Jump to content
BANGKOK
ChristianPFC

Proof of leaving required with METV at DMK

Recommended Posts

Your age raises the red flag also its IMOP that one should carry a throw away ticket(itinerary) to show IO's who want to see your return or ticket out . 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

     Where you pay taxes , is your homeland ....

    DMK , departue , what other SEA  country were you going too ?.

  Swampy , is the favoured interational departue . 

Immi know , you know , you are not the first to be pulled, and not the last @DMK

 

Edited by elliss
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, elliss said:

Where you pay taxes , is your homeland ....

So, it is your view that whether you are a legitimate tourist depends on your home country and international tax laws? If you are a US citizen spending 51 weeks a year in Thailand, you pay US taxes, and can be regarded as a tourist in Thailand. On the other hand, you may need to pay Thai taxes on Thai income (such as from investments) even though only here for 4-6 weeks a year. That would disqualify you from Thai tourism.

 

Personally, I have never seen too much wrong with the guideline used for many decades up until a few years ago. You are a tourist if spending time in Thailand for pleasure without working. Nothing in Thai law actually contradicts this, even up to the current day. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, donnacha said:

You are projecting your interpretation of what the visa is "meant" for. It is designed to allow exactly what it allows. No more, no less. If granted, you are specifically allowed to use it as fully as you wish. If, as you suggest, it was intended only for repeated short trips within the period that would be included in the terms.

No; I am stating facts. You are the one projecting interpretations. The reason for it's introduction was widely reported. 

 

It is meant for people (target market ASEAN) to be able to visit for tourism as often as they want for a 6 month period.

 

2 hours ago, donnacha said:

In this case, the IO was behaving unusually. Despite similar recent reports, it is too early to know if this is going to become a new norm.

IO's are acting completely as expected. They stopped visa runners using VE and pushed them to use visas. They are now getting tougher issuing visas and on how people use TR's including the METV.

 

I know people want it all conveniently spelled out, but the simple fact is that TR's are meant for short term visits by people living outside of Thailand. Someone spending 8 months of the year for 6 years is not a tourist. They are a visitor using tourism as a smoke screen for the real reason for their long term stay.

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, donnacha said:

Until now, it has been generally accepted that someone with an actual visa is not required to have an outgoing flight. The logic is that your eligibility to enter the country in question has already been established by an embassy or consulate.

Wrong. Every 'tourist' is supposed to have an onward flight (MFA rules). Immigration do not check typical tourists because it's assumed the embassy/consulate issuing the visa have checked they have one. IO's have been instructed to check long term tourists when assessing whether or not they fit the profile of a tourist.

 

Quote

Yes, immigration officers in any country technically retain the right to refuse you entry even if you have a visa but, in practice, this only happens in exceptional circumstances. The IO should simply stamp your passport as soon as he sees a valid visa.

Not in Thailand. A visa does not give right to enter. That is solely down to the IO. And most 'western' tourists use VE because that's all they need for a holidays. These days someone making repeated visits using TR's sticks out from typical tourist behaviour.

 

Edited by elviajero
  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BritTim said:

Personally, I have never seen too much wrong with the guideline used for many decades up until a few years ago. You are a tourist if spending time in Thailand for pleasure without working. Nothing in Thai law actually contradicts this, even up to the current day. 

It's not contradicted because what you say is true. But where is it written that someone can live in the country for months/years as a tourist? And how have you have missed all the messages sent by the Thai authorities clampdowns during the last 13 years that makes you still think differently.

Edited by elviajero
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...