Freedom House Migration T ransnational repression is inherently tied to migration. Not only have targets of transnational repression, by definition, crossed borders, but people in migration systems experience legal precarity that heightens their vulnerability to transnational repression. The exact number of refugees and asylum seekers in South Africa is unknown. In its 2020 report, the UNHCR identified 76,754 refugees and 173,502 asylumseekers in South Africa.22 These numbers underrepresent the scale of immigration to South Africa, as there are many more unregistered refugees. People seeking refuge in South Africa encounter an overwhelmed migration system that appears designed to prevent their acquisition of status. South Africa has strong formal legal protections for refugees and asylum seekers. Asylum seekers are protected from refoulement—the return of persons to a country where there is reason to believe they would face persecution—and from being refused entry to South Africa,23 and refugees are afforded constitutional protections and the right to employment and healthcare, among others.24 However, the rights of refugees and asylum seekers are sometimes violated in practice. Limiting political engagement in diaspora New regulations on the implementation of the Refugees Amendment Act came into force on January 1, 2020, reneging on protections and rights afforded to refugees. The regulations make it easier to exclude asylum seekers from eligibility or enjoyment of certain rights and they introduce various political activities as grounds for revoking refugee status eligibility. Crucially, refugees can lose their status for participating “in any political campaign or activity related to his or her country of origin whilst in the Republic without the permission of the Minister.” This provision effectively outlaws diaspora activism.25 Protest and activism in exile are a demonstration of democratic engagement that play a key role in documenting abuse, advocating for change, and connecting with people in the country of origin. Diaspora activists are squarely within the population that is most vulnerable to transnational repression, and losing immigration status due to their activism would make them still more vulnerable. The regulations also allows withdrawal of refugee status if diaspora members seek any consular services or apply for any official documents—such as requesting birth certificates—from their state of origin.26 Visiting the origin state’s diplomatic premises is also grounds for cessation of status. Contact with embassies and diplomatic staff is a risk factor for transnational repression but using it as grounds for revoking refugee status is a disproportionate measure that puts refugees at risk of refoulement. New refugee regulations effectively outlaw diaspora activism. Tightening the restrictions on migrants aligns with broader patterns of xenophobia and anti-immigrant sentiment in South Africa. However, the reforms reportedly came amid pressure on the South African government to restrict the political activities of dissidents from the DRC, Rwanda, and Zimbabwe.27 The provision against political activities is a boon to states that would like to see their diasporas in South Africa refrain from political activities. In effect, it codifies what they seek to achieve through transnational repression. Rwanda’s minister of foreign affairs and international cooperation welcomed the decision to implement the new regulations, saying, “This law will put an end to subversive activities against Rwanda by these anti-Rwanda terror groups.” 28 His mention of terror groups is suggestive of the Rwandan government’s relationship with the RNC. The original Immigration Act had already opened the door to restricting individuals engaged in political activity. The act denies residence to any individual “who is or has been a member of or adherent to an organization or association utilizing crime or terrorism to pursue its ends.” 29 Given the extent to which repressive governments leverage accusations of terrorism to harm their exiles, such a general provision without clear safeguards is at risk of exploitation; Freedom House found that a majority of victims of physical transnational repression globally are accused of terrorism by their originstate governments.30 This is particularly salient in South Africa, as the Rwandan government commonly uses accusations of terrorism in its campaign against dissidents.31 The lack of training on transnational repression and inconsistent competence of South African immigration officials and law enforcement raises concerns of refoulement under this exclusion. freedomhouse.org 5