As for "genuine refugees turning into economic refugees", some people might have a problem with that. I don't. Given what those people have endured, in their place I too would be inclined to move only to a much better situation. (Of course, in this case I don't know all the details on either side of the border.) I also note that when refugees, including African ones, are accepted in, say, Western countries, nobody really expects that them to return. Not even when they start off on "temporary visas". Not even when the place they fled becomes safe. Why would they?
Other than the fact that some of these people have pretty much nothing to return to, places like Dabaab have been open for so long that some people there probably have no real idea of Somalia. I don't know. But international law and norms in such matters have developed slowly and painfully, and I say they should be respected.
Total agreement. I used to know a Somali female, now in her mid-to-late twenties. She arrived in Kenya as a baby in her mother's arms, so she's not a citizen. I can't imagine the audacity of asking her to go back "home" to Somalia for whatever reason. The girl is Kenyan, whatever the legal rules may say. Her "ushagoo" is at the camp, but she herself had schooled, lived, worked in Nairobi with her siblings. I'm not sure if she was in the group that was "gathered" together and forced back into the camps in the exercise after West-gate. Repatriation should be 100% voluntary after a certain number of years have passed, IMHO. Omollo's point about the qualification for residency is a good standard. Refugees/Ex-Refugees who qualify for permanent residency must not be forcefully repatriated until they have exhausted the opportunities to gain the status or make it clear they are not interested in becoming permanently resident in Kenya.
As for safer conditions back home, I'm not sure about that at all. IS Somali safer? For how long? If one has ever witnessed an RSD interview, one is familiar with the fear asylum seekers harbor about conditions back home. Those who want to go back are easily assisted by IOM, but many would rather suffer here than go back. Remember IDPs refusing to go back to their land in RV and asking to be moved elsewhere and one totally understands why someone who has been through the traumatic events of war would prefer a camp in a dessert where they get food, school, a safe place to sleep, rather than moving back. I have a cousin who had lived in Kericho for nearly 20 years. She lost everything and moved to Kisii with her large family, where she had to start all over again with nothing but shelter and a small piece of land. Her life is very hard, but moving back to Kericho? Her family prefers the hard life. She herself bravely went back to see if she could recover some of the things she left behind and only found a strange woman wearing her dress, living in her house, cooking from her sufuria. She never returned.
About the camps, I think the problem is turning them into a PERMANENT residential "home" for refugees. From my perusal of the Refugee Act, I got the impression that the camps were intended as some sort of transit for new arrivals, before their status has been established. My opinion is that once refuges have been "cleared" after sometime at the camp, they ought to be allowed to move into the rest of the country, to find gainful employment and give back to the economy. I also think that a refugee who has turned into an economic migrant is no problem at all. They were forced here. Now that they have lived here, they have established some roots and some would rather not pack up again, uproot their families and return to start from scratch and no guarantees. That is something everyone can understand.
