Politicians dangle immigration control as election bait
A disgruntled South African job seeker belonging to Alexandra Dudula Movement holds a banner reading Foreigners Must Go Home during their operation to remove foreign street vendors on pavements and stalls in Alexandra township in Johannesburg on February 13, 2022. (Photo by Phill Magakoe / AFP)
With the mushrooming of political parties ahead of next year's local government elections, it is becoming obvious that the campaign ticket is 'abahambe' – undocumented foreigners must go.
Operation Dudula started its movement and gained popularity as a result of this. The Patriotic Alliance members at some point stood at a porous river blocking illegal crossing of foreigners, coining the abahambe slogan.
Since then, we have seen a zoning in on the effects of the lack of immigration control that has plagued South Africa.
Houses have been hijacked, services and utilities driven into hundreds of thousands in arrears. Spaza shops on every corner and run from RDP houses meant for the poor.
Then, the expired food fiasco and food manufactured on site, the shops doubling up as living and sleep areas.
ALSO READ: Gauteng Traffic Police and Home Affairs immigration officers arrested for kidnapping and theft
All of a sudden, our political parties see it fit that it is time to regulate the industry. This is despite the fact that home affairs officials are arrested more frequently over corruption.
Our cities are in disarray. South Africans who speak out on immigration control, or its lack thereof, are labelled as xenophobic.
If the stories are true that government clinics are serving more foreigners than South Africans, then somewhere, something is fundamentally wrong.
This is not a call to refuse medical assistance to those in need, but rather a question as to where are South Africans going for assistance because, as said by one woman on social media: 'We have been pushed out of hospitals and forced to go to private practitioners.'
Who, then, are government clinics meant for?
ALSO READ: Two immigration specialists arrested in Beitbridge corruption probe
Let it be understood, compliance is regulation and not xenophobia. The government often talks of good neighbourly relations, a welcoming home for all Africans… but the same government now refuses to take any more strain from illegal immigrants.
Even though the economy is in under strain, the timing of the government's admission is nothing short of dubious.
It was first brought to our attention in 2008. The nerve for us to feign shock and horror when illegal foreigners took the government to court, forcing its hand to allow their stay and the enjoyment of civic provision.
What the politicians use as an electioneering tool, which is close to the hearts of every citizen, becomes the carrot dangled for votes at election time.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
39 minutes ago
- IOL News
Steenhuisen fires back at Ramaphosa over national dialogue boycott
Defending the DA's withdrawal, Minister John Steenhuisen says public attacks during diplomatic visits are inappropriate and confirms the party will soon respond to Thabo Mbeki's letter with a full report. Image: Ayanda Ndamane Independent Newspapers DA leader and Minister of Agriculture John Steenhuisen has criticised the government's reliance on what he calls 'corrupt and incompetent individuals' to implement South Africa's development plans, warning that ongoing dialogue without action will not solve the country's deepening crises. This comes after President Cyril Ramaphosa took aim at the DA for withdrawing from the National Dialogue, accusing the party of turning its back on South Africans and lacking commitment to core democratic values. Ramaphosa called it a 'great form of hypocrisy.' Ramaphosa was hosting the president of Austria, Alexander van der Bellen, to deepen economic and trade relations between the two parties at the Union Buildings in Pretoria. 'It's the poverty of adherence to good principles for a party to walk away from the people of South Africa,' Ramaphosa said. 'Nothing is wrong with the dialogue. It will continue without the participation of the Democratic Alliance.' He stressed that the dialogue was not a party-political event but a national platform for all South Africans—churches, foundations, communities—to reflect on the country's progress 30 years into democracy. 'This is not a party political platform. It's a platform that will see the participation of the people of South Africa as a whole. Political parties will play a very minimal role,' Ramaphosa said. He warned that by boycotting the initiative, the DA was depriving its own supporters of the opportunity to help shape South Africa's future. 'What a pity for a party that says it represents 20 or so percent of the people of South Africa. They are depriving those that they seek to represent an opportunity to make an input into the future of the country.' Steenhuisen, speaking on the sidelines at the Union Buildings, said: 'If you're going to rely on those people to be the ones implementing your plans and your decisions, it's going to end up just like every other issue, every other talk-shop that's happened for the last 20 years. People will still be living in abject poverty. Unemployment will still be unacceptably high.' He insisted that South Africans have had '30 years of talking' and what is needed now is action—specifically, the immediate and vigorous implementation of the Medium-Term Development Plan (MTDP), which the government has adopted as its roadmap to achieving 3% economic growth. 'A dialogue isn't going to feed anybody. It's not going to build a single house or create a single job. We must burn off the oxygen implementing the plan,' Steenhuisen said. Referencing former President Thabo Mbeki's controversial Growth, Employment and Redistribution (GEAR) strategy in the 1990s, Steenhuisen noted how Mbeki stood firm in the face of opposition, insisting the government had a mandate to deliver. 'We have a medium-term development plan. The President has said this is the pathway. Ministers have been tasked to internalise it. Now we need delivery, not more roundtable discussions,' he said. Ramaphosa, in contrast, said the National Dialogue echoes historical milestones like the Freedom Charter and the post-apartheid constitutional negotiations—broad-based, people-led processes that helped shape democratic South Africa. 'To have those who want to boycott an overarching national manifestation like what we had when we drafted our constitution comes as a real shock to me,' Ramaphosa said. He added that former President Mbeki, too, had expressed his disappointment with the DA's decision to boycott the dialogue. ''I'm not surprised to see former President Thabo Mbeki having written a 10-page letter or so about precisely this, because he's also appalled, as many South Africans are appalled, at the behavior of the Democratic Alliance,'' said Ramaphosa. Steenhuisen said that the DA would respond soon to Mbeki's recently released 11-page open letter. 'I don't think intemperate attacks on a public platform, when you have a visiting head of state next to you, is the appropriate forum to do that. We will also provide Thabo Mbeki with a full report. [email protected] Get your news on the go, click here to join the IOL News WhatsApp channel IOL Politics
IOL News
an hour ago
- IOL News
US Congress proposes sanctions against South Africa over Israel case
US President Donald Trump hands papers to President Cyril Ramaphosa during a meeting in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington. Image: AFP A controversial bill introduced in the United States Congress aims to cut off direct aid to South Africa and impose targeted sanctions on its political leaders, citing the country's legal action against Israel at the International Court of Justice and its growing diplomatic ties with Iran and Hamas. Republican Representative Greg Steube on Friday tabled the Addressing Hostile and Antisemitic Conduct by the Republic of South Africa Act of 2025 in the US House of Representatives. The proposed legislation accuses the South African government of using international institutions to wage 'lawfare' against Israel, advancing what it calls an 'antisemitic narrative under the guise of international law'. 'It is clear as day that the Government of South Africa is unfairly targeting the State of Israel and inciting hostility towards the United States and our allies,' Steube said in a statement dated June 17. 'America has no business engaging with a corrupt government that weaponises its political system against the Jewish people while jeopardising our national security interests by indulging terrorist organisations and their sponsors.' Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading Steube said the bill is a direct response to South Africa's 'genocide' case against Israel at the ICJ, its hosting of Hamas delegations following the October 7 attacks, and the signing of an economic cooperation deal with Iran involving oil refinery projects. Under the bill, the US would suspend all direct assistance to South Africa, excluding humanitarian and public health aid, unless the government ceases all formal support for international legal actions 'that unfairly target the State of Israel', implements institutional reforms to combat corruption, and improves diplomatic cooperation with the United States. It also authorises the US president to impose sanctions, under the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, on any South African official deemed to have promoted antisemitic policies or misused international courts to attack Israel. Political analyst Siseko Maposa, director at Surgetower Associates, said while the bill's passage is uncertain, its symbolic and diplomatic weight should not be underestimated. 'This bill exemplifies President Trump and the Republican faction's continued efforts to punish South Africa for its principled positions on international justice – particularly regarding Israel,' said Maposa. 'What distinguishes this initiative from prior attempts, however, is its heavy enforcement mechanisms, which would inflict tangible consequences for South Africa if enacted.' He noted that from 2012 to 2021, South Africa received an estimated $6 billion in direct US foreign direct investment, and a significant portion of development assistance has flowed through US government and affiliated aid programmes. 'While passage remains uncertain, a narrow legislative pathway exists. Republicans hold a slim majority in both chambers, but recent infighting, such as the collapse of the 'Big Beautiful Bill' vote, shows that internal dissent could derail it. South Africa's best chance may lie in lobbying moderate Republicans to oppose this draconian overreach,' he said. Maposa also warned that the bill could face legal challenges in the US if its conflation of criticism of Israel with antisemitism is seen as infringing on constitutional free speech protections. At the time of publication, the South African government had not issued a formal response. However, senior ANC leaders have previously defended the country's application to the ICJ as a legal obligation under the Genocide Convention, following Israel's military campaign in Gaza that has resulted in tens of thousands of Palestinian deaths and widespread humanitarian destruction. Foreign Minister Naledi Pandor has been a vocal advocate for Palestinian rights and last year described the ICJ case as a stand for 'international justice and accountability'. Steube's bill frames these actions differently, alleging that South Africa has 'repeatedly turned a blind eye to the atrocities committed by Hamas and Iran against Israel and the United States,' while 'aligning itself with authoritarian regimes hostile to United States national interests'. The bill further accuses the ANC of giving legitimacy to terrorist actors, pointing to its meetings with Hamas officials and Tehran's diplomatic engagement with Pretoria. The Democratic Alliance, the country's main opposition party, is expected to weigh in on the diplomatic fallout. The DA has previously criticised the ANC government's foreign policy as isolating South Africa from key Western partners. The Department of International Relations and Cooperation will likely be called on to explain whether any formal communication has been received from US officials regarding the bill and what diplomatic channels, if any, are being pursued to address it. Should the bill pass, it could result in South African officials being barred from travelling to the US or having assets frozen under US jurisdiction. It could also signal further deteriorating relations between the two countries, which have clashed in recent years over BRICS alignment, Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and military cooperation exercises with China. For now, Pretoria's best hope appears to rest on political divisions within the US Republican Party. Maposa said: 'This internal Republican division may be its sole reprieve – one Pretoria must seize by urgently lobbying moderate Republican legislators to oppose the bill outright.' Presidential spokesperson Vincent Magwenya said the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) was best suited to respond to the bill. The Department of International Relations and Cooperation confirmed that it is monitoring the proposed legislation through diplomatic channels. Spokesperson Chrispin Phiri said: 'As you may know, an act or bill is proposed and passed by a country's legislative body, such as the Parliament in South Africa or the Congress and Senate in the USA. These bodies operate within their sovereign territories, and their primary function is to create or implement policy through legislation, typically without the need for consultation with other nations. We recognise that this principle underscores the autonomy of states in their legislative processes. Legislative processes by their nature are publicly accessible, as such our Embassy in Washington D.C. will be able to monitor relevant developments.' On political lobbying within the US, Phiri said: 'We have noted the information regarding the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and its financial contributions to American politicians. We understand that AIPAC openly ties its contributions to candidates' support for the US-Israel relationship, thereby creating a significant incentive for politicians to align with this stance. There is public information indicating that some House Representatives who have introduced bills may fall within this category of politicians.' Phiri added that South Africa's foreign policy remains non-aligned. 'Minister Lamola consistently asserts that South Africa's foreign policy is independent and non-aligned, rooted in its constitutional principles and national interests, rather than hostility towards any nation.' Regarding Iran, he said: 'South Africa upholds its dedication to international initiatives to curtail the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and supports the right to develop nuclear capability for peaceful purposes. South Africa's engagement with Iran is consistent with its broader foreign policy of engaging with all countries.' He said South Africa's approach to foreign policy was based on constitutional values and international legal principles. 'We reemphasise that our foreign policy is based on principles such as human rights, self-determination, anti-colonialism, multilateralism, peaceful resolution of conflicts, and the pursuit of a just and equitable world order. These are universal values, not ideological preferences. Our non-aligned stance enables us to pursue an independent foreign policy that serves our national interests and contributes to global peace and stability. This means engaging with all countries, regardless of their geopolitical alignment.' Phiri added: 'We wish to reiterate that South Africa's genocide case against Israel in the International Court of Justice is fundamentally driven by our commitment to upholding a rules-based international order anchored in international law, with the aim of protecting vulnerable populations and ensuring that all actors, including powerful states, are bound by these principles. It is not, as you suggest, driven by ideological alignment, but by a consistent pursuit of justice and the reinforcement of international legal frameworks.' Attempts to get comments from the ANC and the DA were unsuccessful at the time of publication.
The South African
an hour ago
- The South African
Egypt and Sudan push back as Ethiopia finishes Nile dam
Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed announced the completion of the Nile dam project, the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD), during a parliamentary address on 3 July 2025. The GERD began construction in 2011 with a $4 billion (about R73.6 billion) budget. It is the largest hydroelectric project in Africa, measuring 1.8 km in width and 145 metres in height. Furthermore, the Nile dam is expected to generate more than 5 000 megawatts of electricity when it opens in September, according to Abiy. In February 2022, electricity generation began, and two turbines are now producing electricity. The dam is located 30 kilometres from Sudan's border, in Ethiopia's northwest region. Sudan and Egypt reiterated their opposition to the GERD's unilateral completion without a formal agreement. As a result of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD), 97% of Egypt's water comes from the Nile, and the country is concerned about its access being reduced. Moreover, Sudan voiced concerns about the security of its dams and water infrastructure downstream. More than a decade of intense negotiations has not yielded a trilateral agreement. Sudan's Sovereign Council General Chairman Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi both denounced unilateral actions in the Blue Nile Basin on 30 June. Both leaders reaffirmed their commitment to regional legal frameworks and water security. 'The GERD is a collective opportunity, not a threat to neighbouring countries,' Abiy Ahmed emphasised. He declared that Ethiopia is willing to discuss water-related issues with Egypt and Sudan in a positive manner. Ethiopia's advancement would not come at the expense of others, Abiy reaffirmed. Across the Nile basin, he promoted 'collective advancement, collective energy, and collective water'. Ethiopia claims that economic growth and electrification depend on the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam. Half of Ethiopia's population does not have access to electricity, according to World Bank data. Egypt announced the cessation of negotiations in December 2023 as a result of Ethiopia's unilateral acts. Sudan continues to be unstable due to persistent civil strife and fluctuating political alignments. The African Union (AU) has advocated for fresh engagement; nevertheless, official mediation has not recommenced. International experts caution about rising tensions in the absence of a formal water-sharing mechanism. Ethiopia asserts that it does not need external approval to construct infrastructure within its borders. The GERD symbolises national pride and regional conflict in East Africa. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 11. Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news
