The contact? The conversation might not be much different, assuming your travel history is fine.

Unlike what most of others in this group are telling you though, having a visa makes ALL the difference with regards to your likelihood of getting in. Without a visa the check whether you have not already stayed enough time in Thailand as a tourist comes on the IO. With a visa this check comes on the embassy. The visa means: you have permission to enter the country.

Immigrations officers can still deny entry, like a security officer at an Ed Sheeran concert being able to refuse entry if you show up with a chain saw around your neck. But they're not supposed to refuse entry based on travel history. That check has been done. That's why immigrations officers tell people who approach the end of their reasonable time in the country as a tourist to get a visa: it's so that you know upfront whether you can enter. Why would they advise this if it made no difference and your likelihood of getting refused were the same?

There are some severe misconceptions with the established crew in this group and this unfortunately is one.

Leave Thailand and return

@Lavia *********

it's by 30, to 90. For is by, so for 30 would be correct.

Maybe on your German passport? I don't see any problems 🤷

Then extend your stay to 90 days.

@Greg **********

corrected, thanks 👍

You need to do a border run, you can only extend once. So to reach about 120 days you might do the border run at 60, and save the cost and hassle of the extension. To be exact, it gets you 119 calendar days because the one you do the border run on will count double.

The non-B is normally done by your employer. The retirement one you could do by yourself for 2,000 baht, but if you're the spouse of a non-B visa holder you may as well get the spouse visa. The employer takes care of that as well.

Yes

@Shakoor ****

you keep misleading, and that is harmful. It would be great if you could stop.

You write that you are not the IO and that hence you cannot answer the topic starter's question. Now, that is entirely fair. We cannot all know everything and so if you don't know that the limit of two land entries is no longer applicable then that is fine.

Although I agree that flying is often better than driving, I must also say that the two of us stand pretty much alone in that regard and the rest of the (senior) group members are all saying that driving is better. My thought is that they're mislead by the numbers: there are just many more people who fly and therefore it looks like also a larger portion of the flyers are stopped, but I think land borders, where the abusers go, are looking much more thoroughly to entrants than air borders where normally regular holidayers go. So we agree, but your statement that the rest of the group supports you is just false. Pretty much nobody agrees with us.

Further; if there was a limit of two entries per calendar year and the Thai authorities scrap that, then I think it goes a little too far to say that not much is certain and that land border IO's can still deny entry based on a no longer existing rule. The limit is scrapped, and we should assume that entering is now possible. That is the answer to the topic starter's question. Not that flying is the way to go, that's not the answer the TS needed.

@Eddie *****

lol, now I don't understand? 🤣 What an idiot you are.