johan rebel

"The R10 billion figure is based on an assumption that 20% of family travel to SA will be lost as result of the new regulations. However, as many as 61% of UK respondents recently polled said the requirement would put them off visiting SA."

Source

Johan

johan rebel

"A doctor at the Mayo Clinic in the US and her three children are going to be deported from OR Tambo International Airport on Monday night after she arrived without the necessary travel documents.

Home affairs spokesperson Mayihlome Tshwete said they sympathised, but could not bend the rules. “Even if we completely sympathise with the type of work the doctor has to do, our immigration officers can’t allow people to come into the country undocumented.” No exception could be made, even in case like this, where one of the parents had to be called away for an emergency."

Source

Great way to cement SA's reputation as a family-friendly tourist destination.

Johan

ThudAndBlunder

To put this all into a bit of perspective: as a South African citizen, I've just had to courier off 53 pages of documents to apply for a tourist visa for Canada.

So, you know....just bring the birth certificate.

jsnydcsa

I sympathize. I've had to hand-hold many a folk from SA through byzantine US immigration rules, steps, paperwork, etc. It is far from optimal.


But, it appears from the story that even if they had the birth certificate, they wouldn't have got in b/c they didn't have the husband's affidavit that the wife could travel with the kids without the husband present. So, even if they had the birth certs (sounds like they didn't), they still would have been short one essential document - the affidavit from the other parent giving permission to travel.

How'd she get on the plane in the first place w/o the husband's affidavit and the birth certs? Whether in London or somewhere in the Middle East while transiting for this "royal family" housecall.

This all goes back to the "discretion" thing that I've discussed in this context before. Was the family at the airport when the "royal family" itinerary change came up for the husband? Did the wife have a copy of his itinerary to at least show he was inbound to SA at some point in the future? Did she have something about this last minute hiccup in their itinerary? Kind of a complete tick-tock of what's going to at least show that it is less than likely that we're dealing with a international human trafficker? What's the rest of this woman's story on arrival (she seemed to be visiting family in SA, what are the ties back to the USA?).

I'm not saying a line officer at desk #____ at ORT would have the authority to review all this, waive (or wave, depending on one's perspective) it off and send the mother through. But, at least when they get "brought to the back" someone a little higher up the chain may be able to sort things out and possibly make an exception based on the senior officer's training/experience. Say what you want to say about SA and the government general, I think (and have personally experienced on several occasions) at a base level, when you're dealing with most (OK, closer to some...) front line people, they know what they're supposed to be trying to do and act accordingly.

Calling Gift of the Givers, nice work. Though as she was a US Citizen, the first call should have been to the emergency desk at US Consulate JHB. And, the second should have been to the husband (um, could you ask your "royal family" to have their ambassador to SA make a call...) What was the mom's attitude during all this? Depending on that, just about any officer on the planet is likely to make certain decisions that set things on a certain irreversible course. Again, from personal experience, I've seen officers, when presented with a documented, legitimate story and a bit of humble yes sir/no sir professional attitude cut some slack in certain situations (even if, in the background, unbeknownst to the line people, you're making calls to get you out of this mess through friends/family/contacts). But, a first out of your mouth snotty "Do you know who I am?" or "I'm calling ...." attitude can start things off wrong (very very wrong). What is it they say, more with honey than vinegar.

johan rebel

"Late yesterday afternoon an official from Home Affairs, who was very considerate and efficient, assured us that she was referring the matter to very senior officials.

"At 17:38 this very kind individual got back to us to say she was awaiting feedback and soon after at 17:58 she got back to say the family had been released," Sooliman said.


Source

Common sense prevailed.

Johan

Cheetah_SA

This conjecture seems like a complete red herring. We could also speculate that if the pax had not been "people of substance" with connections in high places the outcome would have been different.

This article make for very sobering reading of how the chaotic implementation of these rules is causing real problems for locals at the mercy of incompetent, arrogant and just plain abusive Home Affairs officials.

jsnydcsa

Listen, I'm the first one to note what's wrong or could potentially go wrong with SA or just about any other "process" anywhere in the world. Indeed, see, e.g.,
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/afric...gulations.html

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/afric...rrival-sa.html

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/afric...le-flying.html

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/afric...city-city.html

And, I've had more than my What the Flip moments at all stages of dealing with SA bureaucracy - both travel and non-travel related, government or private, etc., etc. I have no juice, just persistence, patience (though admittedly seriously strained to a point of breaking, no... shattering) and a sadly-Type A attention to detail that almost overwhelms the person on the other side of these situations such that the just relent.

I'll recount one example somewhat sanitized b/c of this forum. I have a close family relation who's a dual citizen. Prior to Sept 11, s/he had legally entered on country #1's passport. Post-Sept 11, and while still legally in the US on country #1's passport, they applied for an extension of their stay, which the US granted. However, the US authorities recorded the granted extension under the identifiers on country #2's passport (same name and DOB, but different passport number, country, etc.). While she was still in the USA, the stay authorized on country #1's passport expired. Agents - like a three of them with guns and a full "file" on the relation - came to the apartment looking for Al Capone. According to the doorman of the building, they implied s/he was going to be leaving in bracelets. It was that time when they wanted to look like they were "doing something" to get people who were in this country illegally (and by extension, ready to strap themselves up with Plutonium or whatever - that's a joke) out of the USA. Thankfully, a family member living in the apartment - unaware of the seriousness of the situation - said to the agents. Umm, hey, s/he got an extension. Here's her passport (country #2's passport) and even let them make a copy on the home copy/fax machine of it and the relevant passport pages and the then-INS documents showing the extension. The agents left a business card and said thanks. Never heard from them again. A call to the immigration lawyer with a request to try and get the agents or INS to basically confirm "Yeah, our mistake, no worries, you're cool" was met by the lawyer with "good luck with that, it'll never happen, if they spent their time issuing such 'yeah, we messed up' letters, they'd never get anything else done." Sure enough, when they next tried to come into the USA after some foreign travel, s/he was flagged by US immigration upon arrival in NY for improper entry. S/he had allegedly overstayed the country #1 entry and been barred and nobody had ever recorded the country #1 overstay issue as "closed" or "unfounded" with a notation about the extension on country #2's passport. Expecting trouble s/he had originals and copies of everything, even the agent's business card. S/he calmly explained it to the desk officer in back after she was flagged by the agent upon entry. Took a while (maybe 2-3 hours) for everything to get sorted out and s/he was definitely detained and delayed. S/he was scared. S/he was upset (both tears and "anger") that this had happened at all and nobody had "fixed" it back whenever. She had absolutely no juice whatsoever and got no phone call or help from anyone. Did s/he come out of it with an article similar to the one on Daily Maverick? No. Rather, s/he came away with "See, I knew this was going to be a problem" I was prepared, I thought through what this byzantine process was going to be like in light of incompetence (not on the agents' part, frankly they probably just got the file based on a computerized assignment) in a system. But, it is what it is and s/he dealt with it. Hassled? You bet, missed her connection, her ride at the end of her trip was frantic when they couldn't reach her, missed a meeting, luggage pulled b/c she wasn't around and had to track it down.

I'll give you one more about "people of substance" similarly sanitized. A US friend married a South African and at some point in the immigration process, she had to go to the old consulate in downtown CPT for some sort of paperwork and an interview. Professionally dressed, full file of everything needed, requested, etc. Ready to go. Arrived early. So on and so forth. I's dotted, T's crossed, lower case j's dotted too. Should have been a breeze. Remember the old waiting room? Teenager slouches down next to her in shorts, t-shirt and flip flops in those old style schoolroom desk/chair combos. Pulls out crumpled long roll of thermal fax paper. Someone's faxed him the US application for whatever. Asks for a pen from her, asks her to help read some of the paperwork, didn't have the required US$ fee receipt and basically did an exchange with someone else changing ZAR for US$ right in the waiting room and going down to NedBank or wherever to do the deposit. Definitely just "winging it." Who got the nice treatment? Who was in and out in a breeze - the teen. The spouse - with the same interviewer as the kid had - run around, second guessing by the interviewer, needed more paperwork, squinty glances at the validity of certain paperwork. Had to go home to 'burbs to get more paperwork and come back the next day. Still a wait and a run around. She got it. But, it was a mess.

We don't know what went on with everything the woman and her kids originally cited in the article went through at every stage in the process. The one thing we do know is that they got in and indeed officials made exceptions and looked into the matter rather than the perceived intransigence and incompetence. Are people being stopped for stupid reasons, chastised for nothing more than a blurred ink stamp or just plain given the run around? You bet. I haven't been through JNB in June, but I'd be willing to bet that people are still moving through the system fairly well. The place hasn't closed the border. There was a time when everyone's luggage was supposedly being rummaged through at will and emptied of valuables with impunity at JNB. I'm not saying it's a perfect place. But, where is it? People have cited the byzantine regulations of other countries' systems for whatever reason's that country seems to care about. Sometimes, I think SA's problems pale in comparison to the bureaucratic nightmares of other countries'

Phew!

Sabasi

Pretty good for a government that is:

Especially because all of Africa (except Botswana):

johan rebel

The exception that proves the rule, of course!

You will have to look far and wide for a better example.

Johan

Sabasi

You apparenty do not know what that phrase actually means.

PCMarch

I recently travelled in and out of ORT with my under 18 son. Leaving Boston, the Lufthansa agent was vey confused, however, I showed her the birth certificate and the affidavit, and all was well until we got to ORT. The immigration official asked for a certified copy of the picture page of the mothers passport. I told him that we did not have one, and after a while, we were allowed to proceed. I had done lots of research before we left, and I can tell you that this was never a requirement. In fact the law reads:

"4.2. Where only one parent is travelling with a child, (or children), each child has to produce:
• A valid passport, an UBC or Equivalent Document for each travelling child and the Parental Consent Affidavit from the non-travelling parent whose details are recorded on the UBC or Equivalent Document"

On leaving, the same request was made, I had torn the page out of the SAA in flight magazine, and showed this- it clearly stated that only the birth certificate and the affidavit were needed. This official told me that SAA did not make the rules, the Dept. of Home Affairs did! In each case, the official's were friendly, and though some explanation was needed, we were allowed through.
It seems that there is an uneven understanding and thus application of the law even at ORT, the countries premier gateway,

jsnydcsa

Probably, some folks have looked at Annexure C to the June-ish posting from Home Affairs - "SUGGESTED FORMAT: PARENTAL CONSENT AFFIDAVIT (CONSENT FOR PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF 18 TO TRAVEL TO OR FROM THE REPUBLIC)" There is language on there discussing attaching copies of folks' passports. While not in the rule (you're correct), I could see how this included language could cause and uneven understanding or application of the requirements - rule itself v. the form.

johan rebel

"South Africa’s decline in foreign tourist arrivals experienced over the first quarter of this year is the worst decline in more than two decades."

Source

This of course predates the kids rules, which can only make matters worse.

It is also worth noting that SA's tourist arrival stats are very dodgy.

Johan

johan rebel

Depends on whether one chooses to use it in an ironic, loose or strictly legal sense.

Let me explain what I do understand.

A country can be corrupt to the core, yet have a large number of thoroughly decent and honest citizens, including quite a few public servants. There is no contradiction, as all thinking people understand. Well, almost all thinking people, I will allow for exceptions.

Johan

thijsseh

The cause for the drop in tourism goes much deeper than the rules for kids / visa fiasco.
I can only talk from a Europe perspective and I realise that Europe is only one of the tourism markets, but I submit that there are probably significant parallels.

We live mainly in South Africa (CPT), but travel extensively in Europe (UK, Netherlands, Scandinavia).
Up to two years ago, most people we talk with (family, friends, but also strangers we meet) thought this was a wonderful arrangement, living part of the year in such a fantastic place as Cape Town and travelling a lot too. The last two years, the opinion has shifted drastically and people now ask us "why do you go back to South Africa?" when we ask why they ask that question, they invariably quote crime / security and corruption. The outside opinion of South Africa has - in our experience - shifted very considerably in the last few years. And in the last year, the examples set by the judiciary (Pistorius and Diwani) have contributed to that shift. Add to that the perception (justified or not, that is not under discussion here) that the government is perceived not to be subject to the rule of law...

I am not surprised that tourism is suffering, South Africa is no longer the place where the 'magic of Mandela' happened and that everyone wants to experience!