DULLES, Virginia — The Trump administration welcomed a group of 59 white South Africans as refugees on Monday, citing discrimination and violence faced in their home country, an assertion the South African government denies. This move has sparked debate among refugee advocates who question why these individuals were admitted while efforts to resettle those fleeing from war-torn areas and persecution remain suspended.
The South African group, consisting of children, some even in pajamas and barefoot, held small American flags as officials greeted them in a hangar near Washington. These new arrivals then continued their journeys to various U.S. destinations. Initially, 49 South Africans were expected, yet the State Department confirmed the arrival of 59.
Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau expressed, “I want you all to know that you are really welcome here and that we respect what you have had to deal with these last few years.” President Donald Trump explained earlier that the refugees were admitted due to the “genocide” occurring in South Africa, a characterization he plans to discuss with South African leaders soon.
These claims have been robustly rejected by South African officials, experts, and even the Afrikaner group AfriForum, stating the government’s neglect of farm attacks. South Africa’s authorities dismissed U.S. allegations of persecution against Afrikaners as “completely false,” attributing them to misinformation and a skewed perspective.
In contrast, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, speaking at a conference in Ivory Coast, conveyed to Trump in a recent conversation that the information regarding racial victimization had been manipulated by groups seeking to oppose transformation efforts aimed at correcting historical injustices. The legacy of apartheid, enforced racial segregation until 1994, cast a long shadow in the country, with Afrikaners held responsible for running that system.
Additionally, the Trump administration’s assertion of land seizures and “racially discriminatory” policies in South Africa is erroneous, with no enforceable expropriation occurring. The notion propagated by some commentators, suggesting a “white genocide,” lacks substantial evidence. The South African government argues the high levels of violence are part of broader crime issues affecting all demographics.
Landau highlighted that the incoming refugees had experienced “threatening invasions” of their homes and farms, attributing the problem to the South African government’s inadequate response. He noted that these individuals had been rigorously vetted to ensure they could integrate into American society. While critics of the refugee program argue refugees undergo insufficient vetting, supporters maintain the process is thorough and stringent.
Upon taking office, Trump had suspended the refugee resettlement program broadly supported across political lines but later announced plans to offer refuge specifically to white South African farmers. This selective admittance policy has been met with criticism from some, including Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, who called into question why these specific individuals deserved prioritization over others from areas embroiled in conflict and persecution.
To qualify under Trump’s directive, individuals must be South African citizens of Afrikaner ethnicity or another racial minority, demonstrating past persecution or a fear of being persecuted. Afrikaners, primarily descendants of Dutch and French settlers, comprise about 2.7 million of South Africa’s more than 62 million people, where over 80% are Black.
The U.S. refugee admission process, established in 1980, faces legal challenges to restart the stalled program. In practice, prospective refugees must show a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons such as race, religion, nationality, social group membership, or political opinion, distinguishing them from asylum seekers who already reside within U.S. borders.
Refugees typically receive aid from resettlement agencies that assist them for up to 90 days with initial accommodations, such as rent. Notably, the Episcopal Church’s migration service declined participation in the resettlement of these white South Africans, advocating for racial justice and reconciliation over compliance.