate visa. Tourist visas (SETV or METV) are not the right kind of visa for long stay purposes.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

It's my understanding you are not supposed to be working, either in Thailand, or abroad, whilst having a retirement visa.  I could be wrong, but I remember something like that.

[Thailand Outcast]

38 minutes ago, elviajero said:

The reality is that there were over 5 million tourist entries last year by the top 17 (by number) western countries, and you think denying entry to a few long term tourists trying to live in the country (most admit the fact) with inappropriate visas creates a perception of hostility; LOL!

 

"a few long term tourists trying to live in the country"

 

Can you define the use of your words "live in Thailand" and feel free to speak on behalf of Thai Immigration as well, as they don't seem to know, either.

 

Is it more that 180 days a year?

 

Is it how many time you enter?

 

For example, does an offshore oil rig guy doing 1 month on and 1 month off classify as "living" in Thailand? 

 

I am interested to know, at Thai law, at what point, OFFICIALLY, can you be deemed as "living in Thailand."

[elviajero]

1 minute ago, bmanly said:

What exactly, is the right visa for a person who visits every year to get away from winter at home for 4 to 5 Months? Thank you.

There isn't a visa to provide a 4/5 month stay. The most convenient option would probably be a Multiple Entry Tourist Visa (METV). You would get 60 days on entry that can be extended by 30 days; after which you'd need to exit and return for a new 60 day stay - also extendable if required.

 

If you can't get a METV you could get a Single Entry Tourist Visa (SETV) in your home country. That would give you 60 days on entry, extendable by 30 days. At the end of the 90 days you could travel to a Thai embassy/consulate in a neighbouring country and apply for another SETV. That would give you another 60/90 days.

OR

After the first 90 days you could do a border hop and re-enter under visa exemption. In that case you'd get a 30 day stay, extendable by 30 days.

[ubonjoe]

6 minutes ago, Thailand Outcast said:

It's my understanding you are not supposed to be working, either in Thailand, or abroad, whilst having a retirement visa.  I could be wrong, but I remember something like that.

No problem to work outside the country. Only inside the country is working not allowed.

[Thailand Outcast]

23 minutes ago, elviajero said:

You did the right thing!

 

I hate to be pedantic, but people often confuse visitor with tourist. We are all visitors (not tourists);  tourism is just one reason for allowing a visitor to enter.

 

The Thai authorities do not have issues with long term visitors, but they clearly have a problem with long term tourists.

If they are one in the same, why have a problem with one, and not the other?

 

There are many reasons why someone does not qualify for a retirement visa, the biggest one being they are under 50 years of age.

 

What about the FIFO workers, or contract workers, or people with passive incomes?  What visa do you suggest for these people, if they are under 50?

[lkv]

8 minutes ago, Thailand Outcast said:

For example, does an offshore oil rig guy doing 1 month on and 1 month off classify as "living" in Thailand? 

 

I am interested to know, at Thai law, at what point, OFFICIALLY, can you be deemed as "living in Thailand."

Very good question.

 

Offshore oil rig guys using visa exempt too many times were "in the wrong", they were molested and advised to use a visa next time, tourist visa that is. ????

 

Reason: "no more free for you, enough".

Edited April 22, 2019 by lkv

[bmanly]

3 minutes ago, elviajero said:

If you can't get a METV you could get a Single Entry Tourist Visa (SETV) in your home country. That would give you 60 days on entry, extendable by 30 days. At the end of the 90 days you could travel to a Thai embassy/consulate in a neighbouring country and apply for another SETV. That would give you another 60/90 days.

So I should never have a problem with 2 single entry tourist visas a year, that's what I do now. All this talking of rejections, detentions and forcing to buy expensive return air tickets with Thai Airways is scaring the sj**s out of me. Thanks

[Thailand Outcast]

14 minutes ago, elviajero said:

There isn't a visa to provide a 4/5 month stay. The most convenient option would probably be a Multiple Entry Tourist Visa (METV). You would get 60 days on entry that can be extended by 30 days; after which you'd need to exit and return for a new 60 day stay - also extendable if required.

 

If you can't get a METV you could get a Single Entry Tourist Visa (SETV) in your home country. That would give you 60 days on entry, extendable by 30 days. At the end of the 90 days you could travel to a Thai embassy/consulate in a neighbouring country and apply for another SETV. That would give you another 60/90 days.

OR

After the first 90 days you could do a border hop and re-enter under visa exemption. In that case you'd get a 30 day stay, extendable by 30 days.

 

"There isn't a visa to provide a 4/5 month stay."

 

Correct, and then you go on to offer advice about how he can LEGALLY be in Thailand for 5 months, but then go and post how these people are NOT LEGAL and should be denied entry.

 

You contradict yourself. 

Edited April 22, 2019 by Thailand Outcast

[elviajero]

14 minutes ago, Thailand Outcast said:

 

"a few long term tourists trying to live in the country"

 

Can you define the use of your words "live in Thailand" and feel free to speak on behalf of Thai Immigration as well, as they don't seem to know, either.

 

Is it more that 180 days a year?

 

Is it how many time you enter?

 

For example, does an offshore oil rig guy doing 1 month on and 1 month off classify as "living" in Thailand? 

 

I am interested to know, at Thai law, at what point, OFFICIALLY, can you be deemed as "living in Thailand."

There is no definition issued by immigration. Thai law considers anyone that has stayed in the country longer than 180 days to be resident.

 

Immigration don't seem bothered by the number of entries, just the cumulative time spent in the country, but there is no official time limit.

 

"Living in Thailand" is subjective, but if someone spends months/years in the same country bar a few border hops, I think it's evident where they are living.

Edited April 22, 2019 by elviajero

[elviajero]

4 minutes ago, bmanly said:

So I should never have a problem with 2 single entry tourist visas a year, that's what I do now. All this talking of rejections, detentions and forcing to buy expensive return air tickets with Thai Airways is scaring the sj**s out of me. Thanks

I don't see you've anything to worry about. All the negative talk is around people trying to live in the country continuosly with no sign or intention of going home.

[Thailand Outcast]

6 minutes ago, lkv said:

Very good question.

 

Offshore oil rig guys using visa exempt too many times were "in the wrong", they were molested and advised to use a visa next time, tourist visa that is. ????

 

Reason: "no more free for you, enough".

Yes.  So they reject millions of baht from this segment of "tourists" because they don't get a small visa free from them, and they only come to Thailand 30 days out of the 60 day visa anyway.  Muppets.

 

Add to the offshore guys, the miners, and merchant navy guys, and that's a lot of money lost.

[elviajero]

5 minutes ago, Thailand Outcast said:

"There isn't a visa to provide a 4/5 month stay."

 

Correct, and then you go on to offer advice about how he can LEGALLY be in Thailand for 5 months, but then go and post how these people are NOT LEGAL.

 

You contradict yourself. 

Where have I ever written that it's illegal to stay in Thailand using a Tourist visa?

 

Answer; NEVER.

[Thailand Outcast]

5 minutes ago, elviajero said:

There is no definition issued by immigration. Thai law considers anyone that has stayed in the country longer than 180 days to be resident.

 

Immigration don't seem bothered by the number of entries, just the cumulative time spent in the country, but there is no official time limit.

 

"Living in Thailand" is subjective, but if someone spends months/years in the same country bar a few border hops, I think it's evident where they are living.

"Thai law considers anyone that has stayed in the country longer than 180 days to be resident."  "but there is no official time limit."

 

Well, that clears that up.  ????

 

Seriously though, yes, obviously a guy doing visa runs is living here, but why not issue clear rules, consistently enforced at ALL boarders, so someone "living" here on tourist visas can actually abide by a law governing their frequency nd duration of visits?

[elviajero]

14 minutes ago, Thailand Outcast said:

If they are one in the same, why have a problem with one, and not the other?

They are not one and the same. You can visit for many reason and stay for a long or short time.

 

The difference is that a long term stay requires the right visa/permit and vetting.

 

14 minutes ago, Thailand Outcast said:

There are many reasons why someone does not qualify for a retirement visa, the biggest one being they are under 50 years of age.

And the reality is that if there is no visa or permit you qualify for, or can afford, you can't stay, OR you have to play the system until someone stops you.

 

14 minutes ago, Thailand Outcast said:

What about the FIFO workers, or contract workers, or people with passive incomes?  What visa do you suggest for these people, if they are under 50?

If not married or a parent of a Thai they have little choice than to use Tourist Visas unless they want to pay out 500K for an PE visa.

 

Just because someones only choice is to use a Tourist Visa it doesn't mean it's the right visa.

[elviajero]

5 minutes ago, Thailand Outcast said:

"Thai law considers anyone that has stayed in the country longer than 180 days to be resident."  "but there is no official time limit."

 

Well, that clears that up.  ????

 

Seriously though, yes, obviously a guy doing visa runs is living here, but why not issue clear rules, consistently enforced at ALL boarders, so someone "living" here on tourist visas can actually abide by a law governing their frequency nd duration of visits?

It's been discussed many times. 

If they do decide to limit time spent in the country to -- almost certainly 180 days -- that ends long term tourism for all. Currently a few get denied while many others still get away with it.

 

IMO the current enforcement, although not ideal, is better than a fixed limit that screws things up for everyone and doesn't help the few being denied.

[elviajero]

42 minutes ago, Thailand Outcast said:

It's my understanding you are not supposed to be working, either in Thailand, or abroad, whilst having a retirement visa.  I could be wrong, but I remember something like that.

You're supposed to be retired (not working) and want permission to stay to live in the country without working. I doubt they would have a problem with someone still working as long as it was abroad, but I wouldn't declare the fact.

[Thailand Outcast]

1 minute ago, elviajero said:

It's been discussed many times. 

If they do decide to limit time spent in the country to -- almost certainly 180 days -- that ends long term tourism for all. Currently a few get denied while many others still get away with it.

 

IMO the current enforcement, although not ideal, is better than a fixed limit that screws things up for everyone and doesn't help the few being denied.

I disagree.

 

It brings certainty to the system, while ensuring no one stays more than 180 days in Thailand on tourist visas. 

 

Isn't the current idea of authorities "to end long term tourism for all?" 

 

So what's wrong with everyone knowing an official amount of days allowed in Thailand per year, and then they can plan their entries? 

[Thailand Outcast]

3 minutes ago, elviajero said:

You're supposed to be retired (not working) and want permission to stay to live in the country without working. I doubt they would have a problem with someone still working as long as it was abroad, but I wouldn't declare the fact.

So, the member obtained their retirement visas fraudulently. (illegally) 

 

So, what "legal" visa would you recommend for them in their circumstances? 

 

You see, many people "living" here "wouldn't declare the fact" they are, when on a tourist visas.  Much the same as people shouldn't be working on a retirement visa.

Edited April 22, 2019 by Thailand Outcast

[yuiop]

It's an absurd thing to deny entry on the base of non existing reasons (180 days, not enough money without even checking, too long in the country, etc).

Change the law, make it clear and apply it.

[elviajero]

1 minute ago, Thailand Outcast said:

I disagree.

 

It brings certainty to the system, while ensuring no one stays more than 180 days in Thailand on tourist visas. 

 

Isn't the current idea of authorities "to end long term tourism for all?" 

 

So what's wrong with everyone knowing an official amount of days allowed in Thailand per year, and then they can plan their entries? 

I agree setting a limit is the right thing to do, but I don't want it to happen because it then screws things up for everyone. IMO the main reason they aren't setting a limit is because the current immigration system is not capable of keeping count. They tried setting a limit years ago and stopped because the IO's spent too much time flicking through passports and counting time spent in the country.