social assistance benefits for only South African citizens were unconstitutional and had to be extended to include permanent residents. Farm workers, including foreign migrants, have had the right to organize since 1993, but they have unionization rates of only 12 to 14 percent. According to a Stats SA 2000 survey of employment trends in agriculture, “in terms of key socio-economic variables, the situation of people employed in the agricultural sector tends to be less favorable than every other major sector of the economy.”22 A 1998 study of border area commercial farms found many foreign migrants were undocumented, making them even more vulnerable to exploitation. Zimbabwean farm workers in Limpopo province Limpopo province has a population of approximately 5.3 million. Nearly 90 percent of the population lives in rural areas, making it the most rural province in the country.23 It is also the poorest province of South Africa, with the highest official unemployment rate (34 percent) and the worst scores on other poverty indicators.24 Its economy relies primarily on agriculture and tourism. Over two-thirds of the land in Limpopo was allocated for white ownership and use in the past. The vast majority of the population lived in the former homelands—Lebowa, Gazankulu, and Venda—that occupied most of the remaining one-third of the land. 25 Though the pace of land reform in Limpopo province has accelerated, and restitution claims have succeeded or are being adjudicated, the apartheid era’s racially discriminatory least once every three years. While they do not have the rights tied to citizenship, such as political rights and the right to a South African passport, they are, for all other purposes mentioned above, in much the same position as citizens. Once admitted as permanent residents they can enter and leave the country. Their homes, and no doubt in most cases their families too, are in South Africa. Some will have children born in South Africa. They have the right to work in South Africa, and even owe a duty of allegiance to the state. For these reasons, I exclude temporary residents and it would have been appropriate for the High Court to have done so.” 22 Human Rights Watch, Unequal Protection, p. 55, citing Employment Trends in Agriculture in South Africa (Pretoria: Stats SA National Department of Agriculture, 2000), p.93. 23 This paragraph relies on the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC), “Final Report on the Inquiry into Human Rights Violations in Farming Communities,” August 2003, http://www.sahrc.org.za/sahrc_cms/publish/cat_index_41.shtml (accessed July 9, 2006), p. 99; and Marc Wegerif, A Critical Appraisal of South Africa’s Market-based Land Reform Policy: The Case of the Land Redistribution for Agricultural Development (LRAD) Programme in Limpopo, Research Report no.19 (Cape Town: Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies, University of Western Cape, December 2004), http://www.sarpn.org.za/documents/d0001269/P1506-RR_19_Marc_Wegerif.pdf (accessed July 9, 2006), p. 16. 24 SAHRC, “Final Report on the Inquiry into Human Rights Violations in Farming Communities,” p. 214, footnote 1, cites Health Systems Trust, “Health and Related Indicators,” 2001 Report, for the following data: 19.5 percent of households use electricity for cooking, 12.1 percent have piped water inside their homes, and 7.4 percent have telephones. Wegerif, Critical Appraisal of South Africa’s Market-based Land Reform Policy, p. 16, provides different figures: citing Stats SA, 2003, Wegerif notes that Limpopo province is “arguably” the poorest province in the country and that the province has an unemployment rate of 48.8 percent. 25 Wegerif, Critical Appraisal of South Africa’s Market-based Land Reform Policy, pp. 15-16. 11 HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH VOLUME 18, NO. 6(A)