
‘They'll be back': White Afrikaners leave South Africa to be refugees in US
Johannesburg, South Africa – On a chilly Sunday evening in Johannesburg, OR Tambo International Airport was filled with tourists and travellers entering and exiting South Africa's busiest airport.
On one side of the international departures hall, a few dozen people queued – their trollies piled with luggage, travel pillows and children's blankets – as they waited to board a charter flight to Washington Dulles International Airport in the United States.
Dressed casually and comfortably for the 13-hour journey that would follow, the group – most young, all white – talked among themselves while avoiding onlookers. Although they blended into the bustling terminal around them, these weren't ordinary travellers. They were Afrikaners leaving South Africa to be refugees in Donald Trump's America.
When Charl Kleinhaus first applied for refugee resettlement in the US earlier this year, he told officials he had been threatened and that people attempted to claim his property.
The 46-year-old, who claimed to own a farm in Limpopo, South Africa's northernmost province, was not required to present proof of these threats or provide details regarding when the alleged incidents occurred.
On Sunday, he joined dozens of others accepted by the Trump administration as part of a pilot programme granting asylum to people from the Afrikaner community – descendants of mainly Dutch colonisers that led the brutal apartheid regime for nearly five decades.
The Trump administration claims white people face discrimination in South Africa – a country where they make up some 7 percent of the population but own more than 70 percent of the land and occupy the majority of top management positions.
'I want you all to know that you are really welcome here and that we respect what you have had to deal with these last few years,' US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau told Kleinhaus and the others when they landed at the Dulles International in Virginia.
'We respect the long tradition of your people and what you have accomplished over the years,' he said on Monday.
Speaking to a journalist at the airport, Kleinhaus said he never expected 'this land expropriation thing to go so far' in South Africa.
He was referring to the recently passed Expropriation Act, which allows the South African government to, in exceptional circumstances, take land for public use without compensation. Pretoria says the measure is aimed at redressing apartheid injustices, as Black South Africans who make up more than 80 percent of the population still own just 4 percent of the land.
South African officials say the law has not resulted in any land grabs. There is also no record of Kleinhaus's property being expropriated.
Kleinhaus was unaffected by any threats and the government was unaware of anyone who might have threatened his property, Minister in the Presidency Khumbudzo Ntshavheni told Al Jazeera.
'The people of South Africa have not been affected by the expropriation of land. There's no evidence. None of them are affected by any farm murders either,' the minister emphasised.
In February, when Trump signed an executive order granting refugee status to Afrikaners, he cited widely discredited claims that their land was being seized and that they were being brutally killed in South Africa.
On Monday, Trump again claimed that Afrikaners were victims of a 'genocide' – an accusation South African President Cyril Ramaphosa and other experts maintain is based on lies.
'Farmers are being killed,' Trump told reporters. 'White farmers are being brutally killed, and the land is being confiscated in South Africa.'
Ramaphosa has also debunked claims that the group who left this week faced any persecution at home.
'They are leaving because they do not wish to embrace the democratic transformation unfolding in South Africa,' he said.
For 60-year-old Sam Busa, watching Kleinhaus and the 48 other South Africans leave to be resettled in the US was a hopeful moment.
Busa, who has also applied for asylum, is waiting in anticipation for an interview that would qualify her for resettlement. She has begun selling excess household items in anticipation of her new life in the US.
The semi-retired businesswoman has been at the forefront of efforts – through a website called Amerikaners – encouraging Afrikaners to take an interest in the US offer to grant refugee status on the grounds that they face racial persecution in South Africa.
When asked how she has experienced persecution because of her race, Busa recounted an incident where she was held at gunpoint at her home in Johannesburg – the commercial capital of South Africa and one of the most dangerous cities in the world.
She later moved to KwaZulu-Natal on the country's east coast, where she ran a business that provided services to the government.
When asked whether she believed she was targeted because of her race or if she was simply a victim of common crime, Busa asserted it did not matter.
She didn't feel safe, she said. 'I am not overly sensitive. When I watch Julius Malema singing about killing the Boer, it is extremely terrifying.'
Malema, the far-left leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) political party, often sings a famous anti-apartheid song, Kill the Boer (Boer meaning farmer in Afrikaans), which the courts have ruled is not hate speech or an incitement to violence.
For Busa, much like Kleinhaus, new legislation passed to bolster racial transformation, which includes having specific hiring targets for employment equity, has been 'the straw that broke the camel's back'.
'Expropriation without compensation is a huge issue, along with the amendment to employment equity,' she said, restating her belief that white people don't have a future in South Africa.
'It's coming hard and fast, and it's becoming clear to [white] South Africans that we struggle with fears of home invasion. I don't live on a farm, but there are massive fears because of the constant threat of crime. It has become clear to white South Africans; it's not disguised,' she claimed.
The narrative of fear is prevalent among those engaged in the refugee programme despite the fact that several experts have debunked the assertion that they were victims of racially motivated attacks and not common crime.
South Africa sees about 19,000 murders a year. According to data from the police, most victims of rural crime are Black, with evidence showing that white farmers are not disproportionately being killed.
Meanwhile, many participants in the US's Afrikaner refugee resettlement programme do not even live on farms; many are urban dwellers, according to Minister Ntshavheni.
Katia Beedan, who lives in Cape Town, is also anticipating resettlement in the US. She told Al Jazeera that refugee hopefuls do not have to prove racial persecution but simply articulate it.
'For me, it's racial persecution and political persecution,' she said about her reasons for wanting to leave South Africa.
The copywriter-turned-life coach pointed to racial transformation laws targeting employment equity and land expropriation, which she believes the government is 'overwhelming us with', as a key reason for her desire to flee.
However, many other South Africans see sections of the Afrikaner community – including their right-wing lobby groups like AfriForum that first pushed the false narrative of a 'white genocide' – as struggling to exist equally in a country where they were once considered superior because of their race.
'I think AfriForum is struggling with the reality of being ordinary,' social justice activist and South Africa's former public protector, Thuli Madonsela, told local TV channel, Newzroom Afrika, in March.
'The new South Africa requires all of us to be ordinary, whereas colonialism and apartheid made white people special people.
'I think some white people … [are] seeking to reverse the wheel and find reason to be special again. They seem to have found an ally in the American president,' she said.
In February, as Trump expedited efforts to resettle Afrikaners in the US, he was closing off his country's refugee programme to other asylum seekers from war-torn and famine-stricken parts of the world.
For Loren Landau from the African Centre for Migration and Society at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, the Afrikaner refugee relocation is 'absurd and ridiculous'.
'They have not been welcomed as tourists or work permit holders, but as refugees. The idea of a refugee system is to protect those who cannot be safeguarded by their own states and who fear persecution or violence because of who they are or their membership in a social group. Can Afrikaners make that case?' he asked.
Although 'there are people in South Africa who discriminate against them,' and Afrikaners now 'have less privilege and protection than during the apartheid era', it cannot be said that this is indicative of state policy, he said, adding that many different people are robbed, killed, and face discrimination in South Africa.
'Are they [Afrikaners] specially victimised because of who they are? Absolutely not!' Landau added.
He said all statistics on land ownership, income, and education levels indicate that South Africa's white population far outstrips others: 'They are still by far in the top strata of South African society. No one is taking their land. No one is taking their cars.'
Even fringe groups that may have called for land grabs have done little to enact their threats, observers note.
However, for Busa, that doesn't matter. 'I fear for my children. You never know when the EFF decides they want you dead. It's not a country I want to live in,' she said. The EFF has said those who decide to leave South Africa should have their citizenship revoked.
Confronted with the implications of this situation, the government is considering whether those who exit as refugees could easily return to the country. Ramaphosa is expected to discuss the ongoing matter with Trump at a meeting in the US next week.
Meanwhile, for the Afrikaners now in the US, most will settle in Texas, with others in New York, Idaho, Iowa and North Carolina, while the government helps them find work and accommodation.
They will hold refugee status for one year, after which they can apply for a US green card to make them permanent residents. At the same time, the Afrikaner resettlement programme remains open to others who want to apply.
When Kleinhaus and his group arrived in the US on Monday, they had smiles on their faces as they met officials and waved US flags.
Yet, for South Africa's president, their resettlement in the US marks 'a sad moment for them' – and something he believes may not last.
'As South Africans, we are resilient. We don't run away from our problems,' he said at an agricultural exhibition in Free State province on Monday.
'If you look at all national groups in our country, Black and white, they've stayed in this country because it's our country.
'I can bet you that they [the Afrikaners who left] will be back soon because there is no country like South Africa.'
Hashtags

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


Al Jazeera
17 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Harvard challenges Trump's efforts to block US entry for foreign students
Harvard University has broadened its existing lawsuit against the administration of President Donald Trump to fight a new action that attempts to stop its international students from entering the United States. On Thursday, the prestigious Ivy League school filed an amended complaint that alleges Trump's latest executive order violates the rights of the school and its students. Just one day earlier, Trump published an executive order claiming that 'it is necessary to restrict the entry of foreign nationals who seek to enter the United States solely or principally' to attend Harvard. He called Harvard's international students a 'class of aliens' whose arrival 'would be detrimental to the interests of the United States'. As a result, he said that he had the right under the Immigration and Nationality Act to deny them entry into the country. But in Thursday's court filing, Harvard dismissed that argument as the latest salvo in Trump's months-long campaign to harm the school. 'The President's actions thus are not undertaken to protect the 'interests of the United States,' but instead to pursue a government vendetta against Harvard,' the amended complaint says. It further alleged that, by issuing a new executive order to restrict students' entry, the Trump administration was attempting to circumvent an existing court order that blocked it from preventing Harvard's registration of foreign students. The complaint called upon US District Judge Allison Burroughs in Massachusetts to extend her temporary restraining order to include Trump's latest attack on Harvard's foreign students. 'Harvard's more than 7,000 F-1 and J-1 visa holders — and their dependents — have become pawns in the government's escalating campaign of retaliation,' Harvard wrote. Trump began his campaign against Harvard and other prominent schools earlier this year, after taking office for a second term as president. He blamed the universities for failing to take sterner action against the Palestinian solidarity protests that cropped up on their campuses in the wake of Israel's war on Gaza. The president called the demonstrations anti-Semitic and pledged to remove foreign students from the US who participated. Protest organisers, meanwhile, have argued that their aims were non-violent and that the actions of a few have been used to tar the movement overall. Critics have also accused Trump of using the protests as leverage to exert greater control over the country's universities, including private schools like Harvard and its fellow Ivy League school, Columbia University. In early March, Columbia — whose protest encampments were emulated at campuses across the country — saw $400m in federal funding stripped from its budget. The school later agreed to a list of demands issued by the Trump administration, including changes to its disciplinary policies and a review of its Middle East studies programme. Harvard University was also given a list of demands to comply with. But unlike Columbia, it refused, citing concerns that the restrictions would limit its academic freedom. The Trump administration's demands included ending Harvard's diversity programmes and allowing the federal government to audit its hiring and admissions processes to 'establish viewpoint diversity'. When those demands were not met, it proceeded to strip Harvard of its federal funding, to the tune of billions of dollars. Trump also threatened to revoke the school's tax-exempt status and barred it from receiving future federal research grants. But the attack on Harvard's international students has threatened to drive away tuition revenue as well. Nearly a quarter of Harvard's overall student body is from overseas. In May, the Department of Homeland Security announced it would revoke Harvard's access to a system, the Student Exchange Visitor Program, where it is required to log information about its foreign students. That would have forced currently enrolled Harvard students to transfer to another school, if they were in the country on a student visa. It would have also prevented Harvard from accepting any further international students. But Harvard sued the Trump administration, calling its actions 'retaliatory' and 'unlawful'. On May 23, Judge Burroughs granted Harvard's emergency petition for a restraining order to stop the restriction from taking effect. But since then, the Trump administration has continued to exert pressure on Harvard and other schools. Earlier this week, for example, the Trump administration wrote a letter to Columbia University's accreditor, accusing the New York City school of falling short of federal civil rights laws.


Al Jazeera
19 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Trump administration sanctions International Criminal Court judges
The administration of President Donald Trump has followed through with a threat to sanction officials on the International Criminal Court (ICC), naming four judges whom it accuses of taking 'illegitimate and baseless actions' against the United States and its allies. On Thursday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the sanctions in a sharply worded written statement. 'The ICC is politicized and falsely claims unfettered discretion to investigate, charge, and prosecute nationals of the United States and our allies,' Rubio wrote. 'This dangerous assertion and abuse of power infringes upon the sovereignty and national security of the United States and our allies, including Israel.' The four sanctioned judges include Solomy Balungi Bossa of Uganda, Luz del Carmen Ibanez Carranza of Peru, Reine Adelaide Sophie Alapini Gansou of Benin and Beti Hohler of Slovenia. As a result of the sanctions, the judges will see their US-based property and assets blocked. US-based entities are also forbidden from engaging in transactions with them, including through the 'provision of funds, goods or services'. The ICC quickly issued a statement in response, saying it stood behind its judges and 'deplores' the Trump administration's decision. 'These measures are a clear attempt to undermine the independence of an international judicial institution which operates under the mandate from 125 States Parties from all corners of the globe,' the statement said. 'Targeting those working for accountability does nothing to help civilians trapped in conflict. It only emboldens those who believe they can act with impunity.' In a fact sheet, the State Department explained that Bossa and Ibanez Carranza were sanctioned for authorising an investigation into US troops in Afghanistan in 2020, during Trump's first term as president. Previously, the ICC had blocked a request to probe alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Afghanistan, where the US had been leading a slow-grinding war from 2001 to 2021. But it reversed course the following year, granting a prosecutor's request to investigate US forces and members of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for war crimes in 'secret detention facilities' in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Afghanistan, the court noted, was a member of the Rome Statute, which includes the 125 countries where the ICC has jurisdiction. But the Trump administration at the time blasted the court's decision, calling the ICC a 'political institution masquerading as a legal body'. It has long argued that the US, which is not party to the Rome Statute, lies outside the ICC's jurisdiction. Another country that is not a member of the Rome Statute is Israel, which has used similar arguments to reject the ICC's power over its actions in Palestine. The second pair of judges named in Thursday's sanctions — Alapini Gansou and Hohler — were sanctioned for their actions against Israeli leaders, according to the US State Department. The US is Israel's oldest ally, having been the first to recognise the country in 1948. It has since offered Israel strong support, including for its ongoing war in Gaza, which has killed an estimated 54,607 Palestinians so far. Experts at the United Nations and human rights organisations have compared Israel's military campaign in Gaza to a genocide, as reports continue to emerge of alleged human rights abuses. In November 2024, those accusations spurred the ICC to issue arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, who have both been accused of war crimes in Gaza, including intentional attacks on civilians. Alapini Gansou and Hohler reportedly took part in those proceedings. This is not the first time that the US has issued restrictions against an ICC official since Trump returned to office for a second term on January 20. Shortly after taking office, Trump issued a broad executive order threatening anyone who participates in ICC investigations with sanctions. Critics warned that such sweeping language could pervert the course of justice, for example by dissuading witnesses from coming forward with evidence. But Trump argued that the recent arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant necessitated such measures. He also claimed that the US and Israel were 'thriving democracies' that 'strictly adhere to the laws of war' and that the ICC's investigations threatened military members with 'harassment, abuse and possible arrest'. 'This malign conduct in turn threatens to infringe upon the sovereignty of the United States and undermines the critical national security and foreign policy work of the United States Government and our allies, including Israel,' the executive order said. Under that order, the US sanctioned ICC prosecutor Karim Khan, who had petitioned the court for the arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant. That, in turn, slowed the investigation into Israel's actions in Gaza, and Khan later stepped away from his role amid allegations of sexual misconduct. But Trump has a history of opposing the ICC, stretching back to his first term. In 2019, for instance, Trump announced his administration would deny or yank visas for ICC officials involved in investigating US troops in Afghanistan. Then, in 2020, he sanctioned ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and a court official named Phakiso Mochochoko for their involvement in the investigation. Those actions were later overturned under President Joe Biden. Critics, however, warn that Trump's actions could have dire consequences over the long term for the ICC, which relies on its member countries to execute orders like arrest warrants. The court itself has called for an end to the threats.


Al Jazeera
2 days ago
- Al Jazeera
US judge halts deportation of family of suspect in pro-Israel rally attack
A United States judge has temporarily blocked the deportation of family members related to a suspect accused of throwing Molotov cocktails at a pro-Israel rally in Boulder, Colorado. The ruling on Wednesday came after the administration of President Donald Trump arrested the wife of Mohamed Soliman and their five children in an effort to deport them. Judge Gordon Gallagher wrote that Soliman's wife, Hayam El Gamal, and her children cannot be removed from the country as long as his order stands. 'Moreover, the Court finds that deportation without process could work irreparable harm,' the judge said. El Gamal, who has not been charged with a crime, had filed a legal petition for her release. Soliman, meanwhile, has been charged with a federal hate crime over the attack on Sunday, which injured 12 people. It is unclear if the Trump administration has any evidence that Soliman's relatives committed wrongdoing, or if they were simply targeted for their association with him. Authorities have indicated that Soliman appears to have acted alone in the attack. Still, Trump officials signalled they would take an aggressive approach to investigating and deporting individuals they perceived to be linked to 'terrorism'. 'In light of yesterday's horrific attack, all terrorists, their family members, and terrorist sympathizers here on a visa should know that under the Trump Administration we will find you, revoke your visa, and deport you,' Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a social media post on Monday. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) confirmed on Tuesday the detention of Elgamal, her three daughters and her two sons, four of whom are minors. 'We are investigating to what extent his family knew about this heinous attack, if they had knowledge of it, or if they provided support to it,' Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said in a video posted online. 'Justice will be served.' According to DHS, Soliman and his family arrived in the US on temporary visas in 2022 before applying for asylum. Soliman's visa expired in 2023. Media reports indicate that El Gamal, meanwhile, applied for an employment visa: She has a background as a network engineer. Critics say the tactic of penalising the relatives of a criminal suspect is a form of unlawful collective punishment. In the West Bank, for instance, human rights groups have denounced Israeli operations that demolished the homes of Palestinians related to suspects in armed attacks. The attack in Colorado has been linked to Israel's war on Gaza, which United Nations experts have described as a genocide. The suspect allegedly yelled 'Free Palestine' during the fire-bombing. The Washington-backed war has also sparked other violent incidents on US soil. The incident in Colorado followed the killing of two Israeli Embassy staff members in Washington, DC, last month. In October 2023, a six-year-old Palestinian boy was stabbed to death in the Chicago area in another crime linked to the war. The 73-year-old suspect reportedly told the boy's mother that Muslims 'must die' as he attacked them. He was sentenced to 53 years after being convicted of murder and hate crimes. Weeks later, three Palestinian American students were shot and severely wounded in Vermont. The war on Gaza has killed at least 54,607 Palestinians, according to health officials.