by Nayla Rush

The Trump administration opened the doors to some 50 white Afrikaners[1] to be admitted into the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis amid the suspension[2] of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP). This move drew fervent criticism and accusations of racial discrimination[3].

Those critics said nothing when President Biden changed the refugee program significantly[4] and opened the door to non-refugees to be picked for resettlement by U.S.-based non-citizens[5]. They kept silent when Biden expanded refugee beneficiaries to include non-refugees on U.S. soil (including hundreds of thousands of Afghan and Ukrainian parolees[6]). Were these dissonant voices today offended when Biden let into the United States millions of aliens under “parole” knowing that, per U.S. law, immigration parole should only be granted on a case-by-case basis “for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit”[7]? Where was the outrage when Biden allowed foreign nationals (of any nationality) who have “temporary authorization” to remain in the United States — such as on parole — to sponsor other foreign nationals in turn to come here on parole[8]?

But, more importantly, would those criticizing Trump today have said anything if Afrikaners happened to be black instead of white?

Why an Executive Order on South Africa?

The admission of the first group of Afrikaners as refugees is in line with President Trump’s February 7, 2025, executive order “Addressing Egregious Actions of The Republic of South Africa”[9].

There are several reasons behind Trump’s February 7 EO on South Africa.

First, as Trump explained in his EO, “South Africa has taken aggressive positions towards the United States and its allies, including accusing Israel, not Hamas, of genocide in the International Court of Justice.” Actually, Trump had issued an EO[10] imposing sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC) the previous day, February 6.

Second, in January 2025, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa signed a “controversial land seizure law”[11] allowing land seizures by the state without compensation of farmland owned mainly by white South Africans. The law replaces the 1975 Expropriation Act that had the state pay owners it wanted to take land from, following the “willing seller, willing buyer” model[12]. Furthermore, violent crimes against farm owners in South Africa have long been a concern and could be on the rise. Back in 1998, former President Nelson Mandela recognized the seriousness of these targeted attacks:

While killings on farms, like crime in general, have been a feature of South African life for many decades, the incidents of murder and assault in farming areas have increased dramatically in recent years.[13]

Some believe that crimes against farmers were committed with the primary motive of committing robbery, while others recognize “a political environment that is seen as being increasingly hostile to the farming community” pointing at prominent political leaders “accusing white farmers of having stolen the land and calling for the expropriation of land without compensation to address the injustices of apartheid”[14].

Third, one can perceive Elon Musk’s (who was born and raised in South Africa) footprint behind sanctioning South African leaders and opening the door to Afrikaners.

More to Come, not Just Afrikaners

There are around 2.7 million Afrikaners among South Africa’s population of 62 million. Afrikaners are not the only white (or other racial) minority in the country. Around two million white people with British or other descent are there as well. Other racial minorities include those with biracial heritage (so-called “Cape Coloureds”, around five million) and those with Indian or other South Asian heritage.

While the EO focused on white Afrikaners (the descendants of mainly Dutch and French colonial settlers who first came to South Africa in the 17th century), eligibility for resettlement was expanded to include other racial minorities.[15] To be eligible, individuals must meet all of the following criteria:

• Must be of South African nationality;
• Must be of Afrikaner ethnicity or be a member of a racial minority in South Africa; and
• Must be able to articulate a past experience of persecution or fear of future persecution.

A President’s Prerogative

As soon as he took office, Trump paused USRAP by an executive order titled “Realigning the United States Refugee Admissions Program”[16], only allowing for the admission of some refugees on a case-by-case basis. The EO stipulates that the secretaries of State and Homeland Security “may jointly determine to admit aliens to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion.”

That said, it is the prerogative of the U.S. president in office to prioritize populations of concern for resettlement. Biden pushed his administration to identify and expedite resettlement for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex (LGBTQI+) individuals after issuing a “Memorandum on Advancing the Human Rights of LGBTQI+ Persons Around the World”[17] days after he was sworn into office.

Under Biden, PRM formalized a partnership[18] with the Equitable Resettlement Access Consortium (ERAC) — led by HIAS alongside Refuge Point and the International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP) — to grow the network of NGOs that refer LGBTQI+ individuals directly to USRAP. Biden also increased resettlement efforts for individuals from Latin America and the Caribbean. In addition, his administration designed the Welcome Corps program to allow U.S.-based non-citizens to pick (in other words, prioritize) their own friends and acquaintances (of any nationality) to be resettled here as refugees.

So, for Trump to underline a specific population he believes is being persecuted in its own country is perfectly within his prerogative.

Color Bias?

For all those who are outraged by these white Afrikaners being welcomed into the United States by Trump, here’s a question: What if this group happened to be black? Would the outcry be as loud or would it fade away?

A brilliant movie, specifically one powerful summation scene in the movie, comes to mind here: A Time to Kill. It recounts the story of a white lawyer in Mississippi who defends a black man accused of killing the two white men who allegedly raped his 10-year-old daughter. In his summation, Matthew McConaughey, who plays the father’s lawyer, appeals to the jury:

I want to tell you a story. I'm going to ask you all to close your eyes while I tell you the story … This is a story about a little girl walking home from the grocery store one sunny afternoon. I want you to picture this little girl. Suddenly a truck races up. Two men jump out and grab her. They drag her into a nearby field and they tie her up and they rip her clothes from her body. Now they climb on her. First one, then the other, raping her, shattering everything innocent and pure with a vicious thrust in a fog of drunken breath and sweat … Can you see her? Her raped, beaten, broken body … left to die. Can you see her? I want you to picture that little girl.

Now imagine she’s white.

How about we simply close our eyes?