This formed part of the party’s eThekwini election manifesto, unveiled in Durban. IFP mayoral candidate Mkhuleko Hlengwa explicitly acknowledged that immigration is not a municipal competence but said the party would nonetheless push the process “to ensure that eThekwini works for Durbanites and for South Africans and for us to push back on crime, human trafficking and drugs.” IFP President Velenkosini Hlabisa (also Cooperative Governance Minister) appeared at the event alongside the mayoral and deputy mayoral candidates; the broader messaging also included stronger stances on gender-based violence.
Broader context in eThekwini and South Africa
eThekwini (Durban and surrounds) has been a focal point of migration-related tensions and state action throughout 2026. Large numbers of mainly Malawian nationals congregated at sites such as Sherwood and the former Durban Drive-In after facing threats or displacement in communities. Authorities processed and facilitated the repatriation or deportation of more than 20,000 people (figures cited by the municipality and Home Affairs range from ~15,000–20,000+ processed in coordinated operations involving special courts, buses, and eventual centralisation at a temporary centre in Musina, Limpopo). The municipality repeatedly stressed that immigration enforcement falls under the national Department of Home Affairs, not local government, and warned against unauthorised drop-offs at closed sites.
Parallel to official processes, civic groups such as March and March organised regular protests and marches demanding removal of undocumented migrants, sometimes joined or endorsed by parties including the IFP, ActionSA and others. These actions have heightened political salience ahead of the November poll, with migration framing debates about jobs, housing, crime, service delivery strain and local economic competition (especially informal trading).
The IFP’s position is consistent with its longer-standing national stance. Its manifesto and public statements have long called for stricter border control, prioritisation of scarce-skills legal migration, bans or penalties on businesses employing undocumented workers, and more effective deportation systems. Earlier in 2026 the party’s eThekwini structures ran local campaigns targeting informal businesses employing undocumented workers and joined public marches. Party figures have framed undocumented presence itself as a problem of rule of law and resource pressure, while distinguishing this from xenophobia and affirming support for legal, skilled migration.
Legal and practical realities
Under South Africa’s Immigration Act and related frameworks, identification, detention and deportation/repatriation of undocumented persons are national competencies exercised primarily by Home Affairs, with support from the South African Police Service and courts. Municipalities can act on by-laws (e.g., illegal trading, occupation of public space, business licensing) and cooperate through intergovernmental channels, but they cannot independently run deportation operations. Recent large-scale efforts in KwaZulu-Natal illustrated the practical constraints: individual verification, court appearances (including specially established courts), coordination with countries of origin (especially Malawi), transport logistics, and capacity limits that led to centralisation in Limpopo. Corruption scandals involving fraudulent permits have further complicated enforcement.
Any municipal push would therefore depend on political will and cooperation from national and provincial spheres—something an IFP-led eThekwini could attempt to leverage, particularly given Hlabisa’s national role, but which remains subject to constitutional allocation of powers, due-process requirements, and resource constraints.
Political and social implications
Migration has become a prominent campaign issue in the 2026 local elections. Parties across the spectrum (including ActionSA in eThekwini) have tabled motions or public positions on stricter enforcement, reflecting resident concerns about unemployment, competition in informal economies, crime linkages (real or perceived), and pressure on housing, health and other services. At the same time, large-scale removals raise humanitarian, diplomatic and economic questions: many undocumented people fill low-wage niches; abrupt enforcement can displace vulnerable groups (including those with pending asylum claims or mixed-status families); and heavy-handed approaches risk fuelling cycles of intimidation or violence that harm social cohesion.
Critics of hardline rhetoric often argue that it risks scapegoating migrants for deeper structural problems (unemployment, governance failures, inequality) and can slide into xenophobia that affects documented foreign nationals and South African citizens perceived as “outsiders.” Supporters counter that uncontrolled illegal migration undermines the rule of law, strains finite public resources, and creates parallel economies less accountable to regulation. The IFP’s framing—linking deportation to crime, trafficking and drugs while stressing “eThekwini works for Durbanites and South Africans”—positions the policy as pro-local rather than purely exclusionary.
Electoral dynamics matter: eThekwini has historically been competitive, with the ANC traditionally strong but facing challenges. An IFP breakthrough would test whether local government can meaningfully shift national enforcement priorities. Success or failure would also influence how other parties calibrate their messaging, potentially normalising stricter enforcement language or prompting counter-mobilisation around rights and inclusion.
Nuances and edge cases
- Documentation spectrum: Not all foreign nationals are undocumented; many hold asylum-seeker permits, work visas or other legal status. Enforcement campaigns must distinguish carefully or risk unlawful action against protected persons.
- Voluntary vs forced: Recent operations mixed voluntary repatriation (with origin-country cooperation) and formal deportation. Scaling “all” undocumented cases would face logistical, legal and diplomatic hurdles.
- Local levers: Municipalities can tighten by-law enforcement on trading, zoning, informal settlements and business compliance—areas where IFP structures have already been active—without directly deporting people.
- Regional dimension: Southern African migration patterns are driven by economic differentials, conflict and climate factors. Purely unilateral local or national crackdowns have limited long-term effect without regional cooperation on borders, labour and development.
- Implementation risks: Past enforcement drives have sometimes produced temporary camps, secondary displacement, or heightened community tensions. Sustained results require sustained capacity, clean administration and alternatives for the economic roles migrants fill.
In short, the IFP’s vow crystallises a longstanding party priority into a concrete local election pledge amid heightened public and operational focus on undocumented migration in eThekwini. Whether it can translate into measurable change depends on electoral outcomes, intergovernmental cooperation, legal process and the deeper structural drivers of both migration and local discontent. The November 2026 results will provide an early test of how strongly this message resonates with voters.
