(SOUTH AFRICA) — ActionSA proposed on February 16, 2026 that South Africa cap the number of new asylum seeker applications the government considers each year at 10,000, pitching the move as part of a broader effort to tighten screening, reduce backlogs and rebuild what it calls the integrity of the system.
The party submitted the plan into the South African government’s Revised White Paper on Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection process, positioning it as a political proposal rather than an enacted policy or an implemented administrative change.
Malebo Kobe, an ActionSA Member of Parliament, framed the proposal as a response to pressures on the state and on citizens. “Our system currently rewards non-compliance, undermines labour standards and national security and leaves citizens competing for scarce resources in their own country. We are proposing that only 10,000 new applications for asylum seekers be considered by government every year,” Kobe said.
ActionSA’s announcement came as Home Affairs Minister Leon Schreiber’s Revised White Paper process sits at the center of a national argument over how South Africa should manage immigration, asylum, and refugee protection, including proposals to overhaul the Refugees Act of 1998 and the Immigration Act of 2002.
In broad terms, the ActionSA plan calls for a fixed annual limit on new asylum applications and a set of structural reforms that would reshape where and how people are screened, documented, and managed while their cases move through the system.
A cap on applications would change the front door of the asylum system by restricting how many new claims officials process in a given year, potentially creating new bottlenecks for people who arrive after the limit is reached. The proposal describes the cap as a way to ensure the system is not overwhelmed and to prioritize “genuine cases,” but it does not set out in detail how officials would select which applications fall inside the ceiling once demand exceeds it.
ActionSA also calls for nationality quotas for asylum and refugee applications, an approach the party says would prevent any single nationality from “dominating the inflow.” In practice, nationality-based allocations can be designed as distribution tools, but they can also raise concerns about unequal treatment depending on how they are set and how exceptions are handled.
Another central piece is a “First Safe Country” principle. ActionSA proposes that people who pass through “safe third countries” on their way to South Africa should be ineligible for asylum, a type of safe-third-country rule that can narrow eligibility by focusing on travel route as well as the circumstances in a person’s home country.
Such rules typically depend on how governments define “safe,” what evidence applicants can present to challenge that classification, and whether procedural safeguards allow a meaningful review. ActionSA’s proposal, as described, supports the principle but does not spell out how South Africa would decide which third countries qualify or how disputes would be handled.
The plan also proposes replacing traditional refugee reception offices with “integration and repatriation centers” near borders and in inland hubs. ActionSA says these centers would provide basic services for a limited period before “integration or repatriation,” a model that would shift the system’s geography and operations toward managed sites rather than office-based processing.
Centers of that kind can affect how people move, how they access services, and how quickly they can secure documentation that protects them from arrest or exploitation, depending on how the sites operate and how long people are required to remain there. ActionSA’s description emphasizes basic services and a limited period, but it leaves unanswered what legal status people would hold while in the centers and what rules would govern movement and enforcement.
ActionSA also wants shorter documentation cycles for asylum seekers already in the system. The party believes asylum permits should be valid for 12 months, with status reviews required for renewal, and automatic revocation if the individual returns to their country of origin.
Time-limited permits with periodic reviews can increase monitoring and allow governments to reassess claims, but they can also add administrative burden and uncertainty for applicants who depend on valid papers to work, travel within a country, and access basic services.
The proposal’s timing and framing sit within a broader South African debate over capacity and control. Schreiber’s Revised White Paper was published for public comment, and the government is seeking to overhaul the Refugees Act of 1998 and the Immigration Act of 2002 amid what the summary describes as a massive backlog and security concerns.
ActionSA’s plan aligns its case for reform with those pressures, citing screening and “system integrity” as a rationale. Kobe’s quote also links the proposal to “labour standards and national security,” arguing the current approach “rewards non-compliance” and leaves citizens competing “for scarce resources.”
While the proposal centers on South Africa, readers searching for official U.S. agency material may see unrelated U.S. immigration caps in the same information stream. ActionSA is a South African political party, and there are no official statements from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services or the U.S. Department of Homeland Security about this specific proposal.
That absence matters because U.S. caps operate under separate laws and processes, and comparisons can only illustrate how caps work in other systems, not predict outcomes in South Africa or validate any particular policy choice.
In the United States, USCIS operates several programs with statutory limits, including the U-1 nonimmigrant visa for victims of crimes. On February 5, 2026, USCIS confirmed it had reached the statutory cap of 10,000 for U-1 nonimmigrant visas for the fiscal year.
Separately, the U.S. government set a refugee admission target of 7,500 for Fiscal Year 2026 in an order published on October 31, 2025. Those figures reflect U.S. policy settings and legal frameworks and do not represent any U.S. position on South African asylum policy.
If South Africa adopted ActionSA’s suggested ceiling, it would directly restrict access to formal procedures for people who arrive after the cap is reached. A system built around a fixed intake limit can push people into longer periods without a recognized avenue to lodge a claim, increasing the risk of irregularity and vulnerability to exploitation.
Rights groups have already raised legal concerns about the direction of travel described in the proposal. Human rights organizations including the Scalabrini Centre and Lawyers for Human Rights (LHR) warned that caps and the “First Safe Country” principle may violate the principle of non-refoulement and the South African Constitution.
Non-refoulement is the principle that bars returning people to places where they face serious harm, and it sits at the core of refugee protection systems. A cap that prevents claims from being heard, or a third-country rule that blocks eligibility based on transit, can trigger disputes about whether people received a fair chance to present their protection needs before removal or denial of entry.
The proposed shift to integration and repatriation centers could also raise questions about conditions, liberty of movement, and continuity of documentation. A model that concentrates new arrivals near borders or in inland hubs can make screening and service provision more centralized, but it can also create detention-like effects if movement is restricted, or if access to legal support and oversight is limited.
Even without describing enforcement mechanics, the combination of a low annual intake limit, nationality-based quotas, route-based eligibility rules, and a 12-month permit cycle suggests a system that places heavier emphasis on filtering, monitoring, and removal decisions. Implementation can hinge on definitions—such as what counts as a “safe third country”—and on the appeal rights and review standards that apply when a claim is rejected, a permit renewal is denied, or status is revoked.
Automatic revocation tied to travel back to a country of origin also raises procedural questions in any asylum system, including how authorities confirm the facts of travel, how they treat brief returns under duress, and what recourse exists for people who contest the grounds of revocation.
For now, ActionSA’s plan remains a political submission within the Revised White Paper process. Adoption would require government action, and implementation would require administrative procedures that determine how officials accept, record, and decide claims—steps that are not the same as announcing a proposal.
South Africans and affected migrants can follow developments by monitoring the Department of Home Affairs for White Paper updates at South African Department of Home Affairs, and broader government announcements at South African Government News.
Readers tracking U.S.-specific caps and program updates can use the USCIS Newsroom, but those updates apply to U.S. immigration categories rather than the ActionSA submission.
ActionSA’s proposal crystallizes the question now confronting South Africa’s White Paper process: whether tightening intake through a fixed ceiling—set by the party at 10,000, or 10, 000 as some supporters write it—can meet capacity and security goals while still keeping open a workable path for people seeking protection.
