EXCLUSIVE: After living at airport for 3 months, Zimbabwean family has left Thailand

[webfact]

EXCLUSIVE: After living at airport for 3 months, Zimbabwean family has left Thailand

By Coconuts Bangkok 

 

An airport employee posted this viral photo of himself with a gift for one of the airport detainees. Photo: Kanaruj Artt Pornspolt/ Facebook

 

A Zimbabwean family of eight, who had been living at Bangkok’s Suvarnabhumi Airport for three months, left Thailand yesterday, according to an Immigration Bureau deputy spokesman.

 

The family, which included four children, was stuck in the Bangkok airport after they were barred from boarding their flights to Spain on Oct. 23 because they did not have visas to enter Spain. At the same time, having overstayed their Thai tourist visas, they could not re-enter Thailand and had refused to go back to their country, citing fears for their safety.

 

For three months, the family awaited help from the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and hoped the agency would process their asylum requests and assist them in moving to another country.  

 

Full story: https://coconuts.co/bangkok/news/exclusive-living-airport-3-months-zimbabwean-family-left-thailand/

 

-- © Copyright Coconuts Bangkok 2018-01-23

[PatOngo]

Interesting, 8 people for approx. 90 days would probably be counted as approx. 720 new tourist arrivals. They deserve an award.

[Darcula]

By golly, that was a good viral photo. Better than getting one with a luuk thep.

[Jerry780]

They are illegal immigrants. The Thais know how to deal with them. In the uk they would have been given housing and benefits. Well done Thailand.

[worgeordie]

1 hour ago, Jerry780 said:

They are illegal immigrants. The Thais know how to deal with them. In the uk they would have been given housing and benefits. Well done Thailand.

Maybe that's where they are off to.

regards worgeordie

[grego49]

24 minutes ago, worgeordie said:

Maybe that's where they are off to.

regards worgeordie

Or Melbourne,,

 

[chowny77]

I was just wondering which poor country now has to bend over to give them charity.

[Orton Rd]

3 hours ago, Jerry780 said:

They are illegal immigrants. The Thais know how to deal with them. In the uk they would have been given housing and benefits. Well done Thailand.

where were they sent off to? the UK would not surprise me. They have zero chance of qualifying as asylum seekers, so they should be alright!

[Bluespunk]

3 hours ago, Jerry780 said:

They are illegal immigrants. The Thais know how to deal with them. In the uk they would have been given housing and benefits. Well done Thailand.

No, they were seeking asylum. 

 

Hence, the help given them by the UNHCR.

Edited January 23, 2018 by Bluespunk

[Bluespunk]

1 hour ago, chowny77 said:

I was just wondering which poor country now has to bend over to give them charity.

Refuge/asylum.

Edited January 23, 2018 by Bluespunk

[White Christmas13]

3 hours ago, Jerry780 said:

They are illegal immigrants. The Thais know how to deal with them. In the uk they would have been given housing and benefits. Well done Thailand.

Crap

[realenglish1]

Sounds like a Hollywood movie in the making 

[RichardColeman]

Boy, they cannot have been short a penny, flights from Africa to Thailand and then to Europe. Cheaper to have bought a ship and sail there.

[Proboscis]

4 hours ago, Jerry780 said:

They are illegal immigrants. The Thais know how to deal with them. In the uk they would have been given housing and benefits. Well done Thailand.

Well done Thailand for having disobeyed international law?

If you are going to invoke visa regulations so as to condemn a family of refugees, then lets also invoke the international laws on treatment of asylum seekers too.

 

I find some of the comments in this thread very strange - we have someone saying that they must be rich because they were able to afford flights from Africa to Thailand and then on to Spain. And we have you who believes that they would have been seeking housing and benefits in whatever country they landed in.

 

Let me bet on something, that all the folks on this thread who are willing to condemn this family, without any information other than the family is from Zimbabwe, themselves have passports that allow them to go to almost any country either visa-free, visa on arrival or on a visa waiver. And let me guess that none of you are black.

 

Perhaps if you had been to Zimbabwe and know something about the place you might have a more informed opinion. If you actually knew the family, their circumstances and what they face in their home country, you would be in a better position to judge.

[ratcatcher]

48 minutes ago, Proboscis said:

Well done Thailand for having disobeyed international law?

If you are going to invoke visa regulations so as to condemn a family of refugees, then lets also invoke the international laws on treatment of asylum seekers too.

 

I find some of the comments in this thread very strange - we have someone saying that they must be rich because they were able to afford flights from Africa to Thailand and then on to Spain. And we have you who believes that they would have been seeking housing and benefits in whatever country they landed in.

 

Let me bet on something, that all the folks on this thread who are willing to condemn this family, without any information other than the family is from Zimbabwe, themselves have passports that allow them to go to almost any country either visa-free, visa on arrival or on a visa waiver. And let me guess that none of you are black.

 

Perhaps if you had been to Zimbabwe and know something about the place you might have a more informed opinion. If you actually knew the family, their circumstances and what they face in their home country, you would be in a better position to judge.

On November 14 2017, the Zimbabwean army staged a 'coup' to depose the despot Robert Mugabe, who had ruled the country for 37 years. These people left prior to that event. Now that Mnangagwa is the president and open to the west and the world, there is no mention of what they were fleeing and if their return would still endanger their lives. A one sided story.

'

[UPDEHSOI]

6 hours ago, Jerry780 said:

They are illegal immigrants. The Thais know how to deal with them. In the uk they would have been given housing and benefits. Well done Thailand.

Same same if they had been in Canada. PLUS...they would also have access to free legal counselling, which, I suppose could be considered a benefit.

[Gillyflower]

19 hours ago, chowny77 said:

I was just wondering which poor country now has to bend over to give them charity.

The article says that an unnamed officer said that it was the Phillipines.

[steven100]

14 hours ago, grego49 said:

Or Melbourne,,

 

Manus island then New York.

[steven100]

5 minutes ago, Gillyflower said:

The article says that an unnamed officer said that it was the Phillipines.

hope so. 

[Orton Rd]

14 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

No, they were seeking asylum. 

 

Hence, the help given them by the UNHCR.

They had no grounds to seek asylum, they were lying like most do for a better life and agencies never check out their lies. 

[Orton Rd]

1 hour ago, steven100 said:

hope so. 

No chance that was the final destination, even Zimbabwe would be a better choice, they want the EU and it's benefits, which is why they tried to sneak into Spain.

[johna]

13 hours ago, Proboscis said:

Well done Thailand for having disobeyed international law?

If you are going to invoke visa regulations so as to condemn a family of refugees, then lets also invoke the international laws on treatment of asylum seekers too.

 

I find some of the comments in this thread very strange - we have someone saying that they must be rich because they were able to afford flights from Africa to Thailand and then on to Spain. And we have you who believes that they would have been seeking housing and benefits in whatever country they landed in.

 

Let me bet on something, that all the folks on this thread who are willing to condemn this family, without any information other than the family is from Zimbabwe, themselves have passports that allow them to go to almost any country either visa-free, visa on arrival or on a visa waiver. And let me guess that none of you are black.

 

Perhaps if you had been to Zimbabwe and know something about the place you might have a more informed opinion. If you actually knew the family, their circumstances and what they face in their home country, you would be in a better position to judge.

Well if you have some information that these economic migrants are in fact genuine refugees please enlighten us. We are seeing an exodus of economic migrants from s**thole African countries, into Europe, why on Earth would you assume these people were anything different?? 

 

[Bluespunk]

16 minutes ago, Orton Rd said:

They had no grounds to seek asylum, they were lying like most do for a better life and agencies never check out their lies. 

No, the UNHCR felt they had a case and are helping this family. 

 

That is enough to persuade me there are grounds for this family to seek asylum. 

 

What evidence do you have to prove otherwise?

 

 

[Bluespunk]

18 minutes ago, Orton Rd said:

No chance that was the final destination, even Zimbabwe would be a better choice, they want the EU and it's benefits, which is why they tried to sneak into Spain.

Evidence, please. 

[manarak]

16 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

No, they were seeking asylum. 

 

Hence, the help given them by the UNHCR.

there is no asylum or asylum seeker status in Thailand, so they could not be seeking asylum in Thailand.

having overstayed their permission to stay, under Thai Law, they were exactly illegal immigrants.

[Bluespunk]

11 minutes ago, manarak said:

there is no asylum or asylum seeker status in Thailand, so they could not be seeking asylum in Thailand.

having overstayed their permission to stay, under Thai Law, they were exactly illegal immigrants.

Ah, the alt right's way of twisting the facts to suit their agenda.

 

I never were said they seeking asylum in Thailand.

 

They did overstay in Thailand, and then when were leaving, paid the overstay fine and sought to leave. 

 

They never sought asylum here.

 

They were seeking asylum in Europe, hence the UNHCR is helping them find safe refuge.

 

 

 

Edited January 24, 2018 by Bluespunk

[manarak]

2 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Ah, the alt right's way of twisting the facts to suit their agenda.

 

I'm not alt-right, but for twisting the facts to suit an agenda, I think you are a strong contender.

[Bluespunk]

3 minutes ago, manarak said:

I'm not alt-right, but for twisting the facts to suit an agenda, I think you are a strong contender.

Glad to hear you're not alt right, but you do share some of their characteristics.

 

For example...your claim I am twisting facts.

 

Which ones, exactly, am I twisting here?

 

Where is the evidence to back up your earlier claims?

Edited January 24, 2018 by Bluespunk

[manarak]

13 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Glad to hear you're not alt right, but you do share some of their characteristics.

 

For example...your claim I am twisting facts.

 

Which ones, exactly, am I twisting here?

 

Where is the evidence to back up your earlier claims?

I don't believe I made earlier claims in this thread.

 

about twisting facts, I was referring to our history of minor frictions in other threads in recent years where you showed a distinct left bias especially about which facts to ignore.

 

I consider myself intellectually honest and will recognize when I did mistakes.

I value responsibility, freedom and truth above all, especially all relevant truth, not partial truths.

Edited January 24, 2018 by manarak

[Bluespunk]

14 minutes ago, manarak said:

I don't believe I made earlier claims in this thread.

 

about twisting facts, I was referring to our history of minor frictions in other threads in recent years where you showed a distinct left bias especially about which facts to ignore.

 

I consider myself intellectually honest and will recognize when I did mistakes.

I value responsibility, freedom and truth above all, especially all relevant truth, not partial truths.

"there is no asylum or asylum seeker status in Thailand, so they could not be seeking asylum in Thailand"

 

So when you said this, you were not claiming I said they were seeking asylum in Thailand? 

 

OK, if you say so...

 

Specifically state where I twisted facts?

 

Exactly please.

 

As to valuing truth and not partial truths...yeah right, again, if you say so...

Edited January 24, 2018 by Bluespunk