Asylum In The Us?

[thaiatheart]

Just curious if anyone knows of any Thai persons in the US who are applying for asylum based on the current events in Thailand? Do you think it's a possibility for someone who is in the US already?

[gotlost]

Possible but not likely.

[Canadianasia]

Possible but not likely.

well if you were a red shirt and were to be harmed if return they will protect you in Canada

[JohanV]

I really don't think that is possible.

Countries normally only give asylum for either war refugees or political or ethnical refugees.

In order to become a political or ethnical refugee there must be verified proof that you are persecuted in some way.

Facts are:

Being a red shirt in Thailand today is not illegal. You do not get arrested or jailed for being a UDD member or supporter.

You are allowed to have your opinion and speak freely - besides lese majeste and provoking uproar or violence.

Political discussions are thus allowed here - just see this forum as a hint on that.

So, you would have a big problem claiming that you are persecuted because of your political opinions.

Furthermore;

The people being arrested or held in custody today in Thailand due to the red shirt protests today are all

there because they have broken criminal laws - i.e. either provoked, incited or done violence or looting.

It is also a criminal offence to break a curfew order. Curfews and SoE's are temporary situations

that would not motivate a request for political asylum.

You won't get asylum if you have been actively rampaging, burning or looting - that's not a political crime.

You won't get asylum because you have run a radio station calling for violence and have been arrested for that.

You would possibly be able to get asylum if you had peacefully run a radio station without calling for violence and still got arrested.

but, the country where you apply would seek confirmation on the alleged persecution from independent sources - such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch or other countries before they would consider your request. A procedure that takes years.

However:

If you are of a certain ethnical origin and it is known that your people are being persecuted you do have some chance

to get asylum. A good example would be the Hmong refugees that were sent back to Laos by the Thai government.

They were offered asylum in the US. Probably it would also work if you're a Burmese boat refugee.

But red shirts - absolutely no.

They are not politically persecuted, they have just made a mess of their own 'non-violence' policy and now they

are facing the same legal consequenses - or perhaps milder - than i.e. someone who stormed Capitol Hill or threathened

to blow up gas tank cars in a populated area of New York, or torched the NY Stock Exchange would.

Edited May 25, 2010 by JohanV

[thailandbluegrass]

I really don't think that is possible.

Countries normally only give asylum for either war refugees or political or ethnical refugees.

In order to become a political or ethnical refugee there must be verified proof that you are persecuted in some way.

Facts are:

Being a red shirt in Thailand today is not illegal. You do not get arrested or jailed for being a UDD member or supporter.

You are allowed to have your opinion and speak freely - besides lese majeste and provoking uproar or violence.

Political discussions are thus allowed here - just see this forum as a hint on that.

So, you would have a big problem claiming that you are persecuted because of your political opinions.

Furthermore;

The people being arrested or held in custody today in Thailand due to the red shirt protests today are all

there because they have broken criminal laws - i.e. either provoked, incited or done violence or looting.

It is also a criminal offence to break a curfew order. Curfews and SoE's are temporary situations

that would not motivate a request for political asylum.

You won't get asylum if you have been actively rampaging, burning or looting - that's not a political crime.

You won't get asylum because you have run a radio station calling for violence and have been arrested for that.

You would possibly be able to get asylum if you had peacefully run a radio station without calling for violence and still got arrested.

but, the country where you apply would seek confirmation on the alleged persecution from independent sources - such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch or other countries before they would consider your request. A procedure that takes years.

However:

If you are of a certain ethnical origin and it is known that your people are being persecuted you do have some chance

to get asylum. A good example would be the Hmong refugees that were sent back to Laos by the Thai government.

They were offered asylum in the US. Probably it would also work if you're a Burmese boat refugee.

But red shirts - absolutely no.

They are not politically persecuted, they have just made a mess of their own 'non-violence' policy and now they

are facing the same legal consequenses - or perhaps milder - than i.e. someone who stormed Capitol Hill or threathened

to blow up gas tank cars in a populated area of New York, or torched the NY Stock Exchange would.

WOW. A simple "No" would have sufficed.

[thaiatheart]

WOW. A simple "No" would have sufficed.

Actually, I very much appreciated the details. Thanks to all who have responded.

[gotlost]

I really don't think that is possible.

Countries normally only give asylum for either war refugees or political or ethnical refugees.

In order to become a political or ethnical refugee there must be verified proof that you are persecuted in some way.

Facts are:

Being a red shirt in Thailand today is not illegal. You do not get arrested or jailed for being a UDD member or supporter.

You are allowed to have your opinion and speak freely - besides lese majeste and provoking uproar or violence.

Political discussions are thus allowed here - just see this forum as a hint on that.

So, you would have a big problem claiming that you are persecuted because of your political opinions.

Furthermore;

The people being arrested or held in custody today in Thailand due to the red shirt protests today are all

there because they have broken criminal laws - i.e. either provoked, incited or done violence or looting.

It is also a criminal offence to break a curfew order. Curfews and SoE's are temporary situations

that would not motivate a request for political asylum.

You won't get asylum if you have been actively rampaging, burning or looting - that's not a political crime.

You won't get asylum because you have run a radio station calling for violence and have been arrested for that.

You would possibly be able to get asylum if you had peacefully run a radio station without calling for violence and still got arrested.

but, the country where you apply would seek confirmation on the alleged persecution from independent sources - such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch or other countries before they would consider your request. A procedure that takes years.

However:

If you are of a certain ethnical origin and it is known that your people are being persecuted you do have some chance

to get asylum. A good example would be the Hmong refugees that were sent back to Laos by the Thai government.

They were offered asylum in the US. Probably it would also work if you're a Burmese boat refugee.

But red shirts - absolutely no.

They are not politically persecuted, they have just made a mess of their own 'non-violence' policy and now they

are facing the same legal consequenses - or perhaps milder - than i.e. someone who stormed Capitol Hill or threathened

to blow up gas tank cars in a populated area of New York, or torched the NY Stock Exchange would.

WOW. A simple "No" would have sufficed.

Needed to give them a chance so they could match the RCMP coats in Canada.

[Rumblecat]

WOW. A simple "No" would have sufficed.

Actually, I very much appreciated the details. Thanks to all who have responded.

Yeah, me too. Good post JohanV, interesting stuff.

[Frontier]

Johan is correct in most part.

There's been very very few documented refugee cases from Thais, usually for Burmese or Laos nationals, but even then it was quite difficult to acquire refugee status from the UN and then approval by the US for resettlement.

Look at the statistics:

Every year millions of people around the world are displaced by war, famine, and civil and political unrest. The US considers persons for resettlement to the U.S. as refugees. Each year, the U.S. President consults with Congress and establishes the proposed ceilings for refugee admissions for the fiscal year. For the 1999 fiscal year, the total ceiling was set at 78,000 admissions and was allocated to five geographic regions:

• Africa (12,000 admissions),
  
• East Asia (9,000 admissions),
  
• Europe (48,000 admissions),
  
• Latin America/Caribbean (3,000 admissions),
  
• Near East/South Asia (4,000 admissions), and
  
• the Unallocated Reserve (2,000).
  

Also, look at how it's defined by the US government. A refugee is defined as a person outside of his or her country of nationality who is unable or unwilling to return because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinions.

Under U.S. law, a person who has committed acts of persecution, or has assisted in the commission of persecution in any way, on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, is not eligible for classification as a refugee.

I don't think the red shirt demonstrations actually reached that level. Underscore here is the "well-founded fear of persecution" which sets the bar quite high.

With regards,

Cathy Reck

Edited May 30, 2010 by Maestro
Compant name removed, please contact sales if you wish to advertise on TV.

[Eff1n2ret]

Thanks for an interesting post. I assume that the statistics quoted are for people whose refugee status has already been established or asserted by the UN and are admitted to the USA on that basis. So is there a limit - "The Unallocated Reserve" - for those who by whatever means get themselves into the USA and then make an asylum claim in-country or at the border? Such cases form the bulk of the UK's asylum problem, with a backlog of hundreds of thousands of cases, because UK law requires every asylum claim to be considered on its merits. Whilst the authorities have in recent years made some moves towards a more efficient and speedy decision-making process, they still fail abjectly to enforce a significant percentage of removals of failed asylum seekers.

Having said that, I am sure any Thai who sought asylum in the UK would be refused on the same criteria which you mention. The case would probably be fast-tracked and certified with limited rights of appeal, and the applicant would probably find himself on a plane to Bangkok pretty dam_n quick. When Thai illegals come to light in the UK, the removal process is not obstructed by the Thai authorities (to their credit), unlike many other countries.

Edited May 30, 2010 by 7by7
Unnecessary full quote of preceding post removed.

[7by7]

Nonsensical post deleted.

[eastbaybob]

Although I don't know of anyone from Thailand that has applied for asylum in the US, I'm sure there are many that have filed already. Many people think that if asylum is denied the person is then deported. Actually it is quite different than that. For example, lets say that a Thai person applied for asylum today. Maybe the asylum office would hear their case is 6 months, then a month for the denial. But it isn't a denial, its a referral to an immigration Judge. Now that the case is with an immigration judge, maybe the final hearing will be two years from the start of proceedings. And during this 2 years the Thai person can apply for employment authorization, this will give them a social security number and then they can get a drivers license and whatever else. So after two years the Thai person has a hearing with the immigration judge and loses, they they appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals. Here it will take between 1 and 3 years, so now the person has been here in the US for between 3 and 5 years. They lose at the BIA then they go to the US Circuit Court of Appeals. This will take between 1 and 3 years also. So we're at up to 8 years already, then if there were any motions filed that could add another year or two. And then the thing is more than likely the Thai person was granted Voluntary Departure by the Immigration Judge/BIA and circuit court so after all that they can leave the US without the stigma of a deport on the record.

[khaowong1]

Possible but not likely.

In case you haven't noticed, Thaksin's not in the U.S., so doubt very seriously they would consider any of the red shirts for political asylum, as the U.S. considers the red shirt activity, more cival disturbance or even militia activity than political..

[khaowong1]

I really don't think that is possible.

Countries normally only give asylum for either war refugees or political or ethnical refugees.

In order to become a political or ethnical refugee there must be verified proof that you are persecuted in some way.

Facts are:

Being a red shirt in Thailand today is not illegal. You do not get arrested or jailed for being a UDD member or supporter.

You are allowed to have your opinion and speak freely - besides lese majeste and provoking uproar or violence.

Political discussions are thus allowed here - just see this forum as a hint on that.

So, you would have a big problem claiming that you are persecuted because of your political opinions.

Furthermore;

The people being arrested or held in custody today in Thailand due to the red shirt protests today are all

there because they have broken criminal laws - i.e. either provoked, incited or done violence or looting.

It is also a criminal offence to break a curfew order. Curfews and SoE's are temporary situations

that would not motivate a request for political asylum.

You won't get asylum if you have been actively rampaging, burning or looting - that's not a political crime.

You won't get asylum because you have run a radio station calling for violence and have been arrested for that.

You would possibly be able to get asylum if you had peacefully run a radio station without calling for violence and still got arrested.

but, the country where you apply would seek confirmation on the alleged persecution from independent sources - such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch or other countries before they would consider your request. A procedure that takes years.

However:

If you are of a certain ethnical origin and it is known that your people are being persecuted you do have some chance

to get asylum. A good example would be the Hmong refugees that were sent back to Laos by the Thai government.

They were offered asylum in the US. Probably it would also work if you're a Burmese boat refugee.

But red shirts - absolutely no.

They are not politically persecuted, they have just made a mess of their own 'non-violence' policy and now they

are facing the same legal consequenses - or perhaps milder - than i.e. someone who stormed Capitol Hill or threathened

to blow up gas tank cars in a populated area of New York, or torched the NY Stock Exchange would.

A very accurate answer.

[duran]

One other important thing to note, if one applies for asylum and doesn't get it because they over exaggerated the conditions of their situation (and as noted earlier the standard is high), I believe you are effectively barred from entering the country from then on, or a similarly harsh penalty.

Edited June 2, 2010 by duran