Migration Policy and Regional Integration of South Africa: Panel discussions, day 2

Meeting report

Migration Policy and Regional Integration of South Africa: Panel discussions, day 2
The Chairperson welcomed all delegates and presenters.

Mr M De Freitas (DA) asked, through the Chairperson, that presenters be reminded that in future they should sent all documents, presentations and literature in advance of the meeting, so that Members could prepare themselves thoroughly.

The Chairperson reiterated that this was important.

African Centre for Migration and Society: “Challenging Perceptions, Changing Process: Towards progress, pro-poor migration policy” presentation
Ms Zaheera Jinnah, Researcher: African Centre for Migration and Society, noted that this institution (ACMS) was a research, training and outreach body based at the University of the Witwatersrand, working with various other organisations. It welcomed the opportunity to be part of the process to find pragmatic solutions to South African problems and noted that as a research institution, it was seeking not to condone or condemn, but to offer evidence-based research results.

ACMS believed that increased securitisation of migration management, characterised by increased border controls, restricted entry and greater detention or deportation, would worsen the conditions for citizens, foster criminality and corruption, threaten rights of refugees and asylum seekers, and counter-intuitively increase the number of undocumented immigrants. This was borne out by the examples of Europe and the USA, who had found that greater resource allocation to border control did little to reduce numbers of migrants, but carried significant risks. One example of this was in employment and wages. Undocumented workers were unable to demand fair treatment from employers, which weakened the cause for fair labour practices. In addition, they did not pay any taxes, levies or any other kind of contribution to the revenue of the country. Undocumented migrants also were greater targets for crime, and were unlikely to go to the police when victimised, as well as being harder to track when they were involved in crime.

ACMS had found that Gauteng police spent one quarter of its human-resource budget on immigration issues, but this was not alleviating the problems, but, on the contrary, subsidising abuse. Ms Jinnah urged that better reduction of crime would be achieved by police intelligence and anti-corruption measures, rather than more border controls. 

Outside interests contributed to the mistaken belief in greater securitisation, particularly other countries who wished to see South Africa as the first line of defence against migration to, for instance, Europe. Whilst there was a widespread belief that immigrants and foreigners were increasingly overwhelming South Africa, this was in fact not supported by the official numbers. Asylum-seeker numbers were swelled by the fact that there was no effective way for those who were in fact economic migrants to enter the country freely. Census numbers revealed that only 3.3% of people in the country were foreigners, far lower than was popularly believed.

Ms Jinnah noted that current policies needed to be re-examined. The Immigration Act of 2002 was often accused of being too permissive but in fact, it was too blunt. It effectively denied many ways of legitimate entry. The Minister of Home Affairs, Ms Naledi Pandor, had recently noted that South Africa spent R90 million rand on deporting foreigners. This deportation policy, as well as being expensive, had solved neither the labour nor crime issues, both of which were vital in South Africa. One persistent assumption was that immigration undermined economic growth and job creation, but at best, the research and international experience on this point was ambiguous.

Ms Jinnah said that there was no one simple answer or optimal immigration policy. What she had noted earlier indicated that current policy directions were unlikely to further the stated aims. Any policy was likely to fail if it was based on false beliefs. Improved data and dispassionate analysis were the only way to more pragmatic and pro-poor policy frameworks.

ACMS offered some practical suggestions to help ease the process, which included:
- The need to entrench the role of the Immigration Advisory Board
- The need to reinforce labour inspectorates
- The need to dedicate more resources to help fight xenophobia
- Establishment of a multi-stakeholder platform dedicated to migration.

ACMS felt that the following questions needed to be considered:
- Are policies clear and based on objective research?
- Are proposals made in consultation with relevant stakeholders?
- Are the interests of those stakeholders represented?

Ms Jinnah said that the commitment to provide asylum should not be compromised by efforts to control immigration. The overwhelming numbers of asylum seekers were indicative of failure to process them, and provide proper mechanisms to deal with legitimate migrants and refugees.

Discussion
Mr De Freitas wondered whether there had been interaction between ACMS and the Department of Home Affairs (DHA), what form it had taken and what the reaction had been. He wanted to know how the asylum information had been obtained. He agreed that there was some paranoia in South Africa about foreigners, and asserted that South Africa did not want “the bad ones” such as drug dealers, criminals, or those who destroyed or had a negative impact on the economy. Instead, South Africa did need those who had skills, would transfer those skills and grow the economy. There was a need to change mindsets. All successful countries had allowed foreigners to settle in and flourish in their countries. He felt that foreigners should not be excluded from a country for technicalities, and that the law enforcement agencies should ensure that they complied with the laws of the land.

Mr G McIntosh (COPE) praised the presentation and the research was being done. He asked, however, why ACMS felt that “securitisation” would worsen conditions, as he said that the alternative, of no border controls and no recording, would result in people swarming into the country to get equal pay and equal benefits. He asked if Ms Jinnah was aware of where the illegal migrants were coming from, and their perception that “South African streets were paved with gold”. He did not believe it was realistic to expect no securitisation; instead, the manner and level of securitisation could be debated. He suggested that ACMS perhaps needed to expand on what it meant by “securitisation” and to state what it felt a more desirable solution might be.

Mr McIntosh asked if increased migration out of Africa was the result of people looking for a better life, since he had understood that many foreigners were merely looking for work, and would take any job offered, even if it were not a good job. Part of the reasons for the high unemployment in South Africa was that work had been defined as ‘decent’ work, but many immigrants were prepared to take any job, even if it was not a “decent” job. For this reason, he doubted whether some of the suggestions were practical. In regard to the suggestions around labour inspectors, he said that funding would be a problem, and where ACMS suggested that funding could be found also for the Gauteng police, where ACMS had raised an interesting point. In addition, he asked that Ms Jinnah expand on the use of “developmental” in her report. This could mean (and perhaps she could explain), the ‘social engineering with a hard left agenda’. He wondered how this would help refugees who were coming from poverty-stricken countries. Finally, he questioned how Ms Jinnah distinguished between the various categories of immigrants coming into the country – refugees, asylum seekers, economic migrants, and so forth, some of whom came with considerable skills.

The Chairperson said she did not share the view that border control would not reduce crime. She cited the example of Lesotho and stock theft across borders. However, she did want Ms Jinnah to expound further on the points made, and asked if lessons could be learned from a country that might not have border controls.

Mr M Mnqasela (DA) asked how the number of undocumented foreigners was established, and whether it was accurate. He was not sure about the statistics in relation to foreign migrants and criminality, and asked if there was any evidence – even anecdotal – that the Committee could use to engage with the Department of Police.

Ms Jinnah responded that the interaction between ACMS and DHA had been difficult, despite numerous attempts to engage with it on critical issues. She invited DHA again to engage with the organisation. In relation to the figures quoted, she noted that the 3.3% figure was obtained from the recent Statistics South Africa Census 2011 report, which was quoted as the number of people living in South Africa who were born outside the country. This figure was significantly lower than the common assumptions. In response to the statement that migration could be to the detriment of South African citizens, Ms Jinnah said it was important to note that refugees, asylum seekers and migrants getting access to rights in no way impacted upon citizens’ access to the same rights. Rights were not something that were divided up and bargained over. Many countries had indeed scored successes through immigration, therefore migration needed to be seen as a joint effort.

Ms Jinnah expanded upon what she meant by ‘Securitisation’, saying that it could be defined as increased border controls, detaining or deporting people, and using more resources to keep people out. There were no countries that had no border controls, and she was not advocating for lack of border controls. However, the point was that greater securitisation did not reduce migration, but instead increased the number of undocumented migrants, a fact borne out in the EU and the US. South Africa would be starting out on the wrong foot if it were basing its policy on failed policies of other states. Eastern African countries and ECOWAS were in fact adopting freer movement protocols.

In relation to the questions about the police, she confirmed that ACMS was suggesting that the Department of Labour would do the inspections, not the police.

Ms Jinnah said that what she had meant by ‘developmental’ did not refer to left-leaning social engineering. It was driven by realities on the ground, not by external stakeholders and factors. Policy should be based on research, not personal views or anecdotal evidence. It was by its very nature, hard to know how many undocumented migrants there are in the country.

The Chairperson asked how and why documented migrants were harassed.

Ms Jinnah explained that they did not always carry papers on them, all the time. Even if they did, they still faced harassment and humiliation.  

Mr Mnqasela said this was reminiscent of what was heard on the radio and TV, where foreigners - Somalis in particular - were victimised by police. The Department of Police and of Home Affairs often colluded. It was important to interrogate whether the problems were universal or simply anecdotal.

Ms G Bothman (ANC) sought clarity whether the issue was refugee or immigration policy. It was meant to be a discussion of a broad framework on migration policy.

Human Rights Media Centre presentation
Ms Shirley Gunn, Executive Director, Human Rights Media Centre, noted that her delegation also included members of Rwandan Refugees in Cape Town (RECTO), who would answer questions after the presentation. She had given each Member of the Committee a book giving life stories of refugees, which were powerful and thought-provoking.

Ms Gunn described the Refugees Act of 1998 as progressive, because refugees were not confined to camps, but were free to build lives and be economically active. The tremendous efforts of refugees to survive in South Africa were acknowledged. They could pursue their education and fend for their families. She noted the comments from Ms D Mathebe (ANC) on the previous day that she had been in a refugee camp in Angola, and Ms Gunn noted that her experiences with such a camp had sensitised her to the plight of refugees. Information and education were necessary for the integration of refugees into communities. The proper management and implementation of the Act was key to the whole issue. HRMC urged that the Refugee Reception Centres (RRCs) needed to remain open, and the personnel there needed to be better trained. Consultation with all relevant stakeholders was critical for migration. Membership based organisations, like the RRCT, must be included, but there were others too all over the comment.

Ms Gunn referred to the earlier comment by Mr McIntosh that refugees would take any job, and made the point that if she had no other options she too, despite her qualifications, would be prepared to swallow her pride and act as a car guard. However, she would not necessarily enjoy doing so, and it must be remembered that many refugees were probably not happy with their menial jobs.

Ms Gunn took the Committee through the section of her presentation on the “Cessation Clause”. HRMC believed that this solution, offered by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) was a durable one. It had focused on Rwanda as a case study, with a deadline of 30 June 2013. The Rwandan government had been requesting the UNHRC, since 2002, to invoke this cessation clause, and if this happened, Rwandans who fled between 1959 and 1998 would no longer hold refugee status, but must make the choice whether to return voluntarily to their own country, or gain permanent citizenship. The South African government had not provided a formal response to the cessation clause. Although the Rwandan government said that the country was now safe for citizens to return, HRMC did not feel that the clause was viable, as the country was not in fact safe. Even if the clause were invoked, some Rwandans would not necessarily return home, either because they were scared, or simply because preferred to live in South Africa, a country where they already had established bonds. In addition, The Department of Home Affairs was already facing backlogs and might not be able to cope with the increased applications by Rwandans. Refugees would no longer have protection under the UNHRC if the clause came into effect and the South African government would then be solely responsible for them. Both HRMC and the RRCT believed the invocation of the clause would be premature now.

Ms Gunn set out some of the recommendations for the migration policy as follows:
 - The South African government had to consult stakeholders
- Their responses had to be timely
- The criteria for the exemption had to be clear
- Statistics needed to be accurate
- The government needed to define what a ‘reasonable period’ for the processing of application was.
- There should be an acknowledgement of receipt of communication to the department and other state organs.

Discussion
Mr A Gaum (ANC) asked what the difference would be between invoking the cessation clause and simply applying for permanent residency. He wondered the reasons why the clause specifically applied to those who left between 1959 and 1998. He also wondered how safe Rwanda was now and if more detail could be given about the differing opinions and positions.

Mr McIntosh said that South Africa also had people who had wanted to migrate, for a number of reasons, who had applied through the usual channels. Other countries, including USA and Germany, had special provisions for people with special skills. He was concerned that if people knew they could come to South Africa and easily get permanent citizenship, this jeopardised the whole system of applying for citizenship. There needed to be a distinction between asylum-seekers, refugees and the other categories of people who wanted to enter the country.

Mr McIntosh said he had been to Rwanda a few times, and had the impression that the country was relatively stable, with a strong economy, but, in his interaction with various individuals, he also gained  the sense that there was still ethnic animosity.  He wondered if the groups present were representing a Hutu group that might not be eager to go back to Rwanda. 

Dr M Oriani-Ambrosini (IFP) said that during the 50^th anniversary of the Geneva Protocols on Refugees, South Africa and Australia had taken a position that was different to other countries, and commented that they were strange bedfellows. There was little scope to make or change laws on immigration that were written down at an international level. The Committee needed to look at the refugee plan and see what could be done there. He believed that reform of the international law was long overdue. The current laws had effectively been drawn to cater for Jews after World War II. He noted that 5.7% of South Africans had been born outside the country. He also felt that South Africa’s Citizenship Act needed review and reform.

Ms D Mathebe (ANC) clarified that she had had freedom of movement and economic empowerment when she was a refugee in Angola. She wondered if there were success stories about refugee integration.

Ms Bothman asked that the word ‘stakeholders’ be unpacked, and asked also for a list.

Mr Salim Bavugamenshi, Representative, HRMC, clarified that invocation of the Cessation Clause would be by the UNHRC, and not the South African government, and reiterated that the deadline was 30 June 2013. However, Rwandan refugees in this country did not feel that it was yet safe enough for them to return to their country. He asserted that no particular ethic grouping was represented by HRMC. The term ‘stakeholders’ referred to all affected persons. Most of the Rwandans in the country now held refugee status.

Mr Mnqasela said the impression was that this was more of an economic situation rather than a political one.

Mr Gaum asked why, if the UN was recommending invocation of the clause in June 2013, South Africa would not be guided by this lead, as surely it was reasonable for South Africa to listen to the UN. He asked again why those refugees did not simply apply for citizenship, if that was what they wanted, and repeated his question as to why the dispensation applied specifically to those who had fled between 1959 and 1998.

Mr Bavugamenshi responded that the UNHCR had suggested either voluntary repatriation or local integration. All the NGOs and international organisations agreed that the safety of returning citizens was questionable. HRMC was asking the South African government to extend the refugee status of Rwandans until the issues were sorted out. He noted that the rationale behind the 1959 to 1998 limits was confusing to everyone and suggested that the UNHCR must explain this. Several refugees had applied for citizenship, but had received no response from the DHA, other than an acknowledgement of receipt of their application.

Mr Gaum said the Committee could follow up with the DHA on this point.

International Organisation for Migration presentation
Mr Bernardo Mariano-Joachim, Regional Director: International Organisation for Migration, noted that his own experience as a migrant started when he had left his hometown for the provincial capital, subsequently moving to the capital of Mozambique, and then, over the next 20 years, to other countries. He believed that he had made a positive contribution in the countries to which he had moved. His own vision was to ease the lives of other migrants, and therefore felt that South Africa needed to find a way to a migration policy that benefitted migrants and the people of South Africa. In order to do so, a coherent and systematic migration management policy was necessary. The policy needed to respect human rights, dignity and well-being of migrants, foster inter-state and agency co-operation and meet the needs of different migrant sub-groups. He had seen that in many countries there were many jobs that were attractive for migrant labour. This then meant that there should be a framework that would allow foreign workers to come to South Africa, work and then return home legally. This would benefit both the countries, and the individuals involved. The IOM advocated an evidence-based migration policy.

Migration in South Africa was a historical contemporary issue. Factors that contributed to migration to South Africa included the facts that South Africa was a destination and transit country for migrants, and had its own high incidence of internal migration. He noted that there were several “pull / push” factors, which included, again, the high levels of international and circular migration as well as internal migration, and competition for access to resources between citizens and migrants.

Mr Mariano-Joachim said that the overall policy objective should be to manage migration for the political and socio-economic benefit of South Africa. In general, the policy should:
- provide an enabling and predictable environment for legal movement of people into, out of, or around South Africa
- enhance co-operation on migration management
- combat ill effects of irregular migration and migration related organised crime

Discussion
The Chairperson cited the example of Russia, which had a good system of tracking all migrants into the country. This country’s reception centres were at the borders, so that migrants and foreigners were processed there and then, and their movements could tracked anywhere in the country. South Africa should emulate this example.

Mr Mnqasela asked what was lacking in the immigration regime in the country, and how IOM felt that it could be remedied. He wondered if South Africa had to worry about foreigners becoming a majority in the country. Finally, he asked for suggestions on how xenophobia could be curbed.

Mr McIntosh asked for further elaboration on the phrase ‘annual rate of change of migration stock’. He noted that one concern was that people from elsewhere got visas in Mozambique or Swaziland, and then entered South Africa as citizens of those countries. Mozambique was a problem in terms of irregular migrants. Mr McIntosh quipped that after all the presentations, he was now coming to a new definition for ‘colonialism’ – it was merely old-fashioned migration. 

Ms Bothman praised the presentation and asked why there had been an apparent spike in number of refugees in the country after 1995.

Mr De Freitas asked that the East African map be unpacked and explained. He also asked about the interaction between IOM and DHA.

Mr Mariano-Joachim said that IOM worked with experts to advise governments and departments. There was no need for South Africans to worry about an overpopulation of migrants, as this was very unlikely.

Ms M Mpeiwa, Policy and Liaison Officer, IOM, explained that the ‘change in stock’ was the rate of change of migration in and out of the country, similar to the turnover of stock in a shop.  

Mr Erick Ventura, Chief of Mission, IOM, clarified that the East African map related to a 2009 study into human trafficking.

Mr Mariano-Joachim agreed that Mozambique had always been a problem for South Africa since apartheid times. The question was could be done about the problem. Other countries might also see South Africa as a problem. The relationship between IOM and DHA was good. The World Migration Report could perhaps explain the jump in migration in 1995.

The meeting was adjourned.