Story Of My Thai Citizenship Application

[aidenai]

CITIZENSHIP

Interior Minister ordered to speed up citizenship

February 27, 2015 3:14 pm

The Central Administrative Court on Thursday ruled in favour of a group of displaced persons living in Tak province who have accused Interior Minister Anupong Paojinda for being too slow in considering their Thai citizenship applications.

All are permitted under the provisions of the 2007 Constitution to apply for citizenship. The Court ordered Anupong to finish the nationalisation of the plaintiffs within two months.

The plaintiffs said that the delaying of the granting of citizenship was negatively affecting their lives.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Interior-Minister-ordered-to-speed-up-citizenship-30254996.html

Guess this might also have positive consequences for the application of others.

[Arkady]

CITIZENSHIP

Interior Minister ordered to speed up citizenship

February 27, 2015 3:14 pm

The Central Administrative Court on Thursday ruled in favour of a group of displaced persons living in Tak province who have accused Interior Minister Anupong Paojinda for being too slow in considering their Thai citizenship applications.

All are permitted under the provisions of the 2007 Constitution to apply for citizenship. The Court ordered Anupong to finish the nationalisation of the plaintiffs within two months.

The plaintiffs said that the delaying of the granting of citizenship was negatively affecting their lives.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Interior-Minister-ordered-to-speed-up-citizenship-30254996.html

Guess this might also have positive consequences for the application of others.

I think The Nation distorted the case a little by making it sound as if the plaintiffs had actually accused the current minister, Gen Anuphong. In fact they filed the case with the court in 2011 and the problem dates back to 2006. Following a cabinet resolution that provided for Thai citizenship for displaced Thais born in specific areas of Burma and Cambodia that had previously been under Thai sovereignty, they applied for Thai citizenship in 2004. The Interior Ministry finished checking their documents in 2006 and they were informed they had passed. However, when they tried to obtain ID cards, they were rejected and told to submit further documentation which they presumably didn't have and the case has dragged on disgracefully for another 8 or 9 years. I imagine the interior ministry was cited in the suit, as he has discretion under the Nationality Act, but the interior minister was not necessarily named, since there had been several of them since the problem started.

Anuphong has approved a large number of backlogged citizenship applications since he took over but probably couldn't interfere with these ones since they were sub judice. It seems unfair of The Nation to blame him personally without examining the details at all.

It is interesting that the Administrative Court has ruled against the ministry in a citizenship case and it the first incidence of this I have heard of, although there may be others. I believe there have been quite a few cases filed with the court over citizenship but I had only heard of unsuccessful cases before. The Nationality Act doesn't provide for any judicial review as it gives full discretion to the minister but the Administrative Court legislation takes precedence other laws in providing judicial recourse to anyone in a dispute with a state agency.

Anuphong seems to have been doing a good job so far on citizenship but he will eventually have to hand over to another civilian politician. Previously the ministry bureaucrats were fearful of court cases going against them but it didn't do much to change their behaviour. Maybe this ruling will, indeed, be a bit of a wake-up call.

[Arkady]

The section of the Department of Provincial Administration (DOPA) that handles citizenship applications has moved out of the Asadang Road HQ of the Interior Ministry to new offices in Lamlukka. Interviews now take place there. I am reliably informed that these are now taking place monthly, due to pressure from the current interior ministry to improve efficiency and speed things up. Previously the interviews effectively took place only about 7 times a year, although they were supposed to be monthly. The committee comprises 15 officials of whom, i think 8, are from the Interior Ministry. They used to call off an interview session, if officials were not available. However, the officials are allowed to sent alternates, so there was no real excuse to cancel nearly half the meetings in the year when the committee's work is backed up for years. They are also under instructions to speed up the approval process after the interviews. Good move by Gen Anuphong. I hope it survives into the next government. I think we all know the reasons it got like it was but keeping people waiting for many years is inhuman and inconsistent with the standard of services a modern government should aspire to deliver.

[Oasis]

Yes,they moved the office last year and now on the verge of approval baglog, soon we will be having a good news, Mr. Anuphong is doing great job.

[samran]

Yes,they moved the office last year and now on the verge of approval baglog, soon we will be having a good news, Mr. Anuphong is doing great job.

Have you been given any intelligence from MOI?

[Oasis]

Presently citizenship applications are processed by the BORA(Bureau of Registration Administration)at Pathumthani.

[Arkady]

Presently citizenship applications are processed by the BORA(Bureau of Registration Administration)at Pathumthani.

BORA, which directs all civil registration done by district offices, is part of DOPA which is a large part of the MOI. The Section for Minorities and Citizenship (กลุ่มชนกลุ่มน้อยและสัญชาติ) that handled applications in the DOPA building in Asadang Road is part of DOPA but not part of BORA. My understanding is that the same section is still handling applications but the staff have been relocated to Lamlukka in Pathumthani Province and given housing there. Perhaps they were moved into a BORA building but still have the same organisational structure.

[GarryP]

Any one have any idea when the next large committee meeting is scheduled? The last one was on 23 December 2014 so if they are really going to increase the frequency one should be due very soon.

[aidenai]

Presently citizenship applications are processed by the BORA(Bureau of Registration Administration)at Pathumthani.

BORA, which directs all civil registration done by district offices, is part of DOPA which is a large part of the MOI. The Section for Minorities and Citizenship (กลุ่มชนกลุ่มน้อยและสัญชาติ) that handled applications in the DOPA building in Asadang Road is part of DOPA but not part of BORA. My understanding is that the same section is still handling applications but the staff have been relocated to Lamlukka in Pathumthani Province and given housing there. Perhaps they were moved into a BORA building but still have the same organisational structure.

So please tell. When one wants to check the status of one's application who got the MOI-interview in November 2013, where exactly does one have to go? Thanks.

[Oasis]

Presently citizenship applications are processed by the BORA(Bureau of Registration Administration)at Pathumthani.

BORA, which directs all civil registration done by district offices, is part of DOPA which is a large part of the MOI. The Section for Minorities and Citizenship (กลุ่มชนกลุ่มน้อยและสัญชาติ) that handled applications in the DOPA building in Asadang Road is part of DOPA but not part of BORA. My understanding is that the same section is still handling applications but the staff have been relocated to Lamlukka in Pathumthani Province and given housing there. Perhaps they were moved into a BORA building but still have the same organisational structure.

So please tell. When one wants to check the status of one's application who got the MOI-interview in November 2013, where exactly does one have to go? Thanks.

When I called to the same section last time told that they have given all the citizenship related matters to BORA and I should called them and when I called BORA they gave me the answer that I asked, so BORA is the office now to follow up the citizenship applications.

Oasis

[GarryP]

For those people who were included in the Big Committee Meeting held on 23 December 2014 and were approved, their applications have not yet been forwarded for endorsement by the Minister of the Interior. The next Big Committee Meeting is scheduled for 30 March 2015. So the frequency of these meetings is certainly improving.

[Oasis]

For those people who were included in the Big Committee Meeting held on 23 December 2014 and were approved, their applications have not yet been forwarded for endorsement by the Minister of the Interior. The next Big Committee Meeting is scheduled for 30 March 2015. So the frequency of these meetings is certainly improving.

Hope after this meeting we will be having good news then.

Oasis

[GarryP]

For those whose applications went to the big committee on 30 March 2015, a report is being made for signing off by the Minister of the Interior. For those who were approved, their cases will then be sent for royal endorsement.

[tamvine]

Could someone please advice me the phone number of BORA?

Also do we have to dial a particular extension to find about status of the Nationality?

[samran]

For those whose applications went to the big committee on 30 March 2015, a report is being made for signing off by the Minister of the Interior. For those who were approved, their cases will then be sent for royal endorsement.

Thanks GarryP.

Based on what i've been told, this should be my wife, though I will believe it when I see it! I think in my wifes case, royal endorsement might not be needed?

Fingers crossed for you.

[GarryP]

For those whose applications went to the big committee on 30 March 2015, a report is being made for signing off by the Minister of the Interior. For those who were approved, their cases will then be sent for royal endorsement.

Thanks GarryP.

Based on what i've been told, this should be my wife, though I will believe it when I see it! I think in my wifes case, royal endorsement might not be needed?

Fingers crossed for you.

I believe that your wife's case was the meeting in December. However, last time I checked nothing had been sent for General Anopong's signature from that meeting. I believe they may make a single submission covering both the December and March meetings.

[aidenai]

For those whose applications went to the big committee on 30 March 2015, a report is being made for signing off by the Minister of the Interior. For those who were approved, their cases will then be sent for royal endorsement.

Thanks for the update.

[Arkady]

Had a quick look through the draft of the constitution which is now available online in Thai and in English translation to see if there was anything specific affecting citizenship.

Most things seem unchanged. The wording about the right to enter the Kingdom freely and not be deported is unchanged, as is the 5-year 'seasoning' required by naturalised Thais before they can vote.

One thing which is new is a sentence in Article 47 that states that it is impossible to revoke Thai nationality from citizens who are Thai by birth against their will. It goes on to say that it can be done to Thais who are not Thai by birth in accordance with the law, provided that this will not render them stateless, which is, of course, consistent with the Convention on Statelessness, to which I believe Thailand is a signatory.

This new addition seems slightly at variance with the Nationality Act, since it doesn't specific that 'Thai by birth' means Thai by birth to a Thai father or mother. Thus it appears to include Thais who were born in the Kingdom to alien parents (after Dec 1973 both alien parents needed to have permanent residence for their children to be Thai). I suspect this is an oversight as the constitution drafters might not have considered the situation of Thais born in the Kingdom to alien parents who will apparently become immune from revocation of Thai nationality, even though they were the main target group for involuntary revocations in the past. The new wording also appears to guarantee that naturalised Thais cannot involuntary lose their Thai nationality in any circumstances, as long as they can prove they have renounced their other nationality or nationalities. Even the UK allows for revocation of nationality of naturalised Brits regarded as a national security threat, if the government can prove that they are eligible for another nationality. A strict interpretation of this constitutional provision would not allow the revocation of Thai nationality from such people, as long as they didn't currently hold another nationality.

The new wording, if adopted in the final version, should knock on the head once and for all arguments from the Interior Ministry and Immigration that half Thai children are supposed to choose one nationality at the age of 20 and that Thais naturalising as aliens are supposed to give up their Thai nationality.

[paz]

One thing which is new is a sentence in Article 47 that states that it is impossible to revoke Thai nationality from citizens who are Thai by birth against their will.

So basically that repeals Nationality act sections 21 and 22, that were the only cases which at lest theoretically could case loss of nationality for full "jus sanguinis" Thais.

The new wording, if adopted in the final version, should knock on the head once and for all arguments from the Interior Ministry and Immigration that half Thai children are supposed to choose one nationality at the age of 20 and that Thais naturalising as aliens are supposed to give up their Thai nationality.

I understand that for the first case, current law already indicates that as a faculty, not an obligation.

[samran]

For those whose applications went to the big committee on 30 March 2015, a report is being made for signing off by the Minister of the Interior. For those who were approved, their cases will then be sent for royal endorsement.

Thanks GarryP.

Based on what i've been told, this should be my wife, though I will believe it when I see it! I think in my wifes case, royal endorsement might not be needed?

Fingers crossed for you.

I believe that your wife's case was the meeting in December. However, last time I checked nothing had been sent for General Anopong's signature from that meeting. I believe they may make a single submission covering both the December and March meetings.

Thanks for the correction. Certainly haven't heard anything from our side, which was supposed to be the December meeting. So hopefully the joint submission is the way to go. My wife's extension of stay needs to be renewed in August, so hopefully we don't have to do that!

[dbrenn]

Had a quick look through the draft of the constitution which is now available online in Thai and in English translation to see if there was anything specific affecting citizenship.

Most things seem unchanged. The wording about the right to enter the Kingdom freely and not be deported is unchanged, as is the 5-year 'seasoning' required by naturalised Thais before they can vote.

One thing which is new is a sentence in Article 47 that states that it is impossible to revoke Thai nationality from citizens who are Thai by birth against their will. It goes on to say that it can be done to Thais who are not Thai by birth in accordance with the law, provided that this will not render them stateless, which is, of course, consistent with the Convention on Statelessness, to which I believe Thailand is a signatory.

This new addition seems slightly at variance with the Nationality Act, since it doesn't specific that 'Thai by birth' means Thai by birth to a Thai father or mother. Thus it appears to include Thais who were born in the Kingdom to alien parents (after Dec 1973 both alien parents needed to have permanent residence for their children to be Thai). I suspect this is an oversight as the constitution drafters might not have considered the situation of Thais born in the Kingdom to alien parents who will apparently become immune from revocation of Thai nationality, even though they were the main target group for involuntary revocations in the past. The new wording also appears to guarantee that naturalised Thais cannot involuntary lose their Thai nationality in any circumstances, as long as they can prove they have renounced their other nationality or nationalities. Even the UK allows for revocation of nationality of naturalised Brits regarded as a national security threat, if the government can prove that they are eligible for another nationality. A strict interpretation of this constitutional provision would not allow the revocation of Thai nationality from such people, as long as they didn't currently hold another nationality.

The new wording, if adopted in the final version, should knock on the head once and for all arguments from the Interior Ministry and Immigration that half Thai children are supposed to choose one nationality at the age of 20 and that Thais naturalising as aliens are supposed to give up their Thai nationality.

Interesting information Arkady.

I live in hope that one day they will revoke section 19(5) of the Thai Nationality Act, the clause that states that naturalised Thais lose their citizenship for more than 5 years non-residency.

I'm wondering whether this five year limit is only applied to contiguous years, i.e., no single period exceeding five years. Or, whether the five year limit is taken as a cumulative total of time living abroad over one's whole lifetime. Thai laws are rather ambiguously worded, and this is no exception.

Having spent a single 4.5 year period living in Oz since I became Thai, and now living back in Thailand, I'm wondering whether I'm stuck here . After all the hassle I went through to get my citizenship here, it would be a shame to lose it.

[dbrenn]

Had a quick look through the draft of the constitution which is now available online in Thai and in English translation to see if there was anything specific affecting citizenship.

Most things seem unchanged. The wording about the right to enter the Kingdom freely and not be deported is unchanged, as is the 5-year 'seasoning' required by naturalised Thais before they can vote.

One thing which is new is a sentence in Article 47 that states that it is impossible to revoke Thai nationality from citizens who are Thai by birth against their will. It goes on to say that it can be done to Thais who are not Thai by birth in accordance with the law, provided that this will not render them stateless, which is, of course, consistent with the Convention on Statelessness, to which I believe Thailand is a signatory.

This new addition seems slightly at variance with the Nationality Act, since it doesn't specific that 'Thai by birth' means Thai by birth to a Thai father or mother. Thus it appears to include Thais who were born in the Kingdom to alien parents (after Dec 1973 both alien parents needed to have permanent residence for their children to be Thai). I suspect this is an oversight as the constitution drafters might not have considered the situation of Thais born in the Kingdom to alien parents who will apparently become immune from revocation of Thai nationality, even though they were the main target group for involuntary revocations in the past. The new wording also appears to guarantee that naturalised Thais cannot involuntary lose their Thai nationality in any circumstances, as long as they can prove they have renounced their other nationality or nationalities. Even the UK allows for revocation of nationality of naturalised Brits regarded as a national security threat, if the government can prove that they are eligible for another nationality. A strict interpretation of this constitutional provision would not allow the revocation of Thai nationality from such people, as long as they didn't currently hold another nationality.

The new wording, if adopted in the final version, should knock on the head once and for all arguments from the Interior Ministry and Immigration that half Thai children are supposed to choose one nationality at the age of 20 and that Thais naturalising as aliens are supposed to give up their Thai nationality.

On the 5 years seasoning before naturalised Thais can vote, I wonder how they will tell that to the bureaucrats at ground level.

There was an election a few months after I got my citizenship and I got sent my voting papers along with all the other Thais on my house registration.

There would presumably need to be a change made to the database so as to flag rookie Thais.

[NewlyMintedThai]

I did not receive voting papers last time, as a newly-naturalized Thai. I assume I will next time (if and when there is a next time...).

[GarryP]

Can anyone clarify the next steps in the process after approval by the large committee? I understand the steps involved but have received conflicting information about the order of those steps (even officials were contradicting each other). I do, however, understand that the timeline between steps is no longer what it used to be, i.e. it is now much faster.

[dbrenn]

Can anyone clarify the next steps in the process after approval by the large committee? I understand the steps involved but have received conflicting information about the order of those steps (even officials were contradicting each other). I do, however, understand that the timeline between steps is no longer what it used to be, i.e. it is now much faster.

Following Interview by the committee at the Interior Ministry, mine went like this:

1) Interior Minister approval, which was confirmed by letter notification of approval posted to my home address

2) Notification of HMK approval (no letter this time - I was told verbally by SB)

3) I was asked to take the oath at Special Branch

4) My name was published on a list signed by the Interior Minister. This list was presented to me by Special Branch as a book along with various other unrelated regulations that had been approved that day

5) Armed with this book of regulations, I could immediately get my certificate of naturalisation issued by SB

[Arkady]

Article 21 is virtually redundant because it provides for revocation of Thai citizenship of people with a foreign parent who register for an alien book. I believe this clause is a throw back to earlier nationality acts when they wanted to penalise Chinese who were entitled to Thai nationality from registering as aliens to avoid Thai military service. In those days, they could work freely and own businesses as aliens, so many males used their Chinese nationality to get alien books, they could show to the draft board.

Article 22 would still stand but only the case that Thai citizens voluntarily renounce Thai citizenship to naturalise as aliens. Some countries make that a condition of naturalisation, e.g. Taiwan, Korea, Singapore. Austria, Germany.

One thing which is new is a sentence in Article 47 that states that it is impossible to revoke Thai nationality from citizens who are Thai by birth against their will.

So basically that repeals Nationality act sections 21 and 22, that were the only cases which at lest theoretically could case loss of nationality for full "jus sanguinis" Thais.

The new wording, if adopted in the final version, should knock on the head once and for all arguments from the Interior Ministry and Immigration that half Thai children are supposed to choose one nationality at the age of 20 and that Thais naturalising as aliens are supposed to give up their Thai nationality.

I understand that for the first case, current law already indicates that as a faculty, not an obligation.

[Arkady]

Had a quick look through the draft of the constitution which is now available online in Thai and in English translation to see if there was anything specific affecting citizenship.

Most things seem unchanged. The wording about the right to enter the Kingdom freely and not be deported is unchanged, as is the 5-year 'seasoning' required by naturalised Thais before they can vote.

One thing which is new is a sentence in Article 47 that states that it is impossible to revoke Thai nationality from citizens who are Thai by birth against their will. It goes on to say that it can be done to Thais who are not Thai by birth in accordance with the law, provided that this will not render them stateless, which is, of course, consistent with the Convention on Statelessness, to which I believe Thailand is a signatory.

This new addition seems slightly at variance with the Nationality Act, since it doesn't specific that 'Thai by birth' means Thai by birth to a Thai father or mother. Thus it appears to include Thais who were born in the Kingdom to alien parents (after Dec 1973 both alien parents needed to have permanent residence for their children to be Thai). I suspect this is an oversight as the constitution drafters might not have considered the situation of Thais born in the Kingdom to alien parents who will apparently become immune from revocation of Thai nationality, even though they were the main target group for involuntary revocations in the past. The new wording also appears to guarantee that naturalised Thais cannot involuntary lose their Thai nationality in any circumstances, as long as they can prove they have renounced their other nationality or nationalities. Even the UK allows for revocation of nationality of naturalised Brits regarded as a national security threat, if the government can prove that they are eligible for another nationality. A strict interpretation of this constitutional provision would not allow the revocation of Thai nationality from such people, as long as they didn't currently hold another nationality.

The new wording, if adopted in the final version, should knock on the head once and for all arguments from the Interior Ministry and Immigration that half Thai children are supposed to choose one nationality at the age of 20 and that Thais naturalising as aliens are supposed to give up their Thai nationality.

Interesting information Arkady.

I live in hope that one day they will revoke section 19(5) of the Thai Nationality Act, the clause that states that naturalised Thais lose their citizenship for more than 5 years non-residency.

I'm wondering whether this five year limit is only applied to contiguous years, i.e., no single period exceeding five years. Or, whether the five year limit is taken as a cumulative total of time living abroad over one's whole lifetime. Thai laws are rather ambiguously worded, and this is no exception.

Having spent a single 4.5 year period living in Oz since I became Thai, and now living back in Thailand, I'm wondering whether I'm stuck here . After all the hassle I went through to get my citizenship here, it would be a shame to lose it.

Not too sure about Section 19.5. Section 17.1 in respect of those born in Thailand to alien parents actually specifies that the 5 years has to be consecutive but this wording ติดต่อกัน is absent in 19.5 which doesn't make me feel positive about the interpretation, if it should ever be put to the test.

Section 19.2, providing for revocation, if a naturalised Thai still makes use of his former nationality might also be a concern for some. Since this use is undefined, it is open to interpretation by the MoI which also has declarations of intent from more recent applicants on file. It would be fair, if 'use' applied only to use in Thailand, as in the case of Chinese dual nationals who used to apply for alien books to avoid conscription. Other countries make it illegal to enter with another country's passport and this is acceptable. Using another nationality outside Thailand, however, seems to have no impact on the country but MoI officials would argue it presents a security threat, as criminals or terrorists might use dual nationality and dual identities to commit crime (in spite of the hassle involved in getting Thai nationality and the scrutiny imposed by the police and MoI). On the other hand, there is nothing to stop Thais from getting other nationalities and engaging in a career of crime and terrorism, while evading justice in Thailand. Their Thai nationality can never be revoked.

[dbrenn]

Had a quick look through the draft of the constitution which is now available online in Thai and in English translation to see if there was anything specific affecting citizenship.

Most things seem unchanged. The wording about the right to enter the Kingdom freely and not be deported is unchanged, as is the 5-year 'seasoning' required by naturalised Thais before they can vote.

One thing which is new is a sentence in Article 47 that states that it is impossible to revoke Thai nationality from citizens who are Thai by birth against their will. It goes on to say that it can be done to Thais who are not Thai by birth in accordance with the law, provided that this will not render them stateless, which is, of course, consistent with the Convention on Statelessness, to which I believe Thailand is a signatory.

This new addition seems slightly at variance with the Nationality Act, since it doesn't specific that 'Thai by birth' means Thai by birth to a Thai father or mother. Thus it appears to include Thais who were born in the Kingdom to alien parents (after Dec 1973 both alien parents needed to have permanent residence for their children to be Thai). I suspect this is an oversight as the constitution drafters might not have considered the situation of Thais born in the Kingdom to alien parents who will apparently become immune from revocation of Thai nationality, even though they were the main target group for involuntary revocations in the past. The new wording also appears to guarantee that naturalised Thais cannot involuntary lose their Thai nationality in any circumstances, as long as they can prove they have renounced their other nationality or nationalities. Even the UK allows for revocation of nationality of naturalised Brits regarded as a national security threat, if the government can prove that they are eligible for another nationality. A strict interpretation of this constitutional provision would not allow the revocation of Thai nationality from such people, as long as they didn't currently hold another nationality.

The new wording, if adopted in the final version, should knock on the head once and for all arguments from the Interior Ministry and Immigration that half Thai children are supposed to choose one nationality at the age of 20 and that Thais naturalising as aliens are supposed to give up their Thai nationality.

Interesting information Arkady.

I live in hope that one day they will revoke section 19(5) of the Thai Nationality Act, the clause that states that naturalised Thais lose their citizenship for more than 5 years non-residency.

I'm wondering whether this five year limit is only applied to contiguous years, i.e., no single period exceeding five years. Or, whether the five year limit is taken as a cumulative total of time living abroad over one's whole lifetime. Thai laws are rather ambiguously worded, and this is no exception.

Having spent a single 4.5 year period living in Oz since I became Thai, and now living back in Thailand, I'm wondering whether I'm stuck here . After all the hassle I went through to get my citizenship here, it would be a shame to lose it.

Not too sure about Section 19.5. Section 17.1 in respect of those born in Thailand to alien parents actually specifies that the 5 years has to be consecutive but this wording ติดต่อกัน is absent in 19.5 which doesn't make me feel positive about the interpretation, if it should ever be put to the test.

Section 19.2, providing for revocation, if a naturalised Thai still makes use of his former nationality might also be a concern for some. Since this use is undefined, it is open to interpretation by the MoI which also has declarations of intent from more recent applicants on file. It would be fair, if 'use' applied only to use in Thailand, as in the case of Chinese dual nationals who used to apply for alien books to avoid conscription. Other countries make it illegal to enter with another country's passport and this is acceptable. Using another nationality outside Thailand, however, seems to have no impact on the country but MoI officials would argue it presents a security threat, as criminals or terrorists might use dual nationality and dual identities to commit crime (in spite of the hassle involved in getting Thai nationality and the scrutiny imposed by the police and MoI). On the other hand, there is nothing to stop Thais from getting other nationalities and engaging in a career of crime and terrorism, while evading justice in Thailand. Their Thai nationality can never be revoked.

Right - as you correctly observe, there is no "ติดต่อกัน" in 19(5) to state that years of non-residency should be contiguous, possibly implying that the accrued time living outside Thailand during one's entire life as a Thai citizen could be taken into account should the authorities so wish. This should be a worry for naturalised Thais (including myself) who live or work abroad for extended periods. One day, on a whim, the government could search the immigration records for naturalised Thais who live abroad, add up all the time that they have spent out, and cull them. Would they do it? Perhaps I worry too much, but who knows for sure?

As you also say, section 19(2) is also ambiguous. While most naturalised Thai I know only use their Thai nationality here, never using any kind of foreign ID for anything, the fact remains that most still retain their foreign citizenship and use it outside Thailand. Should there be a policy change, this could be a possible source of worry when asked to show both passports at check in or immigration, as happens sometimes, to prove that a Thai citizen has the right to travel to a destination where a visa would usually be required.

The wording of the law is rather vague, and open to interpretation, as you say. I guess it suits the government to keep it that way

[Arkady]

Right - as you correctly observe, there is no "ติดต่อกัน" in 19(5) to state that years of non-residency should be contiguous, possibly implying that the accrued time living outside Thailand during one's entire life as a Thai citizen could be taken into account should the authorities so wish. This should be a worry for naturalised Thais (including myself) who live or work abroad for extended periods. One day, on a whim, the government could search the immigration records for naturalised Thais who live abroad, add up all the time that they have spent out, and cull them. Would they do it? Perhaps I worry too much, but who knows for sure?

As you also say, section 19(2) is also ambiguous. While most naturalised Thai I know only use their Thai nationality here, never using any kind of foreign ID for anything, the fact remains that most still retain their foreign citizenship and use it outside Thailand. Should there be a policy change, this could be a possible source of worry when asked to show both passports at check in or immigration, as happens sometimes, to prove that a Thai citizen has the right to travel to a destination where a visa would usually be required.

The wording of the law is rather vague, and open to interpretation, as you say. I guess it suits the government to keep it that way

The largest number of duals today are probably look krung, followed by Thais who have naturalised as aliens. Look krung have an inalienable right to Thai nationality under the 1992 Nationality Act and the same will apply to Thais who have naturalised as aliens, if the new constitution is passed with that clause in it. That would leave only those who are Thai through birth in the Kingdom to alien parents (down to probably less than 10 new ones per year after the 1972 revolutionary decree) and naturalised Thais who are also a rather small number, of whom probably the majority are strictly prohibited from continuing to hold their original nationality by their country of birth. Logically, if duals are really a threat to national security, any new policy against them should be preceded by amendments to the Nationality Act to make dual nationality explicitly illegal for everyone. This, of course, proved difficult in 1992 when the original amendment making it illegal for look krung was reversed by a new act of parliament three weeks later. In future it might be necessary to amend the constitution as well as the Act to achieve this. Having said all that, logic has never been a necessary ingredient in policy making and anything can happen in this country.

[Mystery]

Congratulations on your citizenship, albeit it's now a few years ago!! It's now my turn!!

Now as I'm an English woman, married to Thai husband for seven years this year and on my fourth non-imm o visa extention - I can now start this process!!

So... Does anyone have any details or experience of having done this as a woman - heard it's easier - less finanicials to show... husband only needs to show income of 15,000 baht?... True?

There was a lady on here years ago that I spoke to about this but I've lost touch with her... SK or something was her user name... She'd done it I think!

I believe my first step will be visiting Special Branch in Bangkok to get application form and details of what papers they require right? Anyone have the address, contact info?

Thanking you all in advance!

Miriam in Hua Hin