Applying For Thai Citizenship

[Mario2008]

Also have a look at article 20.

Section 20.

A Committee shall be set up consisting of the Under Secretary of State for Interior as chairman, a representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Director-General of the Department of Administrative Affairs, the Director-General of the Police Department and the Director-General of the Public Prosecution Department as members, having the duty to consider the revocation of Thai nationality under Sections 16, 17 (1) or 18, 19.

Where circumstances appear with respect to any person that his Thai nationality may be revoked, the competent official shall submit the latter for consideration of the Committee. After consideration, the Committee shall refer its opinion to the Minister for direction

[MacWalen]

So I read it that it should be ok, also revoking it would be quite labor intensive.

[Mario2008]

So I read it that it should be ok, also revoking it would be quite labor intensive.

They can do it after 5 years, but won't because it is too much work.

[MacWalen]

once saved forever saved, I like it, thanks Mario

[Mario2008]

This topic is about applying for Thai citizenship. To prevent confusion I have moved some posts regarding Permanent Residency to here:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Camerata-s-G...ide-t74654.html

[Arkady]

THai Nationality Act:

Section 19.

The Minister is empowered to revoke Thai nationality of a person who acquires Thai nationality by naturalization if it appears that:

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

Note that the article says can revoke, it is not automaticaly revoked.

This also seems a rather redundant provision, as there is no automatic way of checking, unlike PR where it is obvious from your endorsement, if you come back from abroad after it expired. (I actually know some one whose PR was cancelled as he returned to Thailand after the endorsement expired because he was taken ill abroad and had to have an emergency operation. Immigration said they had no option but to cancel his PR but invited him to reapply and bent over backwards to help him get it back again.) On the other hand I doubt that they really care, if naturalized Thais stay abroad for more than 5 years but they want to keep the option open and anyway they only want PRs and new citizens who intend to make Thailand their permanent home. In any event keeping your name on a tabian baan should qualify as "having a domicile in Thailand."

[Arkady]

Another question for Dbrenn or others who have been through the process. Is it both Special Branch and the Interior Ministry that come to visit your home and office or just the Interior Ministry (not counting any under cover visits by Special Branch)? Do the officials give you notice before the visits or do they just show up unannounced?

[samran]

THai Nationality Act:

Section 19.

The Minister is empowered to revoke Thai nationality of a person who acquires Thai nationality by naturalization if it appears that:

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

Note that the article says can revoke, it is not automaticaly revoked.

This also seems a rather redundant provision, as there is no automatic way of checking, unlike PR where it is obvious from your endorsement, if you come back from abroad after it expired. (I actually know some one whose PR was cancelled as he returned to Thailand after the endorsement expired because he was taken ill abroad and had to have an emergency operation. Immigration said they had no option but to cancel his PR but invited him to reapply and bent over backwards to help him get it back again.) On the other hand I doubt that they really care, if naturalized Thais stay abroad for more than 5 years but they want to keep the option open and anyway they only want PRs and new citizens who intend to make Thailand their permanent home. In any event keeping your name on a tabian baan should qualify as "having a domicile in Thailand."

That is my take too... though I'd want to pull out the Thai language version to be sure what domicile is translated from.

Another question for Dbrenn or others who have been through the process. Is it both Special Branch and the Interior Ministry that come to visit your home and office or just the Interior Ministry (not counting any under cover visits by Special Branch)? Do the officials give you notice before the visits or do they just show up unannounced?

I need to remind myself and tell special branch that I have a new alternate address. My offical residence is out by Fashion island, the abode of one slightly eccentric brother of my mother, the only one who didn't want to migrate to Australia 40 years ago. Politely, it is a dump.

If they turn up to my old (alternate) address, they may not get forwarded to our new place (250sqm apartment off Sukhumvit!). They might decide to venture out to fashion island....that could be the end of my wifes chances!

Edited February 14, 2009 by samran

[dbrenn]

Another question for Dbrenn or others who have been through the process. Is it both Special Branch and the Interior Ministry that come to visit your home and office or just the Interior Ministry (not counting any under cover visits by Special Branch)? Do the officials give you notice before the visits or do they just show up unannounced?

Only the Interior Ministry came to my house. I was given a few days notice of the time and date. Three of them came, and they wre quite informal and friendly.

[dbrenn]

THai Nationality Act:

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

Note that the article says can revoke, it is not automaticaly revoked.

This also seems a rather redundant provision, as there is no automatic way of checking, unlike PR where it is obvious from your endorsement, .....

In any event keeping your name on a tabian baan should qualify as "having a domicile in Thailand."....

Agreed. I wonder what are the qualifications for residence in Thailand for the purposes of the Thai Nationality Act? For tax purposes 'residence' counts as being in the country for more that 180 days per year. For the purposes of PR, 'residence' is maintained even if the PR visits Thailand for a couple of days each year to renew his non-quota immigrant visa and endorsement.

My take on the Thai Nationality Act is that being on a Tabien Bahn would be enough, but who knows. In any case, the cancellation is not automatic, and requires the formation of a very senior level committee. Too much trouble for a mere mortal -- there would have to be a compelling reason at a very senior political level to go to that degree of trouble. In all my 18 years of living in Thailand I never heard of anyone having citizernship revoked for this reason.

[Arkady]

For those interested in the thorny issue of why foreign men married to Thai women are not automatically entitled to apply for Thai citizenship in the same way as foreign women married to Thai men, here is the Constitutional Court's reasoning given in a ruling in 2003. Any one who feared that Section 9 of the Act might have been discriminatory towards Thai women and in violation of the 1997 constitution, which provided very specific provisions against discrimination on grounds of race, gender, religion etc will be relieved to learn that this is not the case.

Summary of the Constitutional Court Ruling

No. 37/2546

Dated 9th October B.E. 2546 (2003)*

3. The issue considered by the Constitutional Court

Was there section 9 of the Nationality Act, B.E. 2508 (1965) questions regarding

constitutionality under section 30 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand, B.E. 2540

(1997) ?

The Constitutional Court held as follows. The acquisition of Thai nationality of

foreigners by marriage was the sovereignty of the State to prescribing rules and conditions in

form of promulgating a law which was the Nationality Act, B.E. 2508 (1965). The said

Act contained the provisions of section 9 paragraph one which provided that “If a woman

who is a foreigner and is married to a man with Thai nationality desires to acquire Thai

nationality, she shall submit an application to the official in the form and according to

procedures prescribed by ministerial regulations” and section 9 paragraph two which

provided that “The permission or non-permission of acquiring the Thai nationality shall be at

the discretion of the Minister”. The promulgation of such Act was within the power of the

State. After considering the above-mentioned provisions, it could not be deemed that these

provisions resulted in the inequality before the law between men and women or unequal

rights giving to men and women. It was because they were measures determined by the State

to be appropriate for social nature and security of the State. The law did not bar the right of

foreign men who were married to women with Thai nationality to acquire Thai nationality.

They could acquire the Thai nationality according to the rules and conditions prescribed

by the law which was as provided in section 10, section 11 and section 12 in Chapter 1:

the Acquisition of Thai Nationality of the Nationality Act, B.E. 2508 (1965). Those

provisions did not cause any difficulty and any question on personal status whatsoever

and could not therefore be deemed as unjust discrimination against a person on the ground

of the difference in gender and being contrary to international law. Accordingly, the

provision of section 9 of the Nationality Act, B.E. 2508 (1965) was consistent with section 30

of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand, B.E. 2540 (1997).

[ubonjoe]

In other words thay can twist things around to make a ruling anyway the want.

"appropriate for social nature and security of the State" ????

[samran]

In other words thay can twist things around to make a ruling anyway the want.

"appropriate for social nature and security of the State" ????

Not sure:

The same court has also come out scrapping electoral laws which previously insisted that children of foreign fathers needed higher educational requirements (amongst other things) to enter parliament (a masters versus a bog standard undergrad).

[ubonjoe]

In other words thay can twist things around to make a ruling anyway the want.

"appropriate for social nature and security of the State" ????

Not sure:

The same court has also come out scrapping electoral laws which previously insisted that children of foreign fathers needed higher educational requirements (amongst other things) to enter parliament (a masters versus a bog standard undergrad).

I don't think I will make any further comment. But the one they overturned could of had a little more pressure behind the move to get it changed.

Maybe another attempt will be made to contest it or change the law. It would be nice to skip PR.

[samran]

In other words thay can twist things around to make a ruling anyway the want.

"appropriate for social nature and security of the State" ????

Not sure:

The same court has also come out scrapping electoral laws which previously insisted that children of foreign fathers needed higher educational requirements (amongst other things) to enter parliament (a masters versus a bog standard undergrad).

I don't think I will make any further comment. But the one they overturned could of had a little more pressure behind the move to get it changed.

Maybe another attempt will be made to contest it or change the law. It would be nice to skip PR.

to be honest, I don't disagree with you re the skipping PR thing, nor the need to be better access for resideny rights for those married to Thai wifes (my father is one of them!!) .

The current system as it stands is pretty opaque in some aspects, especially at citizenship stages of the game.

I guess my main point is that I ain't no lawyer, and for all I know the court - from an international standards perspective - may be very well with in its rights to rule the way it did according to international norms.

There was an interesting discussion a while back - here I think - where this ruling was discussed and some people pointed out similar rulings elsewhere (europe I think)....

[Arkady]

In other words thay can twist things around to make a ruling anyway the want.

"appropriate for social nature and security of the State" ????

Not sure:

The same court has also come out scrapping electoral laws which previously insisted that children of foreign fathers needed higher educational requirements (amongst other things) to enter parliament (a masters versus a bog standard undergrad).

I don't think I will make any further comment. But the one they overturned could of had a little more pressure behind the move to get it changed.

Maybe another attempt will be made to contest it or change the law. It would be nice to skip PR.

I think Ubonjoe is right. The pressure from Thai women's groups that caused the Ombudsman to put the challenge to the Constitutional Court was not all that vocal. It was more a technical argument at the time to test rights under the 1997 constitution, rather an emotional one with a lot of pressure behind it. There are not many female Thai politicians, social activists etc who are married to foreigners. The thinking of the worthy justices may have been framed by the indisputable fact that many of the Thai women who marry foreigners meet them as bar girls and that this route to citizenship could lead to undesirable types applying for citizenship and Thai women being paid to marry guys who want to apply for citizenship and buy bucket loads of land etc, causing headaches for Special Branch and the Ministry, who are not accustomed to dealing with more than an average of one or two new applications per week. Hence perhaps the "social nature....of the State" argument. The mentality over citizenship is still largely patriachal (as indeed it was in all Western countries until relatively recently, e.g. the Brits used to strip British women of their nationality automatically when they married a foreigner) but is in process of slow transition. It was a landmark that Thai women were given the right to pass on their nationality in 1992 and to own land in 1999, if married to foreigners. In time this will probably change too but it might take another generation and be too late for most TV members. Alternatively they might eventually just make it harder for foreign women married to Thais. Actually it is not just the right to skip PR. The whole process and requirements are easier even if the woman has PR, which some female applicants married to Thais do.

Edited February 17, 2009 by Arkady

[Arkady]

Samran, Section 19.4 of the 1965 Nationality Act with the two 1992 amendments uses the wording phumi lamnao for domicile in the context of revoking nationality of a naturalized Thai - "(5) He has resided abroad without having a domicile in Thailand for more than five years". I think that leaves it ambiguous, as I think phumi lamnao could be interpreted as either legal dwelling place, as in simply being on a tabian baan or where you actually live. In fact it seems to be more normally used as "birth place".

Re Section 14 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." I may have missed something in the Thai but I can't find the word in the original that is translated as "required". It seems to me just to say that, if they wish to retain another nationality, they may renounce their nationality rather than that they are required to do so. If so, the nuance that they can't have dual nationality may be weaker in the original than in the translation but my Thai is not good enough to be absolutely certain about this.

Unfortunately, when I cut and pasted the Thai from the pdf file it came out as garbage but you can find the original of the Act and many other Thai laws in the original and translation here http://www.thailaws.com/law/thaiacts/code550.pdf .

[abdulrahman]

I guess my main point is that I ain't no lawyer, and for all I know the court - from an international standards perspective - may be very well with in its rights to rule the way it did according to international norms.

There was an interesting discussion a while back - here I think - where this ruling was discussed and some people pointed out similar rulings elsewhere (europe I think)....

You may have a point here,I'm no lawyer either,but in Europe the new,though,rules are due to the immense number of new immigrants.

Don't see the same problem in Thailand,with the quota system,since the people from Burma,Cambodia or Lao ,(and don't forget the THAI hill tribe people),have little chance of obtaining the Thai citizenship.

Don't want,or need, to be a Thai,their Country,their rules,their 'internal security'.

Please don"t compare them with the rest of the world!

[Arkady]

You may have a point here,I'm no lawyer either,but in Europe the new,though,rules are due to the immense number of new immigrants.

Don't see the same problem in Thailand,with the quota system,since the people from Burma,Cambodia or Lao ,(and don't forget the THAI hill tribe people),have little chance of obtaining the Thai citizenship.

Don't want,or need, to be a Thai,their Country,their rules,their 'internal security'.

Please don"t compare them with the rest of the world!

The government admits to 370,000 people, mainly stateless hill tribe people, with citizenship applications pending. Their problem seems to stem from the early censuses in which they were not included because their villages were deemed too remote for government officials to reach. Every now and then a batch of these is granted citizenship and I guess that within the next generation or two most of them, or their children, will get it. The governement is now dealing with the reality that their villages are no longer so remote from the rest of Thai society and that denying them citizenship actually hurts Thais e.g. denying them health care actually spreads more contagious disease that is caught by Thai citizens. It is better to grant citizenship to most of them and let them move on and improve themselves and contribute more to Thai society. Then it will be easier to draw a line in the sand and keep out newcomers arriving over the land borders.

There is no quota system for Thai citizenship. You are perhaps thinking of the 100 per nationality quota for PR. Actually this is only ever reached by Chinese and Indian applicants for PR. In 2007 only 25 Americans applied for PR. Indirectly the quota applies to Chinese and Indians but obviously not to other nationalities or the stateless ones, because citizenship candidates, apart from women married to Thai males, have to be PRs to apply. This is not specified in the Act which requires 5 years' residence but the Ministry's interpretation is that being a PR is what is acceptable as evidence of residence.

Any one who is not interested in becoming a Thai citizen is obviously welcome not to apply but this thread is of more interest to those who would like to apply. I think posters can decide for themselves whether they would like to compare Thailand with other countries or not. Thais do it all the time.

[sbk]

Any one who is not interested in becoming a Thai citizen is obviously welcome not to apply but this thread is of more interest to those who would like to apply. I think posters can decide for themselves whether they would like to compare Thailand with other countries or not. Thais do it all the time.

Yes, thank you for making that clear, Arkady.

This thread is indeed for those interested in obtaining Thai citizenship. Superfluous off-topic comments that do not contribute to the thread really can be made elsewhere, thanks.

[samran]

Samran, Section 19.4 of the 1965 Nationality Act with the two 1992 amendments uses the wording phumi lamnao for domicile in the context of revoking nationality of a naturalized Thai - "(5) He has resided abroad without having a domicile in Thailand for more than five years". I think that leaves it ambiguous, as I think phumi lamnao could be interpreted as either legal dwelling place, as in simply being on a tabian baan or where you actually live. In fact it seems to be more normally used as "birth place".

Re Section 14 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." I may have missed something in the Thai but I can't find the word in the original that is translated as "required". It seems to me just to say that, if they wish to retain another nationality, they may renounce their nationality rather than that they are required to do so. If so, the nuance that they can't have dual nationality may be weaker in the original than in the translation but my Thai is not good enough to be absolutely certain about this.

Unfortunately, when I cut and pasted the Thai from the pdf file it came out as garbage but you can find the original of the Act and many other Thai laws in the original and translation here http://www.thailaws.com/law/thaiacts/code550.pdf .

Agree with your take on the matter.

Interestingly, on the council of states webste, there is a link to the sections of the second version of the legislation which were dumped: This includes the 'old' section on loss of nationality.

มาตรา ๑๔ ผู้มีสัญชาติไทยซึ่งเกิดในขณะที่บิดาเป็นคนต่างด้าวและอาจถือ สัญชาติของบิดาได้ตามกฎหมายว่าด้วยสัญชาติของบิดาหรือผู้ซึ่งได้สัญชาติไทย ตามมาตรา ๑๒ วรรคสอง ให้แสดงความประสงค์เข้าถือสัญชาติได้แต่เพียงสัญชาติเดียว โดยให้แจ้งความจำนงต่อ พนักงานเจ้าหน้าที่ตามแบบและวิธีการที่กำหนดในกฎกระทรวงภายในหนึ่งปีนับแต่วันที่มีอายุครบ ยี่สิบปีบริบูรณ์ ถ้าไม่มีการแจ้งความจำนงภายในระยะเวลาดังกล่าว ให้ถือว่าผู้นั้นสละสัญชาติไทย เว้นแต่รัฐมนตรีจะสั่งเฉพาะรายเป็นอย่างอื่น

Basically, don't choose to maintain Thai nationality, it you lose it, though it does leave discretion with the Minister to rule otherwise.

The junked passages are contained here: http://www.krisdika.go.th/lawHeadContent01...htm&frm=tmp (hopefully that link works) but if you want to find all there is to know on nationality law, go to

http://www.krisdika.go.th/lawChar.jsp?head...mp;linkID=2E#2E

and chose "ส" to get to สัญชาติ พ.ศ. ๒๕๐๘

[Arkady]

Thanks for the wording of version 2 of the 1992 Act and the other references, Samran. You are right. Version 3 represented a complete about turn from the intention of version 2 which required kids to declare their intention to hold Thai nationality exclusively at 20 years old or risk having it revoked. Version 2 was more in line with declarations that dual national kids used to have to make in the US and some European countries on reaching majority and some well connected duals or parents of duals must have objected. The defanged wording as it now stands in version 3 could be interpreted as a mere convenience to dual national kids who have decided that they prefer to retain their other nationality and may need evidence they have given up their Thai nationality, in case their other nationality is Zimbabwean, Singaporean, Malaysian or from other benighted country that prohibits duals and actively tries to hunt them down.

The concept of revoking nationality from a naturalized Thai, if there is evidence that he uses his former nationality, seems more in line with the version 2 explicit requirement to have a single nationality than the rest of the wording of version 3.

[Arkady]

On reading that Thai citizens over the age of 60 now have to register for their entitlement to the new 500 baht a month old age allowance, I wonder if this will make the Interior Ministry more reluctant to approve citizenship applications. I remember reading at the time of Purachai's politically motivated crack down on citizenship and PR applications that citizenship applicants were at one point being characterized as scroungers motivated by Thaksin's 30 baht healthcare scheme, despite the absurdity of having to pass through so many hoops, including income tests, just to be able to spend a whole day queuing up in a government hospital to get two paracetamols! The old age allowance is a real quantifiable benefit which is rather hard to withdraw once it is given. I am sure citizenship applicants wouldn't mind signing a waiver on this one, if asked.

[samran]

On reading that Thai citizens over the age of 60 now have to register for their entitlement to the new 500 baht a month old age allowance, I wonder if this will make the Interior Ministry more reluctant to approve citizenship applications. I remember reading at the time of Purachai's politically motivated crack down on citizenship and PR applications that citizenship applicants were at one point being characterized as scroungers motivated by Thaksin's 30 baht healthcare scheme, despite the absurdity of having to pass through so many hoops, including income tests, just to be able to spend a whole day queuing up in a government hospital to get two paracetamols! The old age allowance is a real quantifiable benefit which is rather hard to withdraw once it is given. I am sure citizenship applicants wouldn't mind signing a waiver on this one, if asked.

haha.

Me thinks it has more to do with 2 years of no effective government.....

Seen a number of posts here that where foriegners can get the 30 baht treatment, and my burmese maid - legal here under the migrant workers program - gets the 30 baht health care as well.

I've got purachai's autobiography at home...been meaning to read it at some point.

[Maizefarmer]

The benefits of PR are well known and understood - but tell me, just what are the benfits of Thai citizenship?

Aside from what you've mentioned, these benefits also come to mind :

No work permit needed.

No occupational restrictions.

Obviously, no more visa requirements.

You are not serious, Kiakaha - you don't really see the advantages of citizenship against the background of 3 comparitively petty practicalities?

Yes - I do think they are petty points by comparison. I've considered the issue myself many times over the last 2 decades (its a thought process that I still drift in and out every few years - lasts for about 6-8months each time ... then fades away like mist.... yawn). Those 3 points - well 2 - well, actually its only 1 point isn't it - as the issue of occupation for applicants is a moot points as most have a pretty well established occupation/career by the time they come round to thinking of Thai citizenship (unless its basket weaving, or mortar & pestel carving one is into - examples of restricted occupations).

The only issue amongst those 3 that has ever taking much any tought time (and not much at that) is the issue of visas -but that too is much of a moot point once the WP is sorted out

Citizenship is a far "bigger" issue - its your life, your future, quite possible your childrens future and culturale heritage - this last point was a big point (the major point) in deciding to settle in Thailand and bring the kids up (have never though much of the UK education system, and 60million plus folk cramped into terraced houses on a cold/wet island in the North Atlantic has never held much appeal for me!)

The citizenship issues for me have always been these sorts of things. It suprizes me when folk reply to the citizenship question citing no WP and no visa requirement as been advantages. Its a far bigger issue.

Other issues:

Healthcare - I'm a great supporter of the Thai State health system and have never been much of a fan of the fancy private hospitals in Bangkok. Sure, they do a good job, but there is next to nothing they can do/offer medical treatment wise that can;t be obtained in any of the main provincial hospitals - and with very few expections, the doc's with fancy (and no doubt very good) USA/UK qulifications who work in those hospitals are also contracted to work in the State hospitals - its just like the UK NHS system. One thing most of the private hospitals have is very nice rooms. The State system doesn't have the luxery of been able to "hide" behind that! But the big thing about the State hospitals is the dedication and professionalism of the staff, who do as good a job a most European state sponsored hospitals on around 10% of the same budget! - yes, they get paid a pittance, and absolute pittance. Yes something I think.

Lifestyle - yer, has to be at/near top of the list - horses for courses. Nothing to discuss here - thats all about individual like/dislike. You do or you don't.

Education (for kids) - oh dear - not Thailands strong point: must confess my lot were kept away form the State schools (they are poorly supported and are staffed by folk, who - well, lets put like this: often don't seem to be well trained themselves). Still, many kids go through the whole system and go on to be very successful.

Politics - bent as a 2bob note. The system is rotten to the core - top to bottom, left to right - throughout. Its laughable.

Law & Order - there are some very decent folk in the RTPF, and most of the senior managment guys are well qualified, have been trained overseas and are committed to the job, but with few exceptions they are all on the take and justice is still to a large extent who you are and what you can afford to pay for.

Royalty - no question about it - lliterally, the backbone of Thai society - Long live their Majesties.

... these are the issues one should be considering when thinking through citizenship

[Arkady]

Samran, I have looked up Section 14 of the original 1965 Nationality Act prior to the 1992 amendments about the rights/obligations of dual national children using the Council of State references you provided. The wording seems identical to the current version 3 of the 1992 amendments where it provided for dual children to renounce their Thai nationality but it went on to say that, if they didn't do this and there was evidence that they had retained their father's nationality, the minister was empowered to grant permission for them to keep their Thai nationality, except in circumstances where the father's nation was at war with Thailand, in which case Thai nationality was to be revoked. This seems fairly generous and in fact seemed, as is the case today, to encourage dual nationals not to renounce Thai nationality, unless they needed to do so in order to retain another nationality. (The war case was understandable in the context of the original 1965 Act which allowed any one born in the Kingdom, theoretically even to illegal alien parents, to acquire Thai nationality prior to the 1972 addition of Section 7 bis and that war with Thailand's neighbours was very possible at the time.) It is not clear that this permission for those who were caught out was to be automatic but it seems to acknowledge that dual nationality was acceptable for these people, except in case of war. Although there may well be others, the short lived version 2 of the 1992 amendments is the only place in the various versions of the 1965 Act I can find where it was absolutely unequivocal that dual nationality was not acceptable.

I note that the fee of 5,000 baht for an application for Thai nationality has not been increased since 1965 when it must have been over US$200 and quite a lot of money in 1965 dollars. It is odd that the fee wasn't increased in the 1992 amendments. Since the late 90s the ministry has increased the minimum salary for applicants in its internal regulations from 7,000 baht to 80,000 baht and the fees for PR have also gone up significantly. The nationality application fee, unchanged for 44 years, can perhaps be regarded as one of the few bargains left in Thailand. Male PRs and foreign women married to Thais should hurry up and apply before it goes up.

Edited February 26, 2009 by Arkady

[dbrenn]

Samran, I have looked up Section 14 of the original 1965 Nationality Act prior to the 1992 amendments about the rights/obligations of dual national children using the Council of State references you provided. The wording seems identical to the current version 3 of the 1992 amendments where it provided for dual children to renounce their Thai nationality but it went on to say that, if they didn't do this and there was evidence that they had retained their father's nationality, the minister was empowered to grant permission for them to keep their Thai nationality, except in circumstances where the father's nation was at war with Thailand, in which case Thai nationality was to be revoked. This seems fairly generous and in fact seemed, as is the case today, to encourage dual nationals not to renounce Thai nationality, unless they needed to do so in order to retain another nationality. (The war case was understandable in the context of the original 1965 Act which allowed any one born in the Kingdom, theoretically even to illegal alien parents, to acquire Thai nationality prior to the 1972 addition of Section 7 bis and that war with Thailand's neighbours was very possible at the time.) It is not clear that this permission for those who were caught out was to be automatic but it seems to acknowledge that dual nationality was acceptable for these people, except in case of war. Although there may well be others, the short lived version 2 of the 1992 amendments is the only place in the various versions of the 1965 Act I can find where it was absolutely unequivocal that dual nationality was not acceptable.

I note that the fee of 5,000 baht for an application for Thai nationality has not been increased since 1965 when it must have been over US$200 and quite a lot of money in 1965 dollars. It is odd that the fee wasn't increased in the 1992 amendments. Since the late 90s the ministry has increased the minimum salary for applicants in its internal regulations from 7,000 baht to 80,000 baht and the fees for PR have also gone up significantly. The nationality application fee, unchanged for 44 years, can perhaps be regarded as one of the few bargains left in Thailand. Male PRs and foreign women married to Thais should hurry up and apply before it goes up.

I could never understand the fees either. When compared with the PR fees, the application fee for Thai citizenship is incredibly cheap - the price of a night out for two in a decent restaurant.

Like you say, it may not be long before someone realises this and increases the application fee by countless multiples. Yet another reason why I can't understand why people sit on PR and don't go the final step. Now I think of it, in all my 18 years in Thailand I only met personally five other naturalised citizens. All the PR's I met seem to have this fixed idea that citizenship is 'impossible' or 'only given to the extremely rich or influential', which is certainly not the case.

[dbrenn]

Citizenship is a far "bigger" issue - its your life, your future, quite possible your childrens future and culturale heritage - this last point was a big point (the major point) in deciding to settle in Thailand and bring the kids up (have never though much of the UK education system, and 60million plus folk cramped into terraced houses on a cold/wet island in the North Atlantic has never held much appeal for me!)

The citizenship issues for me have always been these sorts of things. It suprizes me when folk reply to the citizenship question citing no WP and no visa requirement as been advantages. Its a far bigger issue.

I agree with that.

Citizenship is about accepting Thailand and calling it your home, warts and all. Becoming a Thai citizen conferred a feeling of belonging quite apart from the feeling I got when I was granted PR. Although my original motive for applying to be a Thai was freedom from administrative restrictions, I did feel very differently about Thailand as a whole after I became a citizen. Thailand feels much more like home to me and I don't often ctiticise it, unlike before.

[samran]

Samran, I have looked up Section 14 of the original 1965 Nationality Act prior to the 1992 amendments about the rights/obligations of dual national children using the Council of State references you provided. The wording seems identical to the current version 3 of the 1992 amendments where it provided for dual children to renounce their Thai nationality but it went on to say that, if they didn't do this and there was evidence that they had retained their father's nationality, the minister was empowered to grant permission for them to keep their Thai nationality, except in circumstances where the father's nation was at war with Thailand, in which case Thai nationality was to be revoked. This seems fairly generous and in fact seemed, as is the case today, to encourage dual nationals not to renounce Thai nationality, unless they needed to do so in order to retain another nationality. (The war case was understandable in the context of the original 1965 Act which allowed any one born in the Kingdom, theoretically even to illegal alien parents, to acquire Thai nationality prior to the 1972 addition of Section 7 bis and that war with Thailand's neighbours was very possible at the time.) It is not clear that this permission for those who were caught out was to be automatic but it seems to acknowledge that dual nationality was acceptable for these people, except in case of war. Although there may well be others, the short lived version 2 of the 1992 amendments is the only place in the various versions of the 1965 Act I can find where it was absolutely unequivocal that dual nationality was not acceptable.

I think the thing to add here as well is that you need to be careful with the wording:

ผู้ซึ่งมีสัญชาติไทยเพราะเกิดในราชอาณาจักรไทยโดยมีบิดาเป็นคนต่างด้าวอาจถูกถอนสัญชาติไทยได้ เมื่อปรากฏว่า....

The wording here also implies that the the child receives Thai citizenship from the foreign father, which is patently impossible unless the father was a PR.

If you read at the bottom of one of the ammendment texts you find:

หมายเหตุ :- เหตุผลในการประกาศใช้พระราชบัญญัติฉบับนี้ คือ โดยที่สมควรให้บุตรของหญิงไทยสามารถมีสัญชาติไทยได้โดยหลักสายโลหิตด้วยตามหลักการเท่าเทียมกันระหว่างหญิงและชาย และสมควรกำหนดหลักเกณฑ์การได้สัญชาติไทยของบุตรและหลานตลอดทั้งสายของคนต่างด้าวที่เป็นผู้อพยพ ผู้หลบหนีเข้าเมืองโดยมิชอบด้วยกฎหมาย ผู้เข้าเมืองเพียงชั่วคราว และผู้ได้รับผ่อนผันให้พักอาศัยอยู่ในราชอาณาจักรไทยเป็นกรณีพิเศษเฉพาะรายเสียใหม่ให้เหมาะสมรัดกุม เพราะการยึดหลักการสมรสโดยชอบด้วยกฎหมายตามประกาศของคณะปฏิวัติ ฉบับที่ ๓๓๗ ลงวันที่ ๑๓ ธันวาคม พ.ศ. ๒๕๑๕ ไม่สอดคล้องกับความเป็นจริงเกี่ยวกับบุคคลเหล่านี้ที่โดยมากจะอยู่กินกันโดยไม่จดทะเบียนสมรส จึงจำเป็นต้องตราพระราชบัญญัตินี้

ie, that the amendments were made to grant Thai women equal rights to pass down their citizenship by blood

The implication here is those sections which mention "a thai child who receives thai citizenship by virtue of being born in the kingdkom to a foregin father...lose their Thai citizenship because of doing: a,b,c and d (etc etc)" is actually a pretty restrictive passage to say the least.

It doesn't apply (for instance) to the majority of dual nationals born to a foreign father and a Thai mother purely becase the children become Thai citizens by virtue of the Thai mother - by blood - and not the foreign father who cannot 'transmit' Thai citizenship down to the child (unless he of course was a PR).

So in another sense, it can be seen that the passage of the new law means that the legal view is probably more sympathetic to dual nationality that it at first appears.

[Arkady]

I think the thing to add here as well is that you need to be careful with the wording:

ผู้ซึ่งมีสัญชาติไทยเพราะเกิดในราชอาณาจักรไทยโดยมีบิดาเป็นคนต่างด้าวอาจถูกถอนสัญชาติไทยได้ เมื่อปรากฏว่า....

The wording here also implies that the the child receives Thai citizenship from the foreign father, which is patently impossible unless the father was a PR.

Section 17 of the Act here has never been amended and is the original 1965 wording still in force today. In 1965 the meaning was much broader, since any one born in Thailand was entitled to Thai nationality, regardless of their parents’ nationality or immigration status. The original intention must have been to treat children born in Thailand to an alien father and a Thai mother exactly the same as children born to an alien father and mother, the thinking being that a mother’s nationality was of no relevance. I would guess that the wording was not much different in many of the earlier nationality acts, going back to the first one in 1913. Most of the citizens in this category were born to fathers who were Chinese nationals but there must also have been a lot, specially in border areas in Thailand, who were born under earlier nationality acts to “British” and “French” fathers i.e. colonial subjects from Burma, Malaya, Laos and Cambodia. Perhaps the original concept of “using a father’s nationality” came from dual nationals who used British or French nationality to escape Siamese laws by invoking the right to be tried by their consulates as the extraterritorial legal systems went on into the 1920s. You could understand that would make the Siamese authorities want to strip them of their Siamese nationality. Additionally there were taxes that went on till the1930s that were based on feudal coolie levies and, as such, were only payable by Siamese (presumably because Chinese would be useless working in the squire’s rice fields). Many people used genuine or fake Chinese nationality to evade payment of these coolie taxes. In the any event by 1965 the Chinese were still regarded with suspicion and as a potential communist fifth column. Therefore retaining the ability to control Chinese who had nationality by birth in Thailand with or without Thai mothers would no doubt have seemed desirable to the despotic military government of the time (Sarit’s I think).

If you read at the bottom of one of the amendment texts you find:

หมายเหตุ :- เหตุผลในการประกาศใช้พระราชบัญญัติฉบับนี้ คือ โดยที่สมควรให้บุตรของหญิงไทยสามารถมีสัญชาติไทยได้โดยหลักสายโลหิตด้วยตามหลักการเท่าเทียมกันระหว่างหญิงและชาย และสมควรกำหนดหลักเกณฑ์การได้สัญชาติไทยของบุตรและหลานตลอดทั้งสายของคนต่างด้าวที่เป็นผู้อพยพ ผู้หลบหนีเข้าเมืองโดยมิชอบด้วยกฎหมาย ผู้เข้าเมืองเพียงชั่วคราว และผู้ได้รับผ่อนผันให้พักอาศัยอยู่ในราชอาณาจักรไทยเป็นกรณีพิเศษเฉพาะรายเสียใหม่ให้เหมาะสมรัดกุม เพราะการยึดหลักการสมรสโดยชอบด้วยกฎหมายตามประกาศของคณะปฏิวัติ ฉบับที่ ๓๓๗ ลงวันที่ ๑๓ ธันวาคม พ.ศ. ๒๕๑๕ ไม่สอดคล้องกับความเป็นจริงเกี่ยวกับบุคคลเหล่านี้ที่โดยมากจะอยู่กินกันโดยไม่จดทะเบียนสมรส จึงจำเป็นต้องตราพระราชบัญญัตินี้

ie, that the amendments were made to grant Thai women equal rights to pass down their citizenship by blood

The implication here is those sections which mention "a thai child who receives thai citizenship by virtue of being born in the kingdom to a foreign father...lose their Thai citizenship because of doing: a,b,c and d (etc etc)" is actually a pretty restrictive passage to say the least.

It doesn't apply (for instance) to the majority of dual nationals born to a foreign father and a Thai mother purely becase the children become Thai citizens by virtue of the Thai mother - by blood - and not the foreign father who cannot 'transmit' Thai citizenship down to the child (unless he of course was a PR).

So in another sense, it can be seen that the passage of the new law means that the legal view is probably more sympathetic to dual nationality that it at first appears.

I agree with your take. The main change in the 1992 amendments was the addition of the automatic maternal blood line which seems to make things more friendly towards duals and indeed created a great deal of incremental duals by birth, whose nationality cannot be revoked. Prior to that Thai women could I think only transmit nationality in cases where the father was stateless and therefore had no nationality to transmit or if there was no known father, which would also otherwise result in a Thai mother with a stateless child. A women’s inability to transmit her nationality was, however, largely not a problem until 1972 because her children could be Thai by virtue of being born in Thailand. Section 17 is now almost redundant since, as you say, it now only applies to the rare cases of children born in Thailand to alien parents who are both permanent residents, although in the past it must have applied to thousands of children born in Thailand every year to Chinese fathers and Chinese or Thai mothers. Unfortunately Section 19 remains with its provisions that are discriminatory towards naturalized Thais who are duals but seems not to be enforced these days, as discussed earlier in the thread.

By the way do you know where to find the Revolutionary Decree 337 of 1972 referred to above? I believe this is the amendment to the Act that limited the right of citizenship by birth to children born to alien parents who are permanent residents and caused the horrendous problems for the children born in Thailand to Thai women married to foreigners through Section 7 bis. I can’t find it on the Council of State’s website. 1972 was a good year for xenophobic laws that have had lasting effects in Thailand. Thanom also brought in Revolutionary Decree 281 in that year, better known as the first Alien Business Act.

Edited February 27, 2009 by Arkady