Since the lifting of the strict lockdown in the first quarter of 2022, and the decrease in the number of Covid-19 cases, the Thai economy has shown signs of recovery. However, Thailand still faces a battle in bringing its economy back up to pre-pandemic levels in order to compete with its Asean neighbours, not to mention the world. Therefore, in June this year, the Royal Gazette formally announced the introduction of an initiative between the Ministry of Interior (MOI), the Ministry of Labour (MOL), and the Board of Investment (BOI) in the form of a Long-Term Resident (LTR) visa that is designed to attract a new wave of foreign direct investment (FDI) and knowledge transfer experts….Furthermore, while some of the related official regulations were enforceable in the middle of this year, others will be gradually implemented from the end of August 2022 to early September 2022 as the BOI plans to start accepting applications from Sept 1, 2022, onwards. However, there has been no announcement regarding the actual starting date or official online system to support the applications.

Although these visas seems unlikely to be utilized broadly, it does appear to be government policy to attract “High Net Worth” individuals to Thailand. Meanwhile, changes are also set to take effect with regard to the O-A retirement visa, to quote directly from the Pattaya Mail:

Special rules apply to those retirees with an O/A annual retirement visa issued by Thai embassies abroad. They need comprehensive, not Covid only, medical insurance worth US$100,000 to obtain the visa in the first place. They will also need it on applying for an annual extension of stay at immigration offices, although the amount is much smaller – around US$13,000 or 400,000 baht for hospitalization – until October 2022. Thai Cabinet news releases last year stated that the renewal insurance minimum would rise to US$100,000 on that date.

September and October appear to be months where major changes to Thai immigration policy will transpire. It is notable that this is all occurring while major changes are taking place with regarding to Thai visa exemption stamps and visas on arrival are poised to provide double the status to those eligible upon entry to Thailand. It will be interesting to see exactly how these developments play out from a practical perspective.

[I]t was announced that O-A Retirement visas are going to see the insurance coverage requirement go up to 100,000 US Dollars or self-insurance thereof, so roughly the equivalent of 3 million Baht basically shown in a Thai bank account in order to maintain O-A Retirement Visa status.

Meanwhile, insurance seems to be a rather nettlesome issue as a proposed “Tourism Fee” has proven difficult to implement while many question the need for such a measure especially as the tourism sector in Thailand is tenuously recovering. Although it now appears this initiative has been suspended. Another issue recently in the news, seemingly unconnected to immigration policy, pertains to Thai real estate law. It seems proposed “Long Term Residence Visas” (albeit something of a misnomer as these travel documents do not confer permanent residence in Thailand) may allow foreigners to own Thai real estate under limited restrictions. However, even this proposal seems to be under serious scrutiny. To quote directly from a recent article in the Bangkok Post:

A property executive who requested anonymity said many Thais might disagree with the government’s attempt to attract affluent foreigners by granting them full land ownership of one rai for residential use. “It’s good that the government wants to boost the economy by attracting foreign investment,” said the executive. “Thailand is very attractive among foreigners. They want to stay here as our medical services are good, the cost of living is low, the food is superb, and we have a lot of international schools for their children.” However, some locals think it is unfair to them, as many still cannot afford to buy property.

Clearly, the notion of foreign nationals being able to acquire residential real estate in Thailand is not a settled issue. Furthermore, based upon prior announcements from the Thai Land Office it seems that land ownership in Thailand associated with LTR visa status may never be a reality in Thailand.

The expected resumption of the Test & Go tourism scheme in February should allow the country to attract at least 8 million tourists this year, says the Tourism and Sports Ministry. Tourism and Sports Minister Phiphat Ratchakitprakarn said his ministry plans to push for the resumption of the quarantine-free Test & Go scheme next month as this proposal is scheduled for discussion at the Centre for Covid-19 Situation Administration meeting on Jan 20….The resumption of Test & Go in February still allows enough time to reach 8 million arrivals this year, he said.

Clearly, tourism numbers have suffered since the suspension of the “test and go” program and although actual resumption of the protocol remains to be seen, it can be surmised from numbers prior to the program’s suspension that the reopening of the country would bring in much needed revenue to Thailand’s ailing tourism industry. Meanwhile, on a related note, it appears Immigration authorities in Thailand are seeking to create a new set of visas to lure “high net worth” foreign nationals to the Kingdom. To quote again from the Bangkok Post:

The cabinet on Tuesday approved visa changes intended to attract affluent foreigners for lengthy stays, targeting the rich, retirees, remote workers and skilled professionals…Deputy government spokeswoman Rachada Dhnadirek said the new regulations were in two draft ministerial announcements submitted by the Interior Ministry and the Labour Ministry…They target foreigners with enormous wealth, wealthy pensioners, foreigners who want to work remotely from Thailand, and highly skilled professionals. The Interior Ministry proposals provide for long-term residence (LTR) visas, each for up to four family members including children up to 20 years old. The Board of Investment will set the qualifications of the applicants.

It should be noted that the proposed visa scheme remains approved only in principle as the regulatory structure has yet to be fully “ironed out.” However, there are some clues as to what this visa regime may ultimately look like. For example, the integral participation of the Board of Investment in Thailand leads this blogger to believe that the proposed visa scheme will ultimately look very similar to the current SMART visa program which has been operational in Thailand for a bit less than 5 years as of the time of this writing. Although the final rules regarding this proposal have yet to be promulgated so the final criteria for visa approval remain to be seen.

Citing the Defense of Marriage Act, the Obama administration denied immigration benefits to a married gay couple from San Francisco and ordered the expulsion of a man who is the primary caregiver to his AIDS-afflicted spouse. Bradford Wells, a U.S. citizen, and Anthony John Makk, a citizen of Australia, were married seven years ago in Massachusetts. They have lived together 19 years, mostly in an apartment in the Castro district. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services denied Makk’s application to be considered for permanent residency as a spouse of an American citizen, citing the 1996 law that denies all federal benefits to same-sex couples. The decision was issued July 26. Immigration Equality, a gay-rights group that is working with the couple, received the notice Friday and made it public Monday. Makk was ordered to depart the United States by Aug. 25. Makk is the sole caregiver for Wells, who has severe health problems…

The administration of this web log encourages interested readers to click upon the relevant hyperlinks noted above to learn further details from this interesting story.

Frequent readers of this web log may recall that the provisions of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) preclude the federal government from recognizing a same sex marriage for purposes of distributing federal benefits. Therefore, same sex bi-national couples cannot acquire the same travel documents and visa benefits (such as the K-1 visa, CR-1 visa, or an IR-1 visa) as a different-sex couple notwithstanding the fact that the couple may be legally married in one of the State jurisdictions which legalize and/or solemnize such unions. It should be noted that legislation such as Representative Jerrold Nadler‘s Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) or the Respect for Marriage Act would rectify this situation to one degree or another. As of the time of this writing it remains to be seen whether this legislation will ultimately see enactment.

Meanwhile, in news of further interest to those who follow immigration matters; it recently came to this blogger’s attention that DHS has issued an announcement regarding a nationwide program to be administered by the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Service (USICE, sometimes colloquially referred to as ICE). To provide further insight it is necessary to quote directly from the official website of the Washington Times, WashingtonTimes.com:

The District could be forced to participate in an immigration-enforcement program now that the federal government has issued a letter to states that voided their participation agreements and emphasized the program’s mandatory nature. The Department of Homeland Security sent the letter last week to governors of 39 states, including Maryland and Virginia, after three states expressed interest in opting out of their contracts with the federal Secure Communities program. The program allows U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to access fingerprints collected by state and local law enforcement and shared with the FBI. It was started in 2008 and has helped ICE identify and deport more than 86,000 convicted criminal aliens. “This is to avoid any further confusion,” ICE spokeswoman Nicole Navas said Monday. “We’ve made it clear. There’s no opting out.” DHS voided the agreements to clarify that they essentially served no purpose, and that states are required to remain in the program. Federal officials no longer will seek agreement with newly enrolled states and jurisdictions, and will simply notify them when they plan to implement the program…

This blogger asks readers to click upon the relevant hyperlinks noted above to read this article in detail.

Matters pertaining to immigration can be difficult to understand especially in the context of the United States Constitution since many of the immigration-related powers of the American Legislature and Executive are plenary in nature. How such powers interact with States’ Rights can be difficult to ascertain as the legal principles involved can be quite subtle. In any case, the ultimate resolution of this issue remains to be seen. Hopefully, a solution will present itself which will prove amenable for all concerned.

For information related to United States immigration from Thailand please see: Legal.