nä anvönder phonen till att ringa med vad gör du
Visum till Thailand
- Trådstartare Anonym
- Start datum
-
- Taggar
- visum till thailand
Vi har åkt varje år även under covid, ok en massa prover i Sverige, dokumenterat, visa upp i Dubai okså, sen blev det phuket, patong
nya tester fick stanna 6 tim på hotell rumet sen klart. då flyg vi till udon thani och hem ,ingen extra försäkring behövdes
Varför inte vad är fel, varför skulle jag ljuga om det
Varför ska jag visa passet , förstår inte förklara gjärna
Mikrometer
Forumräv
Fiskarn
Forumveteran
I slutändan var det väl bara ett test samt invänta svar inlåst på hotellet över natten, Så var det för mig . Inte fasen under värsta Pandemin , då var det riktig karantän
Raggarn
Aktiv medlem
Så sant så.
Polaren Bosse Buss drog ner och satt 2 veckor på hotellrummet. Frugan drog något år senare i januari och satt 1 vecka. Jag drog ner 3 månader senare och satt över natten som Firren sa. Förbannat jobbigt med munskyddet på planet. Åkte Thai ner via Phuket. Och Emirates hem och blev uppgraderad till Business. Där var kraven på munskyddet lite lättare.
Tja åkte väl då det började lukras upp, var en del papper och tester en vecka på hotel i Rawai och en vecka på Hotell i Khao lak nån "special taxi" i mellan.
Fritt att röra sig var riktigt trevligt att åka omkring i Phuket med moppen och väldigt lite trafik.
Men man var jävligt less på detta topsande vilket jag tyckte var jäkligt obehagligt. Känns som en evighet sen nu.
Fritt att röra sig var riktigt trevligt att åka omkring i Phuket med moppen och väldigt lite trafik.
Men man var jävligt less på detta topsande vilket jag tyckte var jäkligt obehagligt. Känns som en evighet sen nu.
Thai Newbie
Forumräv
Munskyddet på flyget fick vara av när man åt eller drack.
Bara att se till och dricka hela tiden!
Isan Lover
Forumveteran
Hej
Visa change misses mark
PUBLISHED : 27 Apr 2026
The government's plan to cut visa-free stays from 60 days to 30 is more than a routine policy adjustment. The U-turn exposes a deeper uncertainty at the heart of its tourism strategy.
Less than two years after extending stays to help revive tourism battered by the Covid pandemic, authorities are now rolling back the measure, this time in the name of quality, control and security.
The question is not whether 30 days is enough, but whether it addresses the right problem at all.
The government's argument rests on three pillars -- abuse of the system, illegal work and the need to attract "higher-quality" tourists. Yet none of these concerns has much to do with the length of stay. They stem from weak law enforcement and flawed policy design.
Shortening permitted stays may reduce some visitor numbers, but it is unclear how it would achieve the desired outcome.
The "quality over quantity" narrative has become the justification for the policy shift. But high-value visitors are rarely defined by how quickly they spend, but by how consistently they engage -- returning, staying longer and contributing across the local economy.
Indeed, longer visa-free stays have helped attract so-called digital nomads -- professionals who use technology to work remotely while travelling or living abroad.
Digital nomads and remote professionals are no longer a niche segment. They represent a modern work style where employment, relocation and travel intersect. Countries that understand the link between visa policy and this "nomad" culture have tailored policies accordingly.
Such workers have
choices
. If Thailand's immigration rules become more cumbersome, they can move to rival destinations such as Da Nang in Vietnam or Bali in Indonesia.
The risk for Thailand is not an immediate drop in arrivals, but a gradual repositioning as a destination for short visits, while longer stays and deeper economic engagement shift elsewhere.
Comparisons with more established systems underline the point. Japan maintains relatively generous visa-free access while relying on strict compliance and enforcement. Singapore applies differentiated entry rules backed by advanced data and risk-based screening. Both show the value of targeted immigration controls over blunt limits.
More worrying is that the new visa policy may provide the government a false sense of security while leaving real problems -- weak law enforcement, incoherent immigration data and corruption -- unaddressed.
There is also a question of consistency. Frequent changes to entry rules create uncertainty for travellers, tourism operators and investors alike. Property markets and service providers rely on predictability. This latest policy flip-flop risks undermining confidence.
Reducing permitted stays may prove an expedient response to a complex problem. But if authorities cannot distinguish between a digital entrepreneur and an illegal worker within 60 days, there is little reason to expect they will do so more effectively in 30.
Without stronger enforcement and clearer policy direction, adjusting the number of days risks becoming a substitute for the deeper reforms that are ultimately required.
Mvh isan lover
Visa change misses mark
PUBLISHED : 27 Apr 2026
The government's plan to cut visa-free stays from 60 days to 30 is more than a routine policy adjustment. The U-turn exposes a deeper uncertainty at the heart of its tourism strategy.
Less than two years after extending stays to help revive tourism battered by the Covid pandemic, authorities are now rolling back the measure, this time in the name of quality, control and security.
The question is not whether 30 days is enough, but whether it addresses the right problem at all.
The government's argument rests on three pillars -- abuse of the system, illegal work and the need to attract "higher-quality" tourists. Yet none of these concerns has much to do with the length of stay. They stem from weak law enforcement and flawed policy design.
Shortening permitted stays may reduce some visitor numbers, but it is unclear how it would achieve the desired outcome.
The "quality over quantity" narrative has become the justification for the policy shift. But high-value visitors are rarely defined by how quickly they spend, but by how consistently they engage -- returning, staying longer and contributing across the local economy.
Indeed, longer visa-free stays have helped attract so-called digital nomads -- professionals who use technology to work remotely while travelling or living abroad.
Digital nomads and remote professionals are no longer a niche segment. They represent a modern work style where employment, relocation and travel intersect. Countries that understand the link between visa policy and this "nomad" culture have tailored policies accordingly.
Such workers have
choices
. If Thailand's immigration rules become more cumbersome, they can move to rival destinations such as Da Nang in Vietnam or Bali in Indonesia.
The risk for Thailand is not an immediate drop in arrivals, but a gradual repositioning as a destination for short visits, while longer stays and deeper economic engagement shift elsewhere.
Comparisons with more established systems underline the point. Japan maintains relatively generous visa-free access while relying on strict compliance and enforcement. Singapore applies differentiated entry rules backed by advanced data and risk-based screening. Both show the value of targeted immigration controls over blunt limits.
More worrying is that the new visa policy may provide the government a false sense of security while leaving real problems -- weak law enforcement, incoherent immigration data and corruption -- unaddressed.
There is also a question of consistency. Frequent changes to entry rules create uncertainty for travellers, tourism operators and investors alike. Property markets and service providers rely on predictability. This latest policy flip-flop risks undermining confidence.
Reducing permitted stays may prove an expedient response to a complex problem. But if authorities cannot distinguish between a digital entrepreneur and an illegal worker within 60 days, there is little reason to expect they will do so more effectively in 30.
Without stronger enforcement and clearer policy direction, adjusting the number of days risks becoming a substitute for the deeper reforms that are ultimately required.
Mvh isan lover
Nam Falang
Forumveteran
Ja den artikeln innehöll en hel del kloka resonemang och Thailand behöver nog stabilisera sina visumregler. Jag vill ju köpa en lägenhet i Thailand inom ett par år men tänker ofta på hur dom rör om i reglerna och det känns ibland lite ostabilt.
Isan Lover
Forumveteran
Hej
Ja det har varit mycket ändringar och lite fram och tillbaka en längre tid nu, inget talar väl heller för att det inte lär fortsätta på den vägen, frågan är väl om man inte nu med vikande turism, inställda flyg och dyrare biljetter snart börjar fundera på att göra förändringar för att stimulera och öka turismen igen. Knappast någon tror väl att planerna på kvalitetsturister kommer att lyckas den här gången heller, det är ju något olika regeringar har prövat utan framgång i ca 30 år.
Mvh isan lover
kurant
Forumveteran
Senaste att köpare av en condo får ett års visum är väl vettigt tycker jag.
Förslaget att minska länderna som får med 60 dagar från över 90 länder till ungefär 50 länder kan vara en väg att bli av med missbruket med illegala verksamheter som tar jobb av lokala.
Norrlandsboy
Forumräv
Vad gör man efter ett år då? Söker man visum som vanligt eller förnyas det automatiskt? Många lägenheter står tomma, den kinesiska vågen har lagt sig och har nu i stället vänt mot Vietnam. Lägenhetspriserna har stått stilla eller till och med sjunkit.
