Has anyone been denied entry with a valid tourist visa?

[elviajero]

9 minutes ago, Thailand Outcast said:

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.

All I know for a fact is that the visa is meant for retirees. But as long as the retiree is not doing any work on Thai soil they are not breaking any laws.

[Thailand Outcast]

3 minutes ago, elviajero said:

All I know for a fact is that the visa is meant for retirees. But as long as the retiree is not doing any work on Thai soil they are not breaking any laws.

So why not create a similar visa for those under 50?  They don't work, much the same as retirees. 

 

There's no correct visa for these people, hence, they come in on tourist visas, and now immigration are giving them a hard time, rather than make an appropriate visa for them, with criteria that they have to meet, so all this uncertainty and BS can finally end.

[Thailand Outcast]

16 minutes ago, elviajero said:

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.

 

 

Well, then they can do like the USA and other countries. 

 

You must notify Thai immigration, online, prior to your visit.  The computer does the rest. 

 

Yeah, I know, it's rocket science.  ????

 

How does it screw things up for everyone? 180 days is 180 days, for all, it doesn't discriminate, unlike the immigration officers. 

Edited April 22, 2019 by Thailand Outcast

[elviajero]

3 minutes ago, Thailand Outcast said:

So why not create a similar visa for those under 50?  They don't work, much the same as retirees. 

 

There's no correct visa for these people, hence, they come in on tourist visas, and now immigration are giving them a hard time, rather than make an appropriate visa for them, with criteria that they have to meet, so all this uncertainty and BS can finally end.

There are loads of changes they could - definitely should - make to the visa system.

 

Every country has it's own rules and quoters for the types of visitors. Thailand clearly want actual tourists that visit, spend money and go home, but is happy under certain conditions to give other visitors long stays under strict criteria. The age limit and financial requirements for retirees are mainly to control numbers.

 

All countries have a new problem that many people can afford to retire early or have the ability to work remotely and I guess they will work out how to handle that over time.

[elviajero]

9 minutes ago, Thailand Outcast said:

Well, then they can do like the USA and other countries. 

 

You must notify Thai immigration, online, prior to your visit.  The computer does the rest. 

 

Yeah, I know, it's rocket science.  ????

Problem is their computer isn't up to it; yet! The consulates/embassies aren't linked and immigration are using at least three - mostly unlinked - databases that I know of.

 

9 minutes ago, Thailand Outcast said:

How does it screw things up for everyone? 180 days is 180 days, for all, it doesn't discriminate, unlike the immigration officers. 

Because lots of people have been living in Thailand for years using TR's. I've got several mates that would be royally screwed if a 180 day limit got imposed. And based on posts over the years there are lots of members in that same boat.

 

A 180 day limit does not stop most of those getting denied from getting denied, but it would send a lot of people home that are currently getting a way with it. I'm on the side of the long term tourist, not immigration - contrary to what some would believe.

 

I get that a limit provides certainty, but that certainty comes at a cost and IMO it negatively affects far more people than the few being denied.

[elviajero]

2 hours ago, lkv said:

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.

I meant there is no formal procedure to prove your financial status because it’s unnecessary for a short stay visit/visa. Unlike actual long term visas/permits where you have to provide the info when getting the visa or permit.

 

No developed immigration system is going to allow someone waving wads of cash or a bank statement at the border, as some suggest Thai immigration should allow.

[Wytchend]

Hi Guys, I’m really confused about this imaginary 180 day limit IO’s are enforcing.

I come to Suvarnabhumi on a SETV 60 day, with return tickets to Australia, and the valid visa from the Thai Consulate.

I have been spending 60 days here & 30-40 days with my kids in Oz

I questioned the embassy last month after reading posts here, and was assured there is no limit to these.

Essentially I have been spending 8-9 months a year here.
I have passive income in OZ, not working. Not breaking 1 Thai law.

Now it’s apparent, despite my valid visa status I am almost certainly going to be refused entry on a point of law that doesn’t exist.

Am I totally powerless at immigration?
To be honest, I’m on the verge of quitting Thailand for Vietnam now.

I just want somewhere to chill & spend my money, and Thailand doesn’t appear to want it anymore.

So very sad, because I have so many friends here & I’m extremely fond of the Thai people.

I currently spend about 100,000 Baht a month, yet feel like I’m just a common criminal being rejected from a place I love spending time.

Guess there’s nothing more I can do but pack up. The argument with immigration about fictitious interpretations of the law will be pointless when they play out!


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[elviajero]

17 minutes ago, Wytchend said:

Now it’s apparent, despite my valid visa status I am almost certainly going to be refused entry on a point of law that doesn’t exist.

The chances of you being denied entry are very small.

 

They are stopping people that are clearly living in the country or suspected of working. Your pattern doesn’t suggest you’re either.

 

If you’re that worried you could always split your time between Oz, Thailand and Vietnam. But if I were you I’d keep doing what you’re doing until/if someone stops you.

 

[Wytchend]

Guys, my concern here, is that I have lawfully obtained a 60 day visa from my departure country prior to travel.

What legal right does an IO have to deny someone that has entered legally with a valid visa
The Thai Consulate in Brisbane make all the checks in accordance with Thai law, prior to issuance.
If they are happy (and please bear in mind they keep my passport while they make the necessary checks) then an IO should not be able to disregard it.

It’s tantamount to to stealing, after I’ve spent almost $1,000 on a plane ticket.
If I get stopped, I will stand my ground and call the issuing Consulate from the airport immigration office.

Thais culture of not losing face means I doubt there is any recourse, except to spend millions of future Baht in Thailand’s Neighbour!

A country that by all accounts is loving and benefitting from Thailand’s anti farang policy


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[Scott]

 

An inflammatory report has been reported and removed.  

 

[elviajero]

20 minutes ago, Wytchend said:

Guys, my concern here, is that I have lawfully obtained a 60 day visa from my departure country prior to travel.

What legal right does an IO have to deny someone that has entered legally with a valid visa
The Thai Consulate in Brisbane make all the checks in accordance with Thai law, prior to issuance.
If they are happy (and please bear in mind they keep my passport while they make the necessary checks) then an IO should not be able to disregard it.

It’s tantamount to to stealing, after I’ve spent almost $1,000 on a plane ticket.
If I get stopped, I will stand my ground and call the issuing Consulate from the airport immigration office.

Thais culture of not losing face means I doubt there is any recourse, except to spend millions of future Baht in Thailand’s Neighbour!

A country that by all accounts is loving and benefitting from Thailand’s anti farang policy

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

A visa does not guarantee entry to the country. Immigration can deny entry for any reason in the immigration act or regulation issued by the MOI.

 

The MFA website.

10.  Royal Thai Embassies and Royal Thai Consulates-General have the authority to issue visas to foreigners for travel to Thailand.  The authority to permit entry and stay in Thailand, however, is with the immigration officers.  In some cases, the immigration officer may not permit foreigner holding a valid visa entry into Thailand should the immigration officer find reason to believe that he or she falls into the category of aliens prohibited from entering Thailand under the Immigration Act B.E. 2522 (1979).

http://www.mfa.go.th/main/en/services/4908/15405-General-information.html

 

If you are denied you have the right to appeal. Phoning the Brisbane consulate is not going to help. 

Edited April 22, 2019 by elviajero

[Wytchend]

A visa does not guarantee entry to the country. Immigration can deny entry for any reason in the immigration act or regulation issued by the MOI.
 
The MFA website.
10.  Royal Thai Embassies and Royal Thai Consulates-General have the authority to issue visas to foreigners for travel to Thailand.  The authority to permit entry and stay in Thailand, however, is with the immigration officers.  In some cases, the immigration officer may not permit foreigner holding a valid visa entry into Thailand should the immigration officer find reason to believe that he or she falls into the category of aliens prohibited from entering Thailand under the Immigration Act B.E. 2522 (1979).
http://www.mfa.go.th/main/en/services/4908/15405-General-information.html
 
If you are denied you have the right to appeal. Phoning the Brisbane consulate is not going to help. 

Thank you.
So I would be effectively be refused entry for breaking a 180 day rule, (too many times) which actually doesn’t exist.

Can they not be challenged on it at immigration? Or could I have it escalated to a supervisor.

Coming from Australia I’d be close to $2000 out of pocket once I bought a return ticket on the spot.

I have never done visa runs before. Never overstayed, never crossed the road on a red man!
So you have to use the airline you arrived on, if I went on Laos? I suppose I could give it a go?

My next trip back to Bangkok will be in June & that one gives me my 4th 60 day visa in 12 months.
That will be my day of reckoning I think?


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[lkv]

3 hours ago, elviajero said:

I meant there is no formal procedure to prove your financial status because it’s unnecessary for a short stay visit/visa. Unlike actual long term visas/permits where you have to provide the info when getting the visa or permit.

 

No developed immigration system is going to allow someone waving wads of cash or a bank statement at the border, as some suggest Thai immigration should allow.

In the developed Immigration systems that I was mentioning it works like this:

 

- how long will you be staying?

- where will you be staying?

- what are you planning to do while you are here?

- how are you able to support yourself during the extended period of time?

- are you planning to work?

- can you show us anything that proves you are in a position to support yourself while in vacation and you don't need to work?

 

If the answers are logical and they convince the IO, you will be allowed entry.

 

For Thailand, if the above does not fit Thai logic (for free), tea money remains an option as a last resort.

 

PS In all fairness it works in Thailand also, I read reports of people being grilled and allowed entry.

Edited April 22, 2019 by lkv

[elviajero]

31 minutes ago, Wytchend said:

Thank you.
So I would be effectively be refused entry for breaking a 180 day rule, (too many times) which actually doesn’t exist.

Can they not be challenged on it at immigration? Or could I have it escalated to a supervisor.

They can't deny you entry for staying too long (180 days or other), because there is no law or regulation allowing them to do so. So they would pick something else they could make fit. 

 

180 days is an unofficial line that once you cross IO's are supposed look at your entry history and reason for entry more closely.

 

Yes you can appeal, which goes to the Minister of Interior. A supervisor has to sign off the IO's decision to deny entry so once the supervisor has signed it off it's unlikely they'd change their mind. They would hold you in custody until the appeal was heard. They can take 7 days to process the appeal.

 

Although the underlying reason is the time spent in the country you would not be appealing that, but appealing the actual reason given on the expulsion notice. As this policy comes from the top it's unlikely any appeal would be successful, and I wouldn't want to hang around in a detention room for up to 7 days to find out

 

31 minutes ago, Wytchend said:

My next trip back to Bangkok will be in June & that one gives me my 4th 60 day visa in 12 months.
That will be my day of reckoning I think?

Had you stayed over 180 days using back to back visas without breaks in your own country I would be concerned. But I don't think you will have a problem!

Edited April 22, 2019 by elviajero

[Caldera]

4 hours ago, elviajero said:

I've got several mates that would be royally screwed if a 180 day limit got imposed. And based on posts over the years there are lots of members in that same boat.

Please enlighten us; I've always been curious about that group, but don't know anyone personally. Why would they be "royally screwed"? I read that as having a compelling reason to be in Thailand without being able to qualify for any long-term visa/extension. Unless they work here illegally or have a same sex relationship with a Thai, I'm genuinely curious what other scenarios might exist.

 

Those long-term tourists I know and also myself merely enjoy spending much (or, in many cases, most) of our time in Thailand. While the introduction of a hard limit such as 180 days per year would cause us some short-term inconvenience and the need to adapt, we wouldn't be "royally screwed" in any shape or form. As I've said before, personally I'd prefer clarity, as it helps with making plans.

[Wytchend]

Had you stayed over 180 days using back to back visas without breaks in your own country I would be concerned. But I don't think you will have a problem!

Thank you for your advice. It’s been invaluable and put my mind at rest a little. Because my kids are in Brisbane I’m always flying back to spend a month or so with them. Of course I always want to stay lawful and I respect Thai immigration laws. I’m lucky to have time and resources to chill and relax here. I suppose some would call me a longer term tourist. But I am just that, and the 60 days works great for me. I’ll be very sad if I get refused for a made up violation. Truthfully I just wish they would make a proper set of rules, and stick to them.
Thanks again


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[elviajero]

57 minutes ago, Caldera said:

Please enlighten us; I've always been curious about that group, but don't know anyone personally. Why would they be "royally screwed"?

I would have thought that was obvious. There are plenty of people that have been living in the country for years using tourist visas. I was a tourist for well over 10 years and lived in the country permanently in-between visa runs. They have lives, wives, girlfriends, boyfriends, kids, jobs, businesses, condos etc., but do not qualify for, or can't meet the criteria for, long term permits.

 

Although the authorities have never actively encouraged long term tourism the tolerance of it over many years lulled some into a false sense of security that has left them in a precarious position; especially if a limit gets imposed.

[bmanly]

They are certainly making it harder and harder for foreigners to get a tourist visa and then be able to use it when you turn up their borders. In the last 2 years I I've been to about 10 countries or so, most don't even need visas, others I can do online with nothing more than a photo and a copy of my bio passport page and they send me the visa by mail or email. Getting into the USA (a simple online check) was much easier than getting into Thailand. They really need to get immigration standards up to scratch here in Thailand. My last tourist visa application needed 7 pages of information including where I was staying, my bank balance print out, flights in and out, a copy of my home driving license to prove where I live. Why so much unnecessary paper work just for a holiday?

Edited April 22, 2019 by bmanly

[jacko45k]

11 hours ago, Thailand Outcast said:

There's no correct visa for these people, hence, they come in on tourist visas, and now immigration are giving them a hard time, rather than make an appropriate visa for them, with criteria that they have to meet, so all this uncertainty and BS can finally end.

If someone is working outside Thailand on a on/off schedule, and using Thailand as a place to live and avoid paying taxes they certainly aren't tourists. Nor is there any such thing as a retirement visa. Why not obtain an Elite Visa? Long term, multiple entry, no need for bank accounts. Paying for the privilege to live in Thailand and getting the tax advantage should be acceptable. 

[Thailand Outcast]

12 hours ago, jacko45k said:

If someone is working outside Thailand on a on/off schedule, and using Thailand as a place to live and avoid paying taxes they certainly aren't tourists. Nor is there any such thing as a retirement visa. Why not obtain an Elite Visa? Long term, multiple entry, no need for bank accounts. Paying for the privilege to live in Thailand and getting the tax advantage should be acceptable. 

Well, the taxation issue muddies the water, somewhat.  Since when has someone's taxation residency determined what Thailand visa they can apply for? 

 

These people pay tax here, whether it be airport tax, VAT, property taxes etc. 

 

Taxation aside, how many months (off the rig, or out of the mine, or in between contracts) do you think would be / could be / should be acceptable, for people in these circumstances? 

[whitemouse]

On 4/13/2019 at 12:33 AM, lkv said:

He said verified examples, not posts from users that joined "yesterday" or joined 2 months ago and have +0 community rating.

 

What does it matter when poster joined?

Chances are, poster registered just to post his story, and ask for help. 

 

Most people who travel Thailand are not TV members, a tiny percentage is, 00.0 something.

[jacko45k]

10 hours ago, Thailand Outcast said:

Well, the taxation issue muddies the water, somewhat.  Since when has someone's taxation residency determined what Thailand visa they can apply for? 

 

These people pay tax here, whether it be airport tax, VAT, property taxes etc. 

 

Taxation aside, how many months (off the rig, or out of the mine, or in between contracts) do you think would be / could be / should be acceptable, for people in these circumstances? 

I presume they do not return to their passport countries every time to keep their days there down. When I was working outside the UK there was a 1/6th rule. Their time in and out of Thailand is what determines their best visa option, if they come and go one month in, one month out, they are not tourists and Visa waivers do not apply.

 

You seem to have some silly idea that paying airport tax is like paying income tax. I would also like to know what property taxes you refer to, as far as I know Thailand does not have any.  

 

What is acceptable? Ask Thai immigration what they are prepared to accept. What is the problem with these people obtaining an Elite Visa to fit their lifestyle? 

Edited April 23, 2019 by jacko45k

[Thailand Outcast]

48 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

I presume they do not return to their passport countries every time to keep their days there down. When I was working outside the UK there was a 1/6th rule. Their time in and out of Thailand is what determines their best visa option, if they come and go one month in, one month out, they are not tourists and Visa waivers do not apply.

 

You seem to have some silly idea that paying airport tax is like paying income tax. I would also like to know what property taxes you refer to, as far as I know Thailand does not have any.  

 

What is acceptable? Ask Thai immigration what they are prepared to accept. What is the problem with these people obtaining an Elite Visa to fit their lifestyle? 

I mentioned airport tax as an example, VAT as well.  Even tourists pay VAT.  There are many indirect taxes that people pay, which contribute to Thailand's economy.  I did not mix it up with income tax. 

 

Look at the ridiculous import taxes on wine here.  That's a lot of tax and excise being made off western tourists and expats on wine alone, which then as a VAT added.  

 

In relation to property taxes, what about stamp duty and transfer fees?  Then again, why would anyone consider buying a property now, when you may not be able to live in it due to visa law changess.    

[jacko45k]

 

5 minutes ago, Thailand Outcast said:

In relation to property taxes, what about stamp duty and transfer fees?  Then again, why would anyone consider buying a property now, when you may not be able to live in it due to visa law changess.

Is someone who owns property here really a tourist?

And how often do people buy and sell  a property? You are talking some peanuts that you would be subject to in any country as a visitor, except a damned sight more to pay in any Western Country.

I live here, pretty much 24/7, my local tax burden is pretty small.  I probably pay more to the UK on a single annual flight in and out of the UK , and don't get me started on their sales tax at 20%.

You keep complaining yet ignore the simple fact it is quite easy to live in Thailand. 

[Thailand Outcast]

23 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

 

Is someone who owns property here really a tourist?

And how often do people buy and sell  a property? You are talking some peanuts that you would be subject to in any country as a visitor, except a damned sight more to pay in any Western Country.

I live here, pretty much 24/7, my local tax burden is pretty small.  I probably pay more to the UK on a single annual flight in and out of the UK , and don't get me started on their sales tax at 20%.

You keep complaining yet ignore the simple fact it is quite easy to live in Thailand. 

I'm not complaining.  I am not in that demographic.

 

These guys work 1 month on and have 1 month off.  I know two of them that bought condos to stay in for their 1 month off.  They have since sold their condos and do not come to Thailand for their 1 month off anymore.

 

If there was one demographic that should have been catered for, it was the FIFO workers.  Younger guys with big money to spend, yet, Thailand rejects them, and their money.

 

My point being, as heavy consumers, the Thai government did receive some tax revenue from this demographic, however, discussing tax revenue in relation to visas is getting a bit off topic. 

 

I'm sure you are not suggesting someone be issued or declined a visa based on the amount of tax they pay in Thailand. 

[jacko45k]

2 minutes ago, Thailand Outcast said:

If there was one demographic that should have been catered for, it was the FIFO workers.  Younger guys with big money to spend, yet, Thailand rejects them, and their money

They are catered for, an Elite Visa is perfect for them. 

[Thailand Outcast]

1 minute ago, jacko45k said:

They are catered for, an Elite Visa is perfect for them. 

The Elite Visa is perfect for the Thai government.  ????

[jacko45k]

7 minutes ago, Thailand Outcast said:

The Elite Visa is perfect for the Thai government.  ????

It is perfect for Thai immigration too. But honestly, isn't it a matter of about US$3000 per year? 

If they have Thai wives they can get Non-Imm O and marrriage extension.

If over 50 a retirement Extension.

Edited April 24, 2019 by jacko45k

[Thailand Outcast]

28 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

It is perfect for Thai immigration too. But honestly, isn't it a matter of about US$3000 per year? 

If they have Thai wives they can get Non-Imm O and marrriage extension.

If over 50 a retirement Extension.

They are younger guys.  No Thai girlfriends.  No Thai wives. 

 

They drank, ate, and shagged to excess for their 1 month off.  I met a couple of miners from Australia who were the same. 

 

Themselves, and their money, now go to Vietnam, and why, because they come to Thailand for a month, every second month, so they must be working illegally here.  ????

[JackThompson]

On 4/23/2019 at 2:15 AM, elviajero said:

Although the authorities have never actively encouraged long term tourism the tolerance of it over many years lulled some into a false sense of security that has left them in a precarious position; especially if a limit gets imposed.

The "tolerance of it over many years" is called a precedent.  If there were an explicit rule regarding previous time-in-country, which was being ignored, one could say they "were not following the rules before," but there is no such rule.  What they were "doing before," was following the law (and still are, at most entry-points).

 

On 4/22/2019 at 5:42 PM, elviajero said:

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!

It hasn't changed in quite a while, actually.  There is still just one known-problem land-border entry point, which became bad after a bomber entered there, and "hard-liners" were sent to run it.  The rest are some (but not all) airports.

 

No one is deying there are some IO's of a supervisory rank that want fewer farangs here, but as the denials (based on lies) only happen at select entry points, and no legitimate rule is published, makes clear this is not an action officially-sanctioned from the top.  Some at the top may like it, but are unable to get a consensus to support an official rule-change.

 

On 4/22/2019 at 5:42 PM, elviajero said:

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. 

This is published no where.  Why would going to their "home country" even be relevant?

 

Quote

They are not, and have never been, meant to be used to live in the country.

They don't and aren't - unless someone overstays.  90-days is the max one can get, and only when immigration, themselves, approves an extension - as they do routinely, proving there is no rule - even a secret one - disapproving those who stay more frequently.

 

Quote

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.

It is not "at fault" for an officer of the law to uphold the laws of the country.  A backhanded and dishonest skirting of the law is what is happening in these "denial" cases using 12(2).

 

On 4/22/2019 at 5:42 PM, 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.

No one is.  They only approve 60-days permitted-stay on-entry with a Tourist Visa, or 30 days visa-exempt.

 

Quote

You are only asked to prove you have 'pocket money'. 20K isn't going last 60/90 days.

Yet, that would seem to be what it was originally intended for, and it is the same amount required to show at a consulate to get a Tourist Visa - exactly the same sum.

 

If they wish to change the money rules to obtain visas, that is their choice.  They could also change the "money in your pocket" requirement upon entry - to spite the fact people only need maybe 5K of "pocket money" at most, with ATMs everywhere.

 

On 4/22/2019 at 5:42 PM, elviajero said:

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.

Yes, they can be dishonest all they want - that is clear.  And not only at entry points - with their long-stay rules, and at various immigration offices across the country. 

 

On 4/22/2019 at 5:42 PM, elviajero said:

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!

The dishonest IOs who are blocking entry using a lie still do not control all the entry points.  They may some day - which would complete your proverbial "wall." 

 

Imagine building a "wall" to prevent self-funded people from spending their own money which helps your own citizens.  Immigration have even less concern for Thais than they do for us, given they cannot extort the Thais.

Edited April 24, 2019 by JackThompson