They were actually quite tolerant of the visa runners. I used an organised service where they drove you to a park on the Myanmar border, you exited Thailand, 5 mins later re-entered Thailand, had a coffee then got the bus back. They could be like Europe and ban you for 90 days after you've been there for 90 days if they wanted to.

You can get away with this twice. Once you hit 180 days in the last year you'll face some probing questions as to exactly what you're doing, and you better have a good answer or they'll simply deny re-entry.

With this being Thailand, of course there's going to be some wriggle room and variation depending on who you get, but it's a pretty high risk roll of the dice.

It's always been fairly easy to just get a multiple entry "Non-B" visa instead of relying on visa waiver, and then no questions asked.

I'm thinking the real benefit of allowing people to stay given they do visa runs, is that it's a way of setting expectations. If you want to kick out someone who has lived in the country for a long time, you don't get as much resistance, since you were upfront about their stay being precarious.

Also I guess it makes it easy to do selective enforcement against troublesome people.

Unpopular opinion: If you're a "digital nomad", you're not a tourist. You're working.

I think it is arguable[0] whether the (preexisting in many countries) letter of immigration law with blanket “do you work or not” actually aligns with the spirit of the law, which may have well been intended to be “do you work in our country” but was not written the former way because of remote work not being so widespread at the time.

I believe the smoke test for tourist status, as applied to digital nomads, is whether one’s customers/employer are companies with official representation in chosen country of residence. If not, they are (1) not stealing jobs from locals, and (2) actually boosting local economy, infusing it with cash earned overseas.

Possibly hinting at this are also recent programs in some countries[1] that in a way encourage “digital nomadism”, offering terms that are actually more beneficial compared to tourist status (e.g., longer stay times).

[0] Of course, this argument most likely won’t fly if the immigration officer is out to get you. IANAL.

[1] Georgia comes to mind

Yes, but you're not paying taxes in the country whose infrastructure you rely on. So there are some locals who consider the nomads to be freeloaders of some sorts, and that isn't entirely without merit.

I do agree with you, but for Thailand (and many other countries) 'Digital nomad' isn't a thing. You are there either as a tourist, or you are there for business. If it is for business you will need to have a registered business, freelancing doesn't qualify.

I tried to fly there on a business visa but I wasn't able to get one because Thailand doesn't recognise a 'self employed' person as a business.

In theory yes, although you probably want to declare yourself as tourist in many countries, unless you want to have some fun with local authorities.

.. until they find out you've been working without a visa, which (while unlikely) will result in even more "fun".

(I do side-eye people who refer to westerners working illegally in the non-west as "digital nomads" while referring to non-westerners doing the same in the west as "illegals")

The "digital nomad" community certainly isn't limited to Westerners. There are quite a few digital nomads from Arab nations. And though Indians have weak passports and can't travel to too many countries visa-free, you still meet many Indian DNs in e.g. Nepal.

Sure, and I am not advocating to do it illegally, just making the point that what one states at the border can have wider consequences that one imagines.

> while referring to non-westerners doing the same in the west as "illegals"

Do digital nomads have employers?

I probably shouldn't, but I'll bite: how does a dude with a laptop in a beachside cafe implement "the policy of a country seeking to extend or retain its authority over other people or territories, generally with the aim of economic dominance"? They're likely not even paying taxes to their home country.

> They're likely not even paying taxes to their home country.

They likely are. You meet a few DNs here and there who work entirely through cryptocurrency, but everyone else gets paid through ordinary bank channels that bring tax obligations.

The aim of colonialism (at least according to Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations [1]) was to exploit the New World's resources in order to accumulate wealth. Extending authority over these territories was just a means to this end.

These days, rather than the Spanish Empire stripping South America of its gold and silver, it's individual workers emigrating to countries with a low cost of living to maximise their own personal wealth.

[1] https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/119#Smith_0206-02_185

By this definition, any immigrant is a colonialist?

How exactly does this "exploit the New World's resources" given they will probably get less infrastructure than in their country of origin?

Read the book, or at least the chapter on colonialism (it's not too long), it answers both your questions.

Apologies for not giving you a proper reply, I'm just about to go to sleep.

I still can't see how this applies to "digital nomads".

It's a grey area. What if you go see some tourist sites but think about work a bit? It's not clear where you draw the line.

I would look at where you pay your taxes.

That's true by definition? But you're probably not displacing jobs for the locals, which is the typical justification for why it's hard for foreigners to get local work permits.

The rationale I've seen is that you're contributing less (risk-adjusted) to the country's economy than either a tourist (who would be spending more) or someone on a work visa (who would have a stable job and be paying local taxes) would.

The belief that DNs necessarily pay less than tourists is largely based on stereotypes. In order to be able to focus on work, DNs tend to look for full apartment rentals, often in relatively upscale places where fast and reliable internet is guaranteed. In many countries that means they are already paying less than ordinary backpackers who are staying in hostel accommodation.

"by definition" always depends on the definition. Tax laws, immigration, I'd say all our reality isn't updated to "people working remotely".

If you detach your job from your (real) environment, this introduces all kinds of issues. You don't pay the share to one of the societies you're embedded into, like taxes. You'd have to be registered as workforce - which you're not, if you're a tourist.

You appear to be subscribing to a weird variant of the lump of labor fallacy here. There's nothing stopping the locals from working remotely for a foreign company -- except a shared language, connections in the field, relevant skills and a proven track record, which are why the nomad is employed by the foreign company and the local is not.

"Long" here is a 90-day visa renewable twice, so max 270 days. So no, they definitely don't want people to migrate permanently.

I think renewable might mean you can add another 90 days WITHOUT having to leave. When you hit the border and return, it might be considered a 'new' application.

'Inland' renewability is a big deal if you technically have to 14d quarantine whenever entering the country.

Different situation now because instead of being overrun by tourists, they don't have many and the country relies heavily on tourism for revenue.