Jump to content
Jonathan Fairfield

Q & A from the TAT about reports that some tourists were refused entry to Thailand

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, jeab1980 said:

There a big diffrence people in departures have cleared customs and immigration. People in arrivals have not cleared immigration or customs big big diffrence.

I am not sure I understand your point. People getting US$ from an ATM machine at their departure airport have also not passed Thai immigration and customs. Using an ATM machine to get US$ on arrival seems completely equivalent. Or, perhaps you are referring to some other factor with the traveler or those servicing the ATM machines that I am missing?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jeab1980 said:

There a big diffrence people in departures have cleared customs and immigration. People in arrivals have not cleared immigration or customs big big diffrence.

What are you rambling about.

The ATM's are filled by Thai personnel, with security clearance and escorted by airport security.

 

There not flying in and out, don't need to clear customs and certainly not Immigration.

I fear you're taking too many of those laxatives.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

What are you rambling about.

The ATM's are filled by Thai personnel, with security clearance and escorted by airport security.

 

There not flying in and out, don't need to clear customs and certainly not Immigration.

I fear you're taking too many of those laxatives.

 

Ifvyou say so cant be bothered. The fact is there are non. So theres a reason why there are non

 But hey your the resident expert. You seem to think.

Share this post


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

I think have been two documented examples. The UK tabloids will print anything.

Two in the last week.  Many more reported here over the past few years - almost always "didn't have the money" cases on ED, TR, or Visa-Exempts, where the person wasn't allowed to withdraw the money to show. 

 

6 hours ago, hawker9000 said:

They make their money whether they issue the visa or not; the application fee is non-refundable - as I suspect you well know - and you really can't miss that oft-repeated notice during the process.  If this B20K thing were one tenth as well publicized as the non-refundable application fee, it wouldn't be an issue at all...   But I agree that it's the tourist visa and visa-exempt abusers that have made life difficult for everyone else.  Unfortunately but predictably, the B20K thing is pretty easy for these serial abusers to "figure out", so now the cash check quickly evolves into something that pretty much only burdens those playing by the rules and haven't been to Thailand 50 times so as to be aware of these new and quaint little customs.

The "fee paid whether yes or no" rule is true for many/most consulates world-wide.  But note that Lao consulates usually don't take the money if they won't accept what you submitted. Based on the reports I have read, other consulates close to Thailand are similar - usually rejecting an application before accepting payment.

 

Those who do not have frequent and/or longer-term stays here in their immigration-history are not being asked to show the money - so not being inconvenienced.

Those who have stayed here longer term - even if they have been gone from Thailand for weeks or months since - are the ones being asked to show the money. 

Anyone with frequent and/or long-term stay will simply use points-of-entry that follow the law - not airports - and also carry the cash, as you pointed out. 

 

The difficult question, is someone who is "in the middle" - because the non-rules which trigger enforcement are not public and appear to be "invented" on the spot.  Based on reports, these rules may include "Too many Tourist Visas" (how many is too many over what time-span?) and "Over 180 Days Stay in a Year" (maybe even last year).  Because the rules are not published, it's just a guess whether some have "crossed the line" or not, which will force many to use land-crossings out of an abundance of caution.

 

In the world before ATM machines, showing "cash or travelers checks" on entry made more sense, because that is how most people financed their stays when traveling.  Nowadays, people self-financing their trip with carried-cash is a very remote possibility.  Given the law does not specify cash, enforcement of the rule should reflect how people obtain funds in today's world.  But, as I think most will agree, the question being asked isn't really a question of, "Do they have the money."  What we are seeing is: "We do not have 'officers discretion' to reject entry in Thailand by law, and we want to reject this guy who 'stays here too much', so which rule can we use to justify rejecting this guy?"

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

Anyone with frequent and/or long-term stay will simply use points-of-entry that follow the law - not airports

Nonsense !

 

I legally stay in Thailand and have done so for over a decade. During this time I have left and returned on many occasions using the airports without experiencing any problem at all. The same applies to millions of others whether long stay or short term tourista. 

 

How would you advise someone travelling from Australia, Europe, the UK or the USA to enter/leave the country if Thailand's airports are to be avoided? 

 

You are inflating a minor issue which only involves a few 'ne'er do wells' who are attempting to scam the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, perthperson said:

Nonsense !

 

I legally stay in Thailand and have done so for over a decade. During this time I have left and returned on many occasions using the airports without experiencing any problem at all. The same applies to millions of others whether long stay or short term tourista. 

 

How would you advise someone travelling from Australia, Europe, the UK or the USA to enter/leave the country if Thailand's airports are to be avoided? 

 

You are inflating a minor issue which only involves a few 'ne'er do wells' who are attempting to scam the system.

The discussion is in the context of ED, TR Visa and Visa-Exempt entries.  Yes, those with longer-stays on those are more likely to be questioned, and may even be denied entry.  Those on a Non-O, Non-B, etc will have a different experience. 

 

Those coming from Europe, who have spent significant time here on ED, TR, Exempt, and think their plans could be ruined by attempting entry by air, should fly to a neighboring country and come through a land-border.  There is a nice, fast train from Penang, for example, and connecting flights from Hat-Yai after entering Thailand.

 

For more context, here is a case of a fellow who was out of the country for 7 months, but had a previous longer-stay, which triggered a "computer alert" of some sort (June 17th, 2017):

 

https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/988184-immigration-questioned-me-computer-show-up/

On 6/17/2017 at 2:08 AM, 2road said:

hi

in 2016 i spent 11 months in thailand. i stayed legally with a tourist visa that I was renewing every 3 months at different embassies in Lao. in Nov 2016 i left Th for Vietnam

After working in Vietnam for 7 months I flew back to TH today and as the immigration officer was turning the pages of my passport back and forth for 5min then said: "computer show up".

Another officer with better english showed up and asked to follow her then said: 
"no work in your country?" "how long you stay"
"why in TH so long? u can only stay 90 days in a year".

 

So, we have a made-up rule (90 days / yr), retroactively enforced (on a 2016 stay), to spite a long stay out of the country (7 mo), and if you read that thread further, one factor which may have allowed him in, was showing a Vietnamese work-permit to "prove" he did not "intend to work" here (since he had been gone 7 months, couldn't have been holding-down a job during that period), to spite Thai law saying nothing about "suspicion" being a justifiable reason for denial of entry. 

Edited by JackThompson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

So, we have a made-up rule (90 days / yr), retroactively enforced (on a 2016 stay), t

Did you actually witness this alleged incident ?  If not you are making rumour out of a one sided unevidenced anecdote.

 

Again you are attempting to inflate a minor issue involving a  couple of "ne'er do wells" into something it is not. Millions of people enter Thailand and never experience any problem at the airport or anywhere else. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, perthperson said:

Did you actually witness this alleged incident ?  If not you are making rumour out of a one sided unevidenced anecdote.

Again you are attempting to inflate a minor issue involving a  couple of "ne'er do wells" into something it is not. Millions of people enter Thailand and never experience any problem at the airport or anywhere else. 

Please explain what this guy did to make him a "ne'er do well" if you are going to accuse him of being one.  Like many of us, he followed the rules/laws, did not overstay, etc. 

I didn't witness it -  HE did.  It is HIS post I referenced.  The purpose of this forum is for people to share their experiences, so we can all learn from them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, jeab1980 said:

Well thats not available at present. For those under 50 who want to spend money? Please explain who these people are please. 

Well one of those people is a friend of mine who is in and out a lot 3 to 5 times a year and never bothers with a visa. He's mid forties, built up and sold a business in UK and is sitting on over a mil' UK in the bank. He could go the Elite route but I suppose wont spend the cash, and complains how little he can get in interest on it.

He's not sure if he will continue coming here so if he paid up front for Elite then decided on not coming back 6 months or a year later here he reckons it would be wasted money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

The purpose of this forum is for people to share their experiences, so we can all learn from them. 

The problem is that some use TV anecdotes to fuel their Conspiracy Theories. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, perthperson said:

The problem is that some use TV anecdotes to fuel their Conspiracy Theories. 

The problem is, some people come here to insult other people with name-calling.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

Please explain what this guy did to make him a "ne'er do well" if you are going to accuse him of being one.  Like many of us, he followed the rules/laws, did not overstay, etc. 

I didn't witness it -  HE did.  It is HIS post I referenced.  The purpose of this forum is for people to share their experiences, so we can all learn from them. 

He was obviously 'flagged' because of his 11 month stay on TV's the previous year.

 

Whilst renewing my extension last month, another applicant who was applying for a 30 day extension to his TV was refused on the grounds 'he would exceed 180 days staying in Thailand and to apply for the correct Visa if he wanted to reside in Thailand'.

 

Thailand needs to be clearer on it's policies and regulations if these indiscriminate experiences are to be stopped.

No matter what method of entry is used, foreigners need to know where they stand legally from an Immigration viewpoint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, overherebc said:

Well one of those people is a friend of mine who is in and out a lot 3 to 5 times a year and never bothers with a visa. He's mid forties, built up and sold a business in UK and is sitting on over a mil' UK in the bank. He could go the Elite route but I suppose wont spend the cash, and complains how little he can get in interest on it.

He's not sure if he will continue coming here so if he paid up front for Elite then decided on not coming back 6 months or a year later here he reckons it would be wasted money.

So if he doesnt know what he wants to do no visa will help him will it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jeab1980 said:

So if he doesnt know what he wants to do no visa will help him will it

Probably a 10 year multi entry similar to the one for USA my wife has in her passport that didn't cost a million baht.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

Whilst renewing my extension last month, another applicant who was applying for a 30 day extension to his TV was refused on the grounds 'he would exceed 180 days staying in Thailand and to apply for the correct Visa if he wanted to reside in Thailand'.

 

That is interesting because 180 days could(theoretically) be amassed quite legally with an METV.

 

Perhaps that applicants passport revealed a mass of visa exempt and SETVs ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

BANGKOK 22 August 2018 12:49
Sponsors
×