By Abdullah Aadam
South Africa’s anti-migrant movement promises jobs and prosperity. Abdullah Aadam argues it offers neither, and instead risks repeating economic failures, apartheid-era thinking and principles contrary to Islamic teaching.
South Africa is repeating the mistakes that destroyed other economies. The “South Africa for South Africans” movement wants migrants expelled by June 30. It promises jobs and prosperity. It will deliver neither. Instead, it will produce more unemployment, economic decline and fewer services for the very people whose interests it claims to advance. Worse still, it mimics the logic of apartheid by drawing lines based on identity: on one side, people with rights; on the other, people with none. This movie has been seen before. The ending is known. It merits archiving, not reproducing.
The Islamic position
Islam is clear on this issue. In Surah Al-Hujurat [49:13], Allah (SWT) says: “O humanity, We created you from a male and female, and made you into peoples and tribes so that you may know one another.” That is the point. Allah created people differently, with wondrous variety and diversity. Knowledge of that variety is intended to cultivate marvel, appreciation and commonality, not enmity, exclusion and expulsion.
In Surah Al-Hashr [59:9], Allah describes the Ansar of Medina as those who “love whoever immigrates to them, never having a desire in their hearts for whatever of the gains is given to the emigrants. They give the emigrants preference over themselves even though they may be in need.” That is the Islamic teaching: welcome migrants, prefer them even in hardship and give them safety and dignity. The South Africa for South Africans movement teaches the opposite: expel them, deny them and protect yourself by excluding them. This is not Islamic. It is contrary to the Qur’an.
The apartheid parallel
South Africa knows about drawing lines based on who people are. The country paid for it in indignity, untold suffering and blood. Apartheid drew a line. On one side were people with rights. On the other were people without. It determined who belonged and who did not. For the “other”, it meted out misery and only allowed entry when it served the interests of those who “belonged”. It was morally repugnant, merciless and unjust. It destroyed lives and damaged the economy.
The South Africa for South Africans movement uses the same logic. It draws the same line. It says migrants do not belong here. It uses state power to enforce exclusion. It denies rights based on where one is born. It uses “nationality” in precisely the same way Verwoerd and his cohorts used “race”. This time, it is African against African. That makes it worse, not better. South Africa fought apartheid because the country affirmed that all humans have equal dignity, regardless of who they are. This movement limits that truth to South Africans. That is a travesty and must be rejected.
The evidence: A century of failure
Principle aside, the strategy is completely misplaced. The evidence spans more than a century. Every time a country has tried something similar, the economic consequences have been devastating.
Australia: 1901–1970s
Australia enacted the White Australia Policy to keep “non-Europeans” out. It used the same argument now advanced by the South Africa for South Africans movement: protect jobs and wages. It used the same method: false narratives designed to exclude foreigners. It failed. Even with the restrictions, Australia faced labour shortages and stagnation. By the 1940s, the economy was struggling so badly that the government began abandoning the policy. Exclusion did not protect workers. It stunted growth.
Japan: 1945–2010s
Japan was restrictive for 60 years. There was little labour immigration. The country was determined to “go it alone”. By 2010, Japan faced a paradox: high unemployment and severe labour shortages at the same time. Why? Because excluding workers does not eliminate the work. Construction sites lacked crews. Hospitals lacked nurses. Care homes lacked staff. The work simply did not get done. Services suffered. The economy stagnated. Living standards came under pressure. People worked more hours for little gain. Only in 2019 did Japan begin opening up its labour market. That was 60 years of lost growth.
Britain: 2016–2025
In 2016, Britain voted for Brexit. The campaign bears a frightening resemblance to the South Africa for South Africans movement: migrants are stealing jobs, taking housing and burdening public services. Expel them and everything will improve. It did not. Nine years of data now exists. British jobs were lost, not for migrants, but for British workers. Unemployment rose despite the expulsions. Hospitals could not find nurses. Construction could not find workers. Care services struggled. Investment was eroded. GDP is lower than it would have been. Business investment is lower. The economy is smaller. The average British household is worse off annually.
This is not theory. This is measured fact from the Cambridge Centre for Economic Policy Research, the Office for Budget Responsibility and Moody’s Analytics. They all point to the same conclusion: closure and insulation damage economies.
What will likely happen?
If the South Africa for South Africans movement succeeds, South Africa will in all likelihood follow the same disastrous path as Japan, Australia and Britain. First will come the expulsions. Migrants will be deported or will flee. Construction sites will lose workers. Hospitals will lose staff. Hotels will lose workers. Spaza shops will close. Informal businesses will collapse. For a few months, supporters may celebrate. South Africa will have “reclaimed” itself.
Then the economy will show signs of weakness. Labour shortages will hit construction, healthcare, hospitality and care work. Projects will stall. Services will deteriorate. Firms will stop investing. Foreign firms will leave. Multinationals will relocate. Prices will rise without wages rising. Inflation will spike. Real wages will fall. People will become poorer. Unemployment will rise because of, not despite, the expulsions. Investment will not recover. Firms will reduce hiring due to labour constraints. The informal economy will shrink. By 2028, unemployment will likely be higher than it is now.
And who will suffer? Poor South Africans. Construction workers will have fewer jobs. Informal traders will lose business. The elderly will lose care services. Children will lose childcare. Poor households will lose access to food and basic goods. The economy will produce less value. Tens of millions of South Africans will become poorer because the economy will be smaller. This is what happened in Britain, Australia and Japan. It will likely happen here too.
The spaza shop economy
A specific disaster of immigrant expulsions would be the collapse of spaza shops and the consequences for the poor. Spaza shops operate on tiny margins. They have lower operating costs than corporates. They stay open late. They offer credit to customers they know. They stock what poor people actually buy: a cup of sugar, a packet of maize meal, a tin of beans, a bar of soap. Poor households depend on them.
When migrant-run spaza shops close, what replaces them? Corporate chains: Shoprite, Pep Stores, Takealot, Boxer and Woolworths. These corporate giants have higher costs and higher margins. Prices go up. Extended hours disappear. Credit vanishes. The poor household that bought sugar by the cup now has to buy a full 2kg bag at corporate prices. The pensioner who had credit at the spaza now has to pay cash.
Expulsion does not create entrepreneurs. It consolidates the retail sector into corporate hands and raises prices for the poorest. The South Africa for South Africans movement would destroy the survival mechanisms that alleviate some of the hardship endured by the poor.
The real problem
The supporters of the South Africa for South Africans movement are right about one thing: South Africa has serious problems. Youth unemployment is catastrophic. Services are failing. The poor are increasingly marginalised. But they have ignored the real enemy.
The real problem is corruption at every level of the state. Billions of rands have disappeared through theft and fraud. State institutions have been captured by the connected. Resources meant for education, healthcare and infrastructure have been diverted into private pockets. The plight of the poor is not caused by someone working in a spaza shop or on a construction site. It is caused by a state that loots and diverts public spending away from where it ought to go — maintenance, infrastructure and basic services — into self-enriching schemes. It is caused by thieves in government, and by institutions that loot and are looted.
The contradiction was exposed in how quickly the state was reportedly able to make R600 million available for immediate expenditure on private security companies and other stakeholders, while basic services, infrastructure and job-creating development remain starved of urgent funding.
That money could have been directed towards infrastructure development, food security projects, farming and agricultural expansion — interventions that would have created work, strengthened local economies and potentially generated 2,000–3,000 jobs. Instead, the state continues to treat symptoms while ignoring the structural failures driving poverty, unemployment and social breakdown.
The South Africa for South Africans movement ignores this completely. It does not demand accountability for stolen resources. It does not demand an end to the pillage. It chooses the most vulnerable people on whom to mete out its frustration. It is easier to blame the foreigner than to confront the thief in cabinet.
The solution lies in what the South Africa for South Africans movement refuses to acknowledge, let alone confront: addressing corruption, rebuilding institutions and investing in growth. It requires an education and health system that actually functions. It requires infrastructure development.
This means building, not destroying. It means investment, not bullying. It means welcoming productive capacity, not expelling it.
The choice
South Africa has a choice. The country can follow the South Africa for South Africans movement. It can expel migrants, draw lines around who belongs, blame the foreigner and ignore state banditry. The end result of this approach is known. Britain went there. Australia went there. Japan went there. Catastrophe followed.
Or South Africa can choose differently. It can follow the path of Medina: the path where migrants are welcomed, not excluded. This is not soft. This is not idealistic. It is practical. It is what works. Britain learned it too late. Australia learned it too late. Japan learned it too late.
South Africa should not choose to learn the hard way. The evidence exists. The cost is known. The real enemy is known. It is not the migrant worker or the spaza shop owner. It is the bandit-overrun state. It is the stolen state.
