MALAIKA MAHLATSI | The problem with referring to people as 'illegal immigrants'

Like all young students pursuing a Geography degree at Rhodes University over a decade ago, I used the term “sub-Saharan Africa” casually.

It was used in textbooks and lectures, and so, I believed it was a scientific and acceptable way to refer to a significant part of the African continent that is located below the Sahara Desert.

It wasn’t until I was well into my second Master’s degree, in the discipline of Urban and Regional Planning, that I encountered literature by decolonial scholars that challenged the use of the term.

The experience would forever shape how I approach language use in the ideational space because I finally understood the power of words in shaping how we think about the continent, and by extension, ourselves.

The term “sub-Saharan Africa” was popularised by early European colonisers to segregate North Africa from the rest of the continent. The north of the continent has historically been seen as "Mediterranean" and, by extension, more civilised than the south.

The term was intended to create a racist hierarchy that has its roots in Arab colonialism of the northern region of the continent. Arab forces from the Arabian Peninsula conquered the region around 709 AD, introducing Islam and establishing Arabic as the language of administration.

The process of Arabisation in Africa was slow, with local populations, particularly the Berbers, Carthaginians and Egyptians, gradually adopting Arabic language and identity over centuries.

As Arabs settled and indigenous populations became acculturated, the two groups were integrated, leading to inter-marriages that resulted in a genetic admixture that has shaped the phenotypic characteristics of many North Africans.

These characteristics were used by European colonisers to cement the argument that the scientific and engineering feats of these Africans was the result of their superior genetic profiles that contained European and Asiatic genes.

It is for this reason that the term is still frequently used to discuss issues related to poverty, disease, and conflict, perpetuating a monolithic image of misery and "othering" the rest of Africa.

This completely ignores the existence of indigenous Black populations in North Africa and the deep historical links between the entire continent.

Furthermore, the implication of inferiority is evident in the term itself. The prefix "sub" translates to "under" or "below," which carries connotations of being substandard, inferior, or less important.

Moreover, by grouping dozens of countries that range from stable, rapidly developing nations to others in conflict, it obscures the vast cultural, economic, and political diversity of the region.

This enables the framing of the continent as homogenous, thereby creating a single story about its histories, cultures, and people.

Over the past few weeks, the topic of immigration has been dominating headlines.

This is a pattern that is often seen during an election year when the anti-immigrant sentiment in the country worsens.

A common thread that I have been observing is the way in which the media, politicians and commentators alike, have been framing the immigration discourse, and specifically, the language that they use.

Undocumented migrants have repeatedly been referred to as “illegal immigrants” even by people whose views on immigration are progressive, such as Economic Freedom Fighters leader Julius Malema.

There are several reasons why this term is problematic, not least of which is the fact that it dehumanises people by equating their human existence with a criminal act, rather than describing their administrative status.

The act of entering a sovereign country illegally may be unlawful, but a person cannot be "illegal”. Insisting that they are reduces their entire identity to a violation of civil administrative law, stripping them of their human dignity.

The term lays the foundation for how undocumented migrants are treated because referring to someone as "illegal" makes it easier to justify withholding rights, decent working conditions, or fair treatment that they should have for no other reason than that they are human.

There are also legal inaccuracies that often accompany the immigration question. A significant number of migrants in South Africa have pending legal claims, such as asylum.

Asylum seekers are not committing a crime by entering a country illegally, they are exercising their fundamental human right to seek protection from persecution or danger.

Under international law, specifically the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (both to which South Africa is a signatory), entering a country to apply for asylum is not an unlawful act, even if done without authorisation.

Additionally, some migrants who are deemed undocumented are in limbo due to backlogs at the Department of Home Affairs.

As of early 2026, many applicants were still waiting for decisions on waiver and visa appeal applications. The exact number is unknown, but in 2024, it stood at over 300 000. The use of the term “illegal” in reference to these categories of migrants is thus legally and technically incorrect.

The term “illegal immigrants” is also increasingly being used by politicians and leaders of anti-immigrant social movements to manipulate public opinion and simplify complex social-political issues.

It scapegoats individual immigrants for problems that are largely systemic. Most Africans immigrate to South Africa are seeking better economic opportunities and improved living conditions, driven by the country's status as a regional economic powerhouse.

Key factors that drive migration into the country include escaping conflict, political instability, and poverty in their home countries. There is also an increase in people migrating due to the impact of climate change on rural communities across the continent, particularly the decimation of rural livelihoods.

All these are systemic problems rooted in a colonial legacy that is at the core of underdevelopment on the continent. Poor governance and autocracies on the continent are also key factors, and these too are systemic problems that have devastating consequences on ordinary people. Under these circumstances, the decision to migrate is a logical and human response rather than something insidious.

There is nothing wrong with South Africans engaging in discourse about migration and its impact on the country’s economy, public services and social infrastructure. We should be able to ventilate the issue and to differ where we must.

But there is everything wrong with using language that dehumanises migrants in the process, because terms like “illegal immigrant” are not neutral and they are not without ramifications for those who are described using them.

We must use alternatives that avoid negative value judgments and accurately focus on the administrative status rather than on criminalising human beings for actions that are rooted in systemic challenges.

The correct term to use is “undocumented migrant”, which emphasises that a person lacks the specific documentation required by the host country.

It highlights that the action of entering or staying was not authorised without criminalising the humanity of the person who entered without inspection.

How we use language matters. It matters that indigenous people in Africa are not implied to be sub-human as the term “sub-Sahara” does.

It also matters that undocumented migrants are not implied to be inherently criminal, as the term “illegal immigrant” does.

Language is not neutral, and when it is used to criminalise, dehumanise and de-civilise other Africans, it becomes a weapon of intolerance and hatred, setting parameters for genocide.

This is no exaggeration. Dehumanisation through labelling is the foundation of all genocides.

The Tutsis of Rwanda were called “cockroaches” before they were slaughtered by Hutu militia; the Jews of Europe were called untermenschen (sub-human) and parasiten (parasites) before they were exterminated by the Nazis; the Rohingya are referred as kalar (a term similar to kafir in our own context) by the Myanmar government to justify their oppression; and Palestinians are referred to as amalek to the apartheid state of Israel to justify its genocide against them.

Today, we refer to them as “illegal immigrants” and makw*r*kw*r* and such terms. Tomorrow, we will be burning them, again.

Malaika is a researcher and PhD in Geography candidate at the University of Bayreuth in Germany