In Europe and the US they wrongly call it racism. Germans hate their Turkish immigrants. The British have a problem with Pakistanis and West Indians. The Dutch dislike Moroccans, the Irish hate the Poles and the French fear the Algerians. Americans get highly emotional about the supposed problem of Mexican and other Hispanic immigration.
In most of these cases, it is called racism, because it happens to involve coloured people in predominantly white countries. The issue is clouded by cultural differences and the belief that crime is caused by immigrants.
In South Africa, we cannot call it racism, because our own population – predominantly black – reacts against immigrants from other African countries, who are also black. So we call it xenophobia instead.
Using these terms disguises the root of the problem. Very few people – not counting countries that have recently been at war with each other – genuinely harbour an irrational hatred of foreigners or other races. If it was a simple matter of not hating Malawians or Zimbabweans, the problem wouldn't even exist. Hating another for merely being from a different country is irrational on the face of it. Making that hate dependent on whether or not such a person has an official permit from the government to be in the country is downright absurd.
What is termed xenophobia in South Africa, or racism in Europe and the US, has a perfectly rational economic basis.
The problem is this: Citizens believe that foreigners partake of services and opportunities to which citizens themselves are entitled. When citizens feel hard done by because their government is failing to deliver social services, they get angry. When faced with this anger, public officials who fail in their duty find it easy to deflect it by making scapegoats out of foreigners. Politics ends up contributing to xenophobia instead of leading communities away from hatred and violence, and there is little doubt that local politicians in South Africa are implicated in whipping up the mobs.
Xenophobia is an issue born of welfare-state policies. If the government is expected to provide social services of all kinds, citizens who feel themselves inadequately served by their government – or worse, are bitter because they paid taxes for those services – will naturally rebel against interlopers who claim a share of such benefits.
If foreigners who entered a country, be it legally or illegally, were not able to take advantage of these services, few citizens would have cause to resent their presence.
Once communities feel that foreigners leech off the state's limited ability to provide social services, it is not much of a stretch to begin disliking them for other reasons. They compete with local shopkeepers when they open shops. They compete with local labour for jobs. They have different customs, different languages and different religions. To compound the mistrust, a few among them will become involved in crime.
In a free economy, competition from foreigners would benefit society as a whole. This is a detail people easily overlook when they need someone to blame. If the foreigners in question were not able to sell products more cheaply than competitors, they wouldn't be in business. If they are in business, it stands to reason that customers – the broader society – feel they benefit from better quality and lower prices. If foreigners are not able to offer better labour and demand lower wages, or both, employers wouldn't hire them, and their customers – the broader society – would not benefit from having more goods and services produced at less cost.
In all manner of ways, immigration contributes to a society, and the better the society performs, the more it will attract immigration. Foreigners brings with them new ideas, fresh genes, more competition, a stronger consumer economy and more people who labour to produce things for everyone else. The most prosperous large state in the world, the US, was founded upon exactly this approach to immigration.
This is true, however, only if new arrivals are required to purchase or rent their own houses, have no option except to provide for their own welfare by working productive jobs and are required to pay via taxation for whatever social services are offered by the state.
When the expectation is that government should provide free social services, and even jobs, immigrants are viewed as threats rather than assets to society.
Besides welfare-state idealism that even the rich countries of Europe cannot afford, the most serious cause of xenophobia is an economic policy that results in high structural unemployment.
When production is heavily taxed, when restrictive licences are imposed on entire industry sectors, when bureaucracy heaps thick layers of cost and delay on economic activity and labour law makes hiring and firing very expensive, high unemployment is the result. In the absence of this unnecessary friction, an economy will naturally expand as labour is absorbed into the productive companies that successfully meet society's demand for goods and services. And when most everyone is employed, there is no need to feel resentment towards immigrants who fill jobs that locals cannot, or will not, do.
Besides the economic argument, there's a political philosophy point to be made about xenophobia. In our more high-minded moments, we declare that all people are equal and entitled to basic human rights. This means we should recognise that all people, no matter the accidents of their birth, are equally entitled to their own lives, their own liberty, their own property and the fruits of their own labour.
The modern, free, democratic state, founded on the principles of human rights, has no right to infringe on the freedom of movement of any class of individuals, any more than the apartheid government had the right to use the pass system to regulate the movement of migrant labour, or the Soviet Union had the right to build a wall to keep its citizens in or the US has the right to build a wall to keep foreigners out.
If we believe in individual freedom, then we should believe in free markets and free immigration too.
To eradicate xenophobia, our government should address the economic problems that cause it. Lack of service delivery, the failure of taxation to pay for it and blaming foreigners for the failures of public officials is only the top layer. Below that there is the sense of entitlement that views economic goods such as housing and utilities as the unearned right of citizens, rather than property that anyone should rightfully earn through productive work. Underlying that is an even more troubling problem: That our own citizens are not prepared to compete with foreigners on an equal footing. Does our society deserve worse from its own people than what foreigners can deliver? Are we so inadequate that we really cannot compete with others in the global village? Is our only option to exclude them at the point of a gun or the blade of a panga?
Worldwide, in rich countries or poor, the evidence is that xenophobia is an unavoidable consequence of welfare state policies. Foreigners who leech off unearned benefits will, inevitably, be hated for it.
If we wish our fellow-citizens would welcome foreigners and treat them kindly, it is time we recognised that this will only happen if those foreigners, like us, are required to work for their own living instead of relying on the state for handouts.
- Fracking: Debating a big deal
- Who needs the Queen’s English?
- Electric cars: Taking from the poor to give to the rich
- Business Licensing Bill: An indefensible defence
- Red-tape tourism
- The Big Business Bribery Bill
- On Thatcher and society, Vavi and the market
- Extinction: Let’s make up numbers and panic!
- Feeding the world is getting easier
- Stop talking shit: Build your own toilet
- Climate change is pseudo-science
- Anti-competitive competition law
- The Department of Less Government
- An open letter to President Zuma
- In defence of Kim Kardashian
- The world’s weirdest wildlife sanctuary
- Boycott calls are simple-minded
- In defence of vegans
- The population explosion implodes
- Environmental backpedalling picks up pace
- How Mangaung can help and hinder entrepreneurs
- The elusive libertarian enclave
- The Gathering: Ivo Vegter
- The hidden overemployment crisis
- The case for constructive environmentalism
- Privatise the Western Cape's shacks
- Tenders: Not open to employees or their families
- Hurricanes fuel climate sensationalism
- Next: Gross-out warnings on food
- No new deal: The failure of Zumanomics
- Benoni has a bright idea
- Was I wrong about acid rain?
- Public food gardens: Where dumb ideas thrive
- Rethinking the costly food label madness
- Give hunting a chance
- Fracking gets green light, but here's the risk
- Socialists, bless 'em, visit Cape Town
- Buy a 1Time ticket now
- Give the ANC credit where credit is due
- The myth of the competent apartheid government
- It's a disaster that 'peak oil' is not a disaster
- No Gravy: a label for sustainable business
- This lightbulb's going to blow
- Smokers? Get 'em up against the wall!
- Inflating the obesity scare
- Bring a Shotgun to School Day
- GMOs: Hacking genes to feed the world
- The hidden dangers of charity
- Fracking: the unread paper debated
- Fracking: The “U-turn” paper nobody has read
- Eco-cronyism is as dangerous as any other
- SKA: Be grateful Karoo residents didn't object
- Energy: Get cracking on fracking
- Fair trade, unfair trade-off
- Casual labour is only bad for Vavi's unions
- 'Externalities', the catch-all justification for regulation
- 'Externalities', the catch-all justification for regulation
- How do we fix our dismal education?
- Barter: the rebirth of sound money
- Rights are not entitlements
- Debunking 'limits to growth' inanities
- Tax: Why align with "most other countries"?
- Newspaper sensationalism doesn't help rhinos
- Rolling Stone reprises Gasland's fracking fantasies
- Cosatu's manipulative march move
- Why do 16 million people not constitute an economy?
- The age of smear politics
- Does fracking cause earthquakes?
- The Chinese model is morbidly obese
- Green tech: doubling down on a losing bet
- Rape, pornography, and hell's grannies
- Petrol taxes won't hurt the poor
- Jailtime mooted for bad weather warnings
- Let's ban bans, and start with CITES
- In defence of overpaid sport stars
- On the death of Kim Jong-Il
- COP17: Let's ban fire
- Cancer gets you when nothing else can
- COP17: The 'party on' agenda
- COP17: The Blue Line of Death
- New seven natural inanities
- Occupiers' anger is all that makes sense
- The Luddites and Technocrats live on
- Malema marches for economic slavery
- Profitable purveyors of pudendal prettiness
- Sense? Us?
- If they want rhino horn, let's sell them some
- "Stimulate" economy by ending telco abuses
- Executive pay makes nobody poorer
- Malema's real persecution
- Mogoeng: Lock up your daughters
- Don't mandate insurance, deregulate healthcare
- I sympathise with Malema's persecution complex
- Short selling: panicked pols ban proof of failure
- Don't blame those who saw it coming
- What's obscene about profit?
- In defence of Bombela
- Dear president Zuma, you are not above the law
- The economics of love
- Treasure the Karoo? Ban the SKA!
- Malema is right, you know
- Gautrain's PPP: political patronage profiteering
- Kumi Naidoo is no hero
- LeadSA fails to lead when it matters
- No logo means carte blanche
- The drug war: dopey but dangerous
- A response to fracking critics
- Don't vote. It's your right.
- Welcome Walmart
- If you're happy and you know it clap your hands
- Buy local, support poverty
- Ubuntu, the free-market way
- Karoo fracking scandal exposed!
- I'm ashamed for my profession
- The bill of bunkum
- Being gay: a brand new concept!
- Who's afraid of the nuclear wolf?
- The nationalisation canard
- Ogilvy should grow a spine
- The new robber barons
- A classy revolution: Why we cared
- Bombastic Bombela balks
- Liberty is more than mere democracy
- Gautrain has a law unto itself
- The irony of 'services for all'
- How to hire a hitman in SA
- Arrive alive and neurotic
- The oppression of taxis
- Protection of Information Bill and why WikiLeaks is so dangerous
- Fifa, Russia and Qatar deserve each other
- One day, we'll all hate WikiLeaks
- The cycling mafia strikes again
- What Julius got for Christmas
- Let's return the beads
- Away with fascist seat belt laws
- Tintin Mbeki in the Sudan
- How the ANC can make everyone happy
- Currency: the race to the bottom.
- Hurrah for national healthcare!
- Give Zimbabweans citizenship
- Carte Blanche has no carte blanche
- That finger-licking, lip-smacking taste
- Bomb the barbaric lot already
- Green tax: another raid is coming
- Do strikers deserve anything?
- The media will lose this battle
- Global warmism needs a fisking
- A glass half-full
- Go ahead, have a baby
- Stop the handouts - end xenophobia
- The right to fire
- FIFA's heart of darkness
- Have some self-respect
- I ordered an orange skirt
- Secretly, Match blames South Africa
- The stupendous Gautrain: a rare marvel!
- The Fifa conquistadors are coming!
- What's wrong with everyone?
- Leave poor BP alone
- The destructive power of government
- The bonsai economy
- The darkness of Africa
- Who is ripping off whom?
- Anatomy of a whitewash
- While FIFA takes over, we fight
- The pointless pretence of Earth Hour
- Ten reasons to reject climate alarmism
- Really, boycott the FIFA farce
- The climate dominoes fall
- Lessons in ethics from Dick Cheney
- Screw the consumer
- In defence of bankers
- Break the banking cartel
- Julius Malema, the walking contradiction
- Boycott FIFA
- Climate clarity
- In defence of Boney M
- Pray Copenhagen fails
- Capitalism is not unkind
- Climate fraud kills people
- Pop goes the hot air balloon
- Peace, love and schadenfreude
- The irony of the left
- Too late to cool it?
- Going cold turkey