Paper short abstract:

In the paper, I discuss how local authorities respond to the needs and protection of undocumented migrant families in South African cities despite efforts to keeping them out. Of interest is how the forms of engagement are consistent with human dignity as articulated in the country’s constitution.

Paper long abstract:

In South Africa, responding to the needs of immigrants is a contentious and a highly political issue. Yet the country's constitution guarantees everyone including undocumented migrants' right of access to basic services and human dignity. In the paper, I discuss how local authorities respond to the needs of undocumented migrant families (UMF) including housing, health care, education and protection in South African cities. Of interest is how the forms of engagement are consistent with human dignity as articulated in the Bill of Rights. Per the findings of a study in the City of Johannesburg, it is evident that though the legal status of UMF impacts what services they can and cannot access, the engagements are commoditised. UMF's state of need becomes the source of irregular engagements including pay something, sexual offers, use them, chase them and fear tactics. Consequently, UMF are responded to on the basis of what they can negotiate and offer within spaces of engagement. Thus, the dignity of UMF depends on their ability to negotiate irregular engagements effectively and not their human worth or what the law states. Similarly, the mechanism of irregular engagements works to safeguard the interests of both UMF and local authorities. The paper contributes to debates on human dignity in the governance of undocumented migration and concludes that, the inability of actors to uphold laws other than operating in line with their own judgement and what is the "norm" undermines immigration regimes and human dignity.