The process of deciding to migrate, seek employment, and obtain regularised legal status, can be a long and difficult process.

Different methods of migration are used by individuals, segmented by gender and documentation status. Documented migrants frequently make use of licensed private recruitment agencies or are directly employed by Thai companies. In contrast, undocumented migrants often rely on friends, family, or even undertake the journey independently. KIIs indicated that females, and particularly those who are undocumented, are at a heightened risk of sexual harassment, abuse, or even coercion for sexual favours. These risks are more pronounced when they attempt to migrate on their own or seek to evade arrest These findings underscore the urgent need for expansion of safe and regulated migration pathways. Such avenues would not only minimise risks but also encourage regularisation. Currently, as discussed below, irregular methods are both cheaper and faster, making them more appealing despite the associated dangers.

Similarly, during KIIs, respondents revealed that there is very little screening for human trafficking when migrants enter Thailand using brokers which contributes to practices of forced labour. There is limited training for law enforcement on either the Thai or Myanmar side to recognise this whilst high demand for cheap labour in Thailand perpetuates this issue. Offering regulated and legal channels that are responsive to labour demand in Thailand would be a significant step in addressing this issue.

There are significant cost variations between the different methods of migration. Utilising a licensed recruitment agency incurs an average cost of $766, while migration facilitated by a Thai employer costs an average of $403. In contrast, more informal routes, such as relying on friends and family ($348) or migrating independently ($374), prove to be cheaper options. These disparities in cost effectively serve as a disincentive for utilising formal migration channels.

Documented migrants primarily cited unexpectedly high costs as their main obstacle, whereas undocumented migrants point to their lack of legal documentation. Across both categories, a common theme is the reported lack of reliable information, underscoring the urgent necessity for effective dissemination of trustworthy information, potentially through official channels or civil society organizations. When questioned about their sources of information related to migration, an overwhelming 95 percent of migrants rely on friends or family for guidance. About 6 percent of documented migrants were able to obtain information from brokers or agents in Myanmar. These statistics emphasise a pervasive lack of reliable information affecting the broader migrant community.

There is a disconcerting absence of pre-migration support across all respondent categories. A mere 1 percent of participants reported receiving any form of pre-departure training, indicating that the majority are navigating the intricate migration process without formal guidance. Online information usage is only marginally better, suggesting either limited awareness or restricted access to such resources. The statistics are especially troubling regarding legal, administrative, and financial support, revealing significant disparities between documented and undocumented groups. Most alarmingly, over 70 percent of undocumented and more than half of documented migrants reported receiving no form of support whatsoever. These figures highlight a considerable void in the support infrastructure for migrants, with the deficit being particularly acute for undocumented individuals. The absence of pre-departure orientation and the low incidence of legal support are of particular concern, given the inherent complexities and potential risks associated with migration.