Page 87 - IJPS-2-1

Jillian Gedeon, Saw Nanda Hsue, and Angel M Foster

and access along the border. We use quotations throughout the article to illustrate key findings and
have removed or masked all identifying information by using pseudonyms throughout. We also in-
clude a series of narrative vignettes that showcase the ways in which participants revealed their ex-
periences, perceptions, and opinions.

3. Findings
3.1 Participant Characteristics

Over the course of the study we conducted in-depth interviews with 31 women. At the time of the
interview, participants’ ages ranged from 21 to 55, with an average of 32. All of our participants
were married and all but one of the women we spoke with had at least one child. Our participants
3
included women who identified as cross-border (n = 2), migrants (n = 8), and refugees (n = 21).
Consistent with the population of women from Burma residing on the border in general, our partici-
pants identified with a range of religious and belief systems including Buddhism (n = 14), Christian-
ity (n = 11), and Islam (n = 6).
3.2 Precarious Legal Status and Restrictions on Freedom of Movement

“If we go to the Mae Tao Clinic, the way to go there, there is no police. But sometimes when
we come back…there is a police officer there and we have to pay 100 baht [USD3] to the police”
- Thanda, age 32, migrant

The harsh realities of life in Burma influenced all of the participants in our study. All of the
women we spoke with talked at least briefly about the circumstances surrounding their “escape” or
departure from their communities of origin. Whether or not our participants had sought formal asy-
lum in Thailand, all of our participants has crossed the border in search of safety, economic security,
and/or services for themselves or members of their family. For many, the move was also aspira-
tional, based on hope that life in Thailand would bring additional freedom and opportunities.
However, all of the women in our study also discussed the challenges associated with having a
precarious legal status in Thailand, as captured in Lwin’s experience (Box 1).

Box 1: Lwin’s story
Lwin fled from Burma with her mother and her younger sister in her early teens. As the old-
est child, she has been responsible for providing for her family since they arrived in Mae Sot.
Since moving to Thailand, she has worked several odd jobs, including construction work, caregiv-
ing, and factory labour, in order to help make ends meet. At a young age, Lwin accepted the reality
that she would not be able to continue her education due to financial and legal barriers.

Now 22 years old, Lwin is married to a man that she met at the sewing factory where she currently
works. They both work 16-hour days, six days a week and only have Sundays off to spend together
and with other family members. Lwin and her husband decided to wait to have children until their
financial situation was more stable; their long hours at the factory coupled with their duties to pro-
vide for family members prevent them from being able to raise a child comfortably.

Lwin gained her contraceptive knowledge from the married women at the factory and learned both

3 There is considerable fluidity in the way in which women living on at the border identify their residence. For example, a
woman may typically reside on the Burma side of the border but may engage in seasonal labour as an undocumented worker and
reside in Thailand for several months of each year. Whether this woman identifies as “cross-border” or “migrant” is conditioned
upon a number of factors, including the time of the year, the duration of current residence, the site of her primary income generating
activities, and the location of family members. We acknowledge this fluidity and report women’s residence as determined by indi-
vidual participants.

International Journal of Population Studies | 2016, Volume 2, Issue 1 81