STEFANIE DE SAUDE DARBANDI: The real culprit behind SA’s immigration woes

The final white paper released recently by the home affairs ministry has brought SA’s immigration landscape into sharp focus. While it highlights several areas of concern within the present immigration framework, it fails to address the deeper issue at hand: the department of home affairs itself. 

A recurring theme throughout the white paper is the prevalence of fraud and exploitation in the immigration system, often facilitated by criminal syndicates. Who enables these nefarious activities to flourish? The answer clearly lies within the very institution entrusted with safeguarding the integrity of SA’s borders. 

The minister’s assertion that legislation is outdated and contradictory overlooks the root cause of the problem. Instead of addressing internal inefficiencies and corruption, the focus is diverted towards proposed changes to laws and regulations. However, as history has shown, new laws alone cannot eradicate entrenched malpractice. 

The paper laments the overburdening of the asylum system and the conflation of asylum seekers with economic migrants, yet it conveniently overlooks bureaucracy and prolonged processing times, which worsen the situation. The department’s failure to efficiently handle applications and appeals only serves to compound delays and perpetuate backlogs.

The revelation of widespread corruption and misconduct within the department, as outlined in the paper, underscores the urgent need for accountability and reform within the department. While disciplinary measures may be a step in the right direction, they fail to address the systemic issues that allow such misconduct to thrive. 

Proposed changes to the immigration framework offer little solace if the underlying issues persist. Without fundamental reform within the department any attempt to overhaul the immigration system is destined to fall short. 

Calls for the establishment of the long-overdue Immigration Advisory Board, immigration courts and separate appeal boards are positive steps towards improving accountability and transparency. Still, without a genuine commitment to upholding the rule of law and respecting judicial decisions, these measures may amount to little more than lip service.

Serious discrepancies

An analysis of the white paper reveals a concerning lack of progress and a failure to address key issues, as illustrated by the persistence of critical numerical discrepancies and flawed arguments. 

In scrutinising the figures presented in the white paper, these become glaringly apparent. For instance, the document states that on December 2023 there were 113,007 refugees granted refugee status, as well as 81,086 active asylum seekers and 828,404 inactive asylum seekers. However, a simple arithmetical error results in a total of 1,334,174 asylum seekers and refugees, when it should be 1,022,497. This not only raises questions about the accuracy of the data; it also undermines the credibility of the entire narrative. 

Moreover, the characterisation of “inactive” asylum seekers is deeply flawed. These individuals are defined solely by their absence, suggesting they may have left the country, died or obtained another status. Thus, including them in the total count of asylum seekers and refugees skews perceptions of the situation. Adjusting for this error, the total number of asylum seekers and refugees in SA is about 194,093, significantly lower than previously stated and insignificant in a country of 60-million people. 

Similar numerical inaccuracies mar the discussion on citizenship. The comparison between the current Citizenship Act and its 1949 counterpart is undermined by a failure to accurately assess the data. The document claims the act is a replica of the 1949 act, yet fails to provide substantive evidence to support this assertion. In addition, the emphasis on specific provisions such as section 4(3) fails to address broader issues within the citizenship framework. A mere faction of people qualify under section 4(3) — why is this offered as the flagship example of what is wrong with the Citizenship Act? 

The discussion on immigration raises further concerns. The minister seems to imply that exemptions are the primary vehicle for migrants to enter SA, when this is not the case. Nine pages are dedicated to the history of exemptions and no real reforms or new proposals are made, save perhaps to note that the minister is wasting further resources by appealing the Zimbabwean exemption permit (ZEP) judgments to the Constitutional Court. Why is this even in the white paper? 

Further proposed changes, such as the abolition of certain visas and the introduction of new categories, raise questions about their efficacy and rationale. Why are useful visas such as relatives’ visas and ICT work visas being abolished without explanation?

Contradiction

What is a “limited-duration permanent residence visa” and how can it be simultaneously limited duration and permanent in nature? How will it differ from visas other than in name? How will it add impetus to economic stimulus to close down channels for immigration, and how or why will it curtail fraud?

Why should visas have their duration shortened, creating the need for more applications to be submitted to home affairs for processing more regularly? These proposals, lacking clear justification and rationale, only add to the confusion and raise doubts about the direction of SA’s migration policy. 

The “final” white paper on migration policy fails to address critical numerical discrepancies and flawed arguments, undermining its credibility and effectiveness. Despite expectations for substantial revisions, the document persists in perpetuating inaccuracies and proposing questionable measures.

As stakeholders continue to scrutinise the document it becomes increasingly evident it falls short of delivering real reform. In fact, it may even be worse than the draft, further worsening concerns about the direction of migration policy in SA.

Only through genuine introspection and decisive action can SA hope to reclaim the integrity of its immigration system. Until then the veil of blame-shifting and evasion will continue to obscure the true culprit behind the nation’s immigration woes — the department of home affairs itself. 

• De Saude Darbandi is immigration and citizenship law specialist at De Saude Darbandi Attorneys.