Immigration Bill: hearings

Meeting report

HOME AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE; SOCIAL SERVICES SELECT COMMITTEE: JOINT MEETING
18 April 2002
IMMIGRATION BILL: PUBLIC HEARINGS

Chairperson: Mr DA Mokoena (ANC)
Ms L Jacobus (NCOP, ANC)

Documents handed out:
Joint submission by Cosatu, Nactu and Fedusa
Draft submission by IDASA
Proposed Amendments by Idasa
Presentation by Ivan Lambinon at World Bank Symposium on GATS obligations (see Appendix 1)
Submission by Centre for Development and Enterprise (see Appendix 2)

SUMMARY
Cosatu, Nactu and Fedusa presented a joint submission to the Committee highlighting the following areas of concern in the Bill. Compliance with the existing labour standards and conditions, including the role of the Department of Labour (DOL), integrating the Bills provisions on skills, qualifications and the training fund into the existing skills legislative framework. They also raised the issue of compulsory deferred pay, the regulation and issuing of exceptional skills permits; the regulation of Intra- company transfer permits. The composition and representation of the Immigratory Advisory Board (IAB), the making of regulations and compliance with International and Constitutional human rights obligations were discussed.

IDASA's SAMP project proposed amendments to the specific sections of the Bill. It is their belief that the draft Bill is fundamentally flawed as it does not achieve what it sets out to do, other than detect, apprehend and deport illegal foreigners, or what it would achieve is not necessarily desirable. Idasa submitted that a better approach would be to ask the questions: What do we want to achieve with the immigration bill and how do we structure and formulate our legislation in order to achieve this? The key requirement here should be to achieve agreement on the goals and objectives of immigration, which should not be the detection, apprehension and deportation illegal foreigners as is currently the case.

MINUTES
Briefing by Labour
Mr Neil Coleman: Head of the Cosatu Parliamentary Office, Ms Prakashnee Govender: Cosatu Legal Co-ordinator and Ms Gretchen Humphries: Fedusa Parliamentary Co-ordinator, made submissions to the Committee. Mr Coleman said that it was important to draw attention to today's historic occasion, as it was the first time in Parliament that the Trade Union Movement was giving a joint submission. Nactu had endorsed the submissions but were unable to attend the meeting.

Mr Coleman averred that it was important that they are united on the critical issues facing the country. Migration is a sensitive issue as in South Africa there has been a long history going back to colonialism, whereby the migration policy used to control the majority and deny them their fundamental human rights. These historical patterns should not be reinforced. The long process from the Green Paper in 1997 to the White Paper and finally to the Bill, (which is littered with complications) was highlighted by Mr Coleman. He thereafter turned to Ms Humphries to take the Committee through this process.

Ms Humphries referred to the document and read out the following paragraphs to the Committee: paragraph 1: Introduction; paragraph 1.1 Concerns about process; and paragraph 1.2 The Relationship to the White Paper.

Ms Govender took the Committee through the balance of the document.

Discussion
Ms van Wyk (UDM) said that concern about the chartered accountants being required to participate in the approval procedures for work permit applicants has been raised. While she could see the logic behind their reasoning, were they comfortable about the Department of Labour dealing with this added responsibility, and whether this extra duty been discussed with them.

Mr Coleman said he does not think it is about the willingness of the Department to take on this added responsibility but it is something entrenched in our law. He believed that the Department could develop the capacity to implement this. He mentioned that one of the problems with Nedlac was the battle to get a response from them. They only met on substantive issues, and a response from them was received only two days ago. The Department of Labour was not present at one or two meetings, thus the process was bogged down. It was impossible to get an intelligible coherent response from government on certain issues.

Ms Jacobus (ANC) said that Clause 12 deals with specialised skills and qualifications. What did they think about the idea of prescribed quotas for skills?

Mr Coleman said that there is the broader issue of quotas in toto and he does not know what happened on the issue of the quota system in the White Paper. There is a bias in the Bill around the issue of introduction of skills of foreigners.

Mr Chauke (ANC) said that his point concerned the consultations with Nedlac, there does not seem to be a good working relationship between Nedlac and the Department of Home Affairs. There is a section in the Bill which states which parties have been consulted. Who had in fact been consulted in the process? He asked to be informed about the amendments which were proposed around the Aliens Control Act. Thirdly, could the amendments to the Aliens Control Act be completed?

Mr Coleman replied that he wished to avoid getting bogged down with issues concerning Nedlac as the Executive Director of Nedlac would be making a submission to the Committee next week which will place on record the process. The Committee has to decide on the route that it wishes to follow. On the issue of whether reworking the Aliens Control Act can be completed, he replied that there are many issues of concern, and the Committee has to determine how long a period is required. They were concerned that the time period is inadequate, given the range of difficult issues that have to be addressed.

Mr Waters (DP) replied that the Aliens Control Act is a law from the old South Africa. A progressive piece of legislation is required. He followed up on Ms van Wyk's question about handing over functions to chartered accountants and asked if it would in fact be sensible to hand over this function to them. He asked if there could be elaboration on Clause 16 (5)(2): corporate permits, and also how the issue of deferred payment works. There is a major concern about under-funding in the Departments and he is concerned about the Department's capacity to fulfil these extra functions.

Mr Coleman replied that one of the major campaigns that Labour is waging is to show that there are restrictive resources to pursue these programmes. However he averred that the answer is not to contract out the State's functions to the private sector. The capacity of the State to deal with these functions should not be run down, but there is an enormous problem with training.

On the issue of deferred pay, he said that it is a relic of the apartheid system and is carried out in Mozambique and Malawi amongst other countries. There is an agreement with the government of those countries whereby a certain portion of the salary is deferred, and can be obtained upon the employee's return to his country. In Mozambique hundreds of employees did not receive their salary, and the National Union of Mine Workers have come out strongly against this system. The system of voluntary pay is something that needs to be looked at.

Mr Pretorius (NNP) said that on the previous day Business South Africa and business in general have criticised and expressed their reservation on the Bill, and today Labour is expressing their reservation. Have Labour and Business jointly discussed the merits of the Bill and tried to find a happy medium to protect South Africans in general, and promote growth and development?

Ms Mars (IFP) said that corporate permits in toto should be rejected. She was concerned about how serious one would consider our skills deficiency in the country. If it is very serious then should we not find the means to accommodate this shortage.

Ms Humphries said that both Labour and Business did consult on various issues. In the Migration Policy Unit of Nedlac, Business had an opportunity to submit concerns. However there has been no real negotiations although opportunity was given to reach agreement on issues. There was no time to sit down and discuss the concerns raised.
On the issue of shortage of skills, she said that the key concern is that skills are in fact transferred to the South African workforce.

Ms Govender replied that within the National Skills Framework policy the shortage of skills is identified and prioritised. She pointed out that a Clause 12(5) permit is distinct from a Clause 12(1) permit and this helps to address the shortage of skills.

Mr Skhosana (ANC) said that the progressiveness of the unions impressed him, in terms of recognising shortage of skills and taking a certain approach.

Mr Sikakane (ANC) asked what is the feeling of Cosatu with regards to the issue of permits. He asked if Clause 12 and 16 could be married to obtain better results.

Mr Coleman replied that the issue of corporate permits comes up repeatedly. The Committee should look at page 15 of the submission as the issue is straightforward. The relevant issue is who is responsible for regulating this, and to outsource that to companies is a recipe for disaster, chaos and other types of unethical practices. It is the feeling of labour as a whole that the function should not be outsourced.

Mr Smith (IFP) said that if one looks at the Union's submission, they are critical in what they say about attracting overskilled people. Clause 15 is two-fold, and other than Clause 14 the basic provision for attracting people is the Clause 12 permit. He averred that it is not a means test. How does labour view the responsibility to SADC and the responsibility to our own workers in respect of employment.

Secondly he said that although there are quotas in the Bill, it lacks an adequate mechanism for consultation as Clause 12(5) states that quotas are to be determined after consultation. He commented on page 15 of the submission and the paragraph reading "no limitation placed on number…" In terms of Clause 16, the Department can determine the maximum number of foreigners. Did he misunderstand the statement? With respect to chartered accountants did the unions adopt a generous view to outsourcing?

Mr Coleman said that some of the fundamental policy questions are being revisited again. The critical policy questions were never settled. The question is "what are you trying to achieve by migration dispensation?" Deferred pay was agreed to in the Nedlac process, and that it be reconsidered after the Bill was passed. This is the wrong way to approach it, and that policy should be settled so that legislation fits into what is trying to be achieved. They are trying to take a mature stance and if there is a need for supplementary document to elaborate on those issues, they were are prepared to do that.

With regards the question of Clause 12(5) consultation process, those quotas are limited to certain skills, it does not identify what those skills are but a reading of the section its intended to apply to skills that are in short supply in the country .
He said that with regard to economic policy we should adopt a policy that will best give effect to what the government sets itself.

Ms Govender said that in response to the emphasis on highly skilled workers, there is the need to distinguish between direct and Indirect effect of employment. Under Clause 14 one can qualify for exceptional skills permit and under Clause 22(b) one too can qualify for exceptional skills permit. There is no definition for skills or qualifications.

Prince Zulu (IFP) said that cheap labour standards were associated with colonialism and apartheid. How satisfied were the presenters that these cheap labour standards were adequately or inadequately answered in the Bill? He said that foreign nationals should not be treated in an inferior manner hence there should be a balance between foreign nationals and our people in terms of cheap labour standard practices.

Mr Chauke asked if it correct that we will adopt this piece of legislation in the absence of a clear policy guide. On the point of not having enough resources to implement the legislation he said that we have to fight for the Department's allocation of reasonable resources.

Mr Coleman said that the provision on the employment of foreigners below standards that would be applied to local employees is a critical provision and the question that arises is "is it adequately addressed?" He suggested that it can be improved and the submission indicates that the provision can be beefed up. There are loopholes in the Bill. He also mentioned that Business is complaining about penalties placed on them for the employment of illegals. With regards the issue of reverse onus, they support strong sanctions.

Mr Coleman said that in response to the last issue he tried to indicate earlier that the policy question was not settled and the White paper process was never finished so their preference is that policy questions be dealt with, and the Bill be founded in response to that.

Briefing by Idasa
Mr Vincent Williams: Project Manager of SAMP (South African Migration Project) of IDASA, said that the submissions were in two stages. The first deals with stating what the Bill sets out to achieve. Idasa does not think that the way in which the Bill is drafted will achieve those objectives as we assume what the Bill is attempting to achieve. The second stage of the submissions deals with redrafting of certain sections in the Bill.

Mr Williams then proceeded to read out the submissions and then drew the Committee's attention to the disclaimer at the top of the page. The disclaimer said that the amendments are not necessarily in the form of accepted legal text nor have they been scrutinised for potential conflict with other applicable laws and statutes. He said further that he does not assume that the Committee would accept every single provision in the document.

Discussion
Mr Chikane (ANC) asked what were his recommendations regarding the cross-border passes issue.

Mr Williams replied that that the Bill does make provision for the issue of passes or "identity cards" for people who cross the borders frequently and engage in trade for example.

His second question related to the issuance of corporate and institutions permits and whether the Department should issue these permits or the corporate applicant should collect all the information and forward it to the Department of Home Affairs.

Mr Williams said that it would be more efficient if the Department issues the permits. He said that there are two alternates; (a) either the corporate applicant collects all the information and sends it to the Department or (b) the standard work permit application process applies where the individual makes application for his/her permit. He said that should not complicate the process and allow corporate clients to 'willy-nilly' employ any person.

His third question revolved around the appeals procedure in the Bill and asked for elaboration on this point.

Mr Williams said that because this process can take a long time to go through the court system there should be the introduction of a mechanism where the Immigration Board can make a decision. He agrees that this should not be extended indefinitely therefore there is the need to see at what point the appeals process stops.

Mr Skhosana (ANC) referred to Clause 37 of the Bill and said that some people do not have the funds to pay for their deportation, and what is the position then? With regards to overnight accommodation proprietors of these facilities need to question whom it is that they are giving accommodation to.

Mr Williams replied that with regards deportation, the individual should pay for his deportation but if they do not have the funds for it they are liable to a further fine or imprisonment. He said that this second part is problematic. In respect of accommodation, he said that those establishments must contact the Department for verification if a person is not able to produce an identity document. This too he said is a problematic area.

Mr Tolo (ANC) referred to Clause 28, the advisory function of the Board, and asked if the Minister should chair the Board if the Board performs an advisory function and what should the position be if it performs other functions as well. The second question referred to entering the premises, and Mr Tolo asked what is the procedure when the entry is denied and whether the wording should be change to "request to enter".

Mr Williams said that the Minister could chair the Board if the Board performs an advisory task. If it does more that advise the Minister on certain issues, the chair should be an independent person.

In connection with entering the premises, Mr Williams replied that one must look at the clause dealing with enforcement and monitoring and it suggests that the Department has to ask to enter a place before it actually enters the premises. Clause 30(a) gives the Department a licence to walk into the premises and this contradicts the later part. He said that he does not think that the Department should be allowed to walk into premises and begin its inspection. However on the basis of a warrant being issued the Department can still enter the premises, and if there is the feeling that information might be hidden, whilst a warrant is being obtained, the Department may enter the premises.

Mr Grobler (DP) referred to the issues of work permits and excellent skills and asked Mr Williams to elaborate on that. He also asked about countries using the point system for allowing people to enter the country.

Mr Williams replied that there are countries that make use of the standardised and objective means to see who should be allowed to enter the country. He said the Canadian as well as Australian system was looked at but he said that South Africa is in a different league, therefore those systems would not be applicable.

The meeting was adjourned.

Appendix 1:

DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS
15 April 2002

To. Aubrey Mokoena, MP
Chairman: Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs
P0 Box 15
Parliament
Cape Town 8000

Dear Mr Mokoena

As you know, South Africa's accession to the General Agreement on Trade in Services has imposed obligations on our system of migration control, especially in respect of what is referred to as Mode 4. These obligations are very relevant to the present debate on the Immigration Bill. I am enclosing a Paper submitted at the recent WTO Symposium which audits the compliance of the Immigration Bill with GATS obligations. It is significant that at present, under the Aliens Control Act, the Department of Trade and Industry could only fill an "unbound" schedule in respect of Mode 4 being unable to make any commitment because of the present legislation and practice.

Yours faithfully

From. Ivan Lambinon
Deputy Director-General

cc. Members of the Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs

JOINT WTO-WORLD BANK SYMPOSIUM ON MOVEMENT OF NATURAL PERSONS [MODE 4]
UNDER THE GATS
PRESENTATION BY IVAN LAMBINON, DEPUTY DIRECTORGENERAL
MARIO GR ORIANI-AMBROSINI, MINISTERIAL ADVISOR
DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
ON "MODE4 TRADE- THE REGULATORS' VIEW"
GENEVA : APRIL 12, 2002

Paragraph 2 [d] of Article 1 of the General Agreement on Trade in Services [GATS], identifies international trade in the supply of services through the presence of natural persons in a foreign county, when both the county of origin and the receiving one are Members to the Agreement. The extension of the notion of international trade to include trade in services supplied by natural persons who cross international boundaries to deliver such services may bring about a profound revolution in municipal legislation regulating international migration in most countries.

In many countries the interface between migration control and broader policy making relating to international interest is somehow weak. Furthermore, the field of migration control is often charged with sensitive and difficult undertones which makes it difficult to adjust policies to a serene assessment of national interest, least of which to assess national interest within a broader and long-term global perspective. For this reason, there is often a gap between the policy fluidity and, I would say, modernity of the average field of legislative and policy efforts of many countries and their respective systems of migration control. Actually, many systems of migration control presently in force are the product of adjustments made on the original mould often established in the first part of the 20^th century, and are insensitive to a global dimension of trade which extends to the movement of people. They were formulated for a more parochial and slower age.

For this reason, I feel that the South African experience may be of particular interest as South Africa's new and complete reforms of its system of migration control may point towards a range of migration control techniques which may be more responsive to the needs and aspirations of the 21^st century. Prior to its liberation in April 1994, under the regime of apartheid, South Africa had operated with a system of migration control which was suited to a county in international isolation which emphasised security considerations and the ethnic composition of its population over any benefit associated with the international movement of people. For this reason, South Africa was faced with the need of starting from scratch and had the unique opportunity to conceptualise a new system of migration control which could look towards the future.

South Africa presents a mixture of characteristics, as it is undoubtedly a developing county but with a higher level of prosperity relative to the rest of its continent, which makes it a target of migratory influxes, therefore raising the need for management and control measures which are typical of developed countries. Furthermore, South Africa finds itself operating under extreme budgetary restraints and social pressures which do not allow sufficient resources to be allocated towards migration control, and, therefore, any of its measures in this field must rely on and require minimum administrative capacity and be aimed at maximum simplification, objectivity and transparency in order to achieve maximum efficiency and effectiveness.

Having to combine these various elements together, South Africa's Minister of Home Affairs, Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi, chose the hard option of developing a system of migration control which carries a number of unique innovations and reflects a visionary perspective of a more liberalised regime of international movement of people. I would like to present a few of such features because I feel that one of the main purposes of this symposium should be that of beginning to develop a process which may identify new techniques on migration control which may satisfy the concerns, habits and, why not, idiosyncrasies of the regulators, while fulfilling the obligations of the GATS and achieving its long term objectives. In so doing, we need to promote a new culture within each line function of migration control of Member States. Differently put, newer types of permits and techniques in migration control may be a better route to fulfilling the objectives of the GATS than creating artificial fast-tracks and exceptions for certain sectors.

In many respects the new system of migration control which the South African Parliament is expected to pass on May 8, 2002 will represent an advanced status of that "progressively higher level of liberalisation" referred to in Article XIX of the GATS. In fact, South Africa realised that in order to capture its full potential for economic growth it must increase its available level of skills and reach a critical mass of skilled and productive people and consumers. Having crossed such an important policy threshold, we applied our mind to the formulation of techniques which could enable our Government to classify the skills which are needed and to determine the degree to which they are needed. We had to determine both a "need test" as well as classify skills, which in theory seems simple but in the practice of a Government with limited resources, proved cumbersome and to a certain extent self-defeating.

In respect of the classification of skills we realised that our economy needs a range of skills comprising not only those which are easy to classify, such as the customary liberal profession of medical doctors, accountants, engineers and lawyers, but also skills of people who, for instance, can operate complex machinery or had managerial skills. Needing both higher and lower level of skills, we found it difficult to define their relevant thresholds and priorities. An added difficulty was that the Government usually tends to assess skills through qualifications, while in present days labour market, the link between skills and qualifications is often irreparably broken. Experts such as web-designers and computer technicians often do not have qualifications which can be reduced to a diploma or a degree, while often qualifications and job-descriptions are no longer tied together, as engineers may act as business managers. In the end, only an employer has the capacity to determine whether a specific employee or service provider is suited, capable and qualified to perform any given task.

Accordingly, the new system of migration control of South Africa, while contemplating a number of different work permits, provides for a new type of work permit which is expected to become the one mainly used because of its simplicity. This work permit is subject to no quotas, nor numeric limitations or skills classifications. It is also not subject to any fixed time4rame. It is issued on the basis of two simple criteria. The first one is a certification by a certified public accountant that the foreign employee will be remunerated at terms and conditions which in terms of applicable laws, collective bargaining agreements and practices, are not inferior to those applicable to a South African national in the same or similar workplace. The second, is a simple licensing fee paid on a quarterly basis into a fund established for the training of South African nationals. This mechanism embodies the "need test" because it assumes that if at parity of labour conditions someone is willing to pay a premium to employ a foreigner, then that foreigner has skills which are needed and may not be supplied by a national who would be cheaper to employ. This mechanism also maintains a connection between foreigners working in South Africa and the training of our nationals.

Furthermore, through this mechanism there would be no need to determine time limits for temporary work permits, because, obviously for as long as the employer is willing to pay the licensing fee, the employee will continue to be needed. The issuance of this type of work permit will require no evaluations and can be completed almost on-sight once all the relevant information required in the application form has been provided. Naturally, in addition to the customary information satisfying security considerations such as police clearance and identity documentation, the application will require proof of whatever qualifications may be necessary to perform the intended job, together with the certification by a South African agency dedicated to this task, that such qualifications are equivalent to those issued in South Africa.

The important feature of this permit is that it no longer relies on the need of distinguishing between skilled and unskilled workers and having to justify them into groups or quotas. The tool of policy formulation available to Government to regulate migratory fluxes is that of the licensing fee which can be raised in respect of foreigners who, on an aggregate basis, are deemed to be most necessary to our economic growth. This means that the licensing fee may be extremely low in respect of foreign surgeons who are needed and extremely high in respect of foreign street-sweepers which the South African labour market does not seem to specifically need. As an individual guarantee, once a foreigner enters at a certain level, the licensing fee applicable to him can not be raised for five years, which is the period to qualify for permanent residence.

This system also does not require Government to differentiate workers and service providers on the basis of their nationality or origin. The employers will make that determination. In this fashion the fundamental objective of the GATS of parity of treatment among Members will be accomplished. Our Department will also need to carry out a new function which is that of deterring and redressing xenophobia and, once the system grows into its full potential, it is envisaged that this function will also address potential xenophobic patterns developed by employers who on the basis of prejudice would give preference to foreigners from one country over equally qualified foreigners from other countries.

Another important feature of the South African reform of migration control is that of corporate permits which are going to be issued to large corporations and not-for-profit organisations, which will be allowed, in terms of such permit to employ a fixed number of foreigners. The corporate permit will enable such organisations to issue individual permits to foreigners directly from their human resources department and to pay an aggregate amount of licensing fee to the Government. By definition, the aggregate amount of this licensing fee will be lower than the aggregate amount of the licensing fee which the organisation would need to pay if they were to employ the same number of foreigners on an individual basis through individual work permits.

Furthermore, the law enables the Department to partially or entirely waive the licensing fee if the organisation develops training programmes for South Africans which are specifically designed to transfer skills from the foreigners to our nationals to reduce such organisation's dependency on foreign labour. This is a freely negotiated process. It must be stressed that such organisation has also the opportunity of hiring additional foreigners with ordinary work permits, in lieu of using a corporate permit or in addition to the number of foreigners it may hire under the corporate permit. Effectively, the corporate permit privatises the issuance of work permits and enables a reliable and suitable organisation to move the work permits allocated to it under the corporate permit, from one foreigner to the other, thereby meeting its internal needs and enhancing labour market mobility. Government will supply the procedures, forms and requirements which need to be verified and complied with in the issuance of such permits and will monitor and control their compliance as it would do with one of its decentralised or satellite offices. If the corporate permit holder is found not to be in compliance, the privilege may be revoked.

These permits are expected to create a great deal of flexibility for providers of services and their employees. They are in addition to inter-company permits which enable the transfer of services from one company to a foreign subsidiary for up to three years and to investor permits which allow foreigners to establish businesses in South Africa. Inter-company permits will be subject to the usual methods which evaluate needs and justifications for the employment of the foreigner but not a labour market test, all of which may become less convenient than the procedure offered by the new type of permit. However, the investor permit has also been greatly simplified and the relevant procedures made objective so that no discretionary assessment is required. The elimination of stages of evaluation, inter-departmental consultation and review associated with the issuance of single permits is, in my opinion, a better way to achieve the objective of the GATS than the use of "a Model Schedule" creating fast-tracks for special categories, or resorting to the GATS permits or visas. Undoubtedly, the notion of the GATS permits and visas is intellectually pleasing but is extremely difficult to unpack into the regulatory reality of migration control and at best may offer the opportunity for a few exceptions for high level skills.

South Africa's reform of migration control has been seven years in the making and has tried to register the latest requirements and the trends emerging in the age of globalisation. Effectively, it has tried to move all stages requiring evaluation, consultation and discretion at the aggregate policy level so that they would not be necessitated in the processing of the individual application. Furthermore, it has addressed the need to provide migration control with the highest degree of human rights protection, which is an unusual feature as throughout the world even in highly developed and democratic countries such as the United States, the functions associated with migration control usually register the lowest level of human rights protection available in that country. For instance in South Africa, warrants may be required for the deportation of foreigners and each decision relating to permits must comply with the full measure of available administrative justice, judicial review, transparency and accountability. These are also significant elements of compliance in respect of Article Ill, Article VI, Article XIX and other provisions of the GATS.

Like many other countries South Africa faces the challenge of having to change the administrative culture presently underpinning migration control. In a symposium such as this one, it becomes clear that many countries will need to face the challenge of a profound paradigm shift in their attitude towards the international migration of people and, perhaps, question the continuing validity of long-standing classifications based on skills, qualifications and differentiation between temporary and permanent residents. The reality of migration is that many of such elements are in a continuum, and even in respect of residence the distinction between temporary and permanent does not survive the critique of the often observed phenomenon that temporary residence is a bridge into permanent residence. This might not be desirable, but cannot be wished away and may need to be accommodated on a larger scale. For instance, in our new system of migration control provision is made that after five years of temporary employment, a foreigner may graduate into permanent residence.

By and large, South Africa is also about to make a profound paradigm shift from a mind-set wishing to control foreigners within its boundaries, to a new approach which registers the fact that foreigners are part of our society in numbers and varieties which Government can no longer define nor control upfront. Therefore, the new policy will be less concerned about the presence of foreigners and much more concerned about enforcing the restrictions on their activities. The new system will shift administrative capacity and emphasis from the issuance of permits into the enforcement of the law in workplaces, educational institutions and other places in which foreigners may conduct activities which they are not authorised to conduct. If reliance is to be given to the capacity of the market to regulate the number of foreigners who are really needed, then law enforcement becomes essential to prevent the creation of black labour markets and ensure that the more liberal regime does not create an opportunity for vast situations of illegalities. In looking around the world, one notices that it is quite common that the bulk of administrative resources available for migration control are employed in the processing of permits, rather than law enforcement. We believe that a more liberalised regime can only become viable and widely politically acceptable if emphasis and resources are shifted towards law enforcement.

In order to simplify procedures in South Africa we have also collapsed into one, many different permits which were typical of our tradition as they are common in most countries. We realise that in the modern world there is little practical value and little administrative necessity for the distinction between tourists and businessmen and between them and those who come into the country for a short period of study or a short period of medical treatment. Therefore, we have designed a general entry permit which is applicable for three months, renewable for another term of up to six months, which can be employed for tourists, business, studying, medical treatment and any other activity other than those for which a work permit is required. Work permits are usually required for subordinate employment only.

It must also be noted that the definition of "work" for which work permits are obtained excludes work conducted for a foreign employer pursuant to a contract which only partially calls for activities in South Africa. The definition also excludes business and professional work mainly based outside South Africa but requiring activities within South Africa. Effectively, the exclusions cover most of the most significant aspect of trade in services in respect of which a work permit will not be required and which will be able to be conducted with a general entry permit for a three month term renewable once. Therefore, the general entry permit seems to be a technique which greatly advances compliance with the provisions of the GATS and the fulfilment of its objectives.

From a regulator's viewpoint for as long as we are satisfied that all the relevant security concerns have been addressed, such as police requirements, the assurance that the foreigner has sufficient means to support his intended activities in the country and is earnestly intentioned to leave the country before the expiry of his permit, we are much less concerned about what the foreigner does for as long as he does not work as an employee. We believe that this new liberal system reflects the needs of the future and embodies the spirit and the mandatory provisions of the General Agreement on Trade in Service. We are moving into uncharted territory with the benefit of no memory from a past which is no longer applicable to our present and future challenges. There is no doubt that if we do so we will discover error, shortcomings and possibly even naivety in our approach.

However, our Minister Mangosuthu Buthelezi, has often indicated that he perceives the 21^st century having to engage with migration issues and formulate for them a new conceptuality and policy framework, almost on the same basis as the 20^th century struggled with developing concepts and the policy framework for human rights. We feel that we are all breaking new ground and find it extremely exciting that perspectives are merging in the view of a globalise world. Therefore, as far as we are concerned it is proper and filling that the trade perspective may force reform of migration control in all countries of the world. However, we warn of the difficulties as, at present, the language, concepts and policy slant of trade and that of migration control are profoundly different and cast in different moulds and frames of reference. It might be the case that migration control functions may need to be pulled into the new perspective amongst resistance, suspicion and rising political tensions. We can only express to those who will undertake these efforts our best wishes and pledge to them whatever assistance we may provide.

While migration control will need to adjust to international trade requirements it might be necessary that to a lesser degree the reverse may also need to come about. For instance, I feel that sectorial commitments will remain extraneous to many systems of migration control and that, with a few exceptions, horizontal declarations will continue to characterise the practice of negotiations in this field. Moreover, sectoral commitments by themselves may not solve the problems encountered in the trade in service. For instance, work permits may be available, but the requirement that one must apply for them from outside the country and the prohibition against the adjustment of status may become effective barriers toward a work permit.

Moreover, there may be exceptions for identified categories of sectors, but, as we move towards a more liberalised regime of international movement of productive people, such exceptions are bound to diminish if we rise to the challenge of changing systems of migration control so that they may apply with equal transparency, efficiency, liberality and expeditiousness to all productive people and service providers. In this respect this symposium may highlight the need for an inter-disciplinary dialogue and cross-pollination within the framework of the understanding that Mode 4 issues will set a foundation for a completely new mind-set on the international movement of people.

Appendix 2:

THE CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT AND ENTERPRISE

KEY ISSUES IN IMMIGRATION POLICY AND A BRIEF ASSESSMENT OF THE DRAFT IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION IN THE LIGHT OF SOUTH AFRICA'S CURRENT NEEDS
April 2002

1 ISSUES AROUND IMMIGRATION IN SOUTH AFRICA

The current discussions of the Draft Immigration Legislation highlight the complexity of the issue of the entry of foreigners into any country. Immigration policy tends to be controversial in most parts of the world. Many advanced and otherwise progressive societies embarrass themselves by their internal politics around the issue of immigration. The xenophobic attitudes of many mainstream European political leaders to the entry of foreign immigrants, for example, is striking in a region in which national borders and economic boundaries are rapidly being dismantled.

At the same time, in the very countries in which there is acrimonious debate about the entry of foreigners, forward looking immigration policies have brought huge benefits to the economies. Australia is a keynote recent example; a country achieving rapid economic expansion and socio-cultural progress which are substantially due to the skills and other contributions of the massive 20% of its population composed of immigrants.

Against this background CDE would like to briefly offer some insights and facts relevant to the issue of immigration in our country as a background to a consideration of the draft legislation currently being considered by Parliament. We offer these inputs in the hope that they will contribute to a considered and forward-looking response by parliamentary decision-makers to the issues that the draft legislation raises.

South African Attitudes to foreigners

One of the many reasons why South Africa fell behind in the race for development and general prosperity during the Apartheid period was the fact that general immigration was discouraged. Many of the scientists, budding entrepreneurs, craftsmen and unskilled but ambitious and energetic foreigners who contributed so dramatically to the American economic miracle could have come to South Africa, but they were excluded or discouraged. Why?

Up to the early Twentieth Century South Africa's modern economy was driven by the contributions of immigrants. These injections of economic energy and skill, which complemented our own rich resources of labour, craft and agricultural skills came from the current Malaysia, Holland, Germany, France, the UK, Portugal, Madeira, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania and other European countries, from Lebanon, India, China and Pakistan, and from a range of neighbouring regions in Africa.

In the early Apartheid period after the Second World War, however, racial barriers to immigration, which had steadily strengthened in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, hardened even further and ethnic and religious barriers were added. Light-skinned Protestants from countries that were deemed to be culturally compatible with white South Africa (The UK, Germany, Netherlands and other northern European countries) were favoured as immigrants, to the virtual exclusion of other sources of immigration. Later the immigration policy relaxed slightly under the impact of shortages of skills in the seventies and eighties, but nonetheless many would-be immigrants were excluded because they did not have standard formal qualifications that officials could categorise and prioritise, or because they did not have specific job offers. What South Africa lost as a consequence was to the immeasurable gain of North America, Brazil, Argentine, Israel, Australia and New Zealand.

With the ending of apartheid and the advent of democratic South Africa there has been a slight and very cautious change for the better. But many of the old anxieties, stereotypes and mistrust of foreigners has remained. Today we are a more heterogeneous population, with a more visible presence of foreigners in the country - East African academics, traders from West Africa, Ghanaian hairdressers on street pavements, alleged 'sharp operators' from Nigeria and more people from the East and Eastern Europe than we had previously. But with this slight relaxation of entry the issue of immigration - by both skilled and unskilled people - has emerged as an important, often emotional, area of controversy. The anxieties of South Africans have been very clearly reflected in the debate around the draft immigration legislation. Some of these anxieties are real but more are rooted in the xenophobia that is typically aroused by immigration the world over.

Immigrants are seldom popular, but to their credit, sensible and rational governments and leaders in the more successful economies of the world have prevailed over many of the fears of their citizens and opened their doors more widely to immigrants. In so doing they have achieved for their countries a remarkable form of investment - namely skills, fresh perspectives on economic opportunity and the energy born of a need to make a new life in a new country. Even more significantly, the skills gained have been produced at the cost of taxpayers and family investments somewhere else in the world - a free resource akin to the inflow of capital.

With this new legislation our leaders face the same challenge of dealing persuasively with the fears and perceptions in the population while grasping not only the opportunity of but the categorical need for an enrichment of our skills and human resource base. However unpopular it may be, we dare not repeat any of the mistakes or harbour any of the xenophobic misconceptions of the apartheid period.

If South Africa - as is clearly stated in government's macro-economic strategy - wants to become a competitive economy in the global system, we have to accept that there is a vital relationship between opening our borders to trade, industry, culture, communications and investment capital and opening our borders to the human capital -the movement of people -- which must inevitably follow.

Illegal unskilled immigration complicates the problem

Achieving a rational attitude to immigrants is made more difficult by the presence in South Africa of an unknown but large number of illegal immigrants from countries to our immediate north. Many of these illegal immigrants are making a valuable contribution to our economy, particularly in the cross border trade that their activities involve. Even at a very low level, a Zimbabwean, Mozambican or Malawian illegal immigrant who buys goods in South Africa to take or send to his or her home country is expanding our consumer market. If this person also brings curios or textiles from his or her home country to sell in South Africa, it is a form of external investment in our economy. Some of them compete with local traders but there are many others who sell goods that would not otherwise be available locally. Some of them take low-paying jobs, particularly in agriculture, but there are conflicting views on the extent to which South Africans are available for these jobs on the lowest rungs of employment.

Our very high rate of unemployment is often taken a basis for arguments that we must limit as much competition for scarce jobs from immigrants as possible. This is the biggest mistake that could possibly be made. The recent Metsebetsi Labour Force Survey conducted for the Department of Labour shows that unemployment rates among people with any kind of tertiary diploma, certificate or degree are less than one-third of the average rates. Unemployment is high among secondary school leavers but this unemployment is concentrated among those with mediocre standard grade passes in subjects other than maths and science. The importation of people with tertiary qualifications and those with secondary qualifications at a level equivalent to tertiary admission is more likely to create jobs by servicing the economy than it is likely to take jobs away from South Africans. Our unemployment problem is a skills problem.

The country's focus on illegal generally unskilled migrants and the often baseless fears that immigrants will take opportunities away from South Africans, have diverted attention from an emerging crisis: our dire shortage of managerial, professional, technical and entrepreneurial skills.

The skills crisis in South Africa in brief

South Africa's emerging skills crisis is a major cause for concern. While it may not always be apparent on the ground in our currently slack economic conditions, if and when we begin to grow at the rates we need to create jobs, our shortage of skills will become as clearly manifest as our shortage of investment capital. The following are current pointers:

· South Africa has a low and generally declining rate of formal (legal) immigration. Since 1993 this country has experienced a net annual loss of people through emigration, a trend that has not occurred previously since World War 2. South Africa experienced its eighth net annual loss of people through emigration in 2001. The loss of over 7400 people was only slightly lower than the net loss in
2000, which was the highest recorded annual loss since l940;

· The profile of those leaving shows a disproportionate number of highly skilled people. In 2001 South Africa lost 2929 professionals and technicians and attracted only 524 people in the same categories. South Africa imported 20 engineers and related technologists while 358 departed - for every one gained, 18 were lost. In accounting and related professions, South Africa imported 14 and lost 358 - a ratio of one to

· A recorded total of 11 309 people emigrated from South Africa in 2000 and this increased to 12 260 in 2001, setting a new record. The official records appear to be serious under-estimates of the true picture (see below). True, our numbers of immigrants increased slightly between 2000 and 2001, but this has hardly affected the dramatic ratio of losses to gains.

· Some 63% of emigrants were economically active, as opposed to only 22% of immigrants

· Serious though the general skills needs and shortages may be, they leave out of the reckoning the skills and aptitudes required to drive new business ventures, particularly those in the small and medium enterprise sectors. In many countries it is the immigrants who have driven the growth of small businesses;

· South Africa's ability to replenish these skill losses has diminished. According to the Minister of Education 'there is a crisis at every level of the education system'. As a result there were declining numbers of matriculants in 1999 and fewer entrants to universities in 2000.

· Since then there has been a slight general improvement in education output with the senior certificate pass rate increasing to 62%. The proportion of people passing with a university entrance exemption, however, increased only marginally from 14% in 2000 to 15% in 2001. However, the raw numbers of candidates with matriculation exemption, at just under 68 000 in 2001 from public schools, is still well down on the numbers in 1994 of over 88 000. Furthermore, passes in maths and science at the higher level (which is regarded as the level required for further study) are still falling. To have a falling rate of output in maths and science as South Africa prepares to compete in the global 'knowledge economy' is nothing short of a national crisis.

· Research by ING-Barings estimates that 12,1% of highly skilled workers, 21% of skilled workers and 29,4% of semi-and unskilled workers will be HIV positive by 2005. The report points out that the 'cost of supporting and replacing a highly skilled workers with HIV/Aids will be substantially above those for semi- and unskilled workers. The Department of National Education anticipates that the effect of Aids on the teaching profession will lower the teacher to learner ratio from 1:32 currently to 1:50 by 2006.

In other words we are losing large numbers of highly trained and educated people each year and our education system is incapable of replenishing the supply. One may hope that the performance of our schools will improve but it will quite clearly take years before it turns out the skills that we need. In the meantime our only possible source of additional skilled labour is immigration.

Policy-makers are in the dark

Compounding the controversy surrounding migration is the fact that there is only flimsy empirical data on the actual numbers of immigrants, both skilled and unskilled; and importantly on the overall impact they have on the social, political and economic life of South Africa, in particular the labour market. For example our estimates of the number of illegal immigrants range between 100 000 and 8 million, which means that as a basis for policy-making they are worse than useless.

The scale of South Africa's 'brain drain' is also disguised by significant data deficiencies. According to Development Policy and Research Unit statistics there were 41 496 professional emigrants from South Africa between 1989 and 1997, nearly four times larger than the official figure of 11 255. The South African Network of Skills Abroad argues that almost three times as many people emigrate as are recorded in official statistics. Even the government is conceding that the official numbers of people emigrating is low. Ian Macun, director of the skills development unit in the Department of Labour reportedly said that the official number of skilled people that have left the country since 1994 - 54 000 - 'is probably a conservative underestimate'. Our official statistics are underestimates because they do not take into account what has been termed grey' emigration, whereby people leave on holiday and simply do not return, or return as occasional visitors, thereby cutting out the red tape involved in emigration.

The absence of convincing data on the numbers and socio-economic impact of immigrants makes it difficult to separate fact from fiction and careful analysis from xenophobic rhetoric. This underlines the critical need for authoritative national research on the socio-economic impact migrants have on the country - both positive, negative and unintended - as a priority. Until then policy-making will occur in a climate of sentiment, paranoia and empirical ignorance. This also means that policy-makers have to take the known facts very seriously, such as those on the shortage of skills now and for the foreseeable future.

2. ASSESSING THE DRAFT LEGISLATION

Government has devoted considerable effort and resources to develop a new immigration policy and legislation over the past five years. A task team was established in 1996 to prepare a Green Paper on Migration Policy that was published in 1997; two years later, the White Paper on International Migration appeared. The critical need for skilled migration was given a new urgency by President Mbeki in his State of the Nation speech in February 2001 when he committed government to 'improving competitiveness by lowering input costs throughout the economy' and to reviewing 'immigration laws and procedures to attract skills into our country'.

An Immigration Bill was tabled in parliament in October 2001, after four years in the making. Minister Buthelezi announced that 'the Bill intends to open the front door to beneficial immigration to SA and close the back door to illegal immigration. The Bill lists among the objectives and functions of migration control: 'to promote economic growth by ensuring that businesses in the Republic may employ foreigners who are needed'. There is little doubt that the broad intentions behind the legislation are forward looking and appropriate to the needs of the country.

As with most policy, however, the final product is influenced by a variety of inputs from other departments or by considerations that may contradict the initial broad intentions. For example, earlier policy documentation that preceded the current draft legislation made provision for an expert and independent Immigration Board, but this sound principle clearly did not survive in the face of bureaucratic and political concerns to make sure that government control over the implementation of policy is not diluted. Hence, as one would expect of any end product of multiple inputs, the draft Bill has some seriously contradictory features.

Positive features

Much of the initial progressive intention has survived in the provisions that Work Permits may be issued as a routine procedure, subject to certain conditions, in all cases where an employer indicates a need to employ the applicant. Corporations employing large numbers of foreigners may also be issued with a Corporate Permit, thereby becoming accredited as agents of the Department of Home Affairs with the power to issue work permits up to a specified limit and under certain conditions The Bill also provides for the issuing of Investor and Self Employed Person's permits subject to minimum investment capital requirements. Depending on the level of the capital requirements, this could facilitate the entry of the kind of entrepreneurs who could add value to our economy. Hence the bill could ease serious bottlenecks in access to skills and is a large move towards an immigration policy that is consonant with a dynamic open economy.

Aspects reflecting South Africa's traditional attitudes to immigration

CDE is concerned that the legislation contains conditions applicable to the issuing of Work and Corporate Permits and other important provisions that contradict the general principles of an open market economy that are claimed to form the basis of the new policy.

A general concern is that the legal phrasing in the Bill, in particular the general use of the words 'may grant' instead of 'shall grant', could enable general discretion to be exercised by officials on the basis of departmental guidelines not stated in the Bill or perhaps those pertaining to entry permits other than work permits. Hence the legislation does not provide a categorical basis for a 'rule of law' since its conditional phrasing could become the basis for a 'rule of regulation' if officials choose to make it that.

More specific concerns are that an employer wishing to employ a foreigner, has to pay a training fee for each foreigner employed, such fee to be credited to the National Training Fund - in effect a tax on the recruitment of scarce skills that will raise operating costs. In the case of both Work Permits and Corporate Permits, the Bill requires that chartered accountants certify that the terms and conditions of employment shall not be inferior to those prevailing in the market for local citizens. Here we must bear in mind that if the skills shortage has driven up the relevant labour costs over a period, the inflated levels could become the norm for such certification, thereby substantially negating the economic benefits of any inflow of scarce skills. For smaller companies in particular, providing these professional certifications will be a disincentive and will also drive up operating costs.

The Bill also states that certifications will lapse if the Department of Labour, for good cause, objects to them (although the time period for such objections is very brief).

The legislation does provide an alternative clause allowing Work Permits to be issued to foreigners with certain skills and qualifications that could circumvent certain of the requirements referred to above, but the particular skills and the numbers of permits will be determined according to guidelines prescribed after consultation with the Departments of Labour and Trade and Industry, hence allowing bureaucratic discretion to be exercised.

There are other avenues for legal entry in the clauses of the legislation, but the conditionality of the general phrasing ('may' instead of 'shall') could possibly subject all clauses to bureaucratic overrides, as it were.

The prescription of 'needed skills' and the determination of limits on numbers is also applicable to Permanent Residence Permits for foreigners. Although such guidelines could be flexibly applied, there are clearly views in government that are grounds for expecting the opposite. The government's Human Resource Development Strategy released in April 2001 and statements by the Director-General of labour also refer to the recruitment of only 'approved scarce skills' and seem to be based on a perceived need in some sections of government to regulate the entry of skills on the basis of government determinations of skills gaps. CDE has questioned the capacity of any government agency to anticipate the market in identifying demand for skills, for the following reasons:
· in the current global economy, skills needs are fluid and subject to rapid change;
· such assessments will be based on the needs of existing formal employers and not on the needs of small businesses and entrepreneurs;
· skills-boundaries have become too blurred and many skills are too informal in nature for any classificatory system to provide the 'intelligence' needed for the establishment of guidelines for immigration;
· it is impossible to know exactly what skills a society needs or to predict exactly the kind of work graduates will end up doing.

Hence, in these qualifying conditions set out in the Bill as discussed above, one sees indications of a pervasive assumption that skilled immigrants are a threat to the interests of formerly disadvantaged South Africans or that they will take jobs away from South Africans. For example a clause in the Bill pertaining to permanent residence requires that it be demonstrated that no South Africans are available for appointment. As CDE has argued, this assumption of immigrants as a threat to South Africans is difficult to sustain given the fact that:

· more skilled people will increase the capacity of the South African economy to expand and provide more job opportunities for all residents;
· more skilled people are necessary to expand the capacity of the country to train and educate all its citizens to world class standards;
· more skilled people will play a part in lowering the income gap between highly skilled and unskilled in the country; and
· many skilled people are likely to create their own employment as entrepreneurs, thereby expanding the economy.

CDE has stated that the Bill is a 'significant improvement on current legislation under the Aliens Act and that it has introduced important objectives with respect to immigration policy and its practical implementation'. Notwithstanding the positives in the new Bill, in the light of the concerns outlined above and others, CDE argues that the policy falls short of what the economy requires. Given the fact that our economic growth rates, although persistently positive, are well short of the rates that will begin to mop up unemployment, the country needs a strong and unambiguous policy to remove all impediments to skilled migrants entering South Africa. This calls for the kind of courage that our Cabinet has demonstrated in other aspects of policy.

Suggestions for amendments

* CDE recommends, inter alia, that economically active persons with university entrance (matriculation exemption level) qualifications in maths, science, technologies, vocational subjects and commerce be issued with Work Permits without any impediment.

We recognise that such a proposal is highly unusual in international immigration law and it may appear to be radical. Our situation is unusual, however. In any event, these days countries circumvent their own immigration regulations when they set out to attract the skills they need. There are many countries that, despite their legislation, actively 'poach' skills from other countries to plug shortages of skills at home. For example, Singapore, Germany, Ireland, South Korea, the US and UK have all sent 'poaching' expeditions to India to try and recruit information technology engineers to make good an increasingly alarming shortage in IT skills back home.

CDE is not in favour of the mass entry of unskilled or inadequately skilled immigrants, but we have hopelessly inadequate numbers of people who are equipped for higher education or who have the qualifications to be trainable at advanced levels, hence our bold recommendation. South Africa may have many unemployed standard tens, but they do not have higher grade maths, science and vocational subjects at university entrance level.

* CDE also recommends that entrepreneurs and people who are generally employable at taxable levels be granted entry permits. We are aware of the fact that these broad guidelines may pose problems for the government in the development of criteria for approval. Such problems are well worth the effort to solve, however.

Immigrants generally have entrepreneurial talent and ambition, are prepared to take risks and possess the necessary drive to survive and succeed in a foreign country. South Africa itself has many examples of business success by ethnic minorities including Chinese, Portuguese, Italians, Greeks, Jews, Lebanese, West Africans and Indians.

* CDE also recommends that the conditional phrasing of the provisions of the Bill be replaced with legally binding terminology, with the use of the words 'shall' instead of 'may'.

The present phrasing will become a huge burden on government because it will in time be found to lack legal clarity and will spawn challenges of interpretation. It also does not provide investors or employers with the certainty that will underpin confidence.

Concluding comment

The position of government on migration policy has been complex and confusing for a long time. This draft legislation moves towards clarity and the confidence to address critical needs. We conclude that the legislation points the way to accommodate our economic requirements and needs for skills. Because of its contradictory aspects, however, the outcome cannot meet the urgency of South Africa's current situation.

It is clear from the general policy position of the treasury and the implications of macro-economic policy that a clear and forward-looking immigration policy is critically required, as President Thabo Mbeki's statement in his February 2001 State of the Nation address has emphasised. But the contradictions in the draft Bill suggest that the executive has clearly not yet moved firmly to resolve critical differences in perspectives within government on immigration and to achieve a coherent viewpoint in the government as a whole.

Even more than South Africa, Africa as a whole is leaking precious skills to the rest of the world. If South Africa is to take the lead in the valuable NEPAD initiative, it has to become part of the solution to this problem and not part of the problem as it currently is. Therefore it has to stop the serious leakage of its home-grown skills and enter the global race for the attraction of foreign skills, the costs of which have been subsidised by better-resourced governments elsewhere. This is the most valuable 'aid' that a country can acquire.

In the global economy today, economic growth and competitiveness are increasingly determined by high level skills inputs, the value added by innovations in management, production systems and technological innovation and by the levels of innovative entrepreneurship and new risk ventures. Government's immigration policy should therefore be much more effectively positioned as a facilitator of national economic growth. South Africa's economy and education system cannot afford to suffer from what has hitherto been a lack of resolve and leadership in government to reconcile its different viewpoints on the depth of our skills crisis and the urgent need for foreign skills.

Centre for Development and Enterprise April 2002

'The material presented here is drawn from a range of CDE publications People on the move: Lessons from international migration policies (June 1997) and People on the move: A new approach to cross-border migration in South Africa (June 1997); CDE's response to the Draft Green Paper on International Migration, (June 1997) as well as CDE's response to government's White Paper on International Migration and Innnigration Bill of 29 June 2001 titled, South Africa's skills crisis: Is the new Immigration flill good enough?. These publications are available from CDF. See our website, www.cde.org.za.