Stephen J. Spiegelhalter and Dr. Daniel Nielson, Kennedy Center for International Relations

The result of the funding from this grant is a preliminary insight into the phenomenon of migration in South Africa. While interesting in and of itself, it actually comprises an important component of a larger project—an honors thesis on the study of international migration, its effects on the migrating population, and its effects on the host state. This study focuses on the parallel situations of the United States and South Africa. Further, it specifically examines the interplay of domestic economic and political conditions and public sentiment regarding immigration legislation. This topic continues to occupy the foreground of American politics with the passing of legislation such as Proposition 209 and its predecessor, Proposition 189, in California. The intense debate which has ensued is not unique to our American electorate. In actuality, this is a drama which has found stage in numerous states throughout the world.

The material for this portion of the final thesis was gathered through primary and secondary research in South Africa between May and August 1997. I resided in South Africa for this purpose. While excellent resources such as the South Africa National Library (the South African version of The Library of Congress) in Cape Town provided profound insight into the problems and promises of immigration in South Africa, primary research, including interviews of professors and migrants, provided a poignant insight into migration politics and the resultant effects on the migrant populations themselves.

The parallels between the United States and South Africa are many.The parallels between the United States and South Africa are many. Each state occupies the dominant position in its sphere of immediate influence. U.S. politics and law dominate the movement of individuals between states in North America. Additionally, the United States, with its strong currency and domination of interstate trade in North America undeniably possesses the position of “pivotal state” within its hemisphere. Similarly, South Africa fills this important role for states of southern African region. Its currency is accepted in most border states, without exchange into the host currency. Further, South African politics and industry dominate the region, as each year South Africa accepts thousands of migrant workers from bordering states. This does not even include the tens of thousands of refugees which flood its border every year.

The thesis of my paper is that domestic economic conditions determine the acceptance of immigrants into a host society. Further, it is the natural interplay of economic decline and fear regarding the future, not the pandering of politicians, which determines the climate for immigrants desiring to cross borders. In essence, this fear is derived from uncertainty innate to those who are pondering displacement. It is not, I hypothesize, the direct result of domestic institutional foundations such as the electoral cycle.

The host of factors which determine immigration law are extremely complex. As one author noted: “A host of passions, prides, and prejudice lay behind these national immigration policies” (Borrie 1959, 90). Indeed, South Africa confronts an unusual situation with the fall of apartheid and the liberalization of the domestic economy. While the white government of the National Party had closely controlled immigrant labor and its borders, Nelson Mandela insisted that the nation should be open for all. Upon his inauguration, he immediately opened South Africa’s borders. Simultaneously, he increased the incentive for migration by promising housing for all a promise unfulfilled.

This new policy coincided with the continued decline of South Africa’s economy. Unemployment rates are phenomenal and domestic crime is reaching epic proportions. As I hypothesize, there has been a continual rise in anti-immigration sentiment. Matthias Brunk noted that the attention of South Africa’s media is increasing its focus on the developing xenophobia (1996, 1-2). This has resulted in renewed violence in black townships as increasing populations vie for decreasing resources. Meanwhile, statistics indicate that illegal immigration more than doubled between 1988 and 1993; this, even before the ascendance of the comparatively liberal African National Congress (3). While estimates vary greatly, conservative numbers place upwards of two million “illegals” in South Africa at any one time. Police forces have argued that the number actually approaches eight million.

While this study is still in its formative stages, South Africa aptly illustrates the moral of the story that “states can become victims too: fragile ecologies can be disrupted, unemployment can be exacerbated, ethnic tension can be heightened” (Gustov 1991, 491). While the author of this thought does not make the causal link, I believe that what he states is a causal chain. Unemployment is exacerbated and, as a direct result, ethnic tensions rise. Perhaps no other nation illustrates this point as well as does South Africa.

The future of immigration in sub-Saharan Africa is uncertain and demands study. If South Africa is, as some authors assert, a “pivotal state,” moves must be made to arrest its economic decline. Unless some decisive changes can be made, the future for the region is, indeed, precarious. As anti-immigrant sentiments continue to rise among majority populations in the poor township, violence is sure to follow.

References

• Borrie, W.D. 1959. Population and culture: The cultural integration of immigrants. Paris: UNESCO.
• Brunk, Matthias. 1996. Undocumented migration to South Africa: More questions than answers. Cape Town: IDASA.
• Gustov, M. 1991. Open borders: A global-humanist crisis. World Development 19 (5). 222