Stricter requirements for Tourist visa applicants

[lomuamart]

It's been necessary for years to have proof of onward travel if entering the country on a 30 day visa exempt stamp, but in my experience it's never enforced at a land or sea crossing. It will be by your airline if flying in though.
But it's the supposed fact now that tourist visa requirements seem to have caught up with border run requirements.
Up until now, if a person arrived in Thailand with a visa there was no need for proof of return/onward travel. There was one if arriving without a visa - ie a 30 day visa exempt stamp. It would usually fall on the airline check-in staff to question and quite possibly refuse boarding to those who didn't have return/onward tickets and no visa. It's always been like that and is the case with most countries.
There are many visitors here who are perpetual "tourists". I've had this forum conversation with SJ in the past. Then it was the clamping down on border runs and the regulations changed a few times within a couple of years. These days it seems like those who regularly go to Vientianne and other neighbouring missions for tourist visas are being targeted.
Whether that's good or bad, I'm not making a judgement on. However, I look back on my 13 years here and the visa situation has tightened up significantly over that time and I've been lucky simply by virtue of age and marital status to meet the needs and now only extend my visa annually.
I've never seen any reason why those who are under 50 or not married to a Thai can't stay here with perpetual tourist visas if they can afford it and I'm not talking about the 20/40K in their pockets.
Oh well, let's see how this onward/return ticket regulation is enforced. By the airlines, I bet.
Just as an aside, but in the same vein, I've recently been to India and got a tourist visa for the trip. Their regulations state that I can't apply for another one unless I've been out of the country for two months. Food for thought.

[Roel]

Interesting what Phuket Immigrations says about enforcing the new rule:

http://www.phuketgazette.net/archives/a ... 10881.html

[dtaai-maai]

Interesting what Phuket Immigrations says about enforcing the new rule:

Interesting, but they're not going to be enforcing it at all as they don't issue visas, and they're extremely unlikely to refuse entry to anybody who already has one.

[bapak]

Interesting what Phuket Immigrations says about enforcing the new rule:

http://www.phuketgazette.net/archives/a ... 10881.html

To the best of my knowledge, every country has the right to refuse entrance regardless whether you have a visa or not The last time I went to the USA the person in front of me in the arrival queue was refused entry despite having a visa.

[lomuamart]

The laws here are as has been said. Simple as that - 20/40K on demand.
I've seen this flapping around so many times when some idiot gets a position and reads the rule book.The rule is there, but....
The big one is onward travel for tourists. The rest is just mud.

[Super Joe]

There are many visitors here who are perpetual "tourists". I've had this forum conversation with SJ in the past. Then it was the clamping down on border runs and the regulations changed a few times within a couple of years. These days it seems like those who regularly go to Vientianne and other neighbouring missions for tourist visas are being targeted. I look back on my 13 years here and the visa situation has tightened up significantly over that time. I've never seen any reason why those who are under 50 or not married to a Thai can't stay here with perpetual tourist visas if they can afford it.

Yes, I think you sum up the situation perfectly Lomu, and while we used to disagree passionately about whether or not visa runners were within the rules or bending them, we'd obviously agree on what was occuring. Everything that's come to light over the years since indicates to me that your last line in bold is spot on... that there's no issue with perpetual tourists who can fund themselves (we know they love a farang who's spending), it's those that can't they do not want.

This is nothing to do with tourists (it doesn't apply to the majority of Western tourists arriving 'visa exempt') but everything to do with illegal workers, and it never has been about tourists and always has been about workers unless someone can show me where they have actually restricted 'tourists' in any way, shape or form. The immigration officer interviewed at Phuket airport spelled it out when he said they're not interested in whether you're staying in a hotel or with friends, they're interested in checking your travel history... to catch the perpetual 'tourists' = because the illegal workers are in that group, whether farangs or neighbouring migrant workers.

Unfortunately the genuine perpetual tourists that are looking after themselves get affected by this, and the majority of the farang community are immediately up in arms with this irrational persecution complex thing... despite none of us knowing a single tourist ever being affected by it... and despite us seeing record tourist numbers in 2010, in 2011 etc... and I don't believe it's particularly about 'Western farang' illegal workers anyway (divers, teachers, property people etc), they probably do more good than harm as often it's based around a farang business, it's the likes of the estimated 500,000 illegal Burmese & co, who do damage to the country by 1) taking real jobs Thais can do, 2) having serious drug mules hidden among them (how much damage is that doing to society), 3) loss of taxes/social security, 4) and this spreading of serious diseases to Thais which then clogs up and costs the health service.

Yet reading some of the hysterical comments on other weird boards there's actually people out there who don't think it's anything to do with illegal workers costing the country money, and everything to do with stopping my Mum & Dad's evil plan to stay in their own place for 8 weeks this Xmas instead of staying in a hotel


SJ

[STEVE G]

The immigration officer interviewed at Phuket airport spelled it out when he said they're not interested in whether you're staying in a hotel or with friends, they're interested in checking your travel history... to catch the perpetual 'tourists' = because the illegal workers are in that group, whether farangs or neighbouring migrant workers.

Yes, I think you've hit the nail on the head there SJ.
I'm sure with the computer system at the airport they can see how much time you've spent in Thailand and it seems that if you spend more time out than in, they don't give you any hassle at all.
I've been to Thailand at least four times a year for the last eight years, on visa exemptions, and I've never once been asked any questions by immigration about anything.
In any country a tourist visa is exactly that, it's for people on holiday and not those working.

[Korkenzieher]

The nature of casting any net is that you catch a lot of things you never intended to. For backpackers, the Thai overland route to Singapore was one of the staples of the Round the World ticket. It is now rendered effectively illegal by being required to have paid for a flight out.

Immigratiuon have never asked me for an onward ticket - it isn't me they are looking for - but the issuing airline has. So I end up as a dolphin in a net meant for tuna. Thai immigration in general has never questioned my immigration into the country - compared to the USA it is a breeze - but the continual shifting of the ground, and expecting people to jump through hoops (even if they might be quite easily able to jump through them) must negatively affect the perception of legitimate travellers and PT's. If the rules are aimed at Nigerians or Indian migrant workers, it is quite easy to impose that on a nationality basis. Thailand has a lot of these rules already - most countries do. But the blanket application of these changes and many that precede them do suggest that the net is being cast wider, and it isn't easy to see why.

If overstays is the problem which it generally is, then I refer back to a chat I once had with an American Immigration offical and asked him why they made it so awkward for Europeans, who generally just wanted to turn up, spend money and then go home. He justified it partly on the numbers of Irish musicians illegally plying their trade in the bars of New York and Chicago. I pointed out to him the fact that they had passed though immigration legally and stayed; and therefore catching them at immigration didn't seem to be a particularly efficient approach, either at the time or after the fact. He seemed a bit stuck for an answer. Thailand it seems, is no different. Wrong approach to catch the wrong people.

[Super Joe]

The nature of casting any net is that you catch a lot of things you never intended to. For backpackers, the Thai overland route to Singapore was one of the staples of the Round the World ticket. It is now rendered effectively illegal by being required to have paid for a flight out.

The new rules do not say you have to have a paid flight out. It has a provision for alternative arrangements, so flight in, train out isn't going to have them refusing a genuine tourist imo. They don't want to stop genuine tourists otherwise they would have done. They just want to see the dates are within the period of stay, 60 days or whatever.

There's nothing here that restricts a tourist from obtaining a visa for it's stated purpose, it seems designed just to restrict those that were planning to 'bend' it's use shall we say. Like the last major (not that this seems major) change re: the visa runs, they're only bringing it in because of the widespread abuse of it.

but the continual shifting of the ground, and expecting people to jump through hoops (even if they might be quite easily able to jump through them) must negatively affect the perception of legitimate travellers and PT's.

What hoops exactly does a tourist intending to use a visa for it's stated purpose have to jump through? return ticket dates, acommodation details is pretty run of the mill stuff you get in many countries isn't it (I'm really not sure!?), it's nothing extraordinary for an extended tourist stay, it's just more than it was previously because they tried the more relaxed route and WE all took the biscuit.

We want to blame Thai immigration for our collective excesses!?

SJ

[lomuamart]

I really don't think that an address/hotel is the issue. It's the proof of onward travel that is - not necessarily a return flight. To the best of my memory airlines are only interested in that return ticket and certainly have never asked me where I'm staying here although that may change. As I get annual extensions now I'm not asked anything at check-in. Imm never ask me about accommodation either. Is that a section on the arrival card? Again I can't ever remember. Again, that may change.
Whilst I see the return ticket as a further tightening of visa regulations that I don't especially like, I have to be realistic and see it in the light of my limited experience of other counties.
My recent visit to India was one - OK no need to show a return flight (or at least proof of it was never asked for at any time) but on the other hand there isn't the visa exempt option. It's a visa and that's it.
If someone has a Thai girlfriend who applies for a UK tourist visa, a return ticket is de rigeur.
As always, where there's a will there's a way and I'm sure that those who wish to abuse the system, and by that I basically mean work illegally, will simply buy a cheap onward Air Asia ticket or similar to wherever and cancel it on arrival and possibly get a partial refund.
That option will become expensive though especially for those who need to work to make ends meet so this new regulation may have the desired effect anyway.
Despite the above, I will harp on about those who can live here, many with more disposable income than legitimate long-stayers. Quite why there isn't the option of a means test for these people is beyond me. I went through 10 years of endless travel and visa/border runs to keep myself legal and still had the change for a pint of beer and chips - well scratchings really!!

[STEVE G]

Yes, there's a space at the bottom of the arrivals card for your address in Thailand but in my experience the immigration officer only checks that an address of some description is entered.

[lomuamart]

Thanks, Steve G.
I always give my full postal address now but in the past just used to put Hua Hin.

[Korkenzieher]

@SuperJoe - Airlines will ask you to demonstrate a return or onward ticket. That is the rule they have been asked to follow. In the last 4 flights I have had to LOS, I have been asked twice (Etihad - by which I mean they have asked to see either a ticket or a visa, not verbally assure them, or show a train reservation trintout or the like. In both cases I had a visa whoch obviated the need for a ticket), and if I remember correctly AirAsia posts a reminder to that effect - but doesn't actually ask you directly. It isn't necessary to show travel arrangements at the consulate. There have been substantial discussions on other sites about the availability of the overland route and I'm not about to detail them here, I will simply point out that the policies Thailand develops leaves a lot of people confused.

My comments are generic, rather than aimed at recent updates for the 60 dayer. It isn't about blaming Thai immigration for wanting to control things a little - perfectly within their rights. But the changes do have knock on effects that will influence some people to look elsewhere - that must be self evident. Whether or not they factor that into their planning is an issue for them. But I suspect they don't. Personally, I could give a toss either way. My flights will take me just as easily to the Philippines or Malaysia. I choose to jump through the hoops while I can (or find ways around them), because LOS is where I want to end up. Others may not bother.

[lomuamart]

Kork.
Until now, there has been no need to show a return/onward journey if you are arriving with a visa - of whatever sort. Sure, some airlines might quiz you and they have me in years past but just point out the visa and stand your ground. Never, ever have I had more than a few questions asked of me.
This now seems to be a requirement so I tend to agree with your sentiments. It will adversely affect the transient/backpacker trade.
A tale of check-in with Thai International at Heathrow 13 years ago as I came to live here with a tourist visa, single entry.
"Do you have a return ticket?"
No
Why not?
Because I'm traveling Thailand and SE Asia and don't know when or from where I'll return.
Do you have proof of an onward journey to say Malaysia?
No, because I don't know where I'll be - Malaysia, Australia and so on.
Do you have enough funds to support yourself while in Thailand?
Yes, do you want to see my credit/debit card - no answer.

I then reached over the counter and took my passport back and showed the clerk my visa.

Is there a problem?
No, I suppose not.

That was 13 years ago.

[Korkenzieher]

Agreed there has never previously been a need to show onward or return arrangements if you are in possession of a visa of any kind. That appears to have changed for the 60day Tourist visa, according to the OP.

Previously, because of that, there has never been any need to demonstrate such arrangements at a visa issuing authority. That appears to have changed.

Where you have no visa and intend to get VOA, airlines are supposed to check, or refuse to carry you to Thailand. This has happened to me (checking), but only on a small number of occasions - less than 10% of flights for sure, and only with one airline to date - but it has happened.

I have never been asked to satisfy any of these conditions actually at a point of entry to Thailand, which makes me suspect that I do not fit the profile of those they are attempting to dissuade or prevent from coming. However, I am still obliged to satisfy the requirements. Some may be dissuaded by that - after all, however tangentially, that is their intent.