The everyday erosion of refugee claims: Representations of the Rohingya in Thailand

Scholars have described the increasing fragmentation of categories like ‘refugee’ as part of efforts to reduce refugees’ access to protection. The proliferation of categories such as economic migrants, humanitarian migrants, and transit migrants generally emerge from top-down, policy-driven migration management paradigms, efforts by traditional resettlement countries to restrict opportunities for forced migrants to seek asylum. Here, I argue for a cultural geographic approach to understanding the everyday work of representations as contributing to the erosion of categories like ‘refugee’ from the bottom-up as well. Despite widespread international agreement about the unfolding crisis in Myanmar and the exodus of Rohingya refugees, interlocutors in Thailand consistently doubted the legitimacy of Rohingya refugees’ claims. Through three vignettes that take place in Thailand, I explore how Rohingya refugees become characterized as ‘different’ from other regional refugee groups. Rohingya refugees are represented through three overarching narratives that question the legitimacy of their refugee claims: through the wrong imaginaries, in the wrong places, and using the wrong strategies. By demanding comparisons with fictional, ideal refugees; cementing ties between refugee status, race and religion; and strategically positioning refugee status as a legal tactic, I argue that these representations further the everyday erosion of the meaning and usefulness of the category of refugee.