Controversial resettlement of Afrikaners in the US sparks debate
The South African delegation led by President Cyril Ramaphosa with the US delegation and President Donald Trump at the White House
Image: GCIS
THE LATEST group of white Afrikaners, who are part of a broader plan to relocate about 8 000 in the ensuing months to the US, made their way to their new homeland on Friday.
Their move is a part of a controversial resettlement initiative initiated by former President Donald Trump, who cited concerns over alleged persecution and the spectre of "white genocide" in South Africa.
Jaco Kleynhans, head of Public Relations for the trade union Solidarity, revealed that the latest group included families with children and that efforts to secure future flights are already underway. 'The second group departed on a commercial flight on Thursday and landed in Atlanta on Friday,' he confirmed. 'Several more groups will follow in the coming weeks.'
The resettlement programme originated from Trump's executive order issued in February, which highlighted the Expropriation Act 13 of 2024 as one enabling the alleged persecution of Afrikaners. The first group, numbering over 49 individuals, arrived last month aboard a chartered private plane, sparking major discussions around immigration, safety, and identity.
The US Embassy in Pretoria, in conjunction with the State Department, is currently processing the applications of thousands of Afrikaners, as reported by Kleynhans. 'They are settling in southern states like Texas, North and South Carolina, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska,' he noted, highlighting the continuous flow of individuals seeking refuge from South Africa.
While Solidarity strives to guide prospective immigrants through the application process, Kleynhans maintained that the focus remains on ensuring a secure future for Afrikaners in their homeland. 'We remain 100% convinced that South Africa must create a home for all its people,' he stated, adding that nearly 20% of Afrikaners have already left the country to escape unemployment and social unrest.
The ongoing migration has raised eyebrows, with some critics suggesting that the refugee initiative is politically charged. Kleynhans dismissed such claims, asserting that any shift in American policy could only occur through domestic electoral processes. 'If Americans disagree with Trump on this, they can elect a different president in three years,' he said.
Kallie Kriel, CEO of AfriForum, expressed empathy for those departing, if not for the reasons prompting their emigration. He referenced the 'hateful chants', including the provocative phrase 'Kill the Boer', which he believes has exacerbated feelings of insecurity among Afrikaners. He emphasised the need for a broader conversation on inclusion and community safety, insisting that no demographic group should be targeted for violence.
International relations expert Dr Noluthando Phungula commented on the situation, suggesting that claims of white genocide seem to persist unchallenged within US policy discussions, potentially obscuring the reality many Afrikaners face. Professor Siphamandla Zondi from the University of Johannesburg shared a similar sentiment, forecasting an increasing number of people seeking a new life in the US as economic concerns continue to drive migration.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
eNCA
4 hours ago
- eNCA
Afrikaner 'refugee' reveals why he left South Africa
ALABAMA, US - The United Nations defines a refugee as a person who has fled their country to escape conflict, violence or persecution, and seeks safety in another country. READ: US welcomes Afrikaner 'refugees' from South Africa South Africa is divided on whether a group of Afrikaners who recently left South Africa for the US, qualify as refugees. The move has stirred controversy, with critics arguing it politicises the refugee system and ignores those fleeing war, famine, and persecution elsewhere. Despite this development, most Afrikaner communities say they have no intention of leaving South Africa, insisting their future remains rooted here. READ: DIRCO warns Afrikaners seeking refuge in US of challenges ahead In an exclusive interview, Annika Larsen headed to Alabama to speak to one man who packed up his life, and said goodbye to his homeland forever.
TimesLIVE
4 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
Ramaphosa names 31 'eminent people' to champion national dialogue
President Cyril Ramaphosa will be calling a national convention on August 15, which will set the agenda for the national dialogue. Ramaphosa also announced the appointment of an eminent persons group of 31 people, who he said will guide and champion the national dialogue and act as the guarantors of an inclusive, constructive and credible process. In an announcement on Tuesday, Ramaphosa said the national convention will represent the diversity of the South African nation and will be a representative gathering, bringing together government, political parties, civil society, business, labour, traditional leaders, religious leaders, cultural workers, sports organisations, women, youth and community voices, among others. 'Through their various political, social and other formations, in their workplaces, in places of worship, communities, villages and sites of learning, South Africans will in the months following the national convention be encouraged to be in dialogue to define our nation's path into the future,' Ramaphosa said. The views, concerns and proposals that will emerge will be brought together at a second national convention, planned for the beginning of next year. Ramaphosa said there was broad agreement that given the challenges the country was facing at the moment, the national dialogue should be convened. 'The idea of holding a dialogue is not a new concept in our country. In many ways having dialogues is part of our DNA as a nation. At every important moment in the history of our country, we have come together as a nation to confront our challenges and forge a path into the future in dialogue with one another.'
Daily Maverick
4 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Borders signal the edge of a nation, they must never be the edge of the law
The management of borders represents a critical point where state authority meets human rights and national security concerns. Borders in both the United States and South Africa serve as enforcement areas that test constitutional law boundaries and state authority limits through ethical governance challenges. Despite the existence of strong constitutional frameworks, borders often emerge as zones where power is exercised with minimal oversight and have increasingly become the subject of heated debates under the pressure of opposing interests. Judicial mechanisms offer post-facto challenges to abuse, but don't deter injustice from occurring before any intervention takes place. At stake are not only questions of territorial control, but fundamental civil liberties. While judicial mechanisms exist to challenge abuse, their retrospective nature means infringement is effected before remedy is available. A meaningful solution requires proactive legal training, deeper transparency and a strong culture of accountability. South Africa: consolidation with broad powers The formal establishment in April 2023 of the Border Management Authority (BMA) marked a significant structural shift in South Africa's border enforcement as envisioned in terms of the Border Management Authority Act, 2020. The launch of the BMA aimed to unify fragmented tasks within immigration, customs and security functions as a bold step towards operational efficiency. However, with consolidation comes concentration of power and, arguably, insufficient legal guardrails are in place. Current training of South African border agents appears to place overwhelming emphasis on security protocols, logistics and document verification. Detailed information about the standard training for officials has not yet been publicly documented. At the front lines, however, critical dimensions such as constitutional rights, international refugee protections and administrative justice remain underdeveloped or entirely absent. This knowledge gap opens the door for discretionary overreach. Border agents routinely make major impactful decisions, often without sufficient legal grounding. While the Constitution guarantees rights to both citizens and non-citizens, the implementation at borders of those rights remains inconsistent. Legal training should be a vanguard defence against such inconsistency, focusing not only on the technicalities of immigration law but also on values such as proportionality, rationality and dignity, all central to South Africa's constitutional vision. A training curriculum that includes real-world case studies and evolving jurisprudence would provide border officials with the legal literacy necessary to act effectively and lawfully. Borders are not lawless zones South African jurisprudence offers strong guidance. The Supreme Court of Appeal determined in Minister of Home Affairs v Watchenuka (2004) that constitutional rights apply to non-citizens and invalidated the idea that state power at borders escapes constitutional oversight. The Constitutional Court's decision in Dawood v Minister of Home Affairs (2000) established the necessity for defined guidelines to limit discretionary immigration actions while affirming that arbitrary decisions stand in opposition to constitutional principles of governance. In Gaertner and Others v Minister of Finance (2014), the court struck down provisions permitting customs officials to conduct warrantless property searches. While emphasising judicial oversight and opposing unchecked surveillance at borders, the court reinforced that, even at the border, constitutional safeguards must apply. Collectively, these cases make clear that South African borders are not constitutional vacuums. They are spaces where state interest and individual rights must be carefully balanced, a principle that must be embedded in policy, training and enforcement alike. The US: oversight in theory, discretion in practice US border agents carry out their duties under the Fourth Amendment's 'border search exception', which permits searches at international borders without warrants. While initially designed for luggage and customs inspections, the doctrine has expanded to include searches of electronic devices, sparking privacy concerns. In United States v Cotterman (2013), the Ninth Circuit introduced a distinction between 'basic' and 'forensic' device searches, requiring reasonable suspicion for the latter. This case was critical in defining the legal thresholds for state intrusion into digital privacy. Yet, reasonable suspicion, a circumstantial belief based on specific facts, remains a vague and flexible standard. Oversight mechanisms, while present, often fail to prevent real-world overreach. On paper, the US legal framework provides stronger judicial review than in many jurisdictions. The Fourth Amendment, the exclusionary rule and civil rights litigation offer meaningful remedies. But these mechanisms are largely retrospective. They rely on the injured party to challenge misconduct after it has already occurred, a process few travellers are equipped to initiate. Even with oversight, systemic issues such as racial profiling, device confiscation and prolonged detentions persist. Lessons from Cato's Letters Cato's Letters, a series of 18th-century essays written by Trenchard and Gordon, warned eloquently of the dangers of unaccountable power. Their call for liberty, limited government and the rule of law echoes loudly in today's border enforcement regimes. They warned that unchecked authority, even in the name of security, leads inevitably to oppression and abuse. Their defence of transparency, legal constraint and civic vigilance remains a powerful lens through which to evaluate modern border agencies. Whether it is US Customs and Border Protection or South Africa's BMA, concentrated authority without immediate oversight fosters environments where individual rights are routinely subordinated to institutional convenience or, even worse, ignorance. Technology is not a silver bullet In the US, billions have been spent on advanced border technologies: facial recognition, drone surveillance, biometric scanning and AI-powered analytics. These tools increase efficiency, but also amplify state power, and raise serious concerns about surveillance overreach and algorithmic bias. South Africa, while historically underresourced in this domain, is catching up. Home Affairs Minister Leon Schreiber has recently emphasised the digitisation of border processes and initiated a drone surveillance programme aimed at improving security along hard-to-patrol land borders. These innovations are promising, but require legal frameworks and ethical training to ensure that they enhance, not undermine, accountability. Technology alone cannot substitute for legal safeguards, ethical enforcement and public scrutiny. Without strong norms and oversight, technology simply makes it easier to abuse power faster and more efficiently. South Africa's systemic challenges Corruption remains a long-standing problem in South Africa's border management system. With a land border network spanning more than 4,700km, complex challenges in border management, surveillance and cross-border movement are common. Beit Bridge and Lebombo, the two busiest land border posts by movement of both people and goods, have gained notoriety for their involvement in bribery schemes, fostering illegal and fraudulent migration, and smuggling operations. Yet, these incidents are not exclusive to those posts. Both law enforcement operations and public trust in government institutions suffer from these prevailing situations. While integration under the BMA may help streamline accountability, corruption is a human problem, solved not by structure alone but through culture, leadership and training. The US, too, has struggled with ethical lapses in border enforcement, including documented abuses during the Trump administration involving family separations, inadequate detention conditions and racially biased screening practices. In both countries, external accountability mechanisms – including independent oversight bodies, public reporting and whistle-blower protections – are essential to preventing and addressing misconduct. Training is the real infrastructure Perhaps the clearest point of divergence between the US and South Africa lies in training systems. In the US, border agents attend standardised courses at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers covering constitutional law, immigration enforcement and ethical decision-making. By contrast, in South Africa training has been historically fragmented. The establishment of the BMA has offered an opportunity to establish standardised, law-based training that integrates legal, technical and ethical components. Given the BMA's expanded scope, this is not optional; it should be critical. A border agent without sufficient legal literacy is not just a weak link in enforcement but a risk to the rights of every traveller, migrant or citizen they encounter. Too often abuse is reported and remains unchecked. The human element in reform Ultimately, border enforcement is about people, those enforcing the law and those subject to it. The most sophisticated policy or technology will fail if the individuals tasked with implementation are poorly trained, poorly supervised or poorly supported. Ethics, empathy and law must inform every aspect of border interaction. Both the US and South Africa must invest not only in infrastructure but in human capital. Agents must be trained to understand not only how to detect threats, but how to respect rights. Performance metrics should include not just seizures or interdictions, but fair treatment, procedural integrity and respect for dignity. The front lines of democracy and eternal vigilance Border zones are not places outside the law. They are 'stress tests' for democracy and constitutionalism. In South Africa and the United States alike, the challenge is not whether the state can exercise power at the border, but how that power is constrained, overseen and made just. Legal training, transparency and accountability are not luxuries; they are the foundation of legitimate enforcement. As Cato's Letters reminds us, liberty depends not only on institutions but on 'eternal vigilance'. DM
