Thread: New powers for Immigration?

Hi,

I'm new here but i came across this story on w w w. thailawforum. com/thailand-extradition-criminal-cases. h t ml [Thailand extradition cases] that mentions new powers given to immigration that let them decide that a person may be going to commit a crime in Thailand and which gives them the power to cancel someone's visa and throw them out of the country.

The article talks about the new laws being used to remove a known pedophile from Thailand - a good thing, please don't get me wrong - but it would seem to me that the new powers could easily be misused, or used secretly by foreign governments and the Thailand government (through the immigration department) to sidestep the extradition laws and just quickly throw someone out of the country without going through the legal process and costs.

Just a heads up for everyone not to upset their local immigration officials.

Sorry because I'm new I can't post the link properly - perhaps a mod can fix it if they look and see this is not spam. Otherwise take out the spaces

Maybe some kind of post 911 rule. Trying to keep out terrorists and gives the Immi's the right to do a back ground check. Plus Thailand is trying to show they are working to put an end to the sex trade. It makes a good appearance to the rest of the world, Thais like that.

Yes, agreed. But this isn't about keeping people out, it's about cancelling their ability to stay with no appeals process based on a suspicion they might commit a crime and taking the power to remove people outside of the formal extradition system where there are legal standards that apply and an appeals process.

Originally Posted by haltest

This is not true in Europe, if you're in the EU you can only deny entry to another EU citizen for some very specific reasons.

it is true when entering the EU from outside though. EU to EU travel and commerce is very much a special case (thus the single currency).

If you consider highlighting a law that by-passes the globally accepted practice of people being extradited through a court process with checks and balances and placing that power into the hands of bureaucrats then fine, it's axe grinding. I'm personally not aware of any other country that gives bureaucrats this level of power without there being a legal process to fall back on.

If you're comfortable with the fact that you could be removed from Thailand because someone THINKS you might commit a crime, then that's fine too.

Personally I find the new powers to leave the path open for abuse and an infringement of people's human rights to have matters heard by a court, where laws are in place that define the rights of the accused and the plaintiff, not put into the hands of someone who wants to THINK that someone could commit a crime or to provide a convenient stepping stone for foreign governments to side step legally established protocols.

There's a whole list of reasons given in the original article why Interpol won't issue a red notice. These new powers just side-step existing laws and remove the necessity to present proof of wrong doing and replace them with a suspicion that a person MIGHT commit a crime. So a person is presumed guilty based on a suspicion.

Since when has THINKING someone is going to do wrong a basis for any legal process? Are we supposed to teach our kids that laws, framed to punish acts by PROVEN to be committed by people that society finds unacceptable should now include a provision that a person is guilty and gets punished based on a suspicion?

Personally I haven't done anything Markle, but I suspect there's lots of people here with angry ex-spouses at home chasing alimony for a start. A friend of mine couldn't get his US passport renewed because he outstanding alimony or perhaps child support issues in the US - according to him.

Not sure what power are provided under the US Patriot Act. Does it not contain any provision for review by a court? No warrants needed? No judge?

happychappy I wasn't aware of that. So the police can just enter anyone's house without a warrant? I've always been under the impression that even in Thailand a warrant was required to enter and search. This is not the case?

It just concerns me when laws are put into place where there is no judicial review process and reading this story on the Viktor Bout extradition - which is how I stumbled across this new law - raises concerns about how it could be used.

The instance mentioned in the article of Chonburi immigration being tipped off by England's Serious Organised Crime Agency as to the address and details of the guy deported instead of the British government asking for his extradition and letting him swelter in Bang Kwang for a year is the most concerning.

I have a particular interest in law and this new law seems to be structured in the manner that it could easily be used to side-step existing international laws.

If the person was just declared persona non-grata he would have to leave Thailand and could choose where he went. This law exceeds that as it calls for deportation which means he or she must be returned to the persons country of origin.

Originally Posted by markle

OK so what did you do that has you so worried? Was it here or back home? ---Update--- Quote Originally Posted by Pria View Post I'm personally not aware of any other country that gives bureaucrats this level of power without there being a legal process to fall back on. US Patriot Act?...

What an odd response to an engaging and well-written OP.

Because someone takes exception to a law that violates common sense and rule of law then that person must be guilty of something?

OP, carry on. Informative and interesting. Something that this board could use more of.