The definition of a border as a fixed location separating distinct political territories is changing as border practices increasingly take place within cities (Hagen, 2013; Johnson et al, 2011; Darling, 2017). Cities act as locations where localized border control is enforced through policing and violence directed towards migrants. Xenophobic actions of politicians, the police and citizens against African migrants contribute to the daily enforcement of borders within Johannesburg.

As examined by Jussi, the concept of borders and boundaries trace as far back as the Roman Empire during 3rd and 4th century AD when “the first large scale attempts to restrict movement were put in place” (2015). Throughout time the framework for what a border is has evolved and changed in alignment with changing geopolitics and discussions on space (Jussi, 2015). The acknowledgement of borders as something more complex than just a fixed boundary is influenced by Lefebvre’s The Production of Space, which argues that space is socially produced and everyday life plays a part in forming space (Lefebvre, H., & Nicholson-Smith, 1991). Lefebvre’s concept of space can be connected to borders. Similar to space, borders are not exclusively physical or fixed locations, they also take on “meaning through the everyday practices and lived experiences, which occur within and beyond” (Jussi, 2015) them. Current developments on border studies reflect on Lefebvre’s influence in which borders can no longer be solely identified as physical political boundaries on a map (Johnson et al, 2011). In addition, “recently intensified securitization of migration” following the 9/11 attacks and war on terror also largely impact current discussion on “a reworking and spatial reconfiguration of borders” (Ehrkamp, 2017). Border control no longer merely occurs on political boundaries. Now borders are enforced within state territories through municipal immigration policies and practices such as state surveillance and policing. The city is increasingly being considered as a place of border enforcement in literature (Darling, 2017; Johnson et al, 2011; Young, 2011), through everyday migrant experiences of internal border policing. An assortment of work has explored the mobility of borders within the USA (Ellis, 2006; Gilbert, 2009; Trujillo-Pagán, 2020) and the European Union (Fauser, 2019; Johnson et al, 2011; Lebuhn, 2013). An analysis of how cities in South Africa, such as Johannesburg, play a part in internal border enforcement is lacking but necessary.

Since the end of apartheid, South African cities have become important destinations for migrants from Southern African Development Community (SADC) countries and throughout the rest of the continent (Greenburg, 2010; Vearey, 2008). In Johannesburg roughly 13% of the population is foreign born, with the majority of migrants in the city being from SADC nations (City of Johannesburg, 2020). Migrants travel to South Africa for a variety of reasons, including to seek refuge and asylum or for economic purposes. As a result of the reasons for migration to South Africa being broad and distinctive to each individual's situation and with a tendency of “Little distinction... made between refugees and asylum-seekers and other immigrants” (Klaaren & Ramji, 2001) in Johannesburg, the term ‘migrant’ in my paper will be used as an umbrella term for individuals who leave their ordinary place of residence to live short and long term in South Africa for diverse reasons.

Despite declarations post apartheid from the government of an inclusive nation, such as President Thabo Mbeki’s launch of “an ‘African Renaissance’ to strengthen South African ties with the rest of the continent” (Peberdy, 2001) or the constitutional statement “that South Africa belongs to all who live in it” (Republic of South Africa, 1996), xenophobia remains a critical issue that threatens the safety and wellbeing of African migrants. Migration policy and political statements contribute to internal border practices by creating a “culture of xenophobia” (Neocosmos, 2010) against African migrants within Johannesburg. Xenophobic beliefs in South Africa begin at the top, with politicians, and then trickles down to police and local citizens in Joahnnesburg. South African politicians have “developed a tendency to scapegoat immigrants by blaming them for the country's domestic problems” (Hicks, 1999), fabricating xenophobic beliefs specifically targetted towards African migrants. Xenophobic attacks in 2015, targetting African foreigners in cities such as Johannesburg are claimed to be aggravated by Zulu King Goodwill Zwelithini who “allegedly asked foreigners to pack their bags and go back to their countries because they were enjoying South African resources at the expense of locals” (Tella, 2016). Remarks among politicians often emphasize notions that migrants are to blame for the nation’s problems, such as migrants are portrayed as criminals and blamed for high crime rates or migrants are taking jobs and blamed for high unemployment rates. It is clear that although state influence is not the only cause of anti-immigration sentiment, they do play a large part in creating xenophobic belief and actions. The 2015 attacks are not an isolated event. Within the past two decades the sheer number of xenophobic attacks, is an obvious message that anti-immigration sentiment is prevalent. Yet these attacks are followed with little concern by political leaders during their time. For example, following the 2008 attacks President Thabo Mbeki denied that the attacks were xenophobic and instead called them “naked criminal activity” (Dodson, 2010). The opinions and voice of the state largely impacts the everyday lives of migrants within cities as their anti-immigrant sentiment and denial of xenophobia influences how police and locals act towards migrants. Police and locals can then enact roles of border enforcement. Policy also acts as a tool which contributes to border enforcement through xenophobia. The 1991 Aliens Control Act (ACA) has been the foundation of much of South Africa’s immigration policy (Hicks, 1999). The ACA is considered one of the last "acts of apartheid" (Peberdy, 2001) and conflicts with “protections embodied in the 1996 Constitution, particularly its Bill of Rights” (Hicks, 1999). Within South Africa’s boundaries the ACA gives a great deal of power to immigration and police officers “to demand identification papers from those suspected on ‘reasonable grounds’ of being an undocumented immigrant” (Hicks, 1999), following arrest they have the authority to detain and repatriate individuals. The ACA gives internal authorities the ability to act out border practices through determining and restricting which migrants are permitted within cities. The name of the Aliens Control Act alone, is problematic in that the term ‘Alien’ negatively conceptualizes migrants as outsiders who are incompatible, strange or unable to integrate within society. The fact that South African policy still reflects on the ACA demonstrates that xenophobia is an issue that permeates the whole political system within South Africa.

Internal border enforcement is carried out by police in Johannesburg through xenophobic practices. Xenophobic sentiments are encouraged by politicians and policies, but on a municipal level police conduct ant-immigrant activities. As discussed above, police are given immense authority to enact and enforce border control through actions of demanding identification papers, detaining and repatriating migrants. The authority police have stems from xenophobic policies but their actions also converge with corruption, harrassment and racism. Among some police in Johannesburg is the belief that migrants are criminals. A study interviewing members of the South African Police Service in Johannesburg (SAPS) revealed one sentiment from a Captain that they do not want illegal foreigners in the country “because they cause a lot of serious crimes, don’t pay tax and it is often difficult to solve a crime caused by illegal immigrants because of lack of their fingerprints'' (Masuku, 2006). The captain then goes on to explain that when he expects someone to be illegal he arrests them, and if they present fake document papers he will rip those up and send the individual to Lindela, a detention and repatriation centre for undocumented migrants (Musaka, 2006). From this comment there are two points that are important to note. First, South Africa is considered to have “progressive asylum policies'' (BBC News, 2020) for refugees and asylum seekers because they do not use refugee camps but instead rely on temporary integration into urban areas. Refugees and asylum seekers in South Africa live in urban areas such as Johannesburg. The second point is that, while identity documents are essential for migrants such as refugees to validate their status to prevent arrest and deportation, they are not always attainable. The Department of Home Affairs (DHA) is responsible for providing these documents and the facility in Johannesburg is historically the busiest centre throughout the nation (Landau, 2006). At the DHA migrants are forced to pay unauthorized fees to file a claim to receive identification documents, those unable to pay these fees cannot make a claim and remain undocumented (Landau, 2006). Even if a migrant acquires identification documents, they may not always be recognized. For example, asylum seekers are only “issued with a single piece of paper” often handwritten which “Few employers or government agents, including the police and many health care workers, recognize these documents’ legitimacy” (Landau, 2006). In addition, there are often delays leading people undocumented for extended periods of time, and the identification cards may be easily lost or destroyed by police (Landau, 2006), as the SAPS captain described above explains doing. By looking at these two points it is evident that migrants’ only options when coming to South Africa is to rely on integrating into cities where they need to obtain identification documents which present several challenges to obtain. Police actions of destroying documents and deporting individuals on the basis that they don’t have identification documents is a poor way of determining the legality of a migrant. In reality the police may be arresting, detaining and deporting individuals who have a right to be in the country. The act of police deciding who remains in the city or who is legal, is an act of border enforcement that happens internally and an example of when “policing of the border takes place throughout the everyday spaces that migrants inhabit” (Franck, 2019).

The power of border enforcement that is awarded to the police is influenced by xenophobia towards African migrants. Police crackdowns on undocumented migrants often target areas with large populations of black immigrants (Klaaren & Ramji, 2001) and “in practice, ‘illegal immigrants’ are usually seen as African; undocumented migrants from elsewhere are largely ignored” (Peberdy, 2001). In an attempt to distinguish between African migrants and local residents, police rely on profiling individuals based on physical features including “by skin color (as Africans from further north are held to be darker or "blacker" than South Africans); by vaccination marks; by ‘traditional’ scarification marks; and by accent, language ability, and dress” (Peberdy, 2001). In one case, someone was even targeted for “walking like a Mozambican” (Nyamnjoh, 2006) Quite often this profiling of migrants is not successful or accurate, as of the people arrested for suspicion of being undocumented or of being illegal, 30% end up being South African (Masuku, 2006). As described in the previous paragraph, police enact internal borders through deciding which individuals remain and which ones do not. By specifically targeting African migrants, the police are enacting border enforcement which is racially motivated to target a certain category of foreigners. Xenophobia against African migrants influences who the police target, arrest, detain and repatriate, and also creates disproportionate internal enforcement of borders against African migrants.

Similar to internal borders that are created by police, xenophobic actions of Johannesburg citizens prevent African migrants from accessing equal rights and safety within the city, therefore acting as internal border enforcers. As previously discussed, politicians play a large part in creating a “culture of xenophobia” (Neocosmos, 2010) within South Africa. Socio-economic issues are often blamed on African migrants. This disinformation has a large impact on the views of citizens, especially those facing economic hardship. Instead of the government taking responsibility to create jobs, increase wages and reduce the economic divide within the country, they blame the nation's issues on migrants, taking themselves out of the situation to receive blame. When the needs of citizens aren’t met, in addition to xenophobia dictated by the government, “South Africans seek an avenue to channel their frustration and black foreigners are an easy target” (Tella, 2016). In May of 2008, in the Johannesburg Township of Alexandra riots began following a crowd of local people attacking “migrants from Mozambique, Malawi and Zimbabwe, telling them to leave” (BBC News, 2008). The riots went on for several weeks and expanded throughout the country, where anyone unable to pass an indigeneity test was “intimidated, beaten, hacked, raped and burnt out of shack settlements and city centres” (Pithouse, 2008). By the end of it 62 people were murdered, 41 migrants and 21 South African citizens mistaken for foreigners, with hundreds more injured and many displaced (Greenburg, 2010). The origin of the attacks, Alexandra, is an informal settlement within Johannesburg that faces many of the issues which politicians blame on migrants including crime, poverty and high unemployment rates. A large number of migrants choose to live in Alexandra creating tensions in an area where there is already high unemployment rates, making migrants an easy target for blame and daily xenophobia. The May 2008 attacks are just one example of xenophobic violence against migrants, everyday violence, harassment and exclusion occurs at the hands of local citizens. While it is important to note that not all citizens were involved or supported the attacks, a large number of citizens prevent migrants from integrating into Johannesburg through xenophobic violence. By denying them safety and wellbeing in the city, citizens are involved in the daily making of border with xenophobic motives.

Xenophobia among politicians, the police and citizens contribute to the daily bordering practices against African migrants in Johannesburg. As long as xenophobia remains a systemic issue in South Africa, African migrants will be denied safety, human rights and the right to a livelihood within Johannesburg. Recent policy changes are being implemented to make travel to South Africa easier for different nations across Africa. To make travel to South Africa easier for other Africans, changes are being made to create“a significant reduction of visa requirements for African” (Krensel, 2020) travelers and the introduction of an e-visa program for Kenya and Nigeria is being tested. A change in policies to accept more African migrants and travelers into the country will not reduce internalized borders unless there are measures put in place to address the route cause of xenophobia nationwide. Xenophobia will remain a daily occurrence in the lives of many as long as the state keeps placing blame on migrants for the nation's problems.