Indonesia's Directorate General of Immigration (also known as Ditjen Imigrasi, the federal body handling visas, residence permits and enforcement) collected Rp10.4 trillion in non-tax state revenue from immigration operations in 2025, equal to 155% of target, according to figures the directorate published in its 2025-26 activity report1. The same report logged 346 foreign nationals apprehended in enforcement sweeps during April 2026. The two figures sit in the same publication for a reason.
The revenue base has been growing since Indonesia introduced a series of premium visa and e-VOA (electronic visa on arrival) products in 2023 and 2024, including the Second Home Visa and the golden visa, neither of which has delivered the issuance volumes the Ministry of Law originally projected. Standard visa and residency fees have done the work the premium products did not. The Bali tourist levy of Rp150,000 per foreign visitor, introduced in February 2024, is a separate instrument operating on the visitor side of the same ledger. The directorate's target for 2026 has not been publicly stated, but the 155% overperformance on the 2025 figure would be unusual to repeat without rate increases.
The enforcement side of the same report is what makes the revenue figure politically legible. Sweeps in Bali, Jakarta and Bandung targeting unauthorised work, overstays, and residential address fraud have accelerated since mid-2025, and the published April 2026 figure of 346 apprehensions covers one month of activity across multiple regional offices. The directorate frames the sweeps as enforcement against specific violations. The wider signal, read in the nomad and long-stay cohorts that have concentrated in Bali and Lombok since 2022, is that Indonesia is willing to be visibly unwelcoming at the individual case level while continuing to market its premium visa products at the cohort level.
Pushed on the point, the directorate's own communications and the Indonesian Tourism Ministry respond that the enforcement figures are on unauthorised activity and do not reflect the treatment of compliant residents, and that the revenue is proportionate to the volume of issuances the country is processing. That is defensible as statistics. Unaddressed in the response is the absence of published guidance on the specific violations that trigger a sweep, which leaves compliant foreign residents unable to price the enforcement risk they are carrying in day-to-day terms.
