A few weeks ago, a debate about foreign nationals engaging in small-scale trade quickly became something much bigger, a national conversation about immigration, economic competition and the place of foreign nationals in Kenya.
There is a point at which a policy question stops being merely administrative and becomes a question of social cohesion. The current debate over foreign nationals and small-scale trade shows how quickly the two can become connected.
The concerns of Kenyan traders are legitimate. Small businesses are under pressure, the cost of doing business is high, access to finance is difficult and competition is fierce. A sovereign state has both the authority and the duty to know who resides within its borders and to ensure that those living and working here obey its laws.
But there is an important distinction between addressing unlawful economic activity and creating a narrative in which foreigners are blamed for economic hardship. The first is governance. The second is scapegoating.
Societies rarely move from coexistence to open hostility overnight. Tensions build over time. Economic frustrations grow, people begin looking for someone to blame, and nationality can easily become part of that blame. When there is little clear information from government, rumours and social media can make matters worse, more so now as Kenya approaches elections, turning individual grievances into suspicion of an entire community.
That is why the guiding principle should be simple: If someone is breaking the law, the law should deal with that person, not their nationality.
If a foreign national is operating without the required documentation, the law should apply. If a business is improperly registered, taxes are being evaded, or someone is working without the appropriate authorisations, the law should apply.
The same principle must apply whether the individual is Burundian, Ugandan, Tanzanian, Congolese, Somali, Rwandan or from anywhere else.
Foreign national is not a single legal or social category. There are refugees in Kenya, asylum seekers, migrant workers, students, professionals, investors, traders and long-term residents. Their circumstances are not interchangeable. A refugee cannot be treated as an ordinary foreign trader, just as a legally resident East African Community citizen cannot automatically be presumed to be violating Kenyan law.
Good policy requires clarity. When people do not understand what a policy means or who it applies to, fear, confusion and rumours can quickly fill the gap.
The anxiety experienced by many Burundian nationals should also concern policymakers, not because it proves that government has acted unlawfully, but because fear is an important indicator of how policy is being experienced at community level.
A policy can be legally defensible and still be poorly implemented. A registration requirement may be administrative on paper but intimidating in practice. This is why communication is not an accessory to public policy. It is part of the policy itself.
If government wants foreign nationals to register or regularise their status, it must communicate clearly: Who must register? Why? What documents are required? What happens to those already legally documented? What protections exist for refugees and asylum seekers?
The recent 90-day regularisation window is a constructive step, but its success will depend on clarity, consistency and professional conduct by every agency involved.
Kenya must also be careful not to allow economic competition to become identity competition. A Kenyan trader and a Burundian trader may compete for the same customers. That is an economic relationship. Once it becomes “Kenyans versus Burundians”, the nature of the problem changes. One person's misconduct can quickly become a community's alleged misconduct.
This is where responsible leadership must intervene, before mistrust hardens, before communities begin organising against one another and before a manageable policy dispute becomes something much harder to reverse.
Kenya has every right to regulate immigration, protect its economic interests and enforce its laws. Foreign nationals have a corresponding obligation to respect those laws. But enforcement must be fair, professional and based on conduct rather than nationality.
Kenya has seen before how quickly economic and political frustrations can take on an identity dimension. We should be careful not to go down that road again.
The government has every right to regulate immigration and protect Kenyan businesses, just as foreign nationals are expected to follow Kenyan laws. But the response must be measured and based on individual conduct, not broad assumptions about an entire nationality.
Kenya does not become stronger by treating every foreigner as a problem. It becomes stronger when its institutions are able to enforce the law fairly, explain their actions clearly and protect people from being unfairly targeted.
This is ultimately about getting the balance right: protecting Kenyan interests without creating unnecessary fear or turning neighbours into enemies.
The writer is an international affairs and humanitarian specialist.