Connect with us

News

‘Mission South Africa’: How Trump Is Offering White Afrikaners Refugee Status

Published

on

‘Mission South Africa’: How Trump Is Offering White Afrikaners Refugee Status

Almost immediately after taking office, President Trump began shutting down refugee resettlement programs, slashing billions of dollars in funding and making it all but impossible for people from scores of countries to seek haven in the United States.

With one exception.

The Trump administration has thrown open the doors to white Afrikaners from South Africa, establishing a program called “Mission South Africa” to help them come to the United States as refugees, according to documents obtained by The New York Times.

Under Phase One of the program, the United States has deployed multiple teams to convert commercial office space in Pretoria, the capital of South Africa, into ad hoc refugee centers, according to the documents. The teams are studying more than 8,200 requests expressing interest in resettling to the United States and have already identified 100 Afrikaners who could be approved for refugee status. The government officials have been directed to focus particularly on screening white Afrikaner farmers.

The administration has also provided security escorts to officials conducting the interviews of potential refugees.

Advertisement

By mid-April, U.S. officials on the ground in South Africa will “propose long-term solutions, to ensure the successful implementation of the president’s vision for the dignified resettlement of eligible Afrikaner applicants,” according to one memo sent from the embassy in Pretoria to the State Department in Washington this month.

The administration’s focus on white Afrikaners comes as it effectively bans the entry of other refugees — including about 20,000 people from countries like Afghanistan, Congo and Syria who were ready to travel to the United States before Mr. Trump took office. In court filings about those other refugees, the administration has argued that core functions of the refugee program had been “terminated” after the president’s ban, so it did not have the resources to take in any more people.

“There’s no subtext and nothing subtle about the way this administration’s immigration and refugee policy has obvious racial and racist overtones,” said Vanessa Cárdenas, the executive director of America’s Voice. “While they seek to single out Afrikaners for special treatment, they simultaneously want us to think mostly Black and brown vetted newcomers are dangerous despite their background checks and all evidence to the contrary.”

The program also inserts the United States into a charged debate inside South Africa, where some members of the white Afrikaner minority have begun a campaign to suggest that they are the true victims in post-apartheid South Africa. Under apartheid, a white minority government discriminated against South Africans of color, and brutality and violence flourished, leading to torture, disappearances and murder.

There have been murders of white farmers, the focus of the Afrikaner grievances, but police statistics show they are not any more vulnerable to violent crime than others in the country. In South Africa, more than 90 percent of the population comes from racial groups persecuted by the racist, apartheid regime.

Advertisement

In a statement, the State Department said it was focused on resettling Afrikaners who have been “victims of unjust racial discrimination.” The agency confirmed that it had begun interviewing applicants and said they would need to pass “stringent background and security checks.”

The decision to unleash resources for Afrikaners just starting the refugee process, while stonewalling court demands to process those fleeing other countries who have already been cleared for travel, risks upending an American refugee program that has been the foundation of the United States’ role for the vulnerable, according to resettlement officials.

“The government clearly has the ability to process applications when it wants to,” said Melissa Keaney, a senior supervising attorney for the International Refugee Assistance Project, the group representing plaintiffs trying to restart refugee processing.

Mr. Trump signed an executive order suspending refugee admissions on his first day in office, arguing that welcoming refugees could compromise resources for Americans. He added that future versions of the program should prioritize “only those refugees who can fully and appropriately assimilate into the United States.”

A federal judge in Seattle later temporarily blocked that executive order and instructed the administration to restore the refugee program. But the Trump administration still cut contracts with organizations that assist those applying for refugee status overseas, reducing the infrastructure needed to support people seeking refuge in the United States.

Advertisement

An appeals court ruled last week that the administration must admit those thousands of people who were granted refugee status before Mr. Trump entered office, but also declined to stop him from halting the admission of new refugees.

The Justice Department has for weeks deflected demands from refugee advocates accusing the administration of sidestepping the court order and delaying the process of almost every refugee previously granted a ticket to come to the United States. The Trump administration has said it has allowed a limited number of refugees who were vetted to enter the country, although the State Department declined to provide a number.

Lawyers for the Justice Department have argued both that the administration now lacks resources to help thousands of refugees and that in restarting the program the government reserves the right to “do so in a manner that reflects administration priorities.”

Mr. Trump has made clear what those priorities were when he created a refugee carve-out for white Afrikaners. Mr. Trump at the time accused the South African government of confiscating the land of white Afrikaners, backing a long-held conspiracy theory about the mistreatment of white South Africans in the post-apartheid era.

Mr. Trump was referring to a recent policy signed into law by the South African government, known as the Expropriation Act. It repeals an apartheid-era law and allows the government in certain instances to acquire privately held land in the public interest, without paying compensation, only after a justification process subject to judicial review.

Advertisement

Mr. Trump and his allies have for years echoed the grievances of Afrikaners. During his first term, Mr. Trump directed the State Department to investigate land seizures and “the large-scale killing of farmers.” Elon Musk, who was born in South Africa but is not of Afrikaner descent, has also falsely claimed that white farmers in South Africa were being killed every day.

Despite the claims, white people own half of South Africa’s land while making up just 7 percent of the country’s population. Police statistics do not show that they are any more vulnerable to violent crime than other people in the nation.

Ernst Roets, the former executive director of the Afrikaner Foundation, which lobbies for international support of the interests of Afrikaners, said many of his peers felt seen by Mr. Trump.

But he said the creation of the new refugee program had elicited debate among Afrikaners. Many do not want to leave their home, Mr. Roets said, but want the United States to back their efforts to claim “self-governance” in South Africa.

“I don’t know anyone — no one I’m aware of — that plans to move to America,” Mr. Roets said. “People who want to come to America, we would support that. If people want to relocate to America, the farmers or Afrikaners, we think they would make good Americans.”

Advertisement

“There’s a good fit,” he added.

Zumbe Baruti, a Congolese refugee living in South Carolina, said he spent decades in a refugee camp in Africa waiting for his turn to be accepted.

“Those white Africans are allowed to enter the United States, but Black Africans are denied entry to the United States,” Mr. Baruti, 29, said in Swahili. He said the pivot away from refugees who have waited in camps for years and to Afrikaners was a form of “discrimination.”

Mr. Baruti, a member of the Bembe people in the Democratic Republic of Congo, fled ethnic violence in the nation when he was a child. He was granted refugee status in 2023, but his wife and three children — the oldest 6 years old and the youngest just 2 — had yet to clear security vetting. He entered the United States two years ago, focused on getting a job, saving money and immediately applying for his family to join him.

When he entered, he said he was told by advisers helping him with his application that his family would most likely join him in two years.

Advertisement

He said that seemed unlikely as Mr. Trump turned his focus elsewhere.

“Regarding my family,” Mr. Baruti said, “hope has diminished.”

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

News

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

Published

on

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

The Supreme Court

Win McNamee/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Win McNamee/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Monday intervened in New York’s redistricting process, blocking a lower court decision that would likely have flipped a Republican congressional district into a Democratic district.    
  
At issue is the midterm redrawing of New York’s 11th congressional district, including Staten Island and a small part of Brooklyn. The district is currently held by a Republican, but on Jan. 21, a state Supreme Court judge ruled that the current district dilutes the power of Black and Latino voters in violation of the state constitution.  
  
GOP Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, who represents the district, and the Republican co-chair of the state Board of Elections promptly appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to block the redrawing as an unconstitutional “racial gerrymander.” New York’s congressional election cycle was set to officially begin Feb. 24, the opening day for candidates to seek placement on the ballot.  
  
As in this year’s prior mid-decade redistricting fights — in Texas and California — the Trump administration backed the Republicans.   
 
Voters and the State of New York contended it’s too soon for the Supreme Court to wade into this dispute. New York’s highest state court has not issued a final judgment, so the voters asserted that if the Supreme Court grants relief now “future stay applicants will see little purpose in waiting for state court rulings before coming to this Court” and “be rewarded for such gamesmanship.” The state argues this is an issue for “New York courts, not federal courts” to resolve, and there is sufficient time for the dispute to be resolved on the merits. 
  
The court majority explained the decision to intervene in 101 words, which the three dissenting liberal justices  summarized as “Rules for thee, but not for me.” 
 
The unsigned majority order does not explain the Court’s rationale. It says only how long the stay will last, until the case moves through the New York State appeals courts. If, however, the losing party petitions and the court agrees to hear the challenge, the stay extends until the final opinion is announced. 
 
Dissenting from the decision were Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Writing for the three, Sotomayor  said that  if nonfinal decisions of a state trial court can be brought to highest court, “then every decision from any court is now fair game.” More immediately, she noted, “By granting these applications, the Court thrusts itself into the middle of every election-law dispute around the country, even as many States redraw their congressional maps ahead of the 2026 election.” 

Monday’s Supreme Court action deviates from the court’s hands-off pattern in these mid-term redistricting fights this year. In two previous cases — from Texas and California — the court refused to intervene, allowing newly drawn maps to stay in effect.  
  
Requests for Supreme Court intervention on redistricting issues has been a recurring theme this term, a trend that is likely to grow.  Earlier last month  the high court allowed California to use a voter-approved, Democratic-friendly map.  California’s redistricting came in response to a GOP-friendly redistricting plan in Texas that the Supreme Court also permitted to move forward. These redistricting efforts are expected to offset one another.     
   
But the high court itself has yet to rule on a challenge to Louisiana’s voting map, which was drawn by the state legislature after the decennial census in order to create a second majority-Black district.  Since the drawing of that second majority-black district, the state has backed away from that map, hoping to return to a plan that provides for only one majority-minority district.    
     
The Supreme Court’s consideration of the Louisiana case has stretched across two terms. The justices failed to resolve the case last term and chose to order a second round of arguments this term adding a new question: Does the state’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority district violate the constitution’s Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments’ guarantee of the right to vote and the authority of Congress to enforce that mandate?    
Following the addition of the new question, the state of Louisiana flipped positions to oppose the map it had just drawn and defended in court. Whether the Supreme Court follows suit remains to be seen. But the tone of the October argument suggested that the court’s conservative supermajority is likely to continue undercutting the 1965 Voting Rights Act.   

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Published

on

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Pacific time. The New York Times

A minor earthquake with a preliminary magnitude of 3.5 struck in Central California on Monday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 7:17 a.m. Pacific time about 6 miles northwest of Pinnacles, Calif., data from the agency shows.

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Source: United States Geological Survey | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Monday, March 2 at 10:20 a.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Monday, March 2 at 11:18 a.m. Eastern.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

US says Kuwait accidentally shot down 3 American jets

Published

on

US says Kuwait accidentally shot down 3 American jets

The U.S. and Israel have been conducting strikes against targets in Iran since Saturday morning, with the aim of toppling Tehran’s clerical regime. Iran has fired back, with retaliatory assaults featuring missiles and drones targeting several Gulf countries and American bases in the Middle East.

“All six aircrew ejected safely, have been safely recovered, and are in stable condition. Kuwait has acknowledged this incident, and we are grateful for the efforts of the Kuwaiti defense forces and their support in this ongoing operation,” Central Command said.

“The cause of the incident is under investigation. Additional information will be released as it becomes available,” it added.

In a separate statement later Monday, Central Command said that American forces had been killed during combat since the strikes began.

“As of 7:30 am ET, March 2, four U.S. service members have been killed in action. The fourth service member, who was seriously wounded during Iran’s initial attacks, eventually succumbed to their injuries,” it said.

Advertisement

Major combat operations continue and our response effort is ongoing. The identities of the fallen are being withheld until 24 hours after next of kin notification,” Central Command added.

This story has been updated.

Continue Reading

Trending