immigration amendment bill

****If you are having problems that are not being adequately addressed, phone the Home Affairs DG on his cellphone.  Read more here.****

Immigration Amendment Bill 2010

Since November of last year, we have been closely following and involved in the parliamentary process around the Immigration Amendment Bill of 2010. The Forum of Immigration Practitioners of South Africa (FIPSA), as well as the Law Society of South Africa, the Legal Resources Centre, several law firms, the Centre for Development Enterprise (CDE) and many others, presented their comments on the Bill to the parliamentary portfolio committee on Home Affairs during the public consultation process. The criticism in relation to the most important issues was almost unanimous. In response to the public comments, the committee has asked Home Affairs to review certain aspects of the Bill. During the three committee meetings since the public consultation, there was much heated debate between ANC and DA members, as well as the Home Affairs team present. Every meeting was presented with further amendments, some of which have brought significant and critical relief from the original Bill’s proposals. On 8 March, the committee voted on the Bill and adopted it in its latest amended form.

What You May Have Heard About, But Has Subsequently Been Withdrawn from the Bill or Amended

• Removal of waiver option for Business Permits: The original Bill proposed the removal of the option to reduce or waive the minimum investment of R 2,5 million, which would have meant that every applicant for a business permit had to invest at least R 2,5 million and that no exceptions to this rule would have been possible. This proposal has in the meantime been withdrawn and the waiver option will therefore stay.
• The restriction of Business Permits to certain industries, to be prescribed by the Minister from time to time: The restriction has been removed and instead an exclusion clause has been inserted, in terms of which businesses in certain industries will be excluded, which industries will be prescribed.
• The restriction of Corporate Permits to certain industries, to be prescribed by the Minister from time to time: The restriction has been removed and instead an exclusion clause has been inserted, in terms of which corporates in certain industries will be excluded, which industries will be prescribed.
• Removal of work option for under 25-year-olds under Exchange Permit: The provision has been re-inserted and instead an exclusion clause has been inserted, in terms of which work in certain industries will be excluded, which industries will be prescribed. It is quite apparent that the above changes are really targeting strip clubs employing foreign “exotic dancers”, which have caused Home Affairs much embarrassment and negative publicity.
• The prohibition of changing temporary residence status or conditions of permit or even extending a permit from within the country (or rather, allowing it only in “exceptional circumstances” and after approval from the Minister, which is practically equivalent to a prohibition): This restriction has been changed to only apply to holders of visitor’s and medical treatment permits, which is a relief, but in its current form will still affect working spouses of South Africans, children and spouses accompanying a permit holder, as well as holders of short-term authorizations to work wishing to change to longer-term permits. These persons will have to interrupt their stay, leave the country and apply from their home country. They will have to await the outcome of such application (with processing times of up to 3 months) until being allowed to return to their homes in South Africa. Exceptions will be made in “exceptional circumstances”, which are to be prescribed in the Regulations. After much heated debate on my side with the official responsible for the drafting of the Bill, at least the requirement for an exception to be granted by “the Minister” has been removed, which should make it more accessible.

Problematic issues that the current proposal includes

• Removal of section 46, which provides that advocates, attorneys and registered Immigration Practitioners may represent applicants before the Department of Home Affairs. The concern is that the removal of section 46 will lead to the legitimization of corrupt and unethical “consultants”, taking away from foreigners the tool to differentiate bone fide practitioners from illegitimate ones, putting them at risk of being exploited and defrauded. Further, Home Affairs will have to communicate with and respond to thousands of individual applicants and companies instead of a controllable, reachable group of professionals who have expert knowledge of the immigration field and are able to disseminate information to their networks of clients, thereby ensuring that procedural and policy changes are complied with and that the system runs smoothly. Immigration is too complex a field for a call centre to be able to manage all enquiries with any level of significance or required expertise. This is expected to lead to inappropriate applications, negative decisions and a flood of appeals and/or court cases, making the process even slower and more unpredictable. In my capacity as Vice Chairperson of FIPSA, I formulated a letter that was sent out to large and influential clients of Immigration Practitioners country-wide, in a bid for support against the planned removal of section 46. About 40 signed letters by leading businesses, chambers of commerce, research bodies and major non-governmental organisations were presented to the committee’s chairperson and were discussed at the last committee meeting, but the ANC-dominated committee could not be swayed and insisted that the time for public input had passed. They will, however, be used once more in the next phase of the Bill, involving the National Council of Provinces and parliament’s National Assembly, and we again thank all those who have contributed to this action.
• Application in person: The proposed section will require all applications to be submitted in person, where applications can currently be lodged by courier or through attorneys, advocates and immigration practitioners or their staff. As most readers will know, it is a common occurrence for counter staff at offices of Home Affairs and at foreign missions to give poor or incomplete advice. Furthermore, there are language and cultural hurdles to be overcome. Many clients have reported to us their frustrations with Home Affairs and come to us for assistance due to their negative experiences there (e.g. repeatedly standing in lines for many hours only to be turned away yet again). Poor advice over the counter leads to inappropriate and incomplete applications, rejections, appeals, a clogging up of the process, a waste of government resources and a deterrent of foreign skills, investment and other much-needed benefits to South Africa. Immigration Practitioners have been shouldering the negative and tedious parts of the immigration process for their clients in order to ensure that the latter’s experience of coming to South Africa is a positive one, but will now be prevented from doing that.
• Job creation by Business Permit holders: The Bill proposes that Business Permit holders, instead of having to employ at least 5 South African citizens or permanent residents within 2 years from receiving the permit, will in future have to create a certain (to be prescribed in the Regulations) number and percentage of jobs for South Africans and permanent residents within 12 months. There exists great uncertainty around what this number and percentage will be.
• Effective abolishment of exceptional skills permit (replaced by the critical skills permit, whereby the quota work permit was abolished): Persons currently qualifying for this permit include successful sportspeople, artists, musicians, scientists, academics and other persons who have had an extraordinary impact in their fields. Very often other types of work permits do not apply to these sought-after individuals, or are extremely onerous in their requirements. Also, it is probably impossible to anticipate or predict all the different industries and fields in which exceptional skills may be needed in South Africa. Hence, no list will be able to capture all of the country’s needs, which are also ever-changing. South Africa will be losing an important tool to attract highly valuable individuals.
• Reduction of parliament’s control in respect of immigration policy: A number of changes proposed in the Bill will have the effect of parliament not being involved in critical questions of immigration policy. This includes all criteria attached to work permits, including intra-company transfer, critical skills and general work permits. These are all to be prescribed by Regulation. Since the amendments to the Immigration Act of 2005, Regulations do not need to be presented to parliament for comment anymore. The result will be a much-reduced oversight role of parliament.
• Overstaying: In future, any person who has overstayed the validity of his or her permit for a certain (to be prescribed in the Regulations) number of times, may be declared “undesirable”, which means that they do not qualify for any future visas or permits. No differentiation is made in the Bill between voluntary and involuntary (e.g. as a result of incapacity due to illness) overstaying, and no exemption is provided for persons who overstay as a result of delays on the side of Home Affairs. This creates major uncertainty and again a dependency on the Regulations, over which parliament has no control.

From Imcosa's March Newsletter