„Survive with the troubles”: Experiences of Urban Refugees in Bangkok

(1)

Faculty for Culture and Society

„Survive with the troubles”:

Experiences of Urban Refugees in Bangkok

Laura Peters

International Migration and Ethnic Relations Two-year Master’s program

Summer 2018

IM 622L - 30 credits

(2)

Abstract

Global urbanization led to a rather new phenomenon: urban refugees, who live on the margins of big cities. This study highlights the particular struggles and difficulties urban refugees from different contexts and backgrounds have to cope with in Thailand. The aim of this thesis is to better understand their living situation in Bangkok, contributing to the limited literature in this field. As Thailand does not recognize refugees legally, they try to make a living under tough conditions, fearing arbitrary arrests. Furthermore, these conditions lead urban refugees in Bangkok to live in their own communities, often separated from the Thai society. Being under these constrained living conditions, having limited access to health care, education and work, harms their well-being. The theoretical underpinnings provide the necessary framework to discuss the findings, focusing on the interplay between structure and agency, the exception of being a refugee in transit and waiting for resettlement, incorporating approaches like (im-)mobility, networks and dissimilation. The inductive design with a holistic approach, using semi-structured interviews and observations, offers profound knowledge from urban refugees themselves. The results display various aspects of refugees’ lives in Bangkok, like different reasons for moving to Thailand, lack of coherent and sustainable support systems, scarce experiences with the Thai society, vague legal status and its implications, their daily life or insights about their perceptions of the past, present and future. They are and will probably be one of the most vulnerable people residing in Thailand, trying to survive, lacking numerous basic and human rights.

Key words: Urban Refugees, Bangkok, Thailand, Agency, (Im-)mobility, Illegal Status, Transit

(3)

List of Abbreviations

AAT : Asylum Access Thailand

AI : Amnesty International

ASEAN : Association of Southeast Asian Nations

BRC : Bangkok Refugee Centre

CRC : Convention on the Rights of the Child

CEDAW : Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women

ICESCR : International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

IDC : Immigration Detention Centre

JRS : Jesuit Refugee Service

NGO : Non-Governmental Organization

RSD : Refugee Status Determination

UN : United Nations

(4)

Acknowledgement

Special thanks to all who participated and trusted me to tell your stories.

You have touched my heart.

I want to thank my supervisor Margareta Popoola for her encouragement,

motivation and support. My gratitude goes to my family and friends for

supporting me throughout this thesis.

(5)

1 Introduction

“[I]f more than half the world’s population is urbanized, it is unsurprising that the displaced follow suit.” (Landau 2014: 139). The phenomenon of urban refugees was initially pointed out by the UNHCR in 1997 (Ibid.: 142), however only in 2009 did the UNHCR adopt its first “Policy on Refugee Protection and Solutions in Urban Areas” and acknowledged the new realities of urban refugees and their need for assistance. Although urbanization of the refugee population is a worldwide phenomenon, with more than half of them living in metropolitan areas, it is still understudied. (UNHCR 2009). It seems to be difficult to fit the new into traditional categories of displacement and questions arise how one can understand displacement in cities. Urban refugees often need to live covertly in marginalized circumstances, which makes it more difficult to reach and identify them. This leads to a gap about understanding the lived realities of refugees staying outside of the organized structure of camps. On one hand, cities offer opportunities, as they provide the chance to live a more independent life and provide possibilities to find jobs and get in contact with locals. On the other hand, it is often risky to live in cities as uncertain legal status can result in persecution, arbitrary arrests or detention.

Migration studies often focus on sending and receiving countries. Instead, this research proposes to look at Thailand, in which refugees are not initially planning to stay, as there is no option to get official recognition and legal status. Refugees live in the country hoping to be resettled waiting in different loops in the capital Bangkok: They are waiting for their applications to proceed, waiting for their international refugee status to be granted and waiting for resettlement to a third country.

1.1 Aim and Research Question

My aim is to focus on the refugees living in the urban environment in a country in between, to get in-depth knowledge particularly how they cope with their circumstances in the present, taking their past into account, as well as insecure prospects. I try to fill the existing gap in research by focusing on their daily life, including their living situation, possible social networks, neighborhood, health and employment, to better understand how they think about and deal with their situation. Additionally, I examine how this state of uncertainty, stagnation, (im-)mobility and displacement influences their daily life. Hence, I intend to gain new empirical

(8)

evidence and insights of urban refugees’ personal life stories, thoughts and perceptions by answering the following research question:

How do urban refugees experience their daily life and living situation in Bangkok?

1.2 Definition of the Term ‘Urban Refugee’

I follow Landau’s definition that “‘urban refugees’, a generic label, typically explain the urbanization of displacement and humanitarian action within broader global processes resulting in the rapid growth of cities and towns” (Landau 2014: 139), highlighting the geographical space and not their legal status. I am referring to my participants as refugees, independently of their legal status and if the application process is pending, the status is granted or rejected. Furthermore, I would like to point out, like Kulvmann, that “refugees in Thailand are “de facto refugees”, meaning that they remain within the state of Thailand without any formal recognition.” (Kulvmann 2017: 40). This is why I chose to make no legal distinctions even though my interviewees were in different stages of the refugee status application.

1.3 Delimitations and Limitation

Several delimitations help to narrow down and provide a frame for my research. First of all, I concentrated my research geographically to the urban area of Thailand’s capital, Bangkok. Second, I only interviewed and observed individuals who identify themselves as refugees and currently live in the city. Third, the individuals should be living in the city for over a year to have a chance to settle and adjust to the situation. Fourth, I only included people who already applied for asylum via the UNHCR. The most important limitation is the difficult access to the field and the persons concerned, almost all of them have no legal national status in Thailand and are subsequently cautious about talking to people they do not know. This limitation and delimitations somewhat shape the scope of the study in the way it can be generalized. The findings describe individual livelihoods of refugees and asylum-seekers in the urban setting of Bangkok, under the legal framework of the Kingdom of Thailand. Therefore, other studies need to show to what extent the results apply to other cultural and legal contexts and the particular living situations in other places.

(9)

1.4 Structure of the Thesis

The thesis is structured in eight chapters. This introduction is followed by a contextualization providing an overview of forced migration in Thailand as well as a first presentation of urban refugees in Bangkok. In the third chapter the literature review describes previous research in the field of urban refugees particularly in Bangkok. Then the theoretical underpinnings of the thesis are presented, originating from the results, and focusing on theories and concepts of (im-)mobility, capitals, networks, agency and structure as well as on integration and transnationalism. Chapter five explains in detail the methodological inductive approach of this thesis with philosophical and ethical considerations, information about methods, sampling and data analysis. The results are presented in chapter six, addressing topics my interlocutors concentrated on, like motivations to move to Thailand, current living situation, legal status and its implications, the Thai society and ideas about resettlement. The discussion reflects on the results in linking them to the theories. Finally, the last chapter summarizes the thesis, and provides ideas about further research. The annex follows with a list of participants, the interview guideline and photos.

(10)

2 Contextualization

The region of Southeast Asia has complex patterns of migration. These movements consist of registered but also of a huge number of unofficial migrants. Furthermore, the line is blurred between economic and forced migration, as all unregistered migrants are grouped together as undocumented migrants, lacking legal security (McConnahie 2014: 626). These undocumented migrants, “including potentially hundreds of thousands of people who would qualify for refugee status” (Ibid.: 2014: 630), live in accepted illegality, always fearing arrest and other sanctions. Deportation, push backs and refoulement of refugees and asylum seekers are documented in the past and in present. Mass refoulement and push backs from people fleeing via boat or land were a common tool in the past and present (Ibid.: 631).

Most ASEAN countries are neither signatory to the Geneva Refugee Convention (except Cambodia and the Philippines) (UNHCR 2015: 2f.), nor do they have a regional binding framework concerning refugees. Attempts to create a regional human rights regime have not yet reached binding power. There is no official recognition of refugees and asylum seekers in the region (McConnahie 2014: 627f.). Thailand is a member of the UN (UN n. d.) and consequently agreed to the ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ in 1948. Additionally, Thailand has ratified seven out of nine human rights conventions (OHCHR 2014). Although some of these conventions intersect with the rights for and of refugees, for example CRC, CEDAW, ICESCR or the principle of non-refoulement, there have not been attempts to ratify the Geneva Refugee Convention, the 1967 Protocol, the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, or the Convention on the Status of Stateless Persons.

Resettlement in the region goes back to the time between 1975 and 1995, during the Indochinese refugee crisis, when more than three million people fled from Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos (UNHCR 2000: 79). The other Southeast Asian countries, including Thailand, did not manage to handle this mass displacement strategically. The politicalized atmosphere of the Cold War led to the decision of many states, with the US leading the way, to resettle people outside of the region. It was a confirmation for the Southeast Asian states that breaking international laws helped them to get the intended results (Davies 2006: 23f.). This strategy of Southeast Asian states regarding refugee protection is especially relevant in Thailand. It has already been hosting refugees for several decades, starting from the Indochinese refugee crisis (McConnahie 2014: 629; UNHCR 2018a: 14). Officially, Thailand forbids people to cross borders and does not

(11)

acknowledge any refugee protection, yet the Thai economy depends massively on large numbers of migrant workers who often use unofficial ways to cross borders. Since Thailand has no laws or regulations which determine the status of refugees, the UNHCR exercises its mandate for RSD, which Thailand tolerates. This RSD can take from several months up to several years, in which every person has the right to appeal after a negative RSD. Even if the refugee status is granted, resettlement is still not in reach for most of the recognized refugees, as the number of applications exceeds by far the number of resettlement places (AI 2017: 15).

In general, Thailand increasingly attracts refugees from different regions around the world, because living expenses are low and tourist visa are often accessible. Urban refugees in Bangkok are a diverse group, coming from over 50 different countries including Pakistan, Vietnam and Palestine, which form the largest group, but also Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Cambodia or China (AI 2017: 11). Refugees who are registered in urban areas compromise around 4,659 individuals, who all live in individual accommodation. Civil society organizations as well as the UNHCR estimate the number of urban refugees higher, about 8,000 individuals (AI et al, 2017: 2; UNHCR 2017).

Since there is no national law or regulation regarding refugees, these individuals fall into the scope of the Thai Immigration Act from 1979 and are hence understood as illegal economic migrants. In January 2017, Thailand principally approved a framework and ensured to develop policies to improve mechanisms to protect and register refugees in Cabinet Resolution 10/01, B.E. 2560 (UNHCR 2017), but no comprehensive and effective refugee protection framework has yet been approved and come into law. This legal gap reinforces the vulnerability of refugees, especially Section 54 has important implications, because it allows the detention of refugees:

Any alien who enters or comes to stay in the Kingdom without permission or when such permission expires or is revoked, the competent official will deport such alien out of the Kingdom. … In case there is an order of deportation for the alien; while waiting for the alien to be deported the competent official may order the alien to stay at any prescribed place or he may order the alien to report to him (competent official) according to a prescribed date, time, and place with Security or with Security and Bond. The competent official may also detain the

(12)

alien at any given place as [may] be necessary. The expense of detention shall be charged to the alien’s account (Thai Immigration Act :28).

Refugees and asylum seekers get detained regularly and are imprisoned in IDCs or other facilities under harsh conditions, in some cases indefinitely, even though stays are intended for a short period. These places are overcrowded, provide inadequate health care, insufficient food and sanitation, which makes them an inhospitable place to be imprisoned, in which children also are detained (AI, et al. 2017: 3).

The 1999 Education Act and a Cabinet declaration in 2005 endorsed the right for education (including non-Thai children). In 2009, the Thai government proclaimed the extension of a mandatory free education from 12 years to 15 of age (UNICEF n.d.). Even though every child has the right to enjoy education, restricted movement, discrimination, lack of resources and the language barrier often deny refugee children access to school (AI, et al. 2017: 4). Thailand’s laws forbid refugees like other foreigners without valid documents to work. This leads to exploitation and dangerous and abusive working conditions (AI 2017: 15). Undocumented migrants or refugees are not covered by the basic universal health care Thailand provides for its citizens. Hence, it depends on the hospital if they treat refugees, who then have to pay for the service privately. There is the possibility to get little financial assistance from aid organizations as compensation. Once a month, the Tzu Chi foundation offers free medical services for urban refugees by doctors and nurses. However, more complicated cases cannot be treated there. No support is provided for psychological needs, although many refugees suffer from traumata deriving from the past, but also have depression from factors arising due to their current living situation (Kulvmann 2015: 46).

(13)

3 Literature Review

The debates in the relatively new research field of urban refugee studies are mainly concentrated on the Global South and are closely interlinked with humanitarian action. In the last decade, different research topics emerged, such as the invisibility of the urban refugee population and the need to make them visible (Landau 2014: 140f.). Another prominent field is the group’s precarious standard of living as a consequence of restrictive access to the labor market and lack of legal protection, urban refugees suffer from poverty (see Buscher 2011), affecting their health and psychical well-being (see Yotebieng 2017; Greyling 2016; Campbell 2006). Nash concentrates in contrast concentrates on social conflicts among urban refugees emphasizing on the role of the host society and declaring that mutual misunderstanding is often the root cause of the group’s discrimination (Nash 2016: 133). Additionally, Buscher and Heller pay attention to specific groups within the refugee residents. They investigate on women refugees living in Kuala Lumpur and Cairo and the threats they fear at home and at work. In his historical overview, Marfleet claims that urban refugees are seen as something irregular and abnormal, in the global refugee regime of camps, getting in the focus of heated political debates and actions adding on their vulnerability. States often have the most influence and power in the cities, often marginalizing urban refugees (see Marfleet 2007). Connected to this is Kagan’s article focusing on the dichotomy between RSD in rural and urban spaces, in the Middle East and Africa, in which RSD is a tool to shift responsibility form the state to the UNHCR. Kagan argues that because the procedure is so different for urban refugees, thus they often fail to get their refugee status approved, remaining de facto and not de jure refugees (see Kagan 2007).

Looking from a different angle, Nah draws attention to refugees in urban areas of Malaysia and how they negotiate space. These spaces are clearly defined and used by all refugees, no matter where they came from (see Nah 2010). Sanyal does a more in-depth spatial research about the “urbanity of camps and discussing urban camps” (Sanyal 2014: 560) and argues that urban spaces are political spaces in which refugees can contest concepts like citizenship to gain political space. Darling also explores the connection between forced migration and cities in which he sees “cities as constitutive of both the policing and the politicization of forced migration” (Darling 2017: 192).

Conclusively, studies in other parts of the world often choose to focus only on one group, one problem or one theory, in difference, I aim at including different shades of life. My research

(14)

intends to provide insights of the daily situation of urban refugees, to better understand their living situations in the form of a wholistic account that is not predetermined by a certain mindset or theory. Furthermore, interviewing people from different countries, I aim to get more varied insights and impressions to be able to grasp their perspective on their life in Thailand, adding to the scarce literature on the living condition of urban refugees in Bangkok. Except from reports of human rights organizations, solely two articles deal with their circumstances:

Palmgren focuses in his qualitative article especially on refugees from Southeast Asian countries, namely the Khmer Krom, Rohingya and Vietnamese refugees and the different informal networks they established to receive information, secure their survival and increase their mobility. He argues that these networks help them to gain “ad hoc” agency and coping strategies to survive in the city. The informality of networks is caused by the illegality which hinders the refugees to establish more stable and sustainable networks. Palmgren states, that these dynamic networks, social geographies, are “developing out of the interplay between the static constraints of national regulations and the flexible, perpetual, and at times transnational negotiation of these constraints during processes of displacement and migration” (Palmgren 2013: 37).

In a comprehensive and critical analysis of Pakistani refugees in Bangkok, Kulvman’s analyzes their experiences from a human rights perspective. He conducted interviews with over 50 individuals and discusses how the lack of legal security has severe influence on different dimensions of their life, in particular their right to work, access to education and health services. Furthermore, he argues that there has not been any indication that Thailand or neighboring countries would commit to the Refugee Convention. Moreover, he points out, that human rights are often perceived as a “Western” concept and “political and civil rights overall are very restricted” (Kulvman 2017: 51). Therefore, it is constructive to focus on a more realistic approach by stopping arbitrary detention.

Even though these articles offer a thorough analysis of the living conditions of specific refugee populations in Bangkok, their case studies focus on single target groups or human rights jurisdiction. Hence a comprehensive and comparative research on refugees in Bangkok is missing. More information is required to fill the gap in research about the topic of urban refugees in Bangkok. This is the reason why I opted for an inductive approach and open up the debate with the chance for the refugees to set their own agenda and focal points.

(15)

4 Theoretical Underpinnings

The theoretical framework and concepts were chosen after the data analysis of my interviews and reflect different areas of refugees’ life mentioned by the participants which shape and influence their life, including (im-)mobility, transnational spaces, living a life in transit or securitization before migrating. Subsequently theories after migrating and while living in Thailand are depicted, for example social capital, networks or the duality between agency and the external structure. Followed by theories who can explain how dissimilation or integration occurs, concentrating on urban refugees in connection with their host society in the transit country.

4.1 International Forced Migration: Concepts and Theories of (Im-)Mobility

4.1.1 Mobility and Transit

Since international migration describes individuals moving across nation-state borders, a certain degree of mobility is necessary to migrate. This movement across borders is shaped by many factors, for instance the historical/cultural ties between countries or the global economy. However, the scope of this study, it is first and foremost on the fact that the participants fall under the category of enforced migration and can be characterized by a certain degree of immobility (Bretell 2015: 177f.). Refugees “are assumed to be people who leave their home region involuntarily, but their experiences, once abroad, are not unlike those of migrants, with the exception of their inability to return readily and freely to their homeland” (Ibid.: 178). Forced migration implies that during the process, the degree of mobility decreases.

Among the participants, another important factor is that most of them aimed or still aim to be resettled after refugee status was granted, thus Thailand for them is a temporary step to reach another country. Transit migration can be defined as “[…] ‘migration to a country with intention of seeking the possibility there to emigrate to another country as the country of final destination’ by means that are partially, if not fully, illegal” (UN/ECE 1993: 7). Although transit migration seems to be a rather easily defined phenomenon, several factors like country of origin and planned destination or social/financial capitals influence how long and how refugees live in the place of transit (Düvell 2012: 424). Al-Sharmani argues, in a study of Somali families making a living in transit in Cairo, that categorizing refugees in specific patterns overlooks the

(16)

individual day-to-day practices of living in Egypt (Al-Sharmani 2007: 97). Instead, “[…] it would be more insightful to examine refugee movements as part of transnational family-based collective efforts to seek the protection needs of refugees and their relatives in the midst of exclusionary refugee policies […]” (Collyer et al. 2012: 412). Whereas categories and debates on transit migration are often embedded in political discourses in receiving countries, the next section provides more detailed accounts on studying the refugee life in transit countries.

4.1.2 Mobility and Transnational Spaces

Transnationalism can be described as a form of living reality in which refugees in the transit or receiving country settle and make a living, but also keep networks and links with family members or other actors in the home country as well as other migrants from the same home country living abroad in a diasporic sense. “A transnational community links the global to the whole range of greatly different local, networking places, without hierarchy between these different hubs” (Bruneau 2010: 43). Dahinden explains that the interplay between mobility and locality affects the formation of transnational communities in transit countries. It requires first, that people have the general ability to physically move to the designated place, but second, implies that immigrants are economically, socially or politically bound to the transit country. “Mobility ends in the development of specific transnational forms after or during migration, but in order to become ‘transnational’, migrants must touch down somewhere” (Dahinden 2010: 69). Transnational community life can then not develop without the enabling and restraining effects the local surrounding sets (Ibid.).

4.1.3 Nation States, Citizenship and Security

One of the most important factor shaping the life of refugees in the country of immigration is their legal status. Regarding the mobility of migrants and their ability to cross the border, as well as their possibility to obtain legal residence status or the recognition of refugee status is shaped by the domestic laws of the receiving country. National legal frameworks largely determine the mobility of migrants in transit countries, this means the opportunity to continue the migration process to the destination country. Immigration policies can only be understood when analyzing the way how the receiving society ‘treats’ migrants in general. These policies mostly derive from historical, cultural and social contexts in which they emerge, based upon the foundation of the legitimizing nation-state (Hollifield/Wong 2015: 301ff.). All around the

(17)

globe, nation-states are built on a national identity, foundational myths and stories. This immaterial basis for modern nation-states is reflected in citizenship laws and immigration policies. In the extremes, immigration policies diverge from multicultural approaches that allow some sort of incorporation in the domestic society for the immigrants, or in the opposite, policies that definitely limit the integration chances of immigrants, for instance based on ethnicity, if immigration is allowed at all (Ibid.).

The discourses around immigration are nowadays more and more influenced by the issue of security. Although domestic laws have in some fields been regarded to the jurisdiction of international bodies, crossing borders still remains an issue strongly connected to the sovereignty of individual nation-states. The rise of the security discourse has in many countries led to strengthening immigration laws, the power on the side of the national government over the permission who can stay in their country has been fundamentally increased after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001. “Hence, not only was there, and to this day is there, no right to enter a country of which one is not a citizen, but the grounds of permission and denial are subject to the complete and virtually unreviewable discretion of the plenary branches of government” (Abraham 2015: 341).

In the domestic, political discourse on security, the issue at hand is often discussed only in one way: Societal security. In the traditional sense, security “almost inescapably becomes part of a bundle of semiotics to which belong ‘enemy,’ ‘threat,’ and ‘we/they’” (Suhrke 2003: 96). Immigration policy negotiations often evolve around the influx of immigrants, and through the negatively connotated semiotics, the picture of the ‘bad’ immigrant emerges, resulting in more restraining policies. When it comes to forced migration and refugees, the first thought often is concerned with the refugee’s human security, as the definition of refugee itself requires the individual to be in danger of life. Human security means the absence of violence and danger and can also refer to more complex factors like health and shelter. However, human security of the refugee often is less prioritized than the societal security in receiving societies. Suhrke reminds that, “[i]f applied to refugees, ‘securitization’ from ‘human security’ thus is likely to generate the same non-productive and conflict-laden dialogue as ‘societal security,’ with threat, enemy, we/they, and no compromise as staple terms” (Ibid.: 104). Careful, non-discriminatory discourses on assessing the vulnerabilities of each member of society, immigrant or not, can be alternatives to stereotypical security discourses in the traditional sense (Ibid.: 104ff.).

(18)

4.2 Sociological Concepts of Migration and Living in Thailand

4.2.1 Bourdieu: Capital

Part of Bourdieu’s social theory, next to the concepts of field and habitus, for individual social action is mainly shaped by the different forms and amount of capitals they can make use of (Schwingel 2000: 83). Bourdieu differentiates mainly between economic, cultural, social and symbolic capital. Economic capital vaguely describes forms of capital one can convert into money, under the framework of modern capitalistic systems. Secondly, cultural capital describes incorporated capabilities as “long-lasting dispositions of the mind and body” (Bourdieu 1986: 243) and can be transformed in objectified or institutionalized forms. Mainly referring to education, Bourdieu argues that embodied cultural capital defines how much individuals can yield from education. How high the amount of embodied cultural capital is further defining the level of objectified cultural capital, like books or pictures, and also the level of institutionalized cultural capital in the form of degrees. Developing social theory, Bourdieu considers the amount of social relations and networks important to make use of the different forms of capital to develop their full effects, which can be measured by social capital. Connections are not only enabling the use of capital, but additionally retain the possibility to multiply the effects the bigger the networks are (Ibid.: 249). The interplay of capitals, their level and ability to make use of them, shapes how individual actors can navigate their life, reproduce the social order and in the end, interdependent with habitus and field, define the status of the agent (Ibid.: 252ff.). Schwingel rightfully acknowledges that Bourdieu always considers the actions of agents in the social field within external structures (Schwingel 2000: 80).

4.2.2 Networks

Building on Bourdieu’s formulation of social capital, migration networks tend to provide a great deal of explicability of migration movements. Stemming from economic calculations, networks with migrants, former or future migrants, and other individuals in the sending or receiving country facilitate mobility because they lower the costs of migration. “Each act of migration creates social capital among people to whom the new migrant is related, thereby raising the odds of their migration” (Massey et al. 1998: 43). Naturally, the more diverse the networks are, less costly migration becomes, and migrants can build upon additional assistance in the destination environment. This process entails a process of cost minimization as well as of risk

(19)

minimization. Whereas smaller groups of migrants in the destination country are less likely to draw attention, larger networks are often more acknowledged in receiving societies. Selectivity that generally describes migration movements gets more and more irrelevant, because larger networks also induce a larger emigration movement from the sending country (Ibid.: 46ff.).

4.2.3 Agent Structure Duality

O’Reilly brings different lines of argumentation in articulating a specific agent-structure duality theory of migration. Agency and structure are indivisibly united and interdependent. The author narrows down certain perspectives to analyze and consequently better understand how migration works. In her practice theory, she defines external and internal structures, communities of practice and outcomes as the four main angles of migration (O’Reilly 2012: 19):

• External Structures: These constraining or enabling factors tend to exist without interaction with the agent. They are not fixed, but dynamic structures that can to a varying degree be shaped by the agent acting inside them. The author exemplifies them with colonial heritage or global inequalities that determine the individual’s migration practice (Ibid.: 19f.).

• Internal structures: Mirroring Bourdieu’s ‘habitus’, internal structures provide the individual with day-to-day structures that can be more directly influenced. “They are the multitude ways of being and thinking, of seeing and doing, that we each, in groups and as individuals, acquire through socialisation, through generations of past practices, and through our own repeated practices” (Ibid.: 21). O’Reilly further distinguishes “conjuncturally-specific internal structures” which mediate between the agent and the structure in the particular context of space and time. Migration generally requires complex creation and recreation of normally adjusted and acted upon structures. Deriving from the migrants’ ad-hoc learning processes in the new environment, conjuncturally-specific internal structures shape the actual living situation, of course interdependently connected with external and internal structures as well as agency (Ibid.: 22).

• Practices: How individual migrants live their daily life is determined by their active doing. Within the contextual frame, habitus and structures, actions take place. Agency takes into account that human beings tend to live in different realities or roles, depending

(20)

on the social surroundings. Thus, refugees can be fathers and mothers or children, cooks, cleaners, priests, psychologists and so on. Individuals reflect themselves during social interactions and make choices how to act within the specific group and field. How they, for instance refugees in a “community of practice”, go on with their daily life can be detected in “obligations, prerogatives, routine practices, - things people do because they are expected of them in their given role, office, sets of expectations, the way they perceive their relationships, their power, and so on” (Ibid.: 25)

• Outcomes: Most obviously the above factors are reflected in the results actions lead to, influenced by external and internal structures. In turn, the outcomes of any action produce and reproduce structures and influence the individual’s interpretation of the lived reality. Any factor that influences migrants during their day-to-day routine is the outcome of their day-to-day routine. Reflexivity of the agents results in specific interpretations of the world, and shapes meanings and opinions. Especially relevant in forced migration studies is the similarity or indeed difference between hopes and wishes of the migrants and the actual outcomes of their practices (Ibid.).

4.3 The Relation with Thai Society

In sociological studies of migration movements, the life of migrants in the host society is of stark interest, because it affects their decision to move on or to stay. The negotiation process of how migrants live their lives within the new environment in a different society ranges from complete assimilation to dissimilation. Park and Burgess define assimilation as “[…] a process of interpenetration and fusion in which persons and groups acquire the memories, sentiments, and attitudes of other persons or groups, and, by sharing their experience and history, are incorporated with them in a common cultural life” (Park/Burgess 1924; cited from FitzGerald 2015: 149). Depending on the host society’s understanding of differences and their own practiced cultural life, assimilation can take different shapes. In homogenous, nation-state emphasizing societies, this can be a rather difficult process, whereas in multicultural societies, integration or assimilation is accelerated, since newcomers can to a larger degree retain their own cultural life and habits. Brubaker comprehensively showed how citizenship laws embedded in the sociological and cultural frameworks either facilitate integration in France with a jus soli approach; in Germany in turn, this process is based on a jus sanguis approach and for migrants it is a more complex process to be tolerated and accepted in the host society (see Brubaker 1992). Several field studies found a high correlation of the openness of

(21)

citizenship and integration-related laws in connection with the actual integration and assimilation of the newcomers on the ground (FitzGerald 2015: 152).

Contrasting to assimilation processes which solely focus on the host society, transnationalist approach considers that fixed categories as immigrant or emigrant cannot catch the actual living situation of migrants. Adding to the two established fields in migration research, home and destination country, transnationalists argue for a third space and time in which migrants establish and keep connections to both, home and host societies, but also enlarge their networks globally to find a “third place” in between (Ibid.: 157). Yet, to find a place within the new society strongly relates to the legal status of migrants, influencing their capabilities to integrate. Transnationalism emphasizes the capabilities, capitals and wishes of individual migrants, considering their negotiation of integration and their own goals, for instance, in some circumstances it makes sense to assimilate. If migrant children want to enjoy education, mostly they need to adapt to language and culture of the host society. Possibly, in other circumstances, family life works better in migrant-networks, when the host society is hesitating or not open for integration (Ibid.: 161).

Anthias adds that assimilation and integration discourses themselves establish boundaries and enable the core society to differentiate themselves from the migrant community. She argues that as long as there exist binary public discourses between us and them, social hierarchies and unbalanced power relations in favor of the host society will prevail. Instead, analyses with an intersectional framework need to provide alternative ways of negotiating social life. Intersectionality highlights “[…] a system of interactions between inequality-creating social structures (i.e. of power relations), symbolic representations and identity constructions that are context-specific, topic-orientated and inextricably linked to social praxis” (Winker/Degele 2011: 18; cited from Anthias 2014: 24). Mainly referring to gender, race and class, intersectionality takes into account complex social negotiation processes and identity formations. In difference to homogenizing singularity discourses that differentiate between us and them, intersectionality breaks up fixed categories. In general diversity and integration debates, attributes of individuals are seen as given, but rather are emergent (Anthias 2014: 26).

In order to prevent social conflicts, intersectionality interrogates why certain individuals are marked as ‘migrant’, ‘different’ or ‘alien’. Anthias provides four perspectives contrary to

(22)

integration debates, which can function as lenses for identifying contemporary shortcomings and enable social dialogue:

1. Participation: To what extent can all members of society enjoy their right to participate in social dialogue and political negotiations?

2. Access: To what extent do different members of society have access to resources? 3. Parity: Why have some individuals less access or are not able to participate in

comparison to the majority?

4. Belonging: Does everybody feel belonging to society? Who does not and why? (Ibid.: 29ff.).

These questions allow for looking at more general problems of marginality and suppressing power relations. To renew current integration debates that use fixed categories and rather part than unite, intersectionality provides angles to include complex identities, meanings and values (Ibid.: 32).

On the other side of the spectrum, dissimilation considers that newcomers to a host society, in the process of assimilating or integrating, detach ties and create emotional and psychological barriers to their past in the country of origin. In difference to transnationalism, which highlights the importance of community ties to the home country, dissimilation happens when these ties are intentionally untied and given up for prospective integration in the new environment. It follows the principle of: If you want to gain something, you must give up something else. However, this process can similarly take place in parting the immigrant community from the host society and thereby create a unique system and structure of migrant life detached from home and destination societies (FitzGerald 2015: 161ff.). “Dissimilation questions the very concept of community by highlighting negotiations over who is a legitimate member of the community, what kinds of behavior are acceptable, and struggles over where the boundaries of the community begin and end” (FitzGerald 2015: 163).

(23)

5 Methodology

5.1 Inductive Research Design

In order to investigate the relatively understudied research field of livelihoods of urban refugees in Thailand, the study design is an inductive case study/ethnographic design. It is of qualitative nature and material-driven, inferring from individual opinions and statements to more general issues and theories. Inductive designs bear the advantage of avoiding preliminary theoretical commitments, thus retaining a certain degree of freedom to react to the individual responses of the participants. The literature review and contextualization above have shown that the living situation of urban refugees is special compared to rather regulated legal frameworks in other locations. Although this research does not aim to generate theories, the design implies that complex phenomena or situations can be understood by emphasizing individual significances (Creswell 2014: 32). Inductive research starts with an open and receptive mind and attitude to not be affected by pre-built concepts or ideas, enabling me to react to spontaneous changes during the conduction of this study. Although research designs can hardly be distinguished between pure forms, the freedom inductivity provides help to focus on the issue from the participants’ perspective and enables me to get a more complete picture of the complexity of the livelihoods of urban refugees in Thailand. Allowing multiple perspectives, different views and explanations improves the holistic account of my study and illustrates different facets of the phenomenon. Additionally, the relatively persistent lack of comprehensive studies in the research field required an open-end approach (Creswell/Brown 1992: 41-43).

5.2 Method

As a consequence of my preliminary thoughts, I opted for choosing qualitative tools to get a more complete understanding of the social and individual reality of urban refugees in Bangkok. This holistic approach requires in-depth, semi-structured interviews, to capture the challenges, sufferings or positive experiences of my participants. The interviews were conducted in

Bangkok between 25th_{of April and 5}th_{of May 2018, the interlocutors were receptive to my}

questions and I received many insightful answers. To this rather personal view of the interviewees I add my own observations as a second method, aiming to provide another angle on the individual living situations of refugees in Bangkok.

(24)

5.2.1 Semi-structured Interviews

Having a certain skeleton to work with, but also remaining as flexible and adaptable as possible throughout my interviews, I used semi-structured interviews as the first research tool. During the interviews, it is also required to focus the attention on the participants’ body language and to note down when they keep silent. “The way in which interviewees choose to present their words enables one to understand their identity and the significance that they attribute to their words […] while giving voice to personal experiences, to the “I” that operates in a cultural context […]” (Shagrir 2017: 13).

Following my main research question, I developed a guideline with twelve open-ended questions, focusing on the life of individuals in Bangkok. The emphasis laid on their daily life, including living situation, social networks, neighborhood and employment, to better understand how they think about and deal with their situation. Additionally, I wanted to get a better understanding how the state of stagnation influences them. Using a semi-structured interview guideline (see attached: Chapter 10.1) means also recognizing itself as a social process and having the narrators decide what is important for them to talk about (Flick 2009: 156f.). Thereby, I was able to spontaneously react to the answers given, following various paths and adjusting to different interview situations. Consequently, sometimes I did not strictly follow the guideline, leaving some questions unanswered or adding additional questions. For instance, Saleena was crying a lot during the interview and I got the impression that she did not know how to change her situation, so I decided not to ask how she imagines her future, as I felt it would be inappropriate. The method of semi structured interviews helped me to get insights from the interviewees perspective to answer my research question and understand the daily life situation of urban refugees in Bangkok.

Narratives exist time-based, depending on local contexts and motives from the narrator’s point of view. Moreover, the refugees gave interviews to me while they were still in the very acute and contemporary situation of uncertainty, transition and waiting, which impacts how they told their stories (Rossmann/Rallis 2003: 10f.). “The narratives of socially positioned actors can promote a greater appreciation of the diversity of experience involved in forced migration, against universalizing and stereotypical descriptions of what it means to be a ‘refugee’” (Eastmond 2007: 253). Different narratives and interviews are relevant to be able to recognize,

(25)

how these individuals make sense of their world and their embeddedness within a broader context and to get detailed material for my research.

5.2.2 Interview Situation

Before I started the questions, I normally had a period of small talk conversation asking for example how the day was, followed by a small introduction to the research topic. After that, I asked for consent to do the interview, if the location was satisfactory, explained that I guarantee anonymity and that they could interrupt or stop the interview whenever they wanted. Furthermore, I informed the participants about my role and the purpose of the research and that they could ask questions if they needed clarification (Brinkmann 2008: 28-30). Additionally, I checked if I can either record the interview or take notes and confirmed, in three cases, whether they approve to work with the interpreter. I tried to give the interviewees the feeling they can relax by giving them time and space during the interviews with the option of meeting more than once. Creating a warm and natural atmosphere is necessary to calm down and speak freely for obtaining in-depth accounts (Hermanowicz 2002).

As the recording and the note taking influenced the interview situation, I usually stopped the recording, and sometimes also the note taking, after the main interview. Already in my first interview, I noticed that the whole situation and especially my interviewee relaxed after turning off the recorder, it felt more open and less restricted for me as well. Sometimes these conversations took longer than the actual interviews talking about various topics and the participants also had more room to ask questions. The interviewees were notified that some of this information would be used in this research and were asked to give their consent. During the interviews various feelings and emotions influenced the situation. Suzy and Saleena seemed to feel sad while talking about their situation and both started crying, whereas Fawad and Aminah gave the impression that they want to appear as strong as possible. Liban and Shana laughed a lot during their interviews and Evaan was rather angry. In contrast, Ali and Parsa did not show a lot of their emotions to me. During an interview process, social categorizations can influence or “fracture” the ideally full representation of reality, unavoidably, participants behave differently than in their “life outside the interview” (Millner/Glassner 2007: 128f.).

Factors which also influenced the interview situation were age, Evaan or Saleena were much more senior than me and the other interlocutors who were all roughly around my age. However,

(26)

also education should not be disregarded as a factor, Shana for example only gave very short answers and often mentioned she does not know what to say, even though it was a relaxed atmosphere during the interview. Already in the beginning, when I introduced myself, she stated, a bit embarrassed, a bit joking, that she is only a housewife. My feeling was that she was not capable of giving elaborative answers and compensated that with laughing. Others like Aminah or Fawad are highly educated, both graduated from university. The third example is how gender has influenced the interview situation. I remember one incidence after conducting the interview with Aminah. It appeared to me that if I would have been a man, she would not

have agreed to do an interview with me or would have responded in different ways.

5.2.3 Observation

To triangulate the data collection and obtain additional insights, thereby aiming for increasing validity and reliability of this research, I complement the interviews by participant observations at three locations: The Tzu Chi Free Health Clinic (29. April), the homes and areas of the interlocutors as well as the Immigration Detention Centre (25. May 2018). As partially participating observer, I use my observations as additional information about the living realities of urban refugees in Bangkok, information that extends material received from the interviews. The nature of the field required an open approach, but also prohibited me from being a fully participating observer (Bryman 2012: 443ff.). The decision for choosing Tzu Chi and the IDC was an emergent process during the data collection, as the interviewees frequently mentioned them without asking for it. Participant observation is more an extra way of collecting data than a distinct research method (Angrosino 2007: 55), yet it is a “process of learning through exposure to or involvement in the day-to-day routine activities of participants in the research setting” (Schensul et al. 1999: 91; cited in Angrosino 2007: 56).

These observations will be included in the analysis when it can support the readers deeper understanding of the circumstances. I documented these observations at the same day they happened and usually sat down right after for a long time reconstructing the situation and included everything I had experienced, heard or seen. Furthermore, additional interview partners are complementing my main interlocutors’ responses, mainly while I was doing observation at Tzu Chi and when I visited a person who is detained at the IDC. As complementary primary sources, I also add social media chats to underline my arguments and give specific examples to the topics discussed, as well as photographs, so the reader can easily

(27)

follow my descriptions. Therefore, readers should be enabled to get a more complete picture, however, this picture is of course not the actual lived reality of my participants. It is important to remember that this research is only an attempt to reflect reality, but research can never fully reflect socially constructed living realities of individuals (Forsey 2010: 76f.).

5.3 Interlocutors

In a diversity workshop offered by AI Thailand, I met with urban refugees in March and established contacts. This opportunity helped me to get into touch with the interlocutors or helped me “maneuvering oneself into a position from which the necessary data can be collected” (Hammersley/Atkinson 2007: 62). I used two different ways of contacting, keeping in mind their difficult situation as they were all illegalized migrants. The first way of contacting them was via Facebook. I messaged them considering factors like country of origin, asylum seeking status and gender, and asked them for an interview. This approach had a lot of advantages because the hurdles to get into touch via Facebook are generally very low. Additionally, I could answer all arising questions about the research, myself and my intentions easily: One participant asked me many questions beforehand, for example “Can I ask what you are doing here”, when I told him that I am a student and did an exchange semester in Thailand, he asked: “Which university sent you to collect this info, is it the Thai university or Sweden?” He was also concerned about the safety and anonymity and continued asking: “Is someone else with you” or stated: “You can also understand the security issue” and furthermore asked “Is there any voice recording?” [Facebook conversation 26. April].

The first way of contacting interviewees were the participants from the workshop I attended. I contacted six different participants, and all agreed to meet me, which exemplifies another advantage of this approach: They all have seen me before and knew that I am interested in the topic, engaged with them during the workshop, which helped to build up trust. The second way to get into touch with the interlocutors was the method of snowballing (Liamputtong 2011: 48), with a contact Aminah, an interviewee, gave me. I chatted with the contact via Facebook and asked if I could conduct interviews in their community. The contact person identified three individuals from different families, under the criteria of different backgrounds, but based on her own best knowledge.

Ultimately, the sample consists of nine urban refugees, five identifying as male and four as female. They come from four different countries in Asia and Africa and have different legal

(28)

status, length of stay and religion, yet they share the situation as refugees with an uncertain future. This sampling allows depicting in-depth analysis of the socio-cultural diversity and intersubjective realities of their living situation as refugees in Bangkok. For an overview of the participants and their background, please see the table below:

Interlocutors:

Ali - Male, 20-25 years, Somali, living in Bangkok for over four years

- Shares a room with a sibling and one parent

- Illegalized stay, no work permit, refugee status granted, waits for resettlement

Parsa - Male, 20-25 years, Afghan, living in Bangkok over a year without family - Shares a room with three friends

Liban - Male, 20-25 years, Somali, living in Bangkok over three years - Shares a room with his wife and two children

Suzy - Female, 20-25 years, Congolese, living in Bangkok over a year without family - Shares a room with a friend

- Illegalized stay, no work permit, applied for refugee status, waits for decision

Aminah - Female, 25-30 years, Pakistani, living in Bangkok over four years

- Shares a room with one parent

- Work permit and legal stay in Thailand, refugee status granted, waits for resettlement

Fawad - Male, 25-30 years, Pakistani, living in Bangkok over four years - Shares a room with a sibling

Evaan - Male, 40-45 years, Pakistani, living in Bangkok over four years - Shares a room with his wife and four children

- Illegalized stay, no work permit, refugee status denied by UNHCR

Saleena - Female, 50-55 years, Pakistani, living in Bangkok for over four years

- Shares a room with her husband, five children and a grandchild - Illegalized stay, no work permit, refugee status denied by UNHCR

(29)

Shana - Female, 20-25 years, Pakistani, living in Bangkok for over four years - Shares a room with her husband

- Illegalized stay, no work permit, refugee status denied by UNHCR

All interlocutors had the option to decide, if, when and where they want to conduct the interview. This openness resulted in very different responses and meeting environments. Most of them preferred to tell me where to meet (Aminah, Saleena, Evaan, Shana, Liban, Fawad), others wanted me to suggest a place (Ali, Parsa). One interview was conducted spontaneously, as I joined Suzy while she was waiting for treatment at the Free Health Clinic, where I was doing an observation. In this way I conducted interviews in a café, restaurants (Ali, Parsa, Aminah) or in the participant’s homes. It was a great opportunity for me to be invited to their homes, as I got the chance to observe their accommodation and living areas. The environment was diverse, with respective shortcomings and benefits, as the environment influences the feeling of the interlocutors, their behavior and how they answered questions. Respecting the interlocutor’s difficult and insecure living conditions in Thailand, for some of them it was simply not appropriate to meet outside because they fear the immigration police. Researching vulnerable groups requires sensitive approaches and comfortable interview situations (Liamputtong 2011: 62-65).

5.4 Data Analysis

I conducted six out of nine interviews in English, which is not my nor the interviewees’ native language. However, all participants spoke English well enough for a fluent conversation, apart from some grammatical errors and very few misunderstandings. “Giving words to experiences is a complicated process as the meaning of experiences is often not completely accessible for subjects and difficult to express in language” (van Nes et al. 2010: 314). Yet, by sensitively re-asking and clarifying their meanings, all participants could thoroughly express their thoughts and feelings.

The other three interviews were conducted with the help of an interpreter. This allowed me to talk to people who I otherwise could not have included in this research. The interpreter knew all the families personally, since she was living in the same community, her English was sufficient for translating. I observed the translation closely, being familiar with the situation, because I had worked with interpreters before, which helped to sense some mistranslation. In

(30)

the interview with Shana, who only replied in very short sentences throughout the interview, some mistakes occurred. One question was, how a usual day looks like for her and she answered very quickly. The interpreter however added, as she was very religious, some sentences referring to praying every day and it was obvious to me that this is not in relation to Shana’s answer. Nevertheless, despite some small religious add-ons, the translations were comprehensive and satisfactory. Evaan could understand English quite well, listened and intervened in the translation one or two times, increasing the reliability, too. Altogether, the interviews resulted in gaining rich, in-depth findings and insights, trying to capture the meanings as close to reality as possible to reduce the “distance between the meanings as experienced by the participants and the meanings as interpreted in the findings […] (van Nes et al. 2010: 314).

Acknowledging the insecure living situation of the interviewees, I always asked them in the beginning of my interviews if they agree to record the interview. In general, qualitative research offers a range of possibilities to collect data. Recording an interview should always be preferred over note-taking to increase measurement validity. Nevertheless, collecting data from my research participants, who live under insecure and vulnerable circumstances had to be adjusted (Atkinson/Hammersley 2007: 147f.). Some interviewees felt uncomfortable with an audio-recording device openly visible in front of them, because they did not know who could obtain this record and feared negative consequences for them, thus I offered the opportunity to take notes during the interviews. This way was on the one hand more accepted by my participants, on the other hand increased to some degree the risk of missing, for instance, some mimics during the note-taking or words in longer sentences. However, I always tried to give a complete account of the interviews and be as careful as possible to catch all important words, silences, gestures and mimics my participants shared. I also offered them the option to check my notes or transcript afterwards to make sure I do not use anything that might reveal their identity. As a result, I recorded four interviews and took notes during five interviews. After every interview I took notes for myself, focusing more on the atmosphere, surrounding and everything else that was noticeable for me (Ibid.: 145ff.). In case of a translation, the interpreter always translated in the third person singular, I changed this in all my notes to the first person singular as this is common standard of translation.

After transcribing and structuring my notes, I started to read them again very carefully. During the second time reading, I started to underline words, phrases and sentences which were

(31)

repeated, surprised me or reminded me of concepts mentioned in other interviews or my observations. I collected all arising codes, which included a variety of phenomena. During this coding process, I tried to be as open-minded as possible and reflected carefully what to include, giving room for different topics, patterns and ideas and not thinking much about how or if I could use them. Afterwards, I merged codes into categories by re-reading them, finding related themes, also using charts to get the broader picture. Later I grouped the codes together to units, trying to conceptualize these to more abstract categories, finding connections and labelling the categories. Although this process retains the risk of fragmenting the data and losing the context of what was said, I tried to keep the word flow as much as possible and code them in a coherent way to form a complete account (Bryman 2012: 576-578). As a result, my main topics arose, which will be presented and analyzed in the next chapter. It is important to remember that this process was shaped by my own interpretations, since in the end, I was the one who decided what to in- or exclude.

5.5 Ensuring Validity and Reliability

Reliability can be grasped with a clearly defined structure for collection and analysis of data. Transparency and credibility are crucial and thus guide the choice of material and sources, interpretation and the distinctiveness of the results (6/Bellamy 2012: 21). The interviewees’ first-hand information has a high authenticity, which benefits the reliability of this method. I intend to increase the reliability of my project in making the whole data collection, selection and interpretation as transparent and comprehensible as possible, by explaining every step, elaborating on how I came to my conclusions. This includes a high level of self-awareness, openness and reflexivity on my standpoint, my impressions or feelings before, during and after conducting the research. Furthermore, I increase the measurement validity of the answers with triangulation. I also gave all participants the possibility to read the transcripts of their interviews again, controlling for the correctness of their accounts. However, since this research is about the lived everyday-reality of individuals, in which meanings are constructed and re-constructed constantly, complete reliability cannot be ensured as interviewees may do the interviews because of different intensions for example to promote their own needs and interests. Validity is the argumentation’s degree of relevance and coherence and the required logic in structure and conclusions (Ibid.: 21f.). Throughout my research, I improve the validity by defining my concepts precisely and being consistent in the use of methods, material and theories. Since the study deals with individuals, these people can question my position as researcher and thereby

„Survive with the troubles”: Experiences of Urban Refugees in Bangkok

Faculty for Culture and Society