First Group of White South Africans Depart for US Under Trump Admin's Refugee Plan
About 49 Afrikaners—a white ethnic minority in South Africa—boarded a chartered flight bound for the District of Columbia, which will then fly to Texas, South African Transport Department spokesperson Collen Msibi said.
'One of the conditions of the permit was to ensure that they were vetted in case one of them has a criminal issue pending,' Msibi was quoted as saying by Reuters.
The Epoch Times has reached out to the State Department for comment but did not receive a response by publication time.
This marked the first group of Afrikaners relocated to the United States under a refugee admissions program initiated under President Donald Trump's Feb. 7 executive
That executive order was issued after South African President Cyril Ramaphosa
Related Stories
3/17/2025
3/7/2025
The nation's government noted that special conditions must be met before expropriating land, including that it has had longtime informal occupants, is unused and owned purely for speculation, or was left abandoned.
In his executive order, Trump stated that Ramaphosa's government has imposed countless policies 'designed to dismantle equal opportunity in employment, education, and business, and hateful rhetoric and government actions fueling disproportionate violence against racially disfavored landowners.'
South Africa's government has rejected the claims and called Washington's move to resettle South Africans as refugees 'entirely politically motivated.'
'We reiterate that allegations of discrimination are unfounded,' it
However, the South African government said that it will not block departures of citizens who seek to leave the country, provided they comply with domestic laws.
Speaking to reporters on May 9, White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller
'What was happening in South Africa fits the textbook definition of why the refugee program was created,' Miller said. 'This is persecution based on a protected characteristic. In this case, race.'
Trump
The White House
Reuters and Jacob Burg contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump: 'I Would Walk' if Talks Don't Go Well
President Trump told Fox News he would walk away from the Alaska summit if the peace negotiations with Russian President Vladimir Putin don't go well. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Chicago Tribune
28 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Letters to the Editor: Only smart move is for Naperville to extend IMEA contract; Trump's tariffs on India amount to bullying a friend
The Naperville City Council is facing a critical deadline Tuesday when it must decide whether to renew or reject a contract extension with the Illinois Municipal Electricity Agency to be the city's energy supply for another 20 years. IMEA is the nonprofit organization with which Naperville and 31 other communities have partnered for many years. If the amended contract is ratified, Naperville will secure a stable and affordable electric supply for future years. If rejected, it will be necessary for the city to purchase electricity on the open market from companies driven by profit. This will undoubtedly result in significantly higher prices, especially if only zero carbon options are chosen. The rush to zero carbon premium energy is shortsighted because IMEA power plants will continue to operate for the community members that renew the contract. IMEA opponents will not shut down the coal power plants but they will burden Naperville with runaway electric costs. Naperville also will forfeit the accumulated power plant bond payments estimated at $650 million to date and give up the reduced electric rates that will result from the construction bonds paid off by 2035. A provision option tied to the extended contract allows Naperville to utilize the Member Directed Resource (MDR) to purchase 26% of its energy from zero carbon suppliers. In addition, this provision can be 'moved forward' immediately into the current contract. This is an opportunity to supplement the current energy profile with 26% of zero carbon sourcing. The uncertainty of green energy capacity, rising electric demand due to expanding AI centers and higher projected green energy costs create a very volatile market. This can all be avoided by re-signing with the IMEA, an action that will keep costs stable, provide a consistent electric supply and avoid spot market chaos by dealing with power marketers offering profit-motivated electric supply options. I encourage the Naperville City Council to approve the IMEA contract extension so we can maintain a reliable power grid and provide fiscally responsible costs for residents while transitioning toward greener energy options.U.S. President Donald Trump's additional 25% tariff on India for buying Russian oil brings the total tariff amount to 50%. But the fact is the United States also did about $3.5 billion worth of trade with Russia in 2024. How is this not helping Russia fund its war in Ukraine? With Trump's tariffs, the price of generic medicines, clothes and food from India will increase in America. How will small businesses in both countries survive such high tariffs? Trump is not putting additional tariffs on China for buying Russian oil because he does not want to strain relations with China. Then why is Trump doing it with India? India and the U.S. have been allies since President George Washington's time. Trump has said that India is friends with the United States. So then why is he being a bully to India?
The Hill
28 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trade deals don't make Trump's emergency tariffs legal
President Trump has taken an expansive view of his authority to levy tariffs in his second term trade war with nearly every U.S. trading partner. Calling on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the Trump administration has imposed tariffs at rates not seen since the 1930s, claiming to address a national emergency caused by fentanyl trafficked across the border and persistent trade deficits. Defending those actions, on Monday, Trump's Justice Department entered an extraordinary letter into the tariff litigation now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which will soon issue a ruling. That letter points to a recurrent theme in Trump's trade approach, a weak legal foundation for his actions papered over with an even more flimsy rationale for preserving it. The letter from Solicitor General D. John Sauer and Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate claims that President Trump's July announcement of 'the largest trade agreement in history' with the European Union, plus other recent deals with Indonesia, the Philippines, Japan and the United Kingdom, proved the tariffs should stay in place. That argument might make for a good press release. But in a court of law, it's entirely beside the point. The central question before the court isn't whether the president's tariffs have produced diplomatic headlines (even though they don't amount to much). It's whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act gives the president the authority to impose them in the first place. Congress passed the act to give presidents a way to address genuine national emergencies, things like hostile foreign actions, espionage or terrorism — not as a catch-all to impose peacetime tariffs whenever it might create negotiating leverage. In fact, the U.S. Court of International Trade, whose decision to vacate Trump's tariffs is now under appeal, held that the government's argument for using tariffs to 'pressure' countries to address the proclaimed emergencies 'does not comfortably meet the statutory definition of 'dealing with' the cited emergency.' It reached that stance because the argument would allow the president 'to take whatever actions he chooses simply by declaring them 'pressure' or 'leverage' tactics' to extract concessions unconnected to the declared threat. The Justice Department continues to push for an expansive reading of the president's authority to levy tariffs. But the letter takes this a step further. It offers a string of doomsday predictions: Without international emergency powers tariffs, 'trillions of dollars' from other countries won't be paid, the U.S. could see a '1929-style result,' millions might lose their homes and jobs, even Social Security and Medicare could be 'threatened.' That's not legal analysis. It's fearmongering. And it's untethered from any evidence in the record. Most of the so-called deals are not even written down, or available to review. Of the announcements made on the content of those deals, serious questions have been raised about the level of commitments, and their durability. Furthermore, the promised investment may not even be possible, and contradict the president's goal of lowering the trade deficit, which is central to his actions under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. It also contradicts the Justice Department's previous arguments for a stay of the lower court's ruling, claiming that the government could refund the tariffs if it lost the appeal. Even if the deals the president cites were, in fact, secured because of these tariffs, it still wouldn't make them legal. You don't get to break the law to make a deal, then point to the deal as proof the law should bend to fit your actions. That's bootstrapping, plain and simple. Nor is it true that the U.S. has no other trade tools at its disposal. There are various other trade authorities that the president could lean on. The president could also negotiate actual trade agreements with the support of Congress. The irony is that the Justice Department's own letter inadvertently proves the critics' point. If the president believes these tariffs are so essential, he should ask Congress for the authority to impose them. That's how the separation of powers works. In the meantime, the courts are there to ensure that even the most popular, politically expedient or 'powerful' policy stays within legal bounds. Tariffs based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act were never legal. No amount of retroactive dealmaking can change that. Grasping at straws for a new rationale for Trump's self-inflicted tariff wound adds insult to that injury. The Court of Appeals should not be swayed by this desperate appeal. A clear and decisive ruling against the tariffs is necessary to stop further abuses of executive authority on trade, otherwise, this version of 'emergency powers' will become the new normal in U.S. trade law, and Americans will pay the price, not just in their wallets.
