No. 11: Regionalizing International Migration: Lessons for SADC

Research on unauthorised migration to South Africa has addressed a range of issues surrounding the effects of current immigration policy on migrants, and the impact migrants have on South Africa’s society and economy (DHA 1997: section 1.4.6). One finding that is particularly relevant to a discussion of regional labour migration regimes is that current South African immigration policy does not account for labour migrants who retain a social and domestic base in their countries of origin. Another is that most unauthorised migrants are temporary or contract workers who seek employment in industries—such as construction—that depend increasingly on this kind of labour. The needs of these sectors and of migrant workers are complementary. Just as these migrants are currently unable to legalise their status in South Africa, there is no appropriate method for all local employers to access foreign labour. The new Immigration Act is extremely opaque on whether this will change. The ideal would be to develop a regional temporary worker’s regime. Such a system is necessary not only for South Africa but for southern Africa generally, if integrated regional development is to succeed. In the context of regional economic integration, labour migration can arguably be conceived of as a development resource, beneficial to all states in the region and regional integration as a whole, rather than as a threat to individual states. The purpose of a regional regime should be to manage migration in order to harness human mobility—as an agent of the exchange of goods, services, ideas and skills—to the development process. This understanding suggests that the political management of regional labour migration extends beyond the ambit of unilateral migration control and state interests; becomes the responsibility of collaboration between migrants’ countries of origin and destination; straddles the divide between domestic and foreign policies as well as state sovereignty and regional markets; and should be negotiated and formulated in a regional multilateral forum. As regional economic integration proceeds, the interests of sovereign states become increasingly bound up with those of their neighbours as well as those of non-state actors. Thus, in addition to governments, stakeholders that must be involved in formulating a regional migration regime include business, organised labour, and the citizenry of host and receiving countries. This regional focus is in keeping with the impact of globalisation which has largely redefined the spatial and geographic distribution of labour as well as economic competition, resulting in the emergence of regional economic blocs in central and western Europe (the European Union); North America, Canada and Mexico (NAFTA); the AsianPacific rim; the Middle East; West Africa; East Africa; and part of South America. Because regional blocs differ in various ways, it is not possible to derive a blueprint for Southern Africa from comparative studies. Surprisingly, although new global migration dynamics are both a cause and function of increasing regional economic integration, there is currently no workable regional labour migration regime anywhere in the world. This raises the question of whether, and to what extent, contemporary governments are able to control or manage migration. What is possible and useful, and what this paper does attempt, is to draw out connections between the Southern African context and others in which such regimes have been implemented. The paper also evaluates the development impact of labour migration regimes, in order to explore the extent to which institutionalised migration from sending countries (countries of origin) to receiving countries (countries of destination) stimulate or impede economic growth, and to highlight the political challenges they present. The paper argues that: (a) the proximity of countries among which people migrate has a decisive influence on the way in which those countries manage migration;(b) although migration policy is often seen as a tool for managing domestic labour markets, and thus often privileges economic rather than social and political factors, migration is also an important issue for political management and governance; and (c) migration can usefully be regarded as a development resource rather than a threat to social and economic security, and ought to be managed accordingly. It then proposes a set of principles drawn from international experience which might usefully inform a regional labour migration regime, rather than advancing a rigid regulatory framework which is unlikely to succeed

No. 14: Policing Migration: Immigration Enforcement and Human Rights in South Africa

This paper examines reported incidents of human rights abuses and violence directed towards foreigners where government employees have been the perpetrators. We discuss both direct human rights abuses and incidents of violence (with examples drawn from policing exercises such as “Operation Crackdown” and from the detention of undocumented migrants) and institutional violence (such as migration policy development and other executive actions promoting or at least failing to prevent victimisation of foreigners). In many of the reported incidents, law enforcement officials have been the direct perpetrators of the human rights violations. The South African government is legally responsible for ensuring adherence to national and international human rights standards and the Constitution. We argue that the South African government needs to ensure that laws are adhered to but also to create a clear framework to guide and legally underpin police and immigration conduct to prevent human rights abuses. We also scrutinise the involvement of non-Governmental organisations and the South African Human Rights Commission in their attempts to prevent unlawful arrests and to improve the conditions of detention. In exploring the treatment of foreigners in South Africa, it is important to define some of the concepts to be used. This is particularly important because our definition of these terms differs from that in common usage. In much of South Africa, the term “foreigner” is regularly used to portray a coherent and uniform group of people without South African citizenship. However, this definition not only disregards the internal diversity and complexity among foreign citizens in South Africa, but also risks ignoring the significant difference between documented and undocumented migrants. There are various categories of documented non-nationals in South Africa, including refugees, asylum seekers and people with temporary and permanent residence who are legally in the country. These persons have applied for and been granted permission to reside in South Africa for a specific period. A significant group of non-South African citizens also present in the country are undocumented migrants or “illegal foreigners.” Undocumented migrants have not been granted permission to reside in South Africa. By law, they are therefore under some degree of command to leave the country, either by force or voluntarily. Although the difference between documented and undocumented migrants is relatively clearly defined in terms of legality, the two categories are persistently tangled and often ignored in practice by law enforcers. Documented migrants, especially black foreigners, are often incorrectly perceived a priori as being illegally in the country and treated as such. Direct human rights abuses and violations directed towards foreigners are often the combined result of xenophobia and other overlapping attitudes of hostility towards foreigners (Crush 2000). We argue that such actions towards foreigners stem from a social status of being black and foreign, a status that does not necessarily equate to a status of being illegally in the country. The forms of human rights abuse and violence are not exclusively about physical harm but also incorporate instances of psychological and emotional harm inflicted upon victims. Bringing in the concept of victim integrity broadens this category further. For example, extreme force used by police that clearly exceeds the amount of necessary force violates that integrity of the victim and is therefore unjustifiable. When the state, or any agent of the state, initiates this action, state-supported violence is at issue. When violence is persistent and patterned it may be termed institutionalised. To term such negative aspects of South African policy “institutionalised” requires a sensitive understanding of South Africa’s migration policy development and the policy context in which it operates. It has become international practice for governments—and South Africa is no exception—to control migration through restrictive immigration policies. Some of these policies include excessive visa requirements and other deterrent measures such as punitive and arbitrary detention, carrier sanctions, rejection at borders and large repatriation programmes. Some of these measures may be lawful; others are not. In any event, the enforcement of such policies generates a range of institutional points at which violence might occur. The potential for human rights abuse and violation directed towards foreigners spans the entire criminal justice and immigration regime, ranging from the first contact with the arresting police officer to the final physical departure from the country in the deportation process. While the police serve various functions regarding the enforcement of immigration law, such as arrest and initial detention, the Department of Home Affairs retains ultimate responsibility for the granting of legal status to foreigners, the renewing of permits and the deportation of undocumented migrants. This paper examines the roles that the police and the Department of Home Affairs have played in the treatment of foreigners since 1994 (between 1994 and 2002)

No. 04: Gender Concerns in South African Migration Policy

This paper draws attention to the need for a gender analysis of the South African government’s proposed new policy on international migration, by identifying a number of areas of implicit gender discrimination. Such “discrimination by default” is of more than academic relevance, having important implications for national and regional development. Research undertaken by the Southern African Migration Project indicates a growing “feminization” of migration to South Africa from the Southern African region, as well as gender-specific motives and patterns of migration. If migration is to be effectively managed, such realities must be taken into account. The paper concludes by advocating a development-centred, household strategies approach, both in understanding international migration to South Africa and in the further development and implementation of legislation. The paper was written by Dr Belinda Dodson, a research associate of SAMP. The opinions expressed are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect those of SAMP, its staff or its funders

No. 13: The Rise of African Tourism to South Africa

South Africans display considerable ambiguity if not outright hostility towards Africans from other countries (Crush 2000). The extent of xenophobia was officially recognized in the Immigration Act of 2002 which gives government a statutory obligation to eliminate the phenomenon in its own ranks and amongst the citizenry. Foreign Africans in South Africa are regularly stereotyped as criminals, job-stealers, consumers of scarce public resources and carriers of disease. There is very little recognition of the positive economic benefits of the presence of other Africans in the country. Africans come to South Africa for a variety of purposes and this needs to be clearly recognized by policy-makers and the public. Some of these purposes are of enormous economic benefit for South Africa and South Africans. Easily the vast majority of Africans who come to South Africa do so legally and for purposes that fall under the general heading of “tourism.” South Africa defines tourists broadly as those who come for a timelimited stay for leisure, to visit friends and relatives (VFR), to shop and for business. In 2003, tourists spent a total of R53.9 billion in South Africa (known as “Foreign Direct Spend”). In total, tourism contributed more than R100 billion of foreign direct spend to the economy (including foreign and domestic). The average length of stay was 10 days and the spend per tourist per day was R1 548. The tourism industry employed approximately 512 000 people (South African Tourism 2003). Another common stereotype in South Africa is that tourism is the preserve of visitors from Europe and North America. Nothing could be further from the truth. Certainly, there are distinct differences between the European and the African tourist, but African tourism is a growing and under-appreciated phenomenon. As such, it is part of a large global trend towards South–South tourism. This paper focuses on the nature, dimensions and impacts of African tourism to South Africa. Because this is part of a global trend, it is first helpful to look at the rise of South–South tourism more generally. The general objective of this policy brief is to examine issues and initiatives concerning the growth of South Africa as a destination for intra-regional tourism. The post-1994 political changes have opened up South Africa to a major flow of regional tourists. The work of the Southern African Migration Project (see eg. Crush 1997; Rogerson 1997; Peberdy and Crush 2001; Peberdy and Rogerson 2000, 2003) draws detailed attention to the new flows of international migrants to South Africa from other parts of sub-Saharan Africa, but no attention has been paid so far to the parallel (and linked) growth of tourism flows from subSaharan Africa. In the South African case, regional tourism is defined simply as tourism flows, by land or air, from other countries in sub-Saharan African. Two issues are discussed here. In the next section, current international debates concerning the development of regional tourism in the developing world are reviewed. In the following section, attention turns first to the significance of regional tourism for the tourism economy of post-apartheid South Africa and then to policy development for regional tourism. South Africa provides a useful case study of a national government’s policy awakening to the importance of regional tourism as a force for the development of a country’s tourism industry

No. 01: The South African White Paper on International Migration: An Analysis and Critique

SAMP commends the South African government and the Department of Home Affairs (DHA) for their ongoing commitment to developing a new immigration and migration policy framework, exemplified most recently by the passage of a new Refugee Act and the gazetting of a Draft White Paper on International Migration (WP). SAMP notes with encouragement the steps taken in the Draft White Paper to move to a more holistic view of the benefits of sound, effective and transparent immigration management. SAMP is supportive of continued immigration policy transformation and any initiatives that advance this aim. SAMP possesses the experience and capacity to provide an informed critique of the Draft White Paper. The comments which follow are directed towards this end and made in a spirit of constructive criticism. The present document has been prepared in response to the document gazetted on 1 April 1999 as the White Paper on International Migration and the invitation to submit comment by 30 November. In order to promote public input on the Draft White Paper, SAMP has established a facility on its website for comment and debate. We wish to draw the attention of the Department of Home Affairs to this facility and its postings, as these provide further useful input to the process of policy development through public consultation. The website can be accessed at the following address: http://www.queensu.ca/samp/ While the Draft White Paper makes many valid points and has an admirable focus on practical policy mechanisms, there are a number of potential problems of design and implementation

No. 08: Thinking About the Brain Drain in Southern Africa

The movement of skilled people from one country to another is one of the most hotly contested public policy questions today. Debates amongst politicians, academics and bureaucrats about the scale and character of skilled migration, and the policies required to address these movements, are taking place in countries throughout the world (Zweig and Changgui 1995; Odunsi 1996; Phillips 1996; Carrington and Detragiache 1998; Iredale 1998; Iqbal 1999). As the opportunities for skilled personnel to move increases with globalization and the shift to a service economy (Sassen 1988, 1998), as the costs of international travel decrease, and as the ability to communicate with other parts of the world becomes easier, it is likely that skilled migration itself will increase over the next few decades, magnifying its importance as a public policy issue. Compared to the volume of unskilled and forced migration, the international movement of skilled people is still relatively small (Findlay 1995), but its social and economic relevance outweighs its numerical significance for a number of reasons, some imagined, some real. The loss of a country’s ‘best and brightest’ is seen not only as a loss of human resources but also as a general indicator of whether a country is a desirable place to live. Nothing conjures up the image of a country gone wrong like the belief that skilled people are leaving in droves: a public litmus test of sorts where citizens vote with their feet. If true, a skilled exodus heralds tougher times to come, as human and financial capital moves with skilled nationals. Given the far-reaching social and economic implications of the so-called ‘brain drain’ it is not surprising that there has been much public and academic hyperbole on the matter. Political leaders declare emigrants unpatriotic and selfish, while the media make wild and unsubstantiated statements about the extent of emigration and the motivations for it. Southern Africa is no different in this respect. Skilled migration is currently a topic of hot debate in the region and it has attracted a wide range of claims and counter-claims, particularly in South Africa where the emigration of skilled nationals has generated considerable public attention during and since the demise of apartheid

No. 06: The Point of No Return: Evaluating the Amnesty for Mozambican Refugees in South Africa

In the 1980s, civil war in Mozambique forced hundreds of thousands of people to flee their homes and seek refuge in neighbouring countries, including South Africa. Formal refugee status was granted only after the civil war ended, with the signing in October 1992 of a Tripartite Agreement between Mozambique, South Africa and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The majority of these former Mozambican refugees clearly wish to remain in South Africa, as few took advantage of a UNHCR offer of free repatriation to Mozambique in the early 1990s. In 2000, an estimated 200-220 000 former Mozambican refugees remained on South African soil. The South African Cabinet decided in December 1996 that Mozambican refugees who wished to remain in the country should be given permanent residence status. This amnesty was eventually implemented between August 1999 and February 2000 by the Department of Home Affairs (DHA). Unlike earlier amnesties, a number of NGOs participated in the outreach, advocacy and monitoring components of the amnesty’s implementation. This paper presents a detailed examination of the amnesty process, including its planning, the criteria for eligibility, the information campaign, the application procedures, the problems encountered and the lessons learned. Recommendations from this document can be drawn upon to develop appropriate responses to any future refugee influx to South Africa, whether from neighbouring countries or further afield. This report was prepared by Nicola Johnston of the Wits Rural Facility