Migration may be an increasingly contentious issue in South Africa, but that does not justify taking an axe to refugee rights and chipping away at the country’s obligations under the 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention, as the Department of Home Affairs (DHA) recently proposed, among other immigration reforms.
Frustration has grown across the board. The scapegoating of foreigners by officials has led many South Africans to blame migrants for their economic woes. Migrants, refugees and asylum seekers suffer from xenophobic attacks and a backlogged asylum system. Home Affairs Minister Dr Aaron Motsoaledi has described current migration legislation as ‘unworkable’, citing some contradictions between existing laws.
The DHA’s proposals include withdrawing from the Refugee Convention and rejoining it with reservations, picking and choosing which rights to respect. But the need for immigration reform does not give the government carte blanche to ditch its human rights commitments.
At a press conference on 12 November, Motsoaledi claimed that South Africa ‘does not have the resources to provide the socio-economic rights envisaged in the 1951 Convention’. Refugees’ rights to education and work are likely to be put on the chopping block by the DHA.
This would be a damaging retreat from South Africa’s commitments. In 2018, South Africa endorsed the Global Compact on Refugees, which builds on the Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework. These instruments recognise the importance of refugee integration and inclusion, highlighting that access to education and labour markets promotes refugee self-reliance and contributes to local economies.
The DHA also proposes a ‘safe first country’ rule, which could deny asylum to people who have passed through other countries on their way to South Africa. However, without measures to ensure that affected asylum seekers are safe in those countries or have access to effective protection, such a rule would risk exposing people to chain deportations and other harms in violation of international law. For example, Greek authorities have sent back asylum seekers who have passed through Turkey, claiming it is ‘safe’, yet refugees and asylum seekers there have suffered serious abuses and even deportation to Afghanistan, Syria and other refugee-producing countries.
South Africa’s Constitution proudly proclaims that it is founded on the values of human dignity and that “South Africa belongs to all who live in it, united in our diversity”. Officials should keep these values in mind ahead of the country’s 2024 elections and ensure that immigration reforms protect, not undermine, the rights of refugees.
