Arts and Social Sciences, Irving K. Barber Faculty of (Okanagan)
DSpace
UBCO
Nicolaides, Ariel
Master of Arts - MA
University of British Columbia
This thesis examines the history of immigration policy in South Africa and provides valuable insights into the development of modern immigration in the wake of colonialism, with a particular look into British imperialism, a global phenomenon that at its height encompassed countries colonized and ruled by the United Kingdom, resulting in widespread political, cultural, and linguistic similarities. A history of early diffusion of knowledge enabled the spread of colonization within South Africa from both Afrikaners and British populations, impacting those that were seen as ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’ within the population. This trend can be seen throughout the twentieth century through the examination of immigration policies as desirable immigrants were sought while those considered undesirable were excluded. Starting in the late nineteenth century and into the early twentieth century, imperialist citizenship and nationalist citizenship have been at the forefront of immigration policy within the dominions. Colonial ideas of a white, Anglo-Saxon ruling class in the settler countries permeated despite many subjects in the British Empire being non-white. While Britain maintained on an international stage a level of equality, nationalist ideas in the dominions dominated. As a result, many of the countries within the British Empire began adopting subtle and not so subtle restrictive policies, learning from one another and adapting the policy for themselves. The colonial ideas were not only spread at a domestic level but also internationally through bodies such as the United Nations. This thesis examines the case study of the Mozambique refugee immigration in South Africa from 1980 until 1996 to help further my argument. From 1948 until 1994, South Africa was under apartheid rule, which did not develop a refugee policy. Yet, they allowed indigenous, Mozambican refugees to settle within the rural areas along the border. In 1994, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) implemented a Voluntary Repatriation Programme in South Africa and although it was supposed to be protective, it created exclusionary boundaries for Mozambicans seeking citizenship. The lingering legacy of colonization has had enduring effects on immigration policy in South Africa, resulting in repercussions for immigration today.
(UN)DESIRABLE IMMIGRANTS: THE PERPETUATION OF COLONIAL PERSPECTIVES IN SOUTH AFRICAN IMMIGRATION POLICIES IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY by Ariel Nicolaides B.A, University of British Columbia, Okanagan, 2017 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTERS OF ARTS in THE COLLEGE OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Interdisciplinary Studies) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Okanagan) July 2020 © Ariel Nicolaides, 2020 ii The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the College of Graduate Studies for acceptance, a thesis/dissertation entitled: (Un)desirable Immigrants: The Perpetuation of Colonial Perspectives in South African Immigration Policies in the Twentieth Century submitted by Ariel Nicolaides in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Masters of Arts . Dr. Jessica Stites Mor, Irving K. Barber School of Arts and Sciences Supervisor Dr. Bonar Buffam, Irving K. Barber School of Arts and Sciences Supervisory Committee Member Dr. David Geary, Irving K. Barber School of Arts and Sciences Supervisory Committee Member Dr. Carlos Teixiera, Irving K. Barber School of Arts and Sciences External Examiner iii Abstract This thesis examines the history of immigration policy in South Africa and provides valuable insights into the development of modern immigration in the wake of colonialism, with a particular look into British imperialism, a global phenomenon that at its height encompassed countries colonized and ruled by the United Kingdom, resulting in widespread political, cultural, and linguistic similarities. A history of early diffusion of knowledge enabled the spread of colonization within South Africa from both Afrikaners and British populations, impacting those that were seen as ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’ within the population. This trend can be seen throughout the twentieth century through the examination of immigration policies as desirable immigrants were sought while those considered undesirable were excluded. Starting in the late nineteenth century and into the early twentieth century, imperialist citizenship and nationalist citizenship have been at the forefront of immigration policy within the dominions. Colonial ideas of a white, Anglo-Saxon ruling class in the settler countries permeated despite many subjects in the British Empire being non-white. While Britain maintained on an international stage a level of equality, nationalist ideas in the dominions dominated. As a result, many of the countries within the British Empire began adopting subtle and not so subtle restrictive policies, learning from one another and adapting the policy for themselves. The colonial ideas were not only spread at a domestic level but also internationally through bodies such as the United Nations. This thesis examines the case study of the Mozambique refugee immigration in South Africa from 1980 until 1996 to help further my argument. From 1948 until 1994, South Africa was under apartheid rule, which did not develop a refugee policy. Yet, they allowed indigenous, Mozambican refugees to settle within the rural areas along the border. In 1994, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) implemented a Voluntary Repatriation Programme in iv South Africa and although it was supposed to be protective, it created exclusionary boundaries for Mozambicans seeking citizenship. The lingering legacy of colonization has had enduring effects on immigration policy in South Africa, resulting in repercussions for immigration today. Keywords: South Africa, British Empire, Immigration, Citizenship, Colonialism, Knowledge, Mozambique, Refugee, Twentieth Century v Lay Summary This thesis examines the history of immigration policy in South Africa and provides valuable insights into the development of modern immigration in the wake of colonialism. I use the case study of the Mozambique refugee immigration in South Africa from 1980 until 1996 to help further my argument. By examining legal policies, governmental and non-governmental documents, and newspapers, it is clear that from 1948 until 1994 South Africa was under apartheid rule, which did not develop a refugee policy. Yet, they allowed indigenous, Mozambican refugees to settle within the rural areas along the border. In 1994, a Voluntary Repatriation Program from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) was created specifically for South Africa and although it was supposed to be protective, it created exclusionary boundaries for Mozambicans. The lingering legacy of colonization has had enduring effects on immigration policy in South Africa, resulting in repercussions for immigration today. vi Table of Contents Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………iii Lay Summary………………………………………………………………………………...v Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………………….vii Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………….viii Chapter 1: Introduction…………….…………………………………………………………1 Chapter 2: The Dissemination of Colonial Knowledges……………………………………..20 Chapter 3: The British Empire, South Africa, and the Transfer of Restrictive Immigration Policies………………………………………………………………………………………..41 Chapter 4: The League of Nations, The United Nations, and Colonial Processes………………………………………………………………………………….…..64 Chapter 5: When Domestic and International Policies Collide: The Impact of Immigration Policies and Programs on Mozambique Refugees…………………………………………....80 Chapter 6: Conclusion……………………………………….………………………………..111 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………………..120 vii Acknowledgements During my time at UBC Okanagan, I have been fortunate enough to have been in the presence of many professors, friends, and family who were pivotal to my successes. First, to Dr. Jessica Stites Mor, thank you for all your hard work, time, and patience. Your guidance, expertise, and support has been one of the main reasons why I have come out of this MA program on the other side with a personal and professional growth that I did not see coming. Thank you for always believing in me. I feel very lucky to have been mentored by you! Second, to my committee members, Dr. Bonar Buffam and Dr. David Geary for the continual support throughout my time here. Bonar, thank you for always being willing to lend me a book when it pertained to my subject and for always being willing to listen and offer advice to me even though I was not your student. David, your kindness and expertise has been invaluable in this experience and I am very thankful for the help you gave me along the way. I am extremely grateful to you both. Lastly, to my wonderful friends and family. I honestly have no idea what I would do without you guys. The countless texting, coffee sessions, dinners, stress thrift-shopping, and (when COVID-19 made an appearance) video chats were vital to ensuring that my impostor syndrome would not win. Thank you for everything. 1 Chapter 1: Introduction Immigration policy is among the top priorities of many governments today, in both the Northern and Southern hemisphere. Ideas of citizenship and belonging are constantly being contested, especially as they relate to refugees and migrants. The colonial history of the British Empire played a significant role shaping dominant ideas and issues surrounding citizenship in Dominion countries. The British Empire was a global phenomenon that had a profound impact on immigration policies in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, with the largest migrations within the British Empire being to North America, Australasia, and Southern Africa.1 British subjects as migrants with their ideas of race, gender, and class shaped policies and culture within the British dominions. Although racial immigration policies were curtailed in many of the Dominions, such as Canada and Australia, by the late 1960s, South Africa’s apartheid government only ended in 1994. Using South Africa as a case study this thesis examines the impact of knowledge and colonialism on immigration policies, specifically the relationship across the North-South divide with respect to handling refugee populations.2 It argues, broadly, that ideas of identity and citizenship are thoroughly intertwined through the perpetuation of those considered ‘outsiders’ and those considered ‘insiders’. South Africa’s citizenry is composed of communities with diverse identities, including those derived from Dutch and British colonizers, the indigenous African groups, and migrants from other parts of the British Empire, such as the Indian subcontinent. British settlers and their 1 John Darwin, “The Weakest Link: Britain in South Africa” in The Empire Project: The Rise and Fall of the British World-System, 1830-1970. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009). 217 2 The North-South Divide is a socio-economic and political division between what used to be considered “First World” and developed (North) and “Third World” and developing (South) countries, which are now politically incorrect terms. The North is also connected to the “Western” world. 2 descendants have dominated the political landscape and determined much of the economic and cultural directions of South Africa from the eighteenth century until the mid-twentieth century. Although England did not initially consider South Africa an important colony in which to invest, by the mid-1870s, South Africa gained increasing importance for British settlement. Its connection as a dominion country within the British Empire helped to maintain ties and ideas of what it meant to be a citizen as ideas of race, gender, and class shaped society across the British dominions. Throughout the Empire, “Britishness” was seen as a racial category that denoted whiteness and superiority over all others, and it was understood that Britishness was a “composite, rather than exclusive, form of identity.”3 British nationalism in the dominion countries was usually the strongest in places where the British communities that were socially and culturally predominate were challenged, such as in South Africa where complex conflicts involved Afrikaner Boers and indigenous Africans.4 As a result, since the beginning of British colonization, British settlers have emphasised their identity as British citizens and as South Africans, in parallel fashion. Eventually, due to the pressures of maintaining a white minority ruling class in a population with a black majority, the identity of Britishness evolved into one of South Africanness, in which Afrikaners and English-speakers alike were considered equals as Europeans, or “whites,” in the hopes of maintaining white supremacy.5 Colonial knowledge and ideas of racial hierarchies played a large role in maintaining a powerful British identity. Identity thus has been created, shifted, and shaped through reproductions of knowledge. The production of colonial knowledges was imperative in the expansion of the British Empire as 3 Saul Dubow, "How British Was the British World? The Case of South Africa." The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History 37, no. 1 (2009): 5. doi:10.1080/03086530902757688. 4 Darwin, “The Weakest Link: Britain in South Africa”, 244. 5 John Lambert, "‘An Unknown People’: Reconstructing British South African Identity." The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History 37, no. 4 (2009): 607. doi:10.1080/03086530903327101. 3 it “both enabled conquest and was produced by it.”6 Often, the creation of a settler identity was contingent on comparisons with an imagined “other,” a process of political subject formation key to the process of colonization that shaped how communities saw themselves and labelled others. The production of this colonial political subject still impacts relationships between different populations in South Africa today, and is implicated in contemporary immigration policies and refugees, as this thesis will argue. In host countries, throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and arguably up until today in many countries, immigration policy measures have become increasingly more restrictive, even for those seeking asylum. Further, such policies prevent those who do arrive from making a claim for asylum, deporting many to their home countries despite ongoing situations that would formally legitimate an asylum request.7 In this thesis, I examine the impact of the reproduction of colonial knowledges on the formation and construction of immigration policies in South Africa, specifically examining the history of immigration policy and its creation of categories of exclusion. I focus on the wave of refugees from Mozambique to South Africa from 1980 until 1996 as a case study. From 1948 until 1994, South Africa was under apartheid rule, and the apartheid government did not formally develop a refugee policy. Yet, they allowed indigenous, Mozambican refugees to settle within the rural areas along the border. In 1994, refugee legislation from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) called for voluntary repatriation for refugees from South Africa back to their home country and although it was deemed to be the most humanitarian approach, it created exclusionary boundaries 6 Renisa Mawani, Colonial Proximities: Crossracial Encounters and Juridical Truths in British Columbia, 1871-1921. (Vancouver, BC: UBC Press, 2010), 22. 7 Lucy Mayblin, Asylum After Empire: Colonial Legacies in the Politics of Asylum Seeking. (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield International, 2018). 2 4 for Mozambicans.8 My research situates this idea of voluntary repatriation and examines the deep colonial roots of this concept, exploring how colonial knowledge and immigration policies shaped South Africa’s response to refugees in the late twentieth century. My research questions which guided my chapters are as follows: First, how were ideas of whiteness and racial hierarchies within the British Empire perpetuated? More specifically, how did the production of colonial knowledge systems affect settler-colonial identities and views of the non-citizen other? Second, was it common within the British Empire for the Dominion countries to transfer immigration policies and copy one another? To what extent was immigration policy exclusionary within South African and other commonwealth countries in the 19th and early 20th century? Third, how did the exchange of ideas between countries impact the creation of international bodies such as the League of Nations and its successor, the United Nations? Lastly, how was community membership defined in democratic South Africa for refugee immigration? I conclude by examining the UNHCR recommended voluntary repatriation for the Mozambique refugees and its outcomes. I integrate the insights of both a national identity studies approach and postcolonial theory in order to have a fuller understanding of the policies and media platforms at work in the dominion countries. Using a national identity approach, this thesis argues that each nation-state offers a unique history with “its conceptions of citizenship and nationality, as well as debates over national identity and social conflicts within it, shape its immigration policies.”9 It seeks to explain immigration policies as a basis of social conflicts, as well as when a country has been debating its national identity within historical narratives. Refugee studies is an interdisciplinary 8 Tara Polzer Ngwato, "Adapting to Changing Legal Frameworks: Mozambican Refugees in South Africa." International Journal of Refugee Law 19, no. 1 (2007): 31. doi:10.1093/ijrl/eem001. 9 Eytan Meyers, "Theories of International Immigration Policy-A Comparative Analysis." International Migration Review 34, no. 4 (2000): 1251. doi:10.2307/2675981. 5 field of study that deserves further attention in postcolonial studies. As Lucy Mayblin, a political sociologist argues, economic immigration has received widespread attention from postcolonial theorists. Scholars looking at economic migrants travelling between the former colonies and Britain examine issues of imperialism, but this postcolonial analysis has rarely been applied to the politics of asylum.10 Mayblin looks specifically at the impact on Britain, but it is important to understand how these histories have also impacted the previously colonized countries who are now themselves host countries to an abundance of refugees. My research will examine this gap in the literature by examining refugee policies that have impacted South Africa both implemented in South Africa and by the UNHCR, commenting on the North-South relationship that is involved in this exchange. My methodological approach involves the cross-examination of secondary sources and primary sources in order to properly demonstrate how colonialism, decolonization, and the North-South divide have impacted refugee migration policies in South Africa. I went to four different archives in South Africa to examine primary sources, the Cape Town Archives Repository in Cape Town, the Historical Papers Research Archive at Witwatersrand University in Johannesburg, the South Africa Historical Archive in Johannesburg, and the National Archive Repository in Pretoria. In each archive, I focused on documents pertaining to the refugee immigration of the Mozambicans between 1980 and 1996 as well as other relevant sources pertaining to immigration in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century, where possible. I worked extensively with large sets of documents from these years, such as public records. government documents, non-governmental organization notes, minutes of organizational meetings, pamphlets, newspapers, and agency records. These primary sources enabled me to 10 Mayblin, Asylum After Empire, 4. 6 construct a more comprehensive picture of the state’s handling of refugees during this period. Further, and most importantly, I also examined in detail the policies that were created concerning refugee immigration practices, focusing on the language used within these documents, such as the 1993 Tripartite Agreement between the governments of South Africa, Mozambique, and the office of the UNHCR, which dictated what should be done about the Mozambican refugees in South Africa. It is important to define certain terms before proceeding. First, I reject the purely legal definition of ‘refugee’ or ‘asylum seeker’ as too bureaucratic, exclusionary, and implying “classifications of deservingness.”11 In international policy, the UNHCR’s 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its amendment in 1967 is the centerpiece of international refugee protection. In the 1951 Convention, under Article 1, a refugee is defined as “someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons for race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.”12 Originally, the 1951 Convention was created within the era of the post-Second World War and was originally limited to refugees fleeing the events of the War in Europe. The 1967 Protocol implemented an amendment and removed these limitations, giving the Convention universal coverage.13 A refugee then has often been viewed as someone whose application for asylum has been accepted. On the other hand, an asylum seeker is someone who has applied for asylum within the host country and is waiting on the application 11 Ibid., 6. 12 “Article 1(A)(2): Definition of the term ‘Refugee,’” Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. UNHCR. 3. Accessed November 14, 2019. https://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10. 13 “Article 1: General Provisions,” 1967 Protocol Relating to Refugees. UNHCR. 4 October, 1967. Date Accessed: April 25, 2020. 2. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/ProtocolStatusOfRefugees.aspx 7 process.14 The Mozambicans in South Africa during the 1980s and 1990s offer a bit of an anomaly. Although many fled Mozambique into South Africa in the 1980s, they were allowed to settle into the homelands where the apartheid government relatively ignored their presence. It was not until the democratic transition in 1994 that the UNHCR stepped in and began voluntary repatriation. For the purpose of this thesis, Mozambicans will be defined as refugees due to their prolonged presence in South Africa, despite not going through an official legal process of applying for asylum in the 1980s. Citizenship is primarily a means by which societies “assess, construct, and consecrate their sense of identity. It is about who belongs to the nation, who does not, and why.”15 Throughout the colonial history within the British Empire, ‘citizenship’ has been used to legally deem who was accepted in society and who could be excluded socially, albeit a legal definition as well. The definition itself has changed and shifted, depending on who was in power and which groups were considered outside the bounds of the state’s responsibility or purview. The legal guidelines by which citizenship is determined is often used as a tool of immigration legislation, and this was especially the case during the period of apartheid government in South Africa.16 Further, within the British Empire, ideas of imperial citizenship versus national citizenship also played a part, as many settlers struggled with maintaining a sense of citizenship that was solely a part of England, while simultaneously creating a connected but distinct South African identity. When considering the British world during the height of Empire, it is important to distinguish between imperialism and colonialism which are often used synonymously but are 14 Mayblin, Asylum After Empire, 6. 15 Daniel Gorman, Imperial Citizenship: Empire and the Question of Belonging. (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2006). 1. 16 Audie Klotz, Migration and National Identity in South Africa, 1860-2010. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015). 28. 8 slightly different from each other. Imperialism can be defined as the overt projection of British power from abroad over dominion countries while colonialism is the assertion of British influence through the local settlers who identified a sense of ‘home’ as still connected to British origins with their new area of settlement. Imperialism does not necessarily involve the occupation of territory, but rather in imposes cultural, economic, and political customs.17 As well, imperialists were keen to maintain connections with the metropole and were often intolerant of local nationalisms. 18 On the other hand, colonialism existed within a wider sense of imperial belonging and shared the idea that white political ascendancy was of utmost importance. Colonialism here refers to a form of domination as colonizers sought to control territory and those who lived in it. Those who considered themselves colonists were proud of their independence in the colonized land and were wary of any external intervention.19 It is important to maintain this distinction between the two words, because throughout the colonial history of South Africa, ideas of how British and Afrikaner settlers should govern themselves in relation to the Empire was in constant flux as many saw themselves as either a colonial nationalist or an imperialist, even within the British hegemonic group. Further, this leads to wider discussions on ideas of citizenship and who was considered to have belonged in the nation or in the Empire. The ideas passed from North to the South through empire had a deep impact on ideas of local citizenship, and as a result, immigration. Nonetheless, colonialists and imperialists were both concerned with racial conceptions and configurations, which had a deep impact on the structures of the colonial order in the new dominions.20 At the onset of Dutch colonization beginning in 17 Mayblin. Asylum After Empire, 8. 18 Dubow, “How British was the British World?”, 7. 19 Saul Dubow, A Commonwealth of Knowledge: Science, Sensibility, and White South Africa, 1820-2000. (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 2010). 153. 20 David Theo Goldberg, and Susan Searls Giroux. “Buried, Alive” in Sites of Race. (Cambridge: Polity, 2014). 12. 9 1652 and cemented further with British settlement in 1795, colonial knowledges began to produce different identities and ideas of the ideal citizen within southern Africa. Important articles and books have been published that contribute to this growing research topic in academia. Discussion on settler histories in British colonies have long been researched. In considering the settler era, sociologist Renisa Mawani’s book Colonial Proximities: Crossracial Encounters and Juridical Truths in British Columbia, 1871-1921 offers in-depth analysis of the British Empire. Throughout this book, Mawani seeks to demonstrate that a wider analytic and historical approach is needed to look at the contact zone of racial intermixture between settlers, indigenous people and racial migrants.21 Although she examines Canada through governmental documents, court cases, and visits numerous archives to analyze traces of immigrant lives and regulation of immigrant bodies and material realities, her work is still highly applicable to other countries within the British Empire. By drawing these racial boundaries, Canada marked out who was considered superior and inferior, fit versus unfit, through a colonial lens.22 The implication of immigration policies and the process of decolonization is argued to have impacts and reverberations into the modern era. The notion of a ‘colonial contact zone’ that is discussed in Mawani’s book and which she credits to Mary Louise Pratt,23 is a starting point for her analysis of colonial knowledge systems, which have impacted the creation of colonial-settler identities. In his book Making Empire: Colonial Encounters and the Creation of Imperial Rule in 19th-Century Africa, historian Richard Price examines the relationship between the Xhosa and British Settlers in nineteenth century South Africa to demonstrate how “colonial culture had to be created and constructed out of the 21 Mawani, Colonial Proximities, 5. 22 Ibid., 15. 23 Refer to Mary Louise Pratt, “Arts of the Contact Zone.” Profession, 1991. 33-40. Date Accessed April 20, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/25595469 10 interaction between the metropolitan culture and the colonizers brought with them and the cultures they found at the frontier of empire.”24 He illustrates how in creating the ‘other’ out of the Xhosa, the settlers were also asserting their identity, in that they still saw themselves as being inherently British whose job was in making a Britain overseas. Price argues that although the reproduction of colonial knowledges was designed to create an inferior identity for the Xhosa, it ultimately revealed more about the British settlers themselves and how they viewed themselves in the imperial world of which they were a part. The creation of identity was often influenced by the belief that ‘Western’ science could explain the differences between people. Historian Saul Dubow has written numerous articles and books on scientific racism and South Africa. Dubrow attempts to analyze the concept of ‘Britishness’ that was inherent in the colonial landscape in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, using South Africa as a case study. The ideas that accompanied the concept of ‘Britishness’ had connotations of racial or ethnic ancestry and were seen to have a “cultural, political, and symbolic attachments which includes the rights, claims and aspirations of subject-citizens as well as citizen-subjects – ‘non-Britain’s.’”25 Scientific agencies as well as other professional and intellectual bodies had a significant impact on South Africanist ideology due to its ability to be a “transcendent truth” which rendered it “possible to cast the language of progress and universality within the imperial chain of civilization.”26 Through the examination of roughly 200 years, Dubow is able to effectively argue for influential academic presence in the creation of colonial identities and knowledges through ideas such as scientific racism in South Africa. 24 Richard Price, “Colonial Knowledge” in Making Empire: Colonial Encounters and the Creation of Imperial Rule in 19th-Century Africa. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008). 154. 25 Dubow, "How British Was the British World?" 3. 26 Dubow, A Commonwealth of Knowledge, 6. 11 Identity has continuously been shaped and transformed throughout history then as power struggles changed. Immigration policies are created by those in power and so it is clear then that they provide an important repository to examine society and the logics if power. Political scientist Audie Klotz is a specialist on immigration policy within the British Empire and has written multiple articles and books that examine the history of migration and its connection to identity formation within South Africa. She effectively demonstrates how the colonial legacy of exclusion of certain migrants and the creation of the ‘outsider’ is relevant in modern day. Klotz not only discusses the relationship between Afrikaners, British, and African nationals, but also demonstrates how the exclusion extended to broader historical conflicts, such as anti-Semitism. She also discusses the refugee immigration that also took place during apartheid. She argues that democratization in South Africa has been shaped by policy reforms that, even in the post-apartheid years, reaffirmed exclusion.27 She explains that throughout the twentieth century, the South African state has created “securitized” official discourse and institutional practices that have produced the social implication of the immigration policy, with modern xenophobia extending back to the 1800s.28 The book offers a description of how the law created exclusion throughout the twentieth century. Klotz also has argued that in order to differentiate between citizens and foreigners, the post-apartheid government relies on both “physical and discursive elements of the state” that have roots reaching back into the eighteenth and nineteenth century. 29 For example, the government states that it is “protecting citizens from foreigners, despite minimal effect on 27 Audie Klotz, Migration and National Identity in South Africa, 1860-2010. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015). 8. 28 Ibid., 10. 29 Audie Klotz, "Borders and the Roots of Xenophobia in South Africa." South African Historical Journal 68, no. 2 (2016): 182. doi:10.1080/02582473.2016.1153708. 12 migration, which reinforces xenophobic discourses.”30 Klotz describes the three major constitutional transitions in the twentieth century that delineate along former British colonies and the ideas of citizenship within each in order to challenge “the subtle ways in which racist legacies intertwine with contemporary xenophobia.”31 She concludes that by examining the history of the borders in South Africa, it becomes apparent that the treatment of foreign African nationals has deep historic roots in racist citizenship policies. While Klotz argues for continuity based on some form of strategic inertia, Alison Bashford examines the connection between the history of settler-colonial race-based exclusions and immigration restriction in post-colonial nation states. In her article "Immigration Restriction: Rethinking Period and Place from Settler Colonies to Postcolonial Nations," she states that the imperial power of the British Empire had far reaching influence on the colonies. When colonies became Dominions and nation-states, the new immigration laws that were often implemented were similar to the colonial laws that preceded them. She claims that the immigration law of the colonial world persisted in the postcolonial era due to its ability to identify aliens and assert sovereignty over territory and people.32 Bashford argues that the Dominions had similar laws crossing the expansion of the British Empire, whether it was in Canada or South Africa. She demonstrates how the identity of being ‘British’ had a profound impact on connecting the colonies, and that as a result, the implications of a common identity helped to spread legislation that enabled the exclusion of those that were considered ‘outsiders’. Interestingly, the exclusionary tactics used within the South African law context had historical impacts on other commonwealth countries as well. Dominion countries in the British 30 Ibid., 183. 31 Ibid., 183. 32 Alison Bashford, "Immigration Restriction: Rethinking Period and Place from Settler Colonies to Postcolonial Nations." Journal of Global History 9, no. 1 (2014): 39. doi:10.1017/s174002281300048x. 13 Empire copied laws from each other as demonstrated by Daniel Ghezelbash, in his article “Legal Transfers of Restrictive Immigration Laws: A Historical Perspective”. He argues that the legal transfer of immigration policies that put restrictive boundaries can be seen historically throughout Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand.33 This article is a great source in demonstrating how the countries jurisdictions often learned from each other how to exclude those that were not considered quality citizens, which were often those who were not British. This thesis is concerned not only with the domestic policies that would affect immigration, but also the international policies that were created through conventions created by bodies such as the United Nations. The UNHCR is the main international body out of the United Nations that deals in the protection of refugees and asylum seekers. As a result, it made an impact on democratic South Africa with the implementation of a Voluntary Repatriation Program for the Mozambican refugees. When considering the impact of voluntary repatriation on countries in the South, B.S. Chimni, a legal scholar who focuses on international law and international refugee law, offers many insights on the subject. Although he does not specifically look into South Africa, Chimni provides a look into the history and impact of the international policies from governing bodies such as the UNHCR. Chimni argues that after the Second World War, there were two phases in which ideas of durable solutions to the global refugee situation were apparent. In the first, from 1945-1985, the solution of resettlement was encouraged while in the second phase, from 1985-1993, voluntary repatriation came to be promoted as the best solution from the UNHCR.34 Chimni frames these decisions within the Cold War and post-Cold 33 Daniel Ghezelbash, "Legal Transfers Of Restrictive Immigration Laws: A Historical Perspective." International and Comparative Law Quarterly 66, no. 01 (2016): 236. doi:10.1017/s0020589316000373. 34 B. S. Chimni, “From Resettlement to Involuntary Repatriation: Towards a Critical History of Durable Solutions to Refugee Problems.” Refugee Survey Quarterly 23, no. 3 (January 2004): 55. https://doi.org/10.1093/rsq/23.3.55. 14 War context. He explains that after the Cold War, Northern countries began to assert that voluntary repatriation was justified to send refugees from the South that were migrating to the North back to their home, despite the UNHCR stating that the solution of voluntary repatriation had not been studied in any depth.35 He concludes that voluntary repatriation is now being looked at as the ideal solution to the refugee problem as “in the Post-Cold War era the rich Northern states see no reason to share the burden of the poor South at both the level of asylum and resources,” contributing in the era of globalization to the growing North-South divide. 36 Further, Chimni argues that voluntary repatriation is not always the optimal solution, although it is pushed by the UNHCR and most Northern countries as the most durable solution. The article makes the case that because voluntary repatriation has been introduced as the most humane solution to the global refugee problem, there is pressure to follow it even when it is not the most appropriate response.37 Further, because it is seen as the solution, refugees themselves are pressured to accept it though they may desire another outcome. Chimni argues that as the pressure is being increasingly placed on the South, Northern countries should be committed to helping through a development fund that is more than they are currently contributing to the UNHCR, ending the article with the claim that self-interest should have no claim to rationality.38 The Voluntary Repatriation Program in South Africa has been examined in depth by Chris Dolan. Dolan provides a very thorough analysis of the steps that the UNHCR took in repatriating the Mozambican refugees. He specifically argues that the UNHCR did not take into account the complexities of the decision making for repatriating by the Mozambican refugees. 35 Ibid., 59. 36 Ibid.,73. 37 B.S. Chimni, “Perspectives on Voluntary Repatriation: A Critical Note.” International Journal of Refugee Law 3, no. 3 (1991): 542. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/3.3.541. 38 Ibid., 545. 15 He suggests that it is important to include predisposing factors as this will acknowledge that decision making is an ongoing process in which conditions are consistently changing in both the host country and the country of origin and that a peace accord does not automatically make a place seem liveable. He concludes by stating that repatriation should only be considered truly voluntary if people decide to go, knowing that they would have the option to stay in proper conditions rather than ongoing vulnerability.39 He is supported in his analysis by human geographer Tara Polzer, who wrote an article on Mozambican refugee immigration and how legislation impacted them in the changeover from the apartheid to democratic government in 2007. In “Adapting to Changing Legal Frameworks: Mozambican Refugees in South Africa”, she looks at the laws and policies from below rather than the top perspective, and how the Mozambicans interpreted the laws that were placed upon them. Many of the refugee policies created in the newly democratic South Africa, such as the 1993 Tripartite Agreement, did not actually help to protect the refugees, but increased the vulnerability of them as often they were deported back to Mozambique.40 She concludes by arguing that Mozambican refugees represent an important case study of how changing government policy impacts forced migrants. There have been many academics that have contributed to the on-going research on refugee immigration within South Africa. In the book Advancing Refugee Protection in South Africa, authors and activists such as Jeff Handmaker, Lee Anne de la Hunt, and Jonathan Klaaren come together to demonstrate how refugee policy in South Africa developed, specifically focusing on the 1998 refugee policy that was created. Handmaker, de la Hunt, and Klaaren have 39 Chris Dolan, “Repatriation from South Africa to Mozambique - Undermining Durable Solutions?” In The End of the Refugee Cycle?: Refugee Repatriation and Reconstruction. Ed. Richard Black and Khalid Koser. (New York: Berghahn Books, 1999). 108. 40 Tara Polzer, "Adapting to Changing Legal Frameworks: Mozambican Refugees in South Africa." International Journal of Refugee Law 19, no. 1 (2007): 31. doi:10.1093/ijrl/eem001. 16 each released articles and books that speak to the subjects. Further, Klaaren and Handmaker were also important academics during the apartheid period that sought to improve the human rights of refugees as a vulnerable population. Many of their emails, discussions, pamphlets or articles were found in the archives in Johannesburg. Sally Peberdy is a human geographer who is an expert in the area of migration, focusing on migration, development, xenophobia, and migration policy at all government levels in Southern Africa. In her article “Imagining Immigration: Inclusive Identities and Exclusive Policies in Post-1994 South Africa”, Peberdy examines the post-1994 migration legislation in South Africa and its exclusionary rhetoric, despite being an inclusive democracy since 1994. She argues that although citizenship and inclusivity have become new markers in the newly democratic South Africa, this has unexpectedly created an exclusive and restrictive immigration policy, primarily towards other African nationals. The roots of the restrictive immigration system during this period still has roots in apartheid immigration law, causing troubles for modern day migration. L.B Landau argues in his article “Loving the Alien? Citizenship, Law, and the Future in South Africa’s Demonic Society” that the term “alien” has colonial roots in South Africa but morphed into a more sinister status during the apartheid period. The article draws the reader to the idea that unregulated and regulated migration within South Africa was viewed as a threat to legal South African’s perceived threat to economic well-being as well as the fact that a migrants “cultural and geographical point of origin” is used to determine claims to citizenship not only during apartheid, but also in modern day South Africa.41 A majority of the population does not want so many foreigners being accepted and Landau argues that the post-apartheid state uses 41 L. B. Landau, “Loving the Alien? Citizenship, Law, and the Future in South Africas Demonic Society.” African Affairs 109, no. 435 (2010): 221. https://doi.org/10.1093/afraf/adq002. 17 similar techniques to those used in both apartheid and colonial era to prohibit foreigners from settling down such as imprisonment, denial of services, and harassment.42 Landau argues that it cannot be nationalism alone that caused the xenophobic attacks in 2008 and the general xenophobic attitudes since, but rather that the legacy of colonial governments in isolating aliens has a hand. It is clear then that immigration policy and its consequential labelling of those who are desirable and undesirable have had a deep impact on the history of immigration within South Africa, with colonial roots stretching back until the eighteenth century. My thesis will be adding to this literature as it seeks to demonstrate how both domestic and international immigration policies have been affected by on-going imperial processes. In arenas where they meet, such as the Mozambican refugee immigration and the Voluntary Repatriation Program, it is apparent that the continuing construction of an ‘other’ is still relevant, both domestically and internationally. This thesis will be broken down into the following four chapters that follow my four research questions. In order to have a basic understanding of the spread of knowledge after the arrival of settlers in the eighteenth and nineteenth century, colonial knowledge and culture were constructed not only within South Africa, but across the borders as settlers brought with them ideas about culture, society, and civilization from the metropole. Chapter 2 will explore the creation of the ‘other’ and how stereotypes, bias, and prejudice impacted how settlers saw not only the Indigenous population, but also provides a reflection at how they viewed themselves. This was an essential starting point in the creation of citizenship and who was deemed to belong in South Africa. Following this, Chapter 3 will explore the immigration policies that were created at the latter half of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century in 42 Ibid., 222. 18 South Africa once South Africa became a Union and an official dominion in the Empire. This chapter is interested in the exchange of ideas that took place between the different white-settler colonies in the British Empire and how countries such as South Africa, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand often learned from one another in ways to implement restrictive immigration policy. Further, questions about the part nationalism played in shaping immigration policies, and the ongoing process of restricting immigration to only those that are deemed desirable will be examined. It is clear that colonial knowledges spread across borders not only from the metropole to the colonies, but between the colonies as well. Chapter 4 then is interested in how these colonial knowledge formations were relevant within Britain and how they have also influenced the creation of international bodies, such as the League of Nations and the United Nations and one of its groups, the UNHCR. Immigration policies and the international rights of refugees would be developed through this period by these organizations, which were created by primarily Northern, white countries. As a result, it will be important to examine pieces such as the 1951 Geneva Convention, which is still currently in use today. Lastly, Chapter 5 will demonstrate the impact of how domestic and international knowledges come together in immigration policies in the 1990s through the case study of the Mozambican refugees. It will discuss apartheid policies as well as how the continuation of these policies impacted refugee and asylum seekers within democratic South Africa after the transition. By examining the Voluntary Repatriation Program that the UNHCR implemented, these policies continue the colonial process of marking some as ‘insiders’ and others as ‘outsiders’. Although democratic South Africa has one of the most progressive-thinking constitutions globally and is argued to be a multicultural society, community membership has been impacted by the continuation of the colonial knowledges that is still prevalent in immigration policies. Modern era South Africa has seen a rise of xenophobia, 19 which is a complex issue. Restrictive immigration policies can be seen to be one factor in the production of xenophobia and the subsequent violence that has been associated with it in post-apartheid South Africa. Chapters 1 to 3 will lay the foundations and provide context for Chapter 4. Read together, these chapters will demonstrate how colonial knowledge has impacted immigration policies at both a domestic and international level which has contributed further to a perpetrating divide between those who are deemed to belong, and those who do not within South Africa 20 Chapter 2: The Dissemination of Colonial Knowledges Throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, British imperialism made considerable headway geographically, economically, and geo-politically. By 1820, almost a quarter of the world’s population was a part of the British Empire.1 South Africa came under British control in 1795 and was considered a substantial British settlement by 1820, with the emigration of 4,000 British settlers into the Eastern Cape, who joined 40,000 white Afrikaners as a small white minority amongst the majority-black indigenous population.2 Rivalries and political tension were common between the Dutch and English settlers throughout the nineteenth century. Due to the small white population in a majority-black population and in order to consolidate power, a shared sense of colonial identity across the ethnic divide was established as “science and literature, scripture and law, culture and political rhetoric all worked in subtle and blunt ways to establish the presumption of white entitlement and black disenfranchisement.” 3 These diffusions of knowledge supported the nineteenth-century Social Darwinist ideas “of civilization that enforced a hierarchy of nations, races and cultures, and a linear development from non-Western ‘primitive’ to ‘civilized’ Europe.”4 British settlers were not only influenced by these narratives but also produced authoritative “scientific” knowledge through the 1 Alan Lester, "Reformulating Identities: British Settlers in Early Nineteenth-Century South Africa." Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 23, no. 4 (1998): 6. doi:10.1111/j.0020-2754.1998.00515. x. 2 James Belich. Replenishing the Earth: The Settler Revolution and the Rise of the Anglo-World, 1783-1939. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011). 373. 3 David Theo. Goldberg, and Susan Searls Giroux, “Buried, Alive” in Sites of Race. (Cambridge: Polity, 2014). 3; Saul Dubow, A Commonwealth of Knowledge: Science, Sensibility, and White South Africa, 1820-2000. (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 2010). 2. 4 Lisa Lowe, “The Ruses of Liberty” in The Intimacies of Four Continents. (Durham: Duke University Press, 2015). 113. 21 interactions with those they deemed as ‘others’, which helped to reinforce their own positions of power. Throughout the Empire, “Britishness” was looked at as a racial category that denoted whiteness and superiority over all others, and it was understood that Britishness was a “composite, rather than exclusive, form of identity.”5 Identity thus was created, shifted, and molded through reproductions of knowledge. The production of colonial knowledge was imperative in the expansion of the British Empire as it “both enabled conquest and was produced by it.”6 Often, the creation of a settler identity was contingent on comparisons to an abstract ‘other’ that was initiated during colonization and began to shape how communities saw themselves and labelled others. Further, these views of the ‘other’ spread through the Empire by settlers’ discourse in newspapers, dispatches, and letters, and was supported by scientists, philosophers, writers, journalists, and politicians.7 The ideas and prejudices settlers brought with them from the metropole into the colony were supported by scientific racism. This chapter will argue that reproductions of colonial knowledge had profound impacts on society and the foundation of policy in South Africa. Colonial knowledge and culture had to be constructed and produced not only through the ideas that the colonizers brought with them from the metropole, but also through the ideas that were created within the dominion itself.8 Further, “coloniality/modernity – the historical process through which Europe and her settler colonies became modern through colonization and therefore through constant reinforcement of 5 Saul Dubow, "How British Was the British World? The Case of South Africa." The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History 37, no. 1 (2009): 5. doi:10.1080/03086530902757688. 6 Renisa Mawani, Colonial Proximities: Crossracial Encounters and Juridical Truths in British Columbia, 1871-1921. (Vancouver, BC: UBC Press, 2010), 22. 7 Goldberg and Giroux, “Buried, Alive”, 4. 8 Richard Price, Making Empire: Colonial Encounters and the Creation of Imperial Rule in 19th-Century Africa. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008). 154. 22 the hierarchical ordering of the world’s people – has produced, at least, in part, the predicament of today’s asylum seekers.”9 It is, therefore, crucial to understand how colonial knowledge was circulated and how it impacted culture in order to understand the circumstance of refugee immigration policy in the twentieth century. The relationship of knowledge to power and its role in supporting claims to identity underwent multiple phases. This chapter will focus on three main knowledge production tools during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The first and second phases occurred from 1820 until 1850. During this time, the production of knowledge by immigrants, amateur ethnographers, and missionaries on the Indigenous ‘other’, specifically the Xhosa and Zulu, began to produce images and ideas of the Xhosa. In this first phase, by the 1830s, white settler politics began to be infused with some missionary accounts, creating bias, stereotypes and prejudice against the African ‘other.’ In the second phase, newspapers such as Graham’s Town Journal, founded and run by white, British settlers, helped perpetuate these stereotypes while also validating settlers’ fears, calling on the metropole for support and cementing their identity as chiefly British. Lastly, between 1900 and 1914, South Africa became an official dominion within the British Empire. Scientific racism, which saw a rise in the 1880s and became firmly established in the early 1900s, began to grow exponentially in influence as universities and other scientific groups in South Africa began to establish themselves. Colonial knowledge producers in the dominions assumed the universality of ‘Western’ scientific knowledge and created formal institutions within South Africa in order to continue research in the African context.10 The circulation of knowledge through transatlantic steam shipping and the telegraph, as well as the 9 Lucy Mayblin, Asylum after Empire: Colonial Legacies in the Politics of Asylum Seeking. (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield International, 2018). 43. 10 Dubow, A Commonwealth of Knowledge, 16. 23 constant movement and migration of soldiers, settlers, and governors, helped to not only produce colonial ideas, but also to connect the dominions with the rest of the British Empire and metropole. As a result, the inclusions and exclusions that were created in London and British concepts of citizenship, sovereignty, and participation had a profound impact on colonial social boundaries. Settler relations before 1820 and the ‘colonial contact zone’ help explain the first phase. Although South Africa’s history extends well before settler colonization in the seventeenth century, this chapter begins with the Dutch arrival in South Africa. The Dutch East India Company landed along the Cape in 1682 and settled permanently after a few years in seemingly empty stretches of land that were created due to divisions between different African groups.11 In 1795, due to revolutionary France overthrowing the Dutch republic in Europe, Britain feared a French occupation of the Cape would threaten trade with India and Asia. As a result, the British government seized control of the Cape in order to secure their hegemony over the world’s seas.12 South Africa was passed around by France and Britain until 1814 when it was ceded formally to the United Kingdom in the Treaty of Paris. During this time, the British had taken possession of regions in the coast, granting themselves land without consent from the indigenous groups in South Africa.13 In order to maintain some degree of peace and gain the Dutch colonists’ trust, the British maintained the existing system of law that was in place from the Netherlands. Further, they allowed slavery to continue within the Dutch republics despite it being abolished in England, guaranteed religious freedom, and continued the use of the Dutch 11 Daniel Conway and Pauline Leonard, Migration, Space and Transnational Identities: the British in South Africa. (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014). 17. 12 Roger B. Beck, The History of South Africa. (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2000). 4. 13 Conway and Leonard, Migration, Space and Transnational Identities, 18. 24 language.14 British colonial identity was cemented during this time through ties back to the metropole. The prevailing Protestant churches brought ministers from Britain in order to retain close connections with the home churches back in Britain.15 Church services often preached service to the crown and the Empire, and as a result, British identity was also defined in South Africa by the English language and religious ties. This was a common unifying factor, and many of the widely spread texts of the time, such as the King James Bible or works of Shakespeare, helped to reinforce a common sense of identity.16 Although the British allowed the Dutch to keep an independent legal system, the British established a British judicial and municipal system of government for communication between southern Africa and the metropole. Newspapers were modelled on British exemplars and publishers sought to use journalism to develop a sense of Britishness in South Africa.17 These customs allowed the settlers to retain contact with home and a sense of identity within the British Empire. In order to maintain their identity and power, colonial knowledge was produced, starting with the colonial contact zone. The colonial contact zone was a space of racial intermixture between settlers and indigenous African peoples where racial boundaries were carefully drawn by British subjects and colonial administrators, perpetuating ideas about who would legally be considered superior and inferior as marked by the colonial relations of unequal exchange.18 Renisa Mawani demonstrates how the notion of a contact zone was an important point as a space of racial intermixture between settlers, indigenous people, and racial migrants.19 She argues that within this zone ideas 14 Beck, The History of South Africa, 42. 15 John Lambert, "‘An Unknown People’: Reconstructing British South African Identity." The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History 37, no. 4 (2009): 603. doi:10.1080/03086530903327101. 16 Ibid., 603 17 Ibid., 605. 18 Renisa Mawani, Colonial Proximities: Crossracial Encounters and Juridical Truths in British Columbia, 1871-1921. (Vancouver, BC: UBC Press, 2010). 5. 19 Ibid., 5. 25 and arguments of racial inferiority and superiority were never unified or consistent, and that this ambiguity made it easy for these ideas to perpetuate and grow. Similar to British migrants elsewhere in the Empire, English South Africans believed in the Social Darwinist notions of British racial superiority, and they brought this knowledge system into the new land with them.20 Knowledge systems are essential for Empire as the “agents of Empire need to understand the behaviour and culture of those they rule…naturally, the knowledge systems that are used in Empire seldom capture the realities of their subjects’ lives. But this hardly matters, since the purpose of such systems is to legitimate the superiority that the colonizers know they enjoy.”21 Further, the foundation of the knowledge system of Empire was built on the idea that colonial culture had to be created out of the interaction between the metropolitan culture that the colonizers brought with them and the cultures they found at the frontier of Empire. 22 Ideas from thinkers such as British philosopher and economist John Stuart Mills were fresh in the minds of the settlers in the Empire. Mill defined ‘good government’ as one that discerns those that are “unfit for liberty,” and as a result, the state must use force to maintain “order and progress” through education for people to be the goal.23 It was believed that the ‘superiority’ of the white British colonizers would help to bring the backward African indigenous, and even the ‘inferior’ Boers, into progress. This idea of ‘good government’ was critical as it “coincides with nineteenth-century narratives of civilization that enforced a hierarchy of nations, races, and cultures, and a linear development from non-Western ‘primitive’ to ‘civilized’ Europe.”24 The colonial contact zone between the British, the Dutch, and groups such as the Xhosa and Zulu 20 Lambert, "‘An Unknown People,’” 606. 21 Price, Making Empire”, 154. 22 Ibid., 154 23 Lowe, “The Ruses of Liberty,” 107. 24 Ibid., 113. 26 helped the British to understand not only themselves, but also other ethnic groups in relation to them. This colonial knowledge helped to identify and control local inhabitants and allowed the European settlers to rationalize imperial domination. This colonial contact zone continued into the 1820s, as British immigrants in South Africa began to increase in influence. The British settlers that landed in South Africa, despite claiming British heritage, were not used to a hard life. The Colonial Office in London did not want to populate the new and unstable Cape land with the poor, but rather with those that were deemed to be a ‘strong community.’25 Many of the settlers in the 1820s were urban dwellers who had minimal experience with farming, and to make matters worse, many settled on infertile land in the Albany region in South Africa.26 Further, the settlers complained that they were often the subject of attacks, particularly from the Xhosa-speaking population. This would later aid in generating certain stereotypes about the Xhosa that would soon be taken as fact within colonial institutions. By 1843, the British moved into the Natal area along the eastern Indian Ocean coast, and this became the first permanent settlement of the United Kingdom in South Africa. 27 In 1846, a government-assisted emigration scheme was introduced, and by 1883, 22,300 migrants were assisted from the United Kingdom. The discovery of gold and diamonds motivated many of these migrants. As a result, the discovery of diamonds at Hopetown, and then the discovery of gold on the Witwatersrand, in 1867 and 1886 respectively, encouraged many more people to move from the United Kingdom. Due to these factors, the white population in South Africa reached approximately 620, 000 people by 1891, and by 1911, the white population had reached 25 Alan Lester, Imperial Networks: Creating Identities in Nineteenth-Century South Africa and Britain. (London: Routledge, 2001). 49. 26 Conway and Leonard, Migration, Space and Transnational Identities, 33. 27 Ibid., 34. 27 1.2 million.28 Due to the high influx of British settlers in South Africa, different identities grew and shifted, aided by knowledge that migrated with the settlers from the United Kingdom and that was formed upon settling. Before immigrating, settlers would have “been informed of colonial constructions of race” through settler newspapers, letters, official dispatches, and through travellers reports and missionaries, and were “prepared to adopt them by advice literature on emigration, even before their voyage to South Africa.”29 For example, in 1904, Dudley Kidd, a British ethnologist, published the book The Essential Kaffir.30 In this book, Kidd describes the mind of the an indigenous individual as differing from a European as “he is a complete stranger to Western conceptions of clear thinking, and is as ignorant of logic as he is of the moons of Jupiter.”31 Further, he states that although there is some truth in believing that the Indigenous population are “but overgrown children”, he argues that they are “not so much an overgrown as a misgrown child, and misgrown with a vengeance...the natives are not overburdened with brains.”32 The book also discusses how the Indigenous population is deceitful and cruel. Throughout the book, there is a constant dichotomy between the Europeans and the Indigenous populations. The racial differences that were created through the Eurocentric framework of civilized versus civilized and the assertion of different identities, were normalized through the help particularly of missionaries. In the nineteenth century, missionaries helped perpetuate and spread the idea of the racialized other as well as asserting further the idea of British identity in the colony. Colonial 28 Ibid., 34. 29 Lester, Imperial Networks, 54. 30 The word Kaffir is a colonial term that refers to the indigenous population and is not a politically correct term. 31 Dudley Kidd, The Essential Kaffir. (London: A. and C. Black, 1908). 277. https://archive.org/details/essentialkafir00kidduoft/page/n563/mode/2up/search/mental+characteristics 32 Ibid., 277-279. 28 dominions within the Empire became places where British humanitarians saw the opportunity for spreading Christianity, a belief that was often synonymous with the idea of civilization. Evangelicalism was inextricably connected with Britain’s imperial expansion, and with the debate over the slave trade. 33 The Slave Trade Act of 1807 prohibited the trading of slaves within the British Empire and was the first step towards the abolition of slavery. This also created a distinction between those of British identity who now claimed to fight for freedom, and Afrikaners who still supported the slave trade. Most British missionaries “possessed the evangelical spirit of the day, seeking to ‘convert the heathen.’” 34 Further, their religion and middle-class backgrounds emphasized hard work, industry, and business. As a result, Christianity and British civilization were seen as intimately connected. It was this middle-class knowledge of British superiority due to the access to religion and ideas of divinity that encouraged British missionaries to believe that Africans freed from slavery needed instruction in order to morally fit into the social hierarchy that the British had established. Missionaries would send images back to the metropole that would emphasize the idea that African slaves were innocent and childlike, and merely victims of European brutality.35 In 1828, the book Researches in South Africa: Illustrating the Civil, Moral, and Religious Condition of the Native Tribes by John Philip, published by a missionary living in the Cape Colony, caused controversy in both the Cape and in Britain.36 In the book, Philip discussed how British colonial officials needed to change how they treated the colony and the indigenous within it as he argued that the indigenous 33 Lester, Imperial Networks, 25. 34 Beck, The History of South Africa, 51. 35 Lester, Imperial Networks, 30. 36 Ibid., 32. 29 lives had not been improved by the change from the Dutch Afrikaners to the imperial British.37 It is important to note that he did not argue that the Xhosa should be left alone. Instead, he believed that it was important that the colonial programme should incorporate the use of Christianity in bringing civilization to the Xhosa and other African indigenous groups. It was believed to be morally unconscionable to humanitarians and missionaries to allow self-determination for indigenous groups, as they believed that British rule had benefits that were imperative to offer.38 These books and letters were circulated widely in the Empire and helped to cement further understandings of race and hierarchy that was both created in the colonies and incorporated ideas derived from the metropole. Missionary letters were also circulated through the use of newspapers and journals. Publication became essential for mission work, in order to obtain the financial means to continue doing their work. To stress the importance of their work in the colony farthest from the United Kingdom, these publications would stress “the wickedness of non-Christian societies and the immensity of ‘evil’ to be eradicated. Because missionary literature was acceptable reading for the Victorian sabbath, it may be justly said that in the formation of harsher racial attitudes, the missionaries played a significant role.”39 Colonization, then, was seen as being helpful rather than harmful. It was believed to be common knowledge that there were varying levels of humanity and therefore ‘civilization.’ Many missionaries believed that although indigenous Africans were 37 John Philip, Researches in South Africa: Illustrating the Civil, Moral, and Religious Condition of the Native Tribes, (London: James Duncan, Paternoster-Row, 1828), xvi. Date Accessed: December 10, 2019. https://archive.org/details/researchesinsou01philgoog/page/n9/mode/2up/search/improved 38 Lester, Imperial Networks, 43. 39 Bernard Makhosezwe Magubane, The Making of a Racist State: British Imperialism and the Union of South Africa, 1875-1910. (Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press, 1996). 13-14. 30 ‘inferior’ to the ‘superior’ Europeans, they could, through proper example, become ‘civilized.’40 It would not be until a settler discourse written in newspapers began to be published that the idea of the ‘other’ began to evolve to describe African indigenous people as a more violent group. Settler stereotypes of indigenous groups such as the Xhosa and Zulu were shaped through personal experiences as they were mechanisms “by which individual settlers could ‘map their self’ into a new world of differentiated interaction with an unfamiliar people.”41 Later in the nineteenth century, views of foreign missionaries began to depart from that of settlers who increasingly saw indigenous Africans as violent and threating to the stability of the colony, of primary value only for labour. Settler newspapers that were created in the settlements and circulated there helped to cement this view of the savage and barbaric ‘other.’ One particular paper that helped to circulate this view was known as the Graham’s Town Journal. Grahamstown, located in the Eastern Cape, was a settlement of British colonists. In 1831, the Graham’s Town Journal, also known simply as The Journal, was created by Robert Godlonton in order to allow the settlers to have a voice to which the imperial government would listen.42 Within this newspaper’s columns, journalists would present local news within the settlement, but they would also use the platform to discuss grievances they had towards the Xhosa and to defend their actions in expanding into Xhosa land.43 As a result, the newspaper would assert the British settler identity and would often describe the surrounding indigenous groups with words such as ‘savages.’ The ability to cast the Xhosa as a racial ‘other’ helped to create a sense of solidarity amongst the white British settlers.44 Despite how successful or how 40 Mayblin, Asylum After Empire, 41. 41 Lester, “Reformulating Identities,” 522. 42 Price, Making Empire, 164. 43 Lester, Imperial Networks, 61. 44 Lester, "Reformulating Identities,” 516. 31 prominent the newspaper was in shaping the debate,45 the paper is a window onto how the settlers not only saw the world around them, but also how they saw themselves. The Journal was used to consistently demonstrate to the imperial and national government settler insecurity with the Xhosa until late in the nineteenth century. Godlonton and other contributors called for imperial authorities to confiscate Xhosa land, due to cattle raids and other reported crimes. While many British settlers were ignorant about Xhosa grievances against them, Xhosa retaliation was also reported. This contributed to developing a stereotype of the Xhosa as cunning and dangerous. 46 They stated that the Xhosa were costing the colony money without contributing to its revenue. As a result, they argued that the territory should be subjected to the control of Parliament and that the governor “be urgently but respectfully requested to move Her Majesty’s Government to comprise that territory with the Colony – a measure which, in the opinion of the Council, would lend to the maintenance of peace and other advantages to the Colony, and also to the more effectual civilization of its present occupants.”47 Further, in 1835, the paper published a letter from a local missionary that argued that while there were indigenous groups faithful to the British, there are also “miscreants” that committed “unprovoked aggression on our borders – who are butchering our friends and neighbours, and pillaging the country in every direction.” Further, it states that the Xhosa “is naturally cunning and calculating; duplicity marks his commonest act…”48 The repetition of the stereotype of the surrounding indigenous groups as well as the collective experience of an attack by the Xhosa would help to cement The Journal’s representation of the Xhosa as a ‘savage’ as a universally 45 Price, Making Empire, 164. 46 Lester, Imperial Networks, 54. 47 “The Native Question”, The Graham’s Town Journal, January 17, 1870, https://infoweb-newsbank-com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca, (Date accessed January 28, 2020). 48 “Graham’s Town, January 23, 1835”, The Graham’s Town Journal, January 23, 1835, https://infoweb-newsbank-com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca, (Date accessed January 28, 2020) 32 known fact.49 Humanitarian attitudes which stated that the indigenous groups could become like the British in progress and civilization were argued to rest on sentiment and not real knowledge of the indigenous Africans compared to the settlers who claimed to be the true experts on Xhosa politics and culture.50 Throughout The Journal’s publication, the paper’s writers and contributors would discuss ‘the Kafir character,’ especially during the Sixth Frontier War between the Zulu and British settlers. The Journal consistently impressed the idea of a ‘savage’ group, while asserting the claim that the colonists were “unoffending” and were “unlawfully” attacked “without any warning” as they “were insulted, robbed, their dwellings burnt, their safety threatened by the Chief.”51 They claimed that the only settlers that went into “Kafirland” were those that had solid evidence that they had been robbed, had permission from the Chief to enter, and went only to reclaim stolen property. In the discussion after the war, the previous social divisions that separated the white settlers, such as class, were obscured by the acceptance of such notions as a “civilized landscape, a share settler ‘character’ and a transplanted ‘British-ness.’”52 It was the repetition of these themes that enabled it to become naturalized. Throughout the 1840s and 1850s, The Journal would publish accounts of stock losses, robberies, and murders that had been committed by the Xhosa against colonists. This became proof to the colonists and others in the Empire that the Xhosa were dangerous.53 This paper created “‘the coils of rumour, gossip and chitchat’ where racist ideas ‘enter[ed] into active circulation and meaningful existence.’”54 News 49 Lester, Imperial Networks, 62. 50 Ibid., 63. 51 “Original Correspondence: Commission of Inquiry,” The Graham’s Town Journal, December 22, 1836, https://infoweb-newsbank-com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca, (Date accessed January 28, 2020) 52 Lester, Imperial Networks, 67. 53 Ibid., 144. 54 Ibid., 144. 33 published by The Journal became quite far-reaching in cities such as Cape Town in South Africa and London back in England, by supplying The Times with news from “this far-flung outpost of empire.”55 As the settlements began to expand in South Africa, The Journal was used as a means for settlers to stay in touch with what was deemed a collective concern in the Empire. They were not only identifying themselves as South Africans, but also as British citizens helping to make a Britain overseas.56 By the 1840s, The Journal was circulated within the Empire in places such as Britain, North America, and India as well as throughout South Africa.57 Notions of indigenous Africans propagated by missionaries in the early 1800s began to be replaced by the view of a dangerous racialized ‘other.’ By the 1850s, it became a known fact rather than just an idea that indigenous Africans were deceitful, cunning, and savage.58 Publications such as The Journal were highly successful at spreading colonial knowledge in the form of news stories. By the late 1860s, the white population in South Africa began to rise. Four areas had been carved out for white expansion: the two British colonies, the Cape and the Natal and the two Afrikaner republics, the Orange Free State and the Transvaal. Between 1868 and 1880, the population of the Cape increased by 75 percent, with net British immigration total of 25, 000 between 1873 and 1883.59 Despite the population expansion between the British and the Afrikaners, they were still a minority compared to the indigenous African communities which bordered the new colonies, continually threatening the colonial state’s power. It is important to note that the Afrikaners were also gaining a spirit of nationalism in the late 1800s. A Cape Dutch minister, S.J. du Toit, founded an Afrikaans newspaper, Die Afrikaanse Patriot, in which he 55 Price, Making Empire, 164. 56 Ibid., 164. 57 Lester, Imperial Networks, 61. 58 Price, Making Empire, 155. 59 Belich, Replenishing the Earth, 378. 34 argued that the Afrikaners were a unique people, “chosen by God to rule over the ‘heathen’ peoples of southern Africa.”60 Although initially, Du Toit’s ideas did not have much traction, they would be used as important ideological platform for the National Party that would come into power in 1948 with the apartheid system. Multiple nationalist identities eventually would emerge in tension with each other as South Africa ended the nineteenth century. The colonial knowledge systems that were being systematically produced and reproduced in South Africa coincided with those of other parts of the Empire, such as India, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. Improvements in technology allowed for more effective transmission of written and visual representations across the colonies.61 British emigration increased throughout the Empire, and as a result, families and colonial counterparts were spread throughout the different colonies. This ensured that the settlers and their communities would have a sympathetic audience not only in England but throughout the Empire. Additionally, during this time, the South African War (also known as the Second Boer War) was fought in which the Afrikaners and British settlers’ tensions exploded, resulting in victory for the British in 1902. This led to the establishment of the Republic of South Africa in 1910 under the British Empire as an official dominion. As a result, an Anglicisation policy took place which sought to make South Africa firmly a British imperial project and “included the promotion of the English language, culture and law in education, religion and all areas of national life,” with a significant part being “to encourage mass British immigration.”62 Citizenship in the new Union followed the colonial idea of the progression of civilization. Lord Milner, a British statesmen and colonial administrator in South Africa, stated that the right to rule should not be on the basis of race, but rather on the 60 Beck, The History of South Africa, 88. 61 Lester, Imperial Networks, 161. 62 Conway and Leonard, Migration, Space and Transnational Identities, 36. 35 ground of civilization. If civilization was “the key to full citizenship, then natives could aspire to that goal, even if their advancement might be very slow.”63 Along with ideas that came from the colonial knowledge system, scientific racism also began to impact politics and race relations in South Africa by the late nineteenth century and into the early twentieth century. Throughout Europe and European colonies, race had become naturalized within society and was seen as inevitable to those who were deemed superior, and who would in turn consider racialized colonial subjects to be inferior, civilized, and barbaric. 64 Further, the terms ‘white’ and ‘civilized’ were considered synonymous. During the 1880s, scientific racism began to rise throughout the Empire as a “dominant political discourse in Britain […]rather than universalist humanitarian constructions of human difference and legal entitlement in the 1850s and 1860s, so too was metropolitan scientific discourse.”65 Scientific racism helped to establish why humanitarianism and unequal ‘equality’ spread and established white superiority as fact and in South Africa, this was essential for the white settlers. This period coincided with the economic boom of the diamonds and gold, the experience of the South African war, and the first steps towards providing institutional and intellectual foundations for creating racial segregation.66 During this period, race scientists were prominent intellectual figures in society and universities. At the same time, racial science was driven by social prejudices of the time. These ideas, thought to be rooted in science from the metropole, made a tremendous impact in the colonies, specifically in South Africa. 63 Marilyn Lake, and Henry Reynolds, Drawing the Global Colour Line: White Mens Countries and the International Challenge of Racial Equality. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011). 214. 64 Goldberg and Giroux, “Buried, Alive”, 3. 65 Lester, Imperial Networks, 169. 66 Saul Dubow, Scientific Racism in Modern South Africa. (Johannesburg: Witwatersrand Univ. Press, 1995). 18-19. 36 It was argued that white races were capable of superior achievements due to their physical and mental abilities compared to non-white races. As a result, a “scientific” basis was used to justify imperialism as it was believed that it was ‘the white man’s burden’ to ‘civilize’ the ‘inferior’ races.67 One pseudo-scientific discipline that found root in South Africa was physical anthropology. Physical anthropologists played an important role in reinforcing imperial interests by proposing different “human-types” and intellectual abilities for different races. Although evidence was difficult to provide, some physical anthropologists believed that human beings could be arranged into ‘superior’ and ‘inferior’ categories in terms of mental and cultural proficiencies.68 The biological differences that these scientists focused on can be seen as an extension of the colonial ideas that the settlers had been disseminating for years. In particular, there was one racial scientist that helped popularize these anthropological discourses in South Africa. Robert Knox lived on the Cape frontier and wrote a book called The Races of Men. In this book, Knox described a pseudo-scientific theory of race, “which explained why some peoples were the imperialist and others imperialized in history.” 69 He firmly believed that race was everything and that literature, science, art, and culture depended on it. As a result, he argued that imperial expansion was inevitable. Other pseudo-scientists that followed in Knox’s footsteps, such as Dr. James Hunt, would go on to state that humans were not all equal and that non-white population had a “defective reasoning power” that could be proved through scientific evidence. 70 These ideas were seen to be further supported by reports of missionaries and explorers within South Africa. 67 Ibid., 12. 68 Magubane, The Making of a Racist State, 12. 69 Ibid., 12. 70 Ibid., 13. 37 The lack of specificity within racial science enabled its ideological appeal. Prior to the Union of South Africa, racial science was often used to demonstrate a difference between Afrikaners and British settlers. Due to the white, British minority, active British immigration to South Africa was encouraged in the metropole. South Africa was to share the racial and governmental features of the British Empire. As previously mentioned, since the beginning of British colonization, settlers had emphasised their identity as British citizens and as South Africans in parallel fashion, viewing Britishness as a racial category. During the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, divisions were not only between white and black populations, but also between the English and Afrikaner population. The British “considered themselves more civilized and culturally superior not only to Africans but also to Afrikaners…”71 Further, it was assumed that South Africa would see the same mass settlement that occurred in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand during this time, although this would not come to fruition.72 Due to the lack of immigration and an unwillingness to give more political power to the black, indigenous South Africans, the British and Afrikaner populations were forced to reconcile in order to maintain power. In order to keep political power in the hands of the white minority, racial science was utilized to designate who was fit for power and who was not. The language of Social Darwinism changed from spouting the incorrigible wantonness of the Afrikaner nation to claiming as fact common ‘Teutonic’ roots between the English and Afrikaners.73 The British felt that it was more important to reconcile the differences between the Afrikaner and English populations and to promote an ethnically inclusive idea of white South Africanism if emigration from the United 71 Beck, The History of South Africa, 50. 72 Conway and Leonard, Migration, Space and Transnational Identities, 32. 73 Dubow, Scientific Racism in Modern South Africa, 17. 38 Kingdom slowed down.74 Racial science was also used to support racial segregation, promoting the idea that Africans were behind in ‘civilization,’ were innately different and should not live on equal terms with the white population.75 The idea that science was a transcendent truth made the idea of the universality of imperial progression possible. At the dawn of the twentieth century, efforts were made to create proper institutions to support the physical anthropological science as a source of legitimate knowledge. Many institutions were put in place to help solidify and enhance this colonial knowledge production. First, and notably, the South African Association for the Advancement of Science (SAAAS) was created. Anthropological research was promoted by the SAAAS and often published in The South African Journal of Science.76 It is important to note that the intellectuals that were a part of the SAAAS also played a part in politics within South Africa, attempting in the early 1900s to instate and preserve a South Africa that was still British in character. In 1905, SAAAS had a joint meeting with the British Association, demonstrating their imperial connection. Further, SAAAS helped to contribute to symbolic unity within South Africa for the white population. Science helped to create a nationalist connection for the British and Afrikaner population as it attempted to bring together the two white populations under the banner of being South African after the South African War. Second, between 1903-1905, a range of ‘experts’ comprised of colonial intellectuals participated and contributed to the South African Native Affairs Commission, which started to conceptualize what a policy of racial segregation would look like formally. Lastly, universities were also becoming more prominent. The University of the Cape of Good Hope was modelled on the University of London and had 600 students by 1905 from all 74 Dubow, “How British was the British World?”, 14. 75 Dubow, A Commonwealth of Knowledge, 178. 76 Dubow, Scientific Racism in Modern South Africa, 12. 39 over South Africa.77 Students that demonstrated potential success in academia, however, were instructed to study abroad in Europe. Further, in 1907 at the Cape University graduation, John X. Merriman, the last prime minister of the Cape Colony before the formation of the Union of South Africa, argued that it was necessary to establish a robust, research-orientated university in order to promote the “‘union of the European races in South Africa.’”78 These institutions, along with other facilities, such as museums, helped to promote and spread colonial based racial prejudices and colonial knowledges as fact. Knowledge within South Africa was constantly being shaped and shifted due to ideas not only from within the settler colonies themselves, but also from the metropole at the heart of the Empire, being passed from the North to the South. Prior to the immigration of white settlers into South Africa, migrants would have already had ideas about ‘civilization’ and racial superiority due to ideas that were already spreading in Europe. As the colonies progressed and settlement expanded, resulting in more interaction with the indigenous African population, colonial knowledge systems began to be reinforced as they seemed to coincide with ideas, such as Social Darwinism that were being brought from the metropole. These stereotypes of the racial ‘other’ were spread through a multitude of means, beginning in the colonial contact zone. First, missionaries and humanitarians would report their firsthand accounts through letters, newspapers and other correspondence. This was shaped by their own preconceived biases and prejudice, but nonetheless, they believed that the indigenous population needed to be brought into ‘civilization’ and were merely behind in progress. This racial logic denotated and further instated the racialized ‘other’ as being inferior to the white population. 77 Dubow, A Commonwealth of Knowledge, 198. 78 Ibid., 198. 40 After the first and second Boer wars, (The second war also became known as the South African War), there became a need for the British and Afrikaner white populations to reconcile their differences in order to preserve white power in a country that was majority black Africans. The rise of scientific racism and the spread of Social Darwinism help to contribute to the creation of a new nationalism within South Africa. In 1910 with the Union of South Africa and the formal acceptance of it as a dominion in the Empire, the spread of scientific racism and its incorporation into intellectual institutions helped to justify ‘the white man’s burden’ and the continuation of segregation within South Africa. The constant exchange of knowledge between the dominion and the metropole helped to cement many policies in South Africa that would greatly contribute to the creation of apartheid government that would take place in 1948. This knowledge production and spread of colonial ideas from both the metropole into South Africa and vice versa has its roots in the spread of immigrants and institutions that managed migrants throughout the British Empire. As the next chapter will demonstrate, the dominion countries continued to share with each other colonial ideas of how best to keep white settler countries within the Empire as British or white as possible through the exchange of policy as well as other means in keeping immigration policy restrictive. These policies were created within and through the ideas discussed in this chapter, causing the creation of exclusive and restrictive immigration policies that would leave a lasting imprint on all dominion countries. 41 Chapter 3: The British Empire, South Africa, and the Transfer of Restrictive Immigration Policies The spread of colonial knowledge had a large impact on how British settlers in South Africa viewed not only themselves, but also other groups, such as the indigenous South Africans and Afrikaners. This chapter illustrates how these Social Darwinist ideas of race impacted immigration policy. In the early twentieth century, distinct immigration policies in many of the white settler colonies within the British Empire began to move toward independence, such as South Africa which was nominally granted independence as a dominion by the British Parliament in 1909 under the South Africa Act. As South Africans consolidated local governance, ideas of nationalism began to rise. Prior to the formation of the Union of South Africa, which followed in 1910, the four colonies – Cape Colony, Transvaal, Natal, and Orange Free State – each had their own legislation and laws dictating immigration. After the Union, however, a new constitution and unified body of law was created, and new immigration legislation drew heavily from the four colonies’ previous laws. Immigration acts tended to follow constitutions in new nation-states as nation-states deemed it pertinent to establish rules under which certain people could be allowed entry while others would be denied or deported.1 Immigration policy, as a general rule, is discriminatory, as it draws boundaries between ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders.’2 Xenophobia in South Africa extends as far back as this period, as white settlers began to institutionalize a fear of foreigners, particularly 1 Alison Bashford, "Immigration Restriction: Rethinking Period and Place from Settler Colonies to Postcolonial Nations." Journal of Global History 9, no. 1 (2014): 26. doi:10.1017/s174002281300048x. 2 Sally Peberdy and Jonathan Crush, “Rooted in Racism: The Origins of the Aliens Control Act”, in Beyond Control: Immigration and Human Rights in a Democratic South Africa. Ed. Jonathan Crush. (Cape Town: Idasa, 1998). 18. 42 from India, another dominion within the British Empire.3 As a result, immigration legislation was created to subtly exclude certain British subjects, turning them into disenfranchised foreigners. This was part of a wider movement known as colonial nationalism, in which dominions such as South Africa, Canada, and Australia sought to determine dominion autonomy within the Empire.4 It could be argued that the rise of nationalism within geographies of imperialism resulted in the increase of restrictive immigration policies. Further, international organizations and experts would also dictate how migration should operate. As a result, “colonial sites were often central to the making of principles, the shaping of doctrine, and the emergence of state institutions and practice.”5 This is apparent when examining the impact Jan Smuts had on the creation of the League of Nations and the United Nations, as well as when the 1951 Geneva Convention of Refugees and the British professionals who helped create it, which will be examined in the next chapter. From the 1880s on, the self-governing colonies of Canada, Australia, and South Africa began to introduce laws that regulated the entry of ‘undesirable immigrants’ as they grew as new nation-states.6 The formation of a nation-state is premised on the notion that members within the nation belong to a particular group, and that this group is identifiable and organized by a government that represents its interests. As a result, immigration from external groups and those 3 Audie Klotz, Migration and National Identity in South Africa, 1860-2010. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015). 10. 4 John Lambert, "‘An Unknown People’: Reconstructing British South African Identity." The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History 37, no. 4 (2009): 607-608. doi:10.1080/03086530903327101. 5 Ibid., 12. 6 Alison Bashford and Jane McAdam, “The Right to Asylum: Britain’s 1905 Aliens Act and the Evolution of Refugee Law.” Law and History Review. Vol. 32, No. 2. (May 2014). 309. doi: 10.1017/S0738248014000029 43 deemed ‘outsiders’ presented a challenge to nation-states.7 By studying immigration policies from the early twentieth century in Canada, South Africa, and Australia, it is apparent that there are many similarities across the white settler dominions. Scholars of policy convergence and transfer have examined these occurrences extensively and have provided insight into how these policies become similar. Many of the policies had similar or even identically worded clauses between dominion countries.8 This demonstrates a global tie between the policy making operations of British dominions on many continents, showing how national law also contributed to an increasingly internationalized system.9 Although the British Empire was associated with a universalist liberal ideology, “the differentiations between metropole and colony and within the colonial world were defended on the grounds of the exigencies produced by the peculiar situations of the colonies and the practices of the natives.”10 Racial discrimination was implemented in a myriad of ways, such as marriage regulations, head taxes, literacy tests, identity documents, and ‘gentleman’s agreements’ between states on imposing restrictions on emigration.11 This chapter will argue that the exchange of ideas about what constituted citizenship and who was deemed a worthy citizen spread throughout the British Empire as nationalist movements began to rise in the white-settler dominions. As a result, the dominions often learned from each other, as well as from the former white settler colony of the United States of America, where new immigration policies were also crafted in order to exclude certain immigrants while granting citizenship to others. This chapter will examine two points in 7 David Cook-Martin and David Scott Fitzgerald, “How Their Laws Affect Our Laws: Mechanisms of Immigration Policy Diffusion in the Americas, 1790-2010.” Law & Society Review 53, no. 1 (2019): 42. https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12394. 8 Bashford, “Immigration Restriction”, 40. 9 Ibid., 43. 10 Radhika Mongia, Indian Migration and Empire: A Colonial Genealogy of the Modern State. (North Carolina: Duke University Press, 2018). 11. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822372110. 11 Ibid., 116. 44 particular: first, the impact of imperialism and nationalism on the concept of South Africanism and second, policy transfer and convergence and which immigration laws were adopted by different dominion countries. It will demonstrate how the spread of ideas between different white settler countries help to facilitate immigration policies that marked who was ‘desirable’ and who was not both domestically as well as internationally. Before examining nationalism and imperialism, it is first important to have a basic understanding of what constituted a British subject in the early twentieth century. As mentioned in the previous chapter, prior to the First World War, ‘race’ was used as a synonym for ‘culture’ and the British used this to explain and justify imperial expansion, referring to themselves as the British ‘race’. This was especially evident in the white settler countries where the need to assert a British identity was felt to be more necessary. Citizenship “is a primary means through which societies assert, construct, and consecrate their sense of identity. It is about who belongs to the nation, who does not, and why.”12 As the last chapter shows, eugenics and ideas of Social Darwinism permeated society and it was believed on a wide scale that the superiority of British Rule was due to biological and anthropological evidence. It was understood that the British race was the most advanced civilization, but that non-Britons could become members of the British race if properly educated and culturally elevated.13 This was further conflated as ‘race’ and ‘culture’ began to be used synonymously. These racial discourses helped to shape how the Anglo-white settlers viewed the non-white members of the Empire.14 Thus, the Empire was constructed along racial lines. 12 Daniel Gorman, Imperial Citizenship: Empire and the Question of Belonging. (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2006). 1. 13 Ibid., 51. 14 Ibid., 9. 45 As the British Empire expanded globally and encompassed more than just white settler countries, some Britons believed that the diversity within the Empire lent to the legitimacy of imperial rule and was the only way to ensure peace and progress.15 Many sought to create an imperial citizenship as a means to foster the shared sense of identity by codifying it into law. In British law, the Crown was the unifying governance structure, and all subjects living under the Crown were indeed subjects rather than citizens. Subjecthood was a shared sense of culture which was perceived through common language, history, and customary bonds, and as a result, subjecthood was ambivalent, allowing for both inclusion and marginalization.16 Further, in Britain, the principle of jus soli, born of the soil of the place, declared that those who were born on British soil were natural-born British subjects, even if one was born overseas in the Empire, with the exception of those dominions that dictated their own naturalization policies. It is important to note that British subjecthood allowed for certain benefits, such as protection, but it did not necessarily mean political rights. As a result, the idea of imperial citizenship was never fully formed in white-settlement colonies. Citizenship to a particular country was still governed by the country itself and not from the metropole. Although at the beginning of the twentieth century, imperialism and ideas of Empire were enjoying popularity, many white-settler countries, such as South Africa, also wanted to exercise the self-governance that they had been granted at the time of becoming a dominion.17 Part of the issue for many in the dominions, specifically in South Africa, was the idea of Indians sharing in British subjecthood.18 The attempts to clarify the 15 Ibid., 1. 16 Ibid., 19. 17 Saul Dubow, “Colonial Nationalism, The Milner Kindergarten and the Rise of ‘South Africanism’, 1902–10.” History Workshop Journal 43, no. 1 (1997): 66. https://doi.org/10.1093/hwj/1997.43.53. 18 “The British Indian in South Africa,” Indian Opinion. Durban, South Africa, June 4, 1903: 2. Readex: African Newspapers. Date Accessed: April 25, 2020. https://infoweb-newsbank-com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/apps/readex/doc?p=WHNPAFR1&docref=image/v2%3A12C84DC7D31F53 46 status of a ‘British subject’ in law exhibited a change from a political status to more of a racial or ethnic identity.19 Colonial autonomy was growing as the dominion countries were beginning to exercise their own national rights in being able to define for themselves who could be a citizen, and who could not within their own law. By the early twentieth century, race-based thinking and policies were not new. It was the “specific articulation and institutional forms generated by the convergence of race and nationalism” that was new.20 Although dominions had cultural allegiances to Britain and a lack of control over foreign relations, South Africa and the other white colonies were relatively autonomous nations by the beginning of the 1900s. They were not simply a smaller version of Britain, due to their unique histories.21 It is important to note that although white settler colonies had been granted self-government, there were limits to their jurisdiction as issues of sovereignty filtered into all aspects of policy making. Internationally, the imperial government advocated for the equal treatment of all British subjects, but white colonies would repeat to the Colonial office their right to self-government, and as a result, their right to defining citizenship and implementing immigration laws.22 It was not only South Africa that had a racially diverse population, as both Australia and Canada also had Indigenous peoples and were seen as ideal areas of immigration. The colonial governments each claimed the right to say who could migrate 20%40WHNPAFR1-12D62B8F4D5665F0%402416270-12D37C81CD789008%401-12D37C81CD789008%40. 19 Bashford, “Immigration Restrictions”, 45. 20 Mongia, Indian Migration and Empire, 86. 21 Gorman, Imperial Citizenship, 148. 22 “Better Late than Never”, Indian Opinion. Durban. June 4, 1903: 3. Readex: African Newspapers. Date Accessed: April 20, 2020. https://infoweb-newsbank-com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/apps/readex/doc?p=WHNPAFR1&docref=image/v2%3A12C84DC7D31F5320%40WHNPAFR1-12D62B8F4D5665F0%402416270-12D37C81D0AC5F20%402-12D37C81D0AC5F20%40; Marilyn Lake and Henry Reynolds, Drawing the Global Colour Line: White Men’s Countries and the International Challenge of Racial Equality. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011). 123. 47 to their countries and to choose the legal status of coloured minorities, whether Indigenous or immigrant. In the process they came increasingly to define themselves as ‘white men’s countries’.23 Further, those in the colonies would argue that the governors in the metropole had a sentimental regard for non-Europeans, but no real experience or understanding of the harsh realities of colonial living. Specifically, in South Africa it was in this confrontation between imperialism and nationalism that ideas of South Africanism and white reconciliation developed. Although the nineteenth century saw the Afrikaners and British settlers at odds with each other, particularly after the two Boer Wars, by the early 1900s a sense of colonial nationalism and the need to consolidate power in the hands of the minority white population brought around ideas of white reconciliation and a united South Africanism amongst the four colonies. In its broadest term, South Africanism refers to an inclusive form of patriotism for both English and Afrikaner settlers which allowed for the reconciliation of local nationalisms alongside a continued membership in the British Empire.24 Sir Alfred Milner, a prominent statesman and colonial administrator, had a group of men in his entourage called his ‘Kindergarten’ who were Oxford graduates. They sought to cement political unity between the two white populations and prioritized white union between Afrikaners and English-speakers, urging a stricter line with non-Europeans. 25 Coming up to the dawn of Union of South Africa in 1910, Milner did not wish to see racial divisions within the white community which would result in a racial divide in politics. He was a firm believer in Empire, but also sought to work with the rise of nationalism within 23 Marilyn Lake and Henry Reynolds, Drawing the Global Colour Line: White Men’s Countries and the International Challenge of Racial Equality. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011). 124. 24 Dubow, “Colonial Nationalism,” 162. 25 Mark Mazower, No Enchanted Palace: The End of Empire and the Ideological Origins of the United Nations. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2013). 33. 48 South Africa. In 1905 in Johannesburg, Milner spoke to a crowd about the importance of a British and Dutch reconciliation. He stated that By all means continue to treat Dutch and British with absolute equality. We have done for good and all with the system of having two classes of white men in this country, a privileged and unprivileged class. I saw, treat all equally; indeed, try to forget as far as possible the differences of origin…Mutual understanding, sympathy, a common ideal, can only be the growth of years. But, in the meantime, there is much to be done in working togethering for the material development of the country…Politics, pure and simple, may, for a long time to come, tend rather to maintain, than to obliterate, racial differences…And there is so much to be done to make this country, favoured as it is in many respects by nature, a fitting home for civilised men…26 It is important to note that Milner uses the words “civilised men” when discussing the reconciliation of English and Dutch settlers. Like many liberals in South Africa, Milner argued that political rights were dependent on ‘civilization’ rather than on ‘race’. He stated that the right to rule and therefore to have full citizenship was reaching the peak of British civilization, and as a result, “natives could aspire to that goal, even if their advancement might be slow.” 27 Many people within South Africa believed that citizenship would best be achieved by having a homogenous society, and as a result, non-whites were to be excluded as they signified a challenge to cultural unity.28 Often, imperialists argued that England should work with these nationalisms that were emerging. One influential writer on this was the journalist Richard Jebb, who spent three years travelling throughout the Empire. In 1905, Jebb published the book Studies in Colonial Nationalism that became widespread. In the book, he observes the growing nationalism within Canada, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand. He notes that: 26 Alfred Milner, The Nation and the Empire; Being a Collection of Speeches and Addresses, (Boston, New York: Houghton Miffin Company. 1913). 82-83. Date Accessed: March 13, 2020. https://archive.org/details/nationempirebein00miln/page/82/mode/2up 27 Cecil Headlam, The Milner Papers 1897-1899, 468–70, found in Lake and Reynolds, Drawing the Global Colour Line, 214. 28 Gorman, Imperial Citizenship, 149. 49 colonial loyalty, rooted in the past, is slowly giving way before national patriotism, reaching to the future. As the evolution proceeds, the Empire is valued less for its own sake, and more in proportion as it subserves the interests and ideals of separate nationalism.29 He argued that the colonies were in transition from colony to nation and, as a consequence, maintained ideas that reflected both the “old colonial and the new national habit of mind.”30 Further, when commenting on the question of Asian labour immigration, he noted that in South Africa there was: A preponderating and rapidly increasing population of indigenous colour races. Until some means is devised of excluding these from competition with the white man…it is ridiculous to represent the introduction of Chinese, especially under a contract which facilitates their deportation, as the obstacle to the development of South Africa as a white man’s country…The native is the only racial question which really darkens the future of South Africa.31 It is apparent that Jebb argues that for South Africa to become a ‘white man’s country’ as other countries such as Australia had attempted with the White Australia Policy, the country must first deal with the large Indigenous population. He too called for the reconciliation of the British and the Afrikaners in order to consolidate power.32 The anxiety at the prospect of Indigenous rule over the minority white population that was present in the 1800s was still relevant at the Union of South Africa and as a result, it was deemed important to secure the power of the white population. One way to do this was through the use of laws and policies as these were created on a national base. It would be the colonies, rather than the metropole that would dictate the 29 Richard Jebb, Studies in Colonial Nationalism, (London: E. Arnold. 1905). 1-2. Date Accessed March 13, 2020. https://archive.org/details/studiesincolonia00jebbuoft/page/n21/mode/2up/search/rooted+in+the+past 30 Ibid., 104. 31 Ibid., 131. 32 Dubow, “Colonial Nationalism,” 67 50 composition and constitution of citizenship throughout the Empire.33 Transfer of immigration policies between white colonies evidences exclusionary policies circulated within the Empire. When discussing cases of policy transfer and convergence, it is first important to be able to define the terms. First, the study of policy transfer is the strategic decisions taken by those inside and outside of government in the movement of specific set of policies.34 It relates to the idea of one country consciously taking a policy and putting it into action. Within this term, policy transfer may also happen on an international platform.35 For example, the Refugee Convention of the 1951 Geneva Convention states that due to the non-refoulement provision in Article 33 (1), contracting nations “shall not expel or return (‘refouler’) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened.”36 Nations thus can voluntarily limit their sovereignty and control over their borders. Second, convergence, on the other hand, is the process which happens unintentionally.37 Sometimes the laws are transferred verbatim but more often they are reworked into the new settings in which they are introduced.38 Third, diffusion is the process in which the adoption of a policy in one country will increase the likelihood of the policy’s adoption in another country. Fourth, emulation occurs when policy makers in one country voluntarily model policies on those of 33 Gorman, Imperial Citizenship, 170. 34 Helen Brocklehurst, Mari Fitzduff, Brandon Hamber, Gillian Robinson, Graeme Simpson and Noel Stott, “Developing and Implementing Public Policy in Northern Ireland and South Africa,” Draft, May 2001. 1. Historical Papers Research Archive, Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, 1989-2011, Box D1, File D1.6. Johannesburg, South Africa. 35 Daniel Ghezelbash, "Legal Transfers of Restrictive Immigration Laws: A Historical Perspective." International and Comparative Law Quarterly 66, no. 1 (2016): 238. doi:10.1017/s0020589316000373. 36 United Nations. “Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.” UNHCR. 3. Accessed November 14, 2019. https://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10. 37 Mark Evans, “Policy Transfer in Critical Perspective.” Policy Studies 30, no. 3 (2009): 243–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442870902863828. 38 Cook-Martin and Fitzgerald, “How Their Laws Affect Our Laws,” 46. 51 another country. This happens when one country has laws that represent some form of progress in a particular domain.39 Increasingly since the 1950s, international organizations such as the United Nations and transnational non-state actors such as multinational corporations and knowledge institutes have had an impact on policy-making. Historically, these intergovernmental organizations influence immigration on a global scale. There is a unidirectional power assumption, in which countries that have more power and higher status will create policies that countries with less power and lower status will be forced to adopt.40 As a result, influence runs from more to less powerful and increasingly from North to South, and West to East. Cultural similarity will often lead to higher amounts of policy diffusion among states such as the ideas of immigration and ethnic selection between South Africa, Australia, Canada, and the United States.41 Exclusionary immigration policies helped to shape the identities of the white population in the age of nationalism in South Africa as they sought to create stability for themselves.42 Due to the emergent nationalism within South Africa and the other white colonies within the British Empire, discriminatory legislation found a ready audience. Although on an international stage, British imperialism still required equality amongst its subjects, colonial governments began to implement exclusionary legislation through asserting their need for better control, rather than through explicit racism.43 South African leaders, such as Jan Smuts, were part of “an imagined community of white men” throughout the British Empire, which included members in Australia, British Columbia, and New Zealand, and throughout which there was a 39 Ibid., 47. 40 Ibid., 48. 41 Ibid., 50 42 Klotz, Migration and National Identity in South Africa, 34. 43 Gorman, Imperial Citizenship, 166. 52 shared belief that democracy “required the exclusion of non-white people.”44 Lothrop Stoddard, a prominent American historian and political scientist who was also a major advocate for white superiority and eugenics, wrote a book called The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy in 1920. The book argues that “immigration restriction is a species of segregation on a large scale, by which inferior stocks can be prevented from both diluting and supplanting good stocks.”45 Further, Stoddard states that “nothing is more striking than the instinctive and instantaneous solidarity which binds together Australians and Afrikaners, Californians and Canadians, into a ‘sacred union’ at the mere whisper of Asiatic migration.”46 This ‘sacred union’ helped to create a white solidarity within the white dominions in the British Empire as ‘white policy’ began to emerge, such as The White Australia Policy declared in 1901 followed by a White New Zealand Policy and attempts to draft a White Canada Policy. This period also saw increasing racial tension and violence within South Africa.47 Through formal and informal mechanisms, the white settler countries tried to create a white rule by regulating immigration and in doing so were able to set the parameters for those they wished to exclude as potential citizens within the imperial rules set before them. When a policy was created that could achieve race-based immigration restriction without being overtly discriminatory, it quickly spread throughout jurisdictions.48 In the late nineteenth 44 Audie Klotz, “The Imperial Self: A Perspective on Anglo-America from South Africa, India, and Ireland” in Anglo-America and Its Discontents: Civilizational Identities beyond West and East. Ed. Peter J. Katzenstein, (London: Routledge, 2012). 81. 45 Lothrop Stoddard, The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1920). 260. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/37408/37408-h/37408-h.htm#Page_299 46 Ibid., 281. 47 Lake and Reynolds, Drawing the Global Colour Lines, 315. 48 Helen Brocklehurst, Mari Fitzduff, Brandon Hamber, Gillian Robinson, Graeme Simpson and Noel Stott, “Developing and Implementing Public Policy in Northern Ireland and South Africa,” Draft, May 2001. 49. Historical Papers Research Archive, Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, 1989-2011, Box D1, File D1.6. Johannesburg, South Africa; Ghezelbash, "Legal Transfers of Restrictive Immigration Laws,” 236. 53 and early twentieth centuries, governments in South Africa, Australia, Canada, and the United States introduced similar legislation with the intent of restricting immigration from all non-white persons, particularly from Asia.49 In 1906, the Judicial Committee of Privy Council stated that “one of the rights preserved by the supreme power in every State is the right to refuse to permit an alien to enter that State, to annex what conditions it pleases to the permission to enter it, and to expel or deport from the State, at pleasure even a friendly alien.”50 This aim though was not always viable, as governments in the white dominions faced both formal and informal constraints. For example, treaties among Britain and China, as well as between Britain and Japan, made explicit discriminatory policies hard to implement in settler dominions. As well, Indians were considered in South Africa to be Asiatic, although in political terms they were also British subjects. As a result, dominion countries would attempt to circumvent issues with the metropole by changing the language used or through other means such as a landing tax, which was used in Australia, the United States, and New Zealand. In South Africa, the literacy test, also known as the Natal Test, was used in South Africa as a means to exclude without being explicit. In 1897, Natal’s Immigration Restriction Act (No.14) was implemented, requiring immigrants to demonstrate that they spoke a European language chosen by the immigration officer, and if they could not write out the chosen language, they could not gain entry.51 This test was a modified version of a United States bill originally introduced in Mississippi in 1891 and codified into United States law in 1897. When introducing the bill in Natal, Henry Escombe, an attorney general who would eventually become the prime minister of Natal, stated that the literacy test was indeed “founded on the American Act” when submitting the Bill to the General 49 Ghezelbash, "Legal Transfers of Restrictive Immigration Laws,” 239. 50 Ibid., 237. 51 Cook-Martin and Fitzgerald, “How their Laws Affect Our Laws,” 57. 54 Assembly in South Africa.52 There was a difference between the two acts, however. While the United States prescribed that immigrants had to demonstrate they could read or write in their own language, South Africa required that any European language could be used. The Natal Act was implemented in an attempt to prevent the migration of Indian labour workers, whom many settlers feared were taking jobs in South Africa. Prior to the implementation of the Natal Act inspired by the United States, the public had been asking for an immigration bill that was modelled on legislation found in the British Colony in New South Wales, Australia. In 1896, the colonies in Australia agreed that the different colonies could enact immigration policies that could extend the restriction of Chinese immigration to all non-white populations, regardless of whether they were British subjects.53 Following in the same year, the European Protection Association was formed in Durban with the objective of bringing immigration laws such as the Australian laws to Natal.54 Alongside this, the association also argued for the restriction of the number of Indians who migrated to the colony.55 In November of 1896, the Colonial Patriotic Union was formed in Durban with the goal of restricting Asian immigration, once again referring to the Australian precedent. They sent a petition to the government in which they argued that: The older and richer British colonies of Australia and New Zealand have found that this class of immigrant is detrimental to the best interests of the inhabitants and have passed laws having as to their object of total exclusion of Asiatic… the disproportion between white and black races is already so great in this colony that it appears highly injudicious to further increase this disproportion… the low moral tone and unsanitary habits of Asiatics are a constant source of danger to the progress and health of European population.56 52 Ghezelbash, “Legal Transfers of Restrictive Immigration Laws,” 247. 53 Lake and Reynolds, Drawing the Global Colour Line, 125. 54 Ghezelbash, “Legal Transfers of Restrictive Immigration Laws,” 246. 55 Lake and Reynolds, Drawing the Global Colour Line, 125. 56 Ibid., 125-126. 55 The Natal government responded that appropriate legislation would be implemented in due time. The bill posed by Australia was put forward to the Colonial Office in London for the final decision and was taking a long time passing. In Natal, they decided to have less discriminatory overtones in order for the bill to be passed more quickly, satisfying the metropole. The literacy test became the means to this end. As previously mentioned, immigrants to Natal had to demonstrate that they could write in the characters of any European language “to the satisfaction of the Minister.”57 Interestingly, as the literacy requirements had no formal and explicit mention of race, the Colonial Office began to promote the Natal Act as a model for other British colonies to follow.58 At a colonial meeting in London in 1897, Joseph Chamberlain, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, promoted the Natal Act as an example of the proper legislation when enacting immigration restriction in the colonies. He argued that racist laws were not allowed and would provoke anger in British India as well as offense to the Asian powers in treaties with Britain.59 The Natal Act then was seen then to effectively to curve the overt discriminatory language as it was still seen as technically being possible for immigrants from Asia and particularly from India to enter and did not impede imperial rights. Chamberlain, speaking to the delegates of the dominion countries, stated that: the Colony of Natal has arrived at an arrangement which is absolutely satisfactory to them, I believe, and remember…they are closer to the immigration which has already begun there on a very large scale, and they have adopted legislation which they believe will give them all that they want, and to which the objection I have taken does not apply, which does not come in conflict with this sentiment…It may be possible for us to arrange a form of words which will avoid hurting the feelings of any of Her Majesty’s subjects, while at the same time it would amply protect the 57 Ghezelbash, “Legal Transfers of Restrictive Immigration Laws,” 247. 58 Ibid., 247. 59 Klotz, Migration and National Identity in South Africa, 75. 56 Australian Colonies against any invasion of the class to which they would justly object.60 Specifying an education qualification without any mention of race was seen to be an excellent model for the other colonies to follow. Many of the colonies did indeed follow suit. Tasmania and New Zealand implemented similar laws in 1898 and 1899, respectively, while Australian colonies adopted the legislation in 1897. In Canada, British Columbia attempted to introduce literacy tests in 1900, 1902, 1905, and 1907, with Ottawa dismissing their bill each time.61 In 1919, the Canadian parliament also enacted a literacy test into its Immigration Act that was more directly tied to the United States Act.62 At the time of federation in 1901, the Natal Act was adopted into official Australian legislation. In 1905, due to Japan’s increasing concerns with law discriminating against its people, Australia made an amendment and replaced the language requirement from any European language to any recommended language, although it did not change the examining officers discretion.63 Interestingly, this legislation remained in place in Australia until 1958.64 Natal then modified its literacy test in 1903 to model itself further on the Australian policy. Natal’s original law required the immigrant to write in any European language, but the changes implemented in 1903 made it so that an immigration officer would be able to choose the language to dictate.65 This increased the discretionary authority of the immigration officer, ensuring that the entry of non-whites would be nearly impossible. In other colonies in South 60 “Proceedings of a Conference Between the Premiers of the Self-Governing Colonies at the Colonial Office, London,” June and July, 1897. 14. Date Accessed: March 3, 2020. https://archive.org/stream/cihm_00718#page/n13/mode/2up/search/Natal 61 Ghezelbash, "Legal Transfers of Restrictive Immigration Laws,” 250. 62 Cook-Martin and Fitzgerald, “How Their Laws Affect Our Laws,” 57. 63 Ghezelbash, "Legal Transfers of Restrictive Immigration Laws,” 249. 64 Klotz, Migration and National Identity in South Africa, 1860-2010, 77. 65 Ghezelbash, "Legal Transfers of Restrictive Immigration Laws,” 249. 57 Africa, the Cape Colony and Transvaal implemented similar acts. The newspaper Rand Daily Mail, which was published in the Transvaal, stated that the regulations that are laid out by the 1897 Act have “adhered fairly closely to the lines laid down in Australia and New Zealand, and also the United States.”66 Further, it argues that “the Bill will prove valuable in excluding undesirables” because “the clause prohibiting the entrance of ‘any person who the Minister has reasonable grounds for believing would be dangerous to the peace, order and good government of this Colony, if he entered therein’ gives wide powers.”67 A magistrate, police officer or an officer of the immigration department could be arrested without warrant under this law.68 It is clear then that not only were the different white settler colonies throughout the Empire adopting ideas for their immigration policies, but they were not subtle about their attempts to exclude those that they did now wish to have live in South Africa. The implementation of the act did not go without critiques in the colonies. In the Cape Colony, the legislation very clearly was used to curb the immigration of migrants from British India as “it lays down an educational test, under which even a graduate of a University may fail; and seeing that it does not include in the test a knowledge of the Indian languages, in effect it totally prohibits the Indian immigration.”69 66 “Keeping out Undesirables,” Rand Daily Mail, Johannesburg, South Africa. July 5, 1907. 7. World Newspaper Archive. Date Accessed: April 20, 2020. https://infoweb-newsbank-com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/apps/readex/doc?p=WHNPAFR1&docref=image/v2%3A135DEF57238F5FC5%40WHNPAFR1-135FD68829D1CF80%402417762-135F8BE8AFDEF1A0%406-135F8BE8AFDEF1A0%40. 67 Ibid. 68 “Undesirables: Immigration Restriction Act,” Rand Daily Mail, Johannesburg, South Africa. July 4, 1907. 7. World Newspaper Archive. Date Accessed: April 20, 2020. https://infoweb-newsbank-com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/apps/readex/doc?p=WHNPAFR1&docref=image/v2%3A135DEF57238F5FC5%40WHNPAFR1-135FD68783D17678%402417761-135F8BE8A60F8BA8%407-135F8BE8A60F8BA8%40. 69 “Better Late than Never,” Indian Opinion. Durban, South Africa. June 4, 1903. 3. Readex: African Newspapers. Date Accessed: April 20, 2020. https://infoweb-newsbank-com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/apps/readex/doc?p=WHNPAFR1&docref=image/v2%3A12C84DC7D31F5320%40WHNPAFR1-12D62B8F4D5665F0%402416270-12D37C81D0AC5F20%402-12D37C81D0AC5F20%40. 58 Despite critiques such as this, the act was still implemented in the colonies and continued to have a long life after the Union of South Africa. When the Union of South Africa was founded in 1910, the literacy test was accepted as the main tool of immigration regulation. This became known as the Union Immigrants Regulation Act of 1913, “which served as the basis for xenophobic policies that lasted even into the post-apartheid era.”70 Smuts announced that this legislation was to be the most anti-Asiatic law passed in the British Empire and argued that it was needed to ensure white power in a dominantly non-white population.71 The diffusion of the literacy test policies as means of restricting Asian immigration within the white dominions of the British Empire “illustrates the iterative mode of emulation, and suggests the cultural and geographic conditions under which it takes place.”72 Another example of policy transfer was the Immigration Quota Act of 1930 in South Africa, which was a supplement to the 1913 legislation. This policy was modelled after the United States National Origins Act of 1924, which was aimed at prohibiting undesirable southern Europeans from entering into the United States.73 The Immigration Quota Act created two distinct groups of countries of who was considered desirable, and who was not. There were no limits placed on immigration from the countries deemed suitable, such as Britain. Although racially discriminatory legislation against Asians within South Africa was prevalent in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, it was often presented through other mechanisms such as a language requirement or on grounds of public health. For example, in 1903, the Mayor of Durban made a statement discussing the success of the Immigration Restriction Act and stated that Indian’s should live in specific areas of town, discussing the need 70 Klotz, Migration and National Identity in South Africa, 61. 71 Lake and Reynolds, Drawing the Global Colour Line, 223. 72 Cook-Martin and Fitzgerald, “How Their Laws Affect Our Laws,” 57. 73 Klotz, Migration and National Identity in South Africa, 178. 59 for segregation because of those that were let in, he stated that “by permitting these people to reside and carry on business in every part of the borough we are perpetuating a very serious menace to the health of the community” because of the “preponderance of cases of bubonic plague which have occurred amongst Indians, to prove that the habits of these people are not conducive to the health of the borough.”74 This was because Britain disallowed overt race-based discrimination and so colonies would use other reasons in order to ensure control over the population in which white population from England was generally sought first. It was understood within the Empire that the Dominions were self-governing and were prominently admitting immigrants from western and northern European countries, preferably from the United Kingdom first.75 It was a requirement for decades that all immigrants that were considered desirable must be of “pure European descent.”76 The policy diffusions and the exchange of ideas that happened throughout the Empire were usually created and dealt with by white men who were trained in imperial education. There became a common policy goal amongst the white settler colonies as their ‘sacred union’ became evident in maintaining white power. Although there was widespread white solidarity in supporting discriminatory legislation, there were also many criticisms. For example, critics from India such as Srinivasa Sastri at the 1921 Imperial Conference and Tej Bahadur Sapru in 1923 forced Smuts to address the concerns 74 “Asiatic Trading Licences: Minute by the Mayor,” Indian Opinion. Durban, South Africa. June 4, 1903: 3. Readex: African Newspapers. Date Accessed: April 20, 2020. https://infoweb-newsbank-com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/apps/readex/doc?p=WHNPAFR1&docref=image/v2%3A12C84DC7D31F5320%40WHNPAFR1-12D62B8F4D5665F0%402416270-12D37C81D0AC5F20%402-12D37C81D0AC5F20%40 75 “Emigration from the United Kingdom to the Dominions,” Passed by the British Censor. Quote No. Q. 5491. Pg. 5. 20 February, 1944. National Archives of South Africa, Box 485, BNS 310/74; 315/74, File 310/74, Vol. 1., Pretoria, South Africa. 76 Secretary for External Affairs, “Immigration into the Union,” 27 October, 1945. National Archives of South Africa, Box 485, File 310/74, Vol. 2., Pretoria, South Africa. 60 on an international stage well before the United Nations was used as a platform.77 Sapru argued that if the “Indian problem” in South Africa continued as it was, it would no longer be a domestic issue, but would turn into an international one, threatening the peace of the Empire. Smuts was insistent though that if Indians were granted equal rights to the white population, black African rights would follow, which would be the destruction of South Africa.78 Further, internal organizations such as the African National Congress (ANC), the eventual political party that would triumph in the first democratic elections held in 1994 in which Nelson Mandela became president, was also pushing back against the discriminatory legislation that was being put in place during the early twentieth century. It is clear that the period prior to the apartheid era was witness to a combination of racial anxiety and white nationalism. This discriminatory legislation in South Africa was further used to prohibit the migration of Jewish peoples, in order to maintain white supremacy.79 During this period, Jewish peoples were considered to be non-white. As a result, The 1913 act was used to Jewish refugee migrants, as those from Eastern Europe were also for a time period racialized, unwanted migrants to South Africa.80 Although Yiddish was eventually accepted as a proper language in the literacy test, Section 4 of the 1913 Act allowed the minister discretion to also exclude a migrant if their “habits of life [were deemed] to be unsuited to the requirements of the 77 Saul Dubow, "Smuts, the United Nations and the Rhetoric of Race and Rights." Journal of Contemporary History 43, no. 1 (2008): 68. doi:10.1177/0022009407084557. 78 Lakes and Reynolds, Drawing the Global Colour Line, 327; Dubow, “Smuts, the United Nations and the Rhetoric of Race and Rights,” 68. 79 Audie Klotz in her book Migration and National Identity in South Africa, 1860-2010 offers in great detail legislation that was put in place to prohibit the migration of Jewish peoples prior to World War Two. 80 “Institutional Sites for Xenophobic Violence” Presentation on Migration and Refugees, 2000. Historical Papers Research Archive, Collection AG 3245 Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, Box D20.3a-D20.3e, File D20.3a, Johannesburg, South Africa; Peberdy and Crush, “Rooted in Racism,” 22. 61 union,” essentially trumping any other legal protections, including the status of Yiddish.”81 Further, the Aliens Act of 1937, which replaced the Immigration Quota Act of 1930, was utilized as a means to control Jewish immigration as potential immigrants were then chosen from between desirable and undesirable countries. It was eventually assumed that white Jewish migrants would be able to assimilate more easily, compared to other non-white foreigners. Immigration legislation in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century was deeply influenced by the European colonial project in South Africa, as well as throughout the Empire in the other dominions. Immigration was deemed to be a ‘white issue’ and desirable immigrants were thus seen as white. Further, there was no immigration policy for Africans from outside of South Africa. Africans were deemed ‘migrants’ who had to return back to their home country once they were no longer needed for labour by their employers.82 From the 1880s onwards, white settler countries began to implement legislation that was discriminatory in nature, and this would have a tremendous impact on migration patterns across Southern Africa. The idea of an ‘outsider,’ which could easily be coded as non-European, non-white, permeated through this time period as colonial ideas of eugenics and science influenced how civilization, social hierarchy, and race was seen. By the early 1900s, dominion countries began to exercise their right to self-government within the broader Empire. This came with the need to balance international treaties that Britain had signed with the growing nationalism that was blossoming within the dominions. Although Britain prohibited any immigration policy that was discriminatory in an outright fashion, dominions began to create legislation that was subtler in its approach. Within South Africa, the growing divide between Afrikaners and British settlers was a pertinent issue in the minds of 81 Klotz, Migration and National Identity in South Africa, 173. 82 Peberdy and Crush, “Rooted in Racism,” 29. 62 those who helped create the Union of South Africa. Sir Alfred Milner and his kindergarten believed that the only way to help consolidate white power in a black majority was to bridge this divide and to focus on the idea of a union between two white populations, namely South Africanism. Journalist Richard Jebb also helped to disseminate and underscore this notion. Immigration legislation was designed to prohibit those who were non-white from taking power and resources away from the white population. When a policy was created that could achieve race-based immigration restriction without being overtly discriminatory, it quickly spread throughout jurisdictions. The dominions such as South Africa, Canada, and Australia, as well as former white settler colony of the United States, learned and adapted policies from each other. Most notably, the creation of the ‘Natal Act’ spread throughout the Empire. This Act required the use of a literacy test that would determine whether a migrant could gain entry into the country or not. After undergoing different adaptations in Australia, the United States, and then back again in South Africa, it emerged as the 1913 Act. Further, the 1930 Quota Act was modelled after the United States National Origins Act of 1924. In South Africa, this not only set the basis for the 1937 Aliens Act, which is the origins of immigration acts lasting until 2002 in South Africa, but it also allowed the government to choose from countries deemed desirable and undesirable. This had an impact on the white, Jewish refugees by the 1930s. Prior to World War Two, South Africa was still mainly concerned with attaining white, British migrants straight from England. In 1920, on the anniversary of the first British settlers to South Africa, the 1820 Memorial Settlers Association was formed with the intent to assist British immigration. Between 1920 and 1960, over 100,000 British immigrants were supported through financial means or advice to resettle in South Africa.83 The colonial 83 Daniel Conway and Pauline Leonard. Migration, Space and Transnational Identities: the British in South Africa. (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014). 36. 63 project had an impact not only on domestic immigration law, but also on international migration patterns. 64 Chapter 4: The League of Nations, The United Nations, and Colonial Processes A certain utopianism attached itself to international organizations in the twentieth century and many nation-states imagined that these institutions would be the primary champion of human rights and anti-colonial movements. However, it is important to take a critical look at what the United Nations founders had in mind when they began to understand how these utopian fantasies ran aground in terms of protection of migrants.1 Men such as Jan Smuts, the prime minister of South Africa from 1919 until 1924, and then again from 1939 until 1948, who had deep beliefs in white supremacy and the British Empire, were present at the creation of both international bodies and made a few key contributions to the beginnings of each. The idea that there is a distinction between the colonial state and the metropolitan state “disallows an investigation into how ‘modern’ forms and institutions of state had a developed life at colonial sites as well as how ‘colonial’ forms were not spatially restricted to the colonies but were (and are) also part of metropolitan state logics.”2 The forms of colonial knowledge that were transferred through iterations of immigration policy across imperial and post-colonial spaces impacted the work of international bodies such as the League of Nations and its successor, the United Nations. The League of Nations was created at the end of World War One in 1919 in an effort to maintain world peace and was founded by Woodrow Wilson, the United States president at the time. The 1919 Paris Peace Conference played host to a meeting of the Allied victors to discuss a 1 Mark Mazower, No Enchanted Palace: The End of Empire and the Ideological Origins of the United Nations. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2013). 6-7. 2 Radhika Mongia, Indian Migration and Empire: A Colonial Genealogy of the Modern State. (North Carolina: Duke University Press, 2018). 122. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822372110. 65 peace settlement for the defeated countries. The Conference was the first time that a non-Western country, imperial Japan, was invited to sit with the world powers.3 It was these same imperialist countries that founded the League of Nations and that would also help to found the United Nations, “both times seeking a way of balancing the prerogatives of world peace with systematic inequality maintained through colonial apartheid.”4 It is this type of thinking, the exclusion of some for the profit of others, which has endured. It has been argued that the Second World War was a critical moment in which the international “retreat from race” began.5 The so-called “retreat from race” did not happen automatically, and the process of rethinking race was not straightforward. Although the German National Socialist pseudo-science repulsed many, a number of scientists continued to be influenced by the eugenics discourse and did not move towards the anti-racist discourse immediately. It was during this ideological shift that the United Nations came into being to replace the League of Nations. Fifty representatives from fifty different nations led by the Big Three (England, the United States and Russia) met in San Francisco to create a more permanent organization committed to world peace.6 From the United Nations, emerged the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), fulfilling the 1951 Geneva Convention, and signalling a key moment in the history of refugee rights. This chapter focuses on the ways in which colonial contributions helped to shape these international bodies, as a means to contextualize the early shaping of immigration policies in the 3 David Cook-Martin and David Scott Fitzgerald, “How Their Laws Affect Our Laws: Mechanisms of Immigration Policy Diffusion in the Americas, 1790-2010.” Law & Society Review 53, no. 1 (2019): 65. https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12394. 4 Lucy Mayblin, Asylum after Empire: Colonial Legacies in the Politics of Asylum Seeking. (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield International, 2018). 110. 5 Saul Dubow, "Smuts, the United Nations and the Rhetoric of Race and Rights." Journal of Contemporary History 43, no. 1 (2008): 63. doi:10.1177/0022009407084557. 6 Mazower, No Enchanted Place, 28. 66 latter half of the twentieth century. Four key turning points in this history will be examined in this chapter. First, the chapter will consider the League of Nations and the contribution that Japan put forth as an attempt to legalize and include an equality clause in the 1919 Paris Peace Conference. Second, it will examine Smut’s contributions to the League of Nations and its eventual successor, the United Nations. Third, the chapter will turn to the creation of the United Nations and the UNHCR, from its founding moment in 1951 Geneva Convention. Lastly, the chapter will look at other policies that were formulated within the context of this period and which offer insight into the circulation of ideas and initiatives in immigration policy arena, such as the United Kingdom’s colonial policy and the Declaration Regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories in the Charter of the United Nations. The United Nations has been an important platform for anti-colonial movements and for human rights movements, a significant number of which have been directed at apartheid South Africa. Although many brought their plight against white South Africa to the international stage at the United Nations, this chapter argues that the colonial knowledges were integral to creating the human rights platform and its subsequent policies would ultimately have a greater impact on democratic South Africa later. The League of Nations was signed as Act One of the Paris Peace Conferences and the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, and it was the first international and intergovernmental organization that was created in order to maintain global peace. Although the League of Nations was created to ensure peace, it was a Victorian institution that was created with the interests of dominant global powers of the time, based on the premise that white-majority countries were superior, and that Western cultural values and norms should be emulated by those under colonial rule.7 As a result, it was used as “an instrument for a global civilizing mission through the use of 7 Ibid., 21. 67 international law and simultaneously a means of undergirding British imperial world leadership and cementing its partnership with the United States.”8 The Paris Peace Conference provided for the first time an international stage upon which the Japanese delegation could challenge racial hierarchies, and it was here that Japan put forward a resolution that racial inequality should be legally abolished.9 The British delegation at Paris was made up of a multitude of representatives from the Dominion countries. White representatives from the Dominions played a significant part in negotiations for racial equality. For example, one of the men who was involved in the negotiations for the racial equality clause as well as writing the Covenant was Jan Smuts, the South African minister at the time and an architect of apartheid. Smut’s was joined by Billy Hughes, the Australian Prime Minister and Robert Borden, the Canadian Prime Minister.10 Hughes vocally advocated that the conference ought to reinforce the relevance of blood and race, believing that a “’great Anglo-Saxon Empire’ would ‘assure the peace of the world.’”11 He believed this argument would be convincing, as each of the delegations would be bound by blood, history, and a common purpose. On an international level, the British Empire advanced a rhetorical strategy that claimed to offer equality to all imperial subjects. However, domestically, the Dominions practiced and implemented racially discriminatory policies against other imperial subjects and those from outside the British Empire, as well. Smuts was a firm believer in the British Empire, and back in South Africa, he helped to produce the constitution of the Union of South Africa after the end of the Boer War, helping to incorporate South Africa properly into the British Empire.12 He was in and out of office between 8 Ibid., 21. 9 Mayblin, Asylum after Empire, 83. 10 Ibid., 100. 11 Ibid., 100. 12 Ibid., 30. 68 1910 and 1924 and was the Prime Minister for the last five years. He was a shining figure in the Empire as he fought for the Afrikaners during the Boer War, was integral in elaborating and advancing South Africa’s position within the Empire, and was credited for uniting its two white populations. He was a nationalist and believed it was essential for the two white South African populations to come together in order to consolidate power and to continue the civilizing mission to the majority indigenous African population.13 Further, he was deeply entrenched in British institutional politics. Churchill described him “as a warrior-statesman and philosopher who was more fitted to guide struggling humanity through its sufferings and perils towards a better day than anyone.”14 Smuts believed that dissension amongst the whites would ruin South Africa and, as a result, believed the British Commonwealth and imperialism were the keys to long-term stability. Smuts also believed that international organizations, such as the League of Nations and then the United Nations, would ensure the continuation of white leadership globally as he was convinced of white racial superiority.15 Smuts depended heavily on the disciplines of palaeoanthropology and social anthropology, which he used to give scientific evidence to justify racial differences within the human race. Although Japan was recently acknowledged as a great power, the first non-white country to be included at the negotiating table, the conference deemed that asking for racial equality was still too far out of the question. The ‘white’ governments at the table supposed that the Japanese may be seen as above black Africans and other Asians, but insisted that Japan should know its place.16 Smuts used this analysis of ethical responsibility, European civilization looking after the more backwards, in order to justify segregation in South Africa and the idea of ‘trusteeship,’ 13 Ibid., 34. 14 Mayblin, Asylum after Empire, 118. 15 Ibid., 20. 16 Ibid., 108. 69 which would be termed ‘mandates’ in the covenant of the League of Nations. This idea was a product of the colonial project.17 Smuts was a firm believer in the pseudo-science of eugenics, and in 1929 at an Oxford address stated that the indigenous population of South Africa might be “happy-go-lucky” but they were “child-like” and “has yet a civilization of his own; he is ‘neither a beast of the field, nor a pseudo-European.’”18 He also made speeches in a similar vein to groups such as the South African Association for the Advancement of Science. The fact that Smuts could discuss this topic to an audience of scientists, academics, and policymakers demonstrates the broad acceptance of these racialized ideas during the interwar period.19 Although the Japanese attempted to abolish racial inequality in 1919, the proposal was turned down because it was seen as a challenge to white immigration controls.20 Racial hierarchies and their global spread was evident in the creation of the League of Nations. Further, the same nation-states and individuals, men such as Jan Smuts, that helped to found the League of Nations were also present in the founding of the United Nations; “both times forming an alliance following a world war centered in Europe, and both times seeking a way of balancing the prerogatives of world peace with systematic inequality maintained through colonial apartheid…it is the exclusion of some, on the basis of old ideas of human hierarchy, which endures through time despite the creeping forward of progressive transformative change.”21 The United Nations, although the eventual platform for many anti-colonial movements and 17 Ibid., 108. 18 “General Smuts and Native Policy in Africa, General Smuts Concluded,” The Spectator. The Spectator Archive. 23 November 1929. 5. Date Accessed: April 25, 2020. http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/23rd-november-1929/5/general-smuts-and-native-policy-in-africa-general- 19 Ibid., 62. 20 Mazower, No Enchanted Place, 46. 21 Mayblin, Asylum After Empire, 110. 70 particularly against South Africa’s apartheid regime, was created with many colonial philosophies in mind. The aspirations of the founders of the United Nations can be seen in its foundational documents and many of its international agreements and institutional trajectory. Charles Webster, a British historian who was heavily involved in the drafting of the Charter of the United Nations, stated that it was “an Alliance of the Great Powers embedded in a universal organization,” and its key achievement was to have strengthened the ties of the governing relations between powers.22 Although after World War Two ideas of race began to change, the process of shifting to this point of view was not automatic. The representatives of fifty nations, led by the Big Three of the United Kingdom, the United States, and Russia, met in San Francisco to discuss and establish the United Nations. Smuts, still the prime minister of South Africa at this time, was once again in attendance. The United Nations was, in many ways, a perpetuation of the former League of Nations, demonstrating how Jan Smuts’ pamphlet created in 1918 outlining the League of Nations was found to be of continuing relevance.23 This pamphlet is a Eurocentric document that was concerned with not only finding world peace, but peace within Europe specifically. He even compares the League of Nations to the working arrangements of the British Empire as an example to follow on how to function properly.24 Further, much of Smuts’ wording was incorporated in the UN Universal Declaration of Human rights, which was adopted unanimously in 1948 with only eight abstentions, South Africa being one.25 In his article “Smuts, the United Nations and the Rhetoric of Race and Rights,” Saul Dubow argues that Smuts was 22 Mazower, No Enchanted Place, 7. 23 Ibid., 7. 24 J.C. Smuts, “The League of Nations: A Practical Suggestion,” (Hodder and Stoughton: London, Toronto, New York. 1918.) 29-30. Date Accessed: April 25, 2020. https://archive.org/details/leagueofnationsp00smutuoft/page/n3/mode/2up 25 Dubow, “Smuts, the United Nations and the Rhetoric of Race and Rights,” 61. 71 responsible for introducing the phrase ‘human rights’ into the Preamble of the Charter. Dubow is clear that Smuts did not create human rights, but argues that he helped to give the concept and terminology salience.26 Smuts called for the United Nations to “re-establish faith in fundamental human rights, in the sanctity and ultimate value of human personality and in the equal rights of men and women, and nations large and small.”27 He was not committing to the dismantling of segregation in South Africa nor to that of the British Empire, but he did not see any incompatibility between this rhetoric and discriminatory policies. Further, the 1951 Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees, would evidence these racial ideas and their foothold in British government and the white dominions. The right to asylum for refugees was established in international law through the Geneva Convention, and this is still the primary means by which asylum seekers make their claim to migrate to mobility in the contemporary era.28 The Geneva Convention was created during the last years of the imperial era, and although it is a transformative legislative turn, exclusions were also present at the founding. It was created in the aftermath of World War Two to ensure that the brutalities committed by Nazi Germany would never happen again. The War created a mass displacement of people, and although the social and political order was being reconfigured, ideas of racial hierarchy permeated. Human rights were being discussed in the late 1940s in the British Empire primarily within the Foreign Office, Cabinet Office, Home Office, as well as Colonial Office.29 The Offices consisted of powerful men who were determined to preserve British activities in the Empire, and were not concerned about the immigration of non-white populations 26 Ibid., 54. 27 Mazower, No Enchanted Place, 64. 28 Mayblin, Asylum After Empire, 113. 29 Lucy Mayblin, “Colonialism, Decolonisation, and the Right to Be Human: Britain and the 1951 Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees.” Journal of Historical Sociology 27, no. 3 (December 2014): 429. https://doi.org/10.1111/johs.12053. 72 but looked favourably on refugees migrating from Europe to dominion countries. It is important to note that initially the 1951 Convention applied only to Europe.30 It was believed that forced migrants within Europe were due to political factors while those outside of the West were motivated by poverty or war. The human rights agenda in the United Nations Charter threatened the Colonial Office as it pertained to British colonial interests. The British did not have a written constitution, nor any specific legislation that deals explicitly with the topic of human rights, and it was argued in the UK submission to the United Nations yearbook on human rights in 1946 that “‘the good sense of the people’ and ‘the representative and responsible government which has been evolved here” have produced a society in which the fundamental human liberties are respected and protected to the full.”31 This was mainly applied in discussion to white British citizens living within England rather than those in the dominions. The hierarchal view placed non-white population below the imperial rulers and was thus under the ‘good sense’ of the ruler. Historian Lucy Mayblin demonstrates how the cabinet secretary’s notebooks exhibit lengthy discussions between British ministers about their distaste for being bound by human rights conventions, while also not wanting to be seen as disagreeing publicly. She demonstrates through archival research how from the beginning, groups in the colonial territories were to be excluded. For example, as early as 1947, the cabinet secretary’s notebook entry of that year states: “in formula, don’t use phrase ‘Col. Territories.’ There are 8 areas where comp. labour in force. Words ‘exceptional cond…’ will cover out case.”32 This demonstrates that from the beginning, political elites in England 30 J. Klaaren, M. Pieterre, A. Chicklay, L. de la Hunt, and C. Sprigman, “Guide to South African Refugee Law and Related Correspondence,” January 2000. Pg. 13. South African Historical Archive, AL 2992, Jonathan Klaaren Collection, Box E1, File E1.1.5, Johannesburg, South Africa. 31 Yearbook on Human Rights for 1946, (United Nations: Lake Success, New York, 1947). 321. 32 “International Bill of Human Rights,” CAB 195/5. 30 October, 1947. Cabinet Secretary’s Notebook. British National Archives. Date Accessed: February 8, 2020. 240. 73 were aware of their treatment of the colonial population and how this would not pass under the new standards demanded by the concept of rights based on humanity. They sought to insert a ‘exceptional conditions’ clause in which certain groups would be excluded from rights claims with the rationalization that ‘exceptional conditions’ required such action. Further, in 1949, a memo to the Cabinet from the Foreign Office recommended that a Convention should be drawn up but that the Foreign Secretary “should, if possible, refrain at the present stage from taking up a position on the application of the convention to colonial territories.”33 Additionally, in April 1951, cabinet notes show a discussion between three officers who state that: H.M: …we are in a mess. Started as anti-Soviet propaganda. As it goes on, it looks as tho’ it will put us on the spot – especially re. Colonies.” J.G.: Col. Appl clause is out now, by U.N. vote. We couldn’t apply this Covenant in the Colonies. Tho’ politically dangerous for us to w’draw. If we stay in, we mght. Guide disc usefully … G.W.: As it stands, w’out Col. Appl clause, it is unacceptable to us. We should realise that.34 There was a struggle to maintain international appearances while also maintaining the belief that international treaties should not complicate or interfere with business in the colonies. The Colonial Application Clause was purposely proposed to exclude colonized countries from accessing the human rights that were being drafted in the 1951 Geneva Convention. Publicly, the clause was argued to promote self-determination and democracy in each of the colonies.35 The case put forward to the public was not made in terms of racial inferiority, as in the years prior, http://filestore.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pdfs/large/cab-195-5.pdf; Mayblin, “Colonialism, Decolonisation, and the Right to be Human,” 430. 33 Ibid., 431. 34 "U.N. Convention on Human Rights,” 12, April, 1951.” C.M.(51) 23rd Conclusions (2nd April, 1951) to C.M. (51) 60th Conclusions(27th September, 1951). Cabinet Secretary’s Notebook. British National Archives. Date Accessed: February 8, 2020. http://filestore.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pdfs/large/cab-195-9.pdf; Mayblin, “Colonialism, Decolonisation, and the Right to be Human,” 432. 35 Mayblin, Asylum After Empire, 127. 74 but rather was articulated as a measure introduced in order to respect and independence of the dominion countries. The discussions of human rights highlighted the sub-standard ways in which the British Empire and the colonies treated their non-white populations, despite the rhetoric of fairness used by Britain at the negotiating table. The conversation on human rights was becoming embarrassing for the British government as non-white populations in the colonies and dominions were historically tolerated only to serve imperial labour interests. The United Kingdom delegate to the Committee emphasised that the question “was not whether it was right or wrong that a colonial system should still exist in the [twentieth century] but merely whether, with such system in existence a colonial clause should be incorporated in the Covenant [. . . colonised] peoples were constantly progressing along the road to self-government and independence and it was precisely in order to take such progress into account that a colonial clause should be inserted in the Covenant . . .”36 France, Belgium, Greece, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada were in agreement with the United Kingdom. In other words, the other major colonial powers and large white settler colonies supported the United Kingdom. Those against were those who had been colonised or were formally colonised, such as newly independent India, Syria, Ethiopia, Mexico, Chile, Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, and Lebanon.37 Opponents of the clause were successful in ensuring that it did not go through. Although the Colonial Application Clause did not pass, the Territorial Application Clause did. In Article 40, paragraph 1 of the final Refugee Convention document, the Territorial Application Clause states that “any State may, at the time of signature, ratification or accession, declare that this Convention shall extend to all or any of the territories for the international relations of which it is responsible. Such a declaration shall take effect when the Convention enters into force for 36 Mayblin, “Colonialism, Decolonisation, and the Right to be Human,” 433. 37 Ibid., 433. 75 the State concerned.”38 The United Kingdom only extended the clause to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.39 The United Nations did make England re-examine its colonial policy, but even during this time in 1948, the British Empire and its colonial legacy was argued to have brought security, justice, law, and respect for individual rights to subjects, and the British argued that these lands would be able to govern themselves in due time.40 Further, it was argued that the states which comprise the British Empire came under “the administration of the United Kingdom in various ways – by settlement…by voluntary cession on the part of the local rulers…by peaceful penetration by missionaries and traders…by conquest from other European powers…” and “in all cases, Great Britain accepted responsibility for governing the Colonial territories in the interests of the inhabitants.” 41 This sentiment is an echo of the concept of the white man’s burden. As a result, the 1948 colonial policy for Britain issued the recommendation that colonial territories were to achieve responsible self-government through the guidance of Britain within the Commonwealth. Further, Chapter XI: The Declaration Regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories in the Charter of the United Nations states: Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end…the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and to this end…to develop self-government, to take account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, 38 “Article 40 (1): Territorial Application Clause,” Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. UNHCR. 34. Accessed November 14, 2019. https://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10. 39 Mayblin, “Colonialism, Decolonisation, and the Right to be Human,” 433. 40 Alfred W. B. Simpson, Human Rights and the End of Empire: Britain and the Genesis of the European Convention. (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2010). 292. 41 Ibid., 293. 76 according to the particular circumstances of each territory, and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement42 It does not state, however, that there was a right to self-government. Rather, it embodied the recognition of self-determination as a desirable goal. Trusteeships continued, changing back from the language of mandates, and although colonies became dependent territories, little changed other than the terminology.43 The United Nations’ protections for migrants and non-citizens was a result of evolving ideas and institutions that existed at the beginning of the century. Despite the later role that the United Nations would play in anti-colonial movements, it is important to acknowledge its roots. Although countries involved in the founding of the United Nations may have agreed to equality publicly, it is clear that this was not always the case and was actively resisted privately. The same year that the United Nations was formed, apartheid became the official government policy within South Africa and became a source of dramatic tension within the United Nations until the 1994 election. As previously mentioned, the Geneva Convention was first created to apply to Europe after the Second World War. As a result, the Convention has been criticized for being a Eurocentric document.44 It is important to mention that there have been efforts done to rectify this bias in international legislation. In 1967, The Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees came into force which brought with it a more universalized refugee definition. While the Geneva Convention had defined a refugee as someone who was affected by the events occurring before 42 “Chapter XI: Declaration Regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories” in the Charter of the United Nations, 1948. Accessed March 7, 2020. https://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-xi/index.html 43 Simpson, “The Burden of Empire,” 303. 44 J. Klaaren, M. Pieterre, A. Chicklay, L. de la Hunt, and C. Sprigman, “Guide to South African Refugee Law and Related Correspondence,” January 2000. Pg. 13. South African Historical Archive, AL 2992, Jonathan Klaaren Collection, Box E1, File E1.1.5, Johannesburg, South Africa. 77 January 1951 due to World War Two,45 the Protocol defined a refugee in a more universalized form that had legal backing.46 Two years later, in a response to the perceived Eurocentric bias in the 1951 Convention, the 1969 Organization of African Unity (OAU) Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa was created.47 The definition of a refugee within the OAU Convention included the UN Convention’s definition, but it also states that “the term ‘refugee’ shall also apply to every person who, owing to external aggression, occupation, foreign domination or events seriously disturbing public order in either part or the whole of his country of origin or nationality, is compelled to leave his place of habitual residence in order to seek refuge in another place outside his country of origin or nationality.”48 Further, the OAU Convention also mentions voluntary repatriation which the other two conventions did not, stating that “the essentially voluntary character of repatriation shall be respected in all cases and no refugee shall be repatriated against his will.”49 These pieces of legislation are important international doctrines in which many states globally have signed on. So far, this study has shown how colonial knowledges and ideas of race deeply influenced the creation of international, supranational bodies. Governments, such as those of 45 “Article 1(A)(2): Definition of the term ‘Refugee,’” Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. UNHCR. 3. Accessed November 14, 2019. https://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10. 46“Article 1: General Provisions,” 1967 Protocol Relating to Refugees. UNHCR. 4 October, 1967. Date Accessed: April 25, 2020. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/ProtocolStatusOfRefugees.aspx 47 J. Klaaren, M. Pieterre, A. Chicklay, L. de la Hunt, and C. Sprigman, “Guide to South African Refugee Law and Related Correspondence,” January 2000. Pg. 14. South African Historical Archive, AL 2992, Jonathan Klaaren Collection, Box E1, File E1.1.5, Johannesburg, South Africa.. 48 “Article 1: Definition of the Term ‘Refugee,’” OAU Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa. UNHCR. 10 September, 1969. Date Accessed: April 14, 2020. https://www.unhcr.org/about-us/background/45dc1a682/oau-convention-governing-specific-aspects-refugee-problems-africa-adopted.html 49 “Article V (1): Voluntary Repatriation,” OAU Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa. UNHCR. 10 September, 1969. Date Accessed: April 14, 2020. https://www.unhcr.org/about-us/background/45dc1a682/oau-convention-governing-specific-aspects-refugee-problems-africa-adopted.html 78 white settler countries and imperial powers, who often had the most input at these conferences, feared that the institutionalization of anti-racism laws and policy would limit their sovereignty. Immigration and the ability to choose the desirable immigrant was considered a key part of maintaining interests and political dominance. Further, apartheid South Africa wished to avoid discussions about the treatment of the non-white population, primarily black South Africans.50 The creation of the League of Nations, in which powerful countries wished to secure their influence, would ultimately fail to protect those outside the bounds of idealized ‘white’ citizenship despite attempts such as Japan proposing the equality clause. The prevailing ideas of certain powerful men at the time, such as Jan Smuts, had significant impacts on the policies that were created not only domestically, but also in the League of Nations and the United Nations. Within South Africa itself, as demonstrated in previous chapters, legislation was driven by racial anxiety and nationalism and many of these ideas made their way into the founding of the international bodies. The United Nations, which for many today stands as a symbol of justice and a platform for human rights abuse, began in an era of waning colonization. The context in which the United Nations was created played a vital role in shaping the organization’s long-term impact on preserving the power of former imperial powers and should thus be acknowledged. The examination into the various conventions, such as the founding of the 1951 Geneva Convention, shows how the continuous reproduction of colonial knowledges seeped into the body of international law that is still in force today. Further, by examining the wording of the colonial policy as well as the wording used in the Declaration Regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories in the Charter of the United Nations it is evident that there was a hesitation to follow 50 Cook-Martin and Fitzgerald, “How Their Laws Affect Our Laws,” 64. 79 through on the promises of anti-racialist discourse in white settler countries or in the metropoles of Europe. Although these ideas began to shift towards a more equal and anti-racist discourse, many governments were resistant to this change. Asylum policy at both an international and domestic level would reflect these ideas. It is apparent that political agendas were often driven by the more powerful, Northern countries within these international bodies at the beginning. This had significant ramifications on countries in the South, particularly South Africa as demonstrated in chapter five. The next chapter will examine how asylum policy and the impact of the continuation of colonial knowledges affected immigration policy in South Africa. In particular, I focus on the policies associated with the case of Mozambican refugee repatriation, which was facilitated by the UNHCR and guided by the 1951 Geneva Convention. Typically, when a country undergoes a transition, whether into independence or out of a different government regime, often the first policy to be created is an immigration policy.51 It is clear that nationalism and the discourse that accompanies political ideas still had a large impact on South African domestic policy at the start of the democratic South Africa in 1994. 51 Alison Bashford, "Immigration Restriction: Rethinking Period and Place from Settler Colonies to Postcolonial Nations." Journal of Global History 9, no. 1 (2014): 26. doi:10.1017/s174002281300048x. Chapter 5: When Domestic and International Policies Collide: The Impact of Immigration Policies and Programs on Mozambique Refugees From 1948 until 1994, South Africa was dominated by the apartheid government who legally segregated races and gave more privilege and power to the white minority while leaving the majority black population with limited legal rights. Legislation, including immigration legislation, discriminated between people by class, gender, national origin, and race.1 Immigration during this period was defined by white immigration, while foreign black Africans, and even those Indigenous populations living within South Africa, were seen as foreigners and aliens intruding on the land. The domination by a minority white population was implemented and reinforced in a myriad of methods, but primarily through the use of law and violent force. Labour migration was the primary way that black Africans, such as Mozambicans, had means to the urban city, and even then, they were viewed as temporary migrants. However, there was a long history of Mozambicans who had immigrated as migrant workers for centuries, especially with their work on the gold or diamond mines. These policies and events paved the way for colonial practices and knowledges that had a lasting impact on the country. It was not until 1994 when the first democratic elections happened, and Nelson Mandela of the African National Congress party was elected president, that conditions could change. Globally, this was the Cold War era, in which many proxy wars were fought. Further, South Africa used the technique of regional destabilization on neighbouring countries under the 1 Sally Peberdy and Jonathan Crush, “Rooted in Racism: The Origins of the Aliens Control Act”, in Beyond Control: Immigration and Human Rights in a Democratic South Africa. Ed. Jonathan Crush. (Cape Town: Idasa, 1998). 19. 81 direction of President Botha in an attempt to exercise power and to be a colonizing power in the region. Due to complex internal and external circumstances, Mozambique underwent a civil war in the 1980s. During the civil war, many asylum-seekers sought refuge in neighbouring countries such as South Africa. Despite the role it played in the destabilization of the region, the South African government refused to acknowledge the black refugees and even built electric fences along the Mozambican border in order to keep them out.2 However, in the ‘homelands’ that had been created for the different indigenous nations within South Africa under apartheid legislation, many Mozambicans integrated unofficially into the communities.3 In 1994, with the ushering in of a new government and a new constitution, South Africa signed the 1951 Geneva Convention, the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, joined the Organisation of African Unity and became a member of the United Nations once more. Following both the signing of the Geneva Convention and restoring its membership in the United Nations, South Africa came to an agreement with the UNHCR and Mozambique and implemented a Voluntary Repatriation Program to help send Mozambican refugees’ back to Mozambique. As was discussed in the previous chapter, the UNHCR is an important site for the reproduction of knowledge as well as the principal international agency in charge of protecting refugees and their rights.4 The impact of the UNHCR is evident when examining the Mozambican refugees in 2 “World Refugee Survey: 1987 in Review,” U.S Committee for Refugees. 1987. 9. Date Accessed: April 19, 2020. https://refugees.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/1987-World-Refugee-Survey.pdf; Drew Forrest, “Illegal Aliens The Danger of Witch Hunts” Mail & Guardian. 23, September, 1994. Date Accessed April 19, 2020. https://mg.co.za/article/1994-09-23-illegal-aliens-the-danger-of-witch-hunts/; J. Klaaren, M. Pieterre, A. Chicklay, L. de la Hunt, and C. Sprigman, “Guide to South African Refugee Law and Related Correspondence,” January 2000. Pg. 6. South African Historical Archive, AL 2992, Jonathan Klaaren Collection, Box E1, File E1.1.5, Johannesburg, South Africa. 3 Nicola Johnston, “Homeward-bound,” Mail & Guardian. 1 Oct 1999. Date Accessed April 18 2020. https://mg.co.za/article/1999-10-01-homeward-bound/ 4 B.S. Chimni, “The Geopolitics of Refugee Studies: a View from the South.” Journal of Refugee Studies 11, no. 4 (January 1998): 350. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/11.4.350. 82 South Africa. Although some Mozambicans were interested in returning and utilized the program, others did not want to leave South Africa due to economic or cultural reasons. The ones who decided not to return home then had a status change from ‘refugee’ to ‘illegal immigrant’ who could then, in turn, be deported. This chapter explores how domestic and external forms of knowledge production come together to inform immigration policies. These policies, I argue, illustrates the ongoing reproduction of colonial practices and process in marking some as ‘insiders’ and others as ‘outsiders’, ‘desirable’ versus ‘undesirable’. This chapter will examine the domestic immigration policies that perpetuated these colonial ideas, the UNHCR run Voluntary Repatriation Program of Mozambicans from South Africa, and the consequences of immigration policy on nationalism and consequently xenophobia. It has been argued that South Africa has one of the most progressive constitutions globally, stating that “everyone is equal before the law, no matter your race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language, and birth.”5 Despite this, South Africa has been plagued with xenophobia and xenophobic violence since 1994, coinciding with, or even resulting from, increased police discrimination and heightened securitization. Xenophobia is a consequence of the restrictive immigration policies, resulting in reification of an ‘outsider’ ‘insider’ dichotomy. This chapter will thus argue that although democratic South Africa has one of the most forward-thinking constitutions globally, community membership and those who are considered a citizen legally have been impacted by the continuation of the colonial knowledges perpetuated in immigration policies, both domestically and internationally. This chapter will consider three important facets: First, it will examine the immigration policies and 5 The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996. 1996. Date Accessed April 10, 2020. https://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/constitution/SAConstitution-web-eng.pdf 83 other crucial pieces of legislation that were put into place during the apartheid period from 1948 until 1994 that impacted black migrants; Second, it will look at the Voluntary Repatriation Program implemented by the UNHCR; Lastly, it will touch on the unintended consequences of the immigration policies, such as the rise of xenophobia. It is important to examine legislation implemented during the apartheid era as many components of the legislation implemented in the 1990s are a continuation of the apartheid era. Further, the apartheid government also had a significant impact on migration and refugee immigration in the twentieth century in its attempts to expand its power politically, socially and economically over neighbouring countries, resulting in a flow of refugees and asylum seekers. In 1948, the Afrikaner National Party in South Africa won elections, ushering in the age of apartheid government. Although prior to 1948 many laws were implemented that began to segregate people based on their race, it was during this era that white supremacy would become infused with the official government ideology. An increasing amount of laws were created in order to ensure that power, privilege, and wealth stayed with the white minority population while the non-white population suffered. Immigration was used as a means to ensure the increase in the white population and limiting black migration from neighbouring areas. Throughout the colonial history of South Africa, it is clear that immigration policy created in the twentieth century was inherently discriminatory, especially against black Africans and non-white populations. The apartheid system has been characterised by the ‘two-gate policy’ in which it is argued that the front gate welcomed those that fit the criteria put forth by the government while the back gate prevented unwanted migrants as well as allowing cheap labour in the form of temporary migrants.6 Between 1913 to 1937, the creation of the Immigration Control Act and its 6 Brownyn Harris, “‘Just Who are the Barbarians?’ A Seminar on South African Attitudes to “Foreigners,” June 4, sometime after 2000, Historical Society Research Archive, Collection AG 3245, 84 Amendment Act led to defining certain foreigners as undesirable while allowing desirable migrants in through the use of the dictation test, as described in more detail in chapter 3. Specifically, it was created with a strong anti-Semitic message to block the flows of Jewish refugees escaping Europe as well as non-desirable non-white populations.7 Immigration in this period was defined as a ‘white issue,’ and so immigrants were distinguished between primarily desirable and undesirable whites while creating the policies.8 Immigration legislation during this era defined all black people, regardless if they were born within South Africa, as ‘foreign’ or ‘aliens’. The definition of ‘alien’ was thus defined not by nationality, but by race.9 Their value under the white minority government was seen as labour workers for the mines, who were not permanent citizens, but rather temporary workers who would have to return to their country of origin once they were no longer of use. The National Party passed three major laws that “closely bound immigration policy, citizenship, and the management of indigenous populations.”10 First, the 1950 Population Registration Act created the legal parameter and implementation for racial classification. Under this Act, the population was divided into four racial categories of white, black, Indian, and coloured. People were also required to carry ID books, which stated their race and place of Box D20.3a-D20.3e, File D20.3a, Johannesburg, South Africa; Kabwe-Segatti, “Reforming South African Immigration Policy”, 34. 7 “Institutional Sites for Xenophobic Violence” Presentation on Migration and Refugees, 2000. Pg. 1. Historical Papers Research Archive, Collection AG 3245 Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, Box D20.3a-D20.3e, File D20.3a, Johannesburg, South Africa 8 Peberdy and Crush, “Rooted in Racism”, 29. 9 “Institutional Sites for Xenophobic Violence” Presentation on Migration and Refugees, 2000. Pg. 3. Historical Papers Research Archive, Collection AG 3245 Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, Box D20.3a-D20.3e, File D20.3a, Johannesburg, South Africa. 10 Aurélia Segatti-Kabwe, “Reforming South African Immigrathion Policy in the Post-Apartheid Period (1990-2010),” in Contemporary Migration to South Africa: A Regional Development Issue. Ed. Aurélia Segatti-Kabwe, Loren B. Landau. (Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 2011). 35. 85 birth.11 This act not only laid the foundation for later apartheid legislation, but it also created a means to control and identify immigrants within the country. Second, the 1955 Departure from the Union Regulation Act made it illegal to leave South Africa without a passport or proper identification. Lastly, the 1962 Commonwealth Relations Act ended uncontrolled transborder movements in Southern Africa.12 These laws helped to ensure that migration was strictly controlled by the federal government and helped to dictate who would be considered a citizen and who would not be. There were numerous policies beyond immigration that also helped the white minority population to take control of spaces within the country. These are known collectively as “Pass Laws”. For example, The Natives (Urban Areas) Act of 1923 made it so that urban areas were considered a “white” area and required all black men coming into cities to carry permits called “passes” or risk being arrested and sent back to the rural areas. It was worded as to insinuate that the policy was best for the Indigenous black population to have “improved conditions of residence”, but also was determined to “define, set apart, and lay out one or more areas of land for the occupation, residence, and other reasonable requirements of natives, either as extensions of any area already set apart for that purpose or as separate areas.”13 In the subsequent years between 1945 and 1952, this legislation would be replaced or amended by the implementation of laws that would seek to impose Influx Control on the black population through the implementation of laws such as the Natives (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, the Black 11 “Population Registration Act, Act No. 30 of 1950,” Union of South Africa. July 7, 1950. 275. Aluka Digital Library. Date Accessed: March 30, 2020. http://psimg.jstor.org/fsi/img/pdf/t0/10.5555/al.sff.document.leg19500707.028.020.030_final.pdf 12 Peberdy and Crush, “Rooted in Racism,” 30. 13 Section 1 (1)(a), “Natives (Urban Areas): Act No. 21 of 1923” Union of South Africa. June 14, 1923. Digital Innovation South Africa. Date Accessed, April 20, 2020. https://disa.ukzn.ac.za/sites/default/files/pdf_files/leg19230614.028.020.021.pdf 86 (Natives) Law Amendment Act, and the Natives (Abolition of Passes and Co-ordination of Documents) Act. The last act most notably repealed all previous legislation and instituted the use of nation-wide reference book for the black population over the age of 16 with the risk of imprisonment or a fine.14 It also prohibited them from staying in urban areas for more than 72 hours unless they had permission to be there.15 These Acts are important to note as they created a country in which segregation over space was implicit. Legally and physically, populations and races were separated. It relegated not only the black population born within South Africa, but it also constrained those migrants either seeking job opportunities or refuge from neighbouring countries. The Influx Control and Pass Laws would not be fully removed until 1986. Further, in 1951 the government introduced the Bantu Authorities Act, subsequently renamed the Black Authorities Act, which established ‘homelands’ for different black ethnic groups defined by cultural and linguistic identities.16 This legislation enabled the legal basis for self-determination for different indigenous groups on their traditional land. The apartheid government used this to argue that they were giving the Indigenous population the legal power to lead themselves. As a result, all political rights were reserved for one’s individual homeland, although they were still technically South African citizens. The homelands that were situated near the Mozambican border would eventually become important for the Mozambican refugees fleeing the 14 Section 6 (a), “Natives (Abolition of Passes and Co-ordination of Documents) Act,” Union of South Africa. June 28th, 1952. Digital Innovation South Africa. Date Accessed, April 20, 2020. https://disa.ukzn.ac.za/sites/default/files/pdf_files/leg19520711.028.020.067.pdf 15 Jon Lewis and Pippa Green. “Focus on Influx Control,” Content. Vol. 11, No. 8. Sept/October 1986. 34. South Africa Historical Archives, Collection No.: Al 3117, The Laura Pollecutt Collection, Box A2, A2.7.1.6., Johannesburg, South Africa. 16 Section 2(1)(a), “Black Authorities Act 68 of 1951,” Union of South Africa. June 27, 1951. Date Accessed: March 30, 2020. http://www.ruraldevelopment.gov.za/phocadownload/Acts/black%20authorities%20act%2068%20of%201951.pdf 87 Mozambican Civil War as the apartheid government would allow them to settle as refugees there. A state of emergency was issued in 1960 by the apartheid government due to mounting tensions and conflicts such as the Treason Trial and the Sharpeville Massacre. The state of emergency discouraged many migrants coming into South Africa and also led to a departure of a number of white South Africans.17 As a result, many skilled white European immigrants were encouraged to emigrate to South Africa, although Southern Europeans with less skill and who were predominately Roman Catholic, were not. In 1961, a Department of Immigration opened, which sought to actively encourage white immigration.18 Additionally, although the Bantu Authorities Act of 1951 created the ‘homelands’, it was later complemented by the Bantu Homelands Citizenship Act of 1970, which defined the black population living in the homelands as legal citizens of those homelands, removing the citizenship of South Africa.19 People within these homelands who had lost their South African citizenship could now be declared “aliens” within South Africa. This system contributed to blurring the lines between citizens and foreigners within South Africa. Things began to change in South Africa by 1986. During this year, an amendment was made to the Aliens Control Act of 1937 that removed the definition of European from section 4(3)(b), which had required that immigrants must be “assimilable” with the European population.20 The removal of this word and its implications meant that the black population 17 Peberdy and Crush, “Rooted in Racism,” 30. 18 Segatti-Kabwe, “Reforming South African Immigration Policy,” 35. 19 “Bantu Homelands Citizenship Act of 1970, Act No. 26 of 1970” Republic of South Africa. March 9th, 1970. Digital Innovation South Africa. Date Accessed, April 4, 2020. https://disa.ukzn.ac.za/sites/default/files/pdf_files/leg19700309.028.020.026.pdf 20 “Matters Concerning Admission to and Residence in the Republic Amendment Act, 1986: Act No. 53, 1986,” Republic of South Africa. Government Gazette, June 13, 1986. Date Accessed: April 19, 2020. https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201503/act-53-1986.pdf; 88 could again immigrate to South Africa from the independent ‘homelands’. It was a sign that changes were taking place within the system as well as an attempt to enable labour migration from other African countries into the homelands.21 The last piece of immigration legislation that was implemented by the apartheid government was the Aliens Control Act of 1991, also known as ‘apartheid’s last act’.22 It is a product of colonialism, segregation, and apartheid as this legislation was a result of previous Aliens Control Acts dating back to 1913.23 The Aliens Control Act survived for 12 years into the democratic era, with one Amendment in 1995, perpetuating an image of immigration that was characterized by stereotypes.24 Although the Aliens Control Amendment Act of 1995 helps to strip away many of the overtly racist criteria, it still is rooted within apartheid ideology.25 This Act is important because it was the primary piece of legislation that dealt with refugee immigration in the post-democratic era until 1998. It did not have any mention of refugees or asylum seekers in its legislation. As a result, refugees and asylum seekers were seen as “prohibited immigrants” and were dealt with in according manner.26 Their position in the country under Section 28 is referred to as an ‘alien’ who is a “distinguished visitor who has no intention to reside permanently in the Republic.”27 As a prohibited person, they may also be given a temporary permit if the Minister deems it fit.28 This is important to note See also Peberdy and Crush, “Rooted in Racism,” 33; Segatti-Kabwe, “Reforming South African Immigration Policy,” 37. 21 Segatti-Kabwe, “Reforming South African Immigration Policy,” 37. 22 Ibid., 38. 23 Peberdy and Crush, “Rooted in Racism,” 19. 24 Segatti-Kabwe, “Reforming South African Immigration Policy,” 38. 25 “Institutional Sites for Xenophobic Violence” Presentation on Migration and Refugees, 2000. Pg. 3. Historical Papers Research Archive, Collection AG 3245 Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, Box D20.3a-D20.3e, File D20.3a, Johannesburg, South Africa. 26 11(4), “Aliens Control Act, 1991,” Republic of South Africa. 1 October 1991. UNHCR. Date Accessed: April 9, 2020. http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b5100.html. 27 28 (1) “Aliens Control Act, 1991,” Republic of South Africa. 1 October 1991. UNHCR. Date Accessed: April 9, 2020. http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b5100.html. 28 41(1)(3) “Aliens Control Act, 1991,” Republic of South Africa. 1 October 1991. UNHCR. Date Accessed: April 9, 2020. http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b5100.html. 89 because, during the 1980s, there was a significant number of African refugees that sought entry into South Africa who would fall under this legislation. Although South Africa had welcomed white refugees fleeing from Mozambique and Angola, granting them citizenship and permanent resident status in South Africa, it would not recognize the black Mozambicans escaping to South Africa.29 It did, however, allow the black refugees to settle under the homelands jurisdictions. Mozambique refugees began arriving in South Africa from 1984 onwards, resulting in one of the biggest inflows of refugees in South Africa’s recent history and would have major repercussions on the immigration and asylum policies that would be developed in the 1990s.30 Although these refugees came to South Africa, South Africa was actively involved in the conflict that generated the refugees in aiding in the Mozambican Civil War through the regional destabilization strategy created by President P.W. Botha.31 Interestingly, South Africa is perceived as a colonial power in Southern Africa, backed by Western powers in Cold War activities despite the condemnation of apartheid during this time in Southern Africa. In a government document discussing South Africa and Mozambique from the British Embassy in Maputo in 1980, apartheid is described by the president of Mozambique as “not just a matter of racial discrimination; it was a way of preserving colonial structures and of guaranteeing the essence of colonial power... It is a monstrous hypocricy[sp.] for those who formally condemn apartheid, to maintain it, reinforce it and draw fabulous profits.”32 South Africa supported the 29 Lee Anne De la Hunt, “Refugees and Immigration Law in South Africa” in Beyond Control: Immigration and Human Rights in a Democratic South Africa. Ed. Jonathan Crush. (Cape Town: Idasa, 1998). 125. 30 Segatti-Kabwe, “Reforming South African Immigration Policy,” 37. 31 Crush, “Migrations Past”, 20-21. 32 John F. Doble “Confidential letter to Miss Anne Edes discussing Mozambique,” British Embassy. 14 July, 1980. Maputo. File FCO 105/452, JSS 020/4. National Archives, U.K., Archives Direct. Date Accessed: April 17, 2020. http://www.archivesdirect.amdigital.co.uk.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/Documents/Images/FCO_105_452/44 90 rebel movement, the Mozambique National Resistance, who were against the Marxist-oriented regime that had support from other communist countries, such as Russia and Cuba.33 This is seen as a broader proxy-war between the United States and Russia, as the United States “tolerance or encouragement of Pretoria’s role in…Mozambique became an instrument for weakening Marxist regimes in these states and a bargaining chip to obtain Soviet withdrawal from the area.”34 As previously mentioned, although the South African government attempted to deny the black Mozambicans by electrifying the fence along the Mozambican border and arresting and deporting them as illegal aliens, they allowed them to settle within the homelands along the border.35 As a result, many refugees were integrated into the local communities within the homelands. They were not granted the rights usually given to refugees under international protocols because South Africa did not sign these agreements and was also not welcomed within the United Nations while apartheid was in power. As a result, South Africa acted with complete disregard to the non-refoulement principle. This left many in an ambiguous legal status in South Africa. The Mozambican General Peace Accord was signed in 1992 and signalled an end to the Mozambican Civil War. Immediately, plans for a repatriation program for Mozambicans 33 “South Africa: Relations with Mozambique,” British Embassy, South African Department. 12 August 1980. File FCO 105/452, JSS 020/4. National Archives, U.K., Archives Direct. Date Accessed: April 17, 2020. http://www.archivesdirect.amdigital.co.uk.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/Documents/Images/FCO_105_452/14?searchId=8b3bb05d-ac18-4975-a2f5-d6a177214be8 34 Astri Suhrke, “Uncertain Globalization: Refugee Movements in the Second Half of the Twentieth Century,” in Global History and Migrations, Ed. Gungwu Wang. (Routledge: New York, 1997). 226. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429500190. 35 “Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1992”. U.S. Department of State. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office. 1993. 249. Date Accessed April 15, 2020. https://archive.org/details/countryreportson1992unit/page/248/mode/2up/search/Mozambique; Inspection and Evaluation Service. “Evaluation of UNHCR’s Repatriation Operation to Mozambique EVAL/02/96” UNHCR. February 1, 1996. Date Accessed March 14, 2020. https://www.unhcr.org/research/evalreports/3ae6bcf90/evaluation-unhcrs-repatriation-operation-mozambique.html 91 began.36 The first steps towards the repatriation program were undertaken by the signing of a Basic Agreement between the UNHCR and South Africa in 1993, followed by a Tripartite Agreement. In 1994, the South African government signed a Tripartite Agreement with the UNHCR and Mozambique, which would become a part of one of the largest repatriation programmes undertaken by UNHCR up until that time in Africa.37 Within the agreement, it states that “voluntary repatriation, where feasible, constitutes the best durable solution for the refugee problem, and that the attainment of this solution requires that refugees shall be repatriated in conditions of safety and dignity.”38 This is important to note that voluntary repatriation was deemed the appropriate solution by the UNHCR. The Voluntary Repatriation Program was implemented despite claims by legal experts that voluntary repatriation in Africa did not have enough published research data in which to test the assumptions that voluntary repatriation was best.39 Since the creation of the UNHCR, there have been many discussions about what is considered the most durable solution for refugees. These often follow the direction of what Northern countries deem is best and thus have a great impact on refugees in the South. 36 “Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1992”. U.S. Department of State. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office. 1993. Date Accessed April 15, 2020. https://archive.org/details/countryreportson1992unit/page/248/mode/2up/search/Mozambique.; “UNHCR Activities Financed by Voluntary Funds: Report for 1993-1994 and Proposed Programmes and Budget for 1995: Part I: Africa,” UNHCR, 26 August 1994. 20. Date Accessed: April 21, 2020. https://www.unhcr.org/4de631de9.pdf 37 UNHCR, “Going Home: Voluntary Repatriation”, in The State of the World’s Refugees 1993. 1993. 10. Accessed April 1, 2020. https://www.unhcr.org/uk/3eeedf3d5.pdf 38 “Tripartite Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of South Africa, the Government of the Republic of Mozambique and UNHCR for the Voluntary Repatriation of Mozambican Refugees from RSA.” 1993. National Archives of South Africa, Box 674, SPM 539/93; 579, File 549/93. Pretoria, South Africa. 39 Jeff Handmaker, “Returning Home: Learning Lessons from the Past, and Promoting Safety and Dignity in Repatriation and Return”: Perspectives from the North and South,” Africa Legal Aid: July-September 1999, Pg. 19. South Africa Historical Archives, Johannesburg., South Africa Historical Archives, The Jonathon Klaaren Collection, No. AL 2992, Box E1, File E1.2.6, Johannesburg, South Africa. 92 Within international relations, policy making in forced migration has three options: local integration, resettlement, and voluntary repatriation. The UNHCR had adopted these as regular practices. They are thus rooted in a complex set of political, economic and strategic interests that go beyond humanitarian concerns for refugees. Further, resettlement and voluntary repatriation, “especially in North-South relations, has changed from the Cold War period to the present, allegedly evolving from a political instrument to a protection tool.”40 Between 1945 and 1985, the solution of resettlement was promoted as the viable option as it played an important role in transferring refugee populations from communist countries to democratic countries.41 From 1985 until 1993, the end of the Cold War brought a waning of Northern interests in receiving refugees, and as a result, a process to redefine solutions available to refugees began to change. The idea was that since refugees were migrating from the South to the North where there was no longer a labour shortage, it was time to rethink the durable solutions outside of the Cold War context.42 In 1983, the preference for the solution of voluntary repatriation became known as the durable solution in United Nations General Assembly resolutions. It is important to note that the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees stated in 1985 that the solution of voluntary repatriation had not yet been examined in depth by experts. Nevertheless, the UNHCR declared the 1990s to be the decade of repatriation despite the lack of evidence.43 It was assumed that all refugees simply wanted to return to their home country. The approach has received criticism, especially 40 Thais Bessa, “From Political Instrument to Protection Tool? Resettlement of Refugees and North-South Relations.” Refuge: Canada’s Journal on Refugees Vol 26. No. 1 (2009): 91. https://refuge.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/refuge/article/view/30610 41 Ibid., 92. 42 B. S. Chimni, “From Resettlement to Involuntary Repatriation: Towards a Critical History of Durable Solutions to Refugee Problems.” Refugee Survey Quarterly 23, no. 3 (January 2004): 58. https://doi.org/10.1093/rsq/23.3.55. 43 Ibid., 59. 93 stating that the levels of voluntariness were debatable in many different repatriation operations.44 Despite the need for voluntary consent, it is clear that refugees have still been deported without a choice. For example, in 1994, South African authorities deported 80, 000 Mozambicans despite the UNHCR putting in place the Voluntary Repatriation Program.45 Southern countries have received the brunt of refugee migration from 1980 onwards, putting pressure on the states. Typically, these states are developing countries and are often in a situation in which the wealthier Northern states are not truly burden-sharing.46 As a result, the Southern host states have to decide to either repatriate refugees or to welcome them in. The problem is that often, the country that the refugees are returning to is, in a worse condition than the poor host countries.47 These ‘durable’ solutions then are not always applicable to every context and should be examined in the context in which it is being placed. It can be justifiably argued then that voluntary repatriation, as a product of Northern knowledge, helped ultimately to contribute to the vulnerable position of Mozambicans left in South Africa after the Voluntary Repatriation Program finished. In 1994, plans for the voluntary repatriation of Mozambicans in South African begun. The UNHCR created a two-year schedule for the repatriation of the Mozambican refugees in five different countries across Southern Africa in which they aimed to send 1.5 million back to Mozambique at a cost of $203.4 million USD, although they believed it could even be as high as 44 Bessa, “From Political Instrument to Protection Tool?”, 95 45 Inspection and Evaluation Service. “Evaluation of UNHCR’s Repatriation Operation to Mozambique EVAL/02/96” UNHCR. February 1, 1996. Date Accessed March 14, 2020. https://www.unhcr.org/research/evalreports/3ae6bcf90/evaluation-unhcrs-repatriation-operation-mozambique.html; “The State of the World’s Refugees: In Search of Solutions”, UNHCR, 1995. 32. Published by Oxford University Press. Date Accessed April 15, 2020 https://www.unhcr.org/3eeed12a3.pdf 46 Chimni, “From Resettlement to Involuntary Repatriation”, 66. 47 Ibid., 68. 94 1.7 million refugees.48 Within South Africa specifically, there were an estimated 250,000- 300,000 Mozambicans who had fled the Civil War that still resided in the former homelands along the border.49 The agreement was broken down into three phases: pre-departure, movement and reintegration, and it was estimated that it would take three years between 1993 to 1996.50 It also stated in the agreement that those who did not want to go back and did not use the program would have their status regularised.51 The program did not go entirely as planned and it ended in South Africa in 1995 in which only $108 million UDS was used, 20 percent of which was for transport and repatriation and 80 percent for reintegration into Mozambique.52 Amongst all the countries repatriating refugees, 1.7 million did indeed return, although only 378, 000 used the transport provided by the UNHCR between all five countries repatriating refugees back to 48 UNHCR, “Going Home: Voluntary Repatriation,” in The State of the World’s Refugees 1993. 1993. 10. Accessed April 1, 2020. 49“Institutional Sites for Xenophobic Violence” Presentation on Migration and Refugees, 2000. Pg. 3. Historical Papers Research Archive, Collection AG 3245 Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, Box D20.3a-D20.3e, File D20.3a, Johannesburg, South Africa; “Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1992”. U.S. Department of State. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office. 1993. Date Accessed April 15, 2020. https://archive.org/details/countryreportson1992unit/page/248/mode/2up/search/Mozambique; Inspection and Evaluation Service. “Evaluation of UNHCR’s Repatriation Operation to Mozambique EVAL/02/96” UNHCR. February 1, 1996. Date Accessed March 14, 2020. https://www.unhcr.org/research/evalreports/3ae6bcf90/evaluation-unhcrs-repatriation-operation-mozambique.html 50 UNHCR, “Going Home: Voluntary Repatriation”, in The State of the World’s Refugees 1993. 1993. 10. Accessed April 1, 2020.; Inspection and Evaluation Service. “Evaluation of UNHCR’s Repatriation Operation to Mozambique EVAL/02/96” UNHCR. February 1, 1996. Date Accessed March 14, 2020. https://www.unhcr.org/research/evalreports/3ae6bcf90/evaluation-unhcrs-repatriation-operation-mozambique.html 51 Jeff Handmaker, Lee Anne de la Hunt and Jonathan Klaaren, “Introduction”, in Advancing Refugee Protection in South Africa, Ed. Jeff Handmaker, Lee Anne de la Hunt, and Jonathan Klaaren. (New York: Berghahn Books, 2008). 1. 52 Inspection and Evaluation Service. “Evaluation of UNHCR’s Repatriation Operation to Mozambique EVAL/02/96” UNHCR. February 1, 1996. Date Accessed March 14, 2020. https://www.unhcr.org/research/evalreports/3ae6bcf90/evaluation-unhcrs-repatriation-operation-mozambique.html 95 Mozambique.53 In South Africa, only 31, 589, just under 13 percent of the original 240,000 refugees returned using the UNHCR assistance. Before the UNHCR began transporting people back to Mozambique, surveys were conducted to assess the situation in South Africa. Between March and August in 1993, Masungulo, a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) connected to the Catholic Church, conducted a survey in which to assess people’s willingness to return in 6,348 refugee households in Gazankulu, KaNgwane and Winterveld.54 They also held an information programme about repatriation and the conditions back in Mozambique. There was an emphasis placed on rural households which reflected where the NGO’s and the Catholic Church who aided the refugees were positioned. As a result, it excluded refugees within urban areas such as the townships in Alexandra and Soweto.55 Mozambicans from these areas were not considered in the planning or implementation of the voluntary repatriation program although the UNHCR was aware of their presence. This created the image that those in rural areas were refugees, while those in urban centers were ‘illegal aliens.’ The survey that was created mapped out the size and composition of the refugees’ households, when they arrived in South Africa, reasons for coming as well as when they would intend to return.56 Further, it also established socio-economic and demographic information on the refugees. The questionnaire itself contained rural biases, and it has been 53 Chris Dolan, “Repatriation from South Africa to Mozambique - Undermining Durable Solutions?” In The End of the Refugee Cycle?: Refugee Repatriation and Reconstruction. Ed. Richard Black and Khalid Koser. (New York: Berghahn Books, 1999). 86. 54 Inspection and Evaluation Service. “Evaluation of UNHCR’s Repatriation Operation to Mozambique EVAL/02/96” UNHCR. February 1, 1996. Date Accessed March 14, 2020. https://www.unhcr.org/research/evalreports/3ae6bcf90/evaluation-unhcrs-repatriation-operation-mozambique.html 55 Dolan, “Repatriation from South Africa to Mozambique,” 86. 56 Inspection and Evaluation Service. “Evaluation of UNHCR’s Repatriation Operation to Mozambique EVAL/02/96” UNHCR. February 1, 1996. Date Accessed March 14, 2020. https://www.unhcr.org/research/evalreports/3ae6bcf90/evaluation-unhcrs-repatriation-operation-mozambique.html 96 argued that a major weakness in this planning was the assumption of how many people were interested in returning to Mozambique.57 The questionnaire was based on simple yes or no questions, such as ‘Do you intend to return to Mozambique?’ They were asked where they would like to return to, but not when they would like to return.58 Further, they were not asked who in the household would make the decision to repatriate or if the household would repatriate together. 83.7% responded that they intended to return, and so the UNHCR, who felt the survey was thorough, continued with the program. 59 The repatriation program also threw into stark contrast how little problems associated with the ambiguous status of the Mozambicans in South Africa were understood as relief was only offered sporadically and primarily the larger refugee centers had any basic information.60 The UNHCR’s understanding of the Mozambican refugees in South Africa was influenced by the relief activities that were being conducted by humanitarian organizations that were established in the areas, such as Masungulo and Médecins sans Frontières France (MSF-F).61 Interestingly, a survey that was conducted in 1994 by UNICEF found that “in southern Gazankulu…’ the great majority of both men and women heads of 57 Jeff Handmaker, “Returning Home: Learning Lessons from the Past, and Promoting Safety and Dignity in Repatriation and Return”: Perspectives from the North and South,” Africa Legal Aid: July-September 1999, Pg. 19. South Africa Historical Archives, Johannesburg., South Africa Historical Archives, The Jonathan Klaaren Collection, No. AL 2992, Box E1, File E1.2.6, Johannesburg, South Africa; Also see Dolan, “Repatriation from South Africa to Mozambique”, 89-90 for further critique. 58 Ibid., 90. 59 Inspection and Evaluation Service. “Evaluation of UNHCR’s Repatriation Operation to Mozambique EVAL/02/96” UNHCR. February 1, 1996. Date Accessed March 14, 2020. https://www.unhcr.org/research/evalreports/3ae6bcf90/evaluation-unhcrs-repatriation-operation-mozambique.html 60 Graeme Rodgers, “Structuring the Demise of a Refugee Identity: The UNHCR’s Voluntary Repatriation Programme for Mozambican Refugees in South Africa” in Transforming Settlement in Southern Africa. Ed. Roddy Fox and Chris De. Wet. (Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univ. Press, 2001). 69. 61 Inspection and Evaluation Service. “Evaluation of UNHCR’s Repatriation Operation to Mozambique EVAL/02/96” UNHCR. February 1, 1996. Date Accessed March 14, 2020. https://www.unhcr.org/research/evalreports/3ae6bcf90/evaluation-unhcrs-repatriation-operation-mozambique.html 97 households were not willing to repatriate.’”62 The UNHCR described five different settlement patterns in its reports such as camps, settlements, mixed settlements, villas/villages, home, city and underground dwellings, but the information campaigns suffered the same rural bias as the Masungulo survey. The UNHCR stated that “‘although large numbers of Mozambicans are known to reside within the PWV (Pretoria-Witwatersrand-Vaal) area, security considerations may militate against an overt and systematic status determination exercise.’”63 They did not accommodate the scattered nature of the refugees. Food relief that had been provided by NGO’s in the region, organised by the Catholic church, was phased out. Initially, they were to end in late 1993, but it was extended to early 1994 so that the UNHCR was not seen as inducing repatriation.64 The Catholic Church refugee relief groups did apply to the federal government for support in which initially R11 million was approved for a National Nutrition and Social Development Programme. This was, in turn, reduced to R4 million because the UNHCR stepped in and stated that providing an extensive food distribution programme would encourage many refugees to stay within South Africa and undermine the voluntary repatriation program underway.65 MSF-F was contracted to give a medical check-up, and any vaccinations at one of the five transition camps set up in South Africa and then the International Organization for Migration trucks would transport the refugees to a transit center in Mozambique, in which eight were created.66 These transition camps originally 62 Dolan, “Repatriation from South Africa to Mozambique”, 90. 63 Ibid., 90. 64 Ibid., 87; Inspection and Evaluation Service. “Evaluation of UNHCR’s Repatriation Operation to Mozambique EVAL/02/96” UNHCR. February 1, 1996. Date Accessed March 14, 2020. https://www.unhcr.org/research/evalreports/3ae6bcf90/evaluation-unhcrs-repatriation-operation-mozambique.html 65 Rodgers, “Structuring the Demise of a Refugee Identity”, 74-75. 66 “UNHCR Activities Financed by Voluntary Funds: Report for 1993-1994 and Proposed Programmes and Budget for 1995: Part I: Africa,” UNHCR, 26 August 1994. 20. Date Accessed: April 21, 2020. https://www.unhcr.org/4de631de9.pdf 98 were planned to accommodate and help process five hundred returnees per week, giving a total of 10, 000 a month, which would add up to the total 240, 000 over two years. This did not work out, and on the best week of the entire program, only 1,316 people were transported.67 The UNHCR did attempt to help with transit as some transit sites had incredibly low numbers, and many IOM trucks were sent out to known refugee settlement sites. It became difficult for many refugees, especially when it was discovered that some people had travelled through on the repatriated trucks multiple times. In response, the UNHCR began to refuse individuals, especially young men and only took groups of families.68 This created difficulties for households as well, and made it difficult to strategize with a single family member who could move over first to set up a base in Mozambique before fetching the rest of the family. After a few months into the process, the UNHCR reconsidered their number and reduced the goal from 240,000 to 120,000 as well as the intended end date of the program from March 1995 to December 1994.69 This narrow window of opportunity further exacerbated problems as it did not allow time for the information to travel back to South Africa from those already resettled in Mozambique.70 As a result, the expected numbers of refugees to voluntarily repatriate was well below the goal put forth by the Program. Under the Tripartite Agreement that was signed between South Africa, Mozambique and the UNHCR, it states that “the General Peace Accord of 4 October 1992 between the Mozambican Government and RENAMO has laid the foundation for peace, stability, democracy 67 Inspection and Evaluation Service. “Evaluation of UNHCR’s Repatriation Operation to Mozambique EVAL/02/96” UNHCR. February 1, 1996. Date Accessed March 14, 2020. https://www.unhcr.org/research/evalreports/3ae6bcf90/evaluation-unhcrs-repatriation-operation-mozambique.html 68 Ibid. 69 Ibid. 70 Dolan, “Repatriation from South Africa to Mozambique”, 92. 99 and social and economic development in Mozambique.”71 The signing of the peace accord does not factor in the complexities associated with micro-level decision making, stating that the idea that the return is voluntary and chosen by the individual is contradicted.72 Due to different age, gender, migration history and household competition, people had complex and different reasons why they would integrate or repatriate. Many felt compelled to stay during the elections in hopes that they would be able to obtain identity documents and live in South Africa if they voted for Mandela.73 Others also wanted to stay a bit longer in South Africa to ensure that the peace would hold in Mozambique. Many were skeptical about the conditions in Mozambique, despite the end of the war.74 The numbers did improve by 1996 when heavy rains brought a good harvest in Mozambique,75 although standards of living were still well below what it was before the war. Many of those who had returned received remittances from family still in South Africa, but it was for survival rather than for reconstruction of the community.76 Although the UNHCR has stated that the Voluntary Repatriation Program was a success as it had provided those Mozambican refugees with every opportunity to return home,77 it is clear 71 “Tripartite Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of South Africa, the Government of the Republic of Mozambique and UNHCR for the Voluntary Repatriation of Mozambican Refugees from RSA.” 1993. National Archives of South Africa, Box 674, SPM 539/93; 579, File 549/93. Pretoria, South Africa. 72 Dolan, “Repatriation from South Africa to Mozambique”, 93. 73 Inspection and Evaluation Service. “Evaluation of UNHCR’s Repatriation Operation to Mozambique EVAL/02/96” UNHCR. February 1, 1996. Date Accessed March 14, 2020. https://www.unhcr.org/research/evalreports/3ae6bcf90/evaluation-unhcrs-repatriation-operation-mozambique.html 74 Nicola Johnston, “Homeward-bound” Mail & Guardian. 1 Oct 1999. Date Accessed April 18 2020. https://mg.co.za/article/1999-10-01-homeward-bound/ 75 “Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1992”. U.S. Department of State. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office. 1993. 180. Date Accessed April 15, 2020. https://archive.org/details/countryreportson1992unit/page/248/mode/2up/search/Mozambique 76 Dolan, “Repatriation from South Africa to Mozambique”, 104. 77 Inspection and Evaluation Service. “Evaluation of UNHCR’s Repatriation Operation to Mozambique EVAL/02/96” UNHCR. February 1, 1996. Date Accessed March 14, 2020. https://www.unhcr.org/research/evalreports/3ae6bcf90/evaluation-unhcrs-repatriation-operation-mozambique.html 100 that due to the return of many of those who used the program, that it was indeed unsuccessful.78 By the end date of the program in 1995, UNHCR repatriated 32, 010 refugees, while it is estimated that spontaneous repatriation outside of the program was similar.79 The vast majority of Mozambican refugees did not officially repatriate through the program, and many continued to live in the camps in South Africa. Of those that did repatriate, many returned to South Africa as it was believed that it either had better living conditions than Mozambique or there was greater potential for economic improvement in South Africa.80 It is clear that although voluntary repatriation is important for those who can return home in dignity, in this specific circumstance, it did not succeed. Politically, critics have argued that it was deemed easier to justify a program of repatriation rather than integrating them into the South African community.81 The South African government did introduce a three-month amnesty in 1996 for the Southern African Democratic Community (SADC) citizens who could prove that they had lived in the country and were employed in the mining district for more than five years.82 They would then gain permanent residence rights. However, the response rate was poor for the amnesty with only 201,602 78 Jeff Handmaker, “Returning Home: Learning Lessons from the Past, and Promoting Safety and Dignity in Repatriation and Return”: Perspectives from the North and South,” Africa Legal Aid: July-September 1999, Pg. 19. South Africa Historical Archives, Johannesburg., South Africa Historical Archives, The Jonathon Klaaren Collection, No. AL 2992, Box E1, File E1.2.6, Johannesburg, South Africa; Also see Dolan, “Repatriation from South Africa to Mozambique”, 89-90 for further critique. Also see Jeff Handmaker, “No Easy Walk: Advancing Refugee Protection in South Africa.” Africa Today 48, no. 3 (2001):93. https://doi.org/10.1353/at.2001.0052.; De la Hunt, “Refugees and Immigration Law”, 126-127; Dolan, “Repatriation from South Africa to Mozambique”, 86; Rodgers, “Structuring the Demise of a Refugee Identity”, 76 for further critiques. 79Inspection and Evaluation Service. “Evaluation of UNHCR’s Repatriation Operation to Mozambique EVAL/02/96” UNHCR. February 1, 1996. Date Accessed March 14, 2020. https://www.unhcr.org/research/evalreports/3ae6bcf90/evaluation-unhcrs-repatriation-operation-mozambique.html 80 Ibid. 81 See Handmaker “No Easy Walk”, 97 82 Bronwyn Harris, “Just Who are the Barbarians?” A Seminar on South African Attitudes to “Foreigners,” 4, June, sometime after 2000, Historical Society Research Archive, Collection AG 3245, Box D20.3a-D20.3e, File D20.3a, Johannesburg, South Africa. 101 applicants, as many refugees reported having difficulties accessing the process.83 Many also did not have the money to transport themselves to the nearest Department of Home Affairs offices. Further, there was a fear that those who would apply and expose themselves as being from Mozambique would be turned down and deported immediately. A second amnesty did take place later that year, which broadened the scope to those with family ties or who had economic ties outside of the mining district, 84 although this also had similar problems with many fearful of deportation. Despite the federal government’s official position that refugees would be protected under the Voluntary Repatriation Program until the Cessation Clause would be invoked, this did not happen. Figures for those who are deported during the 1990s demonstrate that the highest numbers are Mozambican and Zimbabweans. In 1993, 80,926 Mozambicans were deported.85 Although this number was lowered in 1994 to 71,279 it rose again in 1995 to 131,689. Further, in 1996, after the end of the Voluntary Repatriation Program, 106,397 Mozambicans were deported.86 In December 1996, the Cessation Clause was invoked, but many were already deported prior to this point. The Aliens Control Act and its amendment in 1995, as previously mentioned, was not created with asylum seekers and refugees in mind. As a result, they were 83 Bronwyn Harris, “Just Who are the Barbarians?” A Seminar on South African Attitudes to “Foreigners,” 4, June, sometime after 2000, Historical Society Research Archive, Collection AG 3245, Box D20.3a-D20.3e, File D20.3a, Johannesburg, South Africa; Handmaker “No Easy Walk”, 100. 84 Audie Klotz, Migration and National Identity in South Africa, 1860-2010. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015). 190. 85 “Repatriation of Illegal Aliens” Correspondence Regarding Migration and Refugee Statistics, 1993. Historical Society Research Archive, Collection No. AG 3245, Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, 1989-2011 Collection, Box F, File F3, Johannesburg, South Africa. 86 “Statistics of Illegal Aliens Repatriated to their Country of Origin: January – October 1996” Historical Society Research Archive, Collection No. AG 3245, Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, 1989-2011 Collection, Box F, File F3, Johannesburg, South Africa. 102 dealt with as a class of ‘prohibited persons.’87 This Act gave immigration officers greater decision making control over ‘aliens’, and also gave immigration officers the ability to enter personal homes and private properties without warning.88 This law “itself can be read as an institutional site of xenophobia and an arena for potential violence.”89 Although not all Mozambicans that were deported would have been considered refugees, many were. As a result, they did not enjoy the protection that they were promised. Those that were deported were given little to no opportunity to collect their belongings or money, and they were not able to contact their family.90 As a result, many came back into South Africa unofficially in order to collect their belongings and be with their family, who were dependent on them. It is clear then that Mozambicans were in a vulnerable position in society. After the end of the Voluntary Repatriation Program and the Amnesties, those Mozambican refugees’ status changed. Under Article 1.C(5) of the 1951 Geneva Convention, a refugee ceases to be considered a refugee when the circumstances that created the refugee ceases to exist.91 As the Tripartite Agreement had signalled peace, the Mozambicans who were left in South Africa had a legal status change. The process was delayed for 2 years and as a result, the former refugees were left undocumented and 87 11(1), “Aliens Control Act, 1991,” Republic of South Africa. 1 October 1991. UNHCR. http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b5100.html 88 “Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1992”. U.S. Department of State. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office. 1993. 249. Date Accessed April 15, 2020. https://archive.org/details/countryreportson1992unit/page/248/mode/2up/search/Mozambique; 11(4), “Aliens Control Act, 1991,” Republic of South Africa. 1 October 1991. UNHCR. http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b5100.html. 89 89“Institutional Sites for Xenophobic Violence” Presentation on Migration and Refugees, 2000. Pg. 1. Historical Papers Research Archive, Collection AG 3245 Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, Box D20.3a-D20.3e, File D20.3a, Johannesburg, South Africa. 90 Mukoni T. Ratshitanga, “Illegal rampages by home affairs”, Mail &Guardian. 15, May 1998. Date Accessed April 18, 2020. https://mg.co.za/article/1998-05-15-illegal-rampages-by-home-affairs/ 91 “Article 1.C (5)” Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. UNHCR. 1951. 3. Accessed November 14, 2019. https://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10. 103 illegal during this time.92 At the end of the Voluntary Repatriation Program after having repatriated those who would go willingly within the framework, those that were left behind had their legal status changed from ‘refugee’ to ‘illegal immigrant’ because the government concluded that they did not take advantage of the program when they had the chance. The UNHCR then can be seen to contribute to perpetuating the relationship of vulnerability between the Mozambican refugee and South Africa in tandem with the domestic policies that would also contribute to the vulnerable position of former refugees. Thus, the repatriation program contributed to the renegotiation of Mozambican identities, removing ‘refugee’ and replacing it with ‘alien’ or ‘illegal alien.’ This continuation of restrictive immigration policies has led to an increase of xenophobia within South Africa, which is an ongoing problem today. Like all nation-states, South Africa has consistently defined and redefined its identity by creating and recreating those who are deemed ‘outsiders.’ Although the social context may change and the content of those who are considered ‘foreigner’ or ‘alien’ does as well, the social identities of the population are constantly being contested.93 Immigration policy itself is based on inclusion and exclusion that is determined by the state and its ideas of national identity. After apartheid, South Africa sought to move beyond racial categorizations, but xenophobia continued to spread after 1994. Xenophobia in South Africa has been broken down into four different categories.94 First, it can be seen as a remnant of apartheid in which the reproduction of ‘outsiders’ and ‘insiders’ are perpetuated. Second, the rise of xenophobia is attributed to the 92 Bronwyn Harris, “Just Who are the Barbarians?” A Seminar on South African Attitudes to “Foreigners,” 4, June, sometime after 2000, Historical Society Research Archive, Collection AG 3245, Box D20.3a-D20.3e, File D20.3a, Johannesburg, South Africa. 93 Audie Klotz, "Migration After Apartheid: Deracialising South African Foreign Policy." Third World Quarterly 21, no. 5 (2000): 834. doi:10.1080/014365900750012007. 94 See Faith Mabera, “The Impact of Xenophobia and Xenophobic Violence on South Africa’s Developmental Partnership Agenda.” Africa Review 9, no. 1 (2016): 30. https://doi.org/10.1080/09744053.2016.1239711. 104 belief that foreigners are taking what belongs to citizens in South Africa. Third, it is can be perceived to be a ‘new racism’ in which the ideas of biological superiority that dominated in the first half of the twentieth century has come to constitute boundaries of cultural difference.95 Lastly, these have been bolstered by state discourses in which security is connected to xenophobia. Although post-apartheid xenophobia may be concealed as non-racial and reconfigured as a part of national identity and nation-building, it is racial in nature as not all foreigners are affected the same.96 Those who are considered to be “too dark” are not considered to be South African, but a foreigner. Criteria for belonging has only changed from being about race (pass) to citizenship (passport).97 In a critique on xenophobia in South Africa, academic and activist Bronwyn Harris argues that xenophobia in South Africa has the tendency to conflate all African foreigners under the umbrella of ‘undocumented migrants’, also known as ‘illegal aliens’.98 This is important to note because as a result of this conflation, there is very little differentiation between those who are truly refugees or asylum seekers and those who are immigrants. This enables refugees to be stripped of their rights and being blamed for contributing to social ills such as unemployment, crime, and poverty.99 Further, defining the ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’ is critical to the recreation of state identity and legitimacy. Xenophobia has been a product of state-building. As South Africa moved from apartheid into democracy, the “shift away from legislated 95 Ibid., 30. 96 Bronwyn Harris, “From Pass to Passport?: A New Form of Racism in Post-Apartheid South Africa,” 2001. Pg. 2. Historical Society Research Archive, Collection No. AG 3245, Box F, File F4, Johannesburg, South Africa. Also see Khadija Magardie.“The Paler Strangers,” Mail & Guardian. 24 Aug 2001. Date Accessed April 18 2020. https://mg.co.za/article/2001-08-24-the-paler-strangers/ 97 Bronwyn Harris, “From Pass to Passport?: A New Form of Racism in Post-Apartheid South Africa,” 2001. Pg. 2. Historical Society Research Archive, Collection No. AG 3245, Box F, File F4, Johannesburg, South Africa. 98 Ibid., 3. 99 Ibid., 3. 105 racism towards ‘inclusive’ nationalism” has, in turn, created new ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’.100 Political discourse has also contributed to this. For example, the Home Affairs Minister, Mangosuthu Buthelezi, stated that “if we as South Africans are going to compete for scarce resources with millions of aliens who are pouring into South Africa, we can bid goodbye to our Reconstruction and Development Programme.”101 The call for nation-building in South Africa has been familiar in many political discourses as the country tries to rebuild its identity in the aftermath of apartheid policies. Although there have been several calls for nation-building from the national government, it has not been easy. Gerhard Maré, in his article “Race, Nation, Democracy: Questioning Patriotism in the New South Africa,” effectively articulates this. He states: …first, we can state the nation…but can we create it; can we get all citizens to arrive at the same or similar recognitions in that call? Second, we have immediately, by accepting the colonial boundaries (and by as promptly ignoring historic connections, affiliations, and massive movement of people through the migrant labor system, as well as international solidarity informed by notions of justice and the rights of peoples to self-determination), created “them” (in their most immediate and apparently threatening form, the makwerekwere of South African xenophobia). We have fallen into a new trap, in this case not of “race” in the usual form of “black” and “white”, but of (a “black”) us and (a “black”) them.102 Nation-building is complex in South Africa, and it is apparent that national identity and the desire to exclude those immigrants that were considered ‘undesirable’ continued into the post-apartheid period. Further, it is argued that there is also a belief in the discourse of “South African exceptionalism,” which suggests that although South Africa is inherently African, it is supposedly culturally and economically different from the rest of the continent and 100 Ibid., 6. 101 National Assembly, "Minister of Home Affairs: Introductory Speech, Budgetary Appropriation," August 9, 1994, in “Labour Migration to South Africa,” Human Rights Watch Report. 1998. Date Accessed: April 19, 2020. https://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports98/sareport/Adv2c.htm#N_10_ 102 Gerhard Maré, “Race, Nation, Democracy: Questioning Patriotism in the New South Africa,” Social Research, Vol. 72, No. 3. (2005): 507. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40971779 106 incompatible.103 Those from outside of the national boundaries are perceived to be from places of crime and are considered unstable, rural and corrupt, such as migrants from Mozambique.104 In other words, ideas of South Africa’s superiority are reminiscent of the apartheid era as well as the settler era and speak to the lasting effects of colonial imposed hierarchies. I would argue, that it is the persistence of these views that continue to influence popular perceptions of immigrants coming to South Africa.105 Beyond discrimination, xenophobia has also translated into expressions of physical violence inflicted on those perceived to be ‘illegal immigrants.’ South Africa has been reporting a growing climate of anti-foreigner sentiment, which has cumulated in violent attacks since 1994. Although there is a prejudice towards foreigners in general, refugees and asylum seekers tend to be more visible and therefore more likely than other foreigners to be the subject of discrimination.106 After the transition to a democratic society, South Africa has been seen as an attractive option for asylum seekers. The actual amount of asylum seekers that enter into South Africa are contested as government numbers report from fairly conservative estimates of several hundred thousand to millions.107 Despite the discrepancy in numbers, what is evident is there is a popular perception that there has been a flood of foreigners. This has been supported by factors such as an overtly xenophobic media and a lack of 103 Steven Gordon, “Immigration Policies That Include or Exclude: a South African Public Opinion Study of Immigration Policy Preferences.” Social Dynamics 42, no. 3 (2016): 448. https://doi.org/10.1080/02533952.2016.1238336. 104 Klotz, “Migration After Apartheid”, 839 105 Mabera, “The Impact of Xenophobia and Xenophobic Violence”, 30. 106 “Human Rights Commission: Racism and Xenophobia Consultative Workshop”, 15 October 1998. Historical Society Research Archive, Collection AG 3245, Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, 1989-2011 Collection, Box F, File F1, Johannesburg, South Africa. See also Jeff Handmaker, "Who Determines Policy? Promoting the Right of Asylum in South Africa." International Journal of Refugee Law11, no. 2 (1999): 292. doi:10.1093/ijrl/11.2.290. 107 Rehana Rossouw, “SA’s moral duty to migrants”, Mail & Guardian. 23 June 1995. Date Accessed April 18 2020. https://mg.co.za/article/1995-06-23-sas-moral-duty-to-migrants/ See also Handmaker, de la Hunt and Klaaren, “Introduction”, 2-3. 107 reliable numbers for tracking individuals who have refugee status within South Africa. As a result, many South Africans believe that foreigners are trying to claim resources, steal jobs, and are associated with criminality, such as drug and arms dealers.108 This belief is also encouraged by many political discourses as well, even as recent as the White Paper on International Migration that was proposed for 2000, which states that immigrants: compete for scarce resources with millions of South Africans living in poverty and below the breadline; they compete for scarce public services, such as schools and medical care, infrastructure and land, housing and informal trading opportunities, and offer their labour at conditions below those prescribed by law or the applicable collective bargaining agreements; a considerable percentage of illegal aliens has been involved in criminal activities; and they weaken the state and its institutions by corrupting officials, fraudulently acquiring documents and undeserved rights and tarnishing our image locally and abroad109 These ideas have ultimately flourished in South Africa’s democratic era as immigration policy keeps reifying and polarizing notions of ‘outsiders’ and ‘insiders’. Refugee immigration throughout the twentieth century in South Africa has continuously shifted and adapted to the leading government of the day. Since the drafting of the 1951 Geneva Convention, refugees from the South were not acknowledged. This coincided with the Cold War in which Northern countries first welcomed refugees for their ideological and political value. By the 1980s, though, this began to shift as Northern countries began to shut their borders to the wave of refugees from the South, stating that it would be in the best interest of the refugee and the home country to be repatriated. As a result, international bodies such as the UNHCR began to change the policies they recommended. While resettlement was initially recommended after 108 “The State of the World’s Refugees: In Search of Solutions”, UNHCR, 1995. 32. Published by Oxford University Press. Date Accessed April 15, 2020 https://www.unhcr.org/3eeed12a3.pdf; Rehana Rossouw, “SA’s moral duty to migrants”, Mail & Guardian. 23 June 1995. Date Accessed April 18 2020. https://mg.co.za/article/1995-06-23-sas-moral-duty-to-migrants/. 109 Presented by A.S Mokoena, “White Paper on International Migration” Presented to the Minister of Home Affairs Dr. Mangosuthu Buthelezi, March 31, 1999. Historical Society Research Archive, Collection AG 3245, Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, 1989-2011 Collection, Box F, File F1, Johannesburg, South Africa. 108 World War Two to be the policy to follow, after the 1980s this shifted as voluntary repatriation became labelled as the most humane solution to follow. As a result, the 1990s was declared the decade of voluntary repatriation by the UNHCR.110 It was seen as the most humane solution, voluntary repatriation is often pursued even when other options may be better suited. This global ideological backdrop provides an insight into the external factors that faced South Africa and Mozambique during this time. During the apartheid period, it would be primarily white immigrants that were deemed ‘desirable’ with the exclusion of black immigrants, other than for temporary cheap labour. Even black South Africans were excluded from citizenship as many were forced into ethnic homelands, and were considered foreigners anywhere outside of the territorial boundaries of their homeland. It was not until 1986 with the implementation of certain policies that opened up economic migration and opportunities for the black population. In the early 1980s, refugees began to flow into the nearby countries of South Africa, Malawi, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe from Mozambique due to the Civil War. It is important to note that South Africa was involved in supporting the rebel movement in Mozambique against the Marxist-oriented regime, which was supported by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Although the apartheid government allowed for white refugees from Mozambique and Angola to settle and obtain citizenship within its boundaries, it refused to acknowledge the presence of black refugees fleeing from the same terror. However, the South African government did allow them to settle in the homelands along the border where they lived until 1994. The democratic transition allowed South Africa to open up to the world, allowing international organizations such as the UNHCR to work within its borders. A Tripartite 110 Chimni, “From Resettlement to Involuntary Repatriation”, 59 109 Agreement was reached between South Africa, the UNHCR and Mozambique and the process for voluntary repatriation began. Although the UNHCR considered this to be a success, they failed to recognise the complexity of the issues in South Africa, such as those refugees who had become integrated into society and did not want to be repatriated.111 In recent years, the idea of voluntary repatriation as the best solution has been challenged as experts become concerned not only with how refugees will get back to their country of origin but why refugees might want to return.112 The call for nation-building in South Africa after the transition to a democratic government has also been seen to increase distrust to those deemed on the ‘outside’ of citizenship. Today, South Africa is one of the largest immigrant-receiving nations in Africa as it is perceived to be an economic hub in the subcontinent. As well, South Africa is seen as having one of the more progressive constitutions around the world. Despite this, the country still struggles with xenophobic attitudes in much of society, encouraged by the media as well as political discourse. This is paired with a heightened securitization and police presence in perceived areas of crime. Attitudes towards immigration often take a xenophobic outlook as a result. After the end of the voluntary repatriation program for the refugees from Mozambique, those who were left in South Africa came to be seen as “illegal aliens” and this has impacted their identities and life-chances in South Africa. It could be argued that the Aliens Control Act of 1991, that dealt with Mozambican refugees was the last vestige of the apartheid era, but did not account for refugees or asylum seekers. This Act was also a continuation of older policies, which could be dated back to the 1913 Immigration Control Act, which inherently discriminated against ‘undesirable’ immigrants. As a result, often refugees were documented as ‘illegal immigrants’ 111 Klotz, "Migration After Apartheid, 838 112 Handmaker, “No Easy Walk”, 99. 110 and sent to detention centers to be deported without a trial. In 1998, refugee legislation was created, but, on the ground, refugees and asylum seekers were still subject to discrimination by society and public authorities. The restrictive immigration legislation softened with the creation of the Immigration Act of 2002, which was more progressive than earlier legislation. Despite adding new legal protections, the Act was critiqued for continuing to emphasize procedures for “deterring, detecting, detaining, and deporting unwanted foreigners.”113 In 2011, the Immigration Amendment Act was created but was stated not to address problems of social cohesion while still further hardening conditions of control and access to South Africa for migrants.114 Significant attacks against foreigners happened during this time, such as in May 2008, when 62 people were killed in townships and informal settlements in Johannesburg. Those attacked were perceived by foreign nationals to be other black Africans from different parts of the continent. Some were seeking refuge from terrors in their own country.115 It is clear then that refugees and asylum seekers in South Africa experience similar circumstances as those ‘others’ throughout South African history. Both groups have experienced being on the ‘outside’ of society. Although policies have taken steps to improve the conditions of refugees and asylum seekers, both domestically and internationally, the societal conditions that have been produced and reproduced out of the colonial past still lingers. 113 Audie Klotz, "South Africa as an Immigration State." Politikon 39, no. 2 (2012): 200. doi:10.1080/02589346.2012.683939. 114 Kabwe-Segatti, “Reforming South African Immigration Policy”, 33 115 Barry Bearak and Celia W. Dugger, “South Africans Take Out Rage on Immigrants,” The New York Times, Date Accessed April 10, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/world/africa/20safrica.html; Michael Neocosmos, From Foreign Natives to Native Foreigners. Explaining Xenophobia in Post-Apartheid South Africa: Citizenship and Nationalism, Identity and Politics. (Senegal: African Books Collective, 2010.) 117. Chapter 6: Conclusion South Africa today, like other prominent immigrant-receiving countries, faces a growing rise in xenophobic rhetoric and increasing refugee reception. During the writing of this thesis, while collecting archival data in Johannesburg in early September, xenophobia in South Africa escalated, as violent attacks against refugees increased within the city center. Twelve people were killed due to this violence and some 1500 foreign nationals, predominantly migrants such as refugees and asylum-seekers, were forced to flee from their homes, with 138 Mozambicans reportedly leaving South Africa entirely.1 These refugees reported feeling particularly vulnerable due to a lack of documentation which left them with limited access to health care, education, and other public services. This was not the first explosive attack since the transitional period in South Africa. In 2008, 62 people, including 20 refugees in South Africa were also killed in a round of attacks,2 and more attacks took place in 2015. Immigration policies, especially those concerning refugees and asylum seekers, are still continually being debated, and many indirectly perpetuate xenophobia in South Africa which becomes legitimized in their reiteration by politicians.3 Immigration policies throughout South Africa’s colonial history have consistently created divides between those that are seen as ‘desirable’ and those that are deemed ‘undesirable’. 1 “Amid Rising Xenophobia Attacks in South Africa, UNHCR Ramps Up Aid for Refugees, Calls for Urgent Action” UNHCR. 20 September 2019. Date Accessed April 17, 2020. https://www.unhcr.org/news/briefing/2019/9/5d848f694/amid-rising-xenophobic-attacks-south-africa-unhcr-ramps-aid-refugees-calls.html 2 Xolani Mbanjwa, “Refugee Attacks: Mbeki says never again,” Independent Online. 3 July, 2008. Date Accessed April 18, 2020. https://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/refugee-attacks-mbeki-says-never-again-406970. 3 Jacques Coetzee, “Migration System is ‘Xenophobic’,” Mail & Guardian. 11 October 2019. Date Accessed April 18, 2020. https://mg.co.za/article/2019-10-11-00-migration-system-is-xenophobic/; Thando Maeko, “Attacks Point to ‘Deeply Entrenched’ Xenophobic Attitudes,” Mail & Guardian. 6 September, 2019. Date Accessed April 18, 2020. https://mg.co.za/article/2019-09-06-00-attacks-point-to-deeply-entrenched-xenophobic-attitudes/ 112 Although immigration policy is inherently restrictive in allowing some to enter and others not, within South Africa, domestic and international influences have helped to shape the stereotype of refugees as merely a drain on resources in a country already struggling with deep inequality. Although post-apartheid South Africa no longer explicitly excludes based on race, nationality is now the primary factor in which exclusion is based on, where nationality has become a means to identify racial markers, and most migrants that are targeted are primarily coming from nationalities that are identified as “too dark.”4 As a result, foreign nationals from neighbouring countries are those that experience the highest level of xenophobia. This thesis set out to examine the impact of the reproduction of colonial knowledges on the construction of immigration and refugee policies in South Africa. By focusing on not only the immigration policies that were implemented in South Africa, but also the international influence of ‘durable’ solutions such as voluntary repatriation which is encouraged by international organizations such as the UNHCR, it becomes clear that the labelling of certain individuals or groups of individuals as ‘outsiders’ is still an ongoing process. The construction of identity through a colonial lens and the process of ‘othering’ in South Africa has been focused in this study to the beginning of the late 18th century with the arrival of white settlers in South Africa. Colonial knowledge and culture had to be constructed and produced through settlers’ experiences and understandings from the metropole, and these ideas spread and were reproduce within the dominion itself. Pamphlets, books, newspapers, and travellers that circulated between the colony and the metropole helped in enabling the spread of the ideas from the Northern hemisphere to the Southern hemisphere. Missionaries in the nineteenth century aided in the construction of images of the ‘other’ among the indigenous 4 Khadija Magardie.“The Paler Strangers,” Mail & Guardian. 24 Aug 2001. Date Accessed April 18 2020. https://mg.co.za/article/2001-08-24-the-paler-strangers/ 113 groups that resided in Southern Africa, such as the Xhosa or the Zulu. The missionaries’ accounts began to fuse with the white settler politics in the colony, creating bias, stereotypes, and prejudice against the African ‘other’. Newspapers such as The Graham’s Town Journal, later known just as The Journal, further spread these stereotypes and helped to cement the perceived identities of Indigenous groups and of the Afrikaners, in addition to reinforcing how settlers saw themselves in South Africa as inherently ‘British’. Although The Journal was founded by white, British settlers who set out to report on daily life in the Cape Colony, the newspaper also circulated back to the metropole. Often the newspaper would remark on the ‘brutality’ of the Indigenous groups against the settlers and would call on the metropole for further support to help them against this dangerous ‘other’. This helped to circulate and fuse domestic knowledges with metropolitan ideas about race and peoples living in the colonies. Further, scientific racism began to grow as a pseudo-science exponentially as universities and scientific organizations began to establish themselves in South Africa. The university and scientific community knowledges circulated on questions of race enforced the notion that dark-skinned Africans were inherently different and that the British were ahead in civilization. The idea of the universality of ‘western’ scientific knowledge was assumed in South Africa by its settler population. As a result, these formal institutions helped to contribute to the idea that races were different. This, in turn, had an impact on policies in South Africa, including immigration policies, as only white immigrants, preferably from Britain, were deemed as desirable. In 1910, South Africa became a Union and an official Dominion in the British Empire. One of the first discussions that took place within the Union was who constituted as a citizen. As a result, one of the first pieces of legislation to follow concerned immigration. Throughout the British Empire, other white-settler countries who also saw themselves as inherently British such 114 as Australia, New Zealand, and Canada were also shaping and defining those that were deemed ‘desirable’ immigrants. They were not always subtle, such as Australia who maintained a White Australia Policy until the latter half of the twentieth century. One attribution of the discussion on citizenship was its inclusion of nationalism, which was on the rise in this period across the white-settler countries. Immigration policies fell under the self-governing duty of the Dominion governments. In South Africa, the concept of South Africanism began to grow. During this time, political leaders such as Milner and Smuts sought to unite both the Afrikaner and British population, instead choosing to focus on the unity between white populations. South Africa was seen as a ‘white-man’s country’ and as a result, it was believed that immigration policy needed to reflect this. Immigrants from India were British subjects and thus could essentially travel within the Empire. White countries such as South Africa deemed it imperative to restrict those seeking permanent residency in order to maintain political power in South Africa in the hands of the white minority. Although Britain could condemn any policies that were outwardly discriminatory, the colonies began to utilize policy transference or convergence as they began to see policies that would successfully restrict policies in one country. South Africa helped to pave the way by utilizing the previous implemented ‘Natal Act’ into the Union legislation, which had previously taken inspiration from a modified version of a United States bill that was introduced in Mississippi a few years earlier. The ‘Natal Act’ required immigrants to demonstrate their ability to speak a European language that would be chosen by an immigration officer. Countries such as Australia and New Zealand followed the lead of South Africa and began to implement their own versions of the policy. This would eventually in turn impact South African policies further. In 1913, this was adapted into the Union of South African legislation as the Union Immigrants 115 Regulation Act. This Act, which carried on the use of the literacy test, was praised in South Africa as being the most anti-Asiatic law that was passed in the British Empire to ensure white power. This set the foundation for the basis of xenophobic policies that would be continually amended and updated that would last into the post-apartheid era. This legislation not only excluded non-white migrants, but it also sought to restrict Jewish refugee immigration from Eastern Europe. Further, the Immigration Quota Act of 1930 and its replacement of the Aliens Act of 1937 were created as a means to control Jewish immigration as potential immigrants were to be picked from between desirable and undesirable countries. Although Britain disallowed the use of overt race-based discrimination, colonies would use other reasons in order to control the population that would be let in, such as on terms of health. Although it was touted that the British Empire was a family, it was primarily the white population that was included as the ‘insiders’ to this family.5 The spread of ideas between the different white-settler countries helped to facilitate immigration policies that sought to restrict migrants to those that the state believed to be the most desirable. These colonial ideals were in existence during the creation of many international organizations that would later impact refugee immigration, such as the United Nations. Colonial contributions not only influenced domestic policies, but also impacted international bodies. There is a certain utopianism attached to international organizations, but it is important to examine how the colonial ideas that were prominent during the time influenced the creation of these bodies. The League of Nations was created after the First World War as a means to establish world peace. During this era, Japan put forth an equality clause in the 1919 Paris Peace Conference. This eventually was turned down by the “white” European countries leading the organizations. Further, Jan Smuts, one of the prime ministers and also architects of 5 Salvation Army, “Empire Migration and Settlement,” 1937. Pg. 9 and 12. National Archives of South Africa, Box 465, BNS 213/74; 219/74, File 219/74, Pretoria, South Africa. 116 apartheid in South Africa, contributed many ideas to the League of Nations and its eventual successor, the UNHCR. Smuts was a firm believer in white supremacy and during the 1930s, Smuts was consistently praised in Britain. His ideas delivered through a pamphlet in 1918 made some key contributions. This pamphlet was once again looked at when the United Nations was constructed. It is also important to examine the UNHCR, the key organization dealing with refugees and the 1951 Geneva Convention. Although on the international stage, the rhetoric of anti-colonialism began to prosper, behind the scenes, it was clear that countries such as England still sought to maintain control over the colonies and wanted to ensure that a Colonial Clause would be implemented. By examining other documents such as the Declaration Regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories in the Charter of the United Nations as well, it becomes clear that there was the pervasive idea that England, as the farthest ahead in civilization, was still deemed the most capable of ‘aiding’ these countries along in their progress to becoming as enlightened as England. Although the United Nations did become a very important foundation for anti-colonial movements, many which were directed at apartheid South Africa, colonial knowledges were still integral in creating the human rights platform and its policies would eventually have a great impact on democratic South Africa and refugees. The combination of domestic and international policies that had been impacted by these ongoing colonial ideas came to a head with the Mozambican refugee immigration in the 1990s in South Africa. The policies from both the domestic government and through the Voluntary Repatriation Program implemented from the UNHCR continued the process of marking some migrants as ‘insiders’ while casting many others as ‘outsiders’, furthering colonial stereotypes, biases, and prejudices. Apartheid legislation did not consider the movement of black immigrants beyond that of labour. It did not have immigration policies set up to help black refugees and 117 asylum seekers, although the federal government did allow them to settle in the ‘homelands’ along the border. After the transition period, the UNHCR, in agreement with South Africa and Mozambique, implemented the Voluntary Repatriation Programme. Voluntary repatriation was deemed to be the most ‘durable solution’ in forced migration, although critics argued that there was no real substantial evidence of this. Further, it has also been argued that given the context of the Mozambican refugees, who had settled and integrated into South Africa, it was not the appropriate response. Although the Programme has been deemed a success by the UNHCR, it ultimately failed, as the majority of the refugees did not want to repatriate, or would circularly migrate and come back into South Africa. When the UNHCR closed the programme and left South Africa, it essentially contributed to labelling those who were left as ‘outsiders’ as their legal status changed from ‘refugee’ to ‘undocumented immigrant’. Under the Aliens Control Act of 1991, one of the apartheids last policies, and its amendment in 1995, there was no reference to refugees or asylum seekers. As a result, these former Mozambican refugees fell into the category of ‘prohibited immigrants’ and were dealt with accordingly. Many were deported, even during the time that the UNHCR was involved, and sent back to Mozambique against their will, despite international requirements. As a consequence, xenophobia has become quite prominent in South Africa, essentially furthering the divide within the fragmented country. Politicians have explicitly called for nation-building within South Africa in an attempt to bring the country together. One of the side effects has been xenophobia as foreign nationals are seen as the outsiders. They are often subject not only to violence, but also to systematic discrimination. This includes significant restrictions in being able to obtain documents and to access healthcare, education, and other public services. Foreign nationals have been stereotyped as stealing jobs and contributing to rising crime rates, 118 and often refugees and asylum seekers are grouped into this category. Politicians and the media have been seen to contribute to the growing xenophobia by spreading many stories on the number of immigrants that are within South Africa. This helps to perpetuate the ideas of the ‘outsider’ in South Africa. This research, however, is subject to several limitations. First, as previously mentioned above, my time in Johannesburg at the South African Historical Society (SAHA) was cut short due to the unrest in the city center. Rather than the few days I had intended to have in the archive, I was only able to go for one day as it was unsafe for the previous couple days to be in that area of the city. This severely limited the amount of resources I could look at in SAHA. Second, although I went to archives that I thought would hold the most pertinent information for my research in the short amount of time I had in South Africa, it is possible that there would have been more information at other archives in which I could have accessed with more time. Time constraint proved to be an issue. Third, although the UNHCR has uploaded many of their documents online for public access, many of the sources that would adhere to the UNHCR outside of South Africa would have been found in archival records in Geneva. In spite of these limitations, this study offers valuable insights into the creation of the ‘other’ through legal measures and the ongoing process of colonialism in recent times. Further research on immigration, refugees, and the process of exclusion might benefit from using oral history approaches in order to understand experiences of refugees on the ground floor. Scholars such as human geographer Tara Polzer have already made headway in this area with interviews, but further research could prove to be beneficial. Another direction would be a thorough examination of legal records such as claims made against Home Affairs by refugees and asylum seekers. More information gleaned from legal records would help us to establish a 119 greater degree of understanding into the continued vulnerability of refugees and asylum seekers in South Africa. A natural progression of this work would be a comparison between different migrant groups. This study focused on Mozambican refugees in post-apartheid South Africa, but it might prove to be beneficial to compare this to other refugees, such as those from Zimbabwe in the same time period. Lastly, on a more international scale, a greater focus on the cross comparisons between white settler countries within the British Empire could produce interesting findings on the impact of colonization on immigration policy and the perception of desirable versus undesirable immigrants in the colonies. South Africa has a long history of marking and creating the ‘other’ in society. Immigration policies are an important site to analyze how citizenship and community membership are built and where ‘othering’ occurs legally. These identities are constantly being produced and reproduced throughout the twentieth century and refugee and asylum-seekers today are still being filtered as belonging or not. Colonial knowledges are thus an ongoing phenomenon in this “post-colonial” world and they continue to impact and have a real effect on the everyday lives in South Africa and globally. 120 Bibliography Primary Sources Archives Western Cape Archives and Records Service, Cape Town Historical Society Research Archives, Johannesburg South Africa Historical Archives, Johannesburg National Archives of South Africa, Pretoria National Archives, United Kingdom Digital Archive Digital Innovation South Africa Internet Archive Online Newspapers South Africa: Grahams Town Journal Mail & Guardian Independent Online Indian Opinion Rand Daily Mail England: The Spectator The United States: The New York Times Reports United Nations United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Human Rights Watch Secondary Sources Bashford, Alison. "Immigration Restriction: Rethinking Period and Place from Settler Colonies to Postcolonial Nations." Journal of Global History 9, no. 1 (2014): 26-48. doi:10.1017/s174002281300048x. 121 Bashford, Alison, and Jane McAdam. “The Right to Asylum: Britain’s 1905 Aliens Act and the Evolution of Refugee Law.” Law and History Review. Vol. 32, No. 2. (May 2014). 309-350. doi: 10.1017/S0738248014000029 Beck, Roger B. The History of South Africa. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2000. Belich, James. Replenishing the Earth: The Settler Revolution and the Rise of the Anglo-World, 1783-1939. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Bessa, Thais. “From Political Instrument to Protection Tool? Resettlement of Refugees and North-South Relations.” Refuge: Canada’s Journal on Refugees Vol 26. No. 1 (2009): 91-100. https://refuge.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/refuge/article/view/30610 Chimni, B. S. “From Resettlement to Involuntary Repatriation: Towards a Critical History of Durable Solutions to Refugee Problems.” Refugee Survey Quarterly 23, no. 3 (January 2004): 55–73. https://doi.org/10.1093/rsq/23.3.55. Chimni, B.S. “The Geopolitics of Refugee Studies: a View from the South.” Journal of Refugee Studies 11, no. 4 (January 1998): 350–74. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/11.4.350. Chimni, B. S. “Globalization, Humanitarianism and the Erosion of Refugee Protection.” Journal of Refugee Studies 13, no. 3 (January 2000): 243–63. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/13.3.243. Chimni, B.S. “Perspectives on Voluntary Repatriation: A Critical Note.” International Journal of Refugee Law 3, no. 3 (1991): 541–46. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/3.3.541. Chokuwenga, Israel. “The Refugee Crisis: A Southern African Perspective” in Migrants, Citizens and the State in Southern Africa. Ed. Jim Whitman. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Macmillan Press Ltd., 2000. Comaroff, Jean, and John L. Comaroff. Theory from the South: How Euro-America Is Evolving Toward Africa. Stellenbosch: Sun Press, 2014. Conway, Daniel, and Pauline Leonard. Migration, Space and Transnational Identities: the British in South Africa. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014. Cook-Martín, David, and David Scott Fitzgerald. “How Their Laws Affect Our Laws: Mechanisms of Immigration Policy Diffusion in the Americas, 1790-2010.” Law & Society Review 53, no. 1 (2019): 41–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12394. Crush, Jonathan. Beyond Control: Immigration and Human Rights in a Democratic South Africa. Cape Town: Idasa, 1998. Crush, Jonathan. “Migrations Past: An Historical Overview of Cross-Border Movement in Southern Africa,” in On Borders: Perspectives on International Migration in Southern Africa. Ed. David A. McDonald. Cape Town: St. Martin’s Press, 2000. 122 De Vletter, Fion. “Labour Migration to South Africa: The lifeblood for Southern Mozambique,” in On Borders: Perspectives on International Migration in Southern Africa. Ed. David A. McDonald. Cape Town: St. Martin’s Press, 2000. Dolan, Chris. “Repatriation from South Africa to Mozambique - Undermining Durable Solutions?” In The End of the Refugee Cycle?: Refugee Repatriation and Reconstruction. Ed. Richard Black and Khalid Koser. New York: Berghahn Books, 1999. Dubow, Saul. A Commonwealth of Knowledge: Science, Sensibility, and White South Africa, 1820-2000. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 2010. Dubow, Saul. “Colonial Nationalism, The Milner Kindergarten and the Rise of ‘South Africanism’, 1902–10.” History Workshop Journal 43, no. 1 (1997): 53–86. https://doi.org/10.1093/hwj/1997.43.53. Dubow, Saul. "How British Was the British World? The Case of South Africa." The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History 37, no. 1 (2009): 1-27. doi:10.1080/03086530902757688. Dubow, Saul. Scientific Racism in Modern South Africa. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand Univ. Press, 1995. Dubow, Saul. "Smuts, the United Nations and the Rhetoric of Race and Rights." Journal of Contemporary History 43, no. 1 (2008): 45-74. doi:10.1177/0022009407084557. Evans, Mark. “Policy Transfer in Critical Perspective.” Policy Studies 30, no. 3 (2009): 243–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442870902863828. Fredrickson, George M. Racism: A Short History. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2015. Ghezelbash, Daniel. "Legal Transfers Of Restrictive Immigration Laws: A Historical Perspective." International and Comparative Law Quarterly 66, no. 01 (2016): 235-55. doi:10.1017/s0020589316000373. Goldberg, David Theo., and Susan Searls Giroux. “Buried, Alive” in Sites of Race. 1-31. Cambridge: Polity, 2014. Goodwin-Gill, Guy S. “International and National Responses to the Challenges of Mass Forced Displacement,” in Advancing Refugee Protection in South Africa. Ed. Jeff Handmaker, Lee Anne de la Hunt, and Jonathan Klaaren. 11-26. New York: Berghahn Books, 2008. Gordon, Steven. “Immigration Policies That Include or Exclude: A South African Public Opinion Study of Immigration Policy Preferences.” Social Dynamics 42, no. 3 (2016): 443–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/02533952.2016.1238336. 123 Gordon, Steven Lawrence. “Shutting the Gates in South Africa: National Identification and Popular Attitudes towards Closing Borders to Immigration.” Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie 108, no. 6 (2016): 821–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/tesg.12232. Gorman, Daniel. Imperial Citizenship: Empire and the Question of Belonging. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2006. Handmaker, Jeff, Lee Anne de la Hunt, and Jonathan Klaaren. “Introduction,” in Advancing Refugee Protection in South Africa. Ed. Jeff Handmaker, Lee Anne de la Hunt, and Jonathan Klaaren. 1-10. New York: Berghahn Books, 2008. Handmaker, Jeff. “No Easy Walk: Advancing Refugee Protection in South Africa.” Africa Today 48, no. 3 (2001): 91–113. https://doi.org/10.1353/at.2001.0052. Handmaker, Jeff. "Who Determines Policy? Promoting the Right of Asylum in South Africa." International Journal of Refugee Law11, no. 2 (1999): 290-309. doi:10.1093/ijrl/11.2.290. Howe, Stephen. “Empire and Ideology” in The British Empire: Themes and Perspectives. Ed. Sarah E. Stockwell. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2010. Kabwe-Segatti, Aurélia Wa, and Loren B. Landau. Contemporary Migration to South Africa: A Regional Development Issue. Washington, D.C: World Bank, 2011. Koser, Khalid and Richard Black. “The End of the Refugee Cycle?” In The End of the Refugee Cycle?: Refugee Repatriation and Reconstruction. Ed. Richard Black and Khalid Koser. 2-17. New York: Berghahn Books, 1999. Klaaren, Jonathan, Lee Anne de la Hunt, and Jeff Handmaker. “Talking a New Talk: A Legislative History of the Refugees Act 130 of 1998,” in Advancing Refugee Protection in South Africa. Ed. Jeff Handmaker, Lee Anne de la Hunt, and Jonathan Klaaren. 27-60. New York: Berghahn Books, 2008. Klaaren, Jonathan Eugene. “Migrating to Citizenship: Mobility, Law, and Nationality in South Africa, 1897-1937.” PhD Diss., Yale University, 2004. Klaaren, Jonathan, and Chris Sprigman. “Refugee Status Determination Procedures in South African Law,” in Advancing Refugee Protection in South Africa. Ed. Jeff Handmaker, Lee Anne de la Hunt, and Jonathan Klaaren. 61-88. New York: Berghahn Books, 2008. Klotz, Audie. "Borders and the Roots of Xenophobia in South Africa." South African Historical Journal 68, no. 2 (2016): 180-94. doi:10.1080/02582473.2016.1153708. 124 Klotz, Audie. "Migration After Apartheid: Deracialising South African Foreign Policy." Third World Quarterly 21, no. 5 (2000): 831-47. doi:10.1080/014365900750012007. Klotz, Audie. Migration and National Identity in South Africa, 1860-2010. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015. Klotz, Audie. "South Africa as an Immigration State." Politikon 39, no. 2 (2012): 189-208. doi:10.1080/02589346.2012.683939. Klotz, Audie. “The Imperial Self: A Perspective on Anglo-America from South Africa, India, and Ireland” in Anglo-America and Its Discontents: Civilizational Identities beyond West and East. Ed. Peter J. Katzenstein. 81-104. London: Routledge, 2012. Lake, Marilyn, and Henry Reynolds. Drawing the Global Colour Line: White Mens Countries and the International Challenge of Racial Equality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Lambert, John. "‘An Unknown People’: Reconstructing British South African Identity." The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History 37, no. 4 (2009): 599-617. doi:10.1080/03086530903327101. Lester, Alan. Imperial Networks: Creating Identities in Nineteenth-Century South Africa and Britain. London: Routledge, 2001. Lester, Alan. "Reformulating Identities: British Settlers in Early Nineteenth-Century South Africa." Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 23, no. 4 (1998): 515-31. doi:10.1111/j.0020-2754.1998.00515.x. Landau, L. B. “Loving the Alien? Citizenship, Law, and the Future in South Africa’s Demonic Society.” African Affairs 109, no. 435 (2010): 213–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/afraf/adq002. Lowe, Lisa. “The Ruses of Liberty” in The Intimacies of Four Continents. 101-133. Durham: Duke University Press, 2015. Mabera, Faith. “The Impact of Xenophobia and Xenophobic Violence on South Africa’s Developmental Partnership Agenda.” Africa Review 9, no. 1 (2016): 28–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/09744053.2016.1239711. Magubane, Bernard Makhosezwe. The Making of a Racist State: British Imperialism and the Union of South Africa, 1875-1910. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press, 1996. Maré, Gerhard. “Race, Nation, Democracy: Questioning Patriotism in the New South Africa,” Social Research, Vol. 72, No. 3. (2005): 501-503. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40971779 125 Mattes, Robert, Donald M. Taylor, Davis A. McDonald, Abigail Poore, and Wayne Richmond. “South African Attitudes to Immigrants and Immigration,” in On Borders: Perspectives on International Migration in Southern Africa. Ed. David A. McDonald. Cape Town: St. Martin’s Press, 2000. Mayblin, Lucy. Asylum after Empire: Colonial Legacies in the Politics of Asylum Seeking. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield International, 2018. Mayblin, Lucy. “Colonialism, Decolonisation, and the Right to Be Human: Britain and the 1951 Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees.” Journal of Historical Sociology 27, no. 3 (December 2014): 423–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/johs.12053. Mawani, Renisa. Colonial Proximities: Crossracial Encounters and Juridical Truths in British Columbia, 1871-1921. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press, 2010. Mazower, Mark. No Enchanted Palace: The End of Empire and the Ideological Origins of the United Nations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2013. McKenzie, Francine. Redefining the Bonds of Commonwealth, 1939-1948: The Politics of Preference. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillian, 2014. Meyers, Eytan. "Theories of International Immigration Policy-A Comparative Analysis." International Migration Review 34, no. 4 (2000): 1245-1282. doi:10.2307/2675981 Mongia, Radhika. Indian Migration and Empire: A Colonial Genealogy of the Modern State. North Carolina: Duke University Press, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822372110. Morier-Genoud Éric, Michel Cahen, and Rosário Domingos Manuel do Rosário. “Introduction,” in The War Within: New Perspectives on the Civil War in Mozambique 1976-1992. Ed. Éric Morier-Genoud, Michel Cahen, and Rosário Domingos Manuel do Rosário. 1-14. Suffolk: James Currey, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781787442931.001 Neocosmos, Michael. From Foreign Natives to Native Foreigners. Explaining Xenophobia in Post-Apartheid South Africa: Citizenship and Nationalism, Identity and Politics. Senegal: African Books Collective, 2010. Peberdy, Sally. "Imagining Immigration: Inclusive Identities and Exclusive Policies in Post-1994 South Africa." Africa Today 48, no. 3 (2001): 15-32. doi:10.1353/at.2001.0060. Peberdy, Sally. “Selecting Immigrants: Nationalism and National Identity in South Africa’s Immigration Policies, 1910 to 1998,” PhD Diss., Queen’s University, 1999. National Library of Canada. 126 Peberdy, Sally and Jonathan Crush. “Rooted in Racism: The Origins of the Aliens Control Act”, in Beyond Control: Immigration and Human Rights in a Democratic South Africa. Ed. Jonathan Crush. 18-26. Cape Town: Idasa, 1998. Polzer, Tara. “’We Are all South Africans Now:’ The Integration of Mozambican Refugees in Rural South Africa,” Forced Migration Working Paper Series #8, Forced Migration Studies Programme, University of the Witwatersrand. (May 2004): 1-10. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6bbd/00c5222b73355052fff446b69663df6a0df4.pdf Polzer, Tara. “Adapting to Changing Legal Frameworks: Mozambican Refugees in South Africa.” International Journal of Refugee Law 19, no. 1 (2007): 22–50. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eem001. Price, Richard. Making Empire: Colonial Encounters and the Creation of Imperial Rule in 19th-Century Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Pratt, Mary Louise. “Arts of the Contact Zone.” Profession, 1991. 33-40. Date Accessed April 20, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/25595469 Reitzes, Maxine. “Mindsets and Migrants: Conceptions of State, Sovereignty and Citizenship of Insiders and Outsiders in South Africa” in Migrants, Citizens and the State in Southern Africa. Ed. Jim Whitman. 62-81. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Macmillan Press Ltd., 2000. Rodgers, Graeme. “Structuring the Demise of a Refugee Identity: The UNHCR’s Voluntary Repatriation Programme for Mozambican Refugees in South Africa” in Transforming Settlement in Southern Africa. Ed. Roddy Fox and Chris De. Wet. 65-78. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univ. Press, 2001. Ross, Robert. A Concise History of South Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Sabela, Thabo. “Trans-boundary Migrancy in Southern Africa: Studies from Mozambique, South African and Swaziland” in Migrants, Citizens and the State in Southern Africa. Ed. Jim Whitman. 102-116. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Macmillan Press Ltd., 2000. Shiells, Georgia. "Immigration History and Whiteness Studies: American and Australian Approaches Compared." History Compass 8, no. 8 (2010): 790-804. doi:10.1111/j.1478-0542.2010.00711.x. Simpson, Alfred W. B. “The Burdens of Empire” in Human Rights and the End of Empire: Britain and the Genesis of the European Convention. 276-322. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2010. Squire, Vicki. The Exclusionary Politics of Asylum. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. 127 Suhrke, Astri. “Uncertain Globalization: Refugee Movements in the Second Half of the Twentieth Century,” in Global History and Migrations, Ed. Gungwu Wang. 217-237. Routledge: New York, 1997. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429500190. Ward, Stuart. “Imperial Identities Abroad” in The British Empire: Themes and Perspectives. Ed. Sarah E. Stockwell. 219-243. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2010.
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Interdisciplinary Studies
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Graduate
(Un)desirable immigrants: the perpetuation of colonial perspectives in South African immigration policies in the twentieth century
Text