Residency Bar For Foreign Males Reviewed

[aletta]

Looking through some old documents and found a cutting from the Bangkok Post for 13/6/2003 which said the Constitution Court was reviewing a provision of the nationality law which bans foreign men applying for citizenship on the grounds of marriage to a Thai Woman.

The case was filed by the Justice Minister Pongthep Thepkanchana.

The court was to decide whether article 9 of the Nationality Act contravened article 30 of the constitution which bans discrimination on the grounds of gender.

Foreign women who marry Thai men can apply for citizenship.

Anyone know what happened and where we are now?

[konangrit]

Not aware of what happened in that case, but it would have made the news on ThaiVisa had the court decided article 9 of the Nationality Act contravened article 30 of the constitution. Could just be gathering dust, which wouldn't be great news as Pongthep Thepkanchana is no longer Justice Minister and will probably be moving to the post of Government Chief Whip.

Even if they ruled against article 9, I think it's more likely that they would simply ban foreign women from applying for citizenship on the basis of marriage rather than allow foreign men to. The two laws would then no longer be contradictory.

Edited March 22, 2005 by konangrit

[aletta]

they would simply ban foreign women from applying for citizenship on the basis of marriage rather than allow foreign men to.

Hmm,never thought of that angle.Certainly would be a Thai response.

[samran]

As I recall, the consitutional court ruled that it didn't discriminate against Thai women or men, which was the contention of the original the claim. Additionally, men had to option of applying for Thai citizenship as well, though the criteria for them remained different.

All governments excerise the right to discriminate against resident non nationals and do so on a regular basis (though admittedly they don't explicitly do so on the basis of gender). Witness EU nationals being allowed to live and work in any EU nation while non-EU nationals have to go through whole work permit process.

Or how UK nationality law (in some cases) disallows the UK mother passing on nationality to her child, while the father is allowed to.

Or witness how US nationals held at Guantanamo bay (now) have access to US courts while non-US nationals do not.

I think the real reason though for the adverse decision was that all of a sudden you'd have litterally 1000's of quality male specimies down pattaya way applying for citzenship, which I suspect, those in charge didn't want. Harsh but true.

[RDN]

.... all of a sudden you'd have literally 1000's of quality male specimies down pattaya way applying for citizenship, which I suspect, those in charge didn't want. Harsh but true.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Land and house prices would go through the roof too - not good for ordinary Thais.

[aletta]

Land and house prices would go through the roof too - not good for ordinary Thais.

I think that would probably be the case around Pattaya,Phuket etc but i'm not so sure out here in Isaan as most are married and have plenty of land already through the wife.Not sure i would buy more in my name.

[cathyy]

Or witness how US nationals held at Guantanamo bay (now) have access to US courts while non-US nationals do not.   

You just hit one of my buttons: the illegality of what's going on in Guantanamo. Bush's legal types have a quick, convenient answer to it, too. Guantanamo is not part of the US, it's part of Cuba. The US has a perpetual lease on it. Castro shut off the electricity and water supplies to it, trying to get the US to leave it...but they installed generators and desalinization plants to keep it going. So the Afghan prisoners were transported to there, never touching US soil on the way. Why, then, should a non-US citizen, not located in the US, have access to the US court system? That's the Bush argument. Even better, the workers there are military, and subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice instead of having the normal US Constitutional rights. They can only be prosecuted in US courts if the US military allows it. Getting the picture yet?

It's all because our new Attorney General decided that the Geneva Convention "doesn't apply" to terrorists and anti-terrorist actions. I hope to see Bush, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, and Gonzales tried for war crimes...

[samran]

Or witness how US nationals held at Guantanamo bay (now) have access to US courts while non-US nationals do not.    

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You just hit one of my buttons: the illegality of what's going on in Guantanamo. Bush's legal types have a quick, convenient answer to it, too. Guantanamo is not part of the US, it's part of Cuba. The US has a perpetual lease on it. Castro shut off the electricity and water supplies to it, trying to get the US to leave it...but they installed generators and desalinization plants to keep it going. So the Afghan prisoners were transported to there, never touching US soil on the way. Why, then, should a non-US citizen, not located in the US, have access to the US court system? That's the Bush argument. Even better, the workers there are military, and subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice instead of having the normal US Constitutional rights. They can only be prosecuted in US courts if the US military allows it. Getting the picture yet?

It's all because our new Attorney General decided that the Geneva Convention "doesn't apply" to terrorists and anti-terrorist actions. I hope to see Bush, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, and Gonzales tried for war crimes...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with you, was just using the Guantanaomo thing as an example. Anyway, lets leave these things for discusssion elsewhere...not Thailand related.