Five months ago, following the Thabo Mbeki Africa Day Lecture, I wrote about something that had been troubling me: the tendency to frame South Africans’ concerns about immigration primarily through the lens of xenophobia. I questioned whether this framing was preventing us from having an honest conversation about border management, undocumented migration, government accountability, and the pressures ordinary South Africans face.
Five months later, those questions remain. Instead, recent developments involving the Constitutional Court, the Department of Home Affairs and the country’s asylum system have brought them sharply back into public discussion. What concerns me most is not simply what happened, but what these events reveal about the relationship between government, the judiciary, and the people whose lives their decisions affect.
When Constitutional Rights Collide with Public Frustration
On 7 July 2026, the Constitutional Court ruled that irregular entry into South Africa should not automatically prevent someone from applying for asylum. Although the ruling does not grant refugee status, it allows individuals who entered unlawfully to have their claims assessed. For decades, South Africans have expressed concerns about undocumented immigration and weak border enforcement. Yet this ruling appeared to deepen public frustration rather than address those concerns. Its implementation overwhelmed refugee reception offices and heightened tensions around the asylum system.
The subsequent unrest reflects longstanding grievances and declining public trust, although violence against foreign nationals remains unjustifiable. Perhaps it is time for the judiciary, while upholding constitutional rights, to give greater consideration to the concerns South Africans have raised for decades.
The Queues That Raised More Questions
The images of lengthy queues outside refugee reception offices raised troubling questions. Many of those visible appeared to be young and middle-aged men. Where are the women and children? Why do so many men seem to arrive without their families? What circumstances compel them to seek asylum in South Africa?
While people fleeing persecution may travel alone for many reasons, the apparent demographic imbalance deserves closer examination. Do these queues represent asylum applicants generally, or do they tell only part of the story? South Africans deserve credible answers about who is seeking asylum, where they come from, and the circumstances behind their applications, particularly because asylum seekers already live alongside us in our communities.
Immigration Concerns Are No Longer Confined to One Community
Another significant development is the apparent widening of the immigration debate. For years, public frustration over immigration has frequently been associated with black South African communities, particularly those experiencing unemployment, poverty and pressure on public services. Increasingly, however, I am seeing concerns from South Africans of different racial and socioeconomic backgrounds.
This does not mean everyone shares the same views, nor does it mean immigration is responsible for the country’s economic and social difficulties. Those difficulties have multiple causes, including unemployment, inequality, crime and longstanding governance failures. But it does challenge the idea that immigration governance concerns only one section of society. This is a national conversation, and it deserves to be treated as one.
Home Affairs Has Demonstrated How Quickly Government Can Respond
Perhaps the most revealing development came after the crisis intensified. On 11 October, the government announced that Home Affairs would introduce a structured asylum intention-registration and appointment system by 10 November 2026. Under the proposed arrangement, applicants can register their intention to seek asylum online and receive a reference number and an appointment at a refugee reception office. The system also plans to assist those who cannot access the digital platform.
The registration receipt will not automatically confer refugee status or an asylum visa. Nevertheless, I find the speed of the response noteworthy. Within a relatively short period, the government moved from an overwhelmed reception system to announcing a structured digital alternative.
What becomes possible when government decides that an issue requires urgent attention?
South Africans have waited years for improvements across numerous public services. We have repeatedly heard about administrative obstacles, limited resources and the complexity of institutional reform. Yet this episode shows that urgent circumstances can produce rapid policy coordination and concrete implementation plans. The announcement raises a reasonable question about government priorities. If immigration administration can achieve this level of urgency, how might similar coordination improve other longstanding public-service challenges? That question is not intended to diminish the work involved in developing a functioning digital system. It calls for the same seriousness and responsiveness.
Five Months Later, the Question Remains
Five months ago, following the Thabo Mbeki Africa Day Lecture, I questioned whether accusations of xenophobia were silencing legitimate concerns about immigration. I asked whether South Africans were being heard and whether government understood the consequences of repeatedly dismissing their frustrations.
Today, those concerns are unfolding before our eyes. Public frustration has escalated into protests and, in some instances, violence. While violence is indefensible, the growing unrest raises questions about what happens when citizens believe their peaceful appeals have gone unanswered for years. South Africa belongs to South Africans, not to the government, the judiciary, or any political institution. These institutions exist to serve the people within the framework of the Constitution.
South Africans have repeatedly raised concerns about undocumented immigration, crime, unemployment, housing shortages, overstretched healthcare facilities, pressure on schools and competition for limited public resources. Immigration is not the sole cause of these challenges, but the government cannot dismiss concerns about how it is managed. Entering a country unlawfully is a serious immigration matter, although irregular entry does not automatically make someone a criminal or disqualify them from seeking asylum. The public is entitled to question how immigration laws are enforced and how applicants are assessed before receiving legal protection. Five months later, the question remains, but the public response has intensified. How much longer must South Africans demand accountability before their concerns translate into meaningful action?
