12 hours ago, GarryP said:

Surely a declaration of intent is not binding. Someone may have an intention to do something but due to changing circumstances, that intention may change. Anyway, as you say, the UK really does not give much weight to such things. 

 

As to leaving the country, surely it is the responsibility of the airline check-in people to make sure you have the requisite documents/visas to actually be allowed on their flight (the airline is responsible for repatriation (flying you back) if you do not have a valid visa as you should not have been allowed on the flight in the first place). It is not the responsibility of the Thai authorities to make sure you have a visa for your destination country. That is the responsibility of the immigration authorities in the destination country. 

 

Having said that, if for some reason you had absolutely no choice but to select Thai citizenship or citizenship of your home country, I would have no qualms about choosing Thailand. Having lived here for 39 years and visited the UK only 5 times in that period (once repatriated, once for a funeral, once for work and twice for holidays (the latter 2 in the past 5 years), I really don't have a reason not to select Thailand.       

Indeed intentions can change (qv Prince Charles having 'no intention' to marry CPB) but it is a criminal offence under UK law to make knowingly a false declaration. Sure, in practice UK won't do anything about this particular matter. My point however was that the letter the BE now issues instead of a declaration signed by the applicant basically shouts out to the Thai authorities - "it's up to you to make sure this person gives up UK citizenship". 

 

Leaving the country is absolutely the responsibility of the airlines but, as Dogmatix says, IOs can often go through a passport just for the sake of it. After all, that's part of their job - spotting problems with travel documents. Again my point is simply that, in my case as a white dude waving a shiny new Thai passport, an IO is much more likely to take an interest.

 

Absolutely - you've thought it through and if you had to make a choice, have no problems choosing Thai. Again, my point is just that I think it would be unwise for anyone to follow the nationality path and not be prepared to make that choice.

14 minutes ago, BKKBike09 said:

With respect, I believe you are mistaken. Clause 19.2 of the 2008 Act is clear.

 

14 minutes ago, BKKBike09 said:

(2) there is evidence indicating that the naturalized person still uses his or her former nationality;

That does not prohibit somebody from still having both nationalities.

It means you cannot use your other nationality while in the country. That has been discussed many times previously in this topic.

8 hours ago, david143 said:

I have a Question.
i got online Que for Thai Passport on 12 October, is that OK i will go for Cancellation of Visa on same day.
There is no Que for Passport until 12th OCT.
If its OK please share your experience.

October 12th that's a month (crazy long time) which office is that? 

10 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

 

That does not prohibit somebody from still having both nationalities.

It means you cannot use your other nationality while in the country. That has been discussed many times previously in this topic.

What I can say is that AFAIK there are no revocations of Naturalised Thais under Section 19 on record at all in the RG.  There are a number of revocations of people Thai through birth in the Kingdom to alien parents under Section 17, most of which are for residing overseas for more than 5 years (Section 17.1) but I know of one case in 2004 under Section 17.2 for making use of father's nationality. In the announcement it was specified that the evidence that he made use of father's nationality was that he entered the Kingdom on a British passport.  BTW there is gender bias in that Section 18 dealing revocation of women adopting Thai hubby's nationality doesn't have the clauses to do residing abroad for 5 years or with making use of former nationality.  However, this is no doubt because the section was merely cut and paste from earlier nationality acts pre-dating the current 1965 Act going back to the 30s or 40s when most countries including the UK and Thailand automatically cancelled a woman's citizenship, if she married a foreigner.  So it was originally assumed the women had no former nationality to make use of and later no one wanted to inconvenience their Thai hubbies by adding these provisions.

 

I think the point that BkkBike09 is making is that the past is no guarantee of the future and who's to say they might not suddenly decide it was a national security issue and that using a foreign passport to check in with an airline or just having it in one's pocket when passing immigration constitutes evidence of use of former nationality. One could also perhaps try to make a case that a false declaration was made.  I have discussed here in the past the conversations I had with several of SB crew at the time the affidavit was first introduced which they themselves found puzzling and irksome at the time. They said they had been to meetings with the MoI when the affidavit was being introduced where the MoI was saying that their legal section's advice was that there is nothing in the Act that allows them to require evidence of renunciation post facto, as some other countries do, and they had come up with the affidavit as the best way to encourage voluntary renunciations or to dissuade a flood of people with Thai wives but no PR from applying, as was feared after 2008 amendments. (In the case of Chinese, Koreans and Indians et al who comprise a large proportion of the applicants, their embassies will do the job of revocations for MoI and the MoI may have assumed that other countries would do the same until the British embassy put it in their face that this was not the case). The affidavit reflected a distinct change in MoI thinking as people just before that were being asked in MoI interviews if they were lucky enough to be able to retain their original nationality according to their country's laws.  It took the MoI took 2 or 3 years to update the guidelines to reflect the 2008 amendments which SB told me was deliberate and, indeed, only a trickle of people applied under the amendments for the first two years.  In addition to the 90 day reporting there was an archaic revolutionary decree prohibiting women from being out after 10pm without a male guardian that Thaksin tried to re-enforce during the 'social order' campaign when cops went around testing girls' pee pee in night clubs.  Even worse is the example of the requirement for TM card reporting when moving around the country which I believe was in the 1972 Immigration Act but never enforced at all until the Prayut government decided to dust it off for use on 'national security' grounds and allegedly for the convenience of foreign embassies when someone disappears or is murdered. It would be a stretch to say that naturalised Thais are more of a threat to national security than the far greater numbers of look krung and Thais naturalised as aliens who have dual nationality but anything is possible. The former revocation targets, people born in the Kingdom to alien parents, are now protected by the current constitution which prohibits involuntary revocation of nationality from those Thai through birth.  So that leaves only the very small number of naturalised Thais they could go after which would seem not worth the candle but you can't say the  chance is zero, so it is something to be be borne in mind.

12 hours ago, Arkady said:

 

I think the point that BkkBike09 is making is that the past is no guarantee of the future

Exactly that. 

 

One should never forget that many laws in Thailand are loosely or poorly drafted (often intentionally) and leave many matters "or as may be decided by the competent official / the Minister etc etc". This, in turn, makes it very hard to second-guess how any particular case or set of circumstances may be pursued by the authorities.

On 9/10/2021 at 10:46 PM, Dogmatix said:

Flying to Europe via Moscow on Aeroflot is another visaless option, although when I went with the missus it took the immigration officers about 10 minutes of thumbing through her Thai passport saying visa, visa to figure out that Thai passports didn't need visas.

A cheaper option perhaps, but I swore I'd never use Aeroflot again after once being stranded in Moscow airport for 10 hours. It might have been quite pleasant as there was an Irish pub that sold Guinness, but I couldn't cash my traveller's cheques anywhere and had no acceptable cash on me ???? 

 

 

17 hours ago, yankee99 said:

October 12th that's a month (crazy long time) which office is that? 

Chaeng Wattana MOFA Passport office .
there is no QUE for this office  until 12 OCT.
 

11 minutes ago, david143 said:

Chaeng Wattana MOFA Passport office .
there is no QUE for this office  until 12 OCT.
 

Did you check PP Office MRT Klong Toei?

Just now, DrJoy said:

Did you check PP Office MRT Klong Toei?

booked until 2 OCT.
Near Seacon Square Booked until 7 OCT.
 

1 hour ago, david143 said:

booked until 2 OCT.
Near Seacon Square Booked until 7 OCT.
 

You might get quick appointment, in the nearby provinces.

1 hour ago, david143 said:

Chaeng Wattana MOFA Passport office .
there is no QUE for this office  until 12 OCT.
 

is it all online booking or can you walkin queue 8am?

21 minutes ago, yankee99 said:

is it all online booking or can you walkin queue 8am?

Before covid 19 they allowed walk in applications but it has gone over to appointments only unless it is a emergency.

Some offices outside Bangkok may still do them in person.

On 9/11/2021 at 8:34 AM, david143 said:

I have a Question.
i got online Que for Thai Passport on 12 October, is that OK i will go for Cancellation of Visa on same day.
There is no Que for Passport until 12th OCT.
If its OK please share your experience.

I just walked into the PP office in Khon Kaen, I was the only one there! Took about 30 minutes. I felt like a superstar as they had never experienced a Naturalized Thai before. 

my kid has dual nationality, Brit & Thai passports. UK allows Dual Nationality.

8 hours ago, WhiteBuffaloATM said:

my kid has dual nationality, Brit & Thai passports. UK allows Dual Nationality.

The UK allows as many nationalities as you can handle.  I have known several people with 3.  They complained about the hassle and expense of maintaining 3 passports though.

I'd like to thank everyone posting in this topic for their support today i received my thai id this morning ????????????

 

Tomorrow i will get in queue for my passport. 

congrag brother

 

https://www.qpassport.in.th/#/register

register for QUE

 

22 minutes ago, david143 said:

congrag brother

 

https://www.qpassport.in.th/#/register

register for QUE

 

Thanks! 

 

They have walk-in queue here starting 7am.  I want to fly out beginning October and see my family

2 hours ago, yankee99 said:

I'd like to thank everyone posting in this topic for their support today i received my thai id this morning ????????????

Wonderful, congratulations ????

I just found this document-

Thai citizenship application in Suratthani Province, 2019

I 'm sharing just for information 

Thai Cit_Thai_lang.pdf

On 9/11/2021 at 9:04 AM, BKKBike09 said:

With respect, I believe you are mistaken. Clause 19.2 of the 2008 Act is clear.

 

Section 19. The Minister shall have the power to revoke Thai nationality of a person who acquires Thai nationality by naturalization, if it appears that:

(1) the naturalization is effected by concealment of facts or making false statement of essential facts;

(2) there is evidence indicating that the naturalized person still uses his or her former nationality;

(3) having committed any act prejudicial to the national security or conflicting with the interests of the State or amounting to an insult to the nation;

(4) having committed any act in contrary to the public order or good morals; (5) having resided aboard without having a domicile in Thailand for more than

(5) having resided aboard without having a domicile in Thailand for more than five years;

(6) having retained the nationality of the country at war with Thailand.

 

http://web.krisdika.go.th/data//document/ext810/810050_0001.pdf

(5) having resided aboard without having a domicile in Thailand for more than five years;

 

A domicile is commonly defined as a residence, home, or legal residence. This provision says 'having a domicile in Thailand', rather than 'without residing in Thailand', so isn't it possible that this applies to people who are absent for five years and have no home, residence or legal residence in Thailand? In other words, if you owned a home here, paid the bills on it, filed your tax returns, maintained a bank account, etc. wouldn't that mean you don't fall under this five year provision because you continue to 'have a domicile' here? 

7 hours ago, qualtrough said:

(5) having resided aboard without having a domicile in Thailand for more than five years;

 

A domicile is commonly defined as a residence, home, or legal residence. This provision says 'having a domicile in Thailand', rather than 'without residing in Thailand', so isn't it possible that this applies to people who are absent for five years and have no home, residence or legal residence in Thailand? In other words, if you owned a home here, paid the bills on it, filed your tax returns, maintained a bank account, etc. wouldn't that mean you don't fall under this five year provision because you continue to 'have a domicile' here? 

You may well be right. Under UK Tax Law, 'residence' and 'domicile' are distinct i.e. one can be Non-Resident for tax purposes but still be regarded as having domicile by virtue of ties such as property ownership, bank accounts etc, which becomes relevant in certain tax situations (such as inheritance by a non-domiciled spouse). The original Thai clause says:

 

ไปอยู่ในต่ำงประเทศโดยไม่มีภูมิลำเนำในประเทศไทยเป็นเวลำเกินห้ำปี

 

The Thai Revenue Department has a guidance leaflet about residence which, at its simplest, defines it simply as having your name in a household registration:

 

ภูมิลําเนาก็คือ การมีชื่ออยู่ในทะเบียนบ้านนั่นเอง

 

i should think that, in practice, this clause wouldn't ever get used. Making use of foreign passport would be much easier to prove if the authorities really wanted to make a problem.

 

Links below to Thai version of Nationality Act 2008 and the RD Residence Guidance. I was looking at the Thai version on the Council of State web site - https://www.krisdika.go.th/home - but the specific link won't paste into here; the Prachuab one below is fine though)

 

http://www.prachuapkhirikhan.go.th/_2018/files/com_rules/2020-05_cc948a135159863.pdf

 

http://webinter.rd.go.th/region1/fileadmin/pdf/336-55.pdf

Just a quick update that khet called and made an appointment for this Wednesday to move into blue tabien baan and get new Thai ID. 

 

Hopefully everything goes smoothly.. 

2 minutes ago, kst said:

Just a quick update that khet called and made an appointment for this Wednesday to move into blue tabien baan and get new Thai ID. 

 

Hopefully everything goes smoothly.. 

goodluck

I am buying a house soon and want to put it in my name, rather than my wife's.

If, for any reason, my Thai citizenship was revoked, what would happen to my house/land?

Is this risk of losing my property worth worrying about?

32 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

I am buying a house soon and want to put it in my name, rather than my wife's.

If, for any reason, my Thai citizenship was revoked, what would happen to my house/land?

Is this risk of losing my property worth worrying about?

Why would they revoke?

12 minutes ago, DrJoy said:

Why would they revoke?

If there was a change in the law, if I committed a serious crime, made use of my old nationality, left the country for a few years, or if they just wanted to steal my assets. 

5 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

If there was a change in the law, if I committed a serious crime, made use of my old nationality, left the country for a few years, or if they just wanted to steal my assets. 

Don't know the exact answer to that but I do know about the naturalized Chinese couple who's Thai nationality was revoked on the grounds of gambling.

They appealed to The Hon. Administration Court, the Court reinstated their Thai nationality.

1 minute ago, DrJoy said:

Don't know the exact answer to that but I do know about the naturalized Chinese couple who's Thai nationality was revoked on the grounds of gambling.

They appealed to The Hon. Administration Court, the Court reinstated their Thai nationality.

Interesting. I never thought that would be a serious enough offence. In their case, revoking their Thai citizenship would leave them stateless. 

17 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

Interesting. I never thought that would be a serious enough offence. In their case, revoking their Thai citizenship would leave them stateless. 

In case of the British man whose Thai nationality was revoked on the grounds of using his former nationality.

He never appealed to the Court and went back to England.

 

Guess we will never know what would have been the outcome of such cases.