BANGKOK, THAILAND – A decades-old immigration law continued to shape the lives of long-stay foreigners in 2026, despite mounting criticism that it no longer matched Thailand’s modern reality.
A 1979 law still unchanged in 2026
Long-term visitors in Thailand were still required to repeat the same ritual four times a year: fill out form TM47, pack a passport and travel to the immigration office. Anyone returning from a short trip abroad had to re-register their address via TM30, even if they had lived in the same apartment for five years.
The obligation stemmed from Section 37 of Thailand’s immigration law, introduced in 1979, when mass tourism in Southeast Asia hardly existed. The rule was straightforward: anyone who stayed in the country for 90 consecutive days had to report, and the count restarted after each departure.
Since then, the world had changed fundamentally. Thailand now hosted hundreds of thousands of long-term guests – retirees, migrants and digital nomads – while the law remained untouched. Critics asked whether a tool designed in 1979 still fit the current landscape.
What immigration has required since May 2025
In May 2025, the process shifted technically. The paper TM6 arrival card was scrapped and replaced by the Thailand Digital Arrival Card, or TDAC. Without this digital entry card and its ten-digit reference number, nothing worked in the online portal.
The change often looked like progress. Those who had their TDAC number ready and accessed the system during stable periods could complete their report within minutes from their desk. Anyone who had lost the number or was reporting for the first time still had to go to the counter, showing that the digital upgrade had clear limits.
Anutin’s election win and its impact on long-stay visitors
On 8 February 2026, Anutin Charnvirakul won the parliamentary election by a surprisingly clear margin. His conservative Bhumjaithai Party secured around 194 of 500 seats, more than expected, after he had already served as acting prime minister since September 2025.
The result gave Anutin a stable mandate, which he used immediately in immigration policy. On 10 February, just two days after the vote, the cabinet confirmed a new visa commission whose first task was to examine whether visa-free stays should be cut from 60 to 30 days; a final decision was still pending.
30 instead of 60 days – why expats were not hit first
The proposal to halve visa-free stays to 30 days attracted headlines. The Foreign Ministry justified the move with claims of abuse: illegal work, crime and inflated rents driven by long stays on tourist visas. Tourism statistics supported the argument, as the average visitor stayed only 15 to 21 days.
For expats and permanent residents with Non‑O, retirement visas or LTR status, the measure would not directly change their situation. The debate mainly targeted those who had relied for years on repeated tourist stamps as a long-term solution – a practice Anutin aimed to stop. The message from the new leadership was that anyone staying permanently needed the correct visa.
What long-stay visitors and migrants really resented
Long-term foreigners repeatedly voiced the same complaints. A retiree in Chiang Mai who had lived in the same apartment and received the same pension for a decade still had to confirm his unchanged address four times a year, a burden seen as disproportionate to the information gained.
Technical problems added to the frustration. The online system frequently crashed, failed to save data or blocked input due to browser issues. Those who relied on the digital option and were locked out risked missing their deadline, undermining trust in a regime that looked modern on paper but faltered in practice.
The penalties are clear – but do they hit the right people?
Anyone who missed the reporting deadline had to pay 2,000 baht, about 54 euros, if they reported voluntarily. If they were caught during a check without having reported, the penalty doubled to 4,000 baht, or roughly 108 euros, with an additional daily fee of 200 baht until the report was completed.
For wealthy retirees, such fines were manageable. For teachers, social workers or residents on small budgets, the penalties could be painful. Observers questioned whether a system that routinely punished the forgetful truly targeted the intended group – people acting with malicious intent.
Long-Term Resident visa shows relief is possible
Thailand had already demonstrated that the 90-day cycle was not untouchable. Holders of the Long‑Term Resident (LTR) visa were required to report only once a year instead of every three months. In 2026, the programme became more accessible, with lower income thresholds and simplified employer documentation.
The LTR model pointed towards a different approach. Those who were transparent with the state – with verifiable income, a stable address and tax compliance – were allowed fewer visits to immigration offices. Critics argued that the question was why this logic applied only to a relatively affluent minority.
What a fairer system could look like
Opponents of the current rules did not call for the reporting obligation to be scrapped entirely, but for it to be made more proportionate. A retiree with a proven address, stable finances and a long record of lawful residence, they argued, should not be monitored on the same timetable as a visa‑runner with a questionable history.
They proposed an annual reporting cycle for documented long-term stays as a reasonable step. A more reliable online system with clear fallback options in case of technical failure could also build confidence on both sides, and reduce the risk that cooperative residents would be pushed into fine traps by system errors.
Digital change brings opportunities – and new risks
The obligation to use the TDAC from May 2025 was broadly viewed as a good idea. A central digital dataset bundling all reports promised to save paper and time, while biometric pilot projects in Bangkok indicated that facial scans might eventually replace in-person visits, a move seen as genuine progress.
At the same time, the digital shift tightened state oversight. Immigration, tax and banking data had been linked more actively since 2025, meaning that anyone living in Thailand needed to ensure that their reporting status was as solid as their health insurance.
Between welcome and control: Thailand’s stance in 2026
In 2026, Thailand sent mixed signals to foreigners. On one side, it courted wealthy long-term guests, eased LTR conditions and ran international campaigns promoting a “tropical living” lifestyle. On the other, it stepped up enforcement, carried out more deportations and improved data sharing between agencies.
Observers argued this was less a contradiction than a clear message: Thailand wanted selected guests, not everyone. Those with the right visa status, documented finances and reliable reporting could still live comfortably in the country, while those depending on old loopholes faced growing pressure.
Calls grow for cautious but real reform
Commentators concluded that the 90‑day reporting rule in its current form required reform, not abolition. A system that treated every foreigner identically, regardless of length of stay, documentation or compliance history, was seen as wasting resources for both residents and officials.
Thailand retained the sovereign right to set its own rules. Yet critics argued that a state relying on cooperative long-term guests as consumers, taxpayers and tenants should reconsider whether a law from 1979 served those interests best. Whether political will would follow that realisation in Bangkok remained an open question, especially as fines and procedures could still vary between regions and offices, with all euro figures based on an exchange rate of 1 euro to 37 baht in early 2026.