The DA’s radical open borders policy

South Africa’s Democratic Alliance faces a widening gap with public opinion on migration. While many have taken note of Leon Schreiber’s often advertised deportation figures, the largest in decades, he is functionally running little more than a catch-and-release programme.

In the first half of 2026, South Africa experienced renewed outbreaks of anti-immigrant violence and organised protests. Groups such as March and March and Operation Dudula staged repeated violent demonstrations and pogroms in Johannesburg, Pretoria, Durban and even a smattering of small Cape towns, calling for the expulsion of illegal immigrants by 30 June.

The unrest has prompted several African government to repatriate their citizens, embarrassing the state at a time when they are trying to mock white South Africans for claiming asylum abroad. It is notable that the same organising network (that is, those affiliated with the former president Jacob Zuma) openly targeted white and Indian neighbourhoods and businesses in 2021 with mass violence and calls for slaughter. Unlike middle class minority citizens however, immigrant communities are somewhat less well-armed.

Public hostility toward immigration is well-known, and not unique to South Africa. Even the most tolerant part of the world, the West, is starting to feel the strain, with riots in Northern Ireland taking up a great deal of the media’s attention recently. According to the Human Sciences Research Council’s South African Social Attitudes Survey for 2025, 77% of respondents agreed that immigrants increase crime rates. Only 15% of adults said they would welcome all foreigners, while 42% said they would welcome none. This is the highest level of outright hostility recorded since the survey began in 2003.

Against this backdrop, we have the DA’s solution: let everyone in.

“Beyond borders”

The DA’s 2022 policy document, “Opportunity beyond borders: The DA’s position on migration” frames mass migration as an economic opportunity rather than a risk to stability, and the only problem they foresee in immigration generally is making sure everyone is sufficiently documented to impose universal biometric surveillance on the population and maintain good labour statistics.

Rather than pointing out that our immigration system is out of control, the DA argues that South Africa needs to make it far easier to get in than it already is, but just keep better paperwork. They mention border security a few times, but it is not clear what the purpose of this would be in the context of immigration – if you want there to be no restrictions, just a frictionless bureaucratic process, then the only security issues are smuggling of various kinds, not the actual people crossing.

The policy distinguishes between illegal migration, which it opposes, and legal migration, which it seeks to expand to the maximum extent across multiple categories. But if the only form of illegal immigration is forgetting to record your details on an official form, it’s not a substantial or meaningful law.

Visa-free arrangements form another central element. The policy advocates extending visa-free entry for up to 90 days to all countries where this is “practically feasible”, without any requirement of reciprocity (Schreiber has already offered this to China and India to boost tourism and investment). It supports a special dispensation for Botswana, Eswatini, Lesotho and Namibia, and a lot of enthusiasm for the African Union protocol on the free movement of persons and the rollout of an African passport – effectively full and unfettered open borders.

On business migration, the policy calls for the removal of the R5 million minimum investment threshold for business visas, to allow for any small business willing to submit a “business plan” to come into the country. There is little worry from the DA about the proliferation of money-laundering outfits that already plague our high streets.

For skilled work, the document proposes shifting from the existing skills-demand list system to a points-based model. That sounds great, but then they don’t want to stop anyone from coming in even if they are completely unskilled. This amounts to nothing more than gathering statistics on the labour force.

Enforcement

To this end, one of the document’s biggest proposals is the promotion of biometrics, with digital and administrative reforms being presented as “enabling measures”. Biometric data would be recorded on entry and exit, and linked to SSA, SAPS and SARS databases. They also want to automate everything and take it online to reduce direct interaction with officials, allow employers to check work eligibility status against Home Affairs databases.

On the plus side, they want to blacklist criminals from state employment, which is a great idea, though whether it is implementable is up for debate. Border security would receive additional resources, including tender opportunities for private companies on land and sea borders alike, to herd people encountered at the border toward legal entry points.

However, they quickly undermine this appearance of law and order, by undermining the reach of enforcement. Public reporting systems for illegal immigrants are to be eliminated on the grounds that they encourage vigilantism, and illegal immigrants are all offered paths to “regularisation”, explicitly as a priority before enforcement action. There is also some talk of improving detention conditions preventing unlawful arrests, but this is fairly vague and seems more like taking a default administrative bias against enforcement officials, which undermines efficacy.

They also want SAPS to prioritise issues with xenophobia, which makes sense in the current climate. But there is a very odd little clause in which they state they want to eliminate laws preventing migrants from protesting against foreign governments in South Africa – effectively encouraging foreigners to come and disrupt the host country; this is a foolish and idealistic approach which is sure to draw resentment from the public, who are already fairly offended by foreign traditional leaders declaring themselves chiefs and royalty in South African territory.

Asylum and refugee procedures have come under fire recently, because they have made it impossible to deport anyone. In order to close this loophole, the courts recently ruled that asylees have to re-apply from outside the country if they want to try again after being rejected, to end their ability to infinitely delay the process and cement right to remain.

The DA policy document oddly didn’t foresee this problem despite it being fairly well-remarked on in several institutions which deal with asylees. They push for an expansion of the period within which asylum seekers must apply, an expansion of processing centres and processing budgets, and freedom of movement while claims are processed.

The long party

Taken together, the DA’s approach is effectively calling for the abolition of borders for any purpose except data collection and surveillance. The notion that mass migration is disruptive to ordinary life and political stability is not entertained at all, and it is generally taken for granted that any objections can be dealt with by force.

In fact, it would seem that the DA’s approach is not just laissez-faire, but maximalist – they wish to see the greatest possible quantities of immigration, regardless of the strain on municipal and national infrastructure, already severely overburdened by the influx of indigent foreigners. Healthcare in South Africa, which is free at the point of service for most, involves interminable queues, shortages and delays due to the inability of the state to turn away foreigners, when they can barely afford to service locals.

While the ANC is lackadaisical, they do appear to recognise the need for caution in these matters. The DA on the other hand, consider the public opinion to be generally irrelevant, and pursue instead a programme of mass population replacement, largely driven by the insatiable desire of their donors for cheap labour.

When the DA first came to power 120 odd years ago as the South African Party, one of the first things they did was impose a poll tax on the black homeland populations to drive them into the mines and undercut the white unions, whose members had just had their farms burned down and their families murdered in concentration camps.

The very same families who funded that policy are now funding this one, and the high-handed condescension with which they regard the public opinion is evidence that they do not consider it likely this vector of oligarchic power will ever be meaningfully challenged.

Perhaps they are right to think so, but it does not appear to be a responsible way of governing.