Trump Prioritizes White Afrikaners Over Black and Brown Migrants
Black America Web Featured Video
CLOSE Source: Chip Somodevilla / Getty
In the latest chapter of Donald Trump's ongoing saga of selective immigration policy, the United States is reportedly gearing up to welcome 54 white Afrikaner South Africans under the Trump administration's refugee program. This move, which has drawn the attention of civil rights advocates and immigration experts, reveals a glaring double standard in how the Trump administration approaches humanitarian relief.
As Black and Brown immigrants — many of whom are fleeing violence, persecution, and poverty — face heightened barriers, Trump has fast-tracked white South Africans, citing 'unjust racial discrimination' against them in their native land. The irony is as thick as it is deliberate.
The Afrikaners, descendants of Dutch colonizers who established a brutal system of apartheid in South Africa, are being welcomed into the United States with open arms. According to an exclusive report by NPR, the group will land at Dulles Airport near Washington, D.C., greeted by high-level officials from the Departments of State and Homeland Security. This level of state-sanctioned fanfare is a sharp contrast to how refugees from countries like Haiti, the Democratic Republic of Congo, or Central America are treated; they are often detained in squalid conditions or turned away under dubious asylum restrictions.
The speed of the Afrikaners' resettlement process is nothing short of a sham. Sources within the government have acknowledged that this group received 'P1' refugee status — a designation typically reserved for individual cases referred by designated entities due to extreme vulnerability. Yet, in a span of just a few months, these 54 white South Africans have managed to bypass the lengthy and grueling process that typically takes Black and Brown asylum seekers years. According to the American Immigration Council, most refugees wait 18 to 24 months to be processed, yet these Afrikaners were cleared for entry in record time.
Why such preferential treatment?
Trump's executive order, signed in February, claimed that Afrikaners were victims of 'unjust racial discrimination' in South Africa — a narrative popular among far-right circles that portrays white South Africans as the oppressed minority. This narrative is not only misleading but fundamentally dishonest.
According to Time Magazine, white South Africans still hold 10 times the wealth of their Black counterparts. The unemployment rate for Black South Africans is a staggering 46.1%, compared to just 9.2% for white citizens. Yet Trump, along with his billionaire ally and former illegal immigrant Elon Musk, has repeatedly propagated the idea that white South Africans are being systematically oppressed.
Contrast this narrative with the reality facing Black and Brown immigrants in America under Trump's reign. Haitian immigrants have been forcibly deported despite dire conditions in their homeland. Central American migrants fleeing gang violence are treated like criminals, confined to overcrowded detention centers, and deported with little regard for due process.
And for students who dare to challenge Trump's policies or even simply hold a different political view, deportation has become a looming threat. The Department of Homeland Security has been weaponized against immigrant activists, with some facing deportation orders for daring to speak out.
Trump's favoritism towards white South Africans also highlights his administration's broader strategy of maintaining a white supremacist narrative. His administration has relentlessly targeted Black and Brown communities, both domestically and internationally.
From the family separation crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border to the Muslim travel ban, the pattern is clear: If you are Black or Brown, your humanity is negotiable. If you are white and sympathetic to Trump's vision, you are a victim in need of protection.
The Department of State has refused to comment on the expedited process for the Afrikaners, but internal documents reveal a clear preference. The Afrikaners are being placed in states like Alabama, North Carolina, Idaho, and Minnesota — regions that have historically leaned toward conservative policies, along with a few overwhelmingly Democratic states, including California and Minnesota. Some of the refugees have family ties in the U.S., while others are being resettled with the assistance of local organizations. They will receive government benefits and a pathway to citizenship, privileges often denied to asylum seekers of color.
The glaring hypocrisy of this policy is hard to ignore. As the Trump administration grants white South Africans VIP treatment, Black and Brown immigrants, many of whom have risked their lives to escape violence and poverty, are subjected to grueling interviews, indefinite detention, and mass deportations. This is not an immigration policy; it's racial favoritism, dressed up in the language of humanitarian relief.
The arrival of the Afrikaners on American soil is a symbol of everything wrong with Trump's immigration agenda. It is a stark reminder that for this administration, the value of a human life is measured not by need, but by skin color. And as long as Trump's policies continue to prioritize whiteness, America's claim to being a beacon of hope for the world's oppressed remains a cruel joke.
SEE ALSO:
Trump's Firing of Carla Hayden is Another Attack on Knowledge and History
Op-Ed: Trump Wants To Make Hollywood Great Again. Tariffs Won't Help.
SEE ALSO
Trump Prioritizes White Afrikaners Over Black and Brown Migrants was originally published on newsone.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
5 minutes ago
- UPI
Army, Trump ready June 14th birthday parade with tanks, rocket launchers
President Donald Trump congratulates a cadet at the United States Military Academy graduation ceremony in Michie Stadium at West Point, New York, on May 24, and will review the Army's 250th birthday parade on June 14. Photo by John Angelillo/UPI | License Photo June 7 (UPI) -- The U.S. Army celebrates its 250th birthday on June 14th in the nation's capital, which coincides with President Donald Trump's 79th birthday, and will be marked by a parade that may include tanks, rocket launchers and more than 100 military vehicles. With the two birthdays occurring on the same day, the previously scheduled parade that was intended as a relatively small event at the National Mall in Washington, D.C., has grown in size and cost. Up to 300 soldiers and civilians, the U.S. Army Band and four cannons were initially slated to honor the Army's 250th birthday, with seating available for 120 attendees, The Washington Post reported. U.S. Army leaders last year sought a permit for the event, but Trump's election victory has changed its scope, while doubling as an unofficial celebration of the president's birthday. Axios reported the parade will live up to Trump's request for a showcase the U.S. miliatary's might, with dozens of tanks, rocket launchers, missiles and more than 100 other military aircraft and vehicles participating. About 6,600 Army troops will participate, and the Army is paying to house them in area hotels. The parade route has been moved to the northwest portion of Constitution Avenue and will include a flyover of F-22 fighter jets, World War II planes and Vietnam-era aircraft. The event is scheduled to start at 6:30 p.m. EDT at 23rd Street and continue along Constitution Avenue N.W. to 15th Street. Trump will review the parade on the Ellipse. The event has an estimated cost of nearly $45 million, including more than $10 million for road repairs after the heavy military equipment passes over. The parade's estimated cost has Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., skeptical about its benefits. "I would have recommended against the parade," Wicker told an interviewer on Thursday, but the Department of Defense wants to use it as a recruiting tool. "On the other hand, [Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth] feels that it will be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for thousands of young Americans to see what a great opportunity it is to participate in a great military force," Wicker said. "So, we'll see."
Politico
8 minutes ago
- Politico
Negotiate or fight? Trump has colleges right where he wants them.
President Donald Trump's campaign against two of the planet's best-known universities is laying bare just how unprepared academia was to confront a hostile White House. Schools never imagined facing an administration so willing to exercise government power so quickly — targeting the research funding, tax-exempt status, foreign student enrollment and financial aid eligibility schools need to function. That's left them right where the president wants them. Even as Ivy League schools, research institutions, and college trade associations try to resist Trump's attacks in court, campus leaders are starting to accept they face only difficult choices: negotiate with the government, mount a painful legal and political fight — or simply try to stay out of sight. Groundbreaking scientific research, financial aid for lower-income students and soft power as an economic engine once shielded schools' access to federal funds. Trump has now transformed those financial lifelines into leverage. And the diversity and independence of U.S. colleges and universities — something they've seen as a source of strength and competition — is straining efforts to form a singular response to the president. 'Perhaps it's a failure of imagination on the part of universities,' said Lee Bollinger, the former president of Columbia University. 'It feels now like there has been a naïveté on the part of universities. There's been no planning for this kind of thing.' Schools are accustomed to tension with their faculty, governing boards, legislatures and governors. But punishments for resisting the Trump administration plumbed untested levels of severity this week when the president issued an executive order to bar foreign students from entering the country to study at Harvard University as his administration threatened Columbia's academic accreditation. Even though Project 2025 — The Heritage Foundation's roadmap for a second Trump administration — previewed some of the tactics the administration would use, many school leaders may have underestimated the president's determination. 'It just seemed inconceivable that we would be in this position of having massive amounts of federal funding withheld, threats to have legislation that attacks your tax status, and now these new issues with international students,' Bollinger said. A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order Thursday night that blocked Trump's directive to restrict Harvard's access to international students. But the administration is brandishing its response to Harvard's resistance as a warning to other schools who might resist, as federal officials pressure schools to negotiate the terms of a truce over the administration's complaints about campus antisemitism, foreign government influence and its opposition to diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. 'We've held back funding from Columbia, we've also done the same thing with Harvard,' Education Secretary Linda McMahon told House lawmakers this past week. 'We are asking, as Columbia has done, to come to the table for negotiations,' she said, just hours before telling the school's accreditor it was violating federal anti-discrimination laws. 'We've also asked Harvard. Their answer was a lawsuit.' A Harvard spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. 'What we've seen so far when it comes to Harvard is the playbook for holding these radical schools accountable is way deeper than anyone anticipated or expected,' a senior White House official told POLITICO. 'You're starting to get to the bone, so to speak, of holding these people accountable,' said the official, who was granted anonymity to freely discuss White House strategy. 'Harvard knows they cannot endure this for long, they just can't. They're going to have to come to the table, and we'll always be there to meet them. But this was a test case of what to do.' The university described Trump's latest foreign student order this week as 'yet another illegal retaliatory step.' A federal judge in May blocked a separate administration attempt to prevent Harvard from enrolling international students. Harvard is still locked in a legal fight over more than $2 billion in federal grants the White House blocked after the school refused to comply with demands to overhaul its admissions and disciplinary policies. Trump announced plans to cancel Harvard's tax-exempt status in early May, then later floated redistributing billions of dollars in university grants to trade schools. 'It is not our desire to bring these schools to their knees. The president reveres our higher educational facilities. He's a product of one,' the White House official said. 'But in order to hold these people accountable, we will be unrelenting in our enforcement of the law and hitting them where it hurts, which is their pocketbook.' Many institutions have chosen a more muted response following months of conflict, including major public institutions in states that have also grown reliant on the full-freight tuition paid by international students. 'Universities don't have as many degrees of freedom, at least in the public sector, as you might think they do,' said Teresa Sullivan, the former president of the University of Virginia. 'One reason they seem to be relatively slow to act is there's a certain disbelief — can this really be happening?' 'We seem to be in uncharted territory, at least in my experience,' Sullivan said. 'All of a sudden, the rules don't seem to apply. I think that's disconcerting. It shakes the ground beneath you, and you don't necessarily know what to do next.' Still, some higher education leaders are trying to confront the government. More than 650 campus officials have so far signed onto a joint statement that opposes 'the unprecedented government overreach and political interference now endangering American higher education.' Sullivan and a group of other former presidents used an op-ed in The Washington Post to argue the Trump administration's offensive 'won't be confined to Harvard University.' Trade associations including the American Council on Education, Association of American Universities, and Association of Public and Land-grant Universities have joined schools in a lawsuit to block some of Trump's research funding cuts. The Presidents' Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, a collective of school leaders, has also sued to challenge the Trump administration's attempts to target the legal status of thousands of foreign students. 'Your first obligation as president is you don't want to hurt the institution you represent,' Sullivan said of the relative silence coming from non-Ivy League institutions. 'These days it's hard to tell what hurts and what doesn't. I think that's the motive. The motive is not cowardice.' Schools still face a choice between negotiating with the government — and risk compromising on their principles — or inviting Trump's rage by putting up a fight. 'Every school has had an option to correct course and work with the administration, or stand firm in their violations of the law,' the administration official said. 'They have an option, they know very well what to do.' The real question, according to Bollinger, the former Columbia president, is how far the White House will go and how much resistance the schools are willing to put up. 'The power of government is so immense that if they want to destroy institutions, they can,' he said. 'What you do in that kind of environment is you stand on principle.'
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump says Elon Musk could face ‘serious consequences' if he backs Democrats
US President Donald Trump said he has no desire to repair his relationship with Elon Musk, and warned that his former ally and campaign benefactor could face 'serious consequences' if he tries to help Democrats in upcoming elections. Mr Trump told NBC's Kristen Welker in a phone interview that he has no plans to make up with tech entrepreneur Mr Musk. Asked specifically if he thought his relationship with the mega-billionaire chief executive of Tesla and SpaceX was over, Mr Trump responded: 'I would assume so, yeah.' 'I'm too busy doing other things,' Mr Trump continued. Alarming — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 7, 2025 'You know, I won an election in a landslide. I gave him (Mr Musk) a lot of breaks, long before this happened, I gave him breaks in my first administration, and saved his life in my first administration, I have no intention of speaking to him.' The US President also issued a warning amid speculation that Mr Musk could back Democratic legislators and candidates in the 2026 mid-term elections. 'If he does, he'll have to pay the consequences for that,' Mr Trump told NBC, though he declined to share what those consequences would be. Mr Musk's businesses have many lucrative federal contracts. The US President's latest comments suggest Mr Musk is moving from close ally to a potential new target for Mr Trump, who has aggressively wielded the powers of his office to crack down on critics and punish perceived enemies. As a major government contractor, Mr Musk's businesses could be particularly vulnerable to retribution. Mr Trump has already threatened to cut Mr Musk's contracts, calling it an easy way to save money. The dramatic rupture between the President and the world's richest man began this week with Mr Musk's public criticism of Mr Trump's 'big beautiful bill' pending on Capitol Hill. Mr Musk has warned that the bill will increase the federal deficit and called it a 'disgusting abomination'. Mr Trump criticised Mr Musk in the Oval Office, and before long, he and Mr Musk began trading bitterly personal attacks on social media, sending the White House and Republican congressional leaders scrambling to assess the fallout. As the back-and-forth intensified, Mr Musk suggested Mr Trump should be impeached and claimed without evidence that the government was concealing information about the President's association with infamous paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Mr Musk appeared by Saturday morning to have deleted his posts about Epstein. In an interview, US vice president JD Vance tried to downplay the feud. He said Mr Musk was making a 'huge mistake' going after Mr Trump, but called him an 'emotional guy' who was becoming frustrated. 'I hope that eventually Elon comes back into the fold. Maybe that's not possible now because he's gone so nuclear,' Mr Vance said. Mr Vance called Mr Musk an 'incredible entrepreneur,' and said that Mr Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which sought to cut US government spending and laid off or pushed out thousands of workers, was 'really good'. Mr Vance made the comments in an interview with 'manosphere' comedian Theo Von, who last month joked about snorting drugs off a mixed-race baby and the sexuality of men in the US Navy when he opened for Mr Trump at a military base in Qatar. The Vance interview was taped on Thursday as Musk's posts were unfurling on X, the social media network the billionaire owns. During the interview, Mr Von showed the vice president Mr Musk's claim that Mr Trump's administration has not released all the records related to Epstein because Mr Trump is mentioned in them. Vice President Vance on what it's like to be Trump's VP: 'It is my job, obviously, to provide the President honest counsel…he talks to everybody. I think it's why he's in touch with normal people.' — Vice President JD Vance (@VP) June 7, 2025 Mr Vance responded to that, saying: 'Absolutely not. Donald Trump didn't do anything wrong with Jeffrey Epstein.' 'This stuff is just not helpful,' Mr Vance said in response to another post shared by Mr Musk calling for Mr Trump to be impeached and replaced with Mr Vance. 'It's totally insane. The President is doing a good job.' Vance also defended the bill that has drawn Mr Musk's ire, and said its central goal was not to cut spending but to extend the 2017 tax cuts approved in Mr Trump's first term. The bill would slash spending and taxes but also leave some 10.9 million more people without health insurance and spike deficits by 2.4 trillion dollars (£1.77 trillion) over the decade, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. 'It's a good bill,' Mr Vance said. 'It's not a perfect bill.'
