Thai Children With Foreign Fathers Don't Have Full Citizenship Rights In Thailand

[slimdog]

You guys are thinking way too much this afternoon. You are worrying about stuff that isn't going to happen. Drink less coffee, hydrate with fresh water, and walk in the morning or afternoon and enjoy a bit of nature. Your child is not going to be stripped of his Thai citizenship.

Well said...

The most important part for foreign Fathers and Mothers in the Nationality Act is:

Chapter 1. Acquisition of Thai Nationality

(1) A person born of a father or a mother of Thai nationality, whether within or outside the Thai Kingdom.

Section 17, deals with respect to a person who has Thai nationality, by reason of his having been born within the Thai Kingdom of an alien father. There have been occassions in the past when Thailand has allowed children born of alien fathers the right to Thai nationality, this is because Thailand's borders are not static, and throughout the years areas of land have been ceded to Thailand from neighbouring countries. Citizens within these areas have been allowed to maintain their original nationalities, however their children have been granted Thai nationality with respect to a person who has been born within the Thai Kingdom of an alien father.

[samran]

Section 17, deals with respect to a person who has Thai nationality, by reason of his having been born within the Thai Kingdom of an alien father. There have been occassions in the past when Thailand has allowed children born of alien fathers the right to Thai nationality, this is because Thailand's borders are not static, and throughout the years areas of land have been ceded to Thailand from neighbouring countries. Citizens within these areas have been allowed to maintain their original nationalities, however their children have been granted Thai nationality with respect to a person who has been born within the Thai Kingdom of an alien father.

interesting...is this a personal interpretation or did you read it somewhere?

[slimdog]

Section 17, deals with respect to a person who has Thai nationality, by reason of his having been born within the Thai Kingdom of an alien father. There have been occassions in the past when Thailand has allowed children born of alien fathers the right to Thai nationality, this is because Thailand's borders are not static, and throughout the years areas of land have been ceded to Thailand from neighbouring countries. Citizens within these areas have been allowed to maintain their original nationalities, however their children have been granted Thai nationality with respect to a person who has been born within the Thai Kingdom of an alien father.

interesting...is this a personal interpretation or did you read it somewhere?

I believe that this interpretation was from:

Act on Determination of Nationality Resulting from Change of Territory between Thailand and Burma along Pak Jan River, B.E. 2479 (1936)

This act is still valid. A copy of which, (in Thai) can be obtained from the Thai Law reform commission website:

(http://lawreform.go.th/lawDocumentDetailTXT.jsp?groupID=1&groupType=L).

If I have misintepreted it then I would be grateful for a correct interpretation. Thanks

[BAF]

You guys are thinking way too much this afternoon. You are worrying about stuff that isn't going to happen. Drink less coffee, hydrate with fresh water, and walk in the morning or afternoon and enjoy a bit of nature. Your child is not going to be stripped of his Thai citizenship.

And you guys are thinking way too little.

A. I'm not worrying about anything, I don't have half-Thai children nor am I half-Thai myself.

B. No one has ever said some half-farang quasi-half Thai is going to be stripped of his quasi-real Thai citizenship (to my knowledge that's never happened except for the tribes up north for whom nobody here seem to worry or fret about much...)

C. Isn't this a Thai based discussion board? What are we supposed to be talking about if not Thailand, its culture, its society and the values and principles it's based on?

P.S. Ignore point "C", I forgot for a moment that we all are supposed to join the smiling blind Thai apologist brigade...

Edited July 4, 2007 by BAF

[Humphrey Bear]

Who cares - they have British Citizenship if they get denied their Thai one.

Not if the father is French

But this deals only with the father being the foreigner - what if there is a Thai father and foreign mother?

And there is no guarantee of receiving the father's citizenship if stripped of Thai citizenship - as an example - a British father, born overseas of a serving soldier (say in Hong Kong) and whose father was also born abroad. There is no right to British citizenship.

A couple of my friends have had to send their wives back to UK to have their children for exactly this reason.

[BAF]

imagine administering 189 different sets of rules and regulations based on 189 bilateral treaties with 189 (or however many) countries in the world.

I leave imagining it to you, I don't have to imagine anything since I've been studying matters like these for 4 years (apparently well enough to get a degree).

It's painfully obvius you ignore the HUGE MOUNTAIN of national and international laws, conventions, regulations, agreements, pacts, treats, stipulations, bilateral and multilateral, UN and non-UN patronized ALREADY regulating international relations.

Something like reciprocating Thailand's immi laws would add NOTHING to the already existing complexity dealing with countless different particular situations, policies etc etc etc varying from country to country.

I mean, the EU can't even harmonise their mobile phone tarriff rates and you are proposing this?

What are you talking about? It's not the EU which grants citizenships, it's still its single members who each grant their own citizenships.

As for harmonisation (or lack thereof), isn't this another area where the EU has still lots to learn from Thailand (a single country) where the vastly different and conflicting local interpretations, applications and enforcements of the national laws are nothing less than proverbial?

BTW, I bet that if faced with such a measure from the EU, Thailand wouldn't be spending so much of its politicians' and bureaucrats' time debating and legislating on matters like what time closing the bars (another thing they seem unable to "harmonise" and yet spend a lot of time on)...

All countries should do what is in their best interests.

And that's precisely why I believe we should be RECIPROCATING Thai immi laws.

Some countries' citizens are being abused and deprived of some of their basic human rights (like, for example, that of being able to peacefully live with one's family) and some of those same countries' citizens' wifes (we can't write "spouses") and children are being discriminated in their "smiling" homecountry because of their husband's/father's race.

I apologise if these are trifles to you.

If that means accepting immigrants because immigration is a good thing for the economy, then so be it. Who really cares what the other guy is doing?

Because the "other guy" is economically exploiting your society and, at the same time, economically and socially screwing you in his homecountry, that's why we should care.

Reciprocating Thailand's immi rules it is (or should be) very clear what Thailand would lose but what exactly do we stand to lose (provided they wouldn't quickly do an about face when realized we are serious about it)?

If we had 189 countries settling for some muddling mediocre status quo, we'd all be up the creek without a paddle.

You may be right after all, Thailand maintains different sets of (amongst other things) labor and immi rules for different nationalities and for different sexes and IT IS "up the creek without a paddle"...

Anyway, as one with dual passports, I'm not too worried. I'm confident my Thai one is safe. And at the moment, it is just as important to me to have the Thai one as it is the Australian one.

Who ever said you should be worried? AFAIK it has never happened to half-farangs but, just in case, don't push too hard your luck with some (real) Thai more powerful than you since they have the legal means to practically do as they please with you and your quasi-Thai citizenship...

In other words: of the two, your farang passport is the "real deal", the "sure thing", and your Thai passport is the toy one.

Edited July 4, 2007 by BAF

[samran]

Section 17, deals with respect to a person who has Thai nationality, by reason of his having been born within the Thai Kingdom of an alien father. There have been occassions in the past when Thailand has allowed children born of alien fathers the right to Thai nationality, this is because Thailand's borders are not static, and throughout the years areas of land have been ceded to Thailand from neighbouring countries. Citizens within these areas have been allowed to maintain their original nationalities, however their children have been granted Thai nationality with respect to a person who has been born within the Thai Kingdom of an alien father.

interesting...is this a personal interpretation or did you read it somewhere?

I believe that this interpretation was from:

Act on Determination of Nationality Resulting from Change of Territory between Thailand and Burma along Pak Jan River, B.E. 2479 (1936)

This act is still valid. A copy of which, (in Thai) can be obtained from the Thai Law reform commission website:

(http://lawreform.go.th/lawDocumentDetailTXT.jsp?groupID=1&groupType=L).

If I have misintepreted it then I would be grateful for a correct interpretation. Thanks

Thanks for that. That is a little gem isn't it? Interesting to read about treaties with the English! Seems like current nationality law may have had to take into account past treaties as well. Interesting to read that the treaty gave the affected peoples 6 months to apply to hold on to their British nationality, in which case the treaty wouldn't affect them. I doubt however, the people in the affected areas would have even known that they have had their 'allegiences' switched in the necessary time frame.

[Livinginexile]

Could it also be that the Thai government is worried that a farang father could amass a business fortune in Thailand using his Thai born son as the business owner?

So they add a clause saying if this is the case, they will revoke the childs citizenship so as to stop the farang father from using his son for 100% ownership of businesses in Thailand?

It's an international discrace if this is the case.

[Livinginexile]

Could it also be that the Thai government is worried that a farang father could amass a business fortune in Thailand using his Thai born son as the business owner?

So they add a clause saying if this is the case, they will revoke the childs citizenship so as to stop the farang father from using his son for 100% ownership of businesses in Thailand?

It's an international discrace if this is the case.

"2) There is evidence to show that he makes use of the nationality of his father or of a foreign nationality, or that he has an active interest in the nationality of his father or in a foreign nationality;"

[MaiChai]

I thought Thais are not allowed to have dual nationality. Most Thais who can do this just lie and say they dont have another passport. I was told that children can have dual passports and are not pushed on which one to keep until they are 21? Maybe someone can confirm these to be true?

[Aujuba]

The law is pathetic but the Thais have a right to be the way they are. Don't forget that so much of this country was built by law breaking. It's the way of life here. Just keep a smile on your face and you will be able to get what you want. It works most of the time but there are exceptions, Thaksin.

The King of Thailand was born in Massachusetts.

BTW Did you know Thaksin's son was born abroad in the US? Is he an American citizen?

[jbowman1993]

Solving the world's problems, one stupid thread at a time.....

[chatette]

Children born to parents who both have PR qualify for Thai citizenship, and it them to whom Section 17 would seem to refer. If any one of the child's parents is Thai, they automatically qualify for citizenship that can only be revoked if the child when an adult chooses to. It can not be stripped. Thailand allows dual citizenship, as has been stated many times elsewhere in this forum.

[Scott]

In Thailand (as in many countries, especially Asian countries), citizenship can be quite discriminatory. Before, the law was that your FATHER had to be Thai for you to be a Thai citizen. If your father wasn't Thai, you weren't either. This in practicality was very discriminatory because if you looked Thai they all assumed you were Thai and you were a citizen. If you were born, say with black skin, oops there went your claim to the motherland!

The issue of dual citizenship is also tricky. I know in the case of children of US citizens, the embassy routinely advises parents that when their child is of age they should claim Thai citizenship since they will still be considered a US citizen, even though in chosing Thai citizenship they are renouncing all other citzenship.

There is a fairly significant number of stateless people in Thailand (not including the hilltribe people) who haven't been able to go to school, get ID cards etc because they were born to foreign fathers. Some years back they changed the law so that these people COULD apply to be citizens. Sadly for them, they aren't legal in the country of their own birth. Two of them that I knew were both born out-of-wedlock and neither even knew what country their father's were from.

[BAF]

Children born to parents who both have PR qualify for Thai citizenship, and it them to whom Section 17 would seem to refer. If any one of the child's parents is Thai, they automatically qualify for citizenship that can only be revoked if the child when an adult chooses to. It can not be stripped. Thailand allows dual citizenship, as has been stated many times elsewhere in this forum.

As has already been asked: how does this "theory" explain the fact that the law does say "... the alien father ..." and NOT "... the alien parents ..."?

[Livinginexile]

Children born to parents who both have PR qualify for Thai citizenship, and it them to whom Section 17 would seem to refer. If any one of the child's parents is Thai, they automatically qualify for citizenship that can only be revoked if the child when an adult chooses to. It can not be stripped. Thailand allows dual citizenship, as has been stated many times elsewhere in this forum.

As has already been asked: how does this "theory" explain the fact that the law does say "... the alien father ..." and NOT "... the alien parents ..."?

Correct

Section 17 deals with children born to FOREIGN FATHERS and Thai mothers.

"Section 17. With respect to a person who has Thai nationality, by reason of his having been born within the Thai Kingdom of an alien father, his Thai nationality may be revoked if it appears that:"

The begining of that statement alone implies that children born in Thailand to forgeign fathers may have their citizenship revoked at the Thai governments discretion.

[BAF]

As has already been asked: how does this "theory" explain the fact that the law does say "... the alien father ..." and NOT "... the alien parents ..."?

Correct

Section 17 deals with children born to FOREIGN FATHERS and Thai mothers.

"Section 17. With respect to a person who has Thai nationality, by reason of his having been born within the Thai Kingdom of an alien father, his Thai nationality may be revoked if it appears that:"

The begining of that statement alone implies that children born in Thailand to forgeign fathers may have their citizenship revoked at the Thai governments discretion.

Probably this law sounds so incredible to Thai-culture-ignorant (not meant in an offensive way) folks that they simply refuse to see the obvious.

I'm sure it dates back to when Thai women married to foreigners lost important Thai citizenship rights themselves like the land ownership right...

And it was just 8 years ago that this changed.

Edited July 6, 2007 by BAF

[wolfmanjack]

It's a matter of concern to me. Suppose my son (who was born in LoS with a Thai mother), goes to work in the UK in the future. He has dual nationality and can therefore work/enter the UK without need for a visa. Maybe he is working in the UK on Thai/UK international business (which benefits Thailand etc). It seems that this act says that his Thai citizenship can be revoked if he stays more than 5 years in the UK.... (Maybe he is at college in the UK for more than 5 years?)

It seems that even the Thai nationality act discriminates against Thais.....

Simon

Well, It seems to that the mere fact that your son uses a UK passport would fall under

(2) There is evidence to show that he makes use of the nationality of his father or of a foreign nationality,

So they would not have to wait for 5 years. Any half that that uses a passport from his father's country would fall foul of this rule.

[meadish_sweetball]

I'd be interested to hear if somebody has a verifiable example of this law being enforced?

[JR Texas]

I'd be interested to hear if somebody has a verifiable example of this law being enforced?

JR Texas: XENOPHOBIA This place is starting to become like Burma!

[samran]

I'd be interested to hear if somebody has a verifiable example of this law being enforced?

I haven't, and it wouldn't suprise me if the number is zero. The law was last changed in 1992, not in 1999 as a previous poster mentined. You'd think 15 years would be ample time to enforce section 17. Otherwise all it would take is an immigration officer at Suvanaphumi to pull over a likely violater of this provision and that would be that.

I also don't buy the hair pulling over this that some posters have. I've mentioned in the past, that people at the Council of State (Krasidika) have told me that it is not unusual for Thai law to be contraditory, some lines of legislation added in to appease various factions, but at the same time, those very lines of legislation are unenforceable. It is a very Thai way of saving face for everyone, yet opening up a channel for something to happen - in this case allowing dual nationaity.

A clear example of this is sections 13 and 22.

Section 13 says:

Section 13. A woman of Thai nationality who marries an alien and may acquire the nationality of her husband according to the nationality law of her husband, shall, if she desires to renounce Thai nationality, make a declaration of her intention before the competent official according to the form and in the manner prescribed in the Ministerial Regulations.

but then section 22 says

Section 22. A person of Thai nationality who bas been naturalised as an alien, or who has renounced Thai nationality, or whose Thai nationality has been revoked, shall lose Thai nationality.

Now, does it not imply that in 13, a person who aquires the nationality of their husband (presumably via naturalisation - which is the process in most countries) is allowed to keep Thai nationaity, but later in Section 22 it says you aren't if you naturalise as an alien?

I mean if the drafters of this legislation were serious about banning dual nationality, why would they not simply write a catch-all clause of one line saying "Thai nationals are not permitted to hold more than one nationality"?? Instead the legislation contorts itself for 11 provisions, hardly any of which are practically enforceable, and some of which are outright contradictory.

My take on this particular piece of legislation is that it wholly allows dual nationality, in all forms regardless of parentage and place of birth. The reason is that it already allows some Thai's to have it. Given that the consitution (when we have one) typically says that a Thai nationals shall be treated equally before the law, if one Thai is allowed to have dual nationality, then all are. For me, Section 17 is a dud and unenforceable, both constituionally, and administratively.

But that is a personal opinion.

[BAF]

I'd be interested to hear if somebody has a verifiable example of this law being enforced?

I haven't, and it wouldn't suprise me if the number is zero. The law was last changed in 1992, not in 1999 as a previous poster mentined. You'd think 15 years would be ample time to enforce section 17. Otherwise all it would take is an immigration officer at Suvanaphumi to pull over a likely violater of this provision and that would be that.

1999 was the year in which the law which made Thai women married to foreigners lose important Thai citizenship rights like the land ownership right (or better said, they couldn't purchase any more land than what they already owned at the time of the marriage with the foreigner) was amended (in reality it was just a new ministerial regulation to change that, another one of what you yourself call a "face saving" Thai way of doing things).

As for examples of this and similar laws being enforced I have already mentioned the hill tribes people (there are more than half a million of them in Thailand) to whom Thai citizenship is denied notwithstanding the fact that some of them (the Karen) are living in Thailand from longer than some of the "Thais" themselves and all of them have been born in Thailand with most of them living there from several generations.

How many more examples do you need than half a million?

They can find themselves in different legal status, ie holding "full cards", "blue cards", PR etc Under certain conditions (like holding "full cards" and residing 5 years in the same place) some of them can get a quasi-Thai citizenship but it doesn't allow them to freely move within the country and, above all, it can be stripped off them at the govt's will and the same ones holding this "Thai" citizenship could see themselves deported (against international laws and conventions) to wherever the Thais please...

I also don't buy the hair pulling over this that some posters have. I've mentioned in the past, that people at the Council of State (Krasidika) have told me that it is not unusual for Thai law to be contraditory, some lines of legislation added in to appease various factions, but at the same time, those very lines of legislation are unenforceable. It is a very Thai way of saving face for everyone, yet opening up a channel for something to happen - in this case allowing dual nationaity.

A clear example of this is sections 13 and 22.

Section 13 says:

Section 13. A woman of Thai nationality who marries an alien and may acquire the nationality of her husband according to the nationality law of her husband, shall, if she desires to renounce Thai nationality, make a declaration of her intention before the competent official according to the form and in the manner prescribed in the Ministerial Regulations.

but then section 22 says

Section 22. A person of Thai nationality who bas been naturalised as an alien, or who has renounced Thai nationality, or whose Thai nationality has been revoked, shall lose Thai nationality.

Now, does it not imply that in 13, a person who aquires the nationality of their husband (presumably via naturalisation - which is the process in most countries) is allowed to keep Thai nationaity, but later in Section 22 it says you aren't if you naturalise as an alien?

I mean if the drafters of this legislation were serious about banning dual nationality, why would they not simply write a catch-all clause of one line saying "Thai nationals are not permitted to hold more than one nationality"?? Instead the legislation contorts itself for 11 provisions, hardly any of which are practically enforceable, and some of which are outright contradictory.

My take on this particular piece of legislation is that it wholly allows dual nationality, in all forms regardless of parentage and place of birth. The reason is that it already allows some Thai's to have it. Given that the consitution (when we have one) typically says that a Thai nationals shall be treated equally before the law, if one Thai is allowed to have dual nationality, then all are. For me, Section 17 is a dud and unenforceable, both constituionally, and administratively.

But that is a personal opinion.

Nowhere they allow "some Thais" (the women) to have it at all, section 13 clearly says they must renounce their Thai citizenship to get that of their foreign husbands.

Simply, there is no section which explicitely says that Thai men could renounce their Thai citizenship to get that of their foreign wifes. And Section 22 covers the rest of the cases anyway (theirs included).

The only interesting bit of what you quoted is the part of Section 22 which reads "... or whose Thai nationality has been revoked ..." clearly confirming once again that it is a real and concrete eventuality cross-referenced everywhere in Thai laws and regs.

Edited July 8, 2007 by BAF

[samran]

1999 was the year in which the law which made Thai women married to foreigners lose important Thai citizenship rights like the land ownership right (or better said, they couldn't purchase any more land than what they already owned at the time of the marriage with the foreigner) was amended (in reality it was just a new ministerial regulation to change that, another one of what you yourself call a "face saving" Thai way of doing things).

Things were made right, why are you complaining about it? Since 1999, women married to foreigners have been able to own land.

Nowhere they allow "some Thais" (the women) to have it at all, section 13 clearly says they must renounce their Thai citizenship to get that of their foreign husbands.

Again, the relevant word in section 13 is 'IF'. IF they marry a foreigner, and gain their husbands nationaity, IF they choose to renounce their Thai citizenship, they can. The implication of course, is that IF they chose NOT to renoucne their citizenship, they don't have to.

Section 13. A woman of Thai nationality who marries an alien and may acquire the nationality of her husband according to the nationality law of her husband, shall, IF she desires to renounce Thai nationality, make a declaration of her intention before the competent official according to the form and in the manner prescribed in the Ministerial Regulations

I refer you to the Thai embassy in Washington DC which has a FAQ section on this.

http://www.thaiembdc.org/consular/con_info...f.htm#questions

Whether you chose to believe me or not I have it on excellent authority that the the 1992 Act was a piece of legislation which was intended to restore the rights of Thai women who had lost their citizenships previously after marrying a foreign male. In my own personal experience, my mother, a Naturalised Australian, was personally rang by a friend from the Thai embassy in Canberra in 1992 stating that her Thai nationality had been restored under the Act.

[Maestro]

I should like to try and help bring this topic back into perspective.

All foreign men with Thai wife and children, listen to this: Section 17 of Thailand’s Nationality Act does not affect the Thai nationality rights of your children in any way at all. Just read that first sentence of that section again:

Section 17. With respect to a person who has Thai nationality by reason of his having been born within the Thai Kingdom of an alien father, his Thai nationality may be revoked if it appears that...

Did your child acquire Thai nationality because it was born in Thailand of an alien father? No, it did not. It acquired Thai nationality by birth because it was born of a Thai mother. End of story.

Any post from this point forward saying the opposite will be out of order. Ignore these posts!

--

Maestro

P.S. If you wish to question the OP’s and BAF’s ability to read English, please take into account that English translations of Thai laws are not always easy to read. At any rate, in the end it is the Thai original text that matters, not a translation into a foreign language.

[samran]

Section 17. With respect to a person who has Thai nationality by reason of his having been born within the Thai Kingdom of an alien father, his Thai nationality may be revoked if it appears that...

Did your child acquire Thai nationality because it was born in Thailand of an alien father? No, it did not. It acquired Thai nationality by birth because it was born of a Thai mother. End of story.

EXCELLENT point there, Maestro.

[BAF]

BAF, with all due respect, I think you are getting your wires crossed. Firstly, land ownership regulations have nothing to do with citizenship regulations. They are seperate issues.

Firstly, the 'regulation'you quote. If you can point it out that would be fantastic, but I think you'll find the reality in this day and age is that Thai womern married to a foreigner have had their rights restored. It is very possible for a Thai woman married to a foreign male to own land.

That's exactly what I have been writing all along. In 1999 the law was changed by means of the Ministerial Regulation I talked about (not by actually amending the law) and Thai women married to foreigners can now purchase land (although under the conditions you mentioned).

Reread what I originally wrote talking about the quoted Section 17 (post #47):

I'm sure it dates back to when Thai women married to foreigners lost important Thai citizenship rights themselves like the land ownership right...

And it was just 8 years ago that this changed.

The "it" in the first phrase (which "dates back" etc) clearly was the Section 17 (the law subject of this thread) WHILE what "changed just 8 years ago" was the law which limited Thai women's ownership rights.

I clearly talked about this limitations as something happening in the past.

It still reads clearly this way to me then again English is not my native language and I apologize if it all means the opposite of what I intented it to mean.

Again, the relevant word in section 13 is 'IF'. IF they marry a foreigner, and gain their husbands nationaity, IF they choose to renounce their Thai citizenship, they can. The implication of course, is that IF they chose NOT to renoucne their citizenship, they don't have to.

Section 13. A woman of Thai nationality who marries an alien and may acquire the nationality of her husband according to the nationality law of her husband, shall, IF she desires to renounce Thai nationality, make a declaration of her intention before the competent official according to the form and in the manner prescribed in the Ministerial Regulations

I refer you to the Thai embassy in Washington DC which has a FAQ section on this.

http://www.thaiembdc.org/consular/con_info...f.htm#questions

Whether you chose to believe me or not I have it on excellent authority that the the 1992 Act was a piece of legislation which was intended to restore the rights of Thai women who had lost their citizenships previously after marrying a foreign male. In my own personal experience, my mother, a Naturalised Australian, was personally rang by a friend from the Thai embassy in Canberra in 1992 stating that her Thai nationality had been restored under the Act.

The answer you quote seems to imply that previously Thai women lost their citizenship simply by "marrying a foreign male" not after they took their foreign husbands' homecountry's citizenship!

Quote "the 1992 Act was a piece of legislation which was intended to restore the rights of Thai women who had lost their citizenships previously after marrying a foreign male"

Moreover, if your interpretations were correct it would mean that, today, Thai women can hold dual citizenships while Thai men cannot.

Although I would be happy if it was true (it would be the first time Thai males were disciminated over Thai females instead of the usual other way around) but unfortunately I have never heard of any Thai/foreign law firm going for your interpretation...

Can you point to me any reputable source which states that since 1992 Thai women can hold dual citizenships while Thai men cannot?

[BAF]

Did your child acquire Thai nationality because it was born in Thailand of an alien father? No, it did not. It acquired Thai nationality by birth because it was born of a Thai mother. End of story.

My objection was and still is: doesn't being born in Thailand of an alien father imply that the mother is Thai?

Isn't it weird to word Section 17 this way if they are in fact referring to children born to alien parents?

I hypothesized that in the past children of Thai mothers and alien fathers weren't granted Thai citizenship so claiming Thai nationality by being born on Thai soil was the only remaining option for children with a foreign father and a Thai mother and that's why Section 17 is worded the way it is.

Is there anyone who really knows (and can provide evidence for) if:

A. Thai women lost (or could lose), prior to 1992, their citizenship by simply marrying foreigners.

B. since 1992 Thai women can hold dual citizenships while Thai men cannot.

C. in the past children of Thai mothers and alien fathers weren't granted Thai citizenship.

P.S.

P.S. If you wish to question the OP’s and BAF’s ability to read English, please take into account that English translations of Thai laws are not always easy to read.

TNX for that.

Edited July 8, 2007 by BAF

[Maestro]

...acquired Thai citizenship (you know, the one identified by the different starting number on your "Thai" ID...

Do you know the meaning of each of the different starting numbers? So far, I have only seen ID cards of people who acquired their Thai nationality by being born of a Thai father or Thai mother, and they all start with 3. It would be interesting to see what other starting numbers have been assigned to the other possibilities of acquiring Thai nationality.

--

Maestro

[Maestro]

doesn't being born in Thailand of an alien father imply that the mother is Thai?

It does not.

--

Maestro

[Maestro]

Is there anyone who really knows (and can provide evidence for) if:

A. Thai women lost (or could lose), prior to 1992, their citizenship by simply marrying foreigners.

B. since 1992 Thai women can hold dual citizenships while Thai men cannot.

C. in the past children of Thai mothers and alien fathers weren't granted Thai citizenship.

A. You have to dig up the old Immigration act B.E. 2508 to get a definitive and legal answer to that.

B. Who says men cannot? I see nothing to that effect in the current Immigration Act. On the contrary, the Act clearly states that Thai woman, and only woman, can, if they marry a foreigner and if they wish to renounce Thai nationality, apply to the government to have their Thai nationality revoked. Thai men marrying a foreigner are not given this option. They are condemned to retain their Thai nationality whether they like it or not. In other words, you’ve got it all wrong. Rule No. 1: when reading a law, never read any implication into it, otherwise nine times out of ten you – and I – would get it wrong. (I’ve done it twice and got it wrong both times; that’s how I learnt it)

C. If with “the past” you mean before 1992, my son is proof. He was born long before 1992 and automatically acquired Thai nationality by birth. On the strength of evidence of his mother’s Thai nationality (ID card) a birth certificate was issued to say that my son was a Thai national, and again long before 1992 a Thai passport was issued to him.

--

Maestro