Why immigration crackdowns won’t save South Africa

Ramaphosa wants tougher immigration enforcement, but history from Nigeria, Uganda and the US shows that crackdowns cannot solve deeper failures.

President Cyril Ramaphosa is trying to do two things at once: show South Africans the government is finally acting on undocumented migration and stop anti-migrant anger from becoming street violence.

That second part is urgent. Anti-immigration groups have stipulated 30 June as the date by which they expect undocumented migrants to leave South Africa. Gauteng police are preparing for possible unrest linked to that “deadline”. Meanwhile, KwaZulu-Natal police have warned people against sharing social-media posts and voice notes that could incite violence. Cybercrime officers are monitoring online platforms.

The fallout has also crossed borders. Ghana, Nigeria, Malawi, and Mozambique have all been helping their citizens to leave South Africa after recent attacks. Mozambique has reported that five of its citizens were killed, although South Africa contests this figure, saying two Mozambicans were killed in xenophobic attacks.

News24 has also reported a clash between International Relations Minister Ronald Lamola and his Ghanaian counterpart over the number of people killed or injured in xenophobic attacks. This is no longer just a domestic immigration debate: it’s a regional diplomatic headache.

Ramaphosa’s response is a crackdown: faster deportations, dedicated immigration courts, stronger border controls, action against corruption in Home Affairs, labour inspections, and tougher penalties for employers who exploit undocumented workers.

He has also warned that only the state, not vigilante groups, has the authority to enforce immigration law. On the surface, that sounds like the government finally taking control.

But there’s a bigger question: When countries crack down on migrants, does it actually address root issues?

One of Africa’s most famous immigration crackdowns took place in Nigeria in 1983.

The government, which was facing economic difficulties after the collapse of an oil boom, ordered about two million undocumented West African migrants to leave the country. Many were Ghanaian. The episode became known as “Ghana Must Go”, named after the checked bags many people used to carry their belongings as they fled.

The policy certainly removed migrants. What it didn’t do was fix Nigeria’s deeper economic problems. Unemployment, inflation, and economic instability remained. Relations with neighbouring countries deteriorated. Families were separated. Borders descended into chaos. The migrants left: the structural problems stayed.

Then there is Uganda. In 1972, dictator Idi Amin expelled tens of thousands of South Asians, many of whom were citizens or long-term residents. Amin claimed they were harming the economy. Instead, the economy suffered when they were kicked out.

The expelled community played a major role in commerce, manufacturing, and trade. Their departure left skills gaps and weakened businesses, contributing to years of economic decline.

Subsequent governments encouraged expelled families and investors to return. Uganda effectively spent decades trying to undo a policy it once celebrated. That is not usually the sign of a successful intervention.

Supporters of tougher immigration enforcement often point to the United States.

Under US President Donald Trump, immigration raids, arrests, and deportations have become a central political issue. The argument is familiar: remove undocumented migrants and citizens will get more jobs.

Recent research suggests things are not that simple. A 2026 study by economists Elizabeth Cox and Chloe East found tougher immigration enforcement reduced employment among undocumented workers, but also harmed some US-born workers, particularly men without tertiary education.

Why?

Because when farms, factories, restaurants or construction firms suddenly lose workers, they do not always replace them one-for-one with citizens. Sometimes they scale back operations, cancel projects, or hire fewer people overall.

Of course, South Africa is not the US. But economics remains economics. South Africa unquestionably faces challenges related to undocumented migration. The government has every right and responsibility to enforce immigration laws, secure borders, and combat corruption in the immigration system.

But undocumented migration coexists with a set of problems, none of which were created by migrants or disappear when they leave. As governance analyst Professor Hlengiwe Ndlovu told /explain/, two things can be true at once: undocumented migration is a real issue that needs managing, and migrants are often being blamed for problems they did not create.

One area where the government’s approach makes sense is for employers. Many businesses hire undocumented workers because they are easier to exploit. They can be paid less, threatened more easily, and are less likely to report abuse. That hurts migrants.

It can also hurt South African workers by driving down wages and working conditions. Labour inspections, tougher penalties, and a crackdown on exploitative employers are sensible policies, regardless of where you stand on immigration.

The same goes for fixing corruption at Home Affairs. Nobody benefits from a system that permits visas and documents to be bought through the back door.

The danger is not that South Africa enforces immigration laws. The danger is that doing so becomes a substitute for governing. History suggests crackdowns often provide something politicians desperately need: visible action.

Raids can be televised. Arrests can be counted. Deportation numbers can be announced at press conferences. But the deeper problems – unemployment, weak growth, failing institutions and corruption – are slower, more difficult, and politically less rewarding to fix.

It depends on the goal.

If the goal is functioning borders, cleaner immigration systems, less corruption and stronger enforcement of labour laws, then yes, crackdowns can help. If the goal is to solve unemployment, fix municipalities, reduce poverty, grow the economy, and restore confidence in the state, history suggests the answer is no.

Nigeria tried. Uganda tried. The United States is still trying.

None of these countries has found a shortcut to prosperity through immigration enforcement alone. South Africa may discover the same lesson.

A crackdown can make a government look busy, but what most South Africans are really demanding is something much less dramatic: a government that works.

Prashalan Govender is a journalist who was shortlisted for the Vodacom Young Journalist of the Year Award twice. He is focused on reporting the stories that shape everyday life in South Africa, with a particular interest in politics, economics, and social issues.