The claims made by DA MP James Vos about job losses and billions of Rand lost due to visa regulations join the unsubstantiated claims that have defined the debate around this issue. These claims have never been substantiated and our media has never asked those who make them to provide the evidence of thereof.

A decision has been made by those who oppose the visa regulations and the facts provided around child safety and national security will not be able to sway them otherwise.

So much so that debate is based on the false premise that weighs child safety against business interests. The debate, at its most rudimentary level, declares that children traveling with the permission of parents will somehow destroy our tourism sector.

Would the detractors of child safety go further to say that children traveling without passports would boost our tourism economy further?

The premise of this debate is based on very careless assumptions. Our rationale, on the other end, has been guided by good intent, national best interest and, most importantly, the law.

The 2005 Children's Act, which holistically champions the protection of children, refers specifically to children traveling with their parents’ permission. This Act was passed through Parliament, an institution that hosts the DA with all the privileges to voice the concerns before laws are passed.

The DA might be making a slight concession; and that is they did not apply themselves or oppose policy on specific matters. They did not oppose the Act on the basis of fears of destroying tourism.

We have been accused of "over spinning" for merely implementing laws that went through Parliament.   

It is interesting that we are seriously having a discussion about a Minister being fired for abiding by the law.

With the recommendations coming from the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Immigration Regulations, we are tasked with finding legal instruments that allow issuing of a strong advisory for certain countries and demanding Unabridged Birth Certificates for others.

We must find legal remedies in contradiction to our constitution that allows us to make distinctions between children from Europe and those from China.

We are tasked to do this because the law in its current form is very clear. The DA, in effect, is opposing Home Affairs from abiding to a legislative piece that they oversaw.

South Africa may be the only country that has opposition that slams a Minister and a Department for abiding by the law.

We welcome the challenges if they mean we move from this public impasse. The new recommendations, if the legal instrument allows, will still afford Home Affairs more means to protect children and national security than before. It may not be a giant leap forward but it is progression.

Until then, we encourage everyone coming to South Africa to abide by the current law.

For media enquiries kindly contact Mayihlome Tshwete or Thabo Mokgola on 060 962 4982

ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENR OF HOME AFFAIRS