Refused entry at Bangkok Suvarnabhumi from London Heathrow with visa - help returning

[NanLaew]

3 minutes ago, saengd said:

Which they follow precisely, right, which is why nobody ever has a problem trying to enter the country.....in your dreams!

People abusing tourist visas are getting increasingly turned away.

 

What part of wake up and smell the somtam isn't getting through here?

Edited October 24, 2019 by NanLaew

[jackdd]

2 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

And the reason in this instance is 12.2 which is 'insufficient funds for long stay' while entering on a tourist visa which isn't a long stay visa.

 

What's so hard to understand here?

Because 12.2 doesn't say 'insufficient funds for long stay'

 

Edited October 24, 2019 by jackdd

[saengd]

1 minute ago, jackdd said:

Because 12.2 doesn't say 'insufficient funds for long stay'

 

I don't think you understand fully the way the world operates.

[jackdd]

1 minute ago, saengd said:

I don't think you understand fully the way the world operates.

I would say nobody does. But at least i'm able to read and understand that every country has it's own laws.

[BoBoTheClown]

Stay in England and be a bum in your our country. 

[NanLaew]

9 minutes ago, jackdd said:

Because 12.2 isn't 'insufficient funds for long stay'

 

It says, "Having no appropriate means of living following entrance into the Kingdom."

 

Appropriate means would be money in a Thai bank account as the long term stayers using the legal marriage and retirement extension options have to do.

Appropriate means would be money in a home bank account as the holders of 1-year O-A visas obtained overseas have to prove.

Appropriate means would be money in a Thai bank account as income from being legally employed here with a Thai work permit.

 

What's your interpretation of 12.2 that gives the nod to living long-term on back-to-back tourist visas and/or visa-exempt entries + extensions?

Edited October 24, 2019 by NanLaew

[terak]

I also had great difficulty getting in last Friday. I have a new passport because my last one was full, not because I was hiding anything. They said I had had too many tourist visa's in the past. I used to have retirement extension, but cannot renew as my local immigration will nor respect my 65,000 monthly transfers until i have made 12 of them. I manage to persuade IO to let me in but they made me promise to get long term visa for next entry after this TR expires............... looks like a dodgy Visa which I do not really want to do,

Edited October 24, 2019 by terak

[jackdd]

3 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

It says, "Having no appropriate means of living following entrance into the Kingdom."

 

Appropriate means would be money in a Thai bank account as the long term stayers using the legal marriage and retirement extension options have to do.

Appropriate means would be money in a home bank account as the holders of 1-year O-A visas obtained overseas have to prove.

Appropriate means would be money in a Thai bank account as income from being legally employed here with a Thai work permit.

 

What's your interpretation of 12.2 that gives the nod to living long-term on back-to-back tourist visas?

Being denied for 12.2 means you are impoverished and don't have basic needs like clothes, housing, foods etc.

The english translation is just not accurate.

I've done my research, just check my thread here:

 

Edited October 24, 2019 by jackdd

[elviajero]

15 minutes ago, jackdd said:

This here is Thailand, not the UK. According to Thai law an IO can deny a person only for specific reasons defined in this law.

And orders issued under the law. There is nothing specific about section 12.10 or section 16.

[elviajero]

12 minutes ago, jackdd said:

Being denied for 12.2 means you are impoverished and don't have basic needs like clothes, housing, foods etc.

The english translation is just not accurate.

I've done my research, just check my thread here:

 

No. You've come up with an interpretation to justify your opinion.

[jackdd]

5 minutes ago, elviajero said:

No. You've come up with an interpretation to justify your opinion.

Confirmed by many IOs. How many IOs did you ask to explain "ไม่มีปัจจัยในการยังชีพตามควรแก่กรณีที่เข้ามาในราชอาณาจักร" to you?

Edited October 24, 2019 by jackdd

[bbi1]

19 hours ago, Los Luver said:

To the OP:

Since you are trying to get new passport, try to get new fingers, since the immigration has got your fingerprints.

Talking about biometric fingerprints, what happens if someone scans the tips of their fingers, then the next time they scan the bottom part of their fingers? Will it match up in the records?

[lovinglife]

Have been travelling to and fro for many years but the UK Embassy visa application is now totally different. I have just created an account, transferred £30, filled in the forms, supplied digital copies of passport page, travel documents, bank statements, photo, accommodation during stay, all in JPG form.

 

Then print off the barcoded application form and send to London embassy together with passport and £10 note.

 

Took a while but nothing too difficult.

[spidermike007]

Thailand is digging it's own grave when it comes to tourism. 

 

Pretty soon they will be begging us to come, rather than telling us in a surly and arrogant manner that we come too often. How inane. 

 

The Thai Army. Moving the nation backwards at an astonishing pace. Destroying Thai lives and any hope of a bright future.  

[Ventenio]

after having a work permit for a few years (as well as a few border runs in-between)......should getting a tourist visa be super easy since I haven't had one in a few years?  or if they see a few tourist visas in 2016 and 2017 would that be a concern?  i'm thinking sometime next year i will get one tourist visa.  

 

i'm guessing the answer is.....nobody knows.  maybe, maybe not.  

[NanLaew]

5 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Pretty soon they will be begging us to come,

Be sure and wake me up when that ever happens.

[bbi1]

3 hours ago, Russell17au said:

Unless you changed your name, date of birth and your finger prints, when your new passport is placed into the passport reader at whatever entry point that you use, your whole data record will be displayed on the I/O screen and it will be linked to your old passport as well. The big question that you might be asked is "Why do you have a new passport?" This will raise a red flag to any I/O at any check point.

What about if you're one of the lucky handful of people in this world born with no fingerprints? What do the IO's do when it comes to fingerprint scanning time?

[Bangkok Barry]

1 hour ago, sweatalot said:

when  the stamp in the passport gives another reason is irrelevant. Is there any law that requires the stamp to indicate the correct cause? Or any cause at all?

 

What a bizarre comment. It is totally relevant because it means they are hiding the real reason if they give a made-up one. And there probably is a law that says the IO has to give the reason for refusal. Not that what is lawful and what is not has any relevance in Thailand. Few countries, other than dictatorships, accuse you, 'charge' you, without telling you what you are being accused of.

[elviajero]

16 minutes ago, jackdd said:

Confirmed by many IOs. How many IOs did you ask to explain "ไม่มีปัจจัยในการยังชีพตามควรแก่กรณีที่เข้ามาในราชอาณาจักร" to you?

I've been advising on this subject for years and have discussed my research at length in the past.

 

I doubt very much if you've spoken to anyone, because if you had you would not have come to your opinion. Immigration are not denying entry to western visitors because they are "are impoverished and don't have basic needs like clothes, housing, foods etc." That would be ridiculous.

 

It is because they do not have the appropriate means of living in the country. Anyone living in any country, including their own, needs a job or another source of income to live. Section 12.2 is saying that the visitor does not have an appropriate way of living in Thailand.

 

The official translation of the Immigration act is all you need. It is an accurate translation of the intention of the law.

[NanLaew]

6 minutes ago, Ventenio said:

after having a work permit for a few years (as well as a few border runs in-between)......should getting a tourist visa be super easy since I haven't had one in a few years?  or if they see a few tourist visas in 2016 and 2017 would that be a concern?  i'm thinking sometime next year i will get one tourist visa.  

 

i'm guessing the answer is.....nobody knows.  maybe, maybe not.  

The OP's serial tourist gig started on 2018.

 

Right now, and without any information on any possible accumulative, more recent days in LOS, I would say you'll have no worries next year.

 

PS. A Thai work permit isn't a Thai immigration criteria; the visa (if any) is. Border running around 2016/17 suggests you may have been involved with the TEFL'ers death rattle here?

[Bangkok Barry]

1 hour ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Try telling any government that, particularly in the current anti-immigrant climate. Border controls ALWAYS top Embassies and Consulates in foreign countries.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
 

 

So, again, what is the point of applying for a visa. I assume those who decide whether to issue a visa or not are infinitely better equipped to use what sources are available to them to check a person's eligibility than the IO at a border post. I assume they do do checks, otherwise they'd just issue a visa on the spot.

Edited October 24, 2019 by Bangkok Barry

[bbi1]

1 hour ago, problemfarang said:

Well it seems immigration 1 - you 0.

 

tbh you sounds like one of the guys who is trying to live in thailand as much as you can and anyway you can.

 

I suggest you to find a work or get marry. Thats the best legal way for you. And please stop doing other ways because ppl like you (if im right) are the reason why immigration is getting hard on us who are living legally.

 

thanks.

What about all the old grey nomads you read on this forum who need to use agents (and there are a lot of them) because they don't have a lousy small 800k in the bank to be able to legally stay in Thailand? They should be deported asap as they "are a reason why immigration is getting hard on us who are living legally."

[Ventenio]

3 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

The OP's serial tourist gig started on 2018.

 

Right now, and without any information on any possible accumulative, more recent days in LOS, I would say you'll have no worries next year.

 

PS. A Thai work permit isn't a Thai immigration criteria; the visa (if any) is. Border running around 2016/17 suggests you may have been involved with the TEFL'ers death rattle here?

just a few months break between jobs.  WP done, border run.  then another border run for more time for the paperwork from the new school to get finished.  the border runs were in 2019 actually.  maybe like 9 months ago, i'm guessing around Feb.  but even then they really did take their time looking at the computer.....maybe it was in my head.  

[bbi1]

19 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Thailand is digging it's own grave when it comes to tourism. 

 

Pretty soon they will be begging us to come, rather than telling us in a surly and arrogant manner that we come too often. How inane. 

 

The Thai Army. Moving the nation backwards at an astonishing pace. Destroying Thai lives and any hope of a bright future.  

Can't wait for the Thai real estate market and the Thai economy to crash. The way they are doing things it will happen within the next few years or even earlier.

[bbi1]

10 minutes ago, elviajero said:

I've been advising on this subject for years and have discussed my research at length in the past.

 

I doubt very much if you've spoken to anyone, because if you had you would not have come to your opinion. Immigration are not denying entry to western visitors because they are "are impoverished and don't have basic needs like clothes, housing, foods etc." That would be ridiculous.

 

It is because they do not have the appropriate means of living in the country. Anyone living in any country, including their own, needs a job or another source of income to live. Section 12.2 is saying that the visitor does not have an appropriate way of living in Thailand.

 

The official translation of the Immigration act is all you need. It is an accurate translation of the intention of the law.

So if you have passive income or investment income then they can't deny you under Section 12.2 because you have appropriate ways of living in Thailand. Correct?

[Ventenio]

5 minutes ago, bbi1 said:

What about all the old grey nomads you read on this forum who need to use agents (and there are a lot of them) because they don't have a lousy small 800k in the bank to be able to legally stay in Thailand? They should be deported asap as they "are a reason why immigration is getting hard on us who are living legally."

i agree with you that 800k is a nominal sum and even 25 year old kids can save that much; however, I've also run into many, many people from bad marriages, many kids, life issues, bad investments, etc....where they lose tens of millions of baht.  now, should they be in Thailand?  not my call, but I have a feeling it's better here than back home.   Many have also "retired" for only about 10 years and then went back to work.  life is complicated.  i stopped judging.  

[jackdd]

5 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Immigration are not denying entry to western visitors because they are "are impoverished and don't have basic needs like clothes, housing, foods etc." That would be ridiculous.

If you had read my other thread properly, you would have understood that my conclusion is that they suspect people of working illegally in Thailand. But instead of using section 12.3 to deny them they use 12.2.

As other posters then pointed out this might be because 12.3 would require proof that the foreigner is working, which they don't have. Section 12.2 is more convenient for them to use because they can just say something like "the guy didn't have any money with him and looked like a bum" (they never ask for money or whatever) to justify it. This explanation makes sense to me.

[Caldera]

1 minute ago, bbi1 said:

So if you have passive income or investment income then they can't deny you under Section 12.2 because you have appropriate ways of living in Thailand. Correct?

They simply don't make any effort to investigate that properly. Keep in mind that they are members of the Thai police farce, not to be mistaken for real police officers that can be found in other countries.

[bbi1]

3 minutes ago, Ventenio said:

i agree with you that 800k is a nominal sum and even 25 year old kids can save that much; however, I've also run into many, many people from bad marriages, many kids, life issues, bad investments, etc....where they lose tens of millions of baht.  now, should they be in Thailand?  not my call, but I have a feeling it's better here than back home.   Many have also "retired" for only about 10 years and then went back to work.  life is complicated.  i stopped judging.  

IMO no they shouldn't. They are not legally staying in Thailand and doing shady sh#t to stay here with their bribes to agents/IOs.

Edited October 24, 2019 by bbi1

[moe666]

Just face it boys no more living here on tourist visa, they started years ago with the crack down on border runs and people working on 30 day permission to stay, then they cracked on the education visa, now the tourist visa.