Stop deporting individuals, says UNHCR

[Linky]

They were proved refugees. If thailand was concerned it could hold them in custody. They broke no laws. Thailand acted reprehensively. No wonder the world laughs when Thailand wants Thaksin returned.

[casualbiker]

They were proved refugees. If thailand was concerned it could hold them in custody. They broke no laws. Thailand acted reprehensively. No wonder the world laughs when Thailand wants Thaksin returned.

they did break laws. They didn't have a valid visa. The UN let them expire. If caught without a valid visa you get deported back to your home country! It's not difficult to understand. The UN were at fault here. Thailand were following their laws (admittedly with enthusiasm)

[phoenixdoglover]

it seems they had let their visas expire.. Isn't that against the law? Also isn't that the Responsibility of the UN to ensure that they are in fact in country LEGALLY?

No, they are confirmed refugees so thailand should afford them any and all the protection required from them being repatriated. They were leaving anyway, so why was Thailand in such a rush? There are many on overstay but for some reason these two were considered urgent to deport.

They were not criminals and had done nothing illegal. Being a refugee is not illegal.

so again when it suits its OK to overlook a countries laws.. It was the UN's Responsibility to ensure the two had visas or were repatriated before they expired they didn't. End of!

There seems to be a misconception about visas. While most visas have certain qualifying criteria, it is also true that authorities have discretion in how to apply the criteria, and whether to grant or extend a visa under various circumstances.

Certainly this discretion exists in Thailand (and other countries) and is used all the time. There is no automatic deportation.

When the two Chinese refugees were apprehended with their expired visas, their cases would have been reviewed by the authorities. It was entirely within the discretion of the Thai authorities to grant the Chinese men longer stays. The Thai authorities explicitly chose not to do that.

[casualbiker]

it seems they had let their visas expire.. Isn't that against the law? Also isn't that the Responsibility of the UN to ensure that they are in fact in country LEGALLY?

No, they are confirmed refugees so thailand should afford them any and all the protection required from them being repatriated. They were leaving anyway, so why was Thailand in such a rush? There are many on overstay but for some reason these two were considered urgent to deport.

They were not criminals and had done nothing illegal. Being a refugee is not illegal.

so again when it suits its OK to overlook a countries laws.. It was the UN's Responsibility to ensure the two had visas or were repatriated before they expired they didn't. End of!

There seems to be a misconception about visas. While most visas have certain qualifying criteria, it is also true that authorities have discretion in how to apply the criteria, and whether to grant or extend a visa under various circumstances.

Certainly this discretion exists in Thailand (and other countries) and is used all the time. There is no automatic deportation.

When the two Chinese refugees were apprehended with their expired visas, their cases would have been reviewed by the authorities. It was entirely within the discretion of the Thai authorities to grant the Chinese men longer stays. The Thai authorities explicitly chose not to do that.

What you say is indeed possible. But the fact is UN still let them expire!

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

In related news, I wonder how suspects dying while in military/police custody, of which there's been a spate lately, ranks on the UN's scale of human rights issues?

It would indeed seem that Thailand and China have found fertile common ground for having a deep, lasting relationship together.

[Linky]

it seems they had let their visas expire.. Isn't that against the law? Also isn't that the Responsibility of the UN to ensure that they are in fact in country LEGALLY?

No, they are confirmed refugees so thailand should afford them any and all the protection required from them being repatriated. They were leaving anyway, so why was Thailand in such a rush? There are many on overstay but for some reason these two were considered urgent to deport.

They were not criminals and had done nothing illegal. Being a refugee is not illegal.

so again when it suits its OK to overlook a countries laws.. It was the UN's Responsibility to ensure the two had visas or were repatriated before they expired they didn't. End of!

There seems to be a misconception about visas. While most visas have certain qualifying criteria, it is also true that authorities have discretion in how to apply the criteria, and whether to grant or extend a visa under various circumstances.

Certainly this discretion exists in Thailand (and other countries) and is used all the time. There is no automatic deportation.

When the two Chinese refugees were apprehended with their expired visas, their cases would have been reviewed by the authorities. It was entirely within the discretion of the Thai authorities to grant the Chinese men longer stays. The Thai authorities explicitly chose not to do that.

What you say is indeed possible. But the fact is UN still let them expire!

Refugees normally do not require a visa. What they get is a UN travel document. The Thai govt by its own laws can consider that document as exceptional circumstance. They have a number of choices.

Ignore the document and hold until deportation.
Accept the document and grant bail with restrictions
Accept the document and hold until repatriated to a third country (seems normal in this case)
Refugee can pay own costs and return to country of origin immediately.

Some refugees have been in custody for years. One may ask why this case was so urgent. Many options available to the Thai govt, easiest and most sendible given the circumstances was to hold them until the third country had arranged their travel, which was imminent.

So no, the refugees had broken no laws. The Thai govt acted in a pathetic inhumane way.

[casualbiker]

it seems they had let their visas expire.. Isn't that against the law? Also isn't that the Responsibility of the UN to ensure that they are in fact in country LEGALLY?

No, they are confirmed refugees so thailand should afford them any and all the protection required from them being repatriated. They were leaving anyway, so why was Thailand in such a rush? There are many on overstay but for some reason these two were considered urgent to deport.

They were not criminals and had done nothing illegal. Being a refugee is not illegal.

so again when it suits its OK to overlook a countries laws.. It was the UN's Responsibility to ensure the two had visas or were repatriated before they expired they didn't. End of!

There seems to be a misconception about visas. While most visas have certain qualifying criteria, it is also true that authorities have discretion in how to apply the criteria, and whether to grant or extend a visa under various circumstances.

Certainly this discretion exists in Thailand (and other countries) and is used all the time. There is no automatic deportation.

When the two Chinese refugees were apprehended with their expired visas, their cases would have been reviewed by the authorities. It was entirely within the discretion of the Thai authorities to grant the Chinese men longer stays. The Thai authorities explicitly chose not to do that.

What you say is indeed possible. But the fact is UN still let them expire!

Refugees normally do not require a visa. What they get is a UN travel document. The Thai govt by its own laws can consider that document as exceptional circumstance. They have a number of choices.

Ignore the document and hold until deportation.
Accept the document and grant bail with restrictions
Accept the document and hold until repatriated to a third country (seems normal in this case)
Refugee can pay own costs and return to country of origin immediately.

Some refugees have been in custody for years. One may ask why this case was so urgent. Many options available to the Thai govt, easiest and most sendible given the circumstances was to hold them until the third country had arranged their travel, which was imminent.

So no, the refugees had broken no laws. The Thai govt acted in a pathetic inhumane way.

I knew a "refugee" from Iran. In Thailand he did indeed have a Visa organised by the UN. He was also working illegally as an English teacher!
Now he is in the USA. His family sent money and he has a half share in a pizza joint!

[Linky]

Good on him. I have met a few Iranians and found them quite likeable, opposite of the idiots that rule them. ?

[Nowisee]

Which is more believable? Thailand.... discretion? OR Thailand...corruption?

In related news, I wonder how suspects dying while in military/police custody, of which there's been a spate lately, ranks on the UN's scale of human rights issues?

It would indeed seem that Thailand and China have found fertile common ground for having a deep, lasting relationship together.

Shhhh, those were "accidental" deaths.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

There are economic refugees, those simply seeking a better life elsewhere, and then there are political/human rights refugees, who face persecution and abuse in their home country usually for having done nothing other than voice views and/or belong to groups that their home country government doesn't like.

It would seem, there are a lot of folks here who totally lack any empathy for the latter group -- perhaps because those posters are buying into the current style of rule where freedom of expression and dissenting views are not held as important human rights deserving of protection.

Whether or not you like the UN or think they're doing a good job or not is kind of beside the point.

Edited November 22, 2015 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[Bear78]

THAIS are smarter than merkelll i hope...

[Old Croc]

You can argue the merits of these cases either way for ever on this forum without reaching consensus.

However, the fact remains that Thailand is not a signatory to the convention and has never displayed compassion, patience nor commonsense in it's dealings with "aliens" within their borders. The way they harass the "elderly" who obey the laws, spend money and ensure they always hold valid semi permanent visas, is testament to this.

Added to this, is the fact that China is pouring money into the country, and no doubt a number of deep pockets, and have become a country many here are anxious to not offend.

In light of this, perhaps the earlier post that said "go elsewhere "should be taken less hysterically but rather as sound advice.

[tomross46]

1971 Thanom suspended the constitution and parliament because "communistic thread"!!!.Now the current government is supporting a full communistic State like China,Amazing Thailand

I was here then, the communist were an excuse to gain more control. Fiels Marshal Thanom, was fully supported, by the US Government, even though he was a, suposed, dictator. At that time there was a large movement of the Communist Thai Party. It was finally passisied by General Prem. They TC movement still exist and is part of the PT party, Red Shirts.

[simple1]

You can argue the merits of these cases either way for ever on this forum without reaching consensus.

However, the fact remains that Thailand is not a signatory to the convention and has never displayed compassion, patience nor commonsense in it's dealings with "aliens" within their borders. The way they harass the "elderly" who obey the laws, spend money and ensure they always hold valid semi permanent visas, is testament to this.

Added to this, is the fact that China is pouring money into the country, and no doubt a number of deep pockets, and have become a country many here are anxious to not offend.

In light of this, perhaps the earlier post that said "go elsewhere "should be taken less hysterically but rather as sound advice.

The principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits the return of a refugee to a country where he or she is likely to face persecution or torture, is contained in Article 3 of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment to which Thailand is a party.

[Linky]

You can argue the merits of these cases either way for ever on this forum without reaching consensus.

However, the fact remains that Thailand is not a signatory to the convention and has never displayed compassion, patience nor commonsense in it's dealings with "aliens" within their borders. The way they harass the "elderly" who obey the laws, spend money and ensure they always hold valid semi permanent visas, is testament to this.

Added to this, is the fact that China is pouring money into the country, and no doubt a number of deep pockets, and have become a country many here are anxious to not offend.

In light of this, perhaps the earlier post that said "go elsewhere "should be taken less hysterically but rather as sound advice.

The principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits the return of a refugee to a country where he or she is likely to face persecution or torture, is contained in Article 3 of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment to which Thailand is a party.

But like all laws in Thailand, even when it can cost innocent lives, can and are ignored. Sadly.

[Scott]

Thailand is not a signatory to the full conventions on refugees -- as noted it is a party Article 3. Technically, once the UN has determined that someone would be eligible for Refugee Status they are listed as a "person of concern" and there stay is at the pleasure of the Thai gov't.

Thailand has used those 'persons of concern' as political tools at times. In the case of the Uighurs it backfired. They allowed some to proceed to Turkey, but returned some, whom the Chinese wanted, to China. In addition to the huge amounts of money being paid for the transit of these people , the situation apparently angered some and resulted in the Erawin bombing.

A clear and consistent policy would probably be in everyone's interest.

[Old Croc]

You can argue the merits of these cases either way for ever on this forum without reaching consensus.

However, the fact remains that Thailand is not a signatory to the convention and has never displayed compassion, patience nor commonsense in it's dealings with "aliens" within their borders. The way they harass the "elderly" who obey the laws, spend money and ensure they always hold valid semi permanent visas, is testament to this.

Added to this, is the fact that China is pouring money into the country, and no doubt a number of deep pockets, and have become a country many here are anxious to not offend.

In light of this, perhaps the earlier post that said "go elsewhere "should be taken less hysterically but rather as sound advice.

The principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits the return of a refugee to a country where he or she is likely to face persecution or torture, is contained in Article 3 of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment to which Thailand is a party.

I was talking about the Convention regarding refugees.

Thanks for explaining that principal of non-refoulement in torture cases. However, it is something I am familiar with as I've had to take it into consideration in decisions I've made in my working life.

Please note the wording of the Article about belief.

{Article 3 Prohibits parties from returning, extraditing or refouling any person to a state "where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture}

That wording gives any country an out if so desired.

Thailand has already demonstrated it will return individuals to their country of origin if convenient, despite being a signatory to that Convention Against Torture.

The advice about going elsewhere for state protection is still valuable.