I don't understand the question? If you have days left (and a re-entry permit) you can come in. What would possibly lead to a refused entry?

First off, there's no rule that limits your stay to 180 days per year.

Second, your point is still valid. Entries and extensions could get more difficult once you go beyond 180 days. However, if you're still more than a few days below you're usually okay. Problems could start when your surpass the aforementioned threshold and then try to enter again.

@Marie *******

there are no different opinions on this. Anyone saying what you said is just wrong.

Haven't heard anyone really say it though.

No one is carrying that amount of cash. The rule is from the Jurassic era more or less, and immigrations officers know that bank accounts have since become common.

Having said that, carrying a credit card doesn't exactly prove sufficient funds imo. Why not just show the funds instead?

@Andrew ******

we agree on that.

@Brandon ***********

the consulate cannot answer because it's not specified in Thai law. Of course the consulate doesn't dictate immigrations policy, but that's a strange suggestion. Thai law should dictate both the immigrations policy and the consulate's answer to this question. It's the embassy or consulate one should be addressing this type of question to. Informing prospective travelers about Thai entry rules is pretty much why they exist.

Indeed, you won't find this in official rules. That's unfortunate because you certainly aren't the only one in this particular situation.

Another problematic aspect of this rule is that the only real enforcement of it is the pre-check of entry eligibility, done by airlines. Immigrations rarely check anyone for it. So now the interpretation suddenly depends on a party who can't deviate and is supposed to only strictly do as the rules state. Quite a messy situation.

The most commonly accepted interpretation of the rule, as unfortunate as it is, appears that extendability is not accounted for. Not saying that it makes sense, why would a country on one hand allow anyone to extend a visa and on the other hand require having booked an exit trip before the original date, but most airlines, if they check, appear to follow this rationale. But not all, some will allow you to get aboard with proof of onward travel within the 90 days instead of 60.

@Lion ****************************

but immigrations, they're not consultants you know. You can ask them the list of requirements for his visa x, y or z, but how to approach the matter in one's personal situation is not the type of question they deal with. True, you must be able to filter a few bad repliers out in this group, but the established crew is generally always right and you can tell easily by going through their answers.

@Andrew ******

The decision to check it or not can (and does) depend on the staff member checking you in. The actual decision to allow you in *should* not depend on them. If you get checked, and don't qualify, normally they cannot still let you fly. I know it sometimes happens but that certainly isn't the procedure. The reverse is not possible: qualifying for entry and then getting refused. An airline is of course not allowed to refuse their service to paying customers who qualify for it.

Not sure about the "even" in your sentence. I think it depends only on the person checking you in. Airlines all have the same policy: qualifying for entry is required to be allowed to fly. Quite straightforward.

@Lion ****************************

you could not be more wrong. What is immigrations going to do then? They're not consultants. Agents can give advice, at best. But they want to sell you something and can also not be trusted with anything.

And why do you think nobody in this group gives proper advice? A kid would say: you're living in "upside down world".