Reader question: Why did Thailand sign the migrant pact?
Dear readers,
In 2018, 165 countries signed the migrant pact, 5 countries voted against, these were the United States, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Poland and Israel. Twelve countries abstained from voting, so blank. Now I expected to find Thailand in the list of the 5 votes against, but that is not the case.
Now everyone knows a bit that Thailand is quite xenophobic, (Beware of the Alien!) and is certainly not waiting for a stream of refugees or even worse people who are just looking for a better future.
It is therefore a mystery to me that Thailand also signed this migration pact, did they want to make a good turn to the outside world?
For the Thai government it makes no difference whether you are a refugee or a farang with overstay, in both cases you have broken the law and are therefore a criminal who must be arrested.
There are refugees in Thailand, often Christians from Muslim countries, Pakistan, Afghanistan and the region, who are persecuted for their faith, or homosexuals who suffer the same fate, and persecution often means the death penalty in these barbaric countries.
But those who manage to escape these true hell countries and then arrive in Thailand can already count on new problems, because they immediately go into detention.
Entire families with children and all go to the detention center, where if they are lucky after some time they come into contact with UNHCR staff, who often pay bail, and arrange shelter and food, before a final decision is made whether their refugee status is recognised, many years have passed, and there is no guarantee that they will be allowed to stay.
Thailand is certainly not a country where you are welcome as a refugee, we all know that as an expat or long-stay tourist it is already made very difficult for you, so let alone if (real) refugees or an army of young men without money report themselves at the gates of the Thai kingdom!
So my question: Why did Thailand sign the migration pact? They could have just given a blank vote then you have little to no loss of face and you can just continue with guidelines that already existed, or is this Thai logic again?
There is a very good report about the refugees in Thailand, just google with the words below.
BBC.Our.World.2016.Thailands.Asylum.Crackdown.
Regards,
KhunKarel
Probably so many countries have signed it because it is only a declaration of intent and not legally binding.
Whether you sign it or not, you don't have to apply it anyway.
In fact, mainly to show the outside world as a country/government that you want to do something, but that you know that when it comes down to it, you are not obliged to do anything.
Can a pact be better for all parties?
Or the sense and nonsense of such a pact.
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/VN-Migratiepact
Thanks for the meaningful and only answer to my question Ronny
The funny thing is that many countries have also signed, whose population is fleeing.
It is pretty much the question of countries around the Sahara desert whether they are willing to take in and care for polar bears that have washed ashore. How can one come up with such a pact, what clever minds who have come up with this.
Nevertheless, the richer countries will stick to what they have signed up for.
At least the richer countries that voted against had the courage and honesty to do so.
I am now considering applying for political asylum in Thailand, I will be welcomed with open arms as long as I follow the rules 🙂 🙂
Thailand is a hospitable country. Everyone is welcome. Just follow the rules and there will be no problem. It is logical that Thailand has also signed. They do not ban any refugees if they adhere to the rules that have been set. So what's wrong with it.
Of course you mean the Netherlands instead of Thailand. Thailand does not recognize refugees and has not ratified the UN treaty on this issue. Those who try to apply for asylum are imprisoned as being illegal. Of the 130.000 refugees, 90% come from neighboring Myanmar and are mostly members of the Karen people group. Of the latter, more than 90.000 live in 9 camps at the end of July. Those residing outside the camps are considered illegal aliens and can be imprisoned just like the alien without a valid residence permit. Dre calls it hospitable.
Yes Ger, I am regularly amazed by some reactions, such as Dre's now. The fate of refugees in Thailand is hopeless for the vast majority of them. In that respect, I do understand Karel's question, but Ronny's response is crystal clear. In the Netherlands, new refugees are taken care of in an AZC, where they can move freely inside and outside the center while awaiting the processing of their asylum application. Last week there was a report on TV about asylum seekers who have exhausted all legal remedies in the Netherlands, who (can) rarely be deported. A number of them had squatted in a commercial building in Amsterdam and the owner of the building was denied access. Pending political decision-making, the police did not act yet. Would be unthinkable in Thailand.
The last sentence in my comment was lost. Wanted to mention: That's the other side of the coin.
Dear Dre,
What you write seems a bit strange. If you bring enough money, that hospitable is correct, but if you follow all the pieces here on this blog alone, you can already wonder a bit with what you say, yes, stick to the rules and spend good money, but if you have the misfortune after years that you have also maintained your thai family with it and then you have less money, you will be kicked out with great certainty. a pity we are no longer so hospitable, if you think there is nothing wrong with that, you are right.
With the refugee policy you can also delve deeper and ask yourself some questions.
I am looking for information and the texts of all international commitments that Thailand has signed.
Does anyone know of a site where those documents can preferably be found together (in English and/or Dutch).