Dual Nationality - Thai/UK

[Peewee]

My Thai wife and I (I am British) have been married for 15 years and have a 13 year old daughter and 7 year old son.

My wife has held a British passport for 10 years and maintained her Thai passport also. Both children were born in the UK and we visit Thailand often.

Until know we have not dealt with the issue of dual nationality for the children and would like to hear any advise members might have on the subject.

In principle we like the concept of maintaining the childrens dual heritage and providing them with a Thai passport as well as their uk ones.

1. What is the procedure to follow to get a dual citizenship?
2. Is there any downside to take into consideration?
3. Can my wife's property held in Thailand be left to the children once they have their dual nationality

I can imagine many of you will have been in this space prior to me and would welcome any advise that could be granted.

Thanks in anticipation

[7by7]

1) No procedure; they are already Thai as their mother is Thai and are already British as their father is British..

However, if you want to obtain Thai passports for them you'll need to contact the Thai embassy. You may, I'm not sure, have to register their birth there and get Thai birth certificates for them before they can apply for Thai passports. Ask the embassy.

2) As both countries allow dual nationality, none that I can think of.

3) Your wife is a dual national and can own property in Thailand; her dual national children can too.

[Richard W]

There are two possible downsides to the children holding Thai passports.

Although I hear denials, it is possible that it may affect UK security clearance. The Americans take that view for American clearance. Also, if they have Thai passports, it will make any claim that they didn't realise they has Thai citizenship less credible. One of my colleagues, born in England, told me that his Pakistani father was considering naturalising as British. I find it hard to believe that my colleague does not also hold Pakistani nationality, although he has not exercised it. He told me that the critical point was that he had not held a Pakistani passport, and therefore did not have to declare Pakistani nationality. He was working on a task where most flavours of dual national were prohibited.

Possibly my colleague was telling me a cock and bull story, perhaps he is bending the law, and just conceivably he has renounced Pakistani nationality, but in the context of what he was telling me it would be very strange that he didn't say he hadn't hadn't renounced it too. He told me of one person who had declared himself British only, had also had a Pakistani passport, had been found out, and had had to renounce Pakistani citizenship to retain his job.

The second downside is that holding Thai passports makes it more likely that the Home Office will realise that your children are dual nationals. For example, every time their British passports are renewed, they must submit their Thai passports along with the renewal application. Now, this may just be so that the Home Office knows that it is the same person travelling whether they are travelling on a British or a Thai passport. The downside is that dual nationals can be stripped of their British nationality. So far, this overwhelmingly happens to Islamic extremists, be they of Middle Eastern, Vietnamese or Anglo-Saxon ancestry. It is arguable that if the Home Office wants rid of your children that they will quickly discover that they hold Thai nationality; on the other hand, the passports will confirm that they are Thai, whereas they might otherwise wonder if your wife's naturalisation had extinguished your children's claim to Thai nationality.

[steady]

Unless someone can convince me otherwise I would assume that any males are liable for conscription if they enter Thailand. I suppose that they must enter on their Thai passports in order to make themselves identifiable. I know that this subject occasionally gets discussed but I'm not sure if it ever gets to a conclusion where people agree.

[7by7]

Richard W, what is it you have against dual nationality?

Why are you, yet again, trying to scare people who are dual nationals or considering becoming so?

Immigration Bill: Deprivation of British citizenship

Under section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981 (as amended), an order to deprive a person of their British citizenship can be made if the Home Secretary is satisfied that:
 it would be conducive to the public good to deprive the person of their British nationality and to do so would not render them stateless; or
 the person acquired their citizenship through naturalisation or registration, and it was obtained by means of fraud, false representation or the concealment of any material fact.

In the second scenario, a person may be deprived of their British citizenship even if this would leave them stateless. “Conducive to the public good” means depriving in the public interest on the grounds of involvement in terrorism, espionage, serious organised crime, war crimes or unacceptable behaviours.

At Commons Report stage of the Immigration Bill, a controversial new government clause allowing the Home Secretary to deprive a naturalised person of their British citizenship if their conduct was “seriously prejudicial” to the interests of the UK (even if they would become stateless) was approved. Questions have been raised about whether the clause would put the UK in breach of its international obligations, and how the powers would be used in practice.

The Government was defeated on the clause at Lords Report stage. Peers voted for an amendment that provided for a Parliamentary Committee to consider the case for extending the deprivation powers. On 7 May the Commons disagreed with the Lords amendment, and agreed to government amendments to the original clause. These were intended to address concerns about individuals being left stateless, and to provide for independent scrutiny of the Home Secretary’s exercise of the deprivation powers. Ping-pong continues in the Lords on 12 May.

(My emphasis)

I sincerely hope that no member of this forum or their family would fall under any of the above highlighted scenarios!

[Richard W]

Richard W, what is it you have against dual nationality?

Why are you, yet again, trying to scare people who are dual nationals or considering becoming so?

Nothing I'm saying is an argument against Thais becoming dual British-Thai nationals.

Very few Britons have the opportunity to become dual British-Thai nationals, and those that do will be living in Thailand and thus fairly safe. (Peewee's children were born dual nationals.)

What I am advising against is the gratuitous possession of a Thai passport. I hope one can obtain a Thai birth certificate without being lumbered with a Thai passport.

Quoting Immigration Bill: Deprivation of British citizenship:

In the second scenario, a person may be deprived of their British citizenship even if this would leave them stateless. Conducive to the public good means depriving in the public interest on the grounds of involvement in terrorism, espionage, serious organised crime, war crimes or unacceptable behaviours.

The list of 'unacceptable behaviours', as issued on 24 August 2005, was defined as follows:

The list of unacceptable behaviours is indicative rather than exhaustive. It covers any non-UK citizen whether in the UK or abroad who uses any means or medium, including:

• Writing, producing, publishing or distributing material;
• Public speaking including preaching;
• Running a website; or
• Using a position of responsibility such as teacher, community or youth leader

to express views which:

• Foment, justify or glorify terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs;
• Seek to provoke others to terrorist acts;
• Foment other serious criminal activity or seek to provoke others to serious criminal acts; or
• Foster hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK.

The restriction to non-UK citizens was later removed.

The question is whether secretaries of state and the courts will stick to this restrictive interpretation of "conducive to the public good" - more recent legislation declares deporting anyone sentenced to 12 months or more to be "conducive to the public good". House of Lords' select committees on Human Rights have observed that "conducive to the public good" is the test used for deportation. Reassuringly, it's now much harder to find any references to stripping dual national criminals of citizenship, as were uttered by Labour ministers and were once in the UKBA directives.

I sincerely hope that no member of this forum or their family would fall under any of the above highlighted scenarios!

Broadcasting 'Braveheart' comes pretty close to breaching this. What saves it is a time limit in the UK legal definition of terrorism which also exempts such well-known and frequently glorified terrorists as George Washington. (The present UK definition of terrorism stinks.)

Actually, I think quite a few posts on Thaivisa about Islamist atrocities foster hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK. The "string 'em high" comments about paedophiles come pretty close to seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts; they may be saved by the lack of opportunity.

[Waterloo]

We have 2 children a boy aged 4 and a girl aged 2 and we registered there births at the embassy an applied for there Thai passports when both of them were only a few months old.

It has made life easier for use over the last few years when the wife has taken the children to visit her mother for a couple of months, no hassle of visa's for the children.

This very important to both of us as we are determined to bring the children up multi lingual and bonded with there Thai relatives.

You do need to apply for their birth certificates first but you can do that on the same day as the passport so no extra trips to the embassy.

As has been mentioned earlier there is the question of conscription, but your boy is currently 7 and he would not be eliagable for the lottery for another 11 years.

Personally a lot can change between now and when my boy turns 18 there may well not be any conscription by then and if there is it is his choice at that stage as an adault.

If he choses there are plenty of ways to avoid serving, the obvious being to stay out of the the country from 18 to 31.

[7by7]

What I am advising against is the gratuitous possession of a Thai passport. I hope one can obtain a Thai birth certificate without being lumbered with a Thai passport.

Why is possessing a Thai passport gratuitous?

Why would a dual Thai/British (or any other) national be 'lumbered' if they had a Thai passport?

My wife and daughter find having a Thai passport far from gratuitous, and certainly don't feel 'lumbered' with it.

Very much the opposite, as they find being able to enter Thailand for as long as they wish without any restrictions highly beneficial.

Remember, if a Thai who has dual nationality uses their non Thai passport to enter Thailand then as far as Thai immigration law is concerned, they are not Thai and so subject to the same length of stay and other restrictions as all other nationals of the country whose passport they used.

For as long as I have taken an interest in these matters, any ILR holder who receives a custodial sentence has been subject to deportation; subject to, not definitely will be. Remember the case of Sakchai Makao for example?

But deporting British citizens, even dual nationals?

British/other nationality prisoners are currently treated as British citizens. Though in exceptional circumstances the Home Office may, if the prisoner was born outside the UK, remove their British nationality and deport them at the end of their sentence. See Prisoners Advice Service - Information Sheet (Sept 2013).

Other than the changes for terrorists and similar already mentioned, I can find nothing to say that the government has any intention of changing this. Certainly nothing to say that they intend to make removal of British nationality and deportation routine for any dual national offender given a custodial sentence over 12 months!

Your 'Braveheart' reference is going well into the territory of paranoia; how can anyone take it seriously?

[Richard W]

Why is possessing a Thai passport gratuitous?

There is little benefit in possessing a Thai passport if one only goes to Thailand for short visits. If one has long stays, then it would not be gratuitous.

Why would a dual Thai/British (or any other) national be 'lumbered' if they had a Thai passport?

My wife and daughter find having a Thai passport far from gratuitous, and certainly don't feel 'lumbered' with it.

• Because it has to be submitted with UK passport applications.
• For a Thai/US national, it would adversely affect US security clearance.
• It removes doubt as to whether you are Thai.

Your wife and daughter were naturalised as British, so unless they consider renouncing Thai citizenship, the down side is mostly unavoidable.

But deporting British citizens, even dual nationals?

British/other nationality prisoners are currently treated as British citizens. Though in exceptional circumstances the Home Office may, if the prisoner was born outside the UK, remove their British nationality and deport them at the end of their sentence. See Prisoners Advice Service - Information Sheet (Sept 2013).

Other than the changes for terrorists and similar already mentioned, I can find nothing to say that the government has any intention of changing this. Certainly nothing to say that they intend to make removal of British nationality and deportation routine for any dual national offender given a custodial sentence over 12 months!

If your source is only the quoted link, you've garbled it. It says nothing about the deprivation of citizenship being restricted to those born abroad. As stated, it would also apply to those born British in the UK. If you look back through this thread, you would see that those involved in serious organised crime are also liable to deprivation.

Unfortunately, I can't find the relevant Home Office instructions.

Geoff Hoon's remark about dual national criminals risking losing their citizenship seem to have disappeared from the Internet.

Your 'Braveheart' reference is going well into the territory of paranoia; how can anyone take it seriously?

It glorifies the use of deadly force against a government for a political cause. As defined in a UK visa application, that's glorifying terrorism. What do you think terrorism is? Just indiscriminate violence etc. against innocent civilians?

[TerryLH]

"I would assume that any males are liable for conscription if they enter Thailand. I suppose that they must enter on their Thai passports in order to make themselves identifiable."

The government gets the names from house registrations. For a Thai living overseas, and not on a house registration, they shouldn't have any worries.

[bobrussell]

Absolutely no reason not to have a Thai passport. There are no disadvantages at all. A clear benefit if you plan to return to Thailand on a longer visit as there are no visa requirements.

How many Thai/UK citizens are likely to lose British citizenship for terrorism links? Probably the daftest reason to base a decision on that I can see.

In addition to needing to be on house registrations to be called up the person need to demonstrate fluent Thai language and written skills! Unless there are plans to live in Thailand there is no risk of conscription. To live in Thailand they would need to demonstrate Thai nationality anyway.

No disadvantages at all. All advantages that go with choice.

[Richard W]

Other than the changes for terrorists and similar already mentioned, I can find nothing to say that the government has any intention of changing this. Certainly nothing to say that they intend to make removal of British nationality and deportation routine for any dual national offender given a custodial sentence over 12 months!

The most relevant government statement I can find dates back to 4 May 2006. There are two versions. On the BBC web site it says

Mr Hoon also confirmed the deportation of criminals would apply to anyone in possession of dual nationality.

The government must ensure that "those who come here for a variety of purposes do so within the law", he said.

"If they do break the law and are not British citizens then we take appropriate action, which must include deportation."

and on the Daily Telegraph website, it says

Earlier, Geoff Hoon, the Leader of the Commons, confirmed that the deportation of criminals would apply to anyone in possession of dual nationality.

On the other hand, the relevant extract from Hansard (4 May 2006 : Column 1115) reads:

Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con): In the aftermath of the 7/7 bombings, the Prime Minister set as his highest priority the deportation of the small number of hate-filled imams who have done so much damage among young Muslims, and against whom the moderate Muslim community has repeatedly called for action. May we have an early debate on that matter? May we also have clarification, following the announcements yesterday on the deportation of foreign criminals, that the measures will also apply to dual nationals, including the one such imam who now has a criminal record, Sheikh Abu Hamza?

Mr. Hoon: Detailed aspects of the Government's proposals will need further debate and discussion. Dual nationality might be one of the issues that has to be looked at in greater detail. I broadly share the hon. Gentleman's concern - as do the Government - to ensure that those who come here for a variety of purposes do so within the law and do not break the law. If those who are not British citizens do break the law, we take appropriate action, which must include their deportation.

Which of these reports, if any, includes later clarification by Geoff Hoon, I do not know.

My fear is that the Home Office is simply getting the simplest and urgent cases working and will then extend the process as the wording of the law allows. The last I read, Hansard was inadmissible as evidence of the intent of parliament when judges had to determine the meaning of a law.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Richard W

[Peewee]

Many thanks to all posters; I am grateful for your interest in assisting me.

Regret that I generated so much debate around the criminal community and the pitfalls for them! We intend to continue with our philosphy of avoiding the darker side of criminal activity ourselves and so it would seem I can conclude in favour of pursuing dual nationality for our children not least as I can foresee our visits will be regular and on occasions prolonged.

Our property investment is modest but it will also be a comfort to know that the children will be able to maintain it to the benefit of the wider Thai family in the years to come.

The best of Thai Smiles to you all

[7by7]

<snip>

The most relevant government statement I can find dates back to 4 May 2006. There are two versions. On the BBC web site it says

Mr Hoon also confirmed the deportation of criminals would apply to anyone in possession of dual nationality.

The government must ensure that "those who come here for a variety of purposes do so within the law", he said.

"If they do break the law and are not British citizens then we take appropriate action, which must include deportation."

"Take appropriate action."

The appropriate action, if the crime were serious enough, may be removal of British citizenship and deportation, but to infer from that that this will happen to any dual national who receives a custodial sentence of 12 months or more, as you have done, is pure paranoia. As the example I gave earlier shows, deportation can already happen to ILR holders who receive a custodial sentence of 12 months or more, but is not automatic; each case being treated on it's merits.

Your comment about US nationals who are dual nationals I cannot comment on as I know next to nothing about US nationality law. However, it is irrelevant. This topic is about British dual nationals in general and dual British/Thai nationals in particular. The last time I looked neither country had been annexed by the USA!

The benefits of dual nationality are obvious.

For example, just before Christmas friends of ours said they were popping over to Calais the next day and as their ferry ticket allowed 4 people in the car asked if we would like to come with them. If my wife had not had a British passport we would have had to decline.

My daughter is currently in Thailand visiting her brother during her university summer holiday. Her original intention was to stay for 4 weeks, but she decdied, as is typical of young people her age, she decided to extend her say and by the time she returns will have been there for two months. Again, she could not have easily done this had she not, in your words, 'been lumbered with' a Thai passport and used it to enter Thailand.

The benefits of dual nati0onality are multitudinous; the drawbacks are few, if any.

Unless one is a terrorist or a career criminal!

If you want to deprive your wife and, if any, children of these benefits, that is your choice; but, were she presented with both sides of the argument, I wonder what her opinion would be

Using works of fiction to bolster your case is really scraping the barrel.

[Donutz]

(...)

The benefits of dual nationality are obvious.

For example, just before Christmas friends of ours said they were popping over to Calais the next day and as their ferry ticket allowed 4 people in the car asked if we would like to come with them. If my wife had not had a British passport we would have had to decline.

The passport makes things a whole lot easier but even on a visa or RC of any type should your wife be able to join you (spouse) to Calais. Provided that you can proof she is your family member (marriage papers) and both ID yourselves. You can then obtain a visa at the border. Though in practise doesn't Always go smoothly due to either hassle with the transport-company (ferry, airliner, ...) or insufficiently aware/trained border staff. People who are entitled entry are thus sometimes denied entry or may exerience a lot of hassle/delays. A UK passport takes all these hassles away.

(I know 7y7 is aware of this but I couldn't resists... *runs away* ).

[AhFarangJa]

Peewee,

My son is nine and holds both a Thai and British passport. Although we intend to never live in England I felt it good to have both. However, and this will need clarification, I have heard from several people that the British Government now stipulates that you have to choose which one to keep at age fourteen. Again, I have yet to clarify this, maybe a visa member knows more.

[7by7]

You have heard wrongly.

Both the UK and Thailand allow dual nationality, whether it was obtained by birth or naturalisation.

There is no legal reason in either country why anyone would need to choose one or the other at any age.

Donutz; as you say, I know; but just picking up her British passport is a whole lot simpler and avoids any chance of delay while French immigration check her documents (and the rules!) had she tried to enter France with her Thai one. We'd have needed to dig out her old, expired thai passport to get back into the UK, as well, as her current one doesn't have any UK visa or LTR stamp in it.

[Richard W]

As the example I gave earlier shows, deportation can already happen to ILR holders who receive a custodial sentence of 12 months or more, but is not automatic; each case being treated on it's merits.

Deportation is a legal obligation, except where prevented by Human Rights, principally Article 8.

Your comment about US nationals who are dual nationals I cannot comment on as I know next to nothing about US nationality law. However, it is irrelevant. This topic is about British dual nationals in general and dual British/Thai nationals in particular.

You raised the issue of other combinations.

Your comment about US nationals who are dual nationals I cannot For example, just before Christmas friends of ours said they were popping over to Calais the next day and as their ferry ticket allowed 4 people in the car asked if we would like to come with them. If my wife had not had a British passport we would have had to decline.

My daughter is currently in Thailand visiting her brother during her university summer holiday. Her original intention was to stay for 4 weeks, but she decdied, as is typical of young people her age, she decided to extend her say and by the time she returns will have been there for two months. Again, she could not have easily done this had she not, in your words, 'been lumbered with' a Thai passport and used it to enter Thailand.

The first is the advantage of having a Thai and a British passport over having a Thai passport. I do not dispute that that is generally advantageous. In the second case, I believe your daughter is British by registration. The Home Office will know that she has been Thai, so I don't think having showing her Thai passport when renewing her British passport would significantly increase her danger. Soon, of course, 30-day visa-exempt entries can be extended for another 30 days. I'm not sure of the mechanics of extending a visa-exempt entry on the basis of being Thai.

Using works of fiction to bolster your case is really scraping the barrel.

It is going too far to call Hansard a work of fiction. 'Braveheart' has a basis in history.

[7by7]

Richard, although the amendments brought about by the UK Borders Act 2007 refer to 'automatic deportation' for ILR holders who are convicted of a criminal offence and given custodial sentence of 12 months or more, section 33 does give exceptions to this. Though I accept that these exceptions are unlikely to apply to Thais.

Other than that, your arguments are getting weaker and weaker.

My daughter is in no 'danger' and neither is my wife due to their being British by registration and naturalisation respectively!

Using her Thai passport to enter Thailand means that she is there as a Thai. There is no need for her to extend her permission to stay in Thailand on any basis, let alone your rather strange suggestion that she extends it on the basis of being Thai!

She is Thai; she can stay in Thailand for as long as she likes!

Although, as already said, had she used her British passport then she would, for all immigration purposes, have been treated as British. Extending her stay on the basis of being Thai would have been impossible; the MFA would have considered her British; full stop. No changing to Thai unless she left Thailand using her British passport and returned using her Thai one.

I was not referring to Hansard as a work of fiction, as any fool should know.

You believe the film Braveheart to be historical fact? That explains a lot! It's a work of fiction based on history; but many facts were left out, many changed and many invented for the film. It's fiction.

Even if it were totally factually correct, to suggest that making, or even watching, it or films with similar themes would be used as a reason to remove a persons British citizenship and deport them. is pure paranoia!

The rest of us know that, as neither we nor our family members are terrorists or career criminals, we have nothing to fear; even if we do watch Braveheart.

Your paranoia is stopping your wife, if she qualifies, and children, if any, from enjoying the benefits of dual nationality.

If you truly believe what you have written, I urge you to seek professional help.

[Richard W]

She is Thai; she can stay in Thailand for as long as she likes!

Although, as already said, had she used her British passport then she would, for all immigration purposes, have been treated as British. Extending her stay on the basis of being Thai would have been impossible; the MFA would have considered her British; full stop. No changing to Thai unless she left Thailand using her British passport and returned using her Thai one.

So the recent advice of Ubon Joe and Samran is wrong! Perhaps you should correct them in that thread on the Thai visas etc. subforum.

You believe the film Braveheart to be historical fact?

Even if it were totally factually correct, to suggest that making, or even watching, it or films with similar themes would be used as a reason to remove a persons British citizenship and deport them. is pure paranoia!

It's based (very loosely) on history, and marketed as such. The factual basis is centuries old, so, as I said, by reason of its date it doesn't fit the legal definition of terrorism, but it does fit the definition for UK visa applications.

[7by7]

She is Thai; she can stay in Thailand for as long as she likes!

Although, as already said, had she used her British passport then she would, for all immigration purposes, have been treated as British. Extending her stay on the basis of being Thai would have been impossible; the MFA would have considered her British; full stop. No changing to Thai unless she left Thailand using her British passport and returned using her Thai one.

So the recent advice of Ubon Joe and Samran is wrong! Perhaps you should correct them in that thread on the Thai visas etc. subforum.

OK, I will accept that I was wrong on that point and she could extend her stay by going to the MFA on the basis of being Thai; but she would still only be able to extend it, not remain indefinitely which she can do by entering on a Thai passport.

Enter on a British passport and she can only stay for 30 days unless she

• obtains a visa of some sort before leaving the UK,
• goes to the MFA and pays the fee to extend her stay or
• leaves Thailand on her British passport and re-enters on her Thai one.

All of which are completely unnecessary if she enters on her Thai passport in the first place!

You believe the film Braveheart to be historical fact?

Even if it were totally factually correct, to suggest that making, or even watching, it or films with similar themes would be used as a reason to remove a persons British citizenship and deport them. is pure paranoia!

It's based (very loosely) on history, and marketed as such. The factual basis is centuries old, so, as I said, by reason of its date it doesn't fit the legal definition of terrorism, but it does fit the definition for UK visa applications.

Even if the film were a factual documentary, and there have been such about Wallace, only the utterly paranoid could ever believe that making it or watching it, or any other fact based drama or documentary, would be classed as promoting terrorism!

To consider such films and documentaries the same as, for example, the recent internet video of a man with a British accent beheading James Foley is repulsive!

As repeatedly said, unless they are indeed a terrorist or a career criminal, no member of this forum or a family member of theirs has anything to fear by being a dual national and holding both a Thai and a British passport.

I see no point in indulging or refuting your fantasies any further.

[samran]

She is Thai; she can stay in Thailand for as long as she likes!

Although, as already said, had she used her British passport then she would, for all immigration purposes, have been treated as British. Extending her stay on the basis of being Thai would have been impossible; the MFA would have considered her British; full stop. No changing to Thai unless she left Thailand using her British passport and returned using her Thai one.

So the recent advice of Ubon Joe and Samran is wrong! Perhaps you should correct them in that thread on the Thai visas etc. subforum.

You believe the film Braveheart to be historical fact?

Even if it were totally factually correct, to suggest that making, or even watching, it or films with similar themes would be used as a reason to remove a persons British citizenship and deport them. is pure paranoia!

It's based (very loosely) on history, and marketed as such. The factual basis is centuries old, so, as I said, by reason of its date it doesn't fit the legal definition of terrorism, but it does fit the definition for UK visa applications.

Please don't bring me into your hysterical conspiracy theorist rants. Edited August 26, 2014 by samran

[samran]

Unless someone can convince me otherwise I would assume that any males are liable for conscription if they enter Thailand. I suppose that they must enter on their Thai passports in order to make themselves identifiable. I know that this subject occasionally gets discussed but I'm not sure if it ever gets to a conclusion where people agree.

Nope, they are only considered eligible if they are resident in Thailand between ages 20 and 30 and are present on the conscription date.

Those off the house book residing overseas can't be called up. Those who return after 30 are given a small fine (200 baht for me) for reporting late and then those over 30 who do report are automatically exempted, as per the rules, and are given a certificate stating they have reported and have fulfilled their conscription reporting requirement. I have one of these certificates.

For those resident in Thailand, cadets during high school gets you out of conscription.

University education can defer it, and you can do cadets while at university.

Those who finish university can volunteer to do basic training for 6 months and then are exempted from being conscripted.

There are a myriad of routes.

[Ricardo]

The second downside is that holding Thai passports makes it more likely that the Home Office will realise that your children are dual nationals. For example, every time their British passports are renewed, they must submit their Thai passports along with the renewal application. Now, this may just be so that the Home Office knows that it is the same person travelling whether they are travelling on a British or a Thai passport.

"every time their British passports are renewed, they must submit their Thai passports along with the renewal application."

Just to say that I've never experienced that, is it perhaps recent ?

What would happen, if a child has dual-nationality, but doesn't have a current Thai passport ?

[7by7]

For those resident in Thailand, cadets during high school gets you out of conscription.

Which is what my step son did.

Though I understand he was on the reserve list, and so liable to be called up should Thailand have gone to war with anyone, until his 30th birthday; which was January this year.

Maybe you can confirm?

[7by7]

The second downside is that holding Thai passports makes it more likely that the Home Office will realise that your children are dual nationals. For example, every time their British passports are renewed, they must submit their Thai passports along with the renewal application. Now, this may just be so that the Home Office knows that it is the same person travelling whether they are travelling on a British or a Thai passport.

"every time their British passports are renewed, they must submit their Thai passports along with the renewal application."

Just to say that I've never experienced that, is it perhaps recent ?

What would happen, if a child has dual-nationality, but doesn't have a current Thai passport ?

The online form and the guidance do now say that applicants should submit all uncancelled passports with the application; no idea why; i.d. checks, perhaps?

Obviously if an applicant is a dual national but does not have an uncancelled passport from their other nationality, e.g. Thai, then there is nothing for them to submit.

Why anyone, except terrorists, career criminals or the paranoid, should see the Home Office knowing that they are a dual national being a problem, I cannot fathom.

[bobrussell]

Anyone in the Home Office should be able to work out the rights to nationality just by looking at their birth certificates. They already know if a parent has been naturalised so it is really unlikely that applying for a Thai passport is going to make much difference.

Every terrorist suspect is going to be pretty heavily scrutinised and nationality options researched.

Therefore absolutely no argument about dual nationality being a disadvantage.

[samran]

For those resident in Thailand, cadets during high school gets you out of conscription.

Which is what my step son did.

Though I understand he was on the reserve list, and so liable to be called up should Thailand have gone to war with anyone, until his 30th birthday; which was January this year.

Maybe you can confirm?

Technically after 30 you are on the reserves list too, like I am. But am so far down on level 2 division 2, Thailand would have to be in a bloody big war for me to be called up.

[Richard W]

Anyone in the Home Office should be able to work out the rights to nationality just by looking at their birth certificates. They already know if a parent has been naturalised so it is really unlikely that applying for a Thai passport is going to make much difference.

Seeing as they thought that British nationals who are 'overseas citizens of India' were thereby dual nationals, they may not be well clued up on nationality laws. They might even get misled by the sources that claim that Thailand does not allow dual nationality. Enough people here get confused by the Thai laws.

Every terrorist suspect is going to be pretty heavily scrutinised and nationality options researched.

I wonder if that is what is happening to Talha Ahsan. He should be home by now - perhaps they're trying to work out if he has Bangladeshi or even Pakistani nationality and so can be stripped of British nationality and left stranded in immigration detention in the US. I'm not sure if one can be denied an emergency travel document for return to the UK.

[7by7]

I sympathise with the dilemma of the poster concerned in the linked to topic; but there are two easy solutions.

1) If travelling to Thailand and one's Thai passport is going to expire whilst there; renew it before leaving the UK; this can be done before the passport expires ( up to 6 months, I think); I know, because my wife did it earlier this year. Took about two weeks to get her new passport, though the embassy said it could take a month as the application has to be sent to Bangkok and the new passport sent from there back to the embassy.

2) If you haven't done this, register on your Thai family's house book and once that is done, renew the passport in Thailand.

Alternatively, if going to be there 30 days or less, enter Thailand on your British passport.