Previous post
The United States, under the Trump administration, has welcomed in a group of South African refugees that have left the country for their own safety. Isn’t that the definition of a refugee?
Except that this group of South African people are white Afrikaners. Apparently, this has upset certain segments of the left, who believe that South African refugees should only be a certain color, and not THAT one. Because the Trump administration has moved to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) programs for certain groups that arrived under the Biden administration, but has now chosen to take in a small number of South African farmers, the left is crying “racism.”
President Trump, before leaving for the Middle East, put the situation and the numbers in perspective for those who were complaining.
President Donald Trump in a press briefing at the White House defended welcoming 49 Afrikaners who arrived on a U.S.-chartered flight from South Africa on Monday. Trump told reporters that white Afrikaners are “being killed” in a “genocide.”
“They’re being killed, and we don’t want to see people be killed,” Trump said. “It’s a terrible thing that’s taking place. Farmers are being killed. They happen to be white, but whether they’re white or black makes no difference to me. But white farmers are being brutally killed and their land is being confiscated in South Africa, and the newspapers and the television media doesn’t even talk about it.”
The president mentioned that the United States may choose to skip the upcoming G20 summit to be held in Johannesburg, South Africa, in November unless the South African government takes steps to stop the persecution.
The refugee policy sparked questions of race, since the persecuted Afrikaners are white and targeted because of their race.
“I don’t care who they are. I don’t care about their race, their color. I don’t care about their height, their weight. I don’t care about anything,” Trump said. “I just know that what’s happening is terrible. I have people that live in South Africa. They say it’s a terrible situation taking place, so we’ve essentially extended citizenship to those people to escape from that violence and come here.”
It’s apparent that far too many people’s knowledge of South African history ends with the election of Nelson Mandela and the end to apartheid. News flash – Mandela was elected 31 years ago, and died over 11 years ago. South Africa has changed, and is no longer like the movies and documentaries that people watched in school. And for the last several years, the South African white farmers are being targeted and murdered while the current government turns a blind eye to death threats.
This is what those 49 South African farmers and their families that the Democrats wanted to deny were running from…
“Shoot to kill, kill the Boer, the farmer,”
Julius Malema is the leader of South Africa’s Economic Freedom Fighters.
Evil.pic.twitter.com/NyMqJRQ9b6
— C3 (@C_3C_3) May 13, 2025
What is also not under dispute is that the current South African government signed a “expropriation bill” that allows privately held land to be confiscated “for the greater good.” Who decides that? The government.
South African President Cyril Ramaphosa has signed into law a bill allowing land seizures by the state without compensation – a move that has put him at odds with some members of his government.
Black people only own a small fraction of farmland nationwide more than 30 years after the end of the racist system of apartheid – the majority remains with the white minority.
This has led to frustration and anger over the slow pace of reform.
The new law allows for expropriation without compensation only in circumstances where it is “just and equitable and in the public interest” to do so.
This includes if the property is not being used and there’s no intention to either develop or make money from it or when it poses a risk to people.
The president’s spokesperson Vincent Magwenya said that, under the law, the state “may not expropriate property arbitrarily or for a purpose other than… in the public interest”.
“Expropriation may not be exercised unless the expropriating authority has without success attempted to reach an agreement with the owner,” he added.
So, if a white owner refuses to sell land, the government can summarily confiscate the land if it is in “the public interest” and they can’t reach an agreement. And if an owner is dead, that would make it even easier for the government. It has “will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?” vibes.
https://twitter.com/rmanders60/status/1921948176531001622
Apparently, the left is getting hives over the fact that President Trump designated these South Africans as “refugees” fleeing a “genocide.” The left now wants to get super duper technical about what a genocide is, even though the Biden administration shipped in thousands of unvetted Afghans when they left, flew in thousands of Haitians and dropped them off in Ohio under TPS, and allowed Ukrainians to flee the country and claim TPS, which will apparently last until October of 2026. Forty-nine white South Africans who are being persecuted in their own country need not apply, according to some.
The appalling nature of the discussions tonight on CNN really highlights how much they hate White Christian people.
Imagine saying, 'There hasn't been enough k*lling to consider it to be a gen*cide.'
These people are delusionally demented. pic.twitter.com/3ZVevrsTaS
— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) May 13, 2025
And for the cherry on top of this debate, the Episcopal Church decided that they were going to end their contracts with the federal government over the arrival of South Africans. You know, the same Episcopal Church that had a bishop decide to scold the president of the United States over immigration? Apparently, helping these migrants doesn’t fit into their “racial justice” plans.
Presiding Bishop Sean Rowe announced the decision on behalf of Episcopal Migration Ministries on Monday, just a day after 49 South Africans began their journey to the United States.
“In light of our church’s steadfast commitment to racial justice and reconciliation and our historic ties with the Anglican Church of Southern Africa, we are not able to take this step,” Rowe announced after the government contacted Episcopal Migration Ministries requesting assistance in resettling the South African refugees.
Rowe went on to say that the organization, which has a long history of receiving federal grants to resettle refugees, will terminate their agreements with the government. “We have determined that, by the end of the federal fiscal year, we will conclude our refugee resettlement grant agreements with the U.S. federal government.”
In other words…
‘ew, not refugees with THAT skin color’ https://t.co/hKFnVOC9Et
— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) May 12, 2025
And look at that, these South African refugees showed up happy to be here, waving American flags. Whole families, not just single men, being relocated to states with farming opportunities.
A group of roughly three dozen white South Africans, including children, holding American flags landed near Washington, D.C., on Monday. They claim they’ve faced discrimination and hardship in their home country and were awarded an expedited pathway into the country by a program established this year.
NPR reports that 14 people are being resettled across Idaho, Iowa and North Carolina.
The U.S. Committee for Immigrants and Refugees tells us they will assist with housing and employment for these individuals.
In other words, these refugees are not going to be easily exploitable dependents for the NGOs, resettled into large cities where the NGOs can demand more government money to keep their services afloat. They are already demonstrating a willingness to assimilate, already speak English, and are being moved to areas where they can find work. Call me crazy, but isn’t that the entire point of a refugee program? No wonder the left is flipping out. Their entire sympathetic grift on behalf of refugees is now being laid bare as hypocrisy because these refugees aren’t the right color for them.
Featured image: original Victory Girls art by Darleen Click
NTSOG says: “the current South African government signed a “expropriation bill” that allows privately held land to be confiscated “for the greater good.”
Apparently not much ‘greater good’ has come to South Africa as a result of native African groups running the nation. It is a failing state riven with tribalism and corruption.
Tim says: I don’t see what the problem is. The President can now take possession of the farms vacated by those refugees, and give it to his in laws who can subdivide it and sell the lots to African farmers at exorbitant prices, and then send a large kickback to the big guy. There’s no pleasing some people.
NTSOG says: I bet the productivity of farms seized from Boer farmers will drop to close to zero. Farm machinery will, like the water supply and other essential services, breakdown due to ignorance, neglect and corruption as South Africa deteriorates further. In short the modern and previously successful State will slide further into dysfunction and inter-tribal infighting for what’s left.
GWB says: And, because there is no such thing as history anymore, no one will even think to look at the places in Africa they have already done this.
Which is precisely why there is no such thing as history anymore.
GWB says: IIRC, the way it worked in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe was that a clan would decide it was time to take away a farmer’s stuff (because he was so rich) and they would demand the farmer surrender it. If he didn’t, they would attack and kill everyone associated with the farm (including all the non-whites who worked there). If he did, they would let him and his family leave – sometimes. If he agreed to split off a bunch of his property to them, they would let him live in peace for a while… then kill him and his family and everyone who worked there.
Then all of the farming would abruptly stop – because no one there knew the first thing about farming.
Cameron says: Every time I read stuff like this, I remember the essay “Let Africa Sink” by Kim duToit. It’s worth your while.
And it’s funny how the same people who moan about how Jesus was a refugee and the Bible commands us to take everyone in, the fact it’s White people is too much for them. Almost as if their faith has conditions attached to it.
rbj1 says: And nary a gang tattoo in sight. What’s really scaring the left is that these folk will become citizens and vote republican.
A reader says: This author does realize that her partial whiteness won’t save her right? (She’s half Asian or something if I remember correctly.) Celebrating foreign white supremacists isn’t going to end with the American white supremacists forgetting who you are, you know.
Here’s a brief summary: what is happening is that their land, which was stolen from native black South Africans, is being given back to those native black South Africans. During Apartheid they were given all sorts of rights and privileges, including the land they owned, at the expense of the native Africans. While a lot of South Africans support what’s happening, there are those that don’t and so they came here. These are racist South Africans. They support apartheid and all it entailed. They are not endangered there, apart from their beliefs nor being popular. And they’re farmers. So what are they farming here? Are these wealthy people going to pick the food the migrants that are being deported were picking? What work will they do exactly, because again, they’re farmers and farming isn’t necessarily lucrative here.
The whole point of this scheme is to allow white “refugees” to come, while not allowing those who aren’t. This includes Afghans who have helped our troops. How is that fair? These people were given priority because of their skin color and also probably because of Elon Musk. (Who by the way has long familial ties with apartheid.) That’s it. So supporting them is essentially supporting those who like apartheid. I mean, that tracks with the conservative right, but those who are of mixed race may want to really study what life was like for mixed race people in apartheid South Africa. Hint: it wasn’t pleasant to say the least. And don’t think that by importing racists it won’t put you in greater danger.
NTSOG says: ” their land, which was stolen from native black South Africans, is being given back to those native black South Africans.”
However untrained and minimally educated native/peasant farmers growing crops on small plots will not feed a large nation of hungry people. South Africa will go backwards economically and socially.
Cameron says: He thinks the total absence of Whites will make Wakanda a reality.
Cameron says: The fact that you accuse them of white supremacy just because of their skin color is pretty much on par for you and your kind.
But I get it; you hate white people with a burning passion and you hate the fact that people facing actual persecution are not only being brought in but they have skills and won’t be sucking on the welfare teat.
GWB says: their land, which was stolen from native black South Africans
Ummm, no. That property was primarily uninhabited when the Dutch arrived. And practically none of it was being put to use. Almost all of sub-Saharan Africa was hunter-gatherer at that point (and, sadly, most of it still is) and the Boers started ranching and farming. Because they came from civilization, they established law and government (on something other than a tribal basis). The “South Africans” (actually, several tribes) never controlled the land. Not ever. They merely roamed over it (after the Bantu pushed the other tribes south to where the Boer had settled).
You love to come here and spout the prog lies.
Hate_me says: Echoes of Algiers, and Rhodesia.
Among Mandela’s greatest accomplishment is delaying this as long as he physically could.
GWB says: the end to apartheid
It more flipped apartheid than ended it.
This has led to frustration and anger over the slow pace of reform.
Ah yes. Redistribution of property to achieve “equity” is called reform. Around here, we call that communism.
in “the public interest” and they can’t reach an agreement
Exactly as it was in Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe. You know, the country where they went from the breadbasket of Africa to everyone starving?
Imagine saying, ‘There hasn’t been enough k*lling to consider it to be a gen*cide.’
Well, I can imagine it because I’ve said it. But these are people defining the war in Gaza as “genocide”, so I’m going to hold them to their definition.
the Episcopal Church decided that they were going to end their contracts with the federal government over the arrival of South Africans
Well… not aksually. They were having those contracts ended anyway, from what I’ve heard. This just gives them an opportunity to virtue signal and flounce out of the room with a “You can’t fire me; I quit!” vibe.
Whole families, not just single men
And not a face tat among ’em.
Having said all that, I don’t think this was a good idea. Primarily because it seems to be Trump just acting on his own whim, instead of some set of objective guidelines. (I would set pretty narrow requirements to get refugee status if I had the reins.) I don’t think things have reached the level of “genocide” in SA, and I think it will take some number of years to do so. And, there are probably people from Haiti who would match the same criteria.
But all the sturm und drang about this is comical, as Trump – again! – gets the Democrats to pick the 20 side of the 80/20 divide.
14 Comments