Transcript of the above video: 

As the title of this video suggests, we are discussing Thai Immigration and policing specifically and their methods, their use of discretion etc. I'm just going to jump into this. I thought of making this video after reading a recent article from the Bangkok Post, bangkokpost.com, the article is titled: Calls to publicise updated entry rules. Now I want to be clear, I actually tend to agree with the overall theme of this article which is basically that Thai Immigration, it might behoove tourism sector and the foreign community generally, it might just be a good idea from a policy standpoint at times, to release clarified rules regarding entry. Now, that being said, they already have; it's just a large body of information. Something an old friend and colleague and mentor once told me about immigration in an American context, but I think that it holds true for Thai Law as well regarding immigration, is it's a narrow but deep body of law, and that's just the fact of it. It is narrow insofar as it only pertains to those who are of a certain status, so foreigners in a given country, but it's deep insofar as there are a lot of rules, and they are picayune and they are difficult to analyze at times, and that's the thing to take away from this video and understand is, in point of fact and the part of the article I agree with, the sort of theme of the article I agree with, the notion that yeah, we should post this stuff. Yeah, I agree with it, but they do, and it just accretes over time. It builds up over time, and it becomes difficult to discern and decipher for lay people or the public at large, especially for those who are just taking a passing interest in it because they may me going on a trip or something of this nature. That being said, I do agree with the sentiment that sure, Immigration should keep us up to date regarding policies and things. 

Now that being said, quoting further: "Thienprasit Chaiyapatranun, President of the Thai Hotels Association, said hotels recently encountered cases of guests being refused entry under Visa-free privileges, along with social media posts made by foreigners facing a similar situation." Yeah, we have discussed this in videos recently and quite honestly, although the fact that social media may be amplifying this phenomenon, if it seems like it's happening more often, it only seems that way. This is high season for one thing; we see more foreigners trying to get in. And number two, social media is a fairly new phenomenon and look, I'm not seeing a huge spike in refusals. It's just I think we're noticing it perhaps a little bit more is all I'm trying to say with that. Quoting further: "He said such cases could create unnecessary uncertainty amongst tourists who have not yet visited the country or who are planning to visit." Well look, to put to bed any confusion from the West regarding whether or not you can come to Thailand as a tourist, let me just say, yeah if you have a Visa-exempt passport - which is 93 countries at this point; most of the Western countries, the Anglosphere: US, UK, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Canada whatever - all of those places you will pretty much get a 60-day stamp on Entry if you've never been a tourist here before. End of analysis for you. Now if you are trying to come over here and use Tourist Visas and build up Visa status over time to effectively live here and to work here, you're going to run into some problems. Quoting further: "Relevant agencies should clarify the updated rules and ensure the information reaches all tourists entering under the Visa-free scheme." 

Well I mean they do put out the information. I get it. Maybe it would be better if they could somehow put out more, but I don't really find a ton of fault with them letting people know what the rules are; the rules have been noted. Quoting further: "If possible, they should also explain why certain cases circulating on social media were denied entry." Well maybe. What cases? And frankly, that then gets into some issues on commenting on somebody else's situation; okay. That said, moving on. Quote: "The situation now has undeniably led people to consider two possibilities behind these denials: tourists may unknowingly violate the rules, or some officials exploit loopholes to extort tourists," he said." Well that's kind of a stretch. I mean again, most of the folks that have been coming that have been having problems in the last few weeks, as I have discussed in other videos, if you looked at the past travel history, and I think there was even clarification from some of these folks, I think that even I commented on, where they said, "well yeah, actually our travel history, we lived there for a prolonged period of time, and then we had tried to leave for a little bit and come back in and then we had a problem." Well that's always going to be a problem. The rules and the information I think are pretty well out there; I think people are pretty well on notice of those things. And also, I'm kind of tired of the cliché of, oh, it's all being done to exploit tourists, or extort them or something. I've never really noticed that to be the case and that's a genuine observation from me. Do I think bureaucracy sometimes make nonsensical policies? Yes, because there's always a disconnect between the people that are on the desk and the people that are actually on the front lines who actually have to basically implement the policies. But do I think that there's some like concerted effort to shake down incoming tourists from Europe over a few hundred Baht or something at an immigration checkpoint? No not at all. And if anything if you know how the protocols have improved over the past five years within Immigration, they have no ability to do that. The Immigration Officers at an Immigration checkpoint are basically sitting in a constantly monitored box; that's literally what they are sitting in when you pass through. They're being monitored as much as anybody that passes through the checkpoint is being monitored. They're just being monitored full time. So this notion that it's all sort of toward the end of extorting money from tourists is pretty ridiculous when you sort of think about it in context. That being said, quoting further: "Mr. Thienprasit said leaving screening to officials' discretion or randomly checking tourists at Immigration is not an appropriate method." What? That's the only method. That's all they are there to do. That's their raison d'être; that is exactly what they're there for. They are the Immigration Checkpoint Officer to make sure whoever this foreigner is that is seeking entry to our country, has valid reason for doing so.

So this is where we get into the thumbnail. Immediately when I saw that "not an appropriate method", I thought of that movie the Patriot , the scene where Mel Gibson's character, the ghost is talking to, he's talking to, Cornwallis, excuse me, he is talking to Lord Cornwallis and they're in this parlay and there's this scene where Mel Gibson is sitting there, they're kind of going back and forth and it's very sort of formalistically polite this parlay. and Cornwallis says to this, Mel Gibson's character, the ghost, I can't remember his name off the top of my head, apologies, but the scene is basically back and forth between the two of them and Cornwallis says to Mel Gibson, he says, "well we just can't have inappropriate levels of attention focused on officers in battle," he said, "well what do you think would be appropriate levels of hostile attention?" is basically his response. And they go into a big thing, but basically Mel Gibson's point was, "what are you talking about, inappropriate level?" I mean 1, they are in battle;  and 2, he goes on to link the conduct of the British and the American theatre especially as it pertain to civilians and this type of thing as basically being inappropriate levels of attention on the civilian population, so he says, "look in battle I'm going to continue to order there to be inappropriate attention on your guys," that was basically the response in that scene. I'll put a link in the description below; you can sort of watch that for yourself. Now obviously this is an apples to bowling balls comparison; nobody here is talking about anything like the subject matter of that clip. But the point is, I just like the tone of voice of Mel Gibson in that scene where he's like, "well what would you think would be appropriate levels of hostility?" What is the appropriate thing for an Immigration Checkpoint Officer to do? Why are they there if not to quote: "screening at their discretion and randomly checking tourists." that's their function.

Now I do get it. They shouldn't be there harassing people or something like this, but if somebody's been using a Tourist Visa on multiple occasions to live in Thailand, there is a problem. If they're using any type of visa that is not intended for living in Thailand, and that is clearly defined under the Immigration Act of 1979, you either have a Non-immigrant Visa which that's what's designed for living here, or you have something else, and whatever that may be, then that's how they should look at it. Now depending on the terms of whatever that other type of status is, you may or may not have a problem; you may be able to be here for a fairly prolonged period of time. But to be clear, immigration are doing their job. I don't think there's any dispute as regards the appropriateness of immigration screening people coming through the airport. That said, quoting further: "He said that some countries use pre-screening procedures and automated immigration gates on arrival." Yeah, now here we go. It's all to go into this Orwellian digitized, automated, we all go into these cattle chutes if we go to the airport, and they just get to just bump us around and tell us where to go, and no one's accountable. You note that they are saying, "oh we don't want these Immigration Officers just doing this stuff", but it would be perfectly fine for a machine to just arbitrarily and capriciously process us all through immigration! That's okay, that's appropriate. But Immigration Officers, physical human beings, who actually do have a mandate to do this job, oh yeah, them screening people coming through the airport, that's not appropriate. I find this kind of a spurious argument. That being said, it's going to be interesting to see how this plays out and we will certainly keep you updated on this channel as the situation evolves.