Fiesta de Todos Santos y Fieles Difuntos

The study of stateless children in Thailand has focused primarily on those who were born to migrant workers (Caouette, Atchawanitchakun and Pyne 2000; Sukkhaphap, Raengngan and Chattiphaa 2006; Yang 2006; Dudley 2011; Pinkaew 2009; Tang 2005; Brees 2008; Green, Jacobsen and Pyne 2008; Polutan 2012). In Sexuality, Reproductive

Health, and Violence: Experiences of Migrants from Burma to Thailand, Caouette,

Atchawanitchakun and Pyne (2000) investigate the situation of legal and illegal migrant workers from Myanmar to Thailand relating to the issues of violence, abuse, sexuality and reproductive health. The number of children born to the migrant workers in Thailand

16

Between 2005 and 2014, the main resettlement destinations of Myanmar refugees from temporary shelters in Thailand are USA, Australia, Canada, Finland, and Norway (UNHCR

is discussed. However, these migrant workers have choices for their children, whether they want their children to stay with them, or leave their children with relatives back in Myanmar, or along the border. Caouette, Atchawanitchakun and Pyne (2000) show that most of the migrant workers leave their children with their relatives back in Myanmar, due to the unsanitary and unsafe living environments of migrant workers and the lack of educational opportunities (Caouette, Atchawanitchakun and Pyne 2000). Therefore, the study of stateless children is ignored due to the fact that there are comparatively few cases of stateless children born to migrant workers, and who choose to stay longer in Thailand.

The recent situation respecting migrant children has changed due to changing social and economic conditions. Huguet, Chamratrithirong and Claudia (2012) find in a survey of 3,387 migrant workers17that the average stay of a migrant worker is 5.3 years, but migrants in Chiang Mai and Tak provinces have stayed longer, approximately 9 years. Among married female migrants from Myanmar, 75.5 per cent have a child while in Thailand (Huguet, Chamratrithirong and Claudia 2012, p.6). According to Huguet, Chamratrithirong and Claudia (2012), there were approximately 377,000 migrant children under 18 years of age (11 per cent of the total migrant population). They are comprised of 113,000 children of ethnic minorities and 128,000 children of registered migrant workers. About 54,000 are children of displaced persons and 82,000 are children of unregistered migrants.

Moreover, the research shows that among them, about 150,000 children were actually born in Thailand. Accordingly, they fall under the same category as their parents who were not entitled to either long-term residence or citizenship. ‘As there is no provision for low-skilled migrant workers in Thailand to bring dependents with them, their children are not formally covered by the health-care system’ (Huguet, Chamratrithirong and Claudia 2012, pp.5–6)

17

This survey was conducted in 2008 by the Institute for Population and Social Research (IPSR), Mahidol University (Huguet, Chamratrithirong and Claudia 2012).

Table 2.1: Number of migrant children in Thailand in 2012

Categories Numbers

1. Children of ethnic minorities 113,000

2. Children of registered migrant workers 128,000

3. Children of displaced persons 54,000

4. Children of unregistered migrants 82,000

Total estimated number of migrant children in Thailand in 2012 377,000

Source: Adapted from Huguet, Chamratrithirong and Claudia (2012)

Although Huguet, Chamratrithirong and Claudia (2012) show estimated figures of migrant workers and their children, they concentrate only on legal and illegal migrant workers who live outside the temporary shelter areas. The condition of migrant workers is different from the situation of forcibly displaced people from Myanmar living along the Thailand–Myanmar border. While migrant workers have choices for their children, the forcibly displaced people are left with no choice. They have to keep their children with them in the shelters. Huguet, Chamratrithirong and Claudia (2012) fail to notice the different condition of children of displaced persons who live in the confined areas and are considered as illegal migrants by the Thai authorities, if they are found outside the camps, with serious consequences for them.

Some research has focused on stateless children living in the confined temporary shelter areas along the Thailand-Myanmar border (Tang 2005; Huguet and Punpuing 2005; Wangsiriphaisan et al. 2010; Chia and Kenny 2012; Seltzer 2013; Carpeño and Feldman 2015). This statelessness arises from political conflict such as civil war inside Myanmar and Thailand’s complex laws.

Huguet and Punpuing (2005) provide a comprehensive update of migration statistics, policies and legislation in Thailand and explore the interrelationship between migration and aspects of development including health, the environment, gender, children and education. In addition, Huguet and Punpuing address the situation of the refugees in

Thailand’s nine border camps from the perspective that the refugees are totally restricted with regard to travel and are dependent on external aid. Moreover, migrant children and the children of migrant parents are not officially acknowledged. Finally, Huguet and Punpuing suggest that the refugees should be provided with more job opportunities to become self-sufficient (Huguet and Punpuing 2005).

Wangsiriphaisan et al (2010)discuss the root causes that drove these children out of their original country as well as statistically demonstrate aspects of children’s lives as asylum seekers in Mae La shelter, Mae Hong Son shelter and outside the temporary shelter areas. Their aim is to reflect the impact of the political and armed conflict in Myanmar on these children along the Thailand–Myanmar border, and discuss the protection of displaced children in Thailand. According to Wangsiriphaisan et al (2010), children’s identity and basic rights such as the children’s rights to survival and access to basic education should be protected. Wangsiriphaisan et al focus on legal theory; nonetheless, they fail to discuss the actuality of state failure to protect the children.

None of the displaced children, nor any of the shelter population, is entitled to Thai nationality because they were born of illegal migrants on Thai soil. The Thai government expects these children to return to Myanmar in the future (Wangsiriphaisan et al. 2010). The protection of these children’s rights and the implementation of the laws and regulations regarding their well-being are insufficient. The scenario of these children deciding to stay longer in Thailand after the end of the conflicts is not taken into account.

Chia and Kenny (2012), Seltzer (2013), Ball and Moselle (2015) and Carpeño and Feldman (2015) confirm that children and youth who were born and grew up in temporary camps are stateless. Chia and Kenny (2012) show that the situation for Myanmar children is of particular concern. Nearly 140,000 refugees from Myanmar live in refugee camps in the countryside around Mae Sot, Tak province. However, an estimated number of the displaced children is not mentioned. Chia and Kenny only state that ‘there are numerous young adults who have lived their whole life within a camp, who have no immediate prospect of life outside the camp, either in Thailand or in a third country’ (Chia and Kenny 2012, p.839).

Some children are born in the refugee camps. Others cross the border with their families or on their own to escape the ethnic conflicts or due to the threat of conscription into the armed forces or forced labour. Other children cross

the border to join family members or to escape poverty and social deprivation and, in some cases, in search of an education they cannot find in their native state. Others are trafficked across the border for use in sex work and as beggars (Chia and Kenny 2012, p.841).

Chia and Kenny (2012) express their concerns about stateless children by focusing on issues in the international regulation of migration such as economic, social and cultural rights; the right to work; the right to seek asylum and protection from trafficking and smuggling. The international community is very concerned about the situation of statelessness in Thailand, and calls for better treatment of stateless persons because Thailand is not a signatory to the 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention, its 1967 Protocol, and the 1954 and 1961 Statelessness Conventions. Moreover, Thailand does not have domestic laws related to asylum, refugees and stateless people (Chia and Kenny 2012; Werret 2014). According to Integrated Regional Information Networks (IRIN), approximately 40 per cent of camp residents were unregistered in the Thai Government’s census in late May 2011(IRIN News 2011a). It means that they cannot access the health care service, education and other services that are available to registered residents. This also reflects on children living in the camps, especially in Mae Sot, which is well-known for its black market, including illicit drugs and people trafficking (Chia and Kenny 2012).

However, Juaseekoon (2009) and Tan (2012) explain that the situation of statelessness in Thailand has changed due to Thailand’s revised Civil Registration Act in 2008 which provides all children born in Thailand with the right to registration at birth, including stateless children (Juaseekoon 2009). For example, under Thailand’s amended Civil

Registration Act 2008, some 5,000 refugee babies in the nine refugee camps had received

birth certificates by 2012 (Tan 2012). Consequently, there has been a dramatic rise in the issuance of birth certificates, from 50 per cent in 2011, to almost 70 per cent in 2012 (UNHCR 2012; Tan 2012; Rapoport 2015). Although birth registration does not confer nationality upon a refugee child, this legal record of where a refugee was born and who his or her parents are ‘is a key way to prove if someone can acquire nationality when he or she can eventually return home’ (Tan 2012).

Chia and Kenny (2012) investigate only the regional law, for instance the 1966Bangkok

Principles on the Status and Treatment of Refugees (a.k.a. ‘Bangkok Principles’) as a

cooperation such as the refugee resettlement programme without realising that these children may decide to live in Thailand.

Although Thailand is a party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), the government prior to 2008 ignored the responsibility to register children born to refugee parents (Seltzer 2013). As a result, children who were born to refugees in the camps in Thailand are viewed as illegal aliens rather than citizens of the country. At the same time, the government in Myanmar does not grant citizenship to these children due to the fact that their parents left the country illegally. Consequently, ‘many of the children [become] stateless and live their lives in limbo’ (Seltzer 2013, p.287).

Seltzer states:

…individual nationality laws may cause children born to refugees to become stateless. This lack of citizenship or nationality in any country reduces educational opportunities for children as they grow older, making them less able to support themselves through legal channels. In effect, risky migration tactics become one of the only ways out of their otherwise measly prospects. Perhaps the greatest risk, as mentioned above, is forceful recruitment by armed militias (Seltzer 2013, p. 281).

Finally, Seltzer suggests that Thailand should have a refugee policy that is based on international law (Seltzer 2013). His recommendation includes the principle of non- refoulement and assurance of a safe return to Myanmar on a wholly voluntary basis (Seltzer 2013). Moreover, he argues that children born in Thailand to Myanmar parents must be registered at birth by the Thai government, and must be given equal access to education regardless of whether they are Thai or Myanmar children (Seltzer 2013). Seltzer urges that ‘Thailand should put in place programs that allow trafficking victims who cannot safely return to Myanmar to stay in the country permanently, or until conditions permit safe repatriation’ (Seltzer 2013, p. 209). He fails to suggest what status or mechanism should be employed by the Thai government to ensure that the children will be able to stay in the country willingly, safely, freely and permanently, with equal status, treatment, dignity and rights as citizens of the state.

Ball and Moselle (2015) focus on the livelihoods of forced migrant children living in the transnational borderland between Myanmar and Thailand. Migrant Myanmar children living in Thailand do not have identity documentation, social protection, mobility rights, or access to proper education. Their living conditions have limited their development and

potential. Ball and Moselle (2015) understand that these young people, who originated from Myanmar, ‘have been institutionally minoritised and politically excluded within Myanmar’ for the past several decades (Ball and Moselle 2015, p.434). For forced migrant Myanmar children, the problem of identity documentation may be solved with the help of organisations operated by Myanmar migrants for the migrant community. They ‘try to help children to acquire Myanmar identity documents’(Ball and Moselle 2015, p.429).

On the other hand, Ball and Moselle mention, but do not focus on, those young people who were born in Thailand, but do not have refugee status and are unable to be repatriated or resettled. For various reasons, their identity documentation cannot be re-issued. Their stateless status prevents their freedom of movement, access to education and legal employment (Ball and Moselle 2015).

Carpeño and Feldman (2015) examine educational opportunities for young people who live in the borderland between Myanmar and Thailand. The refugees have access to human resources which improve education in the camps. Young people in the camp ‘have demonstrated their will to make the most of every opportunity they have’ (Carpeño and Feldman 2015, p.422), but there are several obstacles that reduce the quality of education in the camp. The Thai government does not support refugee education. The teacher turnover rate is high and quality of teaching is poor because training is limited. Moreover, internet access and technology are restricted, which make online courses very difficult for young adult refugees in the camps. Therefore, they lack motivation to study. Eventually, they are forced to leave school early to find a job and earn a little money.

Carpeño and Feldman (2015) pay significant attention to education as it plays a key role in helping refugee children and young people to be ‘empowered actors in their own development’ (Carpeño and Feldman 2015, p.421). On the other hand, Carpeño and Feldman (2015) do not discuss the problem of statelessness which prevents these young adults obtaining access to proper educational opportunities.