Prev Page 3 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 Next » 141 replies to this topic

[Arkady]

sabaijai, on 2009-02-11 17:27:27, said:

dbrenn, on 2009-02-10 22:30:06, said:

[...] he may have been at fault for claiming to have an unbroken employement record. I would not recommend applying for citizenship for anyone who has to misrepresent his past - like you say, they do check.

That makes sense. Other than making a false statement, though, does the application for citizenship have anything to with one's work record? In other words is a retired foreigner with PR still eligible to apply?

The answer to Sabaijai's question is no, a retired foreigner with PR is not eligible to apply.  The Nationality Act stipulates in Section 10.3 that applicants must "have a regular occupation".  Interior Ministry regulations further define this to mean a specific minimum remuneration which was Baht 7,000 a month when I first looked at it (even though at the time this wasn't enough to get a work permit) and is now Baht 80,000 for those not married to Thais.   I suppose they are concerned that new citizens should be able to support themselves through employment in Thailand which they can easily verify.  In theory a retired billionaire PR would have to set up a business and employ himself in it for at least three years, if he wanted to apply.

[TheChiefJustice]

dbrenn, on 2009-02-12 05:28:00, said:

The best way to communicate with the officials is to get a cell phone number and regularly call to follow up. They then stary calling you immediately they are aware of any news. It could be that they were doing the person who had a days notice a favour by making up the numbers at the last minute.

Dbrenn, I have been thinking about contacting the Interior Ministry to find out the status of my application but I do not want to be seen as a "pest".  Did you contact the Interior Ministry people directly or was it your Special Branch contacts with whom you were liaising during the long wait?

[dbrenn]

TheChiefJustice, on 2009-02-12 12:49:07, said:

dbrenn, on 2009-02-12 05:28:00, said:

The best way to communicate with the officials is to get a cell phone number and regularly call to follow up. They then stary calling you immediately they are aware of any news. It could be that they were doing the person who had a days notice a favour by making up the numbers at the last minute.

Dbrenn, I have been thinking about contacting the Interior Ministry to find out the status of my application but I do not want to be seen as a "pest". Did you contact the Interior Ministry people directly or was it your Special Branch contacts with whom you were liaising during the long wait?

Hi CJ. The most annoying aspect about the whole Thai citizenship application process is that the Interior Ministry is a black hole. Even the nice people at the Special Branch have no idea when an application will be signed by the Interior Minister, and I did not have any contacts that high up in the Interior ministry to help me out. The people at Special Branch did say that there is a degree of queue jumping at the Interior Ministry by those in the know, but that such people would have to have connections to the Interior minister himself or a similar level. Special Branch, it seems, have no influence over this, and are not able to lobby at this level.

It's very unsettling to not know if and when your application will progress through the Interior Minister, His Majesty, and back through the Interior Minister, but all you can do is sit it out. You are still a PR in the process.

Edited by dbrenn, 2009-02-12 12:24:51.

[Arkady]

skippybangkok, on 2009-02-12 08:53:22, said:

dbrenn, on 2009-02-12 05:28:00, said:

Regards your tax assessment, your lawyer was wrong - I once had an unfair assessment, appealed it, and it was immediately reduced. The tax office tries it on sometimes, and what they are usually looking for is a bribe to reduce the amount ....

Would be my take on it. Stand your ground with the Revenue department, they are good at bluffs to extort $$.

You are probably both right and I am sure I would not just pay up if it happened today.  They probably would have dropped it as they had absolutely no evidence and I was genuinely working and paying tax elsewhere.  The Revenue Dept official actually claimed that Thailand had no double taxation treaties with any country, so it probably was a low level scam.   At the time my company was getting fed up with the delays of Thai officialdom as we needed an alien business licence which the Commerce Ministry had made us wait five months for, even though our paperwork was perfectly in order.   The last thing they wanted was for me to get bogged down in a case against corrupt government officials, so they just told me to pay the tax and reimbursed me.

[Arkady]

dbrenn, on 2009-02-12 05:28:00, said:

Arkady, on 2009-02-11 19:04:10, said:

Do most naturalized Thais get visas when flying direct to countries Thai passports need visas for but their other passports don't?

You don't need visas. When travelling by air you swap passports in mid flight, leaving Thailand on your Thai passport and then using the passport of your original country to enter a country (that would normally impose visa restrictions on Thais) visa free. You show both passports when checking in so that the airline knows that you have a right to enter your destination country with no visa.

At land borders you use your Thai passport to enjoy visa free travel to places like Laos and Vietnam - you get a lot of funny looks, but I've never had a problem.

So I guess you have to show your foreign passport to Thai Immigration on the way out as well as to the airline, if you are going to a country that Thais need a visa to.  Don't they usually check that?  

Re the provision to revoke nationality of naturalised Thais making use of their former nationality, it is hard to know what this really means or why it is in the Act.  The Act is rather ambivalent about dual nationality.  It seems to imply that dual nationality is not quite OK, here and in some other places, but stops short of saying that having another nationality is a crime punishable by either a 500 baht fine or 20 years in prison.  It may be a hang over from earlier versions of the Act when there may have been stricter provisions against dual nationality and they may just have wished to keep their options open to easily get rid of some one who is viewed as a nuisance.   Anyway naturalised Thais are a very small group to target and hopefully they never will be.  This provision would not be useful in dealing with Southerners that have dual Thai and Malaysian nationality because they are mainly Thais by birth that have obtained Malaysian nationality fraudulently, as Malaysia doesn't allow dual nationality but seems to turn a blind eye in the case of the Southern Thai muslims.  Thailand can only try to push Malaysia to do something about the issue.   Revocation for using another nationality seems to require a committee to advise the minister:  

"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."

I wonder if it would take the committee as long to consider the case for revocation as it takes the ministry to consider citizenship applications.

[samran]

Arkady, on 2009-02-12 09:24:57, said:

Re the provision to revoke nationality of naturalised Thais making use of their former nationality, it is hard to know what this really means or why it is in the Act.  The Act is rather ambivalent about dual nationality.  It seems to imply that dual nationality is not quite OK, here and in some other places, but stops short of saying that having another nationality is a crime punishable by either a 500 baht fine or 20 years in prison.  It may be a hang over from earlier versions of the Act when there may have been stricter provisions against dual nationality and they may just have wished to keep their options open to easily get rid of some one who is viewed as a nuisance.

I had a look at the second revision to the Act recently (published in 1992) which did contain stricter language than the third revision (published also in 1992 - strangely enough!).

For instance the second revision stated that a dual national child must choose between his or her nationalites between ages 20 and 21, and that if no such choice is made, then that child is deemed automatically to have lost their Thai nationality.

The third revision says a dual national child can chose between ages 20 and 21 but now there is no penalty for not - implying that it is OK in that case.

I suspect that the second revision to the act was made in 1992, which must have caught some quite powerful people (with dual nationality) off guard, as the it seems a slightly contradictory third version was then (hurridly?) bought into law, which seems alot more accepting in the concept.

What the third version does do (if you look at it technically) is open up the possibility for some Thai's to hold dual nationality (eg foreign born Thai's who may pick up an automatic foreign citizenship in the process). Once you do that, you effectively discriminate against other Thai nationals if you try and implement loss of citizenship clauses in the third revision to the act...which is why they probably they aren't used as it opens up a possible claim of discrimination under the constitution(?).

[dbrenn]

Arkady, on 2009-02-12 15:24:57, said:

So I guess you have to show your foreign passport to Thai Immigration on the way out as well as to the airline, if you are going to a country that Thais need a visa to. Don't they usually check that?

Once I was asked by immigration (in addition to the airline) to show my UK passport on the way out in addition to my Thai passport, to check whether I had the right to travel to the UK with no visa. Most times they don't bother. There is no secret that I have another nationality - when I applied for a Thai passport, they also wanted to see my UK passport.

Arkady, on 2009-02-12 15:24:57, said:

The Act is rather ambivalent about dual nationality. It seems to imply that dual nationality is not quite OK ... may be a hang over from earlier versions of the Act ... keep their options open to easily get rid of some one who is viewed as a nuisance ...

"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."

I wonder if it would take the committee as long to consider the case for revocation as it takes the ministry to consider citizenship applications.

What you say is probably true - they are keeping their options open on people who, having been granted citizenship, cause problems. As always, the advice here is to keep a low profile, work hard, and behave in a similar way as you did when you were applying for citizenship.

Having said that, I know a few very long term naturalised Thai citizens, people who are in business and have upset the locals on occasion. Nothing happened. There was never any question of having their rights curtailed or revoked, and they come and go with no fuss at all..

Let's face it, while the Thai Nationality Act is rather ambiguous and there may exist a tiny possibility that a naturalised Thai could conceivably lose his Thai citizenship, assembling a committee comprising the Interior Minister, the Foreign Minister, Chief of Police and all the others necessary for revocation of a citizenship under the Act would only be done under very exceptional circumstances. You would have to piss off someone very high up the food chain. This is Thailand, and if you don't fit in they will always find one way or another to get rid of you. Look what happened to Thaksin ..

Edited by dbrenn, 2009-02-12 18:37:43.

[Arkady]

Interesting what you say about the different 1992 revisions to the Act, Samran.  I think I have only seen what I presume to the be the third and final version.   This seems to dilute a provision obliging dual national children to choose only one nationality on majority, as used to be the case in the US.  It is left at half cock as a provision that only really facilitates dual national children who want to get rid of their Thai nationality on reaching majority.  Perhaps some males would really like to do this to be sure of avoiding military service, if they are sure they won't live in Thailand but want to visit sometimes.  However, as discussed in other threads, this can be achieved by not being on a tabian baan without surrendering Thai nationality.  So it seems a redundant provision.  Not enforcing a choice of nationalilty on dual national children seems consistent with the more liberal concept of allowing Thai nationality to be passed on to the offspring of a Thai mother and a foreign father which was not permitted before 1992 (if the foreign father was disclosed on the birth certificate).  This must have multiplied the number of dual children many times over, including those born overseas whose Thai mothers prior to 1992 would probably not have bothered trying to acquire Thai nationality for them.  It would have been rather pointless to open the door to dual nationality so much wider to children, only to bang it shut as soon as they reach majority.  Yes, there are quite a lot of influential Thais who are dual nationals or have dual national children and they would certainly not like to see the boat rocked.  

I think I am with Dbrenn in thinking that it would not be worth the trouble of applying for visas for countries that can be visited without visa using the other passport, even though I know at least two naturalised Thais who do go through this tedious rigmarole and expense.   It is bad enough applying for these visas for the other half.   Last time the Oz embassy asked for a photo album of our travels around the world together and we had to postpone our travel date, while the Ozzies took their time admiring our photography.  

Now I am dealing with the question of whether to go the trouble of increasing the capital of my company to make it look a bit more substantial, if I decide to go ahead.  It is hard to know what criteria they look at.  Do you think the Special Branch are able and willing to answer specific questions like this or are they likely to just say submit the application and see how it goes?

[MacWalen]

So here is a question, with PR you have to touch base every 12 months or you lose that status, what about citizenship? Common sense tells me that once you become a citizen you cannot lose it. So say I become a Thai citizen and stay out of Thailand for 5 years and come back after that time, would that be ok?

Edited by macwalen, 2009-02-13 20:29:09.

[Mario2008]

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:

(1) The naturalization was effected by concealment of facts or making any statement false in material particular;

(2) There is evidence to show that he still makes use of his former nationality;

(3) He commits any act prejudicial to the security or conflicting the interests of the State, or amounting to an insult to the nation;

(4) He commits any act contrary to public order or good morals;

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

(6) He still retains the nationality of the country at war with Thailand.


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

[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]

macwalen, on 2009-02-13 20:46:02, said:

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....ide-t74654.html

[Arkady]

Mario2008, on 2009-02-13 20:38:55, said:

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]

Arkady, on 2009-02-14 13:05:17, said:

Mario2008, on 2009-02-13 20:38:55, said:

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.

Arkady, on 2009-02-14 13:05:17, said:

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 by samran, 2009-02-14 19:41:21.

[dbrenn]

Arkady, on 2009-02-14 19:08:24, said:

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]

Arkady, on 2009-02-14 19:05:17, said:

Mario2008, on 2009-02-13 20:38:55, said:

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]

ubonjoe, on 2009-02-17 09:09:52, said:

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]

samran, on 2009-02-17 15:20:17, said:

ubonjoe, on 2009-02-17 09:09:52, said:

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]

ubonjoe, on 2009-02-17 09:31:52, said:

samran, on 2009-02-17 15:20:17, said:

ubonjoe, on 2009-02-17 09:09:52, said:

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)....