Abstract:
Proponents of migrants rights often posit that distinct legislation not only secure
migrants rights in host countries, but also enhance the ideals of liberal democracies
in which policing is regulated by the rule of law, impartiality and respect for due
process. The potential for discrimination by host communities to some categories of
migrants is deemed to underscore the importance of migration laws. Critics argue
that such laws undermine the very rights they are supposed to protect in that they set
different standards for the treatment of migrants.
In this study, based on evidence from research with Somali migrants in Johannesburg,
South Africa, study I argue that legal documents as evidence of legal status have little
significance in the policing of migrants. This paradox can be explained by three main
reasons; first, the issuance, retention and renewal of these documents is characterized
by irregularities and corruption that undermine the legitimacy of the document,
giving the police enough grounds for suspicion. Second the political and social
context in which policing of migrants is done undermines the significance of their
legal status. The anti-migration sentiment among the nationals effectively sets
different standards for policing of migrants. Third, the legal framework gives the
police the dual and potentially conflicting responsibilities of regulating migration on
the one hand and protecting migrants on the other hand. The police have taken their
regulation responsibility to be synonymous with that of gate-keeping whereby
migrants are separated and denied access to government services. This role of gate –
keeping is manipulated by the police for their own ends while citizens and politicians
directly or indirectly sanction their extra-legal actions when dealing with migrants.
