Patriotic Alliance (PA) Member of Parliament (MP) Millicent Mathopa, was told by Home Affairs Minister Leon Schreiber 51 650 illegal immigrants were deported in the 2024/25 financial year at a cost of R78 140 005.

This is close to 11 000 more than were deported in the previous financial year at a cost of over R11 million less. The figures for the 2022/23 financial year show 22 560 illegal immigrants were deported at a cost of R32 million, while 39 627 people were deported in 2023/24 at a cost of R67 million.

The figures given in reply to Mathopa’s August Parliamentary question differ from those given by the Department of Home Affairs (DHA) in an April ministerial statement. That Schreiber statement had it 46 898 illegal immigrants were deported in the 2023/24 year – an increase of 18% over 2022/23.

He ascribed the deportation increase to what he said was “the effectiveness of enforcement operations” resulting from improved collaboration between his department, Commissioner Michael Masiapato’s Border Management Authority (BMA) and General Fannie Masemola’s SA Police Service (SAPS).

The post South Africa spends millions deporting illegal immigrants appeared first on ProtectionWeb.

The bill proposes joint border zones where officials from South Africa and neighbouring states would conduct immigration, customs and security checks in one place. The government says this system would reduce delays and facilitate trade, as it has done elsewhere in Africa.

But some critics say the bill, in its current form, does not sufficiently protect immigrants, asylum seekers and refugees, and prioritises efficiency at the expense of human rights.

In a submission to Parliament’s Home Affairs Portfolio Committee, the Scalabrini Centre questioned how responsibilities would be handled in shared zones. Scalabrini said asylum seekers could be “bounced” through common control zones by officials from each state, or unlawfully detained and deported.

“This is particularly concerning given the different legal frameworks in place between many of our neighbouring states with regards to refugee protection,” the organisation warned in its submission, one of eight presented to the committee.

Scalabrini also flagged the absence of anti-corruption mechanisms in the bill, and the lack of references to constitutional rights or international human rights

Professor Loren Landau, co-director of the Wits-Oxford Mobility Governance Lab at the University of the Witwatersrand, said there was much in the Bill that was “sensible”, including commitments to improve trade and limit corruption.

“What is missing, of course, is how this articulates with policy frameworks that continue to incentivise corruption, irregular crossings, and smuggling. Until these are addressed there will be little practical significance apart from some extra tendering,” she said.

Landau said more effective management within Home Affairs, more resources for the asylum system and sanctions for employers who hired people without documents “could make a real and immediate difference”.

Professor Alan Hirsch, at the Nelson Mandela School of Public Governance at the University of Cape Town, said the Department of Home Affairs needed more funds for integrating systems and recruiting skilled and honest staff. “There are some funds budgeted for these purposes in the recent budget, but not as much as Home Affairs requested,” he said.

Lawyers for Human Rights (LHR) candidate attorney Nyeleti Baloyi told the committee that the bill would allow border officials to deny entry to, or remove, people based on the fact that they had entered through unofficial ports, even if they were asylum seekers entitled to protection under South African law.

LHR also warned against the arbitrary detention of immigrants. The organisation called for clear regulations, oversight, and compliance with international standards if any form of detention is allowed.

The Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) said it broadly supported the bill’s trade objectives, but criticised Home Affairs for not consulting labour through NEDLAC. COSATU raised concerns that trade facilitation could be used to bypass customs duties, threatening local industries and jobs.

“We see an advantage in a One Stop Border Post in that it might create more efficiency and travellers might spend less time at the border post,” said Ngqabutho Nicholas Mabhena, chairperson of the Zimbabwe Community in South Africa. “We think it is a step in the right direction.”

Parliament’s committee is now reviewing submissions, and a revised version of the bill is expected later this year.

Written by Jan Bornman for GroundUp and republished with permission. The original article can be found here.

The post New border control plan could harm asylum seekers, say critics appeared first on ProtectionWeb.

With each election cycle, the issue of migration has been amplified to garner votes. Political parties use populist rhetoric and anti-immigration narratives to galvanise support amid rising public dissatisfaction with government service delivery, joblessness and crime.

In 2020, Afrobarometer reported that about half of South Africans believed foreigners should not be allowed to work in the country because they take jobs away from citizens; and 62% felt government was managing immigration poorly.

While anti-immigrant attitudes and attacks frequently manifest in areas burdened by unemployment, crime and poor service delivery, they are not limited to poorer citizens. Afrobarometer found that those with post-secondary education and living in urban areas, in particular, were less welcoming to foreign workers. This suggests that opposition to immigration is driven less by xenophobia and more by socio-economic concerns – making it difficult to foster social cohesion between locals and foreign-born nationals.

Increased populist rhetoric ahead of the May 2024 national elections fuelled attacks on foreigners, with several parties capitalising on public fears that immigration drives up unemployment and insecurity. The same trend is likely in the run-up to the 2026 local government polls.

The country’s Government of National Unity (GNU) should strive to find common ground and lead the agenda by formulating a pragmatic, sustainable migration governance model. However, finding consensus among the GNU’s 10 political parties won’t be easy. The Inkatha Freedom Party, Patriotic Alliance and Freedom Front Plus emphasise strong border security to limit immigration.

The Inkatha Freedom Party – the fifth biggest in terms of votes and parliamentary seats – advocates for stricter border controls to protect local employment. The Patriotic Alliance, ranked sixth, built its platform on anti-immigrant rhetoric, advocating for stringent immigration policies to safeguard jobs and resources for locals. The Freedom Front Plus, while also focused on tight border control, ties its stance to preserving cultural identity.

The Democratic Alliance – South Africa’s second largest party – supports attracting skilled immigrants but also advocates for Zimbabwe Exemption Permit holders to regularise their status, acknowledging their legal presence since 2009. This reflects a commitment to lawful immigration beyond a skills focus.

In contrast, the African National Congress has shifted from its Pan-Africanist roots towards stricter immigration enforcement, despite promoting regional integration within the Southern African Development Community (SADC).

The GNU has the opportunity to adopt a progressive, forward-thinking approach to migration. This model should be tailored to different groups, such as economic migrants and refugees, while moving away from a security-driven focus and the stigmatisation of specific migrant categories. But can the GNU reconcile its members’ competing interests and achieve a unified approach?

The country is grappling with 32.9% unemployment, 26 million people relying on social assistance, and 55.5% living in poverty. Without addressing these fundamentals, any migration policy will remain at odds with the country’s deeper structural problems.

Beyond meeting its international obligations, improved migration policy could strengthen regional integration, address South Africa’s labour shortages, enhance economic growth and social cohesion, and formalise the workforce.

The Democratic Alliance’s Leon Schreiber began his tenure as Home Affairs Minister in July with a pro-migrant approach, extending concessions for foreign nationals awaiting visa decisions and granting waivers for Zimbabwe Exemption Permit holders. However, the public backlash against these measures pushed Schreiber to focus on removing undocumented migrant workers. This underscores the pressures on the GNU to balance migrant welfare with public demands for tighter immigration control.

Whether it adopts a more nationalist or liberal stance, South Africa’s direction on migration will have national and international implications.

As a key player in the African Union (AU) and SADC, the country is obliged to uphold regional migration standards. The AU’s Agenda 2063 emphasises the free movement of people as essential for African unity and economic integration. A restrictive approach could isolate South Africa, straining relations with strategic partners like Nigeria and complicating its regional leadership role.

Parties to the GNU need a shared understanding of the political, economic and security dynamics that drive migrant labour into South Africa. Acknowledging these factors is essential to formulate practical migration policies that are sensitive to the regional complexities influencing migration patterns.

At an Institute for Security Studies seminar in August, Home Affairs Head of Policy Sihle Mthiyane stressed the GNU’s commitment to legal migration pathways. But he also acknowledged administrative challenges, including resource constraints and inefficiencies, that could hinder effective policy implementation.

Tackling these problems and addressing corruption – particularly the issuing of fake documentation – are essential to restoring the integrity of South Africa’s migration systems. A more coordinated approach between the Home Affairs and International Relations and Cooperation departments at the executive and directors-general levels is also vital.

Ultimately, the GNU’s approach to migration governance will test its ability to navigate complex and contentious policy issues before the 2026 local elections. That requires crafting policies that are both politically viable and address the socio-economic realities driving anti-immigrant sentiment.

Success depends on balancing immediate public concerns with long-term strategies that integrate migrants, reduce tensions and align with South Africa’s regional and international commitments. How the GNU handles migration could define its legacy and shape the country’s political landscape.

Written by Margaret Monyani, Senior Researcher, Migration, ISS Pretoria, and Mmabatho Mongae, Data Analyst, Good Governance Africa.

Republished with permission from ISS Africa. The original article can be found here.

The post South Africa’s GNU faces an uphill battle on migration policy appeared first on ProtectionWeb.