PRETORIA, Gauteng — The ongoing review of South Africa migration policy has sparked intense debate following the Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) on Migration’s recent engagements with civil society groups regarding illegal immigration. While government officials highlighted a unified public desire to curb unlawful border crossings, migration experts warn against conflating immigration enforcement with broader systemic governance failures.
Justice Minister and IMC chairperson Mmamoloko Kubayi reported that the participating civic groups emphasized they are not opposed to legal migration. However, they stressed the need for stronger, more decisive action against illegal immigration. Additionally, these groups expressed a willingness to collaborate with the government to tackle urban decay, specifically focusing on the challenges of hijacked buildings and the unlawful occupation of state-owned properties.
Despite the collaborative tone, University of Oxford and Wits University Professor of Migration and Development Loren Landau cautioned that the government appears to be taking its cue from a small, vocal fraction of civil society. Landau noted that while it is a positive step for the state to focus on enforcing the law and upholding local labor conditions, there is a worrying trend of linking immigration to unrelated social issues. He argued that problems like hijacked buildings, human trafficking, and general lawlessness are rooted in municipal and police failures, and will not be resolved solely through immigration enforcement.
Addressing the communication gap between the state and the public, Landau stressed the need for absolute transparency regarding both immigration policy and the government’s own shortcomings in urban management, employment, and law enforcement. He pointed out a contradiction in the government’s approach, noting that while officials scold citizens for believing fictitious social media narratives, the state itself has occasionally propagated fear-based messages driven by public perception rather than empirical facts.
When questioned about how to gauge true public sentiment—such as the crowds protesting at Home Affairs departments—Landau clarified that the most vocal protesters do not represent the majority. He emphasized that most South Africans live peacefully alongside immigrants but remain unheard. By inviting march leaders and associating with the Zulu monarchy at the Union Buildings, the government is amplifying specific voices. Landau urged the creation of safe spaces to listen to communities that reject the vigilante or violent forms of exclusion often seen on the streets.
The engagement also touched heavily on the country’s severe unemployment crisis. A representative of the Zulu monarch argued that the street protests reflect deep public frustration over joblessness and emphasized the rule of law. The representative cited the stringent border regulations observed during the King’s visit to Zimbabwe, placing the blame squarely on the South African government for failing to uphold similar legal standards.
While acknowledging the employment and labor exploitation crisis, Landau maintained that these are fundamentally economic and labor issues, with immigration playing only a minor role. He warned that shaping South Africa’s migration policy around election-year fear politics, rather than factual, regional economic integration with neighboring trading partners, will fail to produce a sustainable framework.
Finally, addressing the Zulu monarch’s call for strict adherence to the rule of law, Landau agreed that legal enforcement is vital for all residents. However, he warned against applying the law selectively to target immigrants. He noted that some march leaders have themselves violated the law or challenged courts that protect asylum seekers and refugees. True rule of law, Landau concluded, must be applied universally—targeting the gangsters, mafias, and corrupt officials who undermine urban and township governance—rather than being used solely as a tool for immigration control.
