Proof of leaving required with METV at DMK

[ChristianPFC]

Proof of leaving with METV at DMK

 

Immigration at DMK Don Mueang airport now requires proof of leaving for people with METV Multiple Entry Tourist Visa.

 

I would have thought this is all over the internet already (a friend entered on 4 Sep on an SETV from Cambodia and was asked for proof of leaving as well). Do others report the same, from other immigration checkpoints as well?

 

I arrived last week after a week-long visa run. Immigration officer did look longer than usual at my passport or the screen, then asked me “What do you do here?” – “Tourist” – “Please follow me.” Then another officer asked me for proof of leaving Thailand. I didn’t argue that holders of an METV don’t need proof of leaving, but asked what I can do and they told me book a flight on my mobile phone which I did, and then was processed without further problems. The problems seems to be that something has to be filled in on departure card “flight or vehicle number”.

 

But what if I’m planning to leave over land? The field on the departure card is “flight or vehicle number” so I would just put in the bus or train line (Aranyaprathet or Nong Khai, which is still in Thailand)? And what about doing an extension from 60 to 90 days? My problem is that I don't want to commit two months in advance to exact time and location of visa run, rather leave that decision to some weeks before my 60 days are over.

 

My visa history: German citizen under 50 years old, the last 6 years I have been spending about 8 month a year in Thailand on (following numbers are estimates) 4 METV 2016-2019 from Thai embassy in Berlin, 4 SETV 2014-2015 (Vientiane, Penang, 2xSaigon) and 2 visa-exempt to fill gaps. My traveling pattern is incompatible with illegal working in Thailand (at least that’s what I think, how could you hold a job in Thailand if you spend two months in Germany in summer, a month in Taiwan, and a week elsewhere every 60 days – I don’t do extensions any more, I leave before 60 days)? So it must be the number of TV entries, or total time spent in Thailand (but 8 months a year is not unreasonable?).

Edited September 15, 2019 by ChristianPFC

[elviajero]

5 minutes ago, ChristianPFC said:

So it must be the number of TV entries, or total time spent in Thailand (but 8 months a year is not unreasonable?).

The number of entries are not important. It’s the time spent in the country that counts. Tourists don’t live for 8 months a year in a foreign country.

 

The METV visa is designed for people living outside of Thailand that want to make multiple visits during a 6 month period. It’s not meant to be used to live long term in the country, which is what you are doing.

[riclag]

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 . 

[Salerno]

37 minutes ago, ChristianPFC said:

(but 8 months a year is not unreasonable?).

To you maybe.

[ChristianPFC]

40 minutes ago, elviajero said:

It’s not meant to be used to live long term in the country, which is what you are doing.

Yes I do. There is no other visa available that fits my life (under 50, don't have to work). Out of those 8 months I spend on average per year in Thailand, 1 to 2 months is in hotels as I really travel around and visit temples, national parks and mountains (and can prove it by hotel receipts and selfies, but I doubt immigration officer will be interested).

 

Lest someone who reads this thinks I'm a saint; intercourse with locals is a strong draw for me to be in Thailand. But I enjoy traveling as well and wouldn't want to spend my time in Cambodia because there is nothing for me to do.

 

But the subject is to inform others and hear others' experiences about proof of leaving when entering on METV.

 

(Although I would be grateful to know what an under 50 y.o. who does not have to work and wants to spend his time in Thailand can do, other than tourist visa and other than Elite - which I find overpriced and an insult that I would not take, rather go elsewhere if Elite is the only option to stay in Thailand.)

[donnacha]

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. 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.

To give you an idea of how rare such refusals have been in Thailand up to now, airlines only require you to show proof of your return flight if you intend to enter Thailand on a visa waiver. If you have an actual visa, the return flight is not required. This is one of the main reasons why some visitors go to the trouble of getting a visa.

If we now see a general trend of Thai IOs turning back visa holders, it will put the visa system into turmoil. Thai embassies and consulates get most of their operating budgets from visa fees and were already struggling after the junta made the process more complicated in 2015. If a visa now offers you no additional protection, and if you have to buy a flight you probably won't use anyway, most people will revert to entering under a visa waiver and extending that once in the country. It will add to the general sense that things are winding down for westerners in Thailand.

I suspect, however, that this is simply yet another quirk exclusive to Don Mueang. The IOs there have long shown a determination to do all they can to inconvenience visitors to Thailand, up to and including slapping them in the face. You only have to follow the reports here on the forum to notice that the vast majority of problems crop up there. Personally, I always fly in to different airports, even when it means paying more.

 

 

1 hour ago, elviajero said:

The METV visa is designed for people living outside of Thailand that want to make multiple visits during a 6 month period. It’s not meant to be used to live long term in the country, which is what you are doing

 
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.

Whether your pattern of usage affects their willingness to grant you further visas in the future is a different matter, but it is nonsense to suggest that the OP has been abusing the permission he has been explicitly given.

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.

 

 

Edited September 15, 2019 by donnacha

[elliss]

 

     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 September 15, 2019 by elliss

[donnacha]

34 minutes ago, ChristianPFC said:

I would be grateful to know what an under 50 y.o. who does not have to work and wants to spend his time in Thailand can do, other than tourist visa and other than Elite

 

Can it only be Thailand?

I am more-or-less in the same position, not yet 50 but appalled by the Elite visa. If you have the freedom to live abroad without working, other countries in the region are well worth spending time in. You already spend the summer in Europe, so, really, spending the occasional month in Vietnam or the Philippines or wherever should be enough to space out your time in Thailand and convince any IO that you are a legitimate traveler. 

If the reason why it has to be Thailand is that you have a relationship there, consider asking him/her to travel with you for a while. Unless tied to a career, I think most Thais would welcome the opportunity to travel. There are about 50 countries that Thai citizens do not require a visa for, including most of South America, South Africa, Russia, and, of course, all of ASEAN. Some of the westerners who got pushed out of Thailand by the changing visa rules are saying that Georgia is a nice alternative, with accommodation and food prices in Tbilisi being comparable to Chiang Mai. Thai citizens can stay in Georgia for up to a year without a visa.

One good thing about being forced, by Thai visa idiocy, to spend more time in other countries is that it has made me aware of how comfortable and welcoming some of the alternative destinations are. This has actually caused me to rethink my plan to get a Thai retirement visa when I reach 50. What I initially considered to be an inconvenience ended up being a very good thing.

[BritTim]

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. 

[elviajero]

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.

[elviajero]

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 September 15, 2019 by elviajero

[elviajero]

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 September 15, 2019 by elviajero

[whitemouse]

3 hours ago, elviajero said:

The number of entries are not important. It’s the time spent in the country that counts. Tourists don’t live for 8 months a year in a foreign country.

 

The METV visa is designed for people living outside of Thailand that want to make multiple visits during a 6 month period. It’s not meant to be used to live long term in the country, which is what you are doing.

Tourists can spend as many months out of a year in Thailand as they wish. I spend 6-7 months each year on TR visa. To spend 8 months is not unreasonable, the meaning of 'tourist' is not capped by number of weeks or months, tourist is someone whos is visiting the country, not working, but visiting the country. Not working is the key word here.

 

Unless Thai Immigration sets clear rules limiting a time tourist can spend here, and states them publicly, I am a tourist who happens to spend 7 months in Thailand each year. 

[elviajero]

30 minutes ago, whitemouse said:

Tourists can spend as many months out of a year in Thailand as they wish. I spend 6-7 months each year on TR visa. To spend 8 months is not unreasonable, the meaning of 'tourist' is not capped by number of weeks or months, tourist is someone whos is visiting the country, not working, but visiting the country. Not working is the key word here.

No it's not. The key word is tourist. A tourist is someone that visits Thailand for a short holiday and leaves.

 

You are a long term visitor claiming tourism as your reason for your visit.

 

Quote

Unless Thai Immigration sets clear rules limiting a time tourist can spend here, and states them publicly, I am a tourist who happens to spend 7 months in Thailand each year. 

You are a visitor; spending 7 months in the country claiming you're a tourist. I spent over 10 years as a 'tourist', but I was never arrogant enough to believe the authorities were stupid. 

 

I would give you a long list of all the actions the Thai authorities have PUBLICLY taken to prevent long term tourism since 2006 when they started the clampdown, but it would be pointless. Enjoy your time as a tourist because your wish for a fixed limit may well soon come true; something I hope doesn't happen.

 

The situation is all about enforcement of the 'system'. When I first moved to Thailand, and right up to 2006, they didn't enforce the rules because the numbers of long term 'western' tourists were low mainly because there weren't so many people able to work remotely. The enforcement has increased over time as tourist numbers increase and we're getting to the point where the only recourse will be fixed limits.

 

One big reason fixed limits aren't used (although they were tried in 2007/08) is that the immigration system cannot keep count of time spent; therefore, it comes down to individual IO's to enforce the rules, which creates inconsistency and all this confusion.

 

At the end of the day people will interpret the system in the way that fits how they want it to be. I tell it how it is.

Edited September 15, 2019 by elviajero

[BritTim]

45 minutes ago, elviajero said:

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.

I have seen lots of messages from the authorities about visa exempt entries. There have also been changes aimed at making it more difficult to get tourist visas (especially multiple entry) without returning to your home country. I have yet to see any announcement to the effect that deciding whether you qualify for a visa is now the responsibility of Immigration rather than the consulates. It is my view that officially entry to Thailand, once you have a valid visa issued by a consulate, should be granted unless you are genuinely disqualified for one of the reasons specified in Section 12 of the Immigration Act (and I do not mean twisting one of them to mean something that was never intended). Can you point to any public notification for visas that suggests Immigration have been given the power to override consular decisions?

[whitemouse]

1 minute ago, elviajero said:

No it's not. The key word is tourist. A tourist is someone that visits Thailand for a short holiday and leaves.

 

You are a long term visitor claiming tourism as your reason for your visit.

 

You are a visitor; spending 7 months in the country claiming you're a tourist. I spent over 10 years as a 'tourist', but I was never arrogant enough to believe the authorities were stupid. 

Not arrogant at all, as you are suggesting, I am simply visiting Thailand with a tourist visa, and following all the rules and Thai law. You realize I am not over staying, and that I am staying in Thailand only as long as visa allows? Your interpretation of the term 'tourist' is not the topic here, topic is Thai immigration law.

 

Unless you care to point to limit of days and entries that a tourist visa allows, I'm going insist that  METV is valid for 6 months and multiple entries. 

[elviajero]

15 minutes ago, BritTim said:

I have seen lots of messages from the authorities about visa exempt entries. There have also been changes aimed at making it more difficult to get tourist visas (especially multiple entry) without returning to your home country. I have yet to see any announcement to the effect that deciding whether you qualify for a visa is now the responsibility of Immigration rather than the consulates. It is my view that officially entry to Thailand, once you have a valid visa issued by a consulate, should be granted unless you are genuinely disqualified for one of the reasons specified in Section 12 of the Immigration Act (and I do not mean twisting one of them to mean something that was never intended).

Consular services issue visas, they do not, under the Thai system, grant any right with that visa to enter the country. That decision is, under law/rules, down to the IO. IO's can override any visa. And I've explained to you many times that just because something isn't specified in section 12 doesn't mean the IO's have not been given official power to deny entry.

 

Over 95% of western tourists use VE to enter the country, and in the past they used VE to stay in the country which is why they initially clamped down on VE and moved people to get visas. As they have effectively solved the VE problem the focus is moving to TR holders who haven't got the memo. That is blindingly obvious.

 

Whether you stay long term using VE or a TR you are a visitor using tourism as the reason so everything that applied to VE use applies to TR use. The Thai authorities are also clamping down on consular services who issue the visas too.

 

15 minutes ago, BritTim said:

Can you point to any public notification for visas that suggests Immigration have been given the power to override consular decisions?

MFA:

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).

 

Consulars simply issue visas. That is the extent of their duty in the visa system. They have no authority over Thai immigration or who is allowed to enter.

[elviajero]

26 minutes ago, whitemouse said:

Unless you care to point to limit of days and entries that a tourist visa allows, I'm going insist that  METV is valid for 6 months and multiple entries. 

I agree that it is. But unless you can point to something that says you can use that visa to live in the country for 9 months having spent a few hours crossing a border and back every 60 days, I'll go by the actions of immigration over 13 years that prove it's not what the visa is meant to be used for.

[donnacha]

I understand that for some members of the forum, arguing is a form of sport. I do not want to get into an argument here but must express my feeling that, in many circumstances, this behavior is inappropriate.

Here we have a thread in which the OP alerted us to a possible new problem at Don Mueang and, also, asked for general advice from other members. All the ingredients, right there, for an interesting and useful thread.

Instead, the whole thing gets pulled off course by someone who believes that discussion should involve telling everyone else how wrong they are. About everything.

Hilariously, when you read his arguments, it often becomes clear that he has re-stated exactly what the person he is disagreeing with wrote, but less cogently. Perhaps, if you want to have an insanely high post count, you don't have time to actually read what the people you are disagreeing with have written.

I know that I provide a good perspective on the issues I post about, and I appreciate the positive feedback I receive from other members here. I also enjoy and learn from the posts of most other users, but see them, too, getting tangled up with the same high-speed poster or the handful of others who play this cut n' paste game.

After wasting a lot of time, I have now learned that it not worth refuting the many individual bizarre statements that any high-speed, reflexive poster makes, even when their lack of logic is deeply funny. Readers can come to their own conclusions about the quality of thought behind those posts, but I consider them to be the equivalent of those guys you sometimes come across in bars who reckon they win arguments if they simply shout down the other person. It is just a terrible pity that they feel this compulsion to dominate so many threads despite having nothing of value to contribute.


 

Edited September 15, 2019 by donnacha

[BritTim]

2 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Consular services issue visas, they do not, under the Thai system, grant any right with that visa to enter the country. That decision is, under law/rules, down to the IO. IO's can override any visa. And I've explained to you many times that just because something isn't specified in section 12 doesn't mean the IO's have not been given official power to deny entry.

You are correct that we have had this discussion before. I will repeat my argument that the fact that Immigration has publicly (and logically) been given discretion to determine whether someone qualifies for visa exempt entry does not imply that there are similar secret instructions for them to abrogate visas issued by consulates. The discretion on visa exempt entries makes complete sense as they are taking the place of consular officials in screening applicants.

 

You, along with many here, seem to believe that there is no such thing as long term tourism. In many countries (and Thailand has been one of them) the law explicitly permits this. Interestingly enough the journal Tourism Management (in their October issue) has an article using long term tourists at a Thai beach resort as an example in its study of how long term tourists adapt to the local culture. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261517719300524).

[Airalee]

7 minutes ago, BritTim said:

You are correct that we have had this discussion before. I will repeat my argument that the fact that Immigration has publicly (and logically) been given discretion to determine whether someone qualifies for visa exempt entry does not imply that there are similar secret instructions for them to abrogate visas issued by consulates. The discretion on visa exempt entries makes complete sense as they are taking the place of consular officials in screening applicants.

 

You, along with many here, seem to believe that there is no such thing as long term tourism. In many countries (and Thailand has been one of them) the law explicitly permits this. Interestingly enough the journal Tourism Management (in their October issue) has an article using long term tourists at a Thai beach resort as an example in its study of how long term tourists adapt to the local culture. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261517719300524).

Not only that, but for myself, I just switched to a retirement visa but was able to live here for about 5-6 months a year using METVs over the last 5 years and full time for two on an education visa before that.  Where my situation is different, (and thereby never had an issue dealing with immigration even as they scrutinized my passport with nothing but Thailand Visas (with a couple Vietnam)) was that I was a medical tourist and see many different doctors for different chronic issues.  

 

Billing themselves as a “hub for medical tourism”, the last thing they would want to do is turn me away.  I have a wallet full of hospital “membership” cards.

 

What I think that immigration can’t fathom is the westerner that somehow doesn’t need to work at whatever young age they are.  I would need more info from the OP as to his age as “under 50” is too vague.  Perhaps he’s a Bay Area techie who made it big (enough) to retire early.  (Not likely if “under 50” means 21). Maybe he lost his parents in a tragic car accident and they were smart enough to both have large life insurance policies.  He could be renting out the family home in (wherever).   Why turn him into a criminal.

 

Now what I can only hypothesize about is the initial crackdown on the VE runners.  I knew guys in Chiang Mai that lived on ฿12,000 a month (competing with other Thais for the best ฿3000 apartments) and for whatever their (immigration) reasons were, those guys were the low hanging fruit.  Immigration will shoot itself in the foot if they go after the people renting private condos (many from Thais with mortgages) that go for 5-10 times as much (for a similar size unit with an IKEA grade kitchen...big whoop).  So...that would also lead me to ask the OP, what were his living arrangements?  Did he rent a nice “base” condo In one of the many overbuilt areas or has he been slumming it it ฿150 hostiles?  I’m not judging at all but just trying to get an idea as to how immigration might view it.

[BuckBee]

i think lot of posters and immigration missing point really, the visa covers tourism and leasure and medical use so got lots of scope in reality.

I spent more than 9 months in thailand purely leisure and tourism and certainly never considered myself abusing the visa .

I'll be back for some dental work at some point and maybe like stay for 6 months, once again setv or metv be right for it and not abuse .
Problem is immigration gone from lapse to being overly stringent and completely rude in some cases .

[jerojero]

You've been lucky. It may run out. You're not a tourist and Imm will call you out sooner or later, and not simply by asking for outbound flight. May ban you. Who are you fooling? Vast majority of your time is in Thailand years after year after year, that's living in the Kingdom, not vacationing as a tourist.

Proof of leaving with METV at DMK
 
Immigration at DMK Don Mueang airport now requires proof of leaving for people with METV Multiple Entry Tourist Visa.
 
I would have thought this is all over the internet already (a friend entered on 4 Sep on an SETV from Cambodia and was asked for proof of leaving as well). Do others report the same, from other immigration checkpoints as well?
 
I arrived last week after a week-long visa run. Immigration officer did look longer than usual at my passport or the screen, then asked me “What do you do here?” – “Tourist” – “Please follow me.” Then another officer asked me for proof of leaving Thailand. I didn’t argue that holders of an METV don’t need proof of leaving, but asked what I can do and they told me book a flight on my mobile phone which I did, and then was processed without further problems. The problems seems to be that something has to be filled in on departure card “flight or vehicle number”.
 
But what if I’m planning to leave over land? The field on the departure card is “flight or vehicle number” so I would just put in the bus or train line (Aranyaprathet or Nong Khai, which is still in Thailand)? And what about doing an extension from 60 to 90 days? My problem is that I don't want to commit two months in advance to exact time and location of visa run, rather leave that decision to some weeks before my 60 days are over.
 
My visa history: German citizen under 50 years old, the last 6 years I have been spending about 8 month a year in Thailand on (following numbers are estimates) 4 METV 2016-2019 from Thai embassy in Berlin, 4 SETV 2014-2015 (Vientiane, Penang, 2xSaigon) and 2 visa-exempt to fill gaps. My traveling pattern is incompatible with illegal working in Thailand (at least that’s what I think, how could you hold a job in Thailand if you spend two months in Germany in summer, a month in Taiwan, and a week elsewhere every 60 days – I don’t do extensions any more, I leave before 60 days)? So it must be the number of TV entries, or total time spent in Thailand (but 8 months a year is not unreasonable?).

[elviajero]

1 hour ago, BritTim said:

You are correct that we have had this discussion before. I will repeat my argument that the fact that Immigration has publicly (and logically) been given discretion to determine whether someone qualifies for visa exempt entry does not imply that there are similar secret instructions for them to abrogate visas issued by consulates. The discretion on visa exempt entries makes complete sense as they are taking the place of consular officials in screening applicants.

The decision for denial under VE is exactly the same as if entering with a TR.

 

As I have explained, TR's are only used by a tiny percentage of tourists because most typical tourists use VE. And that is why VE has, in the past, been higher profile.

 

You accept that without any law change or published regulation that IO's can deny entry using VE - under orders - for staying too long, but believe they can't for TR holders. They can, are, and although you haven't got the memo it's clear they are under orders.

 

In effect a visa simply tells the IO the reason why the person is visiting so they know how long they can give permission to stay. Ultimately the power, under law, is with the IO's at the border, and it is crystal clear, from report after report, year after year, that IO's are under orders to stop serial tourists *** at their discretion ***. You are a serial tourist regardless of whether you use a TR or VE to enter.

 

Whenever you have a situation when discretion is used it creates ambiguity. Typical tourists are not affected by any of this, it's only those playing the lax system, as i've done in the past, that fall foul of immigrations moving goal posts.

 

If you're under 50, not working, not studying, haven't any Thai family or relatives with long term permission to stay, the only long term visa option is the PE. Thailand clearly, by their actions, want short term tourists to spend money on holiday and go home, and they want to properly vet long term visitors.

Edited September 15, 2019 by elviajero

[Matzzon]

6 hours ago, ChristianPFC said:

So it must be the number of TV entries, or total time spent in Thailand (but 8 months a year is not unreasonable?).

Yes it is, in the long run. As you spend 8 month per year in per year, that would make you a tourist in your country and seen as living in Thailand. That both in the eyes of Immigration and the Revenue Department.

[BritTim]

37 minutes ago, elviajero said:

You accept that without any law change or published regulation that IO's can deny entry using VE - under orders - for staying too long, but believe they can't for TR holders. They can, are, and although you haven't got the memo it's clear they are under orders.

I have never stated that the law could not be changed (or Ministerial Orders issued) to add reasons, over and above those in Section 12, to deny entry. I believe a more extensive law change would be needed to give immigration officials full discretion to deny entry to those with valid visas, as the Immigration Act is clear that only the Minister has such power. One major area of disagreement we have is on whether immigration officials logically have the same powers with respect to entry using visas as they do for visa exempt entry. I believe officials do not even need to give a reason for denying a visa exempt entry (though they should have one) and should be denying entry using reason 12 (1) having ruled someone ineligible for a visa exempt entry (or visa on arrival). I do not believe immigration has official discretion to revisit the question of whether a consulate should have issued a visa, and believe they are back purely to what is written in the Immigration Act (unless you can find ministerial/police orders to the contrary) when someone arrives with one.

 

[I do not want to annoy other members, and will allow your next response to be the last word on this in the current thread.]

[ChristianPFC]

10 hours ago, Airalee said:

What I think that immigration can’t fathom is the westerner that somehow doesn’t need to work at whatever young age they are.  I would need more info from the OP as to his age as “under 50” is too vague.  Perhaps he’s a Bay Area techie who made it big (enough) to retire early.  (Not likely if “under 50” means 21). Maybe he lost his parents in a tragic car accident and they were smart enough to both have large life insurance policies.  He could be renting out the family home in (wherever).   Why turn him into a criminal.

 

So...that would also lead me to ask the OP, what were his living arrangements?  Did he rent a nice “base” condo In one of the many overbuilt areas or has he been slumming it it ฿150 hostiles?  I’m not judging at all but just trying to get an idea as to how immigration might view it.

Late 30s. Rich parents.

 

I rent a basic room for 8000 THB per month (I don't need much space or luxury for myself, and I rent that room throughout the year so keep my stuff in there when I'm out of Thailand; and of the 8 months in Thailand I spend 1-2 months in hotels when traveling around, so I spend about 6 months in that room). But immigration does not know these data, so it won't affect their decision.

[Airalee]

Just now, ChristianPFC said:

Late 30s. Rich parents.

 

I rent a basic room for 8000 THB per month (I don't need much space or luxury for myself, and I rent that room throughout the year so keep my stuff in there when I'm out of Thailand; and of the 8 months in Thailand I spend 1-2 months in hotels when traveling around, so I spend about 6 months in that room). But immigration does not know these data, so it won't affect their decision.

Seems entirely reasonable to me.  Even with the immigration law that the other poster quoted where it states that immigration has the discretion to not allow entry, there is no reference shown in the quoted immigration law that states what reasons they may use.    Usually, from reports read here, their reasoning is that the person cannot show/explain/whatever how they can afford to stay in Thailand so long without working.  If you have rich parents (prepare to get some flack from jealous retirees who earned the right to retire here), then in my opinion (and quite possibly immigrations too) for what little it’s worth, you’re one of the good tourists that Thailand wants.  You are in a somewhat inexpensive room but not one where they could paint you as an economic migrant.

 

Even in every online dictionary, the definition of tourist has no reference to how long someone might stay somewhere.

 

You have rich parents...you’re lucky...as is Thailand to have someone like you spending their trust fund here.

 

Hope it all works out for you

[ChristianPFC]

14 hours ago, donnacha said:

Can it only be Thailand?

I am more-or-less in the same position, not yet 50 but appalled by the Elite visa. If you have the freedom to live abroad without working, other countries in the region are well worth spending time in. You already spend the summer in Europe, so, really, spending the occasional month in Vietnam or the Philippines or wherever should be enough to space out your time in Thailand and convince any IO that you are a legitimate traveler.

No. No relationship in Thailand. But 8 years ago I studied the language (and posted about it

) and after all the time spent here, I can find my way around everywhere in Thai language easily, and there are still places I want to go. A perfect combination! To prepare trips I read publications in Thai language. It will take a while to learn another language to that proficiency.

 

But I have been looking into other countries as well. The problem is that I would not want to spend long time somewhere without speaking the language. Last year I studies Chinese for three months in Taiwan, but in the course of that stay I found out that I prefer Thailand over Taiwan for long stay.

 

I really enjoy Myanmar (except in rainy season), but no long-time stay as a tourist possible, and can't rent a room there, only hotel.

 

It seems I will spend more time in Myanmar (making better use of the 28 day tourist visa by staying three weeks instead of just one twice per year), and have a look at Philippines (the only area country in SEAsian I haven't been to). Or Vietnam, which I enjoyed in 2016.

 

Spending spring (Northern hemisphere seasons) in Taiwan instead of Thailand is perfect as I don't like Songkran festival and hot weather in April. But other months it's a choice between rainy season here or rainy season there.

 

But two months in spring in Taiwan and two months in summer in Germany each year does not seem to be enough to convince immigration I'm a tourist. Have to spend more time (Myanmar or Vietnam), but all while paying full time for my room.

 

But back to the subject: I want to hear about other's experiences (I'm surprised that TV is not full of similar reports), especially if coming in over land or other airport will not have request of proof of onward flight.

 

But the writing is on the wall: Explore alternatives now, so I'm not caught unprepared when in a few years time, after discussion with IO, I get stamped in for 7 days to collect my stuff and get out.

Edited September 16, 2019 by ChristianPFC

[ThomasThBKK]

Or you could just buy an elite visa and get rid of your problem...?

There is in fact a visa for you, it just costs money...