SIHMA

Researching Human Migration across Africa

Loading, please wait...

02 Dec

The unheard voices of professional Black migrant women in South Africa: the hidden layers of exclusion and marginalisation

“I was surprised at your topic because I feel like we are sort of the forgotten people in this work…people overlook us…I was quite surprised and interested that someone is actually wanting to listen to us and our experiences.” (Esther)

When we talk about migration and human mobility in Africa, the stories we often hear are shaped through precarity: forcibly displaced, illegal migrants, informal labour, undocumented women, and a constant struggle to survive in a new host country. However, this study showed that highly educated, legally documented, professional Black migrant women not only experience vulnerabilities but also compounded complexities because of their intersectional identities in post-apartheid South Africa. Despite their qualifications, their social position predisposes them to institutionalised xenophobia, gendered and racial exclusion, and persistent othering. My research investigated the inclusion challenges of Black migrant women in a Black-majority context, exploring how their identities shape experiences of inclusion and exclusion across institutional, organisational, and social levels. The contextual relevance of South Africa reinforces the salience of these identities, revealing conditional inclusion, fractured belonging, and constant negotiation of exclusionary systems.

 

Structural marginalisation and institutional barriers

The women I interviewed reported that foreignness was the primary axis of exclusion and discrimination in institutional terms. They revealed how they were subjected to institutionalised xenophobia through South Africa’s bureaucratic systems, such as immigration and labour policies. Documentation operated as a gatekeeper, with issues ranging from lengthy processing delays to inefficiency and a lack of professionalism in official institutions. Suspicion of purposeful loss of documents, conflation of migrant groups, and dehumanisation not only served as exclusionary tools but also as violations of the women’s human rights, revealing South African institutions’ failure to acknowledge the legitimate contributions of migrant workers; therefore, foreignness becomes a tool for systemic exclusion. 

Jenny’s frustration over the three-year wait for her permanent residency, despite her consistent work history, illustrates how foreignness overshadows professional merit: “When I was trying to apply for my permanent residency… It took three years for me to get mine [...] everything was legit. I had worked five years at a work permit, but you know that didn't matter.” Deeply embedded social disparities—racism, sexism, and lingering apartheid logics—shape these exclusionary practices. The intersection of gender and foreignness was often instrumentalised, rendering the women outsiders and scapegoats in a context where systems of domination intersect. Vivian’s account of feeling “at the mercy of my husband” due to documentation dependence captures the vulnerability produced by institutional structures.

 

The women recounted preferential treatment or being denied access to social welfare systems, including healthcare, education, and unemployment grants. They discussed experiences of discrimination because of lower standards of medical provision, overcharging,  denial of medical treatment, and tuition fees inequalities, preventing them from equal treatment. The pervasive presumption of “foreignness” attached to their African descent carries presumptive social and legal implications. The racialisation of Black migrant women reinforces the South African racial hierarchy by constructing them as outsiders and aliens, against whom “real citizens” can unite in times of crisis. This racialisation also places them between Blacks and Whites, adding a layer of neutrality or scapegoating within South Africa’s racial stratification. Foreignness does not signal that they are non-South African but un-South African in terms of citizenship, national origin, race, and language, reinforcing their workplace and societal exclusion.

 

“A different type of Black”: heightened vulnerability and dehumanisation

The participants shared experiences with institutional representatives and government officials, where discriminatory attitudes through micro interactions and profiling took place. Encounters with the police, airport migration, and Home Affairs officials were accompanied by racism, xenophobia, and power imbalances. These interactions reflected intra-racial dynamics shaped by xenophobia, illustrating how institutional representatives utilise microaggressions to assert dominance. This “Black-on-Black” hostility is indicative of a broader social narrative that positions migrants as outsiders, reflecting how institutionalised xenophobia permeates interpersonal interactions, and reinforcing systemic barriers that migrant women must navigate simply to access basic services.

The intersection of race and foreignness created particular social locations for the women. While Blackness could offer belonging, the South African social and historical context determined their inclusion (Aylward, 2010; Kulkarni et al., 2016; Misago, 2016). The intersectionality framework considers social categories, fluid organisational, institutional, and sociocultural contexts and historical, political, economic, and cultural processes (Choo and Ferree, 2010; Dhamoon, 2011), revealing that migrant women’s experiences are complex, layered and tied to power (Bozalek, 2010; Crenshaw, 1989, 1991; Dhamoon, 2011). 

 

The women’s words described this reality: “lots of you people here,” “why don’t you do it in your country?,” “we’re not really taken seriously,” and “the way Black South Africans interact with you...is very hostile... very rude.” Grace recalled that she was treated with hostility at both the Department of Home Affairs and a public hospital, exemplifying the dehumanisation that left her feeling invisible and unworthy. Maria’s observation that ordinary Black Africans are deprioritised in institutional settings exposes an embedded hierarchy.

Power was wielded by institutional actors to assert dominance and control over the vulnerable women, reinforcing migrants’ subordinate status. This dehumanisation underscores a deeper societal rejection of their identity and humanity, emphasising their powerlessness. Grace and Yvette recounted feeling unable to advocate for themselves, illustrating how systemic barriers silence and disempower.

 

Organisational inclusion fractured by intersectional identities, institutional policies, and power dynamics

Foreignness influenced the women’s access to equal opportunities, reinforcing their exclusion from promotions, employment, and the labour market. This indicates that even immigration and labour policies cannot facilitate greater inclusion into the labour market for migrant women. Participants constantly stressed how South African counterparts were favoured in selection, recruitment, and salaries, albeit the lack of skills and qualifications, confirming the “skill paradox,” and recruiters’ bias against skilled migrants, where skilled migrants are undervalued or seen as a threat  (Dietz et al., 2015). This is critical because the bias may prompt poor decisions harming both organisations and migrant women, reinforcing exclusion and inequalities.

Black migrant women were also institutionalised as the organisational “other” (April et al., 2012; Mangu, 2019), leading to their exclusion, deskilling, or disqualification solely due to citizenship. Grace’s words were: “because of who I am… I’m being disqualified,” illustrating that national identity becomes a gatekeeping tool that overrides merit and entrenches wage disparities and workplace alienation. South African citizenship preference is not only a reflection of organisational policies that rationalise wage disparities through citizenship, but also a societal bias that associates foreignness with lower value and a lack of belonging. While migration policies may technically allow migrants to enter the labour market, workplace cultures and informal, subtle prejudices undermine that inclusion.

Dual discrimination was evident in the women’s narratives and operated as a barrier to career progression. Senior-level positions and compensation structures were utterly racialised and predominantly White-dominated; systemic inequalities were far more prominent than isolated discrimination. Grace noted that despite their qualifications and performance, Black and migrant workers were frequently excluded from high-status, high-paying professions, confirming the critical race theory’s argument that structural mechanisms favour Whiteness, marginalising people of colour (Bhopal, 2023). Interestingly, the women’s intersectional identities operated as cumulative barriers to inclusion. Yvette was “passed over” for roles and promotions because she was a “Black immigrant,” and the role was “always given to a South African White male.” Many organisations employed diversity and inclusion policies, yet compliance with legislative frameworks, such as the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Act, undermined the participants’ inclusion. Lizi expressed: “You can't be given the role because of the BBBEE status, and they prefer the South Africans to get the BBBEE status”, while Vivian recalled receiving “a low score” as a Black yet non-citizen. Formal diversity policies often elicit additional challenges, undermining the effectiveness of informal practices within organisations (Williams et al., 2011).

 

Navigating exclusion through strategic agency formation

The women navigated exclusion through multiple agentic strategies, including racial passing, overperformance, self-advocacy, linguistic adaptation, and emotional regulation, using these tools to counter racialised xenophobia, resist stereotypes, and remain resilient despite structural vulnerability. Many described sending “many more CVs,” changing careers due to restrictions, or leaving organisations after “hitting the ceiling,” while others managed foreignness through silence, disclosure, or strategic emotional restraint. Identity negotiation was continuous and situational: some resisted imposed identities by reworking career paths, resigning, or redefining the “other,” while religiosity, familial support, friendships, cultural networks, and church communities anchored their well-being and sense of belonging. Managerial allies opened doors, showing how leader–employee relationships can act as inclusion catalysts. These strategic mechanisms, rooted in agency, community, and identity reconstruction, were not isolated acts but responses to multi-level systems of discrimination that shaped every aspect of their social and professional lives.

 

Organisational changes, institutional reforms, and community interventions

Addressing the exclusion of highly educated Black migrant women in South Africa requires coordinated institutional and organisational reform grounded in human rights and intersectionality. National authorities must undergo capacity-building on discrimination, xenophobia, and migrant rights, while integrating values of Ubuntu, Africanness, and intra-racial solidarity to counter racialised xenophobia. Immigration legislation—including the White Paper on International Migration and the Immigration Act—should be revised to eliminate migrant conflation, streamline visa processes, and establish an independent accountability body. A human-rights-based immigration system, aligned with intersectional protections and revisions to the B-BBEE Act, would help prevent unintended exclusions. To support economic inclusion, the government should introduce labour market navigation programmes, language and education pathways, and employer incentives that improve migrant women’s access to work. Healthcare, education, and public services must adopt non-discriminatory practices to ensure equal access. Most importantly, Black migrant women should be recognised as policy actors whose lived expertise informs state decision-making.

 

At the organisational level, employers must reform inclusion strategies to acknowledge gendered racism, foreignness-based inequalities, and racialised xenophobia. Intersectional policies should move beyond citizenship-based criteria and create protected spaces for discussion without overburdening migrant women with unpaid emotional labour. Anti-discrimination frameworks, cultural awareness programmes, and structured mentorship—especially guided by strong Black female leaders—are essential to advancing belonging and career mobility. Organisations that embrace intersectional inclusion benefit from greater cohesion, productivity, and fairness, ensuring that all employees are respected and valued.

 

Blog Prepared by Dr Eleana Velentza

Dr. Eleana Velentza is a dedicated researcher with extensive experience in gender equality, race, migration and mobility, and identity studies. She holds a Ph.D. in Business Administration from the University of Cape Town, where her work focused on marginalized identities, intersectionality, and diversity, equity, and inclusion within the South African context. She has contributed to major research initiatives and social justice advocacy efforts, drawing on hands-on experience in the nonprofit sector and in research agencies across Europe and sub-Saharan Africa. Her background includes strong expertise in research methodologies, project management, policy analysis, and business administration, enabling her to navigate complex challenges with rigor and insight. Passionate about empowering underrepresented communities, Dr. Velentza is committed to advancing gender equality and promoting initiatives that foster social justice and inclusion. With a results-oriented mindset, she is dedicated to implementing strategies that enhance organisational effectiveness and support long-term growth.

 

Notes

  1. This blog post shares findings from Eleana Velentza’s (2025) PhD thesis, “Inclusion challenges at the intersection of marginalised identities: a study of Black migrant women in South Africa”, [PhD thesis, University of Cape Town, Cape Town].

  2. Pseudonyms have been used throughout to protect the confidentiality of the entities and individuals concerned.

  3. Feel free to check out my LinkedIn profile and contact me at eleanavel2011@gmail.com for inquiries or collaborations.

 

Photo by Christina @ wocintechchat.com on Unsplash

 

References

April, K., Ephraim, N., and Peters, K. (2012), “Diversity management in South Africa: Inclusion, identity, intention, power and expectations”, African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 1749-1759, doi: 10.5897/AJBM11.1184.

Aylward, C. (2010), “Intersectionality: Crossing the theoretical and praxis divide”, Journal of Critical Race Inquiry, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1-48, doi: https://doi.org/10.24908/jcri.v1i1.3549 

Bhopal, K. (2023), “Critical race theory: Confronting, challenging, and rethinking white privilege”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 111-128.

Bozalek, V. (2010), “The effect of institutional racism on student family circumstances: a human capabilities perspective”, South African Journal of Psychology, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 487-494, doi: 10.1177/008124631004000409.

Choo, H. Y., and Ferree, M. M. (2010), “Practicing intersectionality in sociological research: a critical analysis of inclusions, interactions, and institutions in the study of inequalities”, Sociological Theory, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 129-149, doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9558.2010.01370.x 

Crenshaw, K. (1989), “Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics”, In K. Maschke (Ed.), Feminist Legal Theories. Routledge, New York.

Crenshaw, K. (1991), “Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color”, Stanford Law Review, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 1241-1299, doi: 10.2307/1229039.

Dhamoon, R. K. (2011), “Considerations on mainstreaming intersectionality”, Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 230-243, doi: 10.1177/1065912910379227.

Dietz, J., Joshi, C., Esses, V. M., Hamilton, L. K., and Gabarrot, F. (2015), “The skill paradox: Explaining and reducing employment discrimination against skilled immigrants”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 26 No. 10, pp. 1318-1334, https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.990398 

Kulkarni, M., Boehm, S. A., and Basu, S. (2016), “Workplace inclusion of persons with a disability: Comparison of Indian and German multinationals”, Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion, Vol. 35 No. 7-8, pp. 397-414. doi: 10.1108/EDI-08-2016-0066.

Mangu, A. M. (2019), “Xenophobia and migration in post-apartheid South Africa: Myths and realities”, African Journal of Democracy and Governance, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 44-72, doi: 10.10520/EJC-17c9cdf107.

Misago, J. P. (2016), “Responding to Xenophobic violence in post-apartheid South Africa: Barking up the wrong tree?”, African Human Mobility Review, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 443-467. https://sihma.org.za/journals/AHMR-V ol-2-No-2-May-August-2016-2.pdf 

Williams, J., Bhanugopan, R., and Fish, A. (2011), “Localization of human resources in the State of Qatar: Emerging issues and research agenda”, Education, Business and Society: Contemporary Middle Eastern Issues, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 193-206. https://doi.org/10.1108/17537981111159966 

Categories:
Tags:

Post Categories

Posts by Tags