🚨🇿🇦 JACINTA, YOU SAID THE GOVERNMENT WAS NOT LISTENING. NOW LOOK AT WHAT IS HAPPENING! I have listened carefully to your entire speech, and there are important questions we need to address. You say the government has failed to manage immigration. You say South Africans are struggling with unemployment, poverty, crime and overstretched public services. You argue that the government is prioritising foreign nationals over its own citizens, and you have called on South Africa to withdraw from the 1951 UN Refugee Convention. You want the government to listen to its people. On that point, citizens absolutely have the right to demand accountability from their government. BUT HERE IS THE CONTRADICTION I WANT US TO EXAMINE. If your concern is government failure, why does your argument repeatedly return to blaming foreign nationals? You cannot say the government is responsible for failing to manage immigration while continually directing public anger towards the very people you believe are benefiting from that failure. If Home Affairs has failed, hold Home Affairs accountable. If immigration officials are corrupt, investigate them. If asylum applications are fraudulent, let the authorities investigate and reject those that do not meet the legal requirements. If someone commits a crime, prosecute that individual. But why should innocent people be intimidated, attacked or made to fear for their lives because of their nationality? LET US LOOK AT WHAT HAS ACTUALLY HAPPENED. On 7 July 2026, South Africa's Constitutional Court ruled that certain provisions of the Refugees Act were unconstitutional because they created procedural barriers that could prevent people from having their asylum claims assessed on their merits. The judgment did not automatically grant citizenship, permanent residence or refugee status to everyone who entered South Africa unlawfully. It required that people seeking asylum not be excluded from the process solely because of certain procedural failures. Their claims must still be assessed under the law. On 8 October, violence erupted in Soweto and Durban, with vehicles torched and shops looted, including businesses owned by foreign nationals. The government also raised concerns about misinformation surrounding the court ruling. Then, on 9 October, the Department of Home Affairs withdrew its directive on the intake of asylum applications after refugee reception offices became overwhelmed, officials faced safety risks, and serious public-order concerns emerged. The department said it would develop a new operational approach while continuing to comply with the Constitutional Court's judgment. The withdrawal did not overturn the court's ruling. Now, Jacinta, let us ask the important questions. Does the withdrawal of the directive prove every claim made in your speech? No. It demonstrates that the government faced serious operational difficulties and public-safety concerns that it must address. Does it mean that every asylum seeker is entitled to remain in South Africa permanently? No. Does it mean that South Africa cannot enforce its immigration laws? No. It means the government must find a lawful, workable way to manage the asylum system while complying with its constitutional and international obligations. SECOND: WHAT ABOUT YOUR CLAIM THAT 95% OF ASYLUM APPLICATIONS ARE REJECTED? You cited this figure to argue that most people claiming asylum are actually economic migrants. But where are the underlying statistics? Which period do they cover? Do they refer to initial applications, final decisions or appeals? A rejection rate alone does not establish that every rejected applicant deliberately lied about being a refugee. Some claims may be unfounded, while others must be assessed individually according to the law. Refugees, asylum seekers and economic migrants are not interchangeable categories. An asylum seeker is someone seeking international protection whose claim has not necessarily been de - @womenceo19