Washington Week: Student Voices (O)

Column: South African xenophobia mirrors U.S. immigration debate
By Furrah Qureshi
The Triangle Drexel U.
June 06, 2008

This year's summer is just beginning, but already the global sentiment around the world mirrors that of recent summers. America's sweltering summer sentiment of 2006 was one that predicted illegal immigration being a colossal issue in the then upcoming elections. On April 10, 2006, in 102 cities across the country, an estimated 100,000 to over 500,000 people rallied in protest and support of immigration rights. Phrases like "amnesty" and "anti-American" dominated the media coverage of the event, and that sleepy summer highlighted America's own conflicting amalgamation.

2008's summer, barely beginning, has already brought the death of 42 migrants and displaced tens of thousands in South Africa. Similar to the April 2006 protest, thousands of South Africans assembled in Johannesburg May 24 holding signs that read "Xenophobia hurts like apartheid," and, "We stand against xenophobia." The protest is in the wake of a 13-day period of mob violence that began May 11, where 25,000 were driven from their homes and many beaten, clubbed or burned. Angry mobs accused immigrants from other parts of Africa of taking jobs and fuelling crime, according to an MSNBC report. It all sounds very familiar.

South African President Thabo Mbeki authorized the army to help quell the violence, but many feel this is not enough. The violence erupted amidst power shortages and growing discontent.

Pat Craven, a spokesman for the Congress of South African Trade Unions, told Al Jazeera in a May 27 news article that, "Poverty, unemployment, a lack of housing and the slow delivery of services were the root cause of the violence."

South Africa departed from apartheid in the mid 1990s, and most South Africans can vividly recall the days when racism and segregation were rampant and acceptable. South Africa is one of the more affluent African countries and even plans to host the 2010 Soccer World Cup. But many worry that the media coverage of the barbarism of the mob attacks will dissuade tourism and present an uncouth persona for the country.

In truth, though South Africa's contention is manifested to a more severe degree than the debate on immigration in America, it is the same issue. And the same media that is so quick to hail South Africa as backwards had a field day covering the American protests of 2006.

It just proves that we now live in a global economy - that China's role with Tibet complicates the summer Olympics, and home front violence in South Africa complicates the issue of the 2010 Soccer World Cup. Events fueled by advertising and tourism serve as dissuading elements for countries, whether it be air pollution in China or violent uproar in South Africa. The world is more global than it ever has been before, and we have to sort out how we feel about issues with which we have contention. But at the same time, does the U.S. have any sort of right to dictate the affairs of any other country? Where does Tibet's freedom end and America's isolationism begin?

The current violence in South Africa hits a country at the heart of its problem. Critics predict the violence will go on for some time - seeing as the problem has gone on for some time.

[ Back to Student Voices ]