Stricter requirements for Tourist visa applicants

[Super Joe]

@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.

Sorry, I wasn't referring to the airlines as these new requirements asking for outbound flights is to be given at the consulates when obtaining this tourist visa. The new rules say if you do not have an outbound flight then they want you to provide... "a letter indicating the unavailability of such document" ... imo a confirmation receipt of your outward journey by train or whatever would be better than a letter. You'll never put a better bit of butter.

They've made no attempt to prevent genuine short-term tourists using these tourist visas for their intended 60 days in these new rules, ie: those with confirmed outward journey, I'm guessing but if they had a suspicion that the train booking was just a cheap way to ensure the visa and then be discarded (don't know if it's cheaper or not!?), then they'd probably go through your travel history in the passport (as the Phuket immigration official said) and soon have an idea if you stick to the 60 days or make 60 days become 60 weeks. This remains to be seen ofcourse, we're all speculating on how it'll be interpreted/enforced.

So then you already have your visa before you get to the airline, and it was issued on the understanding a outward flight was not required.

I will simply point out that the policies Thailand develops leaves a lot of people confused.
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.

Yes there's confusion as regs change too often, and immigration can be faulted for being too relaxed in the first place, but these changes/tightening of loopholes etc are brought about either because a) foreigners are not exploiting them, or b) foreigners are exploiting them. I haven't heard one example over the years of an unreasonable/OTT requirement for tourists to get in here and stay short-term, there's a few examples of requirements/criteria that isn't enforced though. And they've been giving these visas away for free over the past couple of years, but people have short memories and now there's uproar in the farang community here (not you personally, you seemed pretty chilled either way) because they have to confirm that they were actually planning to leave.

And ofcourse you and Lomu are dead right that the shame is that genuine long stayers who look after themselves will be affected by this as they were harmlessly using the loopholes to stay 'perpetually', but I can't for the life of me see why they blame the authorities and not the bloke next to them who is spoiling the party by working illegally. I hate the authorities redtape, corruption etc as much as anyone as have been exposed to it and paid for it ten times over with business, but at the end of the day I can't complain about it as I'm the one bending the rules, using loopholes etc.


SJ

[caller]

The fact is that the times they are a changing - again - and immi needs to change with it. When I first travelled, the arrivals card would get the main address I would be staying at, in whatever Country that was.

I vaguely recall the last time I arrived in LOS, it went something like: Bangkok, Korat, Hua Hin, Bangsaphan and I think I then ran out of space. I could have added, Hua Hin again, but nothing booked, don't know after that, maybe back to Hua Hin and finally Bangkok, but haven't booked anywhere!

[margaretcarnes]

SJs' earlier point about trying to curb illegal workers of the non farang variety could be part of the problem, although as most cross land borders in cattle trucks in the middle of the night I doubt it would stop very many.
What strikes me most about this new/updated list of regulations is it's timing. Hot on the heels of a quite well publicised farang (Brit) case in Pattaya, where the guy is well into overstay and it is claimed is being cared for and fed by bar staff, while the MIB appear to have been turning a blind eye.
Coincidence maybe. More likely a knee jerk reaction to save face - again.

[dtaai-maai]

I think that in many respects those who say this is a storm in a teacup are right. On the other hand, I find it hard to believe that it's aimed at illegal migrant workers from neighbouring countries. I just can't see tens of thousands of Burmese and Cambodian labourers queuing up for tourist visas. Or any being issued.

And most tourists probably don't need a visa.

But to my mind it's how this is perceived that is important. Not just this little bit of tinkering, but all of the silly rules that change with the wind. They achieve nothing, and anyone thinking of somewhere to go and casually browsing the Internet might well think 'bugger that for a game of soldiers' and move swiftly on to the next country, like Malaysia, a Commonwealth country where Brits don't need a visa and get (I think) 3 months no questions asked.

Frankly, I don't really give a toss. I'm sorted here, and it makes no difference to me if Thailand loses a few tourists. But I'd be quite frustrated if my income depended on tourism, because this country constantly gives off the wrong signals to potential visitors.

[PeteC]

Putting this one here as the thread is current, and the subject matter somewhat related. Pete

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/crimes/ ... desirables

[Super Joe]

SJs' earlier point about trying to curb illegal workers of the non farang variety could be part of the problem, although as most cross land borders in cattle trucks in the middle of the night I doubt it would stop very many.

On the other hand, I find it hard to believe that it's aimed at illegal migrant workers from neighbouring countries. I just can't see tens of thousands of Burmese and Cambodian labourers queuing up for tourist visas. Or any being issued. And most tourists probably don't need a visa.

There was an estimated 500,000 visa overstayers in 2004 that were being mentioned in reports about the problems with illegal migrant workers from Burma, Cambodia & Laos. There was no visa catagory breakdown and these were total numbers for every country, but because they have a visa to overstay they were presumably seperate from those that come via traffickers. Mags is right that the majority come via organised trafficking between the Burmese Army (government) and Thai immigration officials usually to these large ethnic-Chinese owned businesses, but that's a seperate problem/issue that visa rules can not fix. There's been a massive exercise the last year or so to get all these illegals registered with temporary permits and end the trafficking. The UN & human rights groups have got involved and the Thai government have enticed something like 1 million of them to register, and deported or threatening to deport the rest. This could also be a preventitive measure against a possible avenue back in if trafficking is much restricted!?

Many of the migrant workers are seriously maltreated and abused including forced to work 16 hour days for peanuts, beaten, sexually abused, extorted by the traffickers and end up going back with next to nothing. Around 1.2 million of them went to the trouble of registering for some special temporary work permit last time round in 2004 and then the same people went 'underground' again. So if you're capable of applying for a WP inside Thailand, I can't see why the visa option would present a problem particularly if you've already returned from a nightmare stint of being maltreated and ending up with next to nothing in your pocket. The alternative is putting yourself back in the hands of organised criminal gangs.

It may or may not be a lot to do with these neighbouring migrants though, could be a bit of everyone, 'Western' farangs, African's, Eastern European's who I've read mentioned, there's plenty of articles that mention massive levels of overstayers working or not. But not much detail on which catagory they're overstaying. When Thaksin was in before he made illegal immigrants & workers a big policy thing...
Jun 2004 The Nation, 'there will be no illegal immigrants living or working in Thailand by the end of next year'... 'other measures needed to be adopted, such as the e-passport project and suppression of fake passports and travel documents.' caretaker deputy Prime Minister Chidchai Vanasatidya said.'

"The ministry of Labour estimates there are 502,680 persons who are overstaying their visa" - 2004 International Labour Organization.

"They form criminal gangs or intentionally overstay their visas", said National Security Council secretary-general Mr Thawil. 2010 Bangkok Post.

"there may be between 1.2 million and 2.3 million such workers (including unregistered migrants and visa overstayers) employed in the country" - 2004 International Organization for Migration.

"gangs operating in Thailand that include foreign members are involved in preparing or obtaining false or altered passports in order to smuggle persons into third countries. The migrants may enter Thailand on tourist visas"

"migrants in an irregular status that are of most concern are (a) unregistered migrants from Cambodia, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic and Myanmar, (b) visa overstayers(because their total number may exceed 500,000), (c) victims of trafficking and (d) children in an exploitative work situation"

This following chart is arrests only, so maybe a small percentage!?...

anyone thinking of somewhere to go and casually browsing the Internet might well think 'bugger that for a game of soldiers' and move swiftly on to the next country, like Malaysia, a Commonwealth country where Brits don't need a visa and get (I think) 3 months no questions asked.

Bugger what for a game of soldiers though?, if it's just this outward ticket and details of acommodation thing, then prospective travellers will view that as the norm won't they? This is only applicable to 60 day tourist visas, not the visa exempt 30 day entry that most of the 'West' receives. Thailand's requirements for both short tourist visits (30 days) or extended tourist visits (60 days) are still more relaxed than others in the region, and most seem to require this main one of concern, the 'outward flight' even at visa exempt status...

- Malaysia every visitor 'required to prove financial ability and have outward ticket to third country'

- Philippines, visa exempt (only 21 days) needs outward ticket. 60 day visa outward ticket, proof of finances (e.g. certificate of bank deposits, pension benefits), and details of address.

- Cambodia/Vietnam: Obviously more grief.

- Singapore, visa exempt for 30 days needs onward ticket and sufficient funds.

- Indonesia, interestingly they introduced visa exempt travel in 1983 to attract more tourists, but revoked it in 2005 as it was abused by foreigners to work illegally or engage in other illegal activities. There you need to get a VOA at the airport which requires an onward ticket. 60 day tourist visa requires onward ticket, hotel reservation, bank statement with balance of £1,000, and letter from employer/solicitor/school/college certifying your obligation to return after the visit. And the student's letter has to detail your attendance record back home

SJ

[dtaai-maai]

"The ministry of Labour estimates there are 502,680 persons who are overstaying their visa" - 2004 International Labour Organization.

"They form criminal gangs or intentionally overstay their visas", said National Security Council secretary-general Mr Thawil. 2010 Bangkok Post.

"there may be between 1.2 million and 2.3 million such workers (including unregistered migrants and visa overstayers) employed in the country" - 2004 International Organization for Migration.

"gangs operating in Thailand that include foreign members are involved in preparing or obtaining false or altered passports in order to smuggle persons into third countries. The migrants may enter Thailand on tourist visas"

"migrants in an irregular status that are of most concern are (a) unregistered migrants from Cambodia, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic and Myanmar, (b) visa overstayers(because their total number may exceed 500,000), (c) victims of trafficking and (d) children in an exploitative work situation"

I strongly suspect that all of these references suffer from the common confusion over what comprises a visa. You can't possibly overstay a visa as the visa doesn't give you permission to enter and remain in the country, that is done by the immigration officer when you arrive.

They're overstayers, not visa overstayers. And they're much more likely to be illegals - i.e. they're not overstaying as they never got permission to enter in the first place, they simply circumvented the immigration control, such as it is. More than half a million impoverished labourers from Burma, Laos and Cambodia given visit visas? I really don't think so.

The para I've put in italics may be an exception to the terminology error.

[Super Joe]

I strongly suspect that all of these references suffer from the common confusion over what comprises a visa. You can't possibly overstay a visa as the visa doesn't give you permission to enter and remain in the country, that is done by the immigration officer when you arrive. They're overstayers, not visa overstayers. And they're much more likely to be illegals - i.e. they're not overstaying as they never got permission to enter in the first place, they simply circumvented the immigration control, such as it is.

There's loads of these reports floating around google, read them in context and you won't jump to this conclusion. Yes of course the terminology is literally incorrect, they've used the generic term 'visa' that everyone understands, and those who understand it's wrong know what they mean, especially as they make a distinction between overstaying and sneaking in undocumented. I honestly am not sure the correct term myself but I think it's 'overstayed their permit-to-stay stamp' date!? ...in my passport I have 'permitted-to-stay', 'admitted-until', 'application is not approved applicant must leave Kingdom by no-later-than' and 'under-consideration applicant must contact this office by'.

They clearly make the distinction between those coming in legally with a visa/legal entry document and those who were smuggled in undocumented by traffickers, or those with fake docs, some more examples...
"Persons living in Thailand in an irregular immigration status. These include persons overstaying valid entry visas and those who have entered from nearby countries but have not registered with the Ministry of Interior."

"The Ministry of Labour (MOL) reports that there are 503,000 persons residing and working in Thailand
who have entered the country legally but have overstayed the duration of their visas."

"In 2003, a total of 228,062 persons (147,767 from Myanmar, 61,877 Cambodians, 13,277 Laotians and 5,141 other nationalities) were arrested in Thailand for illegal entry or overstaying."

"Many of the migrants required the services of recruitment agencies to obtain visas, but most travelled by themselves or with friends and found employment through friendship networks."

More than half a million impoverished labourers from Burma, Laos and Cambodia given visit visas? I really don't think so.

So you'd never believe it if I told you Thailand tore up their precious nationalistic immigration act and bent over backwards for 1.2 million impoverished labourers from there, there and there, and provided them with free special dispensation work permits, temporary passport-type papers and medical cover while they were in the country illegally off the back of a truck, and working illegally, and not paying taxes, and spreading 5 deadly diseases

I did say in the first paragraph the half a million were not all these neighbouring migrant workers.

SJ

[lomuamart]

On the last two occasions I've been to Imm there have been quite a few Asian people turn up for something. I'm supposing that it's to do with foreign registration of work. They seem to get fairly short shrift and shunted around between desks especially early in the morning when I'm there.
SJ, which Imm Act did Thailand tear up? I suppose it's up to the powers that be, but refugees on the Burmese and Laos borders have been returned home to heaven knows what despite international criticism. The long neck women from Burma still work in awful conditions around Mae Hong Song and can't escape.
Cambodians, Burmese and Laos citizens are regularly mistreated by unscrupulous Thai employers. If they're busted they go back to hell. Most Thais employers, I imagine, just pay some money and their illegality is swept under the carpet.
The illegals are the ones who die in a truck from Ranong to Phuket because the aircon broke down and they literally fried to death in there.
Or those off the coast of Ranong who were brutally treated and towed out to sea and left adrift, most to die.
OK, if you want to argue that Thailand has a right to defend it's borders against illegal immigration I won't argue with you. However, I will about the barbarity of the response.
And now this Asia thing that's coming into effect in a few years - free movement. I can't imagine what Thailand will do about that - probably renege.
If I overstay then I face the consequences. If I'm a refugee or an illegal worker that has been smuggled here by the Thais themselves, well I guess I'm in deeper trouble.

[Korkenzieher]

It may well be that Thailand is fearfully planning for open borders and simply sucking the policy options and seeing what works. The article linked by prcscct certainly gives that impression!

Open borders in Europe means pretty much exactly that - at least in the Schengen Treaty signatory countries. Thailand seems to be heading more towards closing borders, while protesting that it is merely aiming for greater efficiency.

My own feeling is that regionally local illegals are the least likely to be impacted by the changes to the 60 day visa ruling and that it can only really be aimed at people using it as cover for residency. The policy response though seems utterly inadequate - amateur in concept and incompetent in application.

As I have mentioned, I feel they really do risk alientating a lot of people slowly but surely. They have a bad enough news flow with, for example, high profile accidental and not-quite-so-accidental deaths. Expecting (as they seem to) the news of increased visa restrictions to be received as though in a vacuum, isolated from other negatives is, frankly, utterly naiive. I wish I was able to say 'there must be some part of this that we haven't understood' but I don't actually believe that anymore.

[lomuamart]

Don't forget that until 31st March this year tourist visas were free. Now what?
It's unusual that I agree with fellow mod buksida regarding political issues but I think I have to suck eggs on this one.

[Super Joe]

SJ, which Imm Act did Thailand tear up? I suppose it's up to the powers that be, but refugees on the Burmese and Laos borders have been returned home to heaven knows what despite international criticism. The long neck women from Burma still work in awful conditions around Mae Hong Song and can't escape. Cambodians, Burmese and Laos citizens are regularly mistreated by unscrupulous Thai employers. If they're busted they go back to hell. Most Thais employers, I imagine, just pay some money and their illegality is swept under the carpet.
The illegals are the ones who die in a truck from Ranong to Phuket because the aircon broke down and they literally fried to death in there. Or those off the coast of Ranong who were brutally treated and towed out to sea and left adrift, most to die. OK, if you want to argue that Thailand has a right to defend it's borders against illegal immigration I won't argue with you. However, I will about the barbarity of the response.

'Tearing up' the imm act was meant as in they broke all their strict rules by giving special dispensation WP's, and passport-type papers to illegal aliens who had come here via traffickers lorries etc, and who had been working illegally and not paying taxes at the time.

And I'm not on the Thai authorities side at all with the treatment of these workers (I can understand the confusion as I usually am ), as the government has clearly turned a blind eye to it for years because it was helping small businesses flourish or whatever the reasons. But it seemed to grow into a uncontrollable social problem quite fast and now it's too big to sort out, and all sorts of UN and other 'humanitarian' groups are pressuring the governments to fix. The authorities here not only turned a blind eye to the migrants treatment and abuse but exploited them further, I mentioned this the other day... Migrant workers are seriously maltreated and abused including forced to work 16 hour days for peanuts, beaten, sexually abused, extorted by the traffickers and end up going back with next to nothing."

My own feeling is that regionally local illegals are the least likely to be impacted by the changes to the 60 day visa ruling and that it can only really be aimed at people using it as cover for residency. The policy response though seems utterly inadequate - amateur in concept and incompetent in application.

So if it doesn't affect perpetual stayers at all... maybe it wasn't really intended for them. Every immigration officer in the country knows if you want to stop a visa being used for perpetual stays... you stop perpetual renewals. Just like many countries in the region do... but instead Thailand have been giving them away free to perpetual stayers each month, for the past 2 years. The first few back from PP these last couple of days report business as usual, they were asked for flight ticket out of Cambodia into Thailand, but nothing out of Thailand thereafter.

Expecting (as they seem to) the news of increased visa restrictions to be received as though in a vacuum, isolated from other negatives is, frankly, utterly naiive. I wish I was able to say 'there must be some part of this that we haven't understood' but I don't actually believe that anymore.

There's nothing remotely restrictive or unusual about it as far as 60-day tourists go (it's actually far more relaxed than many neighbour's requirements), so if more restrictive to other 'uses' then that's the whole point of it isn't it?

SJ

[Korkenzieher]

I've only once used a 60 day so as I said, I don't have really an issue with the rule changes other than trying to understand the trend. The trend isn't good. They are now asking you to tender increasing evidences of varying sorts at the consulate you apply to for the visa. Clearly, the people it doesn't affect are people on (legitimate) long stay visas, and visa on arrivals (assumed to be genuine tourists). If legitimate long term holders and tourists aren't the people being put under the spotlight, then who is? And the only answer has to be those who want to stay as apparent residents, without a full residential / non-Imm visa.

Seriously, who else?

The targets don't necessarily have to be in the Farang expat community - they could be Indian IT people doing a disguised commute, for eg. But the rule changes affect all comers who wish to use that particular visa. Anyone seriously interested in abusing the system would just turn up on whatever program they could, and simply forget to leave. Those who are (most likely) the target, I don't see having to turn up at the consulate with a flakey hotel booking confirmation being too much of an impediment to their grand design.

As for the rest of us, $500 worth of lessons gets you a 1 year ED - once you factor in all the reporting and visa runs, and the fact it can be pushed out to 15mth, it probably works out at value for money for most who have no other way. But if you are just bouncing around Asia, then the new rules are nuisance value which is likely to make you consider other places - Vietnam - $51 gets you a 3 month multiple re-entry visa for example (may cost another $20 to get an agency to sort it out for you), and as a Brit, I get 6 month on entry both to Hong Kong and to New Zealand, so I can solve the whole shooting match just by bouncing around on Cathay Pacific, if it is simply a matter of staying this side of the planet.

FWIW, I don't find Thailand's visa regime particularly unreasonable, given the number of long stay options (though I think the monthly amounts that have to be demonstrated by retirees are set a bit high). What I find more objectionable (if that is the word) are the land rights and business ownership issues, and the extreme interpretations of the restricted occupations list - but that is material for a different thread.

[bapak]

Apologies for just selecting a small portion, Korkenzieher, I have to stick to the area I know best..
"....As for the rest of us, $500 worth of lessons gets you a 1 year ED - once you factor in all the reporting and visa runs, and the fact it can be pushed out to 15mth, it probably works out at value for money for most who have no other way".

At present, as long as you maintain 80% class attendance with our school, Extension of Stay can be rolled over every 90 days for up to 3 years. And no visa runs.

[Korkenzieher]

Thanks Bapak - I'm reasonably familiar with the rules. Last time I did one, I had multiple entry ED (courtesy of Hull, which is - somewhat unusually - actually my local consulate), and I generally like to take the opportunity to fly off for a few days to a week rather than dash across a border, or hang around immigration. Adds to the spice of life - a week in Vietnam, weekend in Singapore, few days in KL. You get the picture! But the savings I mention are actually offsetting the cost of visa runs against the cost of lessons. In my case, it probably costs more (out of choice).