Thirteen Bangladeshis and three Pakistanis were found to be in possession of fake visitors’ visas, while one Bangladeshi, a Nigerian, three Pakistanis and four Ghanaians, failed to meet the entry requirements on arrival.

Twenty-five foreigners were intercepted and deported by Border Management Authority (BMA) immigration officials at OR Tambo International Airport (Ortia) on Tuesday night trying to enter South Africa illegally.
Thirteen Bangladeshis and three Pakistanis were found to be in possession of fake visitors’ visas, while one Bangladeshi, a Nigerian, three Pakistanis and four Ghanaians failed to meet the entry requirements on arrival.
They were intercepted on flights from Bangladesh, Pakistan, Ghana and Nigeria.
The BMA said they were deported back in accordance with the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) regulations.
“[The] ICAO provide global standards for air transport operations and highlight that a person who entered a state illegally or denied entry shall be returned to their countries of origin by the respective airlines that brought them to South Africa and shall bear the costs of that travel,” it said.
According to the BMA, Ortia has been a target with travellers attempting to enter the country illegally.
On Sunday, five Bangladeshis and five Ethiopians were intercepted in collaboration with the Airports Company South Africa (Acsa).
BMA commissioner Michael Masiapato has warned travellers in contravention of the Immigration Act.
He commended the operations by BMA officials at Ortia, saying as the biggest and busiest airport in Africa, detection systems need to be advanced.
“The diligence and professionalism displayed by our team have prevented potential security threats and upheld the rule of law. We will continue to enhance our capabilities and escalate co-operation with Acsa security as well as collaborate with international partners to address and combat such illicit activities,” Masiapato said.
Acsa regional GM Jabulani Khambule said the latest interceptions of illegal travellers by the BMA demonstrate the importance of their multi-agency safety and security approach to enhance airport and aviation security.
“The aviation security model is vertically and horizontally integrated with various law enforcement authorities and is important to root out criminality at our airports.”
The BMA said it will intensify operations with the deployment of an additional 400 junior border guards who started duty on June 1 at various ports of entry.

The Western Cape High Court has ruled it would be in the best interests of a 12-year-old boy to relocate to Germany following a custody battle between his divorced parents.
The Western Cape High Court has ruled it would be in the best interests of a 12-year-old boy to relocate to Germany following a custody battle between his divorced parents.
Judge Gayaat Salie granted the mother, an air traffic controller who accepted a job offer in Germany, the right to have her son permanently removed from Cape Town to live with her despite the father submitting a counter application.
In her judgment, Judge Salie said: “The most salient words were however expressed by none other than the minor parties’ 12-year-old son, who forms the subject of this application.
‘It’s going to be a loss for one of the parents and a loss for me no matter what’.
“This heartfelt comment well illustrates the thorny feature of this type of applications in family matters. In a locale where both parents are stressing what they consider the best interest for their child, the consequent impasse places the court as the upper guardian of the minor child to make that decision.
“Through the development of our case law, in line with our Constitutional imperatives and the Children’s Act 38 of 2005, this decision must be considered along with various criteria applied to the facts of the matter. It is undeniable that each family dynamic is different and unique,” said Judge Salie.
According to court documents and two expert reports, the boy said he wanted to relocate to Germany with his mother.
After their 2015 divorce, “both parents cared for their son on an almost equal basis. Both play an important role in the minor’s daily life and interests”, the judgment noted.
The father had raised a number of concerns relating to his son’s accommodation, health care and schooling, including holiday contact and daily contact.
“The father finds a position where he would not see his son for three or more consecutive months as simply untenable particularly since father and son had spent time with each other equal to that of the (mother and son).
He is of the view that his son is at a vulnerable state of his development, and moreover given his generalised anxiety for which he attends psychotherapy sessions, he should not leave now but may sometime in the future when he is older.
“The father’s overarching concern is that his current close bond with his son will not survive relocation and that they will both miss out on their relationship,” the judgment read.
“The information placed before me, together with a balancing of all the relevant factors and applicable legal principles, satisfies me in coming to the conclusion that it is in the minor child’s best interests that the application for his relocation to Germany be granted now.
“A delay in his relocation would amount to him commencing the German academic year mid-way (January 2025) when his peers would have already commenced in August this year. I believe this would alleviate his anxiety as his peers would be in a similar boat so to speak and he can get support from the navigation of new terrain which his peers would similarly have to tread,” said Salie

Criminal gangs are exploiting loopholes in Italy`s legal visa system for foreign workers to smuggle in illegal immigrants, a problem the anti-Mafia prosecutor should investigate, Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni told her cabinet on Tuesday.
As part of its tough stance on immigration, Meloni`s rightist government has passed an array of measures to curb arrivals, but has also expanded legal immigration channels in response to growing labour shortages.
Last year, it raised quotas for work visas for non-EU citizens to a total of 452,000 for the period 2023-2025, an increase of nearly 150% from the previous three years. In 2019, before the COVID-19 pandemic, Italy issued just 30,850 visas.
Meloni said `alarming` data had emerged from monitoring of the visas, showing that some regions - particularly the southern region of Campania - had received a disproportionate number of work applications compared to the number of potential employers.
`In the face of the exorbitant number of applications, only a very small percentage of the foreigners who obtained work visas actually signed a work contract, less than 3% in Campania,` Meloni said in a speech forwarded by her office.
She said this was evidence that `organised crime groups` had infiltrated the management of applications to obtain visas for migrants who had no right to enter Italy, in return for payments of around 15,000 euros ($16,300).
Meloni said she alerted the national anti-Mafia prosecutor and vowed to pass new measures to curb the practice after the Group of Seven (G7) leaders` summit in Italy on June 13-15.
Ero Straniero, a campaign group that lobbies for more liberal immigration policies, also said last week the visa system was vulnerable to fraud, blaming red tape.
`In 2023, work visas were six times higher than the quotas set by the government, and only 23.52% have turned into residence permits and stable, regular employment,` Ero Straniero said in a statement.
Interior ministry data show the number of irregular migrants reaching Italy by sea has more than halved so far in 2024 compared to the same period last year, to 21,574 people.



Since 29 April, the European Union (EU) has imposed temporary restrictions on Schengen short-term visas for Ethiopians. These include prohibiting multiple entry visas, longer processing times, and eliminating waivers for certain documentary requirements and visa fees.

The European Commission said the action was due to a “lack of response from the Ethiopian authorities regarding readmission requests,” and shortcomings in organising “voluntary and non-voluntary return operations,” (the latter is how the EU describes deportation).

The restrictions raise concerns about the efficiency and fairness of the EU’s migration policies. Ethiopia’s Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Nebiyu Tedla said the developments were “incompatible with acceptable diplomatic practices” and asked the EU Council to reconsider the “unfair” restrictions.

In 2017, the EU and Ethiopia agreed on admission procedures for the return of Ethiopians from EU countries. Although this agreement was never made public, a leaked statement revealed that similar arrangements were later made between Ethiopia and Norway and Switzerland.

Since then, two EU-Ethiopia working group meetings and two technical meetings organised by the EU Commission have taken place to facilitate implementation of the 2017 procedures. In 2018, the EU and Ethiopia reached a non-binding agreement on the readmission of Ethiopians without visas or the legal right to remain in the EU.

In 2019, 1,395 Ethiopians staying illegally in EU member states were issued return decisions, but only 215 travelled home — an average return rate of 15%. Member states submitted 985 readmission requests to Ethiopian authorities, who issued 41 travel documents — an issuance rate of just 4%.

The overall return rates from the EU are low. Last year, over 83,000 people were returned to countries outside the EU, which the European Commission says is a return rate of 19% — not much higher than Ethiopia’s return rate of 15% in 2019.

Most people residing unlawfully in the EU initially enter through legal means via airports, but overstay their visas. These numbers far exceed those who arrive by sea or land seeking asylum or other opportunities. Only about one in three people ordered to leave the EU do.

Punitive perspectives

If the problem is overstaying, efforts should focus on finding solutions to this legitimate concern. Instead, the EU’s new measures unfairly target Ethiopians travelling for legitimate reasons, such as education, family reunification, medical treatment or business. Individuals shouldn’t be held accountable for their government’s actions. Imposing additional hurdles on those who enter the EU legally doesn’t address the root causes of irregular migration, but punishes those following the law.

This punitive approach contradicts the principles of good migration governance and contrasts with the EU’s New Pact on Migration and Asylum, which advocates for accessible and efficient legal migration channels. Experts say for the New Pact to be effective, the EU must critically re-evaluate readmission agreements to return rejected asylum seekers to their home countries or safe third countries.

These agreements must respect international law, particularly the non-refoulement principle, which prohibits returning individuals to a country where they may face persecution, torture or serious harm.

Reintegration measures

The Ethiopian government needs to address the socio-economic costs of reintegration and protect its emigrants. The country’s growing engagement with its diaspora for economic and political reasons has influenced its stance on admitting returnees from the EU. Ethiopia is willing to repatriate its citizens detained in countries like Saudi Arabia, Yemen or Libya, viewing their return from inhumane detention conditions as a humanitarian protection measure.

However, Ethiopian officials don’t see rejected asylum seekers in the EU who are awaiting deportation as being in similarly dire conditions, so don’t prioritise their return on humanitarian grounds. Ethiopian officials also feel the EU hasn’t offered significant incentives, such as development funding, as part of its return agenda, so they are less inclined to help with the return of rejected asylum seekers or irregular migrants.

Cracks in partnership

Even so, why is the EU targeting Ethiopia with these latest restrictions? Past Institute for Security Studies analysis has suggested that the stance of the African Union and most African countries is not to accept forced returns. While the EU’s restrictions could be a tactic to pressure Ethiopia into compliance, it also reflects a history of significant EU investment in Ethiopia on migration governance — with minimal results.

The longstanding EU–Ethiopia partnership, including the 2016 Migration Partnership Framework, raised expectations. However, the framework failed to meet its goals despite substantial EU financial support. The EU criticised Ethiopia for inadequate returns, while Ethiopian officials felt the focus on migrant returns overshadowed broader cooperation.

The new restrictions could indicate a worrying future trend. The EU’s move is symbolic, demonstrating its resolve in handling non-compliant countries and setting a precedent. If successful, it could be applied to other African nations, increasing disparity and leading to a more fragmented migration landscape.

The European Commission is apparently using visa rules to pressure countries to cooperate with deportation procedures. This isn’t new — agreements with Sahelian countries such as Libya and Tunisia show that the EU rewards countries that cooperate on migration governance, and penalises those that are reluctant to comply.

Last July, a European delegation signed a memorandum of understanding with Tunisia that included measures to combat irregular immigration in exchange for increased immigration controls and facilitation of voluntary returns. Between 2014 and 2020, the EU allocated over €700-million to Libya for the same reasons.

The EU’s migration policies must be consistent, fair and effective. Rather than resorting to punitive measures, it should engage in constructive dialogue with Ethiopia to address concerns about irregular migration and foster cooperation. By aligning its actions with its stated goals, the EU can promote a balanced, humane migration system that respects individuals’ rights and supports legal migration pathways. DM



South Africa has joined more than 50 countries that offer a digital nomad visa to foreign employees and individuals, giving them the opportunity and flexibility to live and work where they want.

Although lauded as a step in the right direction, foreign entities and workers must carefully consider the tax and employment implications of their arrangements. It could result in complex tax obligations, making their stay financially less favourable.

South Africa’s digital nomad visa became effective in May following the implementation of the Second Amendment of the Immigration Regulations. It allows remote workers to work for a foreign employer in South Africa and allows individuals to derive income from foreign sources on a remote basis in SA.

The foreigner must earn a gross income of at least R1 million per annum.

If the visa is issued for a period not longer than six months in a 36-month period, the remote worker must apply for exemption from the need to register for income tax in SA from the South African Revenue Service (Sars).