Three Year Non-B Visa

[The Enforcer!]

This was mooted in the press a few weeks ago. Has anyone heard or seen any details on it yet?

The Enforcer!

[The Enforcer!]

To answer by own question ... according to my lawyer (Dej-Udom & Associates) it is available at 'most' Embassies by payment of 10,000 Baht fee and whilst one gets a three-year Visa it still requires the holder to leave Thailand every 90 days and return!

The Enforcer!

[jpatokal]

whilst one gets a three-year Visa it still requires the holder to leave Thailand every 90 days and return!
In the vast annals of mindboggling visa stupidity, this one has to rank pretty high up... :mad:

[The Enforcer!]

For the record, the Royal Thai Embassy in the UK says this visa does not exist!

The Enforcer!

[BangkokPundit]

one gets a three-year Visa it still requires the holder to leave Thailand every 90 days and return!

I have yet to hear of a non-immigrant visa, when utilised upon entry into Thailand which cannot be extended at Immigration. You have 90 days to get the entry permit extended. If you are unable to supply the necessary documents (ie because you are working illegally), then yes you will have 90 days to leave the country.

[The Enforcer!]

I have yet to hear of a non-immigrant visa, when utilised upon entry into Thailand which cannot be extended at Immigration. You have 90 days to get the entry permit extended. If you are unable to supply the necessary documents (ie because you are working illegally), then yes you will have 90 days to leave the country.
I think you have totally missed the point.

If you are working in Thailand, yes you get continuous renewals of your initial Non-Immigration B Visa as long as it pleases the Immigration Police and I had a continuous string from 1996 to when I retired in 2004.

However, I am now granted a one year Non-Immigration B visa as I wish to live here but I am too young (under Thai law) for a retirement visa - and thus I still exit the country for a day each 90 days.

The purpose of this thread is that the press spoke of a new three year N-B visa being available, and it is this that appears not to exist.

The Enforcer!

[BangkokPundit]

I think you have totally missed the point.
...
However, I am now granted a one year Non-Immigration B visa as I wish to live here but I am too young (under Thai law) for a retirement visa - and thus I still exit the country for a day each 90 days.
...
The purpose of this thread is that the press spoke of a new three year N-B visa being available, and it is this that appears not to exist.

The Enforcer!

I understand the point of the thread, but you posted specifically about the 90 day requirement and it generated a response with jpatokal saying it ranked high up in the annals of "mindboggling visa stupidity". I was just responding to this. In hindsight, I could have responded to jpatokal's post, not yours.

Every single standard non-immigrant visa requires the holder to leave within 90 days if they can't extend it within Thailand, I just don't think this is a stupid rule.

I think you will be waiting a while before any 3 year year visa. You only have to be 50 to qualify for one form of retirement visa.

[The Enforcer!]

You only have to be 50 to qualify for one form of retirement visa.
Hence the term " I am too young ".

The Enforcer!

[jpatokal]

Every single standard non-immigrant visa requires the holder to leave within 90 days if they can't extend it within Thailand, I just don't think this is a stupid rule.
Let me get this straight. If you have been granted a three-year visa, this would usually imply that the Thai government is happy to have you spend three years in their country. So what is the purpose of leaving the country every 90 days? How does this serve the visa holder, or the government? If the intention is to stop people from settling down in Thailand, then they shouldn't issue a visa valid for three years in the first place...

[BangkokPundit]

Let me get this straight. If you have been granted a three-year visa, this would usually imply that the Thai government is happy to have you spend three years in their country. So what is the purpose of leaving the country every 90 days? How does this serve the visa holder, or the government? If the intention is to stop people from settling down in Thailand, then they shouldn't issue a visa valid for three years in the first place...

Ok. The visa is valid for 3 years and I will assume it is a multiple entry visa (now, if it was a single entry visa then it would rank up there in the annals of mindboggling stupidity). This doesn't mean you are allowed to spend 3 years in the country. It is the same if a Thai gets a 10 year US tourist visa, it doesn't mean they can spend 10 years in the US, they can spend, as I understand, 6 months at a time. Similiarly, this is not stupid either.

Each time you enter Thailand, you utilise the visa. You are then granted a 90 day permit.* You have 90 days to extend your permit. Many people can and do extend their permit legally. Some can't.

Normally, a non-immigrant visa is valid for 1 year. Non-immigrant visas are either single or multiple entry. A single entry non-immigrant visa, which if you were going to work legally would probably be the more preferable option.

Then, you have the multiple entry visa which is valid for 1 year, but you can enter Thailand as many times as you like during that 1 year and each time you enter you are given a 90 day permit. You could extend your 90 day permit within Thailand, but you need a reason for a year extension (study, working legally, investment, Thai spouse etc). Now, some people, like the Enforcer! can't extend their stay as they didn't fit into a category so they have to leave Thailand every 90 days. Now, you might say this stupid, but if you are were in many other countries, you would not be granted the non-immigrant visa in the firstplace. In many western countries if you don't qualify for the visa, no visa. For Thailand, getting the visa is easy*, is is just a moneyspinner. It is extending your permit incountry which is the difficult part and where you have to supply all the documentation.

The advantage of the 3 year visa would be instead of having to obtain a new non-immigrant visa every year, you just obtain one every 3 years. Some people will like this. I can think of a few people who I have met who work offshore, mostly in the Middle East, who seem to work for a couple of months at a time, then have 6 weeks off. They stay too long to for the 30 day stamp, but find it a pain to have to apply for a multiple entry non-immigrant visa every year.

Some people would go over to the 3 year visa, some would just stick with the 1 year multiple entry non-immigrant visa.

The Thai government benefits because at some of the consulates close to Thailand (Penang in particular) are just visa mills who churn out hundreds of visas a day. The 3 year visa seems to be x3 the cost of a 1 year visa so they get the same amount of money, but have to process fewer visas.

* I believe the word that Thai Immigration uses is 'permission to stay', but permit is the word I have used in the western immigratin lexicon and I will use that. If someone says they have overstayed their Thai visa, they are in fact incorrect, they would have overstayed their permit, not their visa.

**Ok this varies. Some classes of visas are more difficult to get at some Thai Embassies, but at Thai Consulates they are usually easy to get. There are also different non-immigrant visas. For example, the non-immigrant ED, student visa gives you a 90 day permit. But you can apply for a non-immigrant ED-A visa which gives you a 365 day permit, but you need to show a large amount of documentation at the Embassy/Consulate you apply to, to obtain this visa.

[The Enforcer!]

Well done BangkokPundit - I could not have put it better myself!

The Enforcer!

[jpatokal]

For Thailand, getting the visa is easy*, is is just a moneyspinner. It is extending your permit incountry which is the difficult part and where you have to supply all the documentation. ... The Thai government benefits because at some of the consulates close to Thailand (Penang in particular) are just visa mills who churn out hundreds of visas a day. The 3 year visa seems to be x3 the cost of a 1 year visa so they get the same amount of money, but have to process fewer visas.
You know, you're doing a pretty good job of arguing my case. If you're saying that visas are effectively only a means of raising money, then why not allow easy extensions in the country at a fixed cost per day, instead of all this nonsense?

[BangkokPundit]

You know, you're doing a pretty good job of arguing my case. If you're saying that visas are effectively only a means of raising money, then why not allow easy extensions in the country at a fixed cost per day, instead of all this nonsense?

Sorry, for the late reply - Firefox crashed yesterday just as I was starting on my previous reply!

I won't disagree that there should be some reforms of the Thai Immigration rules/procedures, although changing a system has consequences. My main point was on the 90 day time period and for me not thinking it was stupid.

The incountry visa extensions you are proposing could cause their own problems. You seem to suggest the only criteria for extension would be money. So, how much per day? Say 50 baht a day. I will for the moment assume that the current visa rules were in place and there were no changes to the current system. At 50 baht a day after the initial 90 days, it would be 13,750 baht for the remaining 275 days of the year and 18,250 baht for 365 days. This would be cheaper than being legal once you count the cost of work permits, visas, tax etc.... I just think this would cause more people to move from working legally to working illegally. Now, this is not definite as it will depend on individual circumstances, but you would be creating an economic incentive for people to work illegally. Now, they don't have to do the visa runs either which I would say is also an incentive. While, the government would get revenue from the visas, I don't think it would be revenue neutral. I can't really see the government allowing it for less than 100 baht, but probably more likely 200 baht a day. At this price, it might be cheaper to do the visa runs than to do 100/200 baht a day extensions.

What is the cost of a visa run? I must say it is difficult for me to comment too much as it is 7 years since I have done such a visa run. It is also varies greatly from where you live - I knew someone who lived on the Thai/Malaysian border and it took him only 5 minutes to get to the Malaysian border! Others also see it is a way of getting out of Thailand for a day or so, particularly if they are not working. If you are living in Bangkok, you have such a wide range of options and could choose between Malaysia, Laos, Singapore, and Cambodia etc. A visa run for many people could cost hardly anything. It it also depends on whether you calculate the opportunity cost of having to do a visa run and then that varies between individuals as well.

I don't see it possible for the system you are proposing to work effectively unless you limit the effectiveness of the current visa run system, perhaps, by having stricter enforcement of the present rules* (which someone told me was scheduled to happen in the next 2-3 years anyway). This will probably only work once the whole immigration system is computerised at every border point. To limit the effectiveness of the visa run system, you would need to have rules in place. For example, not allowing people entry into Thailand on non-visa arrivals (30 days), tourist visas, and non-immigrant visas who don't obtain legal extensions incountry if they have spent more 180 days that year within Thailand. This way the system might work, but a lot of people would also be unhappy due to the increased cost.

To be honest, I don't think there is any chance of the government going down this track, the Thai government is concerned enough as it is with lots of people involved in illegal activites living in Thailand under the radar. I don't think the government will create a dual system with people fitting into a category being able to obtain a cheaper extension and people not fitting in a category paying the 100/200 baht a day figure. I am not a fan of the idea you propose either as the only way it will effectively work is to crack down on the visa run system and then it would seem to be better just to have more categories which will allow people to extend their non-immigrant visas legally within the current framework.

The Thai government are more likely to go for stricter enforcement and create more categories to allow people to extend their current permits legally. Either way the 90 day rule will likely stay.

* There is only really limited enforcement of these rules now. Some people are told that after 6 * 30 day arrivals without a visa that they will need a visa next time, but this rarely enforced and it is usually a warning for the 'next time' which isn't effective because next time the person will come before a different immigraiton officer and might be told again, next time you need a visa.

[The Enforcer!]

Sadly there will not be reform as someone needs to justify all these 'educated' Thais in the Foreign Ministry having cosy jobs in Singapore etc.

The Enforcer!

[jpatokal]

I won't disagree that there should be some reforms of the Thai Immigration rules/procedures, although changing a system has consequences. My main point was on the 90 day time period and for me not thinking it was stupid.

The incountry visa extensions you are proposing could cause their own problems. You seem to suggest the only criteria for extension would be money. So, how much per day? Say 50 baht a day. I will for the moment assume that the current visa rules were in place and there were no changes to the current system. At 50 baht a day after the initial 90 days, it would be 13,750 baht for the remaining 275 days of the year and 18,250 baht for 365 days. This would be cheaper than being legal once you count the cost of work permits, visas, tax etc.... I just think this would cause more people to move from working legally to working illegally.
...
I don't see it possible for the system you are proposing to work effectively unless you limit the effectiveness of the current visa run system, perhaps, by having stricter enforcement of the present rules* (which someone told me was scheduled to happen in the next 2-3 years anyway). This will probably only work once the whole immigration system is computerised at every border point. To limit the effectiveness of the visa run system, you would need to have rules in place. For example, not allowing people entry into Thailand on non-visa arrivals (30 days), tourist visas, and non-immigrant visas who don't obtain legal extensions incountry if they have spent more 180 days that year within Thailand. This way the system might work, but a lot of people would also be unhappy due to the increased cost.


Bizarre, innit, how people always assume that the correct solution to bureaucracy is more bureaucracy. Here's a completely radical idea: do away with the entire entry permit system and allow anybody to work in Thailand, as long as they pay their taxes. How would Thailand lose?

[BangkokPundit]

Bizarre, innit, how people always assume that the correct solution to bureaucracy is more bureaucracy. Here's a completely radical idea: do away with the entire entry permit system and allow anybody to work in Thailand, as long as they pay their taxes. How would Thailand lose?

I tried to suggest a solution which I thought would be implemented in reality. The same system you suggest could be adopted in very country around the world, but it will never happen. There are many restrictions on foreign nationals working in Thailand than in many other countries. There are current occupations which foreigners are not allowed to work in, lawyers are one of them.

The fear in Thailand is that they would then be flooded with workers from Myanmar and Cambodia. Whether this is true or not, I don't know. I do know that whatever politicans proposes that scheme will be even less popular than Thaksin is at the moment.

You also have the situation, should those people then be entitled to the 30 baht health care scheme? You would have a lot of perceptions of xenophobia to overcome.

This doesn't mean I dislike your idea from an economic perspective.

The Enforcer!

I think you will find many of the people who process the visas at Thai Embassies abroad don't get paid very much. It will very depending on the Mission concerned, but most will be local staff, Diplomats wouldn't venture into that territory of dealing with the riff-raff on a day-to-day basis. The Thai government pays out a rate which is between Thai salary and local salary. People stay in the job because no one complains they don't work hard and are overstaffed. It is also notoriously difficult to be fired as well. As I understand it, the rate is set by the Civil Service Commission in Bangkok, this is the reason for the problem.