tw25rw Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 He never actually held a British passport. He's a British citizen under British law because he was born there. Although his denials are rather vague, he is not a British citizen unless he applies/has applied to be one; simply because he is eligible to be one does not make him one. That he has apparently never had a British passport is irelevant to his being British (or not British). No. He was born in the UK. Under British law he is a British citizen. He doesn't have to apply. He can't be refused a passport because he has citizenship by birthright. Outside of British law, only his documented nationality counts - Thai. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tw25rw Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Can a Thai holding dual citizenship be PM? That's the crux. He never actually held a British passport. He's a British citizen under British law because he was born there. Outside of the UK he isn't considered British because there has never been in posession of a UK citizenship document (passport or ID card). Ultimately, it's up to him in that case. Precisely: Having British Citizenship given to you Unsolicited,is vastly different from actually applying for it ,and getting it,so PM Abhisit was not lying. Not having applied for it, is extremely important,as you can't relinquish what you never received, or were aware of.......or received any Confirmation Documentation.......or indeed agreed to British Citizenship..........End of Story. My case is a bit different, but I was born to British parents in Australia. So until I was 43, I was Australian only and never called myself British. When the time came to get a UK passport, I just had to prove identity and show parents birthplace as under UK law I was British already courtesy of them and couldn't be refused. If it was up to me, children born in the UK would inherit their parent's immigration status, but as it stands, to be born here means they are British by right except in certain circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookyboy Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 He never actually held a British passport. He's a British citizen under British law because he was born there. Although his denials are rather vague, he is not a British citizen unless he applies/has applied to be one; simply because he is eligible to be one does not make him one. That he has apparently never had a British passport is irelevant to his being British (or not British). No. He was born in the UK. Under British law he is a British citizen. He doesn't have to apply. He can't be refused a passport because he has citizenship by birthright. Outside of British law, only his documented nationality counts - Thai. just because you are born in the uk does not automaticaly make you british Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KhunAussie52 Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Can he own land here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellow1red1 Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 He was born British and became Thai when? He became Thai when he was born to two Thai parents. even if one parent is Thai, the other a farang, the child and the Thai parent can have dual british/thai citizenship. some countries likely require denouncing the Thai to become a citizen? Does anybody know why Thailand is not a signature to the World Court? not allowed in because of too much corruption? or/er dont want in because of too much corruption?... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insight Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Can a Thai holding dual citizenship be PM? That's the crux. I don't see why not...? In the Philippines, anyone seeking elective public must renounce any foreign citizenship prior to oath. Good job he's not a PM of the Philippines then...? (What the <deleted>...? ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 ... If it was up to me, children born in the UK would inherit their parent's immigration status, but as it stands, to be born here means they are British by right except in certain circumstances. That has been the case since 1983. http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/britishcitizenship/othernationality/Britishcitizenship/borninukorqualifyingterritory/ If you were born in the United Kingdom on or after 1 January 1983 If you were born in the United Kingdom on or after 1 January 1983, you are a British citizen if at the time of your birth one of your parents was: a British citizen; or legally settled in the United Kingdom. Abhisit falls into another category: If you were born in the United Kingdom before 1 January 1983 If you were born in the United Kingdom before 1 January 1983, you are almost certainly a British citizen. The only exception is if you were born to certain diplomatic staff of foreign missions who had diplomatic immunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 just because you are born in the uk does not automaticaly make you british That depends on when you were born. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 He was born British and became Thai when? He became Thai when he was born to two Thai parents. even if one parent is Thai, the other a farang, the child and the Thai parent can have dual british/thai citizenship. some countries likely require denouncing the Thai to become a citizen? Does anybody know why Thailand is not a signature to the World Court? not allowed in because of too much corruption? or/er dont want in because of too much corruption?... The response was to whether he was Thai, not if he was British. He became British by being born in Britain (before 1983). He became Thai at exactly the same time by being born to two Thai parents. Thailand is a signatory to the Rome Statute of the ICC, but have not ratified it. Interestingly, the US are neither - they signed, and then "unsigned" the Rome Statute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timekeeper Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 PPP didn't 'win' as the didn't get a majority. And no, nothing in my statement was incorrect. Most people did not vote for PPP. The majority choose any of the other parties. Even you should be able to figure that one out. Ah, sour grapes. PPP did win and they did get the most votes. Very simple. All that in spite of the Junta ordering PPP activities to be suppressed and for them to be framed with LM charges in the run up to the elections. They would have won by a far bigger margin had they been competing on a level playing field. We'll have to wait to see if Abhisit can win that elusive first general election victory eh? Abhisit and Korn will walk the next election does anyone know the name of anyone else that's a credible or even incredible choice? thought not those names are about as elusive as are visitors to Oberkommando's website -farangtalk the most visitors ever-------13! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timekeeper Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 He never actually held a British passport. He's a British citizen under British law because he was born there. Although his denials are rather vague, he is not a British citizen unless he applies/has applied to be one; simply because he is eligible to be one does not make him one. That he has apparently never had a British passport is irelevant to his being British (or not British). No. He was born in the UK. Under British law he is a British citizen. He doesn't have to apply. He can't be refused a passport because he has citizenship by birthright. Outside of British law, only his documented nationality counts - Thai. just because you are born in the uk does not automaticaly make you british the same as being born in the USA does not automatically make you American Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunnyrolfe Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 if he was a Brit, even half a Brit, why would he have to get a visa to go to his own country? I don't need a visa to go to the US. I know plenty of people with dual Canadian citizen-ships and they don't need visas. How is starting a riot in Bangkok and burning property resulting in deaths not a crime. You start a riot, I as the government have to protect the people's right to a safe country. Some of the riot-teers get killed, and it's another I'm wrong but you are wrong for preventing me from doing what was wrong. So the wrong people got hurt, the businesses were wronged and suffered. This is the wrong issue to be following. I have British and Australian but for years I never renewed the British passport. I used to just get a 6 month stamp in my Aussie passport on entry to the UK. It even says work prohibited but of course I have a British national insurance number so just carried on as normal. For sure if the shit hit the fan for the present top man he wouldn't need to seek asylum as he is a UK citizen when he wants to be. Then again this could turn him into a wanted man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timekeeper Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 if he was a Brit, even half a Brit, why would he have to get a visa to go to his own country? I don't need a visa to go to the US. I know plenty of people with dual Canadian citizen-ships and they don't need visas. How is starting a riot in Bangkok and burning property resulting in deaths not a crime. You start a riot, I as the government have to protect the people's right to a safe country. Some of the riot-teers get killed, and it's another I'm wrong but you are wrong for preventing me from doing what was wrong. So the wrong people got hurt, the businesses were wronged and suffered. This is the wrong issue to be following. I have British and Australian but for years I never renewed the British passport. I used to just get a 6 month stamp in my Aussie passport on entry to the UK. It even says work prohibited but of course I have a British national insurance number so just carried on as normal. For sure if the shit hit the fan for the present top man he wouldn't need to seek asylum as he is a UK citizen when he wants to be. Then again this could turn him into a wanted man. wanted for what, enforcing the law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khaowong1 Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 (edited) so he was born and educated in england. He then moved to Thailand wouldn't that make him more British than Thai? Maybe the redshirts are just a lettle upset that a farang is in charge of the country. and with an education that they couldn't touch. by the by: . Birth on American soil automatically qualifies a child for citizenship, whatever his parents' legal status Edited February 25, 2011 by khaowong1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricardo Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Can a Thai holding dual citizenship be PM? That's the crux. Those Reds who think Thaksin can come back, and step into the PM's job again, clearly believe that it is OK ! He never actually held a British passport. He's a British citizen under British law because he was born there. Although his denials are rather vague, he is not a British citizen unless he applies/has applied to be one; simply because he is eligible to be one does not make him one. That he has apparently never had a British passport is irelevant to his being British (or not British). He might be eligible to claim UK-citizenship, on the grounds of where he was born. But if he hasn't claimed it, and doesn't have a British-passport, he would need a visa to enter the UK, which is what he says he needs. This is also supported by his claim to have paid fees as an overseas-student at university, a British-citizen who had lived there for the previous 2 years (nowadays 3 years) would have paid the local-rate, not the higher overseas-rate. Jatuporn & Amsterdam have so-far failed, to prove their claim that he is a British-citizen, and have only shown evidence that he was born there, which has always been widely-known. The phrase which describes this is 'storm in a tea-cup' ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SantiSuk Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 ^^^It is the crux because if there were a statute ( and hopefully somebody can provide one showing one way or the other) that a government minister, member of parliament or whatever must be a Thai citizen only then that would mean that the PM is in his position illegally which would be an almighty fugazi making Amsterdam's case look like small potatoes. err .. he is a Thai citizen. What part of dual citizenship do people not understand. The world has a long history of people with outside cultural influences reaching positions of power. German monarchs in Britain, Japanes prime ministers in Peru, Indonesians in the White House, come immediately to mind. It's the way of the world oh yee 'little thailanders'. If the constitution says that the premier cannot have any other outside family/cultural influences then Thais need to change their constitution not their premier, or be forever condemned as Aryan racists Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animatic Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 PPP didn't 'win' as the didn't get a majority. And no, nothing in my statement was incorrect. Most people did not vote for PPP. The majority choose any of the other parties. Even you should be able to figure that one out. Ah, sour grapes. PPP did win and they did get the most votes. Very simple. All that in spite of the Junta ordering PPP activities to be suppressed and for them to be framed with LM charges in the run up to the elections. They would have won by a far bigger margin had they been competing on a level playing field. We'll have to wait to see if Abhisit can win that elusive first general election victory eh? Abhisit and Korn will walk the next election does anyone know the name of anyone else that's a credible or even incredible choice? thought not those names are about as elusive as are visitors to Oberkommando's website -farangtalk the most visitors ever-------13! 13 is a propitious number! A small one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai at Heart Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 How to give up British Citizenship Can I give up my citizenship?If you are a British citizen, a British overseas territories citizen, a British overseas citizen, a British subject or a British national (overseas), you may give up your citizenship or status if you: already have another citizenship or nationality; or are going to get another citizenship or nationality after you have given up your British citizenship, British overseas territories citizenship, British overseas citizenship, British subject status or British national (overseas) status. In addition to this, you must also be: aged 18 or over (but if you are under 18 and have been married, we will treat you as meeting the age requirement); and of sound mind (but if you are not of sound mind, you may still be allowed to give up your British citizenship or other British nationality if it would be in your best interests). But the caveat Resuming your citizenship after giving it upIf you give up British citizenship or British overseas territories citizenship, you are allowed (only once) to resume that citizenship if it was necessary for you to give it up so that you could keep or gain some other citizenship. For details of how to do this, see resuming citizenship. If you give up British citizenship more than once, or for another reason, the Home Secretary may allow you to resume your citizenship, depending on the circumstances. If you give up British overseas territories citizenship more than once, or for another reason, the Governor of the British overseas territory concerned may allow you to resume your citizenship, depending on the circumstances. If you give up British overseas citizenship, British subject status or British national (overseas) status, you cannot resume it. So if he was to be able to prove that he only gave it up for "political" reasons, I am sure that he would have a pretty good chance of getting it back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animatic Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 (edited) Can a Thai holding dual citizenship be PM? That's the crux. Those Reds who think Thaksin can come back, and step into the PM's job again, clearly believe that it is OK ! He never actually held a British passport. He's a British citizen under British law because he was born there. Although his denials are rather vague, he is not a British citizen unless he applies/has applied to be one; simply because he is eligible to be one does not make him one. That he has apparently never had a British passport is irelevant to his being British (or not British). He might be eligible to claim UK-citizenship, on the grounds of where he was born. But if he hasn't claimed it, and doesn't have a British-passport, he would need a visa to enter the UK, which is what he says he needs. This is also supported by his claim to have paid fees as an overseas-student at university, a British-citizen who had lived there for the previous 2 years (nowadays 3 years) would have paid the local-rate, not the higher overseas-rate. Jatuporn & Amsterdam have so-far failed, to prove their claim that he is a British-citizen, and have only shown evidence that he was born there, which has always been widely-known. The phrase which describes this is 'storm in a tea-cup' ! Attempted trial in the court of public opinion by innuendo. Not much more than this. Just another round in the mud slinging festival of light obscuration. Edited February 25, 2011 by animatic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricardo Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Attempted trial in the court of public opinion by innuendo. Not much more than this. Just another round in the mud slinging festival of light obscuration. Surely 'Stern Blow in the Battle for Justice & Democracy On-Behalf of the Poor !", otherwise this is all just a grubby attempt at smear, in the interests of keeping the cheques coming from Dubai/Montenegro/wherever ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mca Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 ^^^It is the crux because if there were a statute ( and hopefully somebody can provide one showing one way or the other) that a government minister, member of parliament or whatever must be a Thai citizen only then that would mean that the PM is in his position illegally which would be an almighty fugazi making Amsterdam's case look like small potatoes. err .. he is a Thai citizen. What part of dual citizenship do people not understand. Read my post again. What part of " only" do you not understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
virtualtraveller Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Yes, OberKommado is right, it's an election tactic, a cheap stunt by Jatuporn to once again throw some shit at Abhisit and see if it sticks. Perhaps Mr Amsterdam suggested it. It's quite simple really, some influential elite with time and money simply has to send a demand to the ICJ putting Thaksin up for charges of crimes against humanity. Do the math; 91 by Abhisit, 2,500 + 85 by Thaksin. Of course it will be a cheap stunt but it will shut Mr Amsterdam up. Everybody knows that the ICJ can't consider either case (and for that matter hundreds more by real tyrants around the world from Libya to Zimbabwe), it's just a way to justify Amsterdam and Peroff's ripoff fees and keep Jatuporn in the news before he goes to jail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KKK Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 The Thais ought to consider themselves fortunate that they've got a PM with a superior British education. Especially as corruption is NOT on Oxford's curriculum. It takes a Thai university to teach that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philw Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Can a Thai holding dual citizenship be PM? That's the crux. I agree I really don't have a clue why any one would worry about it if he can legally hold a British citizenship and still be PM. If he can't the courts will remove him. the crimes against humanity is bogus and every one knows it. Including the red shirts. Wouldn't it be nice if they decided to try to make Thailand a nicer place to live in. But no they choose to try to destroy it. They better hope nobody looks to hard at them. Last time I checked invading hospitals was considered a crime against humanity. Why bogus ??? Invading hospitals and shooting medics in the head are both crimes............( who did which ? ) Agree with you about making Thailand a nicer place to live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sungod Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 (edited) There goes the election. How do you figure? Thais are extremely nationalistic. It actually should read 'Thais are extremely selective when it suits them best.' Edited February 25, 2011 by sungod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timekeeper Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 About 90 people died in clashes between protesters and armed troops during the two-month Red Shirt demonstration, which ended in May 2010 with a deadly military crackdown. Conveniently leaving out the part where the red shirt "demonstrations" burned down half of Bangkok, grenaded the BTS and shot a lot of police themselves. All left out making an uninformed reader develop an opinion without all the facts.. Nice reporting there AP. Only after being shot at with live ammunition though. Sometimes people get annoyed when they are shot at and then God forbid, fight back. you are corroborating the case hungryhippo is making: it was the Reds or their ''men in black'' Thaksin paid for mercenaries who drew the first blood........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metisdead Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Another reminder: Speculation, comments and discussion of either a political or personal nature are not allowed when discussing HM The King or the Royal family, as such posts and replies have been removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softgeorge Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Hahahaha! The Thai PM is a farang!!!! Very stealth, but the British invasion has already happened Is he alowed to buy land? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mca Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Conveniently leaving out the part where the red shirt "demonstrations" burned down half of Bangkok, grenaded the BTS and shot a lot of police themselves. All left out making an uninformed reader develop an opinion without all the facts. Nice reporting there AP. True. I'd much rather read your "fact" that the Red Shirt Lunatic Fringe burned down "half of Bangkok" which by my guesstimate would have left about 5 million people homeless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timekeeper Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Hahahaha! The Thai PM is a farang!!!! Very stealth, but the British invasion has already happened Is he alowed to buy land? that's a great question softgeorge if his name is on a chanote then he must be Thai or maybe he slipped someone 1000 at the land office......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now