Thailand, Closed Camps, No Work Authorization lead to Stagnation and Abuse

In the report 'Thailand: Refugee Policies Ad Hoc and Inadequate' dating from September 2012, Human Rights Watch finds that Thai refugee policies are not grounded in law and cause refugees of all nationalities to be exploited and unnecessarily detained and deported. 

Human Rights Watch concluded among others that closed camps and lack of work authorization lead to stagnation and abuse. 

The report focuses on the plight of Burmese refugees, the largest current refugee group in Thailand. It examines treatment and conditions of both Burmese refugees inside the camps on the Thai-Burma border and Burmese outside the camps, who are not officially recognized as refugees. 

Burmese refugees in Thailand face a stark choice: they can stay in one of the refugee  camps along the border with Burma and be relatively protected from arrest and summary  removal to Burma but without freedom to move or work. Or, they can live and work outside the camps, but typically without recognized legal status of any kind, leaving them at risk of arrest and deportation. It is a choice refugees should not be compelled to make. Many of those who decide to live in the camps do so without being formally registered or recognized. And many of those living outside the camps find the process of applying for and gaining migrant worker status to be prohibitively expensive and out of reach, leaving them vulnerable to exploitation, arrest, and deportation.  

The refugees living in camps experience harsh restrictions from the Thai government on their freedom of movement- prohibiting residents from leaving the camps, earning income, or their children from obtaining a good quality education. With few sources of income, refugees  become dependent on aid agencies, subject over the past several years to the increasingly  acute fatigue of the international donors who have been supporting Burmese refugees since the mid-1980s.

Reports of forced labor

Human Rights Watch also reports of forced Labor Imposed by Thai Authorities on refugees living in camps. While the Thai government prohibits refugees from leaving camp and seeking employment, camp residents told Human Rights Watch that it is common for Thai security officials to require their labor on a regular basis. When Or Sor guards and Tahan Phran rangers catch refugees outside of camp who are unable to pay bribes, they sometimes administer a punishment of forced labor.  


Workplace and Work Camp Raids 
HRW found that sometimes immigration officials and police raid work sites and migrant worker encampments searching for people who are working without work permits. In addition to spot checks on the street, the Thai police and immigration authorities also raid businesses and homes where they believe undocumented migrants are working and living. While some people who witnessed or were apprehended during such raids told Human Rights Watch of being robbed and beaten by police, others said police only hit people trying to escape, and some said that police and immigration officials acted correctly even when migrants resisted arrest.  



The difficult prospects for repatriation 

A series of political changes in Burma beginning in 2011, including the signing of  preliminary ceasefire agreements between the Burmese government and nearly all the  ethnic armed groups, has raised the prospect that this protracted refugee situation could  have an end in sight. The various actors—the Thai and Burmese governments, UNHCR, the donor community, ethnic groups, domestic and international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and the refugees themselves—are all considering the possibility of repatriation. However, enormous obstacles remain to a safe return and repatriation of refugees from the border camps according to Human Rights Watch (HRW).

According to HRW, the signing of preliminary ceasefire agreements, as well as public calls by Burma’s President Thein Sein for the return of exiles, has caused some key donors to shift aid away from humanitarian assistance for camp refugees toward promoting development of livelihoods. While such a shift would make sense both to prepare refugees for eventual repatriation and reintegration in Burma and to promote their greater self-sufficiency in Thailand, conditions in Burma are clearly not yet ready for safe and dignified return and the Thai policy of closed encampment means that donors’ efforts to promote livelihoods are ineffective and do not benefit most refugees.  


People in Thailand who have fled conditions of conflict or persecution are refugees in fact  (de facto refugees) even if they have not registered asylum claims, been registered, or  been officially recognized by Thai or UNHCR officials as refugees under the law. The  absence of a legal framework for refugee-status recognition—or lack of access to procedures—does not mean that they are not, in fact, refugees with legitimate claims to assistance and protection from the UN and the Thai government. 
Thailand has not accepted the idea that any refugees, Burmese and other, have the right to work, move, and contribute to the Thai economy or that foreigners who present themselves  as workers might also have fled persecution or conflict and be fearful of return. That, however, is the reality for refugees in Thailand according to HRW. 
Regardless of nationality and whether or not UNHCR accords them refugee status, refugees 
are not allowed to work in Thailand. They can only work if they do not present themselves as refugees to the authorities, but rather as migrant workers. And whether migrant workers in Thailand have work permits seems to depend almost entirely on their ability and willingness to pay bribes for the opportunity.

Recommendations

HRW urges that Thailand consider an alternative to its current refugee policy that would  provide Burmese and all other asylum seekers a fair chance to have their claims for asylum  heard and allow refugees to move about and work. Such a policy would contribute to rule of law and reduce opportunities for corruption and exploitation. It would also enable refugees to contribute to Thailand’s economy and sustain themselves with dignity, while developing skills they will need to successfully reintegrate after they do go home. Finally, such a policy would engender goodwill toward Thailand after the refugees return.


Among other recommendations, HRW urges the Thai government to engage with the Refugee Camp Committees and other refugee organizations, NGOs, UNHCR, and donors to move for an orderly transition from a closed-camp humanitarian-assistance model to an open reception-and accommodation model that empowers refugees to become self-sufficient and prepares them to successfully reintegrate in Burma when they are able to repatriate voluntarily in safety and dignity. HRW urges donors to continue to facilitate provision of humanitarian aid, including food and shelter, to refugees who are unable to support themselves or who need transitional help as they move toward self-sufficiency.  
 A strategy aiming to build livelihoods can only work if refugees are allowed to leave the camps to work. HRW urges the Thai government to ensure that recognized refugees of all nationalities have the right to freedom of movement and provide renewable multi-year work authorization as long as they maintain their refugee status.  


Nine years after the Thai authorities decided that Burmese refugees should no longer be  allowed to live in urban centers but rather be confined to camps, it’s time for the Thai government to reassess that decision. It should do so in the light of a less static situation  in Burma and the years many Burmese urban refugees have already lived in Thailand. A new policy should acknowledge the benefits of allowing refugees in Thailand to be self- sufficient without making them vulnerable to exploitation, arrest, and deportation.