Xenophobic violence and human rights practice in South Africa

Abstract in Shona

Chinyorwa chino chinoongorora mhirizhonga yekuvenga vatorwa muSouth Africa sechinetso chekodzero dzevanhu nebasa rezvemagariro evanhu. Chinobatanidza kusaenzana kwemagariro nehupfumi, kupomerwa kwevatorwa mhosva dzenyika, kuungana kwemapoka anoita zvechisimba, kusasimba kwekudzivirirwa nehurumende, uye kukuvadzwa kwevatorwa. Chinotsigira nzira dzebasa rezvemagariro evanhu dzakavakirwa pakodzero dzevanhu, kurwisa kudzvinyirirwa, uye kunzwisisa zvimiro zvinokonzera kusaruramisira munharaunda dzemuno, dzedunhu, nepasi rose.

Introduction

Across diverse global contexts, social workers are increasingly confronted with anti-migrant sentiment, exclusionary nationalism, and targeted violence against displaced and marginalised populations. South Africa provides a particularly important case through which to examine these dynamics. Since the large-scale attacks of 2008, and with renewed intensity between 2020 and 2026, xenophobic violence has remained a persistent feature of the country’s socio-political landscape. Migrants from Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Malawi, Nigeria, and the Democratic Republic of Congo have been disproportionately affected, despite South Africa’s constitutional commitments to equality, dignity, and non-discrimination and its obligations under international human rights law.

A growing body of scholarship explains the drivers, patterns, and consequences of xenophobic violence and clarifies its implications for social work practice. This article synthesises that literature to examine the structural, political, and psychosocial forces that shape anti-migrant hostility. It also foregrounds human rights social work, anti-oppressive practice, and structural social work as frameworks for strengthening global, regional, and local responses. The South African case should not be treated as an isolated aberration. Rather, it reflects wider global patterns of anti-migrant mobilisation that intensify under conditions of economic precarity, political polarisation, and populist scapegoating. Understanding these interconnected forces is therefore essential for developing social work interventions that are ethically grounded, contextually responsive, and aligned with international commitments to social justice and human rights.

Structural and socioeconomic drivers of xenophobic violence

The literature consistently demonstrates that xenophobic violence in South Africa is not spontaneous or episodic but reflects enduring structural inequalities, historical legacies of exclusion, and persistent socioeconomic precarity. Xenowatch data from 2022 to 2024 show that xenophobic discrimination remained persistent and widespread, especially in urban and economically strained areas, and included denial of services, eviction, harassment, threats, unlawful arrests, violence, and other forms of harm (Mlilo, 2025). These spatial patterns highlight how xenophobic harm is embedded within broader dynamics of structural violence, poverty governance, and contested citizenship. For social work, these findings underscore the need for interventions that move beyond individual-level explanations and instead engage with the political economy of exclusion, institutional failures, and community-level tensions produced by chronic deprivation. This aligns with anti-oppressive practice, human rights social work, and structural social work, all of which foreground the systemic conditions that shape vulnerability and harm.

South Africa’s exceptionally high unemployment rate creates fertile ground for scapegoating, with migrants frequently framed as competitors for jobs, housing, and informal trading spaces. These dynamics mirror global patterns in which migrants are blamed for economic hardship, including in parts of Europe, Latin America, and the United States. Inadequate access to water, electricity, sanitation, and housing further intensifies community frustration. When state institutions fail to meet basic needs, migrants often become visible and politically unprotected targets for public anger (Crush, 2022).

Apartheid’s spatial and economic inequalities continue to shape contemporary social tensions, particularly in townships and informal settlements where marginalisation remains entrenched. The literature emphasises that xenophobia cannot be understood without acknowledging longer histories of bounded citizenship, mobility control, and exclusion in Southern Africa (Nyamnjoh, 2006). Similar structural drivers underpin anti-migrant hostility elsewhere: austerity-driven resentment in Europe, economic scapegoating in the United States, and hostility towards Venezuelan migrants in Latin America. These parallels highlight the global relevance of South Africa’s experience for social work practice in migration contexts.

Political rhetoric and the construction of migrants as threats

Political rhetoric plays a central role in fuelling anti-migrant sentiment. Public and policy discourse in South Africa frequently frames migrants as responsible for unemployment, crime, and pressure on public services, despite limited empirical evidence supporting such claims (Crush, 2022). These narratives often intensify during election cycles, where they divert attention from governance failures and position migrants as convenient scapegoats. In this context, public discourse can create conditions in which violence is tolerated, normalised, or implicitly encouraged. Media coverage, especially on social media, further amplifies misinformation through viral videos, unverified claims, and sensationalist reporting. Policy developments such as the White Paper on Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection reinforce this securitised framing by proposing a major overhaul of South Africa’s migration system and refugee protection commitments (Department of Home Affairs, 2024). Similar dynamics have been observed in Brexit debates in the United Kingdom, anti-refugee campaigns in Hungary and Poland, anti-immigrant discourse in the United States, and anti-migrant mobilisation in Chile and Peru. These parallels underscore the need for social workers to challenge political narratives that undermine human rights and to advocate for evidence-based public discourse.

Rise of vigilante formations and community-level mobilisation

Over the past five years, organised anti-migrant vigilante formations have become especially prominent. Operation Dudula, which began as a social media campaign and expanded into broader mobilisation, has been associated with violent protests, vigilantism, arson targeting migrant-owned homes and businesses, and intimidation of foreign nationals (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2022). Xenowatch also reports a marked increase in organised anti-migrant vigilante activity during the 2022–2024 reporting period, including the growing institutionalisation of movements that operate outside legal frameworks (Mlilo, 2025). By presenting raids, forced evictions, confiscation of goods, and public intimidation as “community protection” or informal “law enforcement,” these groups blur the boundary between legitimate community organising and unlawful vigilantism. Research also highlights that police and justice responses have often failed to prevent violence or ensure accountability (Crush, 2022; Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2022). This pattern deepens migrant distrust of state institutions. Comparable formations, including Golden Dawn patrols in Greece, anti-Central American migrant groups in Mexico, anti-Bangladeshi “citizen patrols” in India, and far-right neighbourhood patrols in Italy, show that vigilante mobilisation against migrants is a transnational phenomenon requiring coordinated social work and policy responses.

Migrant experiences and human rights implications

Recent studies document the severe psychosocial and economic impacts of xenophobic violence on migrant communities. Migrants experience chronic fear, disrupted livelihoods, exclusion from community networks, and restricted access to services where xenophobic discrimination takes the form of denied services, eviction, extortion, harassment, health xenophobia, selective enforcement of by-laws, threats, unlawful arrests, verbal abuse, violence, and other harm (Mlilo, 2025). These experiences include anxiety, hypervigilance, grief, displacement-related loss, trauma from witnessing or experiencing violence, and deep mistrust of authorities. Women and children may face heightened vulnerability during displacement and community violence, including increased exposure to exploitation and insecurity. Economically, xenophobic attacks frequently target migrant-owned businesses, causing loss of stock and equipment, destruction of trading spaces, long-term income instability, and heightened poverty and food insecurity. These effects extend across families and transnational support networks. United Nations experts warned that xenophobic violence and discrimination against foreign nationals in South Africa had escalated and was associated with violations of rights to life, physical integrity, adequate living conditions, health, and protection from arbitrary detention and refoulement (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2022). Comparable human rights concerns have been observed in refugee camps in Greece, migrant detention centres in Libya, border zones in the United States, and informal settlements in Brazil and Colombia, demonstrating the global relevance of rights-based social work.

State and regional responses: gaps and governance failures

Despite strong constitutional protections, state responses to xenophobic violence in South Africa remain inconsistent and frequently inadequate. The literature highlights governance by denial and displacement, limited accountability for perpetrators, and policy discourses that blame migrants while failing to address xenophobic harm (Crush, 2022). United Nations experts have similarly criticised anti-migrant discourse from public officials and the failure to prevent violence or hold perpetrators accountable (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2022). While the Constitution guarantees equality and dignity, contemporary immigration policy has increasingly adopted a securitised orientation. The White Paper on Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection, for example, proposes a comprehensive overhaul of migration and refugee protection policy, including changes to South Africa’s approach to international refugee commitments (Department of Home Affairs, 2024). At the regional level, both the African Union and the Southern African Development Community have been criticised for slow or muted responses, reflecting wider challenges in migration governance across the continent. Other regions offer potential lessons, including the European Union’s early-warning mechanisms, Latin America’s regional protection frameworks for Venezuelan migrants, and the Economic Community of West African States’ free-movement protocols. These examples indicate that more coordinated, rights-based governance is possible and necessary.

Social work responses and emerging practice frameworks

Although the literature on social work responses remains limited, several influential frameworks and strategies have emerged. Human rights social work emphasises dignity, equality, and non-discrimination (Ife, 2016; Staub-Bernasconi, 2016), supporting interventions that prioritise safety, access to essential services, legal and social recognition of migrants’ rights, and advocacy against discriminatory policies. Anti-oppressive practice complements this approach by examining how power, inequality, and structural violence shape migrant experiences; it also requires practitioners to challenge systemic discrimination, amplify marginalised voices, transform oppressive structures, and promote inclusive community engagement (Dominelli, 2017). Recent scholarship and human rights reporting support the treatment of xenophobic violence as a predictable governance and protection failure that requires early-warning systems, risk monitoring, multisectoral coordination, and proactive preparedness (Crush, 2022; Mlilo, 2025; Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2022). Beyond South Africa, social workers have developed innovative responses, including community mediation in Kenya, migrant-led protection networks in Brazil, trauma-informed refugee support in Germany, and anti-racism social work in Canada. These examples offer practical insights for strengthening South African practice and advancing globally informed, locally grounded migrant protection.

Implications for global, regional, and local social work

The South African case offers important lessons for social workers globally. Effective responses to anti-migrant harm require practitioners to integrate structural analysis into everyday practice, challenge discriminatory policies, and advance equitable access to services and protection mechanisms across local, national, and regional levels. Building inclusive communities also depends on addressing misinformation, facilitating sustained dialogue, and supporting migrant-led initiatives that strengthen belonging and collective safety. Evidence further underscores the value of early-warning systems, preparedness planning, and multisectoral coordination in responding to violence and displacement. Given the political sensitivities surrounding migration, practitioners require strong organisational backing, clear ethical guidance, and trauma-informed supervision to navigate risk and maintain professional integrity. Finally, cross-border collaboration is essential for sharing knowledge, strengthening advocacy, and promoting global human rights standards that protect migrants and displaced populations.

Conclusion

Xenophobic violence in South Africa is best understood as a human rights and social work concern shaped by structural inequality, political scapegoating, vigilante mobilisation, weak state protection, and the cumulative harm experienced by migrant communities. The literature reviewed in this article demonstrates that anti-migrant violence is neither spontaneous nor isolated; rather, it emerges from intersecting economic, political, institutional, and historical conditions that also appear in other global contexts. For social work, this analysis reinforces the need for rights-based, anti-oppressive, and structurally informed practice that protects migrants, challenges discriminatory narratives, strengthens community accountability, and advocates for effective state and regional responses. Mirroring the central argument of this article, social workers must respond not only to the immediate harms of xenophobic violence but also to the systems that enable exclusion, insecurity, and impunity across local, regional, and global practice settings.

References

Crush, J. (2022). Xenophobia denialism and the Global Compact for Migration in South Africa. In Governing migration for development from the global Souths (pp. 133–158). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004522770_007

Department of Home Affairs. (2024). White Paper on Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection: Towards a complete overhaul of the migration system in South Africa. Government of South Africa.

Dominelli, L. (2017). Anti-oppressive social work theory and practice (2nd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.

Ife, J. (2016). Human rights and social work: Towards rights-based practice (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Mlilo, S. N. (2025). Xenophobic discrimination in South Africa: An overview of trends, effects, and responses (2022–2024). Xenowatch.

Nyamnjoh, F. B. (2006). Insiders and outsiders: Citizenship and xenophobia in contemporary Southern Africa. CODESRIA Books; Zed Books.

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2022, July 15). South Africa: UN experts condemn xenophobic violence and racial discrimination against foreign nationals.

Staub-Bernasconi, S. (2016). Social work and human rights—Linking two traditions of human rights in social work. Journal of Human Rights and Social Work, 1(1), 40–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41134-016-0005-0