Khadija Magardie
A newly released study on attitudes towards foreigners, particularly refugees, shows that public awareness on the human rights of asylum-seekers has still to take root on South African soil.
Earlier this year, the World Conference against Racism attempted to raise the issue of xenophobia, or anti-foreigner sentiment in many parts of the world, including South Africa.
But despite rigorous public awareness campaigns, and the refugee Act of 1998, which enabled government to honour international refugee conventions and afford legal protection to refugees, South African attitudes to foreigners – including those who flee their countries of origin and arrive here seeking asylum – remain overwhelmingly negative.
The latest policy series document by the South African Migration Project (SAMP), entitled Immigration, Xenophobia and Human Rights in South Africa, attempts to verify, through systematic, nationally conducted research, citizens’ attitudes towards immigration and immigrants.
According to researchers, a great deal of information used to measure xenophobia in the country has been anecdotal, making it difficult to quantify scientifically.
Specifically, the study aimed to determine the extent to which locals believed foreigners – including immigrants, undocumented or “illegal” migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers – were entitled to the basic human rights afforded by the Constitution.
The results relating to refugees and asylum-seekers strongly suggest that most South Africans, while generally accepting that there were genuine refugees who need “protection”, appeared to regard most refugees in their midst as fakes and fraudsters.
For instance, only 47% of the respondents felt the South African government should give asylum and protection to refugees.
When asked whether they would personally support the South African government paying for the cost of sheltering refugees, the response was equally lukewarm – with only 17% in favour. This, say researchers, indicates that proposals for setting up “holding centres” for refugees, as opposed to allowing them freedom of movement pending the outcome of asylum applications, would be favourably received by the public.
Respondents appeared to make a clear distinction between a general principle that refugees should be afforded protection, and their government’s responsibility in offering that same protection. The survey found that there was a general lack of public clarity on what was meant by refugee “protection”.
Disturbingly, respondents believed that this did not extend to granting basic rights to refugees. Nearly 70% felt that refugees should never have the rights of freedom of speech and movement. Less than 3% felt these were automatic entitlements. Less than 20% felt refugees should always enjoy legal and police protection in South Africa, or access basic services such as health care, housing or education.
The researchers partly attributed this to a general lack of clarity on who was afforded rights by the Constitution. More than half of the respondents – some 56% – thought the rights guaranteed by the Constitution were for South Africans only.
South Africans also display distinctly negative reactions to foreigners from African countries – asked to choose, citizens of all races showed a definite preference for European and North American immigrants. About 40% were opposed to Africans from elsewhere enjoying equal access to basic services.
“None of this”, say the researchers, “indicates a citizenry well-educated in the circumstances and plight of refugees.”
They added that there should be “great cause for concern” that the general sense of reluctance to grant rights to refugees is “uncomfortably close” to the set of responses given for illegal migrants – implying South Africans still did not distinguish between refugees and migrants.
“Immigration, Xenophobia and Human Rights in South Africa”, and other migration research, is available on http://www.queensu. ca/samp