South Africa is changing its marriage law to recognise all types of intimate partnerships irrespective of gender, sexual orientation, or religious, cultural and other beliefs. 

The Department of Home Affairs has invited public comment on the Draft Marriage Bill 2022. The bill amends some marriage laws, and prescribes what’s required for marriages to be considered valid, forms of registration, and the property consequences of marriage. As the preamble shows, it seeks to promote liberal values of equality, nondiscrimination, human dignity and freedom of thought. 

While it is innovative for bringing all forms of intimate partnerships under one piece of legislation, the bill raises thorny questions. Liberalism or openness to different behaviour, opinions or new ideas is a strange beast. It pushes accepted conduct to its limits.

For instance, if the bill truly seeks equity, why does it not recognise intimate partnerships such as cohabitation? Why does section 22(6) criminalise marriage between people who are related to each other by adoption or by blood (to certain degrees)?

Get news that’s free, independent and based on evidence. 

I have researched these issues, notably as a member of the Advisory Committee on Matrimonial Property of the South African Law Reform Commission.

I believe that even though the bill promotes important constitutional values, it does not sufficiently reflect changing social and economic conditions. Specifically, it ignores polyandry marriage of a woman to more than one man and unmarried partnerships. This is significant because other laws recognise civil unions, which include formalised marriage-like partnerships of same-sex couples.

The thorny issues

Firstly, radical socioeconomic changes require society to reevaluate traditional assumptions about accepted forms of relationships. Due to urbanisation and the interaction of different cultures, relationships such as cohabitation and polyandry are rising. A couple could live together for reasons such as exorbitant rent, distance to workplaces, and prohibitively high bridewealth (ilobolo). 

The bill doesn’t recognise such intimate partnerships, which the Constitutional Court has accorded the same legal status as formal marriages. As the court has acknowledged, unmarried partnerships have serious implications for finances, human dignity, property ownership and child custody.

Secondly, the Marriage Bill defines ilobolo as property in cash or in kind … which a prospective husband or the head of his family undertakes to give to the head of the prospective wife’s family in consideration of a customary marriage.

This implies that only (traditionally male) family heads can receive it. The definition does not anticipate a role for women, as happens among the Galole Orma people of northeastern Kenya.

Also, the position of family head could be disputed where the mother is divorced and raised the bride alone. As far back as 1997, the Transvaal High Court ruled that the bride’s mother could negotiate and receive ilobolo. The bill should therefore redefine bridewealth as “money, property, or anything of value given by the groom or his family to the bride’s family in consideration of marriage and/or to symbolise a union between the groom and bride’s families”.

This definition is consistent with the decreasing role of the extended family in the education or raising of the bride. Uncles and aunts should not benefit from bridewealth if they did not assist in raising the bride. 

Thirdly, the bill is silent on the coexistence of a civil law marriage with a customary or religious marriage. For reasons like legal certainty and communal respect, double marriage is common. Previously, if a couple in a civil marriage subsequently concluded a customary or religious marriage, the state regarded the latter marriage as invalid. 

The bill creates ambiguity because it does not stipulate the fate of a subsequent customary or religious marriage. This could affect inheritance, property and child custody because legal systems may govern these issues differently.

Furthermore, the bill defines polygamous marriage as “a marriage in which a male spouse has more than one spouse at the same time”. This patriarchal definition does not promote equality. It implies that a woman should not marry more than one man. 

Finally, the bill imposes an omnibus standard for divorce on all marriages. This standard may complicate divorce under Islamic and customary law, where the standard is relaxed. Also, section 21(1) of the bill states that a marriage may be dissolved by the “continuous unconsciousness of one of the spouses,” without specifying how long a spouse must be unconscious following an injury, for example.

If the thorny issues in the bill are not addressed, the eventual legislation could be challenged as discriminatory. Its amendment would then drain the public purse. 

A balancing act

Significantly, the bill emerged from the 2022 White Paper on marriages and life partnerships. The advisory committee that worked on the Single Marriage Statute (Project 144) proposed two options for regulating life partnerships in its discussion paper.

These are a Protected Relationships Bill and a Recognition and Registration of Marriages and Life Partnerships Bill. It appears Home Affairs did not add life partnerships to the bill because it is controversial. But legislative avoidance is unhelpful because it postpones inevitable problems. The Constitutional Court recognises the right of a woman in a life partnership to inherit or claim maintenance from her deceased partner’s estate. 

Ultimately, new forms of relationships demand legislative recognition. Law reform should be carefully handled to ensure that non-discriminatory cultural and religious practices are respected. The bill should strike a balance between preserving these practices, promoting liberal values, and recognising the evolving realities of contemporary relationships.

Elsewhere around the world, larger numbers of irregular migrants have been regularised. 

Minister of Home Affairs Aaron Motsoaledi during a press briefing at the Department of International Affairs in Pretoria on 16 March 2020. Picture: Jacques Nelles 

Minister of Home Affairs Aaron Motsoaledi recently lost a court case that anyone could have anticipated was unwinnable. He probably expected to lose it too. He lost it on humanitarian and technical grounds. 

It prevents him from terminating the South African government’s concession to refugees from neighbouring Zimbabwe nearly 15 years ago. 

In April 2009, SA provided legalised shelter for Zimbabweans hit by economic and political crisis in their country across the Limpopo River. The Zimbabwe Dispensation Project was the first form of a policy to temporarily accommodate Zimbabwean refugees. 

It became the Zimbabwean special permit in 2014 and after 2017 it was known as the Zimbabwe Exemption Permit (ZEP). Zimbabweans who had arrived during the crisis period of 2008-2009 had full freedoms, but no rights to citizenship even for their children, for as long as the permits allowed. 

In 2021, home affairs decided to end the special dispensation after a period of grace lasting till the end of 2022 to allow Zimbabweans to regularise their circumstances. Some were expected to be able to obtain residence and work rights based on their skills and occupations, and others were to return to Zimbabwe. 

The number of people affected by the ruling is estimated at around 178 000 who remained on their ZEPs. Children born in SA were expected to obtain Zimbabwean citizenship and were not allowed SA citizenship. 

The number of 178 000 is relatively small number with the total number of immigrants in South Africa, estimated at 3.96 million by Statistics SA. 

Many of the registered Zimbabweans are educated and skilled. Most have been successfully living in SA for 15 years. Why not simply regularise all the law-abiding Zimbabweans living under the permit? Elsewhere around the world, larger numbers of irregular migrants have been regularised. 

In SA, Mozambican refugees were regularised after the end of the Mozambican civil war. But the current anti-migrant sentiment in SA made such a course difficult for the minister of home affairs. This is why he opposed a court action he pretty much knew he would lose. 

I have been studying migration policy on the continent, including the African Union’s adoption of a protocol on the free movement of people in 2018, which I have argued could facilitate economic growth and trade integration. 

Migration policy in SA seems to be constantly in flux. Most of the Immigration Policy White Paper passed by Cabinet in 2017 has never been implemented. Policy documents and a law amendment on labour migration published a year and a half ago are still in limbo. A promised new White Paper on immigration has not yet been published.

Some of the proposals could have simplified migration rules, such as a proposal to replace the critical skills list with a points system, while others such as the quota system proposed in the draft law would have added further complexities. 

Will any reforms be implemented before the general election of 2024? Probably not. This is the fundamental problem. 

Immigration policy is so highly politicised that the government seems afraid to move. While politicians frequently voice sentiments hostile to migration and migrants, sensible policies in practice and on the table are shrouded in camouflage and occasionally sneaked through. 

One example is the corporate labour permit, another is the rising number of African countries with visa-free access to SA. Access to skilled employees needed from beyond our borders is being simplified. Reforms will be hidden behind a veil of hostility to foreigners. 

A textbook on migration warns us, when it comes to migration policies, “not to equate political rhetoric with policy practice”. 

It is not surprising that in many countries migration policies seem confused or incomprehensible. Migration policy reform seems elusive in the context of such opacity. And yet, effective African economic development depends on economic integration. 

Most countries are pretty small, especially economically, and effective integration entails the movement of persons across borders without excessive hindrances. Not all African governments, even of richer countries, have been as hesitant as SA to reform migration policies. 

Members of both the East African Community (EAC) and the Economic Community of West African States (Ecowas) have made greater progress than regions at the southern and northern ends of the continent. Countries in Africa can learn not only from experiences in the EU or in South America, but also from other African countries. 

The New South Institute is running the Migration Governance Reform in Africa project. We are studying migration policy and practice in four African countries: SA, Mozambique, Kenya and Nigeria, and in four regional organisations, SADC, the EAC, Ecowas and the African Union. There are some exciting examples of reform on the African continent. 

In east and west Africa, there are many ways to allow cross-border migrants access for different periods and reasons. Even in southern Africa, the recent agreement between Namibia and Botswana on travel by citizens of the two countries across their common border with identity documents alone shows what progress is possible.

As processing times for some parent immigration visas balloon out to almost 30 years, the families hoping to be reunited for good are left in limbo

“My heart is broken,” writes Maria from Norway.

Originally from Poland, Maria and her husband, Robert, are eager to join their son in Perth. He’s an IT engineer at a global company who relocated to Australia several years ago. Since then, he’s married, become a citizen and had a son.

In August 2021, Maria and Robert applied for contributory parent visas, which offer permanent residency and cost $47,955 for each person. At the time they were advised it would be three or four years before they could migrate. Now Maria is reading on Facebook that the wait could be more than six years.

“This is unbelievable!” fumes Maria. “This visa is so expensive. We must pay about AU$100,000 for two persons. And we must wait so long? How is it possible?

“I don’t understand why the Australian government is so afraid of parents who want to be with their families in Australia. They are not old and ill. Many of them are quite young, healthy and want to help their families in Australia and want to work.”

“Misook”, from South Korea, has already spent six years in the parent visa queue, though she and her husband “Soejun” and daughter “Eun” have been living in Australia for more than a decade (they do not wish to use their real names). In 2012, Misook’s employer sponsored her to come on a temporary skills visa to fill a gap in the global firm’s Australian operations. Eun, then 18, went to university and has since qualified as a lawyer, built a career and become a citizen.

Because she came to Australia late in her career, Misook was considered too old to apply for permanent residence as a skilled migrant.

The couple lodged their contributory parent visa applications in 2017. Based on information on the Home Affairs website at the time, they expected them to be issued by the end of 2019. But Misook now fears her application won’t be considered until 2025 or 2026.

‘My family has been living in limbo’

They are stuck in the condition that home affairs minister Clare O’Neil calls “permanent temporariness”. The uncertainty is causing physical, mental and financial hardship among many of those waiting for a visa decision.

“The thing is my family has been living in limbo where we can’t plan my family’s future due to the visa delay,” says Misook. “Sometimes I really feel depressed.”

At 75, a 12-year queue is basically pointless

Misook and Soejun have the skills to find well-paid jobs in Australia but are barred from working while they wait for Home Affairs to grind through its backlog of more than 86,000 contributory parent visa applications.

The Home Affairs website now advises that any new application for a contributory parent visa “may take at least 12 years to process”. In March, the expert review of Australia’s migration system commissioned by the government concluded it was more likely to be 15 years.

“The whole point of spending $100,000 is to get the visa granted sooner,” says Sarah from Perth. Her parents are both in their 70s, and she encouraged them to apply for contributory visas in 2019 on the understanding that the process would only take a few years. “At 75, a 12-year queue is basically pointless,” she says.

Once Sarah and her parents realised the wait was much longer than anticipated, they switched to a non-contributory parent category that allows her parents to wait onshore until their cases are decided.

Sarah is fighting to get her parents into Australia: ‘The whole point of spending $100,000 is to get the visa granted sooner.’ 

This visa category is much more affordable and there are “only” 51,000 visa applications in the processing pipeline, but far fewer visas are issued each year, so the delays are even longer. The Home Affairs website advises that a new application for a non-contributory visa “may take at least 29 years to process”. The expert review led by the former secretary of prime minister and cabinet again thought this optimistic. It estimates the wait at more than 40 years.

While Sarah’s parents can stay in Australia on a bridging visa until they get a decision, they are far from settled. They are also about $12,000 out of pocket, since the $5,500 in upfront fees they paid to lodge their first application was not refunded and they had to stump up more fees to lodge the second one.

A new application for a non-contributory visa ‘may take at least 29 years to process’

“The uncertainty is very stressful for them at their age,” says Sarah. “They feel like they’re in a no man’s land. You are resident in Australia, but you are temporary, never fully resident.

“How can we properly integrate into Australian society when it takes 40 years to get a decision on whether we can stay? They will never be granted the visa in their lifetime and will spend what time they have left wondering if they will be asked to leave.”

If her parents return to Britain, then Sarah has decided she will also go back to Britain to care for them. “I feel a deep sense of responsibility,” she says. But Sarah’s profound filial obligation might force her to choose between her parents and her husband, Matthew �` the man she moved to Australia to marry in 2010. He was willing to give Britain a go and secured a job in his field but wasn’t happy there. “After trying it out for a year,” she says, “he’s clear that he doesn’t want to live in the UK.”

Clearing the backlog

Cases like those of Maria, Misook and Sarah are but a tiny sample of the parent migration experience. There are more than 137,000 applicants stuck in the processing pipeline for a permanent visa, a backlog that has tripled in size in the past decade (see chart).

Source: Data to 2021-22 is from Home Affairs and its predecessor departments via annual reports on the migration program and the serial publication Population Flows: Immigration Aspects. Data for 2022-23 is to 30 May 2023.

Many applicants feel they have been misled by Australian authorities because the processing timelines for the “contributory visa” posted on the Home Affairs website have proven to be serious underestimates.

Our Australian afternoon update email breaks down the key national and international stories of the day and why they matter

Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

after newsletter promotion

On websites and chat groups families share their anguish, frustration, confusion and anger at a failed and failing system. They are organising too.

Misook directs me to the elegant and professional website of the #clearthebacklog campaign, which is urging the government to allow 20,000 parents to settle in Australia every year. The Facebook group “Permanent visa for parents” has almost 6,000 members. Sarah has signed up more than 200 people who, like her, made down-payments of thousands of dollars for a fast-track visa only to discover the wait times were three or four times longer than the Home Affairs website indicated. They feel they handed over their money on false pretences and ought to be refunded.

“People are making major life decisions on sketchy, ambiguous and sometimes downright inaccurate information, provided by both the government and immigration agents,” says Sarah. “I still don’t know if we have the right visa, and we’re currently $12,000 down, just to be in the queue to get in the queue.”

“We’re not rich,” says Sarah. “We’re working hard and saving every penny so that we can help my parents make the move. We’re just asking for a fair, transparent pathway that is fit for purpose. But I suspect in the end it will just get too hard to stay.”

The parent conundrum

Australians like Sarah have good reasons for wanting to bring their parents to join them here. As Sarah’s story shows, love and duty fuel a powerful desire to keep fathers and mothers close by as they age.

Grandparents pass on important family knowledge. Arvind in Adelaide says his children learn about language, culture and religion when they observe Hindu holy days with their grandmother.

There are pragmatic considerations too. Grandparents often look after children, cook, clean and maintain houses and gardens or help out in family businesses, enabling their adult children to work and build careers.

If her parents return to Britain, then Sarah has decided she will also go back to care for them. ‘I feel a deep sense of responsibility,’ she says. Photograph: Tony McDonough/The Guardian

Australia’s migration program has a strong bias towards youth, skills and English language proficiency, because evidence shows that migrants with these attributes make the biggest economic and fiscal contribution to the nation over the course of their lives. A skew towards youth also helps to slow the overall ageing of society (at least in the short term), increasing the number of wage earners and taxpayers who can support those too old or too young to work. Even if they are only in their 50s or 60s, and have valuable skills and speak good English, parent migrants are already at the end of their working lives.

This is the parent conundrum. On the one hand is the legitimate, heartfelt desire of first-generation migrant families to bring parents and grandparents to live with them in Australia.

On the other are economic considerations regarding the long-term national interest that lead swiftly to a conclusion that parents are not the kind of migrants Australia wants or needs.

There are two drivers behind the refusal to increase the parent intake in line with demand.

The first is a serious concern about the fiscal and demographic implications of adding 20,000-30,000 older migrants to the Australian population each year. The second is an electoral consideration. Amid an intractable housing affordability crisis and unprecedented pressure on Australia’s health- and aged-care systems, the term “big Australia” remains an emotive slogan. Any government increasing the parent intake would open itself up to a powerful negative campaign at the next election.

Successive governments have responded to the parent conundrum by rationing permanent migration places, but as the expert panel reporting to government in March concluded: “Providing an opportunity for people to apply for a visa that will probably never come seems both cruel and unnecessary.”

In its response to the panel’s report, the Albanese government prioritised skilled migration reform, but it has also promised to turn its attention to the family stream. Reforming the dysfunctional parent visa system presents by far the biggest challenge.

Last week the immigration minister, Andrew Giles, said the previous government cut the number of places, wait times exploded and 85,000 more parents were left in the queue. “It’s just one of the signs that the system hasn’t been working in the best interests of all Australians,” he said.

“We’re considering the migration review and will have more to say on this in the future.”

“I’m done with Canada.”

 The Offer newsletter: Sign up for curated coverage of Canadian real estate

Cameron is one of several people who wrote to CTVNews.ca about settling outside of Canada due to the high cost of living. Although data from Statistics Canada shows there are more people immigrating to the country than there are emigrating, Canadians such as Cameron are permanently leaving the country every day. Statistics show that one emigrant will leave Canada every 20 minutes or so.

High housing costs played a key role in Cameron and his wife’s decision to leave Canada, he said. For his four-bedroom, two-bathroom home in Ontario, Cameron’s monthly mortgage payment was about $5,500, he said.

But in Barbados, Cameron is renting a three-bedroom, three-bathroom home in Saint Philip for slightly more than $3,000 per month. The house spans about 2,300 square feet and includes a pool.

According to Numbeo, an online database where users can share information related to the cost of living in various countries, grocery items such as milk, bread and eggs are more expensive in Barbados than in Canada. Despite this, the couple hopes to save money in other ways. For utilities such as electricity, water and gas, for example, Cameron expects to pay about $250 per month in Barbados, compared to a monthly payment of $593 while living in Hamilton.

Like many Canadians who reached out, Cameron said he hopes the move will have a positive impact on his overall quality of life, allowing him to generate more disposable income to spend on recreational activities and eventually growing his family. Cameron said he and his wife had held off on having children while living in Canada, but plan to revisit the idea now that they’re living in Barbados.

“We see that we have better opportunities for us somewhere else [compared to] what Canada seems to be able to provide for us moving forward,” he said.

‘DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SURVIVING AND LIVING’

Steve Thurrott, who is originally from Ottawa, also decided to leave Canada in March 2020 because of the high cost of living. More than three years after leaving, Thurrott is now visiting Alberta before he and his wife permanently settle in Cambodia.

“I was in Banff and a little restaurant by the lake wanted $17 for a hotdog,” Thurrott told CTVNews.ca in a telephone interview on July 4. “I just don’t understand how people survive here.”

The 45-year-old veteran receives military and disability pensions, following his medical release from the Canadian Armed Forces in 2020. But this money was barely enough to afford his monthly expenses while living in Canada, he said. After visiting Mexico, the Philippines and Alberta, Thurrott and his wife plan to move to Cambodia, where the cost of living is “far more affordable” compared to Canada, he said.

Starting in August, Thurrott and his wife will live in a three-bedroom, three-bathroom home with a pool while paying $300 per month in rent, he said. Meanwhile, in Canada, the average price to rent a one-bedroom unit is $1,837, based on the latest report from Rentals.ca.

According to Numbeo, the average price of food and transportation in Cambodia is generally cheaper than it is in Canada. Grocery items such as a dozen eggs and a loaf of bread, for example, cost less in the Asian country. Additionally, the price of a meal at an inexpensive restaurant in Cambodia can be as low as $3 per person, said Thurrott, who visited the country earlier this year.

Meanwhile, in Canada, grocery prices have risen 9.1 per cent year-over-year, according to the latest inflation data from Statistics Canada. When looking at the country’s overall annual inflation rate, this figure currently stands at 2.8 per cent. Although this represents a drop from the 8.1 per cent recorded in June 2022, inflation levels are still higher than the Bank of Canada’s two-per-cent target.

In terms of transportation in Cambodia, a short trip via tuk-tuk, a three-wheeled motor vehicle, can cost as little as $1 while a taxi ride over longer distances can cost as much as $50, although prices can be negotiated, Thurrott said. Purchasing a new or used car, however, tends to be more expensive in Cambodia than in Canada, he said.

Aside from mandatory expenses, the cost of products and services that aren’t essential, such as a trip to the movie theatre or going on a scenic tour, are also less expensive in Cambodia compared to Canada, Thurrott said. Being able to do more of these recreational activities has greatly improved his quality of life, he said.

“When all of these other extra costs are so much cheaper, the quality of life that that brings is huge,” he said. “There’s a difference between surviving and living.”

FATHER OF TWO NO LONGER SEES CANADA AS THE ‘END GOAL’

Shane Baetz, who grew up near London, Ont., began working in the Philippines in 2011. About a decade later, during the COVID-19 pandemic, he returned to Canada with his wife and two children. He had been laid off at the time and his family was considering permanently relocating to Canada, he said.

But as his family looked for a new home, they saw average prices were rapidly rising. By February 2022, the national average price of a home peaked at $816,720, according to the Canadian Real Estate Association. Looking at rising home prices in London, Ont. and the Greater Toronto Area, Baetz said he didn’t know if it made financial sense for his family to stay in Canada.

“Houses were going up, like, hundreds of thousands of dollars within months,” the 48-year-old told CTVNews.ca in a telephone interview on July 5. “It was shocking.”

Baetz was also worried about whether his daughters, aged nine and 12, would eventually be able to afford homes themselves, he said. Although the national average price of a home has dropped since February 2022, the latest CREA data shows an annual increase between June 2022 and June 2023.

“I always felt like my daughters were going to have a better life in Canada but I wasn’t seeing that anymore,” he said. “It’s sad to no longer perceive Canada as an end goal.”

Rising home prices ultimately led Baetz and his family to return to the Philippines in March 2022, he said. They now rent a three-bedroom, three-bathroom condominium in Manila for about $4,000 per month, he said.

Although leaving Canada has made it difficult to spend time with his relatives, Baetz plans to continue living in the Philippines with his wife and daughters, he said. There, he is able to provide them with greater financial stability and a better quality of life, he said.

“The list of reasons to stay in the Philippines is probably longer than the list of reasons to move back to Canada,” said Baetz. “The future feels like it’s brighter.”

It’s not uncommon for Canadians to settle in countries with a low minimum wage, said Tsur Somerville, an associate professor of strategy and business economics at the University of British Columbia’s Sauder School of Business. For those who have generated income while living in Canada, it is easier to make this money go further, he said.

“If I take my wealth that I’ve accumulated in Canada and then move to someplace where incomes are much lower and wages are much lower, then everything is going to be a much lower price,” Somerville told CTVNews.ca in a telephone interview on June 13.

Countries such as Cambodia and the Philippines have minimum wages that are lower than the base salary earned by workers in Canadian provinces and territories. In the Philippines, for example, minimum wage is about $14 per day. In Canada, employees can make at least $104 per day, with the minimum wage ranging from $13 to $16.77 per hour depending on the province or territory.

FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYERS AND RETIREES CONSIDER LEAVING CANADA

Several Canadians also wrote to CTVNews.ca about plans to leave Canada in the near future, including Andre Fortier, who is looking to purchase his first home.

Fortier, who is currently renting an apartment in Toronto for about $1,600 per month, said he is considering moving to Colombia, where his partner is from. It is there that he hopes to purchase a home, as he does not see himself being able to afford a property in Canada.

“I’ve been contributing in this country all of my life, I feel completely cheated,” the 59-year-old told CTVNews.ca in a telephone interview on June 12. “I’m nowhere near where I thought I was going to be by the time I’m 60, and it’s not from the lack of trying.”

Although average home prices may be cheaper outside of major urban hubs such as Toronto, Fortier said he has been struggling with finding full-time employment outside the city. If he were to stay in Canada during his retirement years, money from his pension would barely cover his rent, he said.

During a visit to Colombia in December, Fortier saw homes for sale between $50,000 and $100,000, he said. He and his partner are now looking at moving to Colombia in two years’ time, and plan to live there permanently.

“The cost of living here is exponential to what it is there,” he said. “If I stay in Canada … I’m going to be absolutely broke.”

Based in Mission, B.C., Leslie Dunn is also considering moving to another country. The semi-retired 57-year-old hopes to purchase a home in Mexico and split her time between both countries throughout the year.

Research conducted by Far Homes, a real estate website that helps foreigners purchase properties in Mexico, shows an increasing number of Canadians have been migrating there since 2020. Data from the Mexican government shows that 1,032 temporary resident cards were issued to Canadians in 2020, compared with 3,160 cards issued in 2022, according to a report from Far Homes.

Recent surveys conducted by the company show a significant factor behind this trend is the desire for a lower cost of living. Dunn said this is one of the main reasons behind her decision to settle in Mexico. Rising average home and rent prices in Canada are especially concerning to her, along with the elevated cost of food, she said.

“The cost of living is expensive [in Canada],” Dunn told CTVNews.ca in a telephone interview on June 22. “Housing rates pretty much everywhere are on the incline [and] I find that there`s a lot of people that are house poor.”

Based on recent trips to Mexico, Dunn said the price to purchase an average condominium is about $125,000, while the cost of a detached house can be about $400,000. She recently offered to buy a four-bedroom townhouse for about $180,000 in the town of Puerto Morelos, she said. Property taxes for the 2,700-square-foot home would have been just under $100 per year.

Although the deal did not go through, Dunn said she and her partner continue to look for homes to either buy or rent in Mexico.

HOW INCREASED SUPPLY CONTRIBUTES TO HOUSING AFFORDABILITY

Canadians, along with residents of countless other countries, continue to struggle with affordable housing amid a cost of living crisis, Somerville said.

“Rent and mortgage payments have gone up a lot more than incomes, particularly in last two to three years,” said Somerville, referring to Canada.

Although average home prices have largely fallen from their peak in February 2022, they haven’t decreased enough to offset the higher mortgage payments brought about by the Bank of Canada’s interest rate hikes, Somerville said.

Additionally, while leaving Canada to move to a lower-income country may seem like a good way to save money, this could have unintended consequences for those foreign communities, with ripple effects that may not be “unambiguously positive,” Somerville said.

In regions that see high levels of relocation by wealthy homebuyers, for example, if the existing housing supply does not meet demand, this can drive up average home prices in these areas, Somerville said.

“Your ability to pay more for housing … can have negative local effects,” he said.

Increasing Canada’s home supply is key to ensuring more affordable housing, according to a report released by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation in 2022. The corporation has estimated that Canada’s housing stock will increase by 2.3 million units between 2021 and 2030. However, an additional 3.5 million homes will need to be built to ensure housing affordability in Canada.

Seychelles has finally shed light on why it decided to keep Nigerians out of the country.

The ban is due to widespread stereotypes against Nigerians in various African nations, including South Africa.

Vice President Ahmed Afif addressed the press, stating that the surge in drug trafficking and fraudulent behaviour was the reason for prohibiting Nigerian tourists.

However, Afif clarified that Nigerians with diplomatic passports or valid work/resident permits issued by Seychelles would still be allowed entry.

“For the others, the government will keep its eyes open and SEBS (Seychelles Electronic Border System) will analyse much more to find out what reasons they are coming example someone who is coming for a holiday for only one day. 

“We have to ask questions because it is strange and we have seen that happening,” explained Afif. 

He further revealed multiple instances where many Nigerians claimed to be on vacation, but their stays were extremely short. 

Afif mentioned that when they examined the payments made for these individuals’ trips to Seychelles, they noticed that all the payments came from one account.

“When we checked the payments made for them to come to Seychelles, it is from only one source. This is for different people coming on different days which shows an organised syndicate,” said Afif. 

The vice president emphasized that over the past year, especially in recent months, the government had noticed a troubling trend that posed a threat to border control and the economy due to criminal activities.

“We have seen a clear link between this with certain people from Nigeria. In the past two weeks, for example, 13 people coming from Nigeria have been arrested when entering Seychelles because they were carrying drugs into the country,” said the vice president. 

He further recounted incidents where Nigerians had used counterfeit credit cards at tourist establishments.

“In one case, 62 Nigerians who said they were on holiday used false credit cards, and the money was never credited to the accounts of these establishments. 

“These establishments have lost money. These people spent free holidays in the country at the expense of the establishment owners and there is nothing that can be done for them,” Afif said. 

Afif also mentioned other incidents involving financial institutions, including a fraud case where £1-million was lost and Nigerians were involved.

Last Saturday, discussions began on social media platforms regarding an alleged ban on Nigerian passport holders seeking holiday visits to Seychelles. 

This speculation arose after a Twitter user shared a screenshot of a purportedly rejected entry application from SEBS.