
Clarence Page: Donald Trump embraces South Africans — the white ones
So it is with the Trump administration's policy toward refugees who are fleeing war or political persecution, albeit with a color preference somewhat at odds with Ford's.
The Trump administration is welcoming white Afrikaners, a centuries-old ethnic group descended mainly from Dutch colonists, after suspending the program for everyone else. The first group of almost 60 arrived from South Africa at Dulles International Airport last Monday night — on a charter flight paid for by the U.S. government.
That means all other Africans who have waited in refugee camps for years after being vetted and cleared must step back and wait even longer for their uncertain futures to play out, as white South Africans get ushered through the express lane.
This also throws into limbo the Afghans who risked their lives to assist American combat troops who were unable to leave the country after the Taliban took over. 'Betrayal' is a tough word, but it taxes the mind to think of a more appropriate description.
Such was the outrage expressed by the Episcopal Church, which announced after the Afrikaners arrived that it was terminating its partnership with the federal government to resettle refugees.
In a letter sent to members of the church, the Most Rev. Sean Rowe, the presiding bishop, said that two weeks ago, the government 'informed Episcopal Migration Ministries that under the terms of our federal grant, we are expected to resettle white Afrikaners from South Africa whom the U.S. government has classified as refugees.'
That request, Rowe said, crossed a moral line for the denomination, which is part of the global Anglican Communion, once led by the late Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a hero of South Africa's anti-apartheid movement.
But Trump embraced his own version of apartheid, special treatment for white South Africans, based on evidence that is, at best, shaky.
Trump ordered a halt to all foreign assistance to South Africa and a higher priority to the resettling of white 'Afrikaner refugees' into the United States because of what he called actions by South Africa's government that 'racially disfavored landowners.'
How badly disfavored? With his usual freewheeling approach to language, Trump charged that Afrikaners were victims of a 'genocide,' a charge that has turned out to have little more support than his bogus accusation during his presidential campaign last year that Haitian migrants in Ohio were 'eating the cats! They're eating the dogs!'
In South Africa, he told reporters, 'Farmers are being killed. They happen to be white. Whether they are white or Black makes no difference to me. White farmers are being brutally killed and the land is being confiscated in South Africa.'
It's true that there's increasingly disturbing rhetoric from political leaders, including Julius Sello Malema, leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters, a far left political party, who in 2016 said, 'We are not calling for the slaughtering of white people, at least for now.' Malema also sparked national and international backlash in 2022 when he led supporters in chanting 'Kill the Boer,' referencing an anti-apartheid song. But police data does not support the white genocide narrative. They show killings on farms to be rare and, as in urban areas, the victims are mostly Black.
With similar fervor, Trump has expressed support for South Africa's white farmers and attacked a new law that he insists would permit the seizure and redistribution of land to redress racial inequalities rooted in the legacy of apartheid, the system of racial segregation that Afrikaner-led regimes enforced from 1948 to 1994.
How did Trump become so captivated by South Africa's racial challenges? You can credit — or blame — right-wing podcaster Tucker Carlson.
Back in Trump's first administration, when Carlson was the most watched Fox News anchor-commentator, Carlson picked up and repeated on air the dire warnings of 'white genocide' in South Africa that circulated in white nationalist social media circles.
On Twitter, the Guardian reported, 'Donald Trump indicated that he had been watching,' referencing 'the 'large scale killing of farmers' as a settled fact.'
In the coming week, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa is scheduled to meet Trump at the White House. They have much to discuss, including the data that contradict Trump's claims about runaway interracial violence and land grabs in South Africa.
Thirty years after the end of apartheid, NPR reported, 'most commercial farmland in South Africa, where land reform persists as a major issue, is still owned by the country's white minority.' Yet, no land has been seized, nor are seizures expected.
For now, there also is the matter of Secretary of State Marco Rubio's ousting of South Africa's new ambassador, Ebrahim Rasool, as a 'race-baiting politician.'
Rasool's offense was that he opined in an online seminar that the MAGA movement was partially a response to demographic worries about a future in which white people would no longer be the majority.
Mr. Ambassador, a word of advice: Don't pay too much attention to what Tucker Carlson says. Most of us Americans know better.
Or at least, I hope we do.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Bloomberg
23 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Trump Visits Police, Military Patrolling DC
"Balance of Power: Late Edition" focuses on the intersection of politics and global business. On today's show, Former Vice President Mike Pence shares his thoughts on President Trump calling for Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook to resign hoping these allegations are not part of a pressure campaign. Don Vultaggio, AriZona Beverage Company Co-Founder & Chairman, discusses how. President Trump's tariffs are threatening to increase the price tag of the company's iced teas. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago President Austan Goolsbee discusses the "mixed messages" being sent by recent US economic data. (Source: Bloomberg)


Chicago Tribune
25 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
California Gov. Newsom signs legislation calling for special election on redrawn congressional map
SACRAMENTO, Calif — California voters will decide in November whether to approve a redrawn congressional map designed to help Democrats win five more U.S. House seats next year, after Texas Republicans advanced their own redrawn map to pad their House majority by the same number of seats at President Donald Trump's urging. California lawmakers voted mostly along party lines Thursday to approve legislation calling for the special election. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has led the campaign in favor of the map, then quickly signed it — the latest step in a tit-for-tat gerrymandering battle. 'We don't want this fight and we didn't choose this fight, but with our democracy on the line, we will not run away from this fight,' Democratic Assemblyman Marc Berman said. Republicans, who have filed a lawsuit and called for a federal investigation into the plan, promised to keep fighting it. California Assemblyman James Gallagher, the Republican minority leader, said Trump was 'wrong' to push for new Republican seats elsewhere, contending the president was just responding to Democratic gerrymandering in other states. But he warned that Newsom's approach, which the governor has dubbed 'fight fire with fire,' was dangerous. 'You move forward fighting fire with fire and what happens?' Gallagher asked. 'You burn it all down.' In Texas, the Republican-controlled state Senate was scheduled to vote on a map Thursday night. After that, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott's signature will be all that is needed to make the map official. It's part of Trump's effort to stave off an expected loss of the GOP's majority in the U.S. House in the 2026 midterm elections. What states are doing in the battle over congressional maps as Texas pursues plan President Donald Trump soughtOn a national level, the partisan makeup of existing districts puts Democrats within three seats of a majority. The incumbent president's party usually loses congressional seats in the midterms. The president has pushed other Republican-controlled states including Indiana and Missouri to also revise their maps to add more winnable GOP seats. Ohio Republicans were also already scheduled to revise their maps to make them more partisan. The U.S. Supreme Court has said the Constitution does not outlaw partisan gerrymandering, only using race to redraw district lines. Texas Republicans embraced that when their House of Representatives passed its revision Wednesday. 'The underlying goal of this plan is straight forward: improve Republican political performance,' state Rep. Todd Hunter, the Republican who wrote the bill revising Texas' maps, said. On Thursday, California Democrats noted Hunter's comments and said they had to take extreme steps to counter the Republican move. 'What do we do, just sit back and do nothing? Or do we fight back?' Democratic state Sen. Lena Gonzalez said. 'This is how we fight back and protect our democracy.' Republicans and some Democrats championed the 2008 ballot measure that established California's nonpartisan redistricting commission, along with the 2010 one that extended its role to drawing congressional maps. Democrats have sought a national commission that would draw lines for all states but have been unable to pass legislation creating that system. Trump's midterm redistricting ploy has shifted Democrats. That was clear in California, where Newsom was one of the members of his party who backed the initial redistricting commission ballot measures, and where Assemblyman Joshua Lowenthal, whose father, Rep. Alan Lowenthal, was another Democratic champion of a nonpartisan commission, presided over the state Assembly's passage of the redistricting package. Newsom on Thursday contended his state was still setting a model. 'We'll be the first state in U.S. history, in the most democratic way, to submit to the people of our state the ability to determine their own maps,' Newsom said before signing the legislation. Former President Barack Obama, who's also backed a nationwide nonpartisan approach, has also backed Newsom's bid to redraw the California map, saying it was a necessary step to stave off the GOP's Texas move. 'I think that approach is a smart, measured approach,' Obama said Tuesday during a fundraiser for the Democratic Party's main redistricting arm, noting that California voters will still have the final say on the map. Bipartisan group led by ex-Obama officials 'rolling the dice' on new remapping plan for Illinois legislatureThe California map would last only through 2030, after which the state's commission would draw up a new map for the normal, once-a-decade redistricting to adjust district lines after the decennial U.S. Census. Democrats are also mulling reopening Maryland's and New York's maps for mid-decade redraws. However, more Democratic-run states have commission systems like California's or other redistricting limits than Republican ones do, leaving the GOP with a freer hand to swiftly redraw maps. New York, for example, can't draw new maps until 2028, and even then, only with voter approval. In Texas, outnumbered Democrats turned to unusual steps to try to delay passage, leaving the state to delay a vote by 15 days. Upon their return, they were assigned round-the-clock police monitoring. California Republicans didn't take such dramatic steps but complained bitterly about Democrats muscling the package through the Statehouse and harming what GOP State Sen. Tony Strickland called the state's 'gold-standard' nonpartisan approach. 'What you're striving for is predetermined elections,' Strickland said. 'You're taking the voice away from Californians.'


Axios
25 minutes ago
- Axios
Newsom signs California redistricting measures in response to Texas bill
California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed two redistricting bills into law on Thursday evening after a Democratic-controlled Legislature passed them earlier in the day. Why it matters: The legislation is in direct response to Texas' Republican-controlled House passing a new congressional map at the urging of President Trump, and the consequences of both could prove pivotal in the 2026 midterms and the 2028 presidential election.