More Afrikaners take up Trump's resettlement offer, thousands of applications being processed
Image: Jim WATSON / AFP
About 8000 applications have been made by Afrikaners to the US embassy to resettle in that country.
The Afrikaners are taking up President Donald Trump's offer to resettle them amidst false claims of white genocide and persecution in South Africa.
Another small batch of Afrikaners arrived in the US on Friday after an initial group of 49 left the country last month. Trump issued an executive order in February where Washington cited the Expropriation Act 13 of 2024 as one that enables the persecution of Afrikaners.
Solidarity's Jaco Kleynhans said the second group departed on a commercial flight on Thursday that landed in Atlanta in the US on Friday.
'It is a smaller group, including children. Several more groups will fly to the USA over the next few weeks. The US Embassy in Pretoria, in collaboration with the State Department in Washington DC, is currently processing 8,000 applications, and we expect many more Afrikaner refugees to travel to the USA over the next few months.
"They are settling in states across the USA, but particularly southern states such as Texas, North and South Carolina, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska,' Kleynhans said.
Reports indicate that the US embassy in South Africa is aware that 'refugees continue to arrive in the United States from South Africa on commercial flights as part of the Afrikaner resettlement programme's ongoing operations'.
Solidarity said it has helped some people understand the application process better and referred them to the right people at the US embassy. They have also assisted the US government in determining the criteria for Afrikaner refugee status.
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Next
Stay
Close ✕
'Our primary focus is not refugee status for Afrikaners, but rather to find ways to ensure a free, safe, and prosperous future for Afrikaners in South Africa. We remain 100% convinced that South Africa can and must create a home for all its people,' Kleynhans said.
He added that at least 20% of Afrikaners have already left the country 'because if they stayed, they would have been unemployed'.
Kleynhans said he was campaigning in at least ten countries to increase international pressure on the SA government in the run-up to the G20 summit.
On criticism that this refugee path is politically motivated, Kleynhans said: 'The American refugee programs are paid for by American taxpayers and it is outrageous that international organisations and foreign groups think they can dictate to the Trump administration who should be eligible for refugee status. If Americans disagree with Trump on this, they can elect a different president in three years."
Kallie Kriel, AfriForum's CEO, said he did not know the Afrikaners who were leaving because they applied directly to the US embassy.
'Our view is not to condemn people (who are) leaving, but rather to condemn the circumstances in the country that have led to this, such as hateful chants, like 'Kill the Boer'," he said.
Kriel added that matters were compounded by the government, including the president and courts, which failed to condemn the chant.
He acknowledged that everyone in the country has challenges, but said Afrikaners felt threatened by the open call for such violence with the 'Kill the Boer' chant.
'No community should be targeted through calls for violence. Also taking away the future of young people who now have to go into the labour market, but then are discriminated against based on their skin colour.
'We want to address that, and that is why we are vocal, because we want to make sure that South Africa truly belongs to all who live in it,' Kriel said.
Professor Siphamandla Zondi, a political analyst from the University of Johannesburg, said the US's welcoming of the second batch of white Afrikaners should not surprise anyone, especially in the absence of a change of US policy.
'We should expect more and more poor Afrikaners to take advantage of this to get a free pass to the US in search of basic jobs, which ordinarily would prove difficult to get visas for,' Zondi said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
3 hours ago
- IOL News
One more hurdle for the Calata group of families in R167m apartheid-era crime damages claim
A court application by President Cyril Ramaphosa stands in the way of a group of families of apartheid-era crime victims and survivors moving closer to getting justice. Image: Itumeleng English / Independent Newspapers The victims' families and survivors of apartheid-era gross human rights violations together with the Foundation for Human Rights (FHR), who notched up a significant victory in a side battle against former president Thabo Mbeki last week, will be back in court on Wednesday, August 6, to deal with another interjectory application that now stands in the way of their constitutional damages hearing. The Pretoria High Court ruled against Mbeki and his former justice minister Brigette Mabandla and the two politicians, who wanted to protect or clear their names in the proceedings, have accepted the outcome and are now waiting for the commission. In dismissing the Mbeki application the court found that 'it cannot be in issue that there was political interference in the prosecution of the TRC cases. Our Courts have found this to be so, and those findings stand and are binding. For this reason, the argument advanced for the Calata applicants that there would be no need for a specific finding against either Mr Mbeki or Ms Mabandla, is, to my mind, entirely sound. The issue has been decided.' However, before the core damages case can be heard there remains another delaying issue, an application brought by President Cyril Ramaphosa and the government opposing the R167 million damages claim by the 25 families and survivors of apartheid-era crimes filed in January. 'In addition, the government is requesting either a postponement or a stay of the main application, pending the outcome of a judicial commission of inquiry promulgated on 29 May 2025 (to look into why many of the apartheid-era crimes were not prosecuted in spite of recommendations by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission),' the foundation said in a statement. These cases include the murder of the Cradock Four — Matthew Goniwe, Fort Calata, Sparrow Mkonto, and Sicelo Mhlauli — members of the United Democratic Front and other community organisations fighting apartheid whose killings shocked the nation in 1985. Concern over commission's scope 'While the families, survivors, and the FHR welcomed the establishment of the commission of inquiry, they have raised serious concerns about its Terms of Reference. Specifically, they argue that the commission's mandate should be limited to examining the mechanics of political interference, how it occurred and who was implicated. They object to the inclusion of matters relating to the determination of rights violations and the potential award of constitutional damages,' the FHR said in the statement. Explaining what the main issue in court on Wednesday will be about, FHR executive director Zaid Kimmie told the Pretoria News that the 'sticking point' is that the government wanted to 'lump all of our other questions into this commission', in particular the question of damages. He said if they were to be made to wait until the conclusion of the commission to have their damages claim dealt with, it would possibly mean a delay of a couple of years. 'We all want the commission of inquiry to go ahead, but we would like to focus very narrowly on how that political interference happened and who, if anyone, was liable for the political interference,' said Kimmie. The foundation and the Calata applicants 'strongly oppose' the government's application as they also opposed the Mbeki-Mabandla application for its potential to delay matters and 'muddy the waters'. Kimmie said, if the government gets its way in court, 'everything will just be held in abeyance' for another 6-8 months until the commission completes its work, and then they would, unfortunately have to come back to court afterwards. 'I don't think that we are asking for an unreasonable amount of compensation. It's a hundred-and-sixty-seven million (rand). I believe the government will spend close to that amount just on the commission of inquiry,' he said. 'An ideal output for us would be for the state to accept its responsibility, to accept that the violations occurred and that the state was responsible for those violations, and compensate - pay the compensation so that these families can go ahead and seek truth and justice in their particular cases,' he said. 'Unfortunately, it looks like we have to fight every step of the way.' Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading 'This is just a delay' 'From our perspective, this is just a delay in what we think … inevitably the state will have to account for its past — omissions? And all this is doing is making the families wait and causing them additional grief and trauma, rather than dealing with the matter immediately.' He said the government representatives initially seemed to understand and sympathise with the families and recognise the miscarriage of justice, but on the other hand they did not seem to want to proceed and either accede to the demands or negotiate in good faith with the families. He said this was 'very disappointing', but remained hopeful that things would be set right in court and that the damages issue would be settled, allowing the commission to focus on its work. 'The central issue for the families is, in many cases there are no longer any perpetrators to prosecute, all of the witnesses have died, and so, the possibility for justice has passed. And what they want now is an accounting for why that happened.' He said since 2017, a small number of such cases have been brought to prosecution by the National Prosecuting Authority. These include the COSAS 4, Caiphus Nyoka and Nokuthula Simelane cases. 'But so much more would've been possible to have been done in the early 2000s had the state taken those opportunities (that existed then). 'So, even 20 years later, it is still possible to prosecute, albeit a far smaller number of cases, but had the state done its job back then so many of these people would've been prosecuted and the families would have seen justice.' Asked about the potential of their damages claim opening up the floodgates for the government, Kimmie said the money would go into a trust fund and any family not currently part of the claim would be accommodated in it, meaning the government will have 'certainty that it has discharged its immediate liability' of making good the rights violations that occurred.
IOL News
6 hours ago
- IOL News
Unfazed: South Africa's stance on US visa policies impacting Zimbabwe
US President Donald Trump continues to disrupt global diplomacy after a recent visa ban imposed on Zimbabwe. Image: Picture: Evan Vucci/AP The South African government seems unaffected by the recent US visa ban imposed by the embassy in Harare, Zimbabwe, despite President Donald Trump's ongoing disruptions to global diplomacy through tariff increases and immigration policies. The US has suspended all routine immigrant and non-immigrant visa services to Zimbabwe due to concerns over misuse and overstays, although other visa types remain unaffected. Although South Africa was exempt from new Trump visa restrictions on SADC countries, a new policy has been implemented for Malawi and Zambia. Citizens of these nations are now required to pay a bond of $5 000 (R88 656) to $15 000 (R265 967) to travel to the US. Additionally, the citizens are required to use one of three airports—Boston's Logan International, New York's JFK International, or Dulles International near Washington D.C.—for both arrival and departure. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ When asked whether South African citizens should be worried, Department of International Relations and Cooperation (Dirco) spokesperson Chrispin Phiri gave a brief response: "We do not provide commentary on other countries' visa regimes, and this is our general position, it's not specific to the US." A senior government official, however, downplayed the likelihood of South Africans being affected by the US visa restrictions. "Remember Trump is only in our case because of the International Court of Justice case against Israel and our involvement in BRICS. Nothing more and nothing less," the official said. "South Africans visiting the US are mostly professionals who either go for business or a holiday. We seldom have citizens wanting to immigrate to the should have nothing to worry about,' he said. The US embassy explained that the reasons for the restrictions was because the administration was working to prevent visa overstay and misuse as part of national security. "The Trump administration is protecting our nation and citizens by upholding the highest standards of national security and public safety through our visa process," the embassy said. "We are always working to prevent visa overstay and misuse." In June, the US imposed travel bans on citizens from 12 countries, with seven of them located in Africa. Additionally, heightened restrictions were applied to seven other nations, three of which are African. The US has issued a demand to 36 countries, predominantly in Africa, to enhance their traveler vetting procedures. Failure to comply could result in a ban on their citizens visiting the US. International Relations analyst Rejoice Ngwenya said it was unfortunate that the US had an obsession with immigration issues. "All democratic countries must encourage international country movements. However it is incumbent upon citizens that they don't abuse regulations. But one thing to acknowledge in terms of implementation of immigration laws globally is not to interfere and dissuade inter country movements of students because knowledge sharing and education is a universal right,' Ngwenya said.
Daily Maverick
6 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
In its current, elitist shape, the National Dialogue substitutes form for substance
In theory, a 'national dialogue' sounds necessary — a grand, inclusive conversation designed to chart a course out of sweeping structural crises. But in practice, the current iteration risks becoming a hollow vanity project: a carefully choreographed performance by political elites, masquerading as transformative reckoning, but bereft of transparency, tangible commitment or ownership by the people. This National Dialogue, commissioned by President Cyril Ramaphosa, is emerging less as a path of healing — addressing seemingly insurmountable socioeconomic issues — and more as a varnish meticulously applied to cover over the deep cracks threatening the very foundations of our society. Let us pierce the PR veil: from its inception, this initiative has been far more characterised by gestural symbolism than courageous reform. Yes, there are meetings. Yes, there are soundbites about 'inclusivity' and 'national unity'. But beyond the spectacle, clarity is conspicuously absent. Who designs the agenda? Where is the unvarnished documentation of participants' positions, agreements, and, just as critically, disagreements? Accountability? It is nowhere to be seen. Instead, we witness a calibrated, closed-door process that echoes the exclusivity of watershed interventions — like the Convention for a Democratic South Africa (Codesa) and the National Economic Development and Labour Council (Nedlac) — where certain voices were granted airtime and others, particularly those of the marginalised, were systematically excluded. Among the most sour ironies of this spectacle is how it masks as progress what is really a retreat from accountability. The government drapes itself in the language of 'dialogue', 'listening', and 'consensus-building', yet consistently fails to release clear timelines, deliverables, or even an independent audit mechanism. A feelgood charade Without these, the entire exercise remains unmoored — a feelgood charade. And in this absence, citizens — who yearn for deep structural redress — grow angrier, resentful and even more alienated, sensing that their pain is being ritualistically acknowledged in words alone, not addressed in policy or reform. This is dangerous. As social commentators remind us, when citizens perceive dialogue to be superficial and performative, anger escalates. Real people — workers, students, community activists, township residents, rural communities — do not want symposiums of self-congratulation. They want real solutions: justice, economic equity, quality education, healthcare that doesn't bankrupt families, land reform that returns dignity, and governance that isn't riddled with corruption. But this National Dialogue offers none of that; it substitutes form for substance. Moreover, the lack of full transparency isn't accidental — it is strategic. By controlling the narrative and confining discourse to carefully selected participants — many of whom are politically connected or institutionally entrenched — the architects of this initiative limit dissent, forestall disruption and preserve the status quo. Systemic inequities remain untouched, while elites enjoy the illusion of legitimacy through media optics: a televised statement here, a glowing article there, a congratulatory headline lengthening the shelf life of government spin. But let us not mince words: dressed-up conversations are not leadership. They are weak sedatives, meant to lull the public into believing progress is being made. Yet beneath the vocal harmonies lies a rhythm of inertia. There are no plans, no commitments to constitutional reform, no public financing to remedy inequality, no enforcement instruments tied to dialogue outcomes. The initiative is effectively immobilised, waiting for political whim, subject to partisan will, and devoid of the coercive impetus required to compel structural transformation. The government — and its big business allies — may hope that the spectacle of dialogue will buy time: to slow down protests, silence dissenting voices, and repackage governance as consultative rather than coercive. But if the public discerns that this dialogue is a mirage — a cosmetic application over rotting infrastructure — the backlash won't merely persist. It will intensify. Anger morphs into radical realisation: that institutions meant to protect and empower citizens have become self-serving, out of touch and cowardly. For the National Dialogue to avoid that fate — and regain moral integrity — it must be radically reconfigured. First, full transparency isn't optional; it is non-negotiable. Every stage of the process and how participants were identified must be documented, recorded and made freely accessible — agendas, minutes, draft proposals, dissenting opinions, all. Second, civic representation must not be tokenistic. Grassroots movements, community organisations and historically excluded voices must be central, not ornamental. Measurable commitments Third, there must be measurable commitments: a public road map, with timelines, milestones, responsibility assignments and monitoring mechanisms independent from government interference. And fourth, consequences must follow — if outcomes are not implemented, participating officials must be made to answer to the electorate, including through binding referenda or judicial oversight. In the absence of these fundamental reforms, this National Dialogue will remain not a beacon of hope, but a hollow performance — 'a conversation about how best to paint over the cracks' as critics suggest — without the substance of genuine rebuilding. And here lies the final and grimmest danger: when dialogue is unmoored from implementation while seemingly designed to shield past political administrations from accountability, it amplifies the very crisis it purports to address. It sows cynicism, delegitimises our institutions and green-lights the rise of populist or radical alternatives. In a society facing deep divides, escalating inequality and institutional distrust, that outcome isn't hypothetical — it is all too possible. Of course, a national dialogue is necessary. But it must be meaningful, inclusive, and yield clear, actionable and measurable outcomes. Recycling self-congratulatory platitudes about the Constitutional Assembly that produced our current Constitution — or the largely failed or ineffectual National Development Plan — while ignorant of the zeitgeist does not in itself make for a cogent national dialogue. The public deserves a national dialogue that speaks truth, empowers communities and delivers reform. What we have instead is a curated exercise in surface-level conversations, conducted by the few, witnessed by many, but owned by none. It is time to dismantle the charade — and start conversing with courage, transparency, and real consequence.
