MangoKorat

Right, now I understand where all the confusion has come from. I read https://asean and until this moment have failed to see that its actually asean.org and not asean now - my apologies. However, you have both been banging on about me being an employee of a law firm after I stated that I wasn't. You also failed to recognise that I originally stated that I would accept that the law I referred to had been overridden when someone provided evidence that it had been. I have made it clear from the outset that the information I referred to was as I understood it from sources I researched and that to the best of my knowledge, sources that had not been superceeded by any officially provided source. As soon as that evidence was provided I did indeed accept it.

I think you know exactly what I mean. I was not prepared to do the search that I did many years ago when websites such as Asean Now didn't exist as it took me hours to find official versions of the laws. So I did a quick one off search on Google and the link I provided from an AN page came up - hence my statement 'from our own website' which was then misconstrued as me being an employee of the firm. I posted the link, I didn't even notice that it ended in .pdf. It was simply the result of a Google search

Having posted the same information 3 times but still being told I posted something completely different. I give in Mr Liquorice - if I just say you're right on all counts, will you go to sleep?

I most certainly did! Posted 5 hours ago, page 2, 3rd post down.

Absolutely - in fact a couple of years back, if you remember, the Police Chiefs of Bangkok and Pattaya got together and had a walkabout in Pattaya on evening. They declared that they did not find any sex for sale. I believed them.

I did not post a pdf download. I posted a link to an ASEAN NOW page that contained that PDF.

Jeez...............................I explained that yonks back. Without looking back, I'm also sure that I stated I was not a member of that company.

Have I not made it clear that by our own website I was quoting the link? In no way was I suggesting the information came from Asean Now - just that the URL pointed to it.

Again? Where have I said I'm a member of a law firm? More importantly, why are you still rattling on? I have accepted that the law has been overridden - should I await being shot at dawn?

Thanks for that it explains what I need but this is one of the reasons why I don't rely on information from commercial websites as fact: Section 10. Qualifications for Naturalization An alien who possesses the following qualifications may apply for naturalization as a Thai: becoming sui juris in accordance with Thai law and the law under which he has nationality; having good behavior; having regular occupation; having a domicile in the Thai Kingdom for a consecutive period of not less than five years till the day of filing the application for naturalization; having knowledge of Thai language as prescribed in the Regulations. Further down the document it states: Should the applicant for naturalization as a Thai, under paragraph one, have children who are not sui juris in accordance with Thai law, and who have a domicile in Thailand, he may concurrently apply for such naturalization for his children. In this case, such children shall be exempt from possessing the qualifications under Section 10 (1), (3), (4) and (5). Section 10 does not actually have numbered points, they are bulleted and there is only 4 of them.

Yes and I've never understood how they get away with using that name.

No, this was my post: From our own website: Section 14 A person of Thai nationality, who was born of an alien father and has acquired the nationality of his father according to the law on nationality of his father, or a person who acquires Thai nationality under Section 12 paragraph 2 is required, if he desires to retain his other nationality, to make a declaration of his intention to renounce his Thai nationality within one year after his attaining the age of twenty years, according to such form and in the manner as prescribed in the Ministerial Regulations. If, after consideration of the said intention, the Minister is of opinion that there is reasonable ground to believe that such person may acquire the nationality of his father or a foreign nationality, he shall grant permission, except in cases where Thailand is being engaged in armed conflict, or is in state of war, he may order the dispensation of any renunciation of Thai nationality. https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Thailand185.pdf What is your point? Have I not, as I said I would, accepted that the previous act has been overridden?

Right, the reason I mentioned the importance of what constitutes citizenship was that many years ago in the UK for example, pregnant foreign women used to come to the country to have their baby. That baby was (at that time - prior to 1983) entitled to British Citizenship and the parents would then make a Human Rights application in order to be allowed to stay in the UK. Many were successful. That 'loophole' was closed and the constitutents of a citizen were clarified. Since then a child must have one parent who is a British Citizen or someone with settled status. The child of either a British parent, either mother or father, is also entitled to British citizenship regardless of where they are born. The Thai requirements must surely be equally as clear?

Not at all, I was refering to this website when I said 'from our own website'.

An interesting statement in that: Dual national children: A major misconception is that a child born with Thai and a foreign nationality must, at the age of 20, choose to renounce their foreign nationality if they wish to remain a Thai citizen. However, Section 14 of the Thai nationality act actually does not force a renunciation, but merely gives a one-year window following that persons 20th birthday for renunciation. If no application is made for renunciation in that one year window, there is also no penalty for not making a ‘choice’. That brings about the question of what the point of such a rule was in the first place - if one can simply ignore it and therefore not fall foul of it. I don't believe that for a moment but I do know that to the best of my knowledge, that was in fact how it actually went - i.e. nobody actually had their citizenship revoked in such circumstances. My entire point in all of this - and I made reference to this earlier is if the OP got entangled with an over zealous official. It does happen: I remember years ago when Thai women who lived abroad with their foreign husband and had acquired a passsport from their husband's country, would 'flash' both passports when entering Thailand. The result being that the I.O. confiscated their Thai passport telling them they could not have both. I actually saw that happen back in around 2003 at Don Mueang. I was informed that they always got their passports back - apparently there was such a law previously but it had been recinded. So yes, the I.O. that confiscated the passport in the first place was wrong to do so but it must have been a worrying time for the holder.

Thank you for that. It does indeed appear to overide the earlier acts, although surprisingly, it goes into very little detail. To nit pick, I suppose there could be a question as to whether a child with a foreign father is considered to have acquired Thai nationality by birth? Section 39. No person of Thai nationality shall be deported or prohibited from entering the Kingdom. The revocation of Thai nationality acquired by birth shall not be permitted. I am surprised that an entire new constitution fails to determine what constitutes Thai Nationality and makes no reference to any law that identifies such a determination. At least, I can't find such references. The previous acts went in to quite some detail on that matter.

Just to be clear on that. Am I understanding correctly that a child would have to be physically present in Thailand, go to the Amphur and be put on a Tabien Baan in order to get their first ID card and that an ID card is a requirement to obtain a passport? After that they can renew both ID cards and passports at an Embassy abroad?

I'm not doubting what you have posted but I note that it is listed as a draft.

It is not a Thai Government website - that do you?

I have said from the start that people can believe or not - its up to them. I have seen the official versions of the law that I believe is still in place. I also stated that I was not prepared to spend hours looking for copies as past experience has shown me that people will still argue with them if I do. You are 100% free to believe the contents of any updated regulations, just as you are free to disbelieve those I have posted - I won't until I see an official version. For me to accept that

Well not exactly. I know of a few, including at least one member of this site, that already do exactly as I have suggested. Its not my idea. The UK government make a lot of their own problems - like massive amounts of duty on some things that creates a black market in those products.

For a non biker, a bike and sidecar might be OK. However, as a biker, I just can't get used to the damned things, I try to make them lean around corners which gets me into all sorts of trouble - the passengers get a bit upset when I try that on a right hander.

Regular members here know very well that they should not accept documents from so called lawyers and legal sites in Thailand. I can think of at least one 'legal' company that advertises on Asean Now that doesn't actually employ any Thai lawyers.

OK, unless someone posts an official version that shows that the information I provided earlier has been updated and dual citizenship for children of mixed heritage is now allowed. I will not be posting further. I have read the official version and the copy I posted on here - to the best of my knowledge they are identical. I don't need to see an official version of that law because I've already seen it. If anyone chooses not to believe it.......that's fine. I am yet to see an official version that shows any relevant updates of the law. I have spent far too long already arguing this point. Over and out.

Actually, there are often English translations, especially when new laws relate to immigration matters.