Having a debate on immigration is not being xenophobic

The great irony of our country today is that it is the self-styled arch-democrats who tend to be virulently intolerant of views they disagree with. Readily coming to mind are the questions of xenophobia and immigration.

One dictionary defines immigration as “the process of coming to live permanently in a country that is not your own”. Xenophobia is described as “a strong feeling of dislike or fear of people from other countries”. While they may overlap, the two are obviously discrete and different. Yet in SA there is a tendency, especially by purported champions of human rights, to conflate the two — labelling all who raise issues of immigration as xenophobic.

Of course, name-calling to suppress views considered undesirable has a long history in our country. For instance, before 1994 the apartheid government denounced, jailed, or killed everyone who fought against apartheid as “terrorists”, “instigators” or “communists”. On the struggle side as well there was no shortage of derogatory appellatives for those who opposed the struggle or held a different perspective as to how the fight against apartheid should be prosecuted. The list ranged from “sellout” to “counter-revolutionary” and, utterly dangerously, impimpi (informer). For the impimpi, the possibility of a necklace punishment always loomed large.

In both cases, the effect was to shame, silence and isolate the victim while delegitimising their views.

Today, the xenophobe tag achieves the same pernicious result — which is to silence anyone who dares to ask immigration-related questions, unpopular in some quarters. But in a democratic country such as ours, why should that be the case?

Needless to say, a hatred of fellow human beings purely on the basis of their looks or origin is abhorrent. Especially so in our country, where racism has caused so much pain to the majority of citizens and still prevents the emergence of one nationhood.

Also, our experience of the last while is that such sentiments, unchecked, can lead to violence against those who are the target of hatred. But, barring the obviously illegal and morally repugnant propagation of hatred and violence against immigrants, we surely should welcome open debate on immigration — as we should on many other controversial issues in SA. Is that not the hallmark of a flourishing democracy?

The benefits of immigration are well documented, including the country’s ability to source scarce skills essential for our economic development and global competitiveness. Our international obligations to treat humanely and justly migrants and refugees are clear.

But that, together with our human rights ethos, should not be used to suppress debate about the very real concerns of SA’s citizens, particularly the poor and working classes, which are a consequence of the government’s policy and implementation failures.

These include the miseducation of particularly young people, many of whom lack the entrepreneurial or technical skills needed for meaningful economic participation. Why, for instance, is every other cellphone repair shop owned by a foreign operator? After all, the job is not exactly rocket science.

Similarly, it is wrong to demonise those who ask, for instance, why the services sector is dominated by non-South African citizens. Indeed, governments in much of the world prioritise their citizens when it comes to job creation. The same applies to housing, business opportunities and social support generally.

In fact, tensions between locals and foreigners over resources and opportunities are not unique to SA, as some would have us believe. They even involve whole countries. Witness the recent conflict between Nigerian and Ghanaian traders in Ghana, or Nigeria’s closure of its border with Benin.

Part of our aversion to talking frankly about immigration or xenophobia is politics. The strong historical links between the South African liberation forces and the broader pan-African movement have led some among us to frown upon the enforcement of immigration laws against fellow Africans.

The case for pan-Africanism and cross-border co-operation has been articulated in different iterations over the decades, notably with the formation of the African Union and the Organisation of African Unity, its predecessor, followed by regional formations such as the Southern African Development Community, Economic Community of West African States and the African Continental Free Trade Agreement. In the main it would facilitate solidarity among us Africans in dealing with the many common continental problems as well as speaking with one voice when engaging on trade and international relations with the likes of the European Union, China and the US.

In this vein, others have argued for SA to abolish its borders, rejecting them as a divide-and-rule colonial creation. Sometimes the Freedom Charter, an often abused historical document, is thrown in for good measure by proponents of a laissez-faire approach to immigration. The falsehood propagated is that its declaration that “SA belongs to all who live in it” confers citizenship to anyone who happens to transit OR Tambo International or who happens to walk through the apology of a fence on our northern border.

The truth is that neither pan-Africanism nor the charter were premised on one country, SA, relinquishing its sovereignty and ceasing to exist, which would be the effect of dismantling our borders.

Equally importantly, immigration is a critical national security issue. It is more than a whole lot of foreigners innocently wandering onto our shores in search of a better life or to preserve life and limb.

It is also about the safety of the republic and its people; about the government knowing who comes into the country and for what purpose, and how many are economic migrants, genuine refugees or are here illegally. And, critically, who may be here simply as a sleeper for some terror group.

The one thing we should perhaps disabuse ourselves of is the notion that those who ask questions about the effectiveness or otherwise of our laws are always driven by xenophobia. The other is the naïve assumption that everyone who comes here does so with good intentions. Ask Kenyans about the Westgate Mall attack.

• Siluma is deputy editor