Sim shabalala’s recent Business Day article has reignited an important debate about immigration and economic growth. His argument is straightforward: countries that make it harder for people to move, invest and work ultimately pay an economic price. He points to Brexit as an example of how restricting migration can undermine growth.
There is much in that argument that I agree with.
Countries that shut themselves off from skills, investment and entrepreneurship rarely prosper. Around the world, migrants have started businesses, filled critical skills shortages, driven innovation and expanded economies. The evidence is overwhelming that, when properly managed, migration can contribute positively to growth.
Where I part company with Ishabalala is not on the economics of migration. It is on what South Africans are debating. This is not a philosophical argument about whether migration is good or bad.
It is a practical argument about whether the South African state is capable of managing migration properly.
That is a very different question.
Too often, our public debate assumes we must choose between two competing ideas. Either we support economic growth and embrace migration, or we insist on stronger immigration enforcement and accept slower growth.
That is a false choice.
Successful countries do not choose between economic openness and the rule of law. They rely on both.
South Africa’s immigration debate also takes place in circumstances that are very different from those of most developed economies. The official unemployment rate stood at 32.7% in the first quarter of
2026. More than 8 million South Africans are unemployed.
If discouraged work-seekers are included, the figure rises to 43.7%, while youth unemployment among 15 to 24-year-olds stands at 60.9%.
Those numbers matter.
Immigration policy does not exist in isolation from the labour market. It operates in a country where millions of people are already struggling to find work and where labour laws are not always enforced consistently.
That is why the debate deserves more honesty than it often receives.
Economists are right when they say migration can increase productivity, investment and economic output. They are equally clear that the effects are not always evenly distributed. In labour markets where regulation is weak and undocumented work is widespread, some sectors can experience pressure on wages and employment opportunities, particularly for lower-skilled workers.
Acknowledging that does not diminish the contribution migrants make to our economy. Nor does it justify xenophobia.
It simply recognises that good policy has to deal with reality rather than slogans.
In my view, however, the bigger issue is governance.
After years of conducting oversight in municipalities across Gauteng, I have learnt that state failure rarely stays confined to one department. A municipality that cannot produce credible financial statements usually struggles to maintain infrastructure. A municipality that cannot manage procurement properly usually struggles to deliver basic services.
The same principle applies nationally.
A state that struggles to administer visas, process asylum applications or enforce immigration law is reflecting a broader governance problem, not simply an immigration problem.
The Auditor-General’s latest assessment of local government reinforces exactly that point. Weak financial management, declining accountability and poor institutional performance continue across much of local government.
These are governance failures.
It should not surprise us that a state facing those challenges also battles to maintain an efficient
immigration system.
This is why I believe much of our national conversation misses the point.
The real question is not whether migrants contribute to economic growth. Of course many do.
The real question is whether government knows who has entered the country, who remains here lawfully and who does not.
Can visa overstayers be identified?
Can fraudulent documentation be detected?
Can genuine asylum applications be distinguished from abuse of the asylum system?
Can employers who knowingly exploit undocumented workers be held accountable?
Those are not anti-immigrant questions.
They are questions about whether the state is doing its job.
One of the greatest mistakes in this debate is treating legal migration and illegal immigration as though they are the same thing.
They are not.
Someone who lawfully enters South Africa to work, study or invest is not in the same position as someone who enters illegally or remains after a visa has expired. Likewise, a recognised refugee is not the same as someone who abuses the asylum system to avoid immigration controls.
Blurring those distinctions serves nobody.
It unfairly stigmatises lawful migrants, while making it harder to have an honest discussion about illegal immigration.
The rule of law should protect everyone.
It protects South Africans.
It protects lawful migrants.
It also protects the integrity of our constitutional democracy.
Encouragingly, there are signs that government is beginning to improve parts of the system. Home Affairs has reduced longstanding visa backlogs and introduced digital reforms through the Electronic Travel Authorisation programme. The Border Management Authority has also steppedup operations against document fraud, organised cross-border crime and illegal border crossings.
That progress should be welcomed
But it also reminds us how much work remains. Government continues to intercept tens of thousands of undocumented migrants during peak travel periods, while reporting hundreds of thousands of attempted unlawful border crossings over the past year.
Those figures are not an argument against migration.
They are evidence that South Africa still has a governance challenge to solve.
That challenge extends beyond our borders.
It also reaches employers.
There is little point in arresting undocumented migrants if businesses that knowingly employ them continue operating with impunity. Immigration laws and labour laws should be enforced together.
Those who profit by exploiting vulnerable workers should face meaningful consequences.
This is also where comparisons with Brexit begin to lose their force.
Britain’s decision to leave the European Union was made in an economy with far lower unemployment, stronger institutions and significantly greater administrative capacity than South Africa currently has.
Our circumstances are different.
Our debate should reflect that reality.
South Africa does not need closed borders.
Nor does it need porous ones.
It needs borders that are properly managed.
It needs an immigration system that processes lawful applications quickly, attracts the skills our economy needs, honours our international obligations, secures our borders and enforces the law consistently and fairly.
None of those goals are in conflict.
Investors are attracted by certainty.
Skilled professionals look for predictable institutions.
Lawful migrants benefit from a system that works.
Citizens are more likely to support legal migration when they have confidence that immigration laws apply equally to everyone.
That is why the rule of law should not be seen as an obstacle to economic growth.
It is one of the conditions that makes growth possible.
The debate sparked by Sim shabalala is therefore worth having.
But it should not force South Africans into choosing between economic growth and immigration enforcement.
A country that cannot enforce its own laws will eventually undermine investor confidence and public trust. Equally, a country that closes itself to skills, investment and entrepreneurship will struggle to create jobs and compete globally.
The challenge is not choosing between those two realities.
It is building a state capable of delivering both.
The False Choice Between Economic Growth and Immigration Enforcement
Sim shabalala’s recent Business Day article has reignited an important debate about immigration and economic growth. His argument is straightforward: countries that make it harder for people to move, invest and work ultimately pay an economic price. He points to Brexit as an example of how restricting migration can undermine growth.
There is much in that argument that I agree with.
Countries that shut themselves off from skills, investment and entrepreneurship rarely prosper. Around the world, migrants have started businesses, filled critical skills shortages, driven innovation and expanded economies. The evidence is overwhelming that, when properly managed, migration can contribute positively to growth.
Where I part company with Ishabalala is not on the economics of migration. It is on what South Africans are debating. This is not a philosophical argument about whether migration is good or bad.
It is a practical argument about whether the South African state is capable of managing migration properly.
That is a very different question.
Too often, our public debate assumes we must choose between two competing ideas. Either we support economic growth and embrace migration, or we insist on stronger immigration enforcement and accept slower growth.
That is a false choice.
Successful countries do not choose between economic openness and the rule of law. They rely on both.
South Africa’s immigration debate also takes place in circumstances that are very different from those of most developed economies. The official unemployment rate stood at 32.7% in the first quarter of
2026. More than 8 million South Africans are unemployed.
If discouraged work-seekers are included, the figure rises to 43.7%, while youth unemployment among 15 to 24-year-olds stands at 60.9%.
Those numbers matter.
Immigration policy does not exist in isolation from the labour market. It operates in a country where millions of people are already struggling to find work and where labour laws are not always enforced consistently.
That is why the debate deserves more honesty than it often receives.
Economists are right when they say migration can increase productivity, investment and economic output. They are equally clear that the effects are not always evenly distributed. In labour markets where regulation is weak and undocumented work is widespread, some sectors can experience pressure on wages and employment opportunities, particularly for lower-skilled workers.
Acknowledging that does not diminish the contribution migrants make to our economy. Nor does it justify xenophobia.
It simply recognises that good policy has to deal with reality rather than slogans.
In my view, however, the bigger issue is governance.
After years of conducting oversight in municipalities across Gauteng, I have learnt that state failure rarely stays confined to one department. A municipality that cannot produce credible financial statements usually struggles to maintain infrastructure. A municipality that cannot manage procurement properly usually struggles to deliver basic services.
The same principle applies nationally.
A state that struggles to administer visas, process asylum applications or enforce immigration law is reflecting a broader governance problem, not simply an immigration problem.
The Auditor-General’s latest assessment of local government reinforces exactly that point. Weak financial management, declining accountability and poor institutional performance continue across much of local government.
These are governance failures.
It should not surprise us that a state facing those challenges also battles to maintain an efficient
immigration system.
This is why I believe much of our national conversation misses the point.
The real question is not whether migrants contribute to economic growth. Of course many do.
The real question is whether government knows who has entered the country, who remains here lawfully and who does not.
Can visa overstayers be identified?
Can fraudulent documentation be detected?
Can genuine asylum applications be distinguished from abuse of the asylum system?
Can employers who knowingly exploit undocumented workers be held accountable?
Those are not anti-immigrant questions.
They are questions about whether the state is doing its job.
One of the greatest mistakes in this debate is treating legal migration and illegal immigration as though they are the same thing.
They are not.
Someone who lawfully enters South Africa to work, study or invest is not in the same position as someone who enters illegally or remains after a visa has expired. Likewise, a recognised refugee is not the same as someone who abuses the asylum system to avoid immigration controls.
Blurring those distinctions serves nobody.
It unfairly stigmatises lawful migrants, while making it harder to have an honest discussion about illegal immigration.
The rule of law should protect everyone.
It protects South Africans.
It protects lawful migrants.
It also protects the integrity of our constitutional democracy.
Encouragingly, there are signs that government is beginning to improve parts of the system. Home Affairs has reduced longstanding visa backlogs and introduced digital reforms through the Electronic Travel Authorisation programme. The Border Management Authority has also steppedup operations against document fraud, organised cross-border crime and illegal border crossings.
That progress should be welcomed
But it also reminds us how much work remains. Government continues to intercept tens of thousands of undocumented migrants during peak travel periods, while reporting hundreds of thousands of attempted unlawful border crossings over the past year.
Those figures are not an argument against migration.
They are evidence that South Africa still has a governance challenge to solve.
That challenge extends beyond our borders.
It also reaches employers.
There is little point in arresting undocumented migrants if businesses that knowingly employ them continue operating with impunity. Immigration laws and labour laws should be enforced together.
Those who profit by exploiting vulnerable workers should face meaningful consequences.
This is also where comparisons with Brexit begin to lose their force.
Britain’s decision to leave the European Union was made in an economy with far lower unemployment, stronger institutions and significantly greater administrative capacity than South Africa currently has.
Our circumstances are different.
Our debate should reflect that reality.
South Africa does not need closed borders.
Nor does it need porous ones.
It needs borders that are properly managed.
It needs an immigration system that processes lawful applications quickly, attracts the skills our economy needs, honours our international obligations, secures our borders and enforces the law consistently and fairly.
None of those goals are in conflict.
Investors are attracted by certainty.
Skilled professionals look for predictable institutions.
Lawful migrants benefit from a system that works.
Citizens are more likely to support legal migration when they have confidence that immigration laws apply equally to everyone.
That is why the rule of law should not be seen as an obstacle to economic growth.
It is one of the conditions that makes growth possible.
The debate sparked by Sim shabalala is therefore worth having.
But it should not force South Africans into choosing between economic growth and immigration enforcement.
A country that cannot enforce its own laws will eventually undermine investor confidence and public trust. Equally, a country that closes itself to skills, investment and entrepreneurship will struggle to create jobs and compete globally.
The challenge is not choosing between those two realities.
It is building a state capable of delivering both.