Making Asylum Seekers More Vulnerable in South Africa: The Negative Effects of Hostile Asylum Policies on Livelihoods

Abstract

In post‐apartheid South Africa, migration policies and legislation have left critical issues such as social cohesion and integration unsolved. Furthermore, the inability to reconcile the national interest of maintaining borders’ integrity with respecting moral and legal obligations has placed the asylum system under tremendous stress. Drawing from secondary sources, as well as qualitative interviews, this paper explores the development of new asylum policies aimed at curtailing asylum seekers’ right to work in South Africa. The study’s findings provide support for the conclusions of earlier research that highlights the consequences of hostile policies and practices for asylum seekers’ livelihoods. The author argues that curtailments on asylum seekers’ right to work will have many possible socio‐economic ramifications. In the immediate term, the legislation seeks to inhibit asylum seekers from engaging in self‐employment, while in the long run it may achieve the undesired effect of producing more precarious forms of livelihood.

Between Informality and (Il)legality: Congolese Migrants’ Survival Mechanisms in South Africa

“…While, on paper, South African immigration policy appears to advocate for freedom of movement and the seeking of asylum, its practical implementation reveals clear forms of criminalization and discrimination. South Africa’s refugee management policies are marred by several amendments, which indicate the government’s intention to restrict the rights and freedoms of people seeking asylum in South Africa (Carciotto 2021; Khan and Lee 2018). For instance, the amendment Act of 2017 discourages asylum seekers from entering the country by restricting their rights to work, study, and protection (Carciotto 2021).…”

“…South Africa’s refugee management policies are marred by several amendments, which indicate the government’s intention to restrict the rights and freedoms of people seeking asylum in South Africa (Carciotto 2021; Khan and Lee 2018). For instance, the amendment Act of 2017 discourages asylum seekers from entering the country by restricting their rights to work, study, and protection (Carciotto 2021). Furthermore, the closure of refugee reception centers and their relocation to border areas have created obstacles for individuals applying for asylum or trying to extend their existing permit.…”

How effective are integration policy reforms? The case of asylum‐related migrants

“…An exclusionary receiving country context may, in turn, foster acculturative stress, resulting in reduced psychological well‐being manifested as depression, anxiety, and other psychological maladaptations (Berry, 1997 ). Research, indeed, shows that restrictions on the right to work increase vulnerabilities and have negative consequences for the mental well‐being of asylum seekers (Carciotto, 2020 ), and that social isolation, for example, in state‐provided asylum accommodation, is negatively related to refugees’ mental and physical health (Bakker et al, 2016 ).…”

Global health (security), immigration governance and Covid-19 in South(ern) Africa: An evolving research agenda

“…Despite this, the country – like the region - still lacks adequate migration-aware and mobility-competent healthcare system responses ( de Gruchy and Vearey, 2020 ; Vearey, 2021 ). As witnessed elsewhere, South Africa's response to the management of immigration is increasingly restrictive, with lower-skilled migrants in particular facing challenges to enter South Africa in regular ways ( Carciotto, 2020 ). Combined with existing challenges in the implementation of immigration governance – including the ways in which the dysfunctional refugee status determination process negatively affects the health and wellbeing of people seeking asylum ( Schockaert et al., 2020 ) - this changing policy terrain will likely increase the risks faced by people crossing into and out of the country, with negative consequences for the health and wellbeing of individuals and the wider population.…”