Proof of leaving required with METV at DMK

[ChristianPFC]

4 hours ago, Austrian26 said:

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. 

Thai embassy in Berlin wouldn't issue a METV without proof of leaving (flight out of Thailand, hotel booking or visa for a neighboring country). So far, I always had a flight out within the first 60 days to meet that requirement by embassy.

 

But on subsequent entries in Thailand with same METV, I was never asked for proof of leaving before.

 

2,756 views and 62 replies, and only one answers my question if this has happened, or not, to others, at DMK or elsewhere.

 

Reply to post #62 above:

I'm an only child. I'm not used to waiting or sharing. I want everything, now!

Edited September 17, 2019 by ChristianPFC

[BritTim]

On 9/16/2019 at 2:40 AM, elviajero said:

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.

This simply confirms that the Immigration should enforce the Immigration Act. If you are excluded from entering Thailand for one of the reasons outlined in Section 12 of the Immigration Act, then holding a visa will not guarantee you entry.

 

This in no way implies that individual immigration officials have discretion on whether to honour your visa. Indeed, the Act implies otherwise. Officials are supposed to closely follow the Act as written, except where instructed otherwise by the Minister.

[darrendsd]

18 hours 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)

This simply states that each TV has a length of 90 days - it doesn't say that Tourists are expected to go back home after this period

 

According to you Tourists visit for a short time then leave - 90 days is not the average time that Tourists stay here so Immigration disagree with you on that - if they thought that Tourists should only visit for a short time then leave they would reduce the length of time permitted to stay on each TV

 

 

[natway09]

Lets just get one thing straight.

Nobody over 50 or under 50 has any God given rights to spend anytime here 

[Caldera]

5 hours ago, Suradit69 said:

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.

You need to face the fact that many people see Thailand as their b-tch, and for good reason. Long may it last.

 

On a personal note, what does the 69 in your handle stand for?

Edited September 17, 2019 by Caldera
Question added

[JemJem]

One thing is certain for sure : Since some years ago (and at an increasing rate, since, say, about a year ago), Thailand has been getting more and more strict, regarding tourist visas (and also regarding visa-exempt stay). Is this trend likely to continue ? Possible.

Edited September 17, 2019 by JemJem

[Lovethailandelite]

3 minutes ago, JemJem said:

One thing is certain for sure : Since some years ago (and at an increasing rate, since, say, about a year ago), Thailand has been getting more and more strict, regarding tourist visas (and also regarding visa-exempt stay). Is this trend likely to continue ? Possible.

What has changed at an increasing rate, is the ability to even continue to get tourist and ED visas in the region. That is before you even attempt to continually enter with them.
Forget immigration for a moment, the Embassy's and consulates themselves are drawing a line under it.

[Suradit69]

1 hour ago, Caldera said:

On a personal note, what does the 69 in your handle stand for?

The year 1969 and something personal associated with it.  I won't speculate on what you were thinking or why you needed to know.

 

1 hour ago, Caldera said:

You need to face the fact that many people see Thailand as their b-tch, and for good reason. Long may it last.

Charming.  Almost poetic in its implications for those who feel unloved by Thais.

Som nam na.

 

 

Edited September 17, 2019 by Suradit69

[elviajero]

On 9/16/2019 at 1:29 PM, darrendsd said:

It is where you are concerned because it's well known on here that you contradict yourself on a post by post basis just to try and win your argument - something sadly you can't even see

Prove it. Give one example.

[elviajero]

On 9/16/2019 at 3:08 PM, Caldera said:

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

Agreed.

 

On 9/16/2019 at 3:08 PM, Caldera said:

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.

And Iv'e never claimed there is. TB and Immigration Officers - backed up by reports on TVF - expect a tourist to leave and return home after a visit because that is what a typical tourist does.

 

All tourists should have an onward flight (it's the rules) because they want to see that the tourist is intending to leave. The requirements for an METV are to demonstrate a reason to return home and not hang around in Thailand.

 

On 9/16/2019 at 3:08 PM, Caldera said:

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.

Rubbish. You well know most serial tourists only leave Thailand because they have to. I used to make a break of it and travel the region, but if I could have extended in Thailand I would have. But extensions aren't available as you're not supposed to stay long term in the country as a tourist.

 

I'd bet 20 baht that most METV holders would stay the full 9 months if they could.

 

On 9/16/2019 at 3:08 PM, Caldera said:

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.

I didn't miss it!. In my initial comment I was simply pointing out that the reason they asked to see a flight was because they are ordered to if considering denying entry to a serial tourist. All tourists should have onward flights. Only serial tourist - as a rule - get asked for proof. Why would that be?

[elviajero]

On 9/16/2019 at 3:36 PM, Caldera said:

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.

Is that another one of your childish digs at me? Pathetic!

 

On 9/16/2019 at 3:36 PM, Caldera said:

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.

And what you need to understand is that IO's have been given *** discretional power *** and that is going to throw up inconsistency. You have no idea all the orders/rules the IO's are working to, which will undoubtedly vary based on the situations a different borders.

[elviajero]

On 9/16/2019 at 4:26 PM, darrendsd said:

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

 

What fact is this?

 

I'm not interested in the odd I/O giving someone on a METV a hard time 

 

If it was  a "Fact" and remember that you said the word Fact every single person who stayed in Thailand for the full 9 months of the METV would be refused entry at some point

 

The fact that every single person does not get refused proves you wrong

The very fact that the maximum stay for a tourist is 90 days proves the fact that you are not supposed to live in the country using TR's. You need a long term visa or permit to do that.

 

On 9/16/2019 at 4:26 PM, darrendsd said:

There is no rule that says you can't do this in fact if you look at the requirements it is pretty simple to see that you can - the requirements state that you can stay for 60 days then if you wish get a 30 day extension then you must leave - it DOES not state that you cannot leave for a few hours then come back so as much as you bleat that it is not "Supposed" to be done plenty do this - they are let in they get extensions

I don't disagree. The issue is with repeating that over and over as a way of living in the country. That is what the Thai authorities have been clamping down on - successfully - for 13 years. Simple!

 

You are not supposed to stay long term using back to back VE or TR's. Fact.

 

On 9/16/2019 at 4:26 PM, darrendsd said:

The fact is that you can't see past your point of view which is Tourists only stay for a short length of time then leave - the world has changed - people DO stay here for 6 -8 months a year as tourists - I know of 3 couples that do this - maybe for others it's  to escape the winter - maybe because their income allows them to - maybe they will have a base but they DO travel within Thailand within that time

You miss the point that we are all visitors and are given permission to visit for specific reasons. A visitor can only justify 'tourism' for so long. You're no tourist. You're a long term visitor (resident) claiming to be a tourist.

[elviajero]

13 hours ago, BritTim said:

This simply confirms that the Immigration should enforce the Immigration Act. If you are excluded from entering Thailand for one of the reasons outlined in Section 12 of the Immigration Act, then holding a visa will not guarantee you entry.

Show me one report where they haven't used a reason under section 12 to deny entry.

 

13 hours ago, BritTim said:

This in no way implies that individual immigration officials have discretion on whether to honour your visa. Indeed, the Act implies otherwise. Officials are supposed to closely follow the Act as written, except where instructed otherwise by the Minister.

Missing the point again. There is nothing stopping the authorities (as they did with VE) from instructing IO's to deny entry - at the their discretion - to any long term tourists (which they've clearly done). And in the absence of a specific regulation to instruct the IO's to use any reason, that fits, that's listed in section 12 (as they did with VE).

 

The only difference I see with TR denials is that they publicly warned the clampdown on VE but haven't with TR's. IMO that is because the numbers are far less and they are using other methods to restrict visa availability etc rather than having to rely solely on denial at the border. I don't think for one minute they want to be seen to deny visa holders, but if the embassies/consulates don't do their job I guess its a last resort. Eventually - sooner rather than later IMO - they'll get better control of visa issuance and it will be game over.

[elviajero]

13 hours ago, darrendsd said:

This simply states that each TV has a length of 90 days - it doesn't say that Tourists are expected to go back home after this period

Where do you think they think the millions of tourists go when they leave! 555

 

13 hours ago, darrendsd said:

According to you Tourists visit for a short time then leave - 90 days is not the average time that Tourists stay here so Immigration disagree with you on that - if they thought that Tourists should only visit for a short time then leave they would reduce the length of time permitted to stay on each TV

I bet the average tourist spends far less than 90 days. Most people go on holiday for a few weeks and go home. You know, like tourists do.

 

I am 100% sure that don't have a problem with someone spending 90 days in the country as a tourist. Do I need to explain again what the problem is?

[ubonjoe]

This topic seems to of run its course since has turned into a bickering session between a few members.

Topic