Wall or no wall: The limiting election discussion on immigration

With Election day being a week away, the political scene is abuzz with excitement (or despair). Both sides of this two-party system are giving their last blast of energy to push to the finish line. Besides all the glaringly wrong things with this election, there have been a number of issues that have not been discussed by the candidates or the way that they have been discussed is problematic. One of those issues is- you guessed it- immigration.

When it comes to immigration discussions, you’ll hear from the democrats that the US needs “comprehensive immigration reform,” and you’ll hear from the republicans that the US needs “tighter border security.” Unfortunately, with Donald Trump, that republican sentiment has been condensed into his plan for this “mighty” wall that is going to stop people from emigrating to the US. This rhetoric is clearly racist, and I don’t think there’s much that needs to be said about that which has not been said already.

I believe that this issue lies in what is meant by “comprehensive immigration reform.” This phrase has been used since my entrance onto the political scene, and that was with the 2008 election of President Obama. I am sure that the phrase was used long before then, but with the election of President Obama, it seemed like there would be significant change across the board. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. According to an ABC News Article from August 2016,

“Between 2009 and 2015 his administration has removed more than 2.5 million people through immigration orders, which doesn’t include the number of people who “self-deported” or were turned away and/or returned to their home country at the border by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)”

2.5 million people. How is deporting 2.5 million people bringing us closer to “comprehensive immigration reform?” Of course, the Obama administration has brought us DACA and DAPA, but it is alarming that this paradox exists in the course of his administration. This should’ve been addressed during this election season. The ICE raids that are largely responsible for a large number of these deportations should’ve been addressed. The lack of legal representation that more than half of children have in immigration is a crisis that also should’ve been addressed. “Family detention centers,” which are arguably another name for immigrant prisons should’ve been discussed.

I could go on because there is more out there that needs to be discussed, but it is clear that the immigration discussions this election cycle have been underwhelming. With how important of an issue immigration is, we can’t afford to leave it at “comprehensive immigration reform” or “build a wall!” A wall is just completely ridiculous, and you can’t have comprehensive immigration reform with various injustices towards immigrant populations taking place in the background. There is way more to immigration reform that a path to citizenship. Is that important? Yes! Is that the only thing that immigrant communities need from the government?  No!

As such, I urge anyone reading this to really examine the range and depth of immigration issues in this country. I won’t say pick who to vote on solely based off of that but please recognize that either way, we have SO much work to do in regards to immigration issues. We cannot let all these issues be swept under the rug the same way that they were throughout the election season. We cannot continue with “steps forward” while simultaneously taking steps backward that has occurred under the Obama administration.

Here is hoping that various immigration-related movement continue to grow, and we are able to truly bring about and influence the REAL change that is needed.

Note: This is not to say that other unspoken issues such as education, health, and climate change (to name a few) are less important than immigration. They should have been discussed as well, but this post just seeks to speak to the lack of depth in discussion on immigration. 

A Different Kind of Team

When the modern Olympics started in 1896, there were only competitors from 34 countries. Today, there is going to be a team that technically doesn’t have a “home country.” They are filled with talent but because of their situation, they don’t have a specific country they can represent. Now, 120 years since the first modern games, #TeamRefugees are giving refugees with powerful experiences a chance to compete on behalf of refugees everywhere.

According to recent numbers, there 21.3 refugees in the world today (More details). Many countries offer resettlement, but with the processes involved, many refugees go months, even years before becoming resettled. It is no secret that refugees have experienced a great deal. By their status alone, they have faced some sort of persecution based on a part of their identity in their home country (loose paraphrasing full definition here). Thus, it goes without saying that their rise against adversity is awe-inspiring. Our hearts will be touched by all they’ve survived through. But please, let’s not make that THE focus of #TeamRefugees.

They are a special kind of team, but they are Olympic athletes. They are on the same level as all the other competitors. In no way are they underdogs or anything of that sort. Most importantly, given the historic nature of the team, that will be given a lot of attention but we cannot ignore the merit that got them here. They will shine in their own individual ways. Any medal that the team gets is major!

But there’s something else that makes this team so special. This team is made up of people from all backgrounds, and they are coming together for this common goal. As they compete in what could be considered the happiest time for the international community, I hope that same community really reflects on how having refugees resettle does not change the make-up of the country. If anything, it enhances it!

I’m so excited this team was formed, but I am more excited for the team members who are still able to do the sports they love despite their status! I wish them all the very best, and I can’t wait to see what they accomplish in Rio. I bet the creator of the Olympic Games never would’ve expected the value of the Olympic stage. Refugees are welcome here and should be welcome everywhere.

Note: Check out #TeamRefugees on social media and learn about the team! Oh and of course, root for them in Rio! History is being made!

 

 

Not One More

Recently, it was announced that ICE will be carrying out multiple raids throughout May and June. As previous raids, these are targeting Central American mothers and children who most likely came to the US during the migration surge during summer 2014. These raids show the worst of the Obama administration’s policies towards immigrants.

It should not be acceptable for ICE officials to barge into people’s homes at odd hours to take them to be deported. Even then, when they are taken away from their homes, they are not deported immediately. They might be taken to detention center or some other holding place until they can be deported.

Why is this the way that our country is handling these mothers and children from Central America?

Well, it reflects a paradox that is constantly present throughout the entire United States government. The government will condemn other countries for their lack of fair treatment towards marginalized groups but guilty of the same thing here within our borders. The worst part is all this is occurring just because “illegal” actions have taken place.

Meanwhile, the cause behind these “illegal” actions are completely being ignored. The current situation is definitely more of a foreign policy issue than a domestic policy issue, and the United States is handling it terribly.

I could take the time to say that there are other ways to handle this. I could propose solutions. None of that should be necessary. How can we proclaim support of human rights yet deny hundreds of mothers and children most of those rights through these terrible raids? This is not a good move by the administration, and it definitely not a good move for our role on the international stage. Most importantly, it is completely disregarding hundreds of peoples their basic human rights.

Additionally, once these raids occur and the immigrants are taken into custody, it causes the government to have to put it in even more work to maintain these detention centers and holding facilities, but it also dirties the hands of the administration. As mentioned before, the conditions in these places are not safe, and we should not be forcefully subjecting people to the conditions.

As I close, I can’t help but think about the time in US history where the British were raiding the homes of folks in the colonies. While these raids weren’t with the intention of deportation, there was still a violation of rights that occurred that the founding fathers saw fit to protect. If we truly value the values of our founding fathers, there should not be one more raid. They do not fix the issue or even put the issue on hold. They create more issues, and all the while, the root causes are being ignored. I am waiting for the day when the administration will step up to addressing those causes.

 

 

Immigration reform is more than just a phrase

For a country that often refers to being a “nation of immigrants,” it is quite disappointing that almost an entire 90 minute long debate went without serious discussion about immigration reform. Immigration reform came up in the last few minutes, and even then, it was skimmed over. Secretary Clinton was asked a question about what her priority would be in her first few months in office, and the moderator mentioned that her big three issues are gun control, immigration reform, and paid sick leave. She did not want to pick just one, and this is where an already glaring problem grew worse. She proceeded to mention a number of issues that were really important and deserved immediate attention as soon as she would be in office. Immigration reform did not come up until the end of her response, and it was presented as just a phrase without any real details. When Senator Sanders was asked about immigration reform, he did mention that it needed to be addressed immediately. He also said, “We have to do something for the 11 million people living in the shadows.” Soon, Secretary Clinton went on to discuss how comprehensive immigration reform would also bring people out of the shadows.

While one could be happy that immigration reform even made its way into the debate (unlike issues such as voters’ rights, police brutality, and education), it is beyond clear that the issue of immigration reform is not of importance to our candidates for president as it is to millions of Americans. What’s worse is that this apathy and lack of urgency is being seen in a party that is supposedly the best option when it comes to immigration reform. Now, you might be thinking “There will be other opportunities to discuss this issue” or “At least they brought it up” or even “They cannot talk about everything in 90 minutes.” If that’s the case, I especially encourage you to read on.

Somehow during this debate, about 70% of the debate (pleasantly substantive debate at that) was on issues related to the candidates and not issues that are affecting the American people. Viewers heard about emails, speech transcripts, votes in congress, and electability. Of course, this is due largely in part to the questions that were asked by the moderators. That is where the issue comes in.

Why is immigration reform (which has sadly become a buzzphrase) not on their minds? Why aren’t the deportations of hundreds of mothers and children on their minds? Why is the lack of legal information and representation to immigrants not on their mind? Why is the fact that it could basically take a lifetime to become a US Citizen not on their minds?

Those are only just a few of the issues that are related to immigration that face the United States today. It appears that in all the talk of how we’re a nation of immigrants and how this country was built on immigration, many have forgotten that immigration is something that is affecting millions of people right now today. It is affecting people of all different ethnicities, races, religions, genders, sexualities, and more. There are very real issues with our system that force someone to a country that has never been home or to a country they fled because they were in danger. When did we reach a point where issues like that were not concerning enough?

It is time for presidential candidates to truly face issues related to immigration. Of course, there could easily a debate just on immigration, but we should not sit through an entire debate where a candidate cannot even bring it up on his or her own. In fairness to Governor O’Malley, he would bring up certain immigration issues in his opening and closing speeches. He is no longer in the race, and we are left with Senator Sanders and Secretary Clinton. When will immigration become as important to the Senator as taking down the one percent? When will immigration become as important to the Secretary as continuing to build on Obamacare?

Interestingly enough, years ago, Secretary Clinton made waves by declaring that “Women’s rights are human rights.” Years ago, Senator Sanders was protesting and marching in the Civil Rights movements. Immigrant’s rights are important like those causes. Immigrant’s rights even intersects with those causes. We already know that on the Republican side there is not a candidate who has ideas regarding immigration that will help immigrants. Maybe one day we just won’t hear about ideas last minute with democratic candidates, but see that the issue is truly important to them. See that they want to connect with communities affected by immigration beyond tweeting in their language. See that they won’t have to be forced by moderators to bring it up. I am not sure if that day will come in this election, but immigration issues are not going anywhere. It is time we address them. This country can’t wait, and immigrants can’t wait.

Refugees from Syria deserve resettlement

I want to start this post with taking a moment to express my condolences for all the lives lost with recent tragedies around the world in the last few days. It hurts to see such terrible things happening so often.

That being said, there is particular recent event that is causing a great deal of conversation in America in regards to Syrian refugees. If you’re reading this, I would say that there is a pretty high chance that you have heard about what took place in Paris, France last week.

Soon after the terrorist attack, ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack, but somehow that was not enough to stop many from blaming Syrian refugees for the terror that occurred.

Recently in the United States, several states’- including two close to my heart, MI and MS- governors have declared that they will be blocking the resettlement of Syrian refugees in their states for security reasons. While these governors are entitled to their own opinions, they have done something terrible in scapegoating this whole group of people. These declarations are xenophobic, discriminatory, prejudiced, and hateful.

To begin with, Syrian refugees were NOT responsible for the terrorist attack in Paris. Syrian refugees are currently making up a significant number of the French population due to the recent crises. Many of these refugees were fleeing from terror that ISIS and other actors were causing in their home country. So why are they being blamed?

In most conflicts, there is need for putting all responsibility on someone or a group of people. Most of the time, whoever is blamed is likely to be undeserving of the blame. In this case, Syrian refugees have done nothing but do what their LEGAL status entails. But, most are not thinking about their legal status. Most do not care that they are REFUGEES. All that most people can focus on is “Syrian.”

At this point, I feel the need to refer to them as refugees from Syria rather than Syrian refugees. While their nationality is important to who they are, their status as refugees is very important. In short, a refugee is someone who is fleeing persecution, war, or other dangerous situations based on various parts of their identity.

With that in mind, how can one say that they do not want to help them by resisting the legal process? By resisting systems that have been in place internationally since the 1951 Refugee convention? By, in the US’ case, resisting law that has been in place since the 1980 Refugee Act? These are questions that are not being asked of these governors. They need to be held accountable.

Many of them represent their states, so I am not surprised at the support they are getting, but this should not be allowed. I am not sure if President Obama has responded to them yet, but he has already made it clear that the US will work to accept more Syrian refugees. Why not just support the President? (Well, that’s a story for another day). If they really looked in to what bringing Syrian refugees could for this country, maybe they would rethink their decisions. Considering the circumstances of some of the states wanting to reject resettlement, it is sad to see that they do not realize what having refugees could do for their economies. Everybody loves money, right?

Beyond that, it is just shameful that a whole group of refugees, an already marginalized group, are being marginalized further just because of fake correlation with a terror attack. There are actual lives that are at stake here. Resettlement means a new life- a chance to start over. This is what these governors are denying. In their false sense of valor for protecting their states, they are denying many of their human rights.

I hope that all in the midst of all this, there are still states that will be willing to accept Syrian refugees. The refugees need homes. They have the right to their lives. Who is a state governor to deny them of this protection they receive under law? No one, that’s who. I hope after reading this, you too, will see Syrian refugees as just refugees from Syria. Their country of origin is not and will not ever be enough to take away what they are entitled to as refugees.

 

 

 

 

On this Day: 1965 Immigration Act

Migrant rights are human rights

The message of this post is simple- migrant rights are human rights. These days it seems like this simple concept is not being processed in the way that it should. According to the Huffington Post, in the last year, at least 2,100 migrants have lost their life while crossing the Mediterranean sea. Most of these migrants are coming from Northern Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. Despite the different locations, they all have on thing in common. They are all seeking asylum in Europe. 

Asylum is defined as “the protection granted by a nation to someone who has left their native country as a political refugee.” Given that these migrants have fled their countries as a result of war and/or persecution, they are likely to qualify for asylum from a European country. Unfortunately, besides the significant loss of life, there is another downside to this crisis. The lack of attention from the international community- specifically the European Union.

In my opinion, I believe that because these migrants do not yet belong to any European country, most European countries do not see a responsibility to aide in the situation. Of course, no one can expect the European Union to compensate for the loss of life, but there are preventative measures that could be taken. That being said, I believe that if these migrants had some connection to Europe, the EU as well as other members of the international community would be stepping. 

With that in mind, I cannot help but think how a vital consideration is missing from the whole situation: seeing migrants has humans who have the right to life.

In this day and age, there is not much of a question when it comes to the importance of human rights. The United Nations and many other international/regional organizations have declarations or protocols tied to human rights. A theme that runs as a common thread through most of these documents is the idea of the right to life and protection. 

Thus, I wonder why more is not being done in regards to this tragic crisis. 2,100 lives lost. Did these 2,100 people not have a right to life or the right protection? Do others who are still making the treacherous journey despite the dangers not have those rights? For me, the answer is as obvious as can be- yes. 

This is why I think that is time for the international community to view migrant rights as human rights. They are not exclusive at all. A person should not be denied any rights because they have made the decision to seek safety and flee their home country. At the end of the day, they are still humans that deserve the assistance of the international community. I hope that there is a change in approaches to handling this crisis in the Mediterranean and handling migration worldwide. We cannot ignore or forget the fact that migrants, despite their status, are still humans. 

One description does not fit all

As campaigns for the 2016 have begun, there have been a range of issues that have rushed to forefront. One of these issues is immigration. Most of the time, when it is discussed, it is in reference to how one side or the other wants to gain the “Hispanic” vote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with that because each side needs to do what it can to get more people to vote, but as important as the “Hispanic” vote may be demographically, there is problem here. The problem is that “Hispanic” vote really means Mexican vote, and that stems from the stereotype that all immigrants in this country are Mexicans.

Of course, there are issues with the term “Hispanic” itself in relation to Mexican nationality, but beyond that, it is unfair to make non-Mexican Hispanics (who may identify as Latinos) to group them all into this one term. Immigrant means so much more than just a specific ethnic group. Immigrants are, in most cases, doing what they can to get a better life for themselves. Because of all that people can achieve in the United States, we have large amounts of immigration. But, contrary to popular belief, most of the immigrants to the United States are not from Mexico.

During the August 6th GOP Debate, Marco Rubio made a great point when he said, “The evidence is now clear that the majority of the people coming across the border are not from Mexico.” In this case, he was pointing out that there are many undocumented immigrants who are coming from Central America. While he probably was not trying to, he was reaching at something much bigger here. This is the fact that the United States literally has immigrants from all over the world.

In fact, I recently read a report by the Migration Policy Institute that was discussing the number of Filipino immigrants in the United States and how the numbers have been increasing recently. This is extremely important information especially in light of upcoming elections because immigration will matter to them just as it would matter to Mexicans.

Personally, I think the immigration conversation needs go past trying to cater to Mexicans. Yes, they are a significant part of our population, and immigration is probably quite important to them, but there are many other issues that they are concerned about. More importantly, despite the efforts of many, I doubt they enjoy only be talked to about immigration just in return for some votes in November 2016.

As I close this piece out, I just want to encourage everyone to think bigger when it comes to immigration. There are so many people in this country from a variety of countries that immigration policies will affect. Additionally, to non-immigrants in the U.S., as tired as you may be of hearing “we’re a nation of immigrants,” the fact of the matter still holds true. The earliest immigrants to this country typically came in large numbers from European countries. All this together, I think the most important take-away is that all immigrants are not Mexicans, and as a nation we need to work to not only be more inclusive of Mexicans in politics beyond the immigration debate, but also more inclusive of others who this debate might be important to.

On This Day!

Something new I am going to be doing on here is sharing pictures and facts related to migration on the days that they happened. For now, I will just title the post “On This Day!” It is a chance for me to share great historical moments, facts, and achievements.

For the first in this series, you will see a below a picture of the signing of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees in 1951. As many in refugee affairs know, this convention is extremely important because it provided the basis for the definition of a refugee and how to treat them. Without this convention, the idea of a refugee would still be undefined.

Photo source: http://legal.un.org/avl/ha/prsr/prsr.html

How Kenya is Combatting the Brain Drain

Within the context of the developing world, most emigration happens from the Global South to the Global North. This is strongly correlated to a recent phenomenon called the “Brain Drain.” This phenomenon has particularly affected countries in the developing world as some of their best talent moves to the Global North rather than staying in their country of origin. In the midst of this, it is interesting to consider what states are doing with their emigration policies to combat this very issue. As the prominence of the “brain drain” is increasing, many countries in the developing world are taking into their own hands to manage and regulate migration rather than depending on international organizations. In further looking at these trends, Kenya provides a great case study as it is working to combat the brain drain in south-north movements by its efforts to create more of a brain gain through its reliance on the Kenya diaspora, the remittances that the diaspora brings in, and other institutional efforts to keep Kenyans in Kenya.

Currently,  Kenya has a department in the Ministry of Interior and Coordination of National Government called the Directorate of Immigration and Registration of Persons. Its vision is “to be a global leader in population registration and migration management.” In addition to this, Kenya has around 41 embassies and consulates around the world[2]. In terms of handling emigration, Kenya has all the right systems in place. More recently, most likely due to influence from its AU membership, Kenya has begun to pursue the diaspora approach. The new approach is summed up best by John Ochuo when he says, “The New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) has sought to reverse the brain drain and convert it into ‘brain gain,’ as well as to involved African Diaspora in Africa’s development,” (51). This approach stems from the African Union’s addition of the African Diaspora as the sixth region of the AU in 1993. While this has been in place for quite some time, the diaspora had not really be considered capable of being able to make a difference away from home. But now, in terms of combatting brain drain, the diaspora has been more and more widely used. According to Adepoju, “The diaspora can promote the flow of trade, capital and technology back to countries of origin, and can also be active in transnational transactions (Block 2005),” (15), and Kenya definitely shares this belief.

In the study of Kenya, we see a strong example of attempting to turn brain drain into brain gain. The principal way it has been successful in doing that is through the diaspora. Since about 1990, countries have been using the “diaspora option” to aide in the development of their country thus fighting brain drain (Rutten 200). In recent years, the Kenyan Diaspora has become more of a focus for the Kenyan government. In fact, in 2011, a Draft Diaspora policy was created. The intention of this policy was to establish a framework for Kenyan diaspora affairs. The ultimate goal was to bring the diaspora into the pictures for the purposes of national development. This is because Kenya has recognized that there is much to gain from keeping the diaspora connected with their country of origin. Just because these persons have left the country does not mean they do not have an interest in helping the country.

At the time this policy was written, some important first steps had been made. In 2010, the Kenyan Constitution made provisions for dual citizenship. Also, children born to a Kenyan parent automatically receive citizenship no matter where they were born (The Kenyan 9). There is also the option for diaspora members to have a “visa for life” as well. Members of the diaspora also have voting rights in Kenya (Kinyanjui). In addition to all the above, an office called International Jobs and Diaspora office was established in 2007 to oversee diaspora affairs. Now that this field is of importance to the government, especially since diaspora diplomacy is on of the five pillars of Kenyan foreign policy (Kinyanjui), have constantly been moves to strengthen relations with the diaspora. The policy paper reflects that in its call for the formation of the National Diaspora Council of Kenya (Draft 14). All in all, Kenya is making strides within the diaspora option that is turning the brain drain into a brain gain.

In an article in The Lancet, Samuel Siringi discusses other areas where the Kenya government is working to do just that. He looks at how the Kenyan government promised to increase doctor’s salaries. This effort was one to reduce the effects of the brain drain. The government recognized that many of its doctor’s were leaving due to the pull factors of the wages they could receive in other countries. This is one example of Kenya trying to establish a brain gain. By raising the salaries, the government is keeping its citizens around, which ultimately feeds back into the Kenyan economy. Another way of fighting the brain drain that feeds back into the Kenyan economy is remittances.

As defined in International Migration within, to and from Africa in a Globalised World, remittances are transfers of money, goods and diverse social features, sent or brought by migrants or migrant groups back to their country of origin or citizenship (141). In the last several years, it has been recognized that there has been an increase of remittances, and countries of origin have recognized this flow of money as way to gain from emigration rather than only losing. Some even argue that remittances have a direct effect in reducing poverty (Adepoju 3), which is the main example for how it is used and is being included in conversations about national development. According to Bethuel Kinyanjui, there are “about 3 million Kenyans in the diaspora, approximately 8% of the country’s population, and in the last few years, they have played a huge role in national development through their remittances to Kenya.” As such, it is no surprise that, in 2010, remittances accounted for 5.4% of Kenya’s GDP[3].

Because of the importance of remittances, there is now a “special counter at the Central Bank of Kenya,” (Draft 10) for handling remittances. This feature within the system of Kenya’s infrastructure shows just how much of difference these remittances are actually making. The most important part about remittances is that they are strictly coming directly from emigrants in the diaspora, particularly those in the Global North. In fact, “The US is the 2^nd largest source of Kenyan remittances, having transferred approximately $315 million to the country that year,” (The Kenyan 1). Finally, there are two more critical aspects to the brain gaining practice of remittances that motivate developing countries (Kenya included) to accept and use them for development. The first is that remittances essentially are a type of insurance for return migration (Adepoju 16). This, in and of itself, is a direct method of combatting brain drain. The second is the fact that North-South remittances are second to FDIs (Ochuo 53). This is important because without Kenya’s best leaving the country, there wouldn’t be this source of inflow that makes a huge difference for Kenya, its economy, and its people.

The fact that Kenya is able to turn it into more of a brain gain is one of the best ways that the phenomenon can be combatted. The best part about the case study of Kenya is that it shows how Kenya has taken the matters into its own hands and not been dependent on top-down attempts to reverse the brain drain from organizations like the United Nations or the International Organization for Migration. Most likely because the Kenyan government understands Kenyans and its diaspora better than anybody else, and that is why “Third World Internationalism” is so important. Western organizations and countries (basically all those in the Global North) do not really relate to the developing world. Thus, it would be difficult to implement successful mechanisms to combat issues as prevalent as the brain drain.

[2] http://embassy.goabroad.com/embassies-of/kenya

[3] Mentioned in the foreword by the Honorable Moses Wetang’ula, EGH, MP who is the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Draft ii)

Works Cited:

Adepoju, Aderanti. “INTRODUCTION: Rethinking the Dynamics of Migration within, from and to Africa.” International Migration Within, to and from Africa in a Globalised World. Accra, Ghana: Sub-Saharan Publishers, 2010. 9-45. Print.

Adepoju, Aderanti, Ton Van Naerssen, and Annelies Zoomers. “International Migration and National Development: An Introduction to Policies in Sub-Saharan Africa.” International Migration and National Development in Sub-Saharan Africa: Viewpoints and Policy Initiatives in the Countries of Origin. Leiden: Brill, 2008. 1-20. Print.

Draft Diaspora Policy of Kenya. N.p.: Republic of Kenya, 2011. Print.

Kinyanjui, Bethuel K., and Akinyinka Akinyoade. “Diaspora and Development in Kenya- What Do We Know?” International Organization for Migration. N.p., May 2012. Web. 30 Nov. 2014.

Oucho, John O. “African Diaspora and Remittance Flows: Leveraging Poverty?” International Migration Within, to and from Africa in a Globalised World. Accra, Ghana: Sub-Saharan Publishers, 2010. 137-168. Print.

The Kenyan Diaspora in the United States. N.p. July 2014. 30 Nov 2014.