Thailand passes new deportation regulation despite human rights concerns

A new regulation concerning the deportation of foreign nationals came into effect on 28 August, despite warnings from civil society groups that the proposed framework could weaken due process, undermine existing human rights safeguards and create uncertainty in the country’s relations with foreign governments and international organisations.

The government says that the regulation is meant to make deportation of foreign nationals who break the law more efficient and improve coordination among agencies responsible for immigration, corrections and foreign affairs.

It states that foreign nationals who commit six categories of offences will be deported after serving their sentences. These include illegal entry or stay, violations of foreign-worker legislation, violations of foreign-business laws, forgery or use of forged official documents, criminal offences carrying imprisonment of five years or more, and people acting as principals, instigators or supporters of those offences.

The regulation would also strengthen coordination between government agencies. The Department of Corrections would be required to notify the Interior Ministry before a foreign prisoner is released, allowing the Interior Minister to consider a deportation order without delay.

The government argues that the system would close administrative gaps and prevent foreign nationals who have violated Thai law from remaining in the country because of procedural delays.

Civil society raises concerns over due process, non-refoulement

A draft of the regulation was approved by the Cabinet on 14 July. Civil society groups then campaigned for it to be suspended and reviewed before adoption. Organizations like the Thailand Migration Reform Consortium (TMR), the Migrant Working Group (MWG), and the Coalition for the Rights of Refugees and Stateless Persons (CRSP) said Thailand does not lack the sovereign authority to deport people, but raised concerns that the proposed mechanism could allow that authority to be exercised without sufficient legal and procedural safeguards.

“Deportation, in and of itself, does not constitute a human rights violation, provided that it is carried out in accordance with the rule of law,” the three organizations said in a statement issued on 15 July.

They call on the government to incorporate legal safeguards into the regulation, including an explicit non-refoulement provision in line with Thailand’s anti-torture and enforced disappearance law. The regulation must also guarantee due process and individualised risk assessment prior to removal, as well as protection for children and family unity.

The coalition is also calling for stronger safeguards governing immigration detention. The regulation does not establish a clear maximum period of detention, judicial review mechanisms, or a clear time limit and review procedures for re-entry ban. Without effective review mechanisms, a system designed to speed up deportation could potentially leave people in prolonged detention when removal itself is not practically possible.

The groups said that the regulation presents structural concerns that could affect compliance with international human rights treaties to which Thailand is a state party. They also raise concerns about the hierarchy of laws and the coherence of Thailand’s legal framework.

Thailand already has several laws governing immigration, deportation, child protection and trafficking, and the coalition argues that the problem is not a lack of legal authority but the fragmentation of existing rules. Introducing another executive regulation risks adding another layer to an already complicated system. They argue that this could weaken legislative scrutiny and create uncertainty if subordinate legislation conflicts with provisions or principles contained in primary legislation

They are also concerned about using a Prime Minister’s Office regulation to establish rules that directly affect fundamental rights instead of going through the legislative process in parliament.

The most serious human rights concern raised by the civil society is about those who cannot safely return to their country of origin. The regulation states that people whose nationality cannot be determined will be sent back to the country where they last habitually resided. It does not explicitly require individual risk assessment of whether the person being deported will be safe upon return. This creates particular risks for stateless persons and those whose nationality is disputed. For the civil society, the absence of explicit safeguards could mean an individual is removed before the risks awaiting them have been properly assessed.

Thailand‘s Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance Act prohibits the return of individuals to countries where they would be in danger. Meanwhile, UN experts have stressed that removal decisions should involve an individual assessment of protection needs and access to fair procedures and an independent mechanism for challenging negative decisions.

Another concern is that there is no procedural guarantee of due process. The groups have called for guarantees that individuals facing deportation will be told the reasons they are being deported, receive copies of relevant orders and evidence, obtain interpretation, or have access to legal counsel. They also called for an appeal mechanism that can suspend deportation where removal could expose an individual to serious harm and for access to a court or independent body with the authority to suspend removal while a serious protection claim is being examined.

Another concern is the breadth of some of the proposed grounds for deportation.

Civil society groups say terms such as “principal offender, instigator, or supporter” could create uncertainty if they are not accompanied by clear evidentiary standards. They also question provisions that could permit removal without requiring a final criminal conviction in every circumstance.

A diplomatic problem hiding in the draft

The civil society coalition has raised a second, less conventional concern: the language of the explanatory memorandum accompanying the draft.

According to the coalition, the memorandum suggests that when a foreign government or international organisation asks Thailand not to return an individual but does not promptly take custody, this may indicate that the reasons given for the request are not genuinely serious or that the requesting party does not sincerely intend to receive the person.

The groups say such wording is problematic because delays in receiving a person can have many explanations, including security screening, visa procedures, refugee-admission processes, legal restrictions and coordination between multiple governments.

A delay, they argue, does not by itself establish that a protection claim is not genuine.

The coalition therefore wants the language removed and replaced with neutral criteria based on measurable factors such as reasonable deadlines and demonstrable progress by the requesting government or organisation.

The OECD question

The concern is particularly sensitive for Thailand, which is seeking closer international cooperation on migration and has also opened accession discussions with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

Thailand formally entered OECD accession discussions in 2024. The OECD Council’s decision made clear that Thailand would be required to complete extensive technical reviews and adopt necessary legislative changes as part of the accession process.

Civil society groups argue that the proposed deportation regulation could therefore have implications beyond immigration policy.

They point to three areas: rule of law, human rights protections and regulatory quality.

The coalition also warns that uncertainty surrounding migrant workers could affect sectors already dependent on foreign labour, including construction, agriculture, food processing, services and tourism.

However, some of the coalition’s broader economic projections — including the claim that failure to meet OECD-related standards could cost Thailand approximately 1.6 per cent of GDP — should be treated as an advocacy estimate rather than an established OECD forecast. The OECD’s official accession documents confirm the significance of legislative and institutional reforms but do not establish that the proposed deportation regulation itself would produce a specific GDP loss.

That distinction is important as the debate moves from human rights advocacy into economic policy.