Migrants need their closest neighbour
· Citizen
SA has something in common with the United Kingdom: both countries are dealing with waves of illegal immigrants.
And, in both cases, many of the new arrivals are targeting them specifically, rather than the countries around them, to claim refuge as asylum seekers.
Visit saltysenoritaaz.com for more information.
People migrating
People crossing the English Channel in boats come from places as far off as Syria and Africa – and all of them have opted not to apply for asylum in the countries through which they have transited.
Could that be because both South Africa and the UK are regarded as “soft touches” for foreigners who are not fleeing persecution, but who are simply looking for a better economic future than they would have in their homelands?
Critics of our laws – and the government’s implementation of them – feel we should strictly enforce the accepted international “first safe country” principle.
People applying for asylum are from far away
In other words, if there is a third, “safe” country between SA and the country a refugee is fleeing, the asylum must be applied for there.
That makes sense: if you are fleeing for your life, that should be your primary concern, not whether a country is wealthy or not.
Most of the people applying for asylum here are not from our direct neighbours. The majority of asylum seekers are from Ethiopia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Somalia and Bangladesh.
All of them would have several safe, third-country options before South Africa.
Not xenophobic at all
That’s why we welcome the White Paper on Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection, approved by the Cabinet earlier this year.
Under this, Home Affairs is committed to rejecting asylum applications from people who have been granted refugee status or lawful protection in another country, or who pass through safe third countries to reach South Africa.
That’s not unfair – or xenophobic