RAMAPHOSA'S FAILURE AND MIGRANTS AS VICTIMS
5 May 2026 By Abiodun Giwa
President Cyril Ramaphosa
Joy is natural for those who have the nature, and don't need money, wealth, a girlfriend or boyfriend, or any artificial acquisition to be happy. Life to them is like music attracting dancing steps. South Africans are not naturally happy. Yesterday was a struggle against apartheid; today, their brothers and sisters from other African countries have become reasons for discontent, making them victims of Cyril Ramaphosa and the African National Congress (ANC) failure.
Ramaphosa rubbed pepper into an open sore when he said immigrants need to respect the law and culture of the country. Ramaphosa gets it wrong. He misses the point and seeks validation from some of his unhappy compatriots, who should be crying against his mismanagement.
Ramaphosa's outburst violates the country's law. Disrespect for the law and culture should not attract mob justice but legal redress. Is South Africa a lawless country that allows mob justice in place of legal redress? In the case of an immigrant who may have run afoul of the law, it is the police's duty to arrest and arraign the offender in a court of law. Mob rule is an unacceptable replacement for the rule of law. It is the immigrant's duty to obtain necessary papers to remain in the country. Any deviation is their own and their peril.
There is no room under the law for anyone to live in a foreign country without the approval or welcome documents of a host nation and then become an illegal. After procuring the necessary documents, respect the culture, and assimilate or leave if you don't like it. When in Rome, be like the Romans do. You cannot take your culture or religion with you when you go to another country. If you cannot embrace your host's religion and culture, then abstain and keep your mouth shut. Don't criticize. It is Sociology 101. Learn the culture, respect it, and you will have no problem. I have heard of my brethren from Nigeria establishing kingdoms in foreign countries. There is one in Ghana, and now another one is said to exist in South Africa. When you do that, you are being disrespectful to the hosts. Some Ghanaians complained. You don't go into another country to live and constitute a nuisance. It almost turned into a mob affair. But it did not, unlike the South African case. The Ghana case is still alive on social media. An immigrant has a choice to live or leave. A young immigrant had a period of time for processing a permanent residence application in Dubai. But he had to stay in Kashmir for a period to allow the application to be processed. He heard Kashmir, a place between Dubai and Pakistan, was hot and seemingly lawless. He did not seek to reside in a lawless land. He picked up his bag and left Dubai, abandoning the resident application.
No place on earth is heaven. Everywhere is populated by humans who either remain where they are or move, searching for a convenient location. The only difference between people is that some choose to stay where they are, while others remain mobile. A study of the Sociology of immigration shows that people moving from place to place is an age-old phenomenon, making it difficult to ascertain ownership of places, but giving permanent residency an edge in ownership. Undoubtedly, some countries are better developed and are preferred places to live, and that does not make them heaven. Some South Africans' decision to throw out their brothers and sisters from other African countries is absurd, no matter their reasons or excuses. Ramaphosa, in his remarks, referred to legal residents as acceptable. It means illegal residents constitute a headache. He cannot be faulted for his concerns about the increase in illegal migrants, just as is the case in other developed countries. It provides a cogent reason for people to report their presence to authorities upon arrival and as they settle into a new life away from their countries of origin.
Let us imagine a small family as a country. The head of the household knows the number of people he provides for or has to provide for. When a new member arrives, he knows the budget changes and has to add the needs for the new member's addition. If he fails to do so, the care will be affected. The same applies to countries and governance. It is what South Africans are crying about. They likely felt the government wasn't doing anything to address the issue, as it affects service delivery in schools and hospitals, and decided to take the matter into their own hands, careless of the lawlessness. The people are going against migrants; they consider encroaching on services instead of confronting the government, which is inept, regardless of the cause.
America escaped the curse with Donald Trump's election. He applies the law instead of allowing a mob rule, which would have ha[ppened because it is hard for taxpayers to see their hard-earned income go to care for mass of illegal migrants when they have not the same opportunity. The Ramaphosa government, empowered to maintain law and order, becomes fickle and confused. It becomes a spectator and a witness to murder after failing to tell South Africans the cause of failure and a plan to address it. Of course, when there is no plan, bombastic pronouncements take the center stage.
Ramaphosa rubbed pepper into an open sore when he said immigrants need to respect the law and culture of the country. Ramaphosa gets it wrong. He misses the point and seeks validation from some of his unhappy compatriots, who should be crying against his mismanagement.
Ramaphosa's outburst violates the country's law. Disrespect for the law and culture should not attract mob justice but legal redress. Is South Africa a lawless country that allows mob justice in place of legal redress? In the case of an immigrant who may have run afoul of the law, it is the police's duty to arrest and arraign the offender in a court of law. Mob rule is an unacceptable replacement for the rule of law. It is the immigrant's duty to obtain necessary papers to remain in the country. Any deviation is their own and their peril.
There is no room under the law for anyone to live in a foreign country without the approval or welcome documents of a host nation and then become an illegal. After procuring the necessary documents, respect the culture, and assimilate or leave if you don't like it. When in Rome, be like the Romans do. You cannot take your culture or religion with you when you go to another country. If you cannot embrace your host's religion and culture, then abstain and keep your mouth shut. Don't criticize. It is Sociology 101. Learn the culture, respect it, and you will have no problem. I have heard of my brethren from Nigeria establishing kingdoms in foreign countries. There is one in Ghana, and now another one is said to exist in South Africa. When you do that, you are being disrespectful to the hosts. Some Ghanaians complained. You don't go into another country to live and constitute a nuisance. It almost turned into a mob affair. But it did not, unlike the South African case. The Ghana case is still alive on social media. An immigrant has a choice to live or leave. A young immigrant had a period of time for processing a permanent residence application in Dubai. But he had to stay in Kashmir for a period to allow the application to be processed. He heard Kashmir, a place between Dubai and Pakistan, was hot and seemingly lawless. He did not seek to reside in a lawless land. He picked up his bag and left Dubai, abandoning the resident application.
No place on earth is heaven. Everywhere is populated by humans who either remain where they are or move, searching for a convenient location. The only difference between people is that some choose to stay where they are, while others remain mobile. A study of the Sociology of immigration shows that people moving from place to place is an age-old phenomenon, making it difficult to ascertain ownership of places, but giving permanent residency an edge in ownership. Undoubtedly, some countries are better developed and are preferred places to live, and that does not make them heaven. Some South Africans' decision to throw out their brothers and sisters from other African countries is absurd, no matter their reasons or excuses. Ramaphosa, in his remarks, referred to legal residents as acceptable. It means illegal residents constitute a headache. He cannot be faulted for his concerns about the increase in illegal migrants, just as is the case in other developed countries. It provides a cogent reason for people to report their presence to authorities upon arrival and as they settle into a new life away from their countries of origin.
Let us imagine a small family as a country. The head of the household knows the number of people he provides for or has to provide for. When a new member arrives, he knows the budget changes and has to add the needs for the new member's addition. If he fails to do so, the care will be affected. The same applies to countries and governance. It is what South Africans are crying about. They likely felt the government wasn't doing anything to address the issue, as it affects service delivery in schools and hospitals, and decided to take the matter into their own hands, careless of the lawlessness. The people are going against migrants; they consider encroaching on services instead of confronting the government, which is inept, regardless of the cause.
America escaped the curse with Donald Trump's election. He applies the law instead of allowing a mob rule, which would have ha[ppened because it is hard for taxpayers to see their hard-earned income go to care for mass of illegal migrants when they have not the same opportunity. The Ramaphosa government, empowered to maintain law and order, becomes fickle and confused. It becomes a spectator and a witness to murder after failing to tell South Africans the cause of failure and a plan to address it. Of course, when there is no plan, bombastic pronouncements take the center stage.
Comment Box is loading comments...
