South Africa has every right to be a country that offers refuge to people fleeing persecution, war and political violence. That obligation should not be controversial.
What should be controversial is whether the country has built an asylum system capable of distinguishing genuine refugees from people who are using asylum as an alternative route into the country.
We are an unusual country in the region because we do not generally operate refugee camps. Asylum seekers are largely integrated into communities while their applications are processed. This model is not completely wrong. In fact, it avoids the enormous financial and humanitarian burden associated with maintaining large camps.
But it places an enormous responsibility and pressure on Home Affairs.
The state must know who has entered the country, establish their identity, determine whether their claim is genuine and, where an application fails, ensure that the person leaves.
That is where South Africa's system has struggled.
The latest Constitutional Court ruling on asylum applications has understandably generated strong reactions. But blaming President Cyril Ramaphosa for the judgment, or accusing the court of simply opening South Africa's borders, misses the more important issue.
The court determines constitutional questions. The executive must administer the law.
The real question for Ramaphosa's government is therefore whether Home Affairs has the capacity and integrity to implement the judgment without allowing the asylum system to become a de facto immigration channel.
An undocumented person must be able to seek protection if they genuinely fear persecution. But submitting an asylum application cannot mean that the state loses its responsibility to determine whether that person actually qualifies for refugee protection.
South Africa has a particularly compelling reason to demand an efficient system. The country's unemployment crisis means that immigration policy inevitably has significant economic and social consequences. The answer, however, cannot be to deny legitimate refugees protection.
Nor can it be to pretend that every person who arrives without documentation is a refugee.
The greatest danger lies in the gap between those two positions.
If applications are processed rapidly, identities verified, fraudulent claims exposed and rejected applicants removed, the system can protect refugees while maintaining immigration control.
If applications remain unresolved for years, however, temporary protection can become de facto permanent residence.
This is where corruption within the immigration system also deserves far greater scrutiny. Where officials facilitate fraudulent documentation or improperly assist people to navigate the system, the failure is not that of the refugee. It is a failure of the South African state.
We should therefore stop reducing this debate to "open borders" versus "anti-immigration".
South Africa can be compassionate without being administratively incompetent. It can honour its international obligations while enforcing its immigration laws.
The real test is simple; protect those who genuinely need refuge, process their claims quickly, expose abuse and enforce deportation.
Anything less leaves both refugees and South Africans poorly served. | MDUDUZI ZULU Durban