The Acornhoek Advice Centre (AAC) provides free paralegal advice to poor communities in Bushbuckridge District on the border of Limpopo and Mpumalanga Provinces. It has been active since 2000 and the related Refugee Research Programme has been working in the area since 1994. The AAC collaborates closely with local government officials, the Departments of Home Affairs and Social Development, traditional leaders and directly with poor community members (citizens and non-citizens) on issues of documentation, access to government services and grants, labour rights and abuses, and access to land. The AAC offers this submission based on ten years of experience working with former Mozambican refugees and Mozambican labour migrants residing and working in Bushbuckridge, as well as South African citizens in this area.

Bushbuckridge District (BBR) is separated from Mozambique only by the Kruger National Park. It has a long history of migration from Mozambique from the mid-1800s until today. The commercial agriculture in the area relies to a large extent on foreign labour, mainly of Mozambican origin. In the mid-1980s, the escalation of the civil war in southern Mozambique led to c. 320,000 refugees fleeing into South Africa . Approximately 50,000 of these settled in Bushbuckridge (then Mhala district of Gazankulu Bantustan). After the end of the civil war in 1992, and in spite of a 1994/5 voluntary repatriation programme, over 80% of the Mozambican refugees in Bushbuckridge chose to remain in South Africa. In the southern and eastern parts of the district, they currently make up c. 20% of the population. After almost twenty years in South Africa, these (former) refugees are permanently settled in the area, are largely socially integrated and mostly have permanent resident or citizenship status.

Bushbuckridge district is surrounded by commercial farms. They provide employment for many locals, many locally-settled former refugees, and also new, short-term, migrant labourers from Mozambique. The latter are partly legally employed on seasonal contracts, or enter the country illegally and are illegally employed.

Overall, Statistics SA data show that the border region with Mozambique, including Bushbuckridge district, has among the highest levels of non-citizen residents in the country, apart from Gauteng and the area around Musina on the Zimbabwean border (see Figure 1). It is therefore very relevant to understand why social acceptance and integration of immigrants is high and why levels of xenophobic violence are very low in this area.

Xenophobia is often defined as a dislike of foreigners based on unfounded myths and stereotypes (Roll Back Xenophobia Campaign 2002). It is therefore a matter of perception of strangeness, rather than facts about the costs and benefits of migration. Where there are shared language, culture, beliefs and kinship ties across borders then non-citizens are not necessarily experienced as stereotypical strangers or as unknown outsiders by a host community. The shared Shangaan identity and language and the long migration history across the border have been very important in facilitating refugee and migrant integration in Bushbuckridge.

Bushbuckridge is not unique in having language and ethnic ties across borders. Most neighbouring countries have language groups that also exist in South Africa, or are related to South African languages and cultures (e.g. Botswana, Zimbabwe, Lesotho, Swaziland). Over 90% of migrants in South Africa are from neighbouring countries. It is also important to recognise the specific nature of stereotypical perceptions and discrimination in a local context: not all foreigners are treated in the same way, as some are considered more related than others. Even though Mozambicans are generally accepted in Bushbuckridge, strong negative perceptions of Zimbabweans, Nigerians or Pakistanis persist.

The recognition of ethnic affinity and a community history of migration is not a natural process. It has to be accepted and affirmed by hosts and migrants alike. Public statements, like (then) Vice-President Mbeki’s 1996 "I am an African" speech, and former President Mandela’s pronouncements on tolerance toward immigrants have a very strong signal effect on popular perceptions in these matters. Similarly, under the apartheid regime white immigrants were defined as culturally ‘similar’ and therefore accepted and assimilated even though they came from a wider range of different countries, languages and cultures.

Finally, a feeling of identification with non-citizens comes not only from shared family or ethnic history, but also from a shared political history of struggle. For the first time, South Africa’s history is being reconstructed as a shared experience, expressing apartheid as degrading and oppressive for both black and white. This historical identification process for citizens has focused almost exclusively on internal reconciliation, with little popular acknowledgement of the role of neighbouring states in the liberation struggle and the regional damage caused by apartheid destabilisation. In contrast, many immigrants from neighbouring countries expect solidarity in exchange for their countries’ assistance in the struggle. Mozambican refugees who remained in South Africa to vote in the 1994 elections after the end of their own civil war (which was significantly escalated by apartheid South Africa) have since been subject to deportation and abuse. They often express disappointment at the short memory of the new regime. At the local level in Bushbuckridge, the shared experience of the last years of apartheid and the 1994 election are regularly evoked by local South Africans in justification of their acceptance of former Mozambican refugees as part of their communities.

Mozambican refugees were not recognised as refugees by the apartheid government when they arrived in the mid-1980s and they remained without formal legal status until 1993 when a group refugee status determination was made. In 1995, 1996 and 1999/2000 the government offered three amnesties (for foreign miners, citizens of SADC countries and former Mozambican refugees, respectively), which allowed a total of 176,648 Mozambicans to receive permanent resident status. A significant number of Mozambicans in Bushbuckridge have also received citizenship status through intermarriage with South Africans, through the registration for IDs before the 1994 election, and through adoption by local families. Former Mozambican refugees therefore experienced ten years of legal status insecurity and ten years of gradual legalisation, from which some still remain excluded.

The experience in Bushbuckridge is that the lack of legal status can create a wide range of vulnerabilities for immigrants: the entrenchment of poverty; the inability to protect one’s own basic rights against abuse; local political marginalisation; and social exclusion. Conversely, the well-designed, well-founded, transparent and consistent provision of legal status and documentation to specific groups of immigrants (in the way that former Mozambican refugees were enabled to apply for permanent resident status) has been of fundamental importance in facilitating social and economic integration and acceptance in several ways:

1. it enables immigrants to legally work and support themselves and their families;
2. it means that immigrants can invest their resources productively, rather than in avoiding arrest, detention and deportation or returning to South Africa after deportation;
3. it gives immigrants the security to invest in housing (with a positive impact on family and community health);
4. it enables immigrants to invest in local businesses and employment creation;
5. it enables immigrants to avoid or report exploitation by employers and other institutions (see below on the wider impact of exploitation);
6. it reduces incentives for migrants to procure fraudulent documents and therefore fosters popular and institutional respect for documentation in general (see below on wider impact of creating incentives for fraud);
7. it sends a strong signal to local communities that the national government recognises some non-citizens as legally and legitimately in the country.

These impacts would apply similarly to asylum seekers and refugees who are currently arriving in South Africa and have to wait for a long time to receive proper documentation .

Local and national government leadership on attitudes to non-citizens is crucial in guiding community responses. In Bushbuckridge, the Gazankulu government initially welcomed the Mozambican refugees as fellow Shangaans and kin rather than as foreigners. The then Chief Minister of Gazankulu, Hudson Ntsanwisi, argued that Gazankulu’s acceptance of the Shangaan refugees was directly parallel to the assistance which the RSA had given white Mozambicans in the wake of independence in 1975. While local government and traditional leadership acceptance had positive material benefits (access to land, some food aid, medical care), its main signal was to the local communities who offered material assistance, inclusion in local decision-making and social acceptance.

When the political transformation of South Africa brought with it national debates on controlling immigration and rising xenophobia, local political leaders chose to focus on national signals for inclusion and tolerance. According to a local Ward Councillor, "after our former President [Mandela] made mention that [all] people who are living here… we are all Africans, so let us live together in peace and harmony. So those people [Mozambican refugees] started to realise that they are now welcome. They can stay. … We are all South African, we are all African, we are all South African."

Where there is discrimination against non-citizens in public institutions (hospitals, schools, local government offices, government poverty alleviation programmes), this can either be the result of xenophobic attitudes or ignorance of immigrant rights. In both cases, sustained awareness raising and advocacy can have a major impact on changing practice. The Refugee Research Programme (now FMSP Rural Research Project - RRP) and the Acornhoek Advice Centre have been carrying out such awareness raising for ten years in Bushbuckridge. Often, public officials do not know that non-citizens (whether permanent residents or undocumented migrants) have certain rights under the constitution, such as the rights to health care and education. During the food emergency scheme pilot project in 2003, for example, permanent residents were formally eligible to receive food parcels, but some ward councillors were not aware of this and excluded them. Similarly, a new municipal manager in the district was not aware that "Mozambicans" in the area were no longer refugees, but were now permanent residents and that they must therefore be included in the revision of the Integrated Development Plan. Sustained advocacy by the RRP and AAC with nurses, social workers, municipal officials, police, teachers and other government officials has led to greater awareness of immigrant rights and has reduced discrimination in clinic access, school fee exemptions, food parcel distribution and infrastructure development.

Attitudinal change is more difficult to affect than information shortage. The AAC’s experience is that advocating for a general culture of rights and service excellence is more effective than specific advocacy for immigrant rights. In an area with extreme poverty, under-resourced institutions, and generally bad service provision there is no justification for arguing for special rights or services for immigrants. Rather, advocacy and training for overall better services and respect for human rights as codified in the Constitution, in the spirit of batho pele, has a positive impact for the entire community, including non-citizens residing in it.

In addition to these mitigating factors, there are also factors that might provide fertile ground for immigrant discrimination and xenophobia in Bushbuckridge. One common reason given for the rise of xenophobia elsewhere in South Africa and globally is competition for resources. For example, the former Minister for Home Affairs stated "if we as South Africans are going to compete for scarce resources with millions of aliens who are pouring into South Africa, then we can bid goodbye to our Reconstruction and Development Programme." In Bushbuckridge, where resources are extremely scarce, former Mozambican refugees are not perceived to be in simple competition with ‘locals’ but rather have a very ambivalent relationship with poverty.

Bohlabela District, which includes Bushbuckridge district, is designated a Nodal Area targeted for integrated sustainable development: "a rural area in South Africa of extreme poverty, and a serious lack of facilities and services." (Statistics SA 2002:1). 2001 census data illustrates the extent of poverty and marginalisation in the district:

• The unemployment rate for the district lies at 52,4% according to the official definition and 69,1% by the expanded definition, i.e. including those who did not actively look for work in the past 4 weeks. Both are by far the highest in all Nodal Areas and compare with 26,4% and 37% respectively for the national average.
• 76,2% of the households spend less than R400 per month. This is 20% higher than any other Nodal Area. The proportion of households with no income is 3,9%, which is the highest of all the Nodal Areas.
• 63% of households sometimes, often or always have a problem satisfying their food needs.
• 24,1% households depend on grants as their main source of income. This is the third lowest among the Nodal Areas. Since other indicators, such as the unemployment rate and average income, suggest that this is not because households are not eligible, this low rate points to limited access and uptake of the social safety net by those who would be eligible.

Competition for scarce employment opportunities is often put forward as a central justification for limited immigration policies in South Africa. Even though unemployment in Bushbuckridge is among the highest in the country, here long-term resident Mozambicans are rarely perceived to be taking jobs away from South Africans. Instead, some are contributing to local employment creation. For example, a former refugee who now has citizenship status has opened a general store and now employs 28 South Africans. Others, especially those who still do not have documentation, are seen as doing work (especially on farms) for low pay and bad working conditions, which no South African would want to do. The concern is therefore that the vulnerability of (especially undocumented) Mozambicans, which leads to their acceptance of exploitation, is reducing the quality of (unqualified) jobs in the area (see below for more on the impact of exploitation). The conclusion which local leaders and community members draw from this is not the expulsion of Mozambicans living in the area. Rather is it that they should have legal status and protection from exploitation under labour law so that employment standards can generally be improved. As stated by a Ward Councillor in Bushbuckridge:

The recognition that former Mozambican refugees should receive legal status and be able to work with dignity and appropriate payment is part of a wider local recognition that their poverty is damaging for the entire community in which they reside. A further illustration of this is the local reaction to the recent Khosa and Mahlaule Constitutional Court case (March 2004), which made permanent residents eligible for government old age pensions and child support grants. Most former Mozambican refugees in Bushbuckridge are permanent residents and have therefore now become eligible for grants. While the national response to this case expressed concerns that foreigners were going to use up scarce government grant funds, the reaction in Bushbuckridge was extremely positive.

Finally, Mozambican residents are seen as contributing positively to the local economy and infrastructure. Many locals employ them as household and agricultural help, which has led to an increase in small-scale agricultural production in the area. In the most marginal eastern parts of the district which were previously very sparsely settled, the influx of refugees in the 1980s was accompanied by more schools and clinics being built and more teachers and nurses being hired.

In general, the discrimination and vulnerability which many former Mozambican refugees in Bushbuckridge still experience is because of their poverty (which, in turn, is a legacy of a decade without legal status), and not because of xenophobia against them as unknown outsiders. Decreasing their poverty and vulnerability is seen as good for the entire community.

While popular social acceptance of former Mozambican refugees is high in Bushbuckridge, and some local leaders and government officials have facilitated integration, some institutional discrimination remains. Two examples are given here: labour abuse on farms and discrimination at the local Department of Home Affairs office. Both are not necessarily motivated by xenophobia, but rather by the ability to exploit vulnerable immigrants for financial gain. The impact of this abuse goes beyond the immigrants themselves.

Farmers in the Bushbuckridge area, and other parts of Mpumalanga and Limpopo, continue to employ undocumented immigrants on farms. There are regular reports that some call the police to deport them before payday. The farmers themselves are rarely prosecuted for employing undocumented immigrants. The exploitation of undocumented immigrants for work without pay is clearly against the basic rights of dignity "for all" in the Constitution, and against basic labour rights. Furthermore, it contributes to a wider culture of impunity on some farms, where farmers and police collude on such illegal activities. It also creates a tolerant attitude generally toward labour abuses and human rights abuses. This culture and attitude leads to lax responses in the case of labour and human rights abuses against South African farm workers.

Corruption in the local Department of Home Affairs office is rife. Former refugees who were not able to apply for permanent residence during the formal exemption processes, either from fear of deportation or administrative hurdles, have few options other than bribing officials to secure an ID or birth certificates. Otherwise they are limited to an existence of daily vulnerability without documentation (see above), since they are firmly settled and integrated in South Africa since twenty years with no intention of returning to Mozambique. The officials are able to exploit this need for documentation to demand high fees and often sell genuine South African IDs to non-citizens. Because of the reputation of the Department of Home Affairs for deporting foreigners with documents, even former Mozambican refugees with permanent resident documents are afraid to report officials who demand bribes. The culture of bribery has extended into other dealings of the office, meaning that South African applicants for birth certificates, IDs and other services also have to pay bribes.

Director

Acornhoek Advice Centre

Wits Rural Facility

University of the Witwatersrand

P.O. Box 1703

Acornhoek 1360