A moment to reflect: The US is politicising the issue of asylum, but in South Africa some populist politicians do the same. Photo: Delwyn Verasamy
Headlines in recent weeks have been dominated by the meeting between President Cyril Ramaphosa and Donald Trump, after the US president granted asylum to white South African farmers.
Framed by Trump as a response to alleged land seizures and violence, the move has been widely criticised as a politically motivated gesture aimed at energising his conservative base ahead of the US mid-term elections. This culminated in a televised version of what Trump might conceive of as version two of The Apprentice in the Oval Office. Despite the ambush, the South African delegation held its ground and demonstrated that white farmers are hardly at disproportionate risk in the country. Many find Trump’s politicking distasteful in the context of having essentially characterised other asylum-seekers to the US as criminals or illegal migrants.
As much as Trump’s reality-TV delusions persist, this moment presents an opportunity for introspection, given South Africa’s own challenges with immigration. While the United States faces scrutiny for the politicisation of asylum, South African politicians have similarly weaponised migration to serve populist agendas. South Africa stands at the centre of intricate migration dynamics that continue to shape its socio-economic landscape, development trajectory, and national security concerns. As one of the continent’s most industrialised economies, South Africa has long been a destination for migrants, asylum seekers, and refugees from across Africa.
In a bid to intensify efforts against illegal immigration, Home Affairs Minister Leon Schreiber recently launched Operation New Broom, a nationwide, technology-driven initiative aimed at identifying, arresting and deporting undocumented foreign nationals, particularly those occupying public spaces. The operation is supported by biometric verification systems, which help detect fraudulent documents and verify a person’s immigration status. This initiative forms part of a broader strategy to clamp down on illegal migration through the use of real-time data and enhanced border control mechanisms.
A substantial proportion of migrants cross the border without any documentation. The majority originate from Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Malawi, Lesotho and Nigeria. These migration flows were and are still driven by multiple push and pull factors, including economic hardship, civil unrest and environmental changes in migrants’ home countries. As climate change, organised crime and extremist activity intensifies in some areas, internal displacement and cross-border migration into South Africa are expected to increase, further complicating the country’s migration governance.
In an attempt to curb the influx, the South African government erected electric fences along its borders with Zimbabwe and Mozambique. This was inefficient; illegal migrants continue to enter illegally by damaging the fence. The establishment of the Border Management Authority (BMA) has augmented the fencing efforts. The BMA’s mandate is to manage and secure South Africa’s borders. This includes facilitating legitimate movement of people and goods while preventing and mitigating illegal activities at ports of entry and within the border law enforcement area. In the 2024–25 festive season, the BMA recorded a 215% increase in the prevention of illegal border crossings, intercepting more than 50 000 undocumented people, a sharp rise from 15 924 in the previous year.
Despite the deployment of drones, surveillance equipment and improved patrols, South Africa’s border security continues to be problematic. The BMA and the police have both acknowledged ongoing issues, including infrastructural decay and systemic corruption among border officials, which compromise the integrity of enforcement efforts.
The government has, since the democratic transition, enacted legislation intended to manage migration more effectively. The White Paper on International Migration (1999) laid the foundational policy vision, highlighting the importance of balancing national interests with human rights obligations. The Refugees Act of 1998 and the Immigration Act of 2002, later amended in 2004 and 2007, were designed to regulate the entry and residence of foreign nationals, establish procedures for asylum, and address irregular migration. Yet, implementation has often lagged behind legislative intent. There is a discernible disconnect between policy and practice, particularly with regard to consistent border control and fair refugee processing systems.
There is no definitive method to accurately determine the number of undocumented migrants in South Africa. Estimates vary widely and are often politicised. This is not unique to South Africa — globally, countries struggle to account for their undocumented populations because of the clandestine nature of illegal migration. But the Global Commission on International Migration and Institute of Race Relations have long argued that illegal migration has become a structural and permanent feature of the country’s population dynamics. Some reports suggest the undocumented population could be between two and five million, although these figures remain speculative.
The socio-economic and political costs of irregular migration are often cited by critics of the government’s migration policies. Based on Professor Albert Venter‘s 2005 political risk model, as noted down by Machidi S Ngoasheng undocumented migrants can strain already overstretched public services and social welfare systems, particularly in health, housing, and education. The perception, and sometimes the reality of competition for scarce resources has fuelled xenophobic sentiment and periodic outbreaks of violence, which in turn strain South Africa’s diplomatic relations with neighbouring countries. For example, relations with Zimbabwe, Nigeria and Malawi have, at times, become tense following attacks on their nationals living in South Africa.
Civil society and political parties continue to play an influential role in shaping public discourse on immigration. While ActionSA and the Patriotic Alliance have pushed for stricter immigration enforcement and border controls, the Democratic Alliance has generally supported regulated immigration tied to economic opportunity and legal compliance.
The Economic Freedom Fighters, on the other hand, have condemned mass deportations and raised concerns about the financial and humanitarian costs of hardline immigration policies. The government spent more than R52 million deporting about 19 750 people during the period April to August 2024. The total number of deportations for the 2024-25 financial year reached nearly 47 000, an 18% increase from the previous year. Many of those deported re-enter, considering the risk worth incurring due to the desperate socio-economic conditions in the region.
Despite these problems, it is important to acknowledge the positive contributions that migrants make to South Africa’s economy and society. Many fill critical labour shortages, create businesses and bring cultural diversity. Effective migration management should not only focus on enforcement but also on integration, inclusion and sustainable development. A balanced and humane migration policy must consider the structural drivers of mobility across the region, such as poverty, inequality, and conflict, while also upholding the rule of law and national security.
While South Africa’s migration landscape is shaped by deep-rooted regional and global forces, it would be inaccurate to suggest that the country has consistently implemented evidence-based migration policies or applied them uniformly. Although frameworks such as the White Paper on International Migration (1999), the Refugees Act (1998), and the Immigration Act (2002) lay a strong legal foundation, their implementation has often been ad hoc, reactive and vulnerable to political influence. South Africa’s adoption of a non-encampment model for refugees and asylum seekers, rooted in a rights-based approach aligned with the Constitution and international obligations, is commendable in principle. It allows refugees to live freely rather than being confined to camps. But this model also presents significant administrative and logistical problems, particularly in ensuring access to services, legal protections and regular documentation.
One clear example of these difficulties is the persistent dysfunction within the asylum system, where application backlogs and lengthy appeals processes have left thousands in prolonged legal uncertainty. According to the United Nations Human Refugee Agency, South Africa continues to host one of the largest unresolved asylum caseloads globally, largely because of administrative inefficiencies and under-resourced institutions. These issues point to the urgent need for a more coherent, data-driven approach to migration governance that matches South Africa’s progressive legal commitments with practical capacity to implement them.
Another example is border management. Despite the creation of the BMA and increased investment in surveillance technologies, porous borders and corruption among officials undermine state efforts and contradict stated policy goals. To build a migration regime that is truly secure, fair and reflective of constitutional values, South Africa must commit to depoliticising migration governance, investing in institutional capacity and using reliable data to drive reform — rather than responding to public pressure or electoral cycles.
Leleti Maluleke is a peace and security researcher at Good Governance Africa.