Refugees - Current Representation, Possible Outcomes and an Economical Analysis

The term “refugee” immediately injects images of thousands of people, living in desolate conditions far away from the place they actually belong to.

As defined in the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (the Refugee Convention), a refugee is defined as a person who, "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country or return there because there is a fear of persecution..."1 For a common man, the reason of such immigration is war-torn lands or some internal conflict leading to the exile. However, in this modern day and age, the likes of Yugoslavia, the Middle East, Europe and even the Americas are preferred destinations for such peoples who are enamored with the "imagined possibilities" of other "homelands" in distant places. This flux is increasing the world’s refugee population slowly and steadily.

Many catastrophic developments like the recent advancements of ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) have driven thousands out of their homes, seeking a shelter from the extremist onslaught brought by the unforgiving members of this organization. In other instances, The United Nations High Commissioner For Refugees (UNHCR) places the number of Somalian refugees at 965,147 people.2 The UNHCR said that in the Horn of Africa, more than 80,000 people, mainly from Ethiopia and Somalia, crossed the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea between Jan. 1 and end-November en route to Yemen or Saudi Arabia. In Southeast Asia, an estimated 54,000 people have taken to the sea so far this year, most of them leaving Bangladesh or Myanmar and heading to Thailand or Malaysia. In the Caribbean, nearly 5,000 people took to boats between Jan. 1 and Dec. 1, hoping to flee poverty or in search of asylum.3

Such refugees are obviously a drain to the host in terms of land area, money, social services etc. It is a one-way street. The local government collects taxes and fees from the resident citizens and has to accommodate the immigrant population out of the same pocket. The pocket, which is supposed to tend to the taxpayers. On the other hand, there are the refugees who have moved in and cannot be sent back. They do not contribute to the local economy, take up valuable land, may resort to crimes to sustain themselves, and hence require security and policing. This principle is laid out in Article 33 of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which says that no state "shall expel or return ('refouler' in French) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion." The host must also ensure basic human rights are protected in consonance with the UNHCR, international humanitarian law (IHL) and international humanitarian law. This drain can be a bottomless pit and begs the question, what can the host nation do prevent such a drain? To what extent do the refugees have rights? Are these rights enforceable? In what forum? Do the refugees have a right to be represented eventually? Democratically? These are some of the questions that this paper aims to answer in the coming sections.

Adding to the millions facing this problem, the recent developments in South-East Asia have further shed light on the poor situation of refugees and minorities who are fleeing their countries. Simply put, countries here are refusing to entertain any refugees and put them back on the boats they came on and send them callously back out to sea without any aid or help. The Rohingya Muslims, an ethnic minority originating from Myanmar are piling thousands into boats and rafts and leaving. Myanmar in hope of a better place. In Myanmar, they are denied basic rights such as education, social care and are not given employment. The question that plagues them is where to go? Will they be given refuge? Will the conditions there be any better? Is this a solution for the long term? The neighboring states of Thailand and Cambodia, possessing Buddhist majorities are not keen on this sudden influx of thousands of illiterate and unemployed people of another religion.

This hesitation on part of their governments to allow this influx has tragic consequences. Every day that the decision is deferred, thousands are subjected to inhuman conditions – poverty, malnutrition, dehydration, diseases, etc. Even the mode of transport - in this case by boats – has led to thousands being stranded at sea, hundreds drowning and many dying of disease. With no government ready to provide asylum, there is nobody to claim and help those who are left at the mercy of the seas. After much discussion and deliberation, the Malaysian government (a Muslim majority) has decided to step in and carry out search and rescue missions as Myanmar agreed to holding envoy talks. Though this seems like a step in the right direction, the procedure can be slow, bureaucratic and subject to many factors in which the actual rights of the refugees may not even be paramount.

Comparing this scenario to Europe, the scenario there is far better. The European Union has recently decided to increase the patrolling between Africa and Europe and to crack down on the traffickers who catalyse the movement and are responsible for charging people up to $8000 per person. These people are not guaranteed successful refuge in the recipient country, are raped and robbed and have nowhere to go since most invest their entire life savings on trying to escape their countries. The EU has gone on to say that it should adopt about 60,000 people per year (40,000 from Africa and another 20,000 that have been displaced in Syria) and distribute the refugees among the member states as per capacity depending on GDP, population, unemployment etc. The basis for the EU Commission proposal is Article 78 (3) of the Lisbon Treaty, which provides for the resettlement of refugees within the European Union if individual member states face "a sudden influx of third country nationals in need." The EU Commission has announced that it will pay 6,000 euros from an emergency pot to the host country for each resettled refugee. But despite this miserable haggling over refugees, a sharp conflict between the EU member states has broken out over the quota system.

But this problem needs to be nipped in the bud. Not only do the traffickers need to be identified and punished but screening camps need to be set up on the northern shores of Africa from where these refugees set sail. These camps need to have a proper asylum application system and must operate in consonance with the EU. Last year, a total of 626,000 people applied to the EU for asylum and roughly half of those were granted but this was after a screening process. The screening process has to be fair, efficient and quick but the major problem lies in setting up such camps and the funds required to do so.

WHAT ARE THE RIGHTS AVAILABLE TO A REFUGEE?

In addition to defining who is a refugee, the 1951 Convention, the 1967 Protocol, and the UNHCR Statute establish international standards for the treatment of refugees, confer certain rights and freedoms, and, under the Statute, list the world community's responsibilities toward refugees.

• The rights and assistance refugees receive are to guarantee them the minimum standards of treatment enjoyed by aliens generally in the country of asylum. These rights pertain to property, freedom of association, gainful employment, welfare, freedom of movement, religion, and administrative assistance.
• States are not to impose penalties on refugees illegally entering their territory, provided the refugees present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.
• No restrictions should apply to such refugees' movements "other than those which are necessary and such restrictions shall only be applied until their status in the country is regularised or they obtain admission into another country."
• A reasonable period should be allowed for admission, and all the necessary facilities are to be provided for obtaining such admission.
• Refugees move from their native lands to escape violence and abuse, hence one of the basic principles of refugee rights, is the principle of nonrefoulement. This right is laid down in Article 33 of the 1951 Convention and prescribes that a person cannot be forced to return to the place of his origin, which is going through disturbance or turmoil.
• And it is generally treated as a rule of customary international law and hence is binding on all States, irrespective of whether they have signed the 1951 Convention or not.

  For easier understanding as well as the obligations bestowed on each state, the rights of a refugee can be grouped under the following:

• All refugees must be granted identity papers and travel documents that allow them to travel outside the country
• Refugees must receive the same treatment as nationals of the receiving country with regard to the following rights:

  1. Free exercise of religion and religious education
  2. Free access to the courts, including legal assistance
  3. Access to elementary education
  4. Access to public relief and assistance
  5. Protection provided by social security
  6. Protection of intellectual property, such as inventions and trade names
  7. Protection of literary, artistic and scientific work
  8. Equal treatment by taxing authorities

• Refugees must receive the most favourable treatment provided to nationals of a foreign country with regard to the following rights:

  1. The right to belong to trade unions
  2. The right to belong to other non-political nonprofit organisations
  3. The right to engage in wage-earning employment

• Refugees must receive the most favourable treatment possible, which must be at least as favourable to that accorded aliens generally in the same circumstances, with regard to the following rights:

  1. The right to own property
  2. The right to practice a profession
  3. The right to self-employment
  4. Access to housing
  5. Access to higher education

• Refugees must receive the same treatment as that accorded to aliens generally with regard to the following rights:

  1. The right to choose their place of residence
  2. The right to move freely within the country
  3. Free exercise of religion and religious education
  4. Free access to the courts, including legal assistance
  5. Access to elementary education
  6. Access to public relief and assistance
  7. Protection provided by social security
  8. Protection of intellectual property,
  9. such as inventions and trade names
  10. Protection of literary, artistic and scientific work
  11. Equal treatment by taxing authorities

On Arrival

Once a refugee crosses into the borders of a foreign country, even if illegally, he/she cannot be penalised under the provisions of Article 31 of the Refugee Convention****. This safety is only provided for refugees who have arrived from their home country where they were under some danger or threat and hence may be allowed into the country with even forged or destroyed documents. The country that is first reached in such a situation is known as the first-asylum country. The Refugee Convention does not oblige such countries to offer permanent settlement within their boundaries. It only offers what is called ‘temporary protection’, which is, perhaps the best option available to both- the asylum seekers as well as the asylum givers.

The United States seems to be one of the most favoured destinations for refugees, and their integration system is best defined in the following info-graphic:

Recognition:

Recognition of refugees is done as per the definition provided by the 1951 Convention. Since it is the duty of States to protect the rights of such individuals, the State may appoint a body equipped with the required knowledge and expertise to assess applications, decide the applicant’s status in a fair and transparent manner, permit appeals and reviews of initial applications, and frame laws for the procedure. This is perhaps well demonstrated by The Refugees Act passed by The Republic of South Africa in 1998, which in its aims and objectives, says, "To give effect within the Republic of South Africa to the relevant international legal instruments, principles and standards relating to refugees; to provide for the reception into South Africa of asylum seekers; to regulate applications for and recognition of refugee status; to provide for the rights and obligations flowing from such status; and to provide for matters connected therewith."5

The UNHCR has been tasked to help States in this process. The UNHCR does this by:

• Promoting accession to, and implementation of, refugee laws and conventions;
• Ensuring that refugees are treated in accordance with internationally recognised legal standards;
• Ensuring that refugees are granted asylum and are not forcibly returned to the countries from which they have fled;
• Promoting appropriate measures to determine whether or not a person is a refugee according to the 1951 Convention definition and/or to other definitions found in regional; conventions; and
• Seeking durable solutions for refugees.6

Possible Outcomes:

Simply put, there are three logical outcomes that are available to the country of first asylum when they are hosting a refugee:

• Voluntary Repatriation: This implies sending back the refugees to the place where they came from in the case of non-existence of the threat that led them to flee in the first place.
• Domestic Integration: This implies integration of the refugees into the country of first asylum.
• Resettlement in a Third Country: If the refugees cannot be sent back, nor can they be integrated into the country of first asylum, then this option can be resorted to. This option has been seen as recently as December 2014, when the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees said in an official statement that member states have agreed to take in about 100,000 of the estimated 3.2 million Syrian refugees, following the Islamic extremist flushing of the region. Along with this, the World Food Program also managed to raise an impressive $80 million in funding in order to feed this growing population of refugees.7

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A REFUGEE AND AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT

As defined by Amnesty International, "Migrants move from one country to another usually to find work, although there may be other reasons for migrating such as to join family members. Some move voluntarily, while others are forced to leave because of economic hardship or other problems. People can migrate ‘regularly’, with legal permission to work and live in a country, or ‘irregularly’, without permission from the country they wish to live and work in.

Regardless of their status in a country, both regular and irregular migrants have human rights, including the right to freedom from slavery and servitude, freedom from arbitrary detention, freedom from exploitation and forced labour, the right to freedom of assembly, the right to education for their children, equal access to courts and rights at work. These rights are laid out in the Migrant Workers’ Convention (1990) as well as other human rights treaties."8

This is different from a refugee who is a person who moves out of a country where he/she is threatened, or his/her human rights are violated or even where the government fails to protect him/her.

Hence, the element of security and protection vis-à-vis employment and opportunities set immigrants apart from refugees.

REPRESENTATION OF REFUGEES

The term representation simply means the putting forth of certain views in a fragmented group of people in such a way that due attention is paid to the said views. Now the question that arises is that who are the groups that are to be represented when it comes to such refugees? What could the different interests in such peoples be?

As many studies have shown, that there are stark differences in opinions when it comes to refugees. On an average, the elderly prefer the option of repatriation, considering they’ve spent most of their lives in their home country. On the other hand, young refugees seek integration into the host country keeping in mind potential employment and better living conditions as compared to the distraught lands they've escaped from. Considering another factor- women may be empowered in their refugee status, breaking old traditions and taking on new responsibilities. These liberties may be taken away once life resumes after being repatriated, and hence the option may be opposed.

Thus we see that these interests and opinions are constantly changing and evolving, and representation is required to meet the demands that flow out as consequences.

While looking at such refugee groups, one would often wonder what the best possible democratic outcome could be, should one look towards the existing systems in the West to determine the ideal models or to let it develop at a more grass-root level? We all know the great disparities that exist in the democracies that are prevalent all over the world - such as a communication gap between the electors and the elected, difference in ideology, and misrepresentation of some views etc. At this point it perhaps seems more feasible to have a blank canvas on which some of the virtues of democracy can be imbibed, whilst leaving out the deficiencies and shortcomings. One such example would be the organization of the Guatemalan refugees in the Mexican host country. They developed a theory of self-help that encouraged community solidarity and direct political participation. Although this organizaciòn was initially setup to resist the Mexican state's relocation of the people away from a specific region, this organizaciòn soon developed into a principle for repatriation. They then formed the Permanent Committees (Comisiones Permanentes, or CCPP) which essentially laid down the conditions under which the refugees would return to Guatemala. This was not only unprecedented, but was also not foreseen by the UNHCR. It was not anticipated that the refugees would want to play such an active part in their repatriation to their home state, that too in such a civil manner.

Another example of voluntary repatriation, albeit violent, was the Rwandan episode. In the 1980s, the Rwandan Patriotic Front developed its own Rwandan philosophy which not only aimed at repatriation but also reformation of the Rwandan state altogether. This was not paid heed to, by either the international community or by Rwanda itself and hence led to an armed incursion.9

Does the UNHCR represent refugees?

In a nutshell, no. Taking the example of Guatemalan refugees who sought settlement in Mexico, they formed an independent body and bargained the conditions for repatriation. This was an extremely rare and unprecedented move as usually the three stakeholders during repatriation proceedings are the UNHCR, the host state and the state of origin to which repatriation is sought. This saw UNHCR lose its power somewhat in the process. And since the body does not possess any binding value, the Guatemalan refugees were opposed to the body's recommendations of delaying the repatriation as such large influx of people would result in many logistical disasters in the state of origin.

The UNHCR does not represent the views of the refugees whatsoever despite being aimed to protect their rights and interests from being violated. The body does not bend itself around the needs of the refugees, but simply ensures that the process for repatriation is civil and without causing any detriment to the refugees.

The UNHCR voluntary repatriation handbook provides for a sample agreement that assigns responsibilities pertaining to the process of repatriation. It includes topics like designation of formal border crossings, UNHCR field offices, and agreement to provide international protection within the host state.

UNHCR actively seeks to further develop "refugee law," and considers its dissemination an important vehicle in effectuating international protection. Thus, it makes major efforts to publicize refugee law to create a favorable climate of receptiveness.10

This body mainly aims at developing and publicizing refugee all over the world and to ensure that international actions match the corresponding obligations and duties. Apart from constantly striving to achieve the aforesaid functions, the UNHCR provides on-the-ground services to refugees such as counselling, education, resettlement, and treatment and rehabilitation of the handicapped. It sometimes goes beyond its primary aims and duties by requesting the help of other UN agencies to aid and assist people who fall outside the mandate of the refugee protection such as internally displaced persons and repatriates.

THE QUESTION OF INCORPORATION

When the Rwandan people fled Rwanda and moved to Uganda, they faced some of the harshest refugee conditions under the Ugandan regime. There were strict marked zones for the refugees, no mixing with the local population of the refugees, transferring of refugee status etc. What this meant was that even the children of refugees were considered as refugees, and not as domestic citizens of the host state. Though there were stringent demarcated boundaries, some of the initial refugees managed to permeate them and get absorbed in the local population.

Over the years, the refugee status of the Rwandan people worked in their favour somewhat as they gained reservation in offices in Uganda and other refugee privileges granted by the United Nations. This created resentment in amongst the Ugandan nationals which led to work-place discrimination.

This phenomenon is not hard to explain as the indigenous people are vastly affected by the influx of foreigners who affect each aspect of their lives such as local resources, job opportunities, government-funded resources etc. For example, a person living in a country for decades pays his taxes and contributes to the building of roads, community centers and local parks. And if the government allows the mixing of refugees amongst the local indigenous people, they will be able to avail all the services that they never paid for.

A fitting example for this would be the issue in Assam after the British left India. 1971 saw a million refugees move into India from East Pakistan following the Pakistani crackdown and even after the formation of Bangladesh, it was estimated that up to 100,000 people stayed back in Assam. This sudden demographic shift saw the indigenous people agitate over the influx of foreigners. The number of 'aliens' was pegged at a staggering 31 to 34 per cent and local unions and councils started protesting to secure their rights.

On the darker side, sometimes refugees don't end up being part of the domestic system and face the short end of the stick. Refugee populations consist of people who are terrified and are away from familiar surroundings. There can be instances of exploitation at the hands of enforcement officials, citizens of the host country, and even United Nations peacekeepers. Instances of human rights violations, child labor, mental and physical trauma/torture, violence-related trauma, and sexual exploitation, especially of children, are not entirely unknown. In many refugee camps in three war-torn West African countries, Sierra Leone, Guinea, and Liberia, young girls were found to be exchanging sex for money, a handful of fruit, or even a bar of soap. Most of these girls were between 13 and 18 years of age. In most cases, if the girls had been forced to stay, they would have been forced into marriage. They became pregnant around the age of 15 on average. This happened as recently as in 2001. Parents tended to turn a blind eye because sexual exploitation had become a "mechanism of survival" in these camps.11

Refugee workers in Lebanon and the Middle East in general work under appalling conditions. Devoid of the protections of labor laws, they face several challenges ranging from delayed or non-payment of wages and miserable living conditions, to physical and sexual violence. In addition to this, many migrants throughout the Middle East are subject to the kafala sponsorship system, a labor employment model that binds workers to a single employer; this system leaves such migrants in a near-bondage situation. Despite facing stiff government opposition, a labour union has been set up with support from National Federation of Worker's Union in Lebanon (FENASOL) which will help improve the working conditions of the workers as well as protect their rights and well being as a community in the region.

The Labour Minister of Lebanon heavily criticized this development and claimed that Lebanese law prohibited the formation of unions by foreign citizens. There are over 250,00 migrant workers in Lebanon and the failure on the government's behalf to recognize these workers and disallowing them to form unions represents the major change in mindset that is required in the Middle East region where the kafala system ensures that thousands live in slave-like conditions.

In another remarkable development, Lawyers for Human Rights (LHR) in South Africa successfully appealed in favour of refugees' rights to own and operate businesses in South Africa. The Supreme Court of South Africa (in Somali Association of South Africa, et al., v. Limpopo Department of Economic Development, Environment and Tourism12 ) went on to reiterate its position by saying that refugees need not fear any police reprisal. An important excerpt from the judgment reads, "If a refugee or asylum seeker is unable to obtain wage-earning employment and is on the brink of starvation, which brings with it humiliation and degradation, and that person can only sustain him or herself by engaging in trade, such a person ought to be able to rely on the constitutional right to dignity in order to advance a case for the granting of a license to trade...". This marks a major change as the right to own and operate small businesses is not only a source of livelihood but can also play a role in amalgamation of the refugees into society and gradual acceptance. South Africa, being a country that has seen human and civil rights conflicts, can set an example by warming up to a multicultural society.

The Sudanese government also granted 30,000 work permits, in early October 2013, to refugees residing there which not only recognizes them formally but also helps them integrate and contribute to the economy by regulating employment. Although Sudan's Asylum Act currently affords refugees the right to work, in practice, work permits are rarely issued to refugees. As a result, refugees have too frequently been pushed into the informal market, making them particularly vulnerable to trafficking, smugglers and kidnappers. Now that access to lawful employment will be an option, UNHCR has stated that they are committed to ensuring that refugees are informed about their workers' rights to prevent exploitation in the formal sector. Likewise, the Labor Office will be strengthened to streamline procedures for issuing work permits and provide the necessary labor regulations to ensure that refugees are formally drawn into the labor market.13

The example given above pertaining to the Islamic State also finds mention here as there are approximately 2 million Syrian refugees that moved into Turkey. In late 2014, the Turkish government agreed to work with its Labour Ministry in order to secure employment for the refugees. Though the above benefits and positives will apply to this example as well, there are also a few issues that can arise. Since not all jobs are for females, there needs to be a segregation of jobs depending on the required workforce. Not only would this require an industry survey to find the pockets where employment is required but subsequent enforcement of the labour laws also poses a problem on behalf of the government.

AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF REFUGEES AND MIGRATION?

From a purely economic perspective, the optimal immigration policy would admit individuals whose skills are in shortest supply and whose tax contributions, net of the cost of public services they receive, are as large as possible.14 Going beyond this initial thought, a simple comparison between illegal and legal migration should ideally result in preference for legal migration. But taking the case of the United States, the forces of market demand and supply are often the reasons why people cross into American territories - in illegal scenarios. On the other hand, legal migration and the process of registering foreign refugees is not only arbitrary but a bureaucratic procedure which is shown to not have any direct impact on the level of unemployment, in the USA at least.15

Furthermore, the host government ends up paying for social services to the refugees who has crossed international boundaries into their jurisdictions. Since international treaties guarantee protection of certain human rights, the host governments must oblige and spend millions to help set up refugee camps. The consequences of such actions are two-fold: firstly, the services are being paid for out of taxes and revenues that have been collected from citizens for their own benefits and secondly, the beneficiaries of such camps, the refugees themselves, do not contribute either in the form of taxes or in terms of services provided to the host nation.

These refugee camps span over hundreds of kilometres and are generally built without a time frame as it is uncertain as to when the refugees might return to their state of origin. For example, the Dadaab refugee camp set up by the UN in Kenya for Somalian refugees is currently home to around 334,000 people.16 Accommodating such a large population requires huge tracts of land that are utilised without any return. Had the camps not been there, these lands could have been put to better use through agriculture or industry. This raises the question of opportunity cost for the host nation, a cost that is forced upon the nation as part of its obligations which prevents it from yielding a higher return by employing the land for more productive purposes.

Even voluntary repatriation programs entail high costs. Referring to the example given above, the Dadaab camp has seen a decreased in occupation from about 487,000 persons in 2011 to the current figure. That translates to 133,000 odd people leaving the camp out of which 52,000 odd people left in 2014 itself. For repatriation purposes, the UNHCR set up pilot programs with the help of the Department of Refugee Affairs (DRA) as well as Inquiry Desks which have been garnering interest from the refugees. The process of repatriation itself requires the host nation to provide safe passage to the country of origin which further mounts the cost on the host nation. And when the numbers are close to 100,000 the costs only rise.

CONCLUSION

As we have seen in recent times, the topic of refugees and their rights is becoming increasingly relevant. With each passing day, the number increases manyfold. The international community must address these problems with utmost care and great dexterity as these are sensitive issues dealing with the lives and rights of thousands of people across the world. From the Rohingya Muslimes in South East Asia, to the Sudanese refugees in Kenya, these people not only need to be given a roof to sleep under but before that, they need to be recognised. Once they are recognised, they are at least accorded some sort of protection and treatment under the 1951 Refugee Convention. After recognition comes the question of representation which involves hearing these communities out and sensitization towards their needs and demands. Some may be demanding regularisation in the host country whereas some might feel the repatriation is the way to go.

Whichever route is resorted to, must be chosen quickly as for various reasons given above in the economic analysis section, the refugees may prove to be a major drain on local resources and the patience of the host country may wear thin due to this. For example, the Italian government which has received more than 50,000 refugees till June 2015 itself, has decided to set an ultimatum to its European counterparts. Under the Dublin Regulation of 2013, the European nations are required to share the number of refugees so that some states are not overly burdened with the influx.
Due to the proximity of Sicily and the Italian mainland, it is a favoured destination for refugees fleeing from Northern Africa. And thus, the Italian government is keen to engage the other European nations so that it does not have to provide for the growing refugee population on its shores. This example is still better when compared to the status of Rohingya Muslims in South East Asia where they are not even recognised and are disowned by all governments and pushed back into the sea where most of them end up dying.

The only way forward are legislations such as the Dublin Regulation which recognise the need of the hour to provide asylum to those who are not protected in their own countries. Further steps such as recognition, representation and regularisation also need to be put in the fast lane, as was seen in South Africa. We need to understand that the refugees are also in fact people, who are not guaranteed the basic rights that we take for granted, and to pull them out of the vicious circle they are thrown into unwillingly, we must act together and we must act fast.

1. UNCRSR
2. As of 11th December, 2014 http://data.unhcr.org/horn-of-africa/regional.php
3. "U.N. urges states to save boat people as record numbers take to seas" Katie Nguyen <http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/10/us-refugees-un-boatpeople-idUSKBN0JO0BQ20141210>
4. http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/resource/asylum-overview-how-refugees-get-united-states
5. Refugees Act, 1998 (RSA) http://www.saflii.org/za/legis/consol_act/ra199899/
6. THE 1951 CONVENTION relating to the Status of refugees AND ITS 1967 PROTOCOL
7. Press Release: SG/SM/16407, United Nations Security General, 9 December 2014, http://www.un.org/press/en/2014/sgsm16407.doc.htm
8. http://www.amnesty.org/en/refugees-and-migrants/rights-of-refugees-and-migrants
9. The Point of No Return: Refugees, Rights, and Repatriation, Katy Long
10. Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 33 U.N. GAOR, Supp. (No. 12) 10-11, U.N. Doc. A/33/12 (1978)
11. Aggrawal A. (2005) "Refugee Medicine" in : Payne-James JJ, Byard RW, Corey TS, Henderson C (Eds.) Encyclopedia of Forensic and Legal Medicine, Elsevier Academic Press: London, Vol. 3, Pp. 514–525.
12. [2014] ZASCA 143
13. Anna Wirth, 'Sudanese Government Agrees to Issue 30,000 Work Permits to Refugees in East Sudan' accessible at <https://rtwasylumaccess.wordpress.com/2013/10/07/sudanese-government-agrees-to-issue-30000-work-permits-to-refugees-in-east-sudan/>
14. Gordon H. Hanson, The Economic Logic of Illegal Immigration, The Bernard and Irene Schwartz Series on American Competitiveness, CSR NO. 26, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, APRIL 2007
15. James F. Hollifield and Valerie F. Hunt, "Immigrants, Markets, and Rights: The US as an Emerging Migration State," Migration Ethnicity Meeting (MEM) at IZA in Bonn, Germany, May 13–16, 2006.
16. UN Report on Dadaab, Kenya accessible at http://data.unhcr.org/horn-of-africa/region.php?id=3&country=110 on 16/06/2015
17. Report on SUPPORT TO THE SPONTANEOUS VOLUNTARY RETURN OF SOMALI REFUGEES FROM KENYA by UNHCR