Problems at Savannakhet and Border July 2019 Report

[Date Masamune]

I've been in Thailand since January 2018. But my passport is full of Tourist visas from embassies in other countries. When I traveled to Tokyo, I just came back on free 30 day Visa Exemption stamps and traveled on to other countries and came back without a visa.  I've only gotten visas when I plan to stay the full 90 days out of it. 
 
I don't believe tourists should have a problem if they aren't trying to live in Thailand and return back to their homecountry.  The problems I have is because I haven't returned back to my homecountry and just using Thailand as a hub to travel around.  That's why I feel like they keep pushing the "Not allowed to stay in Thailand more than 6 months of the year" as a warning to prevent being scrutinized heavily by immigration/passport control at the Airport.

It appears the 6 month rule (which does not exist) is in fact being enforced.

In all my years of travel internationally I have only been stamped in one or two times coming into the US and last one was a strange incident with a rouge US Officer on some kind of power trip who likes to waste passport pages in a haphazard and disorderly way. So How could Thailand even tell I had returned to “my country”? Korea doesn’t even stamp passports anymore also they give you a bit of paper. I read Japan is heading in that direction soon.
Every country I travel to digital fingerprints and photos it takes moments.

This is it the 1970s. Please implement a modern unified immigration management system and if Thailand wants a 6 month rule like most other countries IMPLEMENT IT PROPERLY
so rational people can make their travel plans in advance.

[acenase]

3 hours ago, elviajero said:

Can you explain what “corruption” is taking place when people get denied?

 

All sounds like more baseless uninformed conspiracy rhetoric. The simple fact is that since 2006 the authorities have been clamping down on long stay tourism and the most recent focus has been at the airport. 

 

Because there's no law in Section 12 that says you can be denied for coming to Thailand often. As long as you show you have money and can prove you are not working in Thailand.  People who are being denied for (2) Insufficient Funds. When having 20,000 baht cash to show. That's some sort of corruption, right?

 

If people are being denied based on not having money when they have more than enough to support their stay and constantly traveling, not overstaying their visa or trying to hide out in Thailand. Properly providing documentation for a Visa at the Embassy in multiple different countries (not just going to 1 embassy back to back to back) That's a good tourist and shouldn't be reprimanded.

 

If they deny you at the Airport then they should also void your visa, take it to the next step not just turn you away only for you to use the same visa and enter at the border. And at the border, they should also be denying you for the same reasons too. But they don't because they're actually following the law and if they ask to see 20,000 baht then there's no real reason for them to turn you away.

Edited July 13, 2019 by acenase

[lovesthespicy]

They must of just changed the rule there in recent weeks. I was just there 3 weeks ago with 7 TV's in recent years in my passport and they didnt say a word to me. 

[Caldera]

3 hours ago, lovesthespicy said:

They must of just changed the rule there in recent weeks. I was just there 3 weeks ago with 7 TV's in recent years in my passport and they didnt say a word to me. 

Other factors such as your age and nationality might also matter. I once took a risk in Vientiane, when the general assumption was that they will give you that nasty extra stamp when you're applying for the 3rd or 4th SETV from them. I applied for my 4th, no questions were asked and I didn't get that stamp.

 

That said, I don't recall earlier reports of Savannakhet (unlike Vientiane) using that stamp at all. So this might well have changed and could be a result of their much higher number of applicants nowadays.

[elviajero]

4 hours ago, jackdd said:

7 hours ago, elviajero said:

No it’s not, Tourism is limited to a maximum stay of 90 days. It is a Privilege Entry visa issued under investment rules.

 

We are visitors visiting for various reasons, tourism is just one ‘specific’ reason.

https://www.thailandelite.com/faqs?locate=en

 

Quote

Elite Visa is categorized under Tourist Visa

That comment on their website is misleading, wrong, and you’ve only quoted it in part.

 

They say that in context of work and to make it clear that, as with a Tourist Visa, you can’t work and would need a non-immigrant visa.

 

Elite Visa is categorized under Tourist Visa, which does not allow the holder to legally apply for a work permit to work in Thailand. The Non-Immigrant Visa must be cancelled before Privilege Entry Visa is validated.

 

Only visas issued for tourism are Tourist Visa. As I’ve explained already, the PE visa is issued under investment rules, which is why a stay of 1 year per entry is allowed, and why — by law — it can’t be categorised as a Tourist visa.

 

[jackdd]

2 minutes ago, elviajero said:

That comment on their website is misleading, wrong, and you’ve only quoted it in part.

 

They say that in context of work and to make it clear that, as with a Tourist Visa, you can’t work and would need a non-immigrant visa.

They could also have written:

Elite Visa is categorized under Investment Visa, which does not allow the holder to legally apply for a work permit to work in Thailand. The Non-Immigrant Visa must be cancelled before Privilege Entry Visa is validated.

Which would make it equally clear

 

2 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Only visas issued for tourism are Tourist Visa. As I’ve explained already, the PE visa is issued under investment rules, which is why a stay of 1 year per entry is allowed, and why — by law — it can’t be categorised as a Tourist visa.

Do you have any official source which says the PE visa is issued under investment rules or is this again one of your opinions, which you present as fact?

 

[elviajero]

4 hours ago, acenase said:

 

Because there's no law in Section 12 that says you can be denied for coming to Thailand often. As long as you show you have money and can prove you are not working in Thailand.  People who are being denied for (2) Insufficient Funds. When having 20,000 baht cash to show. That's some sort of corruption, right?

 

If people are being denied based on not having money when they have more than enough to support their stay and constantly traveling, not overstaying their visa or trying to hide out in Thailand. Properly providing documentation for a Visa at the Embassy in multiple different countries (not just going to 1 embassy back to back to back) That's a good tourist and shouldn't be reprimanded.

 

If they deny you at the Airport then they should also void your visa, take it to the next step not just turn you away only for you to use the same visa and enter at the border. And at the border, they should also be denying you for the same reasons too. But they don't because they're actually following the law and if they ask to see 20,000 baht then there's no real reason for them to turn you away.

Okay, so you can’t back up your claim of corruption because it doesn’t exist. The IO’s are denying entry under orders, openly, formally and without financial gain.

 

The 20K requirement is to satisfy section 12.9 NOT 12.2. 12.2 is not because you have insufficient funds, it’s because you haven’t demonstrated the appropriate means of living in the country such as an income, money in the bank or a job. No one could live in Thailand for 60/90 days on 300/200 baht per day. 

 

Immigration are under orders to use their discretion — hence the inconsistency — to deny entry to long term tourists. However, because no specific law or regulation exists (to our general benefit) based on time spent in the country IO’s legally use other laws/regs that apply to formally deny entry. 

 

Very few ‘westerners’ get denied entry with a Tourist Visa. Visas do not guarantee entry; that decision is always made by immigration. And the fact that embassies/consulates are limiting visas based on time spent proves this is part of the official ‘soft’ clampdown on long term tourism that has being going on since 2006.

[jackdd]

11 minutes ago, elviajero said:

it’s because you haven’t demonstrated the appropriate means of living in the country such as an income, money in the bank or a job.

As explained to you many times before, the english translation is wrong, you don't need to cling to it just because some IOs abuse this law.

You don't even have to believe me, just show the Thai law to any Thai you know and ask them what it means, then you will see that it means something like "basic needs" = food, shelter, clothing and makes clear that this law is to not allow impoverished people into Thailand, and it's not about how somebody earns money.

[elviajero]

26 minutes ago, jackdd said:

As explained to you many times before, the english translation is wrong, you don't need to cling to it just because some IOs abuse this law.

You don't even have to believe me, just show the Thai law to any Thai you know and ask them what it means, then you will see that it means something like "basic needs" = food, shelter, clothing and makes clear that this law is to not allow impoverished people into Thailand, and it's not about how somebody earns money.

And I’ve explained to you many times why you’re opinion is wrong. And it doesn’t matter how often you repeat your opinion it won’t change my informed advice to others.

 

You’re taking the intent of the law to it’s absolute base level. In order for someone to have food, shelter, clothing etc, they need money — known as a way to make a living. A visitor to Thailand staying long term needs to prove they have a job or other appropriate means of making/supporting a living. A long term tourist hasn’t done that.

 

I have discussed this law with immigration several times and I’m 100% confident my simple explanation is the intent of the law. 

 

Someone who is impoverished could easily be denied under 12.9 because they are not going to have 20K baht on them.

Edited July 13, 2019 by elviajero

[ThomasThBKK]

40 minutes ago, jackdd said:

They could also have written:

Elite Visa is categorized under Investment Visa, which does not allow the holder to legally apply for a work permit to work in Thailand. The Non-Immigrant Visa must be cancelled before Privilege Entry Visa is validated.

Which would make it equally clear

 

Do you have any official source which says the PE visa is issued under investment rules or is this again one of your opinions, which you present as fact?

 

 

There's indeed a limitation of 90 days for Tourism in the immigration act, so whatever the elite visa is it is unclear how it fits under the tourist visa category.

If you check the act: http://web.krisdika.go.th/data/outsitedata/outsite21/file/Immigration_Act_B.E._2522.pdf

 

Where as tourism is defined under 34 (3).

So the elite PE visa must be either:

(5) Business

(6) Investments as approved by Ministries and Departments concerned

(7) Investments or activities relating to investments subject to provisions of laws on investment promotion

(8) Being in transit passengers

(9) Being the person in charge of a conveyance or crew of a conveyance arriving at a terminal, port, or station in the Kingdom

(10) Education or observation

(11) Mass media duties

(12) Missionary work under approval of the Ministries and Departments concerned

(13) Scientific research or teacher training in a research or educational institute in the Kingdom

(14) Practicing of skilled craftsmen or specialists

(15) Other activities as prescribed in the Ministerial Regulations.

 

It can't be the Business category imho even if that makes sense because it doesn't allow you to get a work permit.

so it's either the invest sections of 6,7 or 15 imo.

 

Quote

a temporary stay under Section 34, to remain in the Kingdom under any prescribed conditions. The periods of time which one is permitted to stay in the Kingdom are as follows

(1) Not exceeding thirty days for cases under Section 34 (4), (8) and (9)

(2) Not exceeding ninety days for case under Section 34 (3)

(3) Not exceeding one year for cases under Section 34 (5), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14) and (15)

(4) Not exceeding two years for case under Section 34 (6)

(5) For as long as necessary for cases under Section 34 (1) and (2)

(6) For as long as deemed reasonable by the Board of Investment, for a case under Section 34 (7)

 

[jackdd]

23 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Someone who is impoverished could easily be denied under 12.9 because they are not going to have 20K baht on them. 

Afaik nobody did ever provide the ministerial regulations covering 12.9 (if anybody should have them, please post them), but i assume that for a citizen coming from a country surrounding Thailand and who is coming into Thailand on some kind of biliteral agreement does not have to show 20k THB (or even 10k THB), so this person could not be denied entry using 12.9.

Edited July 13, 2019 by jackdd

[LivinLOS]

16 hours ago, holy cow cm said:

Honestly, this is exactly the reason they are becoming hard on all of us. We all get lumped into one big bowl because of the people trying to keep staying here that obviously need to do a better thing than trying to do back to backs or escape evading the system anyway they can.

Agreed.. Its this constant desire to try to work around every law, to continue the pretense that they are tourists, when the reality is they live here. 

 

Either pony up the money and comply with the visa options out there, extend in country and do it right.. Or find somewhere that welcomes this process. 

 

Its hurting everyone who does it the right way, that gaming the system seems to just be the expectation. 

[jackdd]

18 minutes ago, ThomasThBKK said:

There's indeed a limitation of 90 days for Tourism in the immigration act, so whatever the elite visa is it is unclear how it fits under the tourist visa category. 

Probably they just used section 34.15, gave the new activity some fancy name like "elite tourist", and wrote something like: Is to be treated equally to 34.3 in all regards, except the inital permit to stay will be granted for up to one year. This would explain for example why somebody on an Elite visa can only have two year driving license, can not get a pink id card and things like this.

[elviajero]

1 hour ago, jackdd said:

They could also have written:

Elite Visa is categorized under Investment Visa, which does not allow the holder to legally apply for a work permit to work in Thailand. The Non-Immigrant Visa must be cancelled before Privilege Entry Visa is validated.

Which would make it equally clear

They couldn't because its not an "investment visa".

 

From the same website;

"Thailand Elite visa is "Privilege Entry Visa".

1. SPECIAL renewable five year multiple entry visa".

 

1 hour ago, jackdd said:

Do you have any official source which says the PE visa is issued under investment rules or is this again one of your opinions, which you present as fact?

You can start with immigration law, see @ThomasThBKK who beat me to it. Add to that you don't apply for a Tourist Visa for tourism, nowhere is it written on the visa that it is a Tourist Visa, it is clearly written on the visa that it's a Privilege Entry Visa, and you have to hand over at least 500K to get it. Nothing about the PE visa suggests it's a TR.

[lkv]

Actually, there is no mention on any Immigration site or Embassy site about SE visa class or PE visa class.

 

So we can draw the conclusion it has no legal basis. ????

 

Kidding, there probably is some ministerial order that I cannot locate.

[elviajero]

10 minutes ago, jackdd said:

35 minutes ago, ThomasThBKK said:

There's indeed a limitation of 90 days for Tourism in the immigration act, so whatever the elite visa is it is unclear how it fits under the tourist visa category. 

Probably they just used section 34.15, gave the new activity some fancy name like "elite tourist", and wrote something like: Is to be treated equally to 34.3 in all regards, except the inital permit to stay will be granted for up to one year. This would explain for example why somebody on an Elite visa can only have two year driving license, can not get a pink id card and things like this.

Lots of opinion and assumption! You could be right, but if 34.15 was used it certainly doesn't make the reason for entry as tourism.

 

34.7 fits much better.

Section 34 : aliens entering into the kingdom for a temporary stay may enter for the below listed activities ;

1. Diplomatic or Consular Missions. 2. Performance of official duties.
3. Touring
4. Sporting

5. Business
6. Investing under the concurrence of the Ministries and Departments concerned.
7. Investing or other activities relating to investing subject to the provisions of the law on

investment promotion.
8. Transit journey.

9. Being the person in charge of the crew of a conveyance coming to port, station , or area in the Kingdom.

10. Study or observation.
11. Mass media.
12. Missionary work under the concurrence of the Ministries and departments concerned. 13. Scientific research or training or teach in a Research Institute in the Kingdom.
14. The practice of skilled handicraft or as a specialist
15. Other activities as prescribed in the Ministerial Regulations.

Section 35 : The Director General or the competent official deputized by the Director General shall have the authority to permit the alien , who entered to stay temporarily in the Kingdom under Section 34 , to remain in the Kingdom under any prescribed conditions. The periods of time which one is authorized to stay in the Kingdom are as Follows :

1. Not exceeding 30 days for a case under Section 34 (4) , (8) and ( 9 )

2. Not exceeding 90 days for a case under Section 34 (3)

3. Not exceeding one year for a case under Section 34 (5) , (10), (11) , (12), (13) , (14) and (15)

4. Not exceeding two years for a case under Section 34 (6)

5. As deemed necessary for a case under Section 34 (1) and (2)

6. As deemed appropriate by the Commission of Investment Promotion, for a case under Section 34 (7)

[jackdd]

18 minutes ago, elviajero said:

They couldn't because its not an "investment visa".

Two posts before you said it's under investment visa, and presented this opinion of yours like a fact.

Glad to see that you figured out that you are wrong.

 

20 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Nothing about the PE visa suggests it's a TR.

Yes absolutely nothing ... just the official website stating that it's categorized under tourist visa and it being treated like a tourist visa by Thai authorities (except giving a one year stay)

[Caldera]

1 hour ago, elviajero said:

Very few ‘westerners’ get denied entry with a Tourist Visa.

What's the benefit of being that vague? Either you know the actual number, then by all means, let us know. Or you don't know it, then your statement is worthless because you cannot back it up.

 

Bonus question for you, if you don't mind: Let's say I buy an Elite visa. Applying your "denial under section 12.2" logic, what would stop an IO from claiming that I haven't got the "appropriate means" to live in Thailand, a few years down the line? The 500,000 baht (or more) that I've spent on the Elite visa is gone and there's no other mechanism to prove financials. So my guess is that I would be toast, just like those who have been denied entry with tourist visa. Trusting these shifty buggers has become almost impossible.

Edited July 13, 2019 by Caldera
Typo

[elviajero]

44 minutes ago, jackdd said:

Afaik nobody did ever provide the ministerial regulations covering 12.9 (if anybody should have them, please post them), but i assume that for a citizen coming from a country surrounding Thailand and who is coming into Thailand on some kind of biliteral agreement does not have to show 20k THB (or even 10k THB), so this person could not be denied entry using 12.9.

The ministerial regulation was issued years ago. Back in 2010, when they increased the threat of using the law/reg, immigration issued an announcement that was widely reported. I'm sure you'll find it if you google.

 

Explain the need for 12.9 and 12.2 if they both achieve the same aim? 

[jackdd]

3 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Explain the need for 12.9 and 12.2 if they both achieve the same aim?  

You just quoted my explanation, you just have to read it: Not everybody is required to show money under 12.9.

[lkv]

4 minutes ago, elviajero said:

immigration issued an announcement

????????

[elviajero]

13 minutes ago, jackdd said:

35 minutes ago, elviajero said:

They couldn't because its not an "investment visa".

Two posts before you said it's under investment visa, and presented this opinion of yours like a fact.

Glad to see that you figured out that you are wrong.

No I didn't. I said it was issued under "investment rules".

 

15 minutes ago, jackdd said:

36 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Nothing about the PE visa suggests it's a TR.

Yes absolutely nothing ... just the official website stating that it's categorized under tourist visa and it being treated like a tourist visa by Thai authorities (except giving a one year stay)

Again, that is misleading in their explanation of work permit rules.

 

It is against the law to issue permission to stay for tourism for longer than 90 days. FACT.

[ThomasThBKK]

42 minutes ago, jackdd said:

Probably they just used section 34.15, gave the new activity some fancy name like "elite tourist", and wrote something like: Is to be treated equally to 34.3 in all regards, except the inital permit to stay will be granted for up to one year. This would explain for example why somebody on an Elite visa can only have two year driving license, can not get a pink id card and things like this.

You can get a pink id card with elite visa.

The DL stuff is true tho, i also have no idea about the order and can't locate it... It's like always, they just made it up - prolly.

[lkv]

13 minutes ago, Caldera said:

The 500,000 baht (or more) that I've spent on the Elite visa

You did not spend money on the Elite visa, that's the confusion.

 

What you spent your money on is for membership in a club.

 

Members of the club are entitled to various benefits and perks, one of the perks being a long stay visa, subject to Immigration approval.

Edited July 13, 2019 by lkv

[Caldera]

1 minute ago, lkv said:

You did not spend money on the Elite visa, that's the confusion.

 

What you spent your money on is for membership in a club.

 

Members of the club are entitled to various benefits and perks, one of the perks being a long stay visa, subject to Immigration approval.

I agree - and that doesn't exactly reassure me. Easy to see what could happen further down the line.

[lkv]

7 minutes ago, Caldera said:

I agree - and that doesn't exactly reassure me. Easy to see what could happen further down the line.

And now people will jump and say: they honored this visa since its inception bla bla. ????

 

Just make sure you don't skip some TM30. ????

 

Ok ok, rant and scaremonging over, I want the current members to enjoy their purchase ????

Edited July 13, 2019 by lkv

[elviajero]

11 minutes ago, Caldera said:

What's the benefit of being that vague? Either you know the actual number, then by all means, let us know. Or you don't know it, then your statement is worthless because you cannot back it up.

Thousands enter the country using TR's and there are very few reports - across the internet -- of denials. And they are targeted denials, in most cases. I know the official number of Tourist Visa entries, do you? I also know that the vast majority of 'western tourists' enter under VE and don't use visas.

 

11 minutes ago, Caldera said:

Bonus question for you, if you don't mind: Let's say I buy an Elite visa. Applying your "denial under section 12.2" logic, what would stop an IO from claiming that I haven't got the "appropriate means" to live in Thailand, a few years down the line? The 500,000 baht (or more) that I've spent on the Elite visa is gone and there's no other mechanism to prove financials. So my guess is that I would be toast, just like those who have been denied entry with tourist visa. Trusting these shifty buggers has become almost impossible.

It's a catch all law, that they use selectively. I don't see why they would use it for someone that has bought their way in to the country. Why would they?

[jackdd]

10 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Again, that is misleading in their explanation of work permit rules. 

Again your opinion presented as a fact?

 

12 minutes ago, elviajero said:

It is against the law to issue permission to stay for tourism for longer than 90 days. FACT.

Then somebody who has a PE or let's say a non-OA visa and checks "purpose of visit: tourism" on his arrival card should only be given 90 days, right? If an IO gives this person more days he is breaking the law.

As i explained before, they can just call it "elite tourism" or whatever and they can give the holder a year while it's still a tourist visa, even if it has another category number.

[elviajero]

14 minutes ago, jackdd said:

19 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Explain the need for 12.9 and 12.2 if they both achieve the same aim?  

You just quoted my explanation, you just have to read it: Not everybody is required to show money under 12.9.

It doesn't answer my question. How would they decide someone is impoverished to be denied under 12.2?

[lkv]

/

Edited July 13, 2019 by lkv
Never mind ????