JOHANNESBURG, South Africa – Standard Bank Group chief executive Sim Tshabalala has warned South Africa against turning legitimate border concerns into broad migration restrictions, arguing foreign residents create demand, pay taxes, support businesses and help local employment.
Tshabalala delivered his warning at the Kgalema Motlanthe Foundation Winter Seminar in Sandton. Standard Bank describes itself as Africa’s largest banking group by assets, giving his intervention weight during a national argument shaped by unemployment, irregular migration and anti-foreigner mobilisation.
His central message challenged a common political claim. Migrants do not enter an economy only as workers. They also enter as tenants, customers, taxpayers, entrepreneurs and links to regional markets.
“They rent rooms. They buy food. They use transport,” Tshabalala said. He added foreign residents pay income tax when formally employed and contribute value-added tax whenever they purchase fuel, food and other goods. He rejected claims linking migrants to reduced state capacity, saying available data does not support such conclusions.
Tshabalala urged South Africa to study Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union. Immigration formed a major part of the Brexit campaign. Britain later faced weaker trade, investment and productivity than analysts expected under continued European Union membership.
He cited estimates placing Brexit’s economic loss at between 6 and 8 percent of gross domestic product, with investment down 13 percent and unemployment higher than under a no-Brexit comparison. Those figures represent one assessment, rather than a single official verdict. Britain’s Office for Budget Responsibility uses a narrower measure. The fiscal watchdog expects post-Brexit trading arrangements to reduce long-term productivity by 4 percent and trade intensity by 15 percent compared with remaining inside the European Union.
The distinction matters. Brexit did more than restrict labour movement. Britain left a customs and regulatory union, raised trade barriers and weakened access to its largest market. South Africa would misread the lesson by treating every immigration control as economic withdrawal.
The stronger lesson concerns policy driven by anger instead of evidence. Political leaders sold simple answers to complex problems. Voters heard promises about restored control, protected jobs and reduced pressure on services. Businesses later faced worker shortages, higher paperwork costs and weaker investment.
South Africa now approaches a similar political danger. Cabinet approved the National Labour Migration Policy White Paper in 2025. The policy introduces quotas for documented foreign workers across sectors including agriculture, hospitality, tourism and construction. Government also plans stronger penalties for employers who hire undocumented workers and intends to restrict foreign participation in parts of the small-business economy.
These measures respond to real failures. South Africa’s official unemployment rate reached 32.7 percent during the first quarter of 2026. The unemployed population rose to 8.1 million, while total employment fell to 16.8 million. Youth aged 15 to 24 faced unemployment of 60.9 percent.
Citizens living through such conditions deserve serious answers. Employers should not hire undocumented migrants to avoid minimum wages, labour protections or tax obligations. Criminal networks should not control border crossings. Foreign nationals without lawful status should face fair immigration procedures. Government should protect local workers from exploitation and unfair competition.
President Cyril Ramaphosa acknowledged the employer problem in June. He said some companies recruit undocumented workers because vulnerable migrants struggle to defend their rights. Such employers pay low wages, impose long hours and weaken labour standards. Strong inspections and prosecution serve both South African and foreign workers.
Tshabalala’s warning therefore should not become an argument for open borders. South Africa needs secure borders, reliable records and lawful migration. His argument targets indiscriminate restrictions which remove productive workers, entrepreneurs and consumers without fixing the institutions responsible for unemployment.
Research supports parts of his case. A 2018 OECD and International Labour Organization study found immigration did not reduce native-born employment rates in South Africa. Some immigrant groups increased job opportunities for local workers. The study also found a positive fiscal contribution because immigrants tended to pay more in taxes than government spent on them.
Migrants also support sectors where labour shortages or specialised skills delay growth. Engineers, doctors, technology professionals, farm workers, transport drivers and informal traders occupy different positions in the economy. One rule for every category would damage sectors with different labour needs.
Yet Standard Bank also speaks from commercial interest. The group operates across 20 African countries. Cross-border trade, investment, payments and business expansion support its regional strategy. Tshabalala’s position deserves attention, though public policy must weigh wider costs involving schools, clinics, housing, policing and municipal planning.
Government needs better data before setting quotas. Officials should publish sector-by-sector numbers for foreign workers, vacancies, skills shortages, wage violations and local recruitment efforts. Parliament should demand evidence showing where migration lowers local employment and where foreign labour supports expansion.
A quota designed through political pressure risks protecting inefficient employers, encouraging bribery and pushing migrants into illegal work. A quota informed by reliable labour data offers a different result. Such a system would reserve suitable jobs for citizens while admitting scarce skills and seasonal labour under enforceable rules.
South Africa should also punish employers rather than directing public anger toward workers. Businesses create the demand for undocumented labour. Weak border administration supplies opportunity. Corrupt officials sell documents or ignore violations. Migrants often occupy the weakest position within this chain.
Former president Kgalema Motlanthe told the same seminar governance failures and weak growth drive xenophobic tension. He warned political opportunists exploit competition for scarce resources. His assessment places responsibility on leaders who fail to grow the economy, manage migration and deliver services.
The public debate now needs discipline. Calling every migrant an economic asset ignores pressure in poorly managed communities. Calling every migrant a job thief ignores taxes, spending, entrepreneurship and skills. Both slogans weaken policy.
South Africa should separate four issues. Legal skilled migration needs efficient visas. Documented low-skilled migration needs sector rules and labour enforcement. Undocumented migration needs lawful processing. Xenophobic intimidation needs police action and prosecution.
Tshabalala has raised a warning worth hearing. Brexit showed how identity politics and economic frustration pushed a major economy toward a costly decision whose effects reached far beyond immigration.
South Africa should enforce its laws without closing routes to skills, investment and regional commerce. A government facing mass unemployment must protect citizens. Protection built on evidence strengthens the economy. Protection built on exclusion risks shrinking the same economy expected to create jobs.
