The pending deadline of June 30, for undocumented foreigners to exit SA is not a government-sanctioned date, but elements hiding behind activism.
This is sad because in SA, activism and political activity are intertwined.
This is a long tradition that makes South Africans who they are. Even this matter of undocumented foreign nationals is no exception.
In fact, the government has, on numerous occasions, stated publicly and on the record that such a deadline does not exist in government departments and is unlawful and illegal.
It was further stated that determining the immigration status of foreign nationals was the sole responsibility of designated officials from the home affairs department, the Border Management Agency and/or law enforcement.
A deadline of June 30 had been announced for illegal foreigners to leave SA by such civic groups as March and March and individual activists involved in that space.
At least there was not a call to remove infirm and vulnerable undocumented foreign nationals from healthcare facilities and schools.
Since the so-called installation of the Igbo King in KuGompo City a few months back, South African activists have taken it upon themselves to force foreign nationals out of the spaces they share with South Africans.
It had been reasoned that a situation must never arise where foreign nationals are an alternative force to poor South Africans across all sectors of society.
The reaction to this Nigerian action proved significant for how it polarised South Africans.
Mostly, the relocation lacked consistency and showed different thinking on how best to deal with illegal immigration.
South Africans are mostly caught between their duty of care towards the vulnerable, commonly referred to as ubuntu, and the deep need to preserve benefits for the poorest of the poor.
Not only that, but also how well off one is, played a significant role in how South Africans thought the challenge should be resolved.
This is a dichotomy that confronted many in our society.
Essentially and importantly, how does one care for others when you are the one who needs care the most?
There are no clear-cut answers to the question.
In everyday legal speak, the deadline is illegal, and any act to force illegal foreigners out of the country will constitute unlawfulness.
This, in itself, does not criminalise activism and the civic movements in our country.
The freedoms, as guaranteed in the constitution, are solid and are guaranteed but cannot be done against the spirit of the law and the constitution.
Characterisation of civic movements like March and March as vigilanties is wrong and misplaced.
Activism in SA is in the social fabric of our DNA.
If political formations differ with civic movements, that is what must happen at ideological level, as most of the issues civic movements raise are legitimate.
But to broadly criminalise their actions is unfortunate.
It can’t be that politicians find fault with activism and not what affects ordinary people.
At least, in the illegal immigration space, the government is attending to those.
Last week, a certain Asandra Denise, reportedly from Nevmonds in the Eastern Cape, was sentenced for drug activity in the Ivory Coast.
This person does not belong to any grouping or South African tribe.
As if this was not enough, Denise claims to be from “Nevmonds village”.
I am raising this for the potential harm it may cause to our republic and to which civic movements are correctly asking; why is it allowed or happening?
Civic movements are rightly asking if illegality has occurred, and nothing was done about it, who is right, the person driving out the illegal immigrant or the activist acting unlawfully?
And the people are right to point out these challenges as the government can easily be evaded by illegality.
Arguing that black people from African states are targeted is misplaced, because they do not have papers to be in SA, so they could not be targeted, they need to leave.
People must not hide in SA perpetually, as we have enough challenges ourselves and we have a duty to care for poor South Africans.
The difference with countries they originate from is that we are committed to resolving and bettering the lives of all South Africans.
Opportunities in South Africa belong to South Africans, anyone seen taking this away from the people needs to have a just cause and reason enough to do so.
It cannot be that undocumented foreign nationals are hustling without any responsibility or gratification whatsoever to poor South African.
To say foreign nationals should not have access to opportunities legitimately meant for South African poor children is not xenophobia. SA has a responsibility to its citizens who live in it.
This phrase as reflected in the Freedom Charter bears no relevance to foreigners living in our country.
The irony is that foreign nationals are unable to travel on home country passports to many parts of the world, yet they see fit to seek, and attempt to abuse the South African passport to the disadvantage of the rightful holders.
We must not condone immigration illegality in our country, neither will we sanction unlawful attacks on innocent and poor foreign nationals.
The June 30 deadline will prove one thing — that SA’s democracy is alive and people are living according to constitutional desires.
This is only possible because SA has mastered the balance between activism and sovereignty the right way.
Not a more powerful state than its people.
That sets us apart from any other African state post-independence.
Dakota Legoete is the chair of the portfolio committee on defence and military veterans in parliament. He writes in his personal capacity.