Jump to content

Proof of leaving required with METV at DMK


Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, BritTim said:

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.

I didn't say you did. The minister has the power which they pass on to immigration officials.

 

My point was that VE can be denied just by the authorities instructing IO's to use any reason in section 12 that fits, and the same applies to TR holders. As most serial tourists can be reasonably denied under 12.2, 3, or 9 there has been no need for a formal regulation or law change (except VE by land) to deal with what, in the grand scheme, is a small problem.

 

10 hours ago, BritTim said:

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'm sorry but you are wrong. VE or TR entries are no different. VE denials, because a specific regulation or law doesn't exist, are made using 12,2 ,3 or 9. They would only use 12.1 if a specific regulation was in place such as the 2 x land entry limit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Caldera said:

That's rubbish, plain and simple. When you apply for a Thai tourist visa, you sign a declaration to confirm that you "travel for pleasure only". It's all about the purpose of your trip, not about its length. As a tourist, you have to leave within 90 days max anyway.

 

The real question is when or how many times you can "rinse and repeat", and there's no easy answer to that anymore, because each consulate and entry point has different rules. Those local rules don't change the definition of a tourist though. If you travel for pleasure only, as the Thai visa form puts it, you are a tourist.

We are visitors given permission to enter/stay for specific reasons. Tourism is just one reason, and although it's not specified is expected to be a short stay (max 90 days) after which they expect you to return home/move on.

 

A direct quote from immigration;

"... by leaving Thailand and returning immediately for the purpose of extending their stay, which is considered from the tourism point of view to be longer than necessary and not in line with the purpose permitted while entering country."

 

Nothing in the visa system gives any indication that "rinse and repeat" is a legitimate way to live in the country or the correct use of VE/TR's. Everything the authorities have done over 13 years proves it's not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, darrendsd said:

But you can do EXACTLY this so what's your point? You CAN stay here for 90 days you CAN then leave for a few hours then come back and then you CAN then leave on the last day of your visa then come back and get another 60 days

 

Can you point out where it specifically says you can't do this? No you can't so don't ask where it says you can

I can point to every action the authorities have taken to stop that practice. And nothing that says you can.

 

59 minutes ago, darrendsd said:

You seem to be missing the vital issue - Immigration let him in after he purchased a ticket out - it is not unusual for Immigration to ask for tickets out in fact I believe it is a requirement of having a TV

I'm not missing anything, the conversation moved on.

 

59 minutes ago, darrendsd said:

So he fulfilled the requirements of the METV and they let him in - no mention of you have been here to long etc etc - they just wanted to see what is required - as soon as he produced this he was granted entry

 

So all your waffle about not designed to live here etc etc is pointless as it has no relevance to the OP in this case - none whatsoever

The conversation moved on from the specifics of the OP. I have helped many people over the years live in the country as tourists, and I don't have a problem with anyone continuing to do so. It is a simple fact that VE/TR's are not meant to be used to live in the country, whether you accept the fact or not!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, darrendsd said:

No YOU moved the conversation on with your first post - totally missing the fact that the OP was not told that he had been here to long and totally missing the fact that as soon as he produced what they asked for he was allowed in

 

Instead we got lot's of your total waffle in which you ignored the obvious points - he was let in and not told he had been here to long on his METV

 

The FACT is that you CAN stay here for 9 months on that visa and there is NOTHING that says you can or can't

 

Your posts are unhelpful to many - the longtermers know to ignore them but the newbies may actually believe some of them - just stick to the facts not what you think

 

 

Exactly.  And there is absolutely nothing in the list of reasons for denial that even comes close to what Elviajero suggests.

 

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

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Quote

Your posts are unhelpful to many - the longtermers know to ignore them but the newbies may actually believe some of them - just stick to the facts not what you think

How about you stick to your completely biased opinions and advice. 

 

The fact that people continue to get away with long stays as tourists does not change the fact that they are not supposed to. People should be given the whole picture and not just your self interested point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, elviajero said:

 

How about you stick to your completely biased opinions and advice. 

 

The fact that people continue to get away with long stays as tourists does not change the fact that they are not supposed to. People should be given the whole picture and not just your self interested point of view.

But it's not self interest is it?

 

I totally agree with you they are not that is obvious HOWEVER IN THIS CASE it was nothing to do with it - the IO just wanted to see a outward ticket - no you have been here to long no questioning - just the ticket

 

But YOU decide to waffle on about how you can't stay here long term on METV (despite the OP doing exactly this by the way) you also decide that people can't stay here for 9 months on a METV despite no rules saying you can or can't and waffle on about situations THAT HAD NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE OP'S entry on this occasion

 

 

I don't have self interest - what does it matter to me? What I do have interest in is people twisting situations at Airports into something they are not - the facts in this instance are clear - produce a ticket and you're fine - nothing more than that

 

Let's be honest you don't try to help people here do you? You just try to impress everyone with your supposed knowledge about Immigration matters

 

 

 

 

Edited by darrendsd
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, elviajero said:

 

How about you stick to your completely biased opinions and advice. 

 

The fact that people continue to get away with long stays as tourists does not change the fact that they are not supposed to. People should be given the whole picture and not just your self interested point of view.

Please provide a link to a written law that states how long a tourist is permitted to stay in Thailand.  Not a quote by someone.  Not an opinion.  Just the black and white law.  TIA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Airalee said:

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.

See http://library.siam-legal.com/thai-law/thai-immigration-act-entering-and-departing-the-kingdom-sections-11-22/  The relevant section is Section 12. Note also Section 16 which gives the Minister the power to augment these reasons where deemed appropriate. Some believe the Minister has done so, but for some inexplicable reason feels the need to keep this a secret.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BritTim said:

See http://library.siam-legal.com/thai-law/thai-immigration-act-entering-and-departing-the-kingdom-sections-11-22/  The relevant section is Section 12. Note also Section 16 which gives the Minister the power to augment these reasons where deemed appropriate. Some believe the Minister has done so, but for some inexplicable reason feels the need to keep this a secret.

I see nothing in your link that alludes to “how long a tourist is allowed to stay in the country”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, darrendsd said:

Let's be honest you don't try to help people here do you? You just try to impress everyone with your supposed knowledge about Immigration matters


Seriously, we are getting trolled here. Some posters have no information but make stuff up because they are desperate to pretend they do. Yes, some newbies may get led astray by bad information, but there is nothing we can do about that. You are only wasting your time when you engage with these characters. Just do what everyone else does and ignore him, even when he says stuff that is laughable.

This is nothing against any particular member. I do not know any member's story as an individual but I do know that we all have tragedy in our lives, that can twist some people and make them act in odd ways. the only sensible thing is to route around people who are being disruptive and confrontational. Any damaged individual deserves our sympathy but not our attention.

 

Edited by donnacha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, darrendsd said:

But YOU decide to waffle on about how you can't stay here long term on METV (despite the OP doing exactly this by the way) you also decide that people can't stay here for 9 months on a METV despite no rules saying you can or can't and waffle on about situations THAT HAD NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE OP'S entry on this occasion

I haven’t said anyone “can’t” stay here for 9 months. I am advising the fact that they are not supposed to live in the country long term using TR’s. It’s not hard to understand the difference!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Airalee said:

I see nothing in your link that alludes to “how long a tourist is allowed to stay in the country”

There is none. The main reason being used is Section 12 (2) which some immigration officials are twisting to try to mean it is not appropriate for someone to spend too much time in Thailand as a tourist (clearly never the intended meaning).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Airalee said:

Please provide a link to a written law that states how long a tourist is permitted to stay in Thailand.  Not a quote by someone.  Not an opinion.  Just the black and white law.  TIA

90 days.

 

Immigration act.

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

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BritTim said:

There is none. The main reason being used is Section 12 (2) which some immigration officials are twisting to try to mean it is not appropriate for someone to spend too much time in Thailand as a tourist (clearly never the intended meaning).

12.2 refers to having appropriate means to live in the kingdom.  I assume that this is because they think someone might be working illegally.  Trust Funders have those means and don’t need to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, elviajero said:

90 days.

 

Immigration act.

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

 

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

Yup...so after 90 days, time to do a border/visa run.

 

Next.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ChristianPFC said:

But 8 years ago I studied the language ... and after all the time spent here, I can find my way around everywhere in Thai language easily ... It will take a while to learn another language to that proficiency


So, you made a considerable investment in learning the Thai language, probably under the presumption that it would remain easy to keep coming here and use what you had learned.

A lot of people made that investment of time and energy, learning a language that is not widely spoken outside Thailand. The new anti-western trend is particularly unfair for them.
 

 

6 hours ago, ChristianPFC said:

The problem is that I would not want to spend long time somewhere without speaking the language.


This really limits your options. We have a big, beautiful world. You do not need to speak the local languages to gain something significant from each country.

I speak only two languages fluently, both learned as a child. I tried to learn Mandarin in my late 30's but discovered that, just as everyone had warned me, your ability to acquire and, more importantly, retain languages really does diminish as you age. What is a sprightly intellectual exercise in your twenties becomes an arduous crawl as you head towards your 40's.

I could have persevered but it simply wasn't fun. I came to the conclusion that I get more from investing my time into learning about the world through English. For instance, there are excellent books I can read to gain an understanding of the Karen tribes and Karen culture without learning the Karen language. Yes, having the language would give me a unique and otherwise unattainable insight but, time being so precious, I would rather experience more cultures in more countries.
 

 

6 hours ago, ChristianPFC said:

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.


It is a pity you cannot continue what you have being doing for years, to the benefit of Thailand - even more than the money you spend, it is a supreme compliment to the Thai people that you have engaged so deeply with their culture.

We have to accept, however, that Asia is always in flux, especially Thailand. I am pretty sure it will open up again, I do not think the current gang can retain power for more than a few more years. At least, in the meanwhile, you do have all these other options. I suspect you will enjoy the Philippines. It is very different from Thailand, far less developed, but the people can be very sweet. Avoid Manila.
 

 

6 hours ago, ChristianPFC said:

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.


Yes, that is the smart approach for all of us, even the retirees on this forum who get so much enjoyment from attacking those who do not yet have that option. No westerner in Thailand should smugly presume that the growing bureaucracy and paranoia of the generals will not somehow manage to affect their situation.

On the other hand, there is a good chance that you will manage to continue using your home here for 8 months of the year, just take some sensible steps. Stop using Don Mueang and even Suvarnabhumi if possible. Some Thai airports are a completely different experience, it is like night and day.

 

 

Edited by donnacha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, elviajero said:

We are visitors given permission to enter/stay for specific reasons. Tourism is just one reason, and although it's not specified is expected to be a short stay (max 90 days) after which they expect you to return home/move on.

 

(...)

 

Nothing in the visa system gives any indication that "rinse and repeat" is a legitimate way to live in the country or the correct use of VE/TR's.

Move on, yes, certainly. You do need to leave Thailand whenever your permission to stay is up. No argument there.

 

But there's "nothing in the visa system" that says that you need to return home, or to your country of (permanent) residence, either. That's just something you've dreamed up. If you're from a far-away country and you have a METV, it's the norm rather than the exception that you travel within the region before returning for another stay in Thailand.

 

You might have missed that this isn't a denial of entry report. The OP's IO did let the OP in. Unless you want to accuse that particular Thai IO of dereliction of duty, you need to accept the fact that the OP's history - AS A TOURIST - was fine with them. Personally, I think asking for an outbound ticket isn't unreasonable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Living in Thailand , as a tourist ,  on back to back runs , and Visa Excempt. 

 Those days are over , you have been flagged , move on..

   PS,  dont exit @dons,  the wicked lady is waiting for you.. 555

 

 

Edited by elliss
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, elviajero said:

The fact that people continue to get away with long stays as tourists does not change the fact that they are not supposed to.

If I were some kind of a DB developer who has wasted his prime years working in an IT backwater such as Thailand, I would be jealous of those long-term tourists, too. Trust me.

 

What you need to focus on, however, is the Thai authorities. What you think doesn't really matter. There's simply no consistency whatsoever, not even at DMK. Another supervisor could well have denied entry to our OP. Not because "the rules" say that you cannot spend 8+ months per year in Thailand as a tourist, mind you.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

my austrian embassy requires proof of flight out when entering thailand on METV the first time (or at least they highly recommend it) - aswell as a hotel booking or adress with proof. 

Otherwise they told me there is a high chance of being denied, as they had many other stories of tourists going there (even just for 3 weeks) and being denied and they had to buy expensive flights back home. 
They even said there is some kind of visa law or insurance in place, that once a person got the visa, they can't actually be denied anymore (unless for criminal reasons) , becausue all the checks have been done when getting the visa.... but thais sadly don't follow this law / or use the suspicion of work <deleted>. The problem is, if an official says no, can't do much. 

But i also believe that it is very very rare to actually be sent back home with a visa... like 100 in a Million low. 


Thailand Immigration has gone mad since they have nobody telling them what to do 

Edited by Austrian26
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On September 15, 2019 at 10:19 PM, 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,

You seem to be laboring under the impression that everyone in the world is entitled to stay long term in Thailand and the method should be both inexpensive and convenient.  Failing that you then should be free to change the rules to suit yourself.

 

 

 

Edited by Suradit69
  • Like 2
Link to comment
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...