Afrikaners relocating to US could lose their refugee status should they decide to return to SA
JOHANNESBURG - Nearly 50 Afrikaners headed to the United States (US) as refugees stand to lose their status should they decide to return to South Africa.
The Department of International Relations said a group of 49 white Afrikaaners en route to America under a controversial resettlement programme could jeopardise their refugee protections if they try to come back.
ALSO READ: SA transport officials detail flight plan for aircraft carrying 49 Afrikaners relocating to US
The group is travelling under US President Donald Trump's executive order, which gives special entry to white South Africans claiming persecution, despite widespread rejection of the claim by the South African government.
Their flight is set to land at Dulles Airport outside Washington, DC. What happens after that, including where they'll live and what support they receive, is entirely up to the US government.
Their refugee applications, like all others, are handled confidentially, and South African officials said they've had no hand in the process.
But the legal implications back home are significant.
Diplomatic protections fall away, and while section 20 of the Constitution guarantees that 'no citizen may be deprived of citizenship,' returning under false claims could lead to court challenges over fraud or misrepresentation.
Department of International Relations spokesperson Chrispin Phiri said refugee status isn't a revolving door.
'You really can't have your cake and eat it. You cannot go to the US on migration and economic interest and suddenly decide, 'I miss South African weather in December, I would like to have a braai with my friends in Pretoria,' and come back. No, it does not work like that. That is something you have to forgo.'
For now, the first cohort of those fleeing what the government calls a false narrative of persecution is on its way, with more expected to follow in the coming weeks.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
3 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
National Dialogue — Promising concept or an illusion of progress for SA?
President Cyril Ramaphosa's announcement on Tuesday night of a National Convention to start a National Dialogue is clearly meant to get South Africans talking to each other about solving our problems. Be careful what you wish for. At face value the concept of a national dialogue has much to recommend it. We are clearly in deep trouble, and many of our problems appear to be getting worse. The national coalition government appears to have made little progress, our economy is barely stuttering, and the number of people who are unemployed, or under-employed, continues to rise no matter how you define it. And of course, as President Cyril Ramaphosa pointed out, there is our history of a negotiated settlement that ended apartheid. A settlement that is still blamed today for some of our serious problems. All of that said, there are some important questions to ask about the wisdom of this idea. Firstly, very few leaders give up any power voluntarily. Ramaphosa, as leader of the ANC, is appearing to give the impression that the ANC will accept whatever settlement is reached through this process. But at the same time, the ANC will not, easily at least, be able to veto any settlement. This is hugely significant. For the conspiratorially minded, it may even suggest that he has accepted that the ANC will never actually have a large amount of state power again. For some, it could even suggest he has very little faith in whoever will replace him as leader of the ANC. And it certainly reminds us that he has failed to enact a new 'social compact', something he has promised since before he was even elected leader of the ANC. Different agenda However, Ramaphosa might actually have a slightly different agenda. Calls for this national dialogue have been growing for several years. For a long time people called for an 'Economic Codesa', to allow different role players in the economy to sit down and work out how to grow our economy. The person who has been the loudest in his calls for this event is former president Thabo Mbeki. It is interesting then that his foundation, and the foundations of other former presidents, have not been included in the list of people who are supposed to be guiding the process. It must be said that including Mbeki, in any form, is unlikely to be constructive. He has shown that he appears focused on protecting his own legacy. His conduct in the case of the Cradock Four families, in which he opposed an inquiry into the non-prosecution of those denied amnesty by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, suggests a very personal motivation. To claim that his character is ' priceless ' in the face of questions from the families about why the government he led did not prosecute those who killed their fathers and husbands appears to defy rationality. The sheer number of people involved is also interesting. Thirty-one people are included on Ramaphosa's Eminent Persons Group from the most incredibly diverse role is to guide and champion the National Dialogue. While there are business leaders and unionists (none of them are current, but they include Bobby Godsell and Bheki Ntshalintshali) there is also a rugby captain (you know the one), a mountaineer (Sibusiso Vilane), a rocket scientist, a storyteller, the chair of the National Planning Commission (Professor Tinyiko Maluleke), both Bishop Barnabas Lekganyane and Bishop Engenas Lekganyane (representing different strands of the Zion Christian Church), one Anglican Archbishop, an actor (John Kani), a football coach (Desiree Ellis) a former Constitutional Court Judge (Edwin Cameron) and Miss South Africa (Mia le Roux may in fact be there not to represent beauty pageant winners, but as a person who grew up deaf, representing people living with disabilities). While there is much wisdom on this list, it is also not clear what value some others may bring. Impossible position And they have now been placed in an impossible position. It would be hard to say no to the Presidency, and yet now they are going to be asked questions about their views on our politics. Someone like Siya Kolisi, almost universally respected, may find this hugely uncomfortable. Like singers and actors who have made political comments, he has no experience in making trade-offs and has no constituency to protect. Now they will be thrust into the harsh glare of our political spotlight. But this list is also curious because of who is left out. Some ancient schisms, such as that in the Zion Christian Church, are recognised, while others, such as that in the Christian church, are not. There is an Anglican representative but not a Catholic one. Perhaps more importantly, no one appears to represent that most under-represented group in our politics, those who have no job and no income. This gets to the heart of one of our economic problems: organised groups that represent people who are unemployed, such as the Unemployed Peoples Movement, are often left out of the conversation and thus they have very little voice in our society. Huge omission That said, it is a huge omission. It should also be noted that the sheer size of this committee may in fact be an attempt to make sure that nothing is done, that no agreement is reached on anything. This might well be the ruse of an experienced politician, who knows that putting so many people in a room, from so many different parts of our society, will simply result in endless arguments. Technically, this is supposed to result in a bottom-up approach, where people will be given the chance to speak in different parts of the country. On paper, this is inherently democratic. In practice, it can lead to undemocratic outcomes, as the most organised and the loudest voices can overwhelm the debate. And our institutions have shown time and time again that public consultation can be ignored. For years energy regulator Nersa has held public hearings before deciding whether to increase electricity prices. Despite so many people publicly opposing tariff increases, power prices have risen by more than 653% since 2007 (inflation during that time was 129%). Economic reality The reason Nersa did that, despite hearing from so many people who opposed it, was because of economic reality. Eskom needed the money. Public consultation is very often about hearing what people want. Making decisions is about what is possible. Nersa has understood that (Eskom has often complained it has not increased prices enough) and thus had to ignore the public comments. This is why bodies like Nersa are given legal authority to make decisions. They can force people to accept the outcome. This process will have nothing like that. It is also a fallacy to think that getting people in a room together will result in them getting closer. Yes, it can happen. But it can also lead to heightened tensions. During the Codesa talks, the stakes were so incredibly high that very few people were prepared to use violence. The one group that was, the right-wing AWB, eventually used an armoured car to disrupt the talks. But their support was tiny and measured in the hundreds. There are now people in our society who publicly oppose our Constitution and have used violence in the past. One of them, Jacob Zuma, won the support of nearly 2.3 million people in last year's election. He will surely demand to be a part of this process. Incentive Also, before 1994 all of the parties involved knew there would be an election after the process. As a result there was an incentive to appear to be constructive. No such incentive will be present in this situation. Currently, one of the great divides in our politics is between parties and constituencies that support the Constitution, and parties and constituencies that don't. This process of a National Dialogue risks giving those who oppose the Constitution, in all sorts of ways, a much louder voice. Imagine, for example, the separatist voices in our society, those who want independence for the Zulu Kingdom, or those who identify as Afrikaners, or who believe the Western Cape really is different to Mzansi, working together to dominate the process. Also, considering how our politics is in the process of fracturing, creating more parties representing more diverse constituencies, the result could just be a cacophony of voices, making it difficult to come to any conclusion at all. It is true that South Africa is in a difficult, and sometimes dangerous position. As Ramaphosa himself said, in his eulogy for Winnie Madikizela-Mandela in 2018: 'We must acknowledge that we are a society that is hurting, damaged by our past, numbed by our present and hesitant about our future.' He was entirely correct. The history of South Africa, so violent and oppressive, has created deep scars. And thus deep tensions. Sometimes our society can almost look like the most complicated knot of different types of string. When you pull it, you might be able to make sense of it all. Maybe.
Daily Maverick
3 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
‘This is about growth' — fiscal framework sails through National Assembly
The 2025 fiscal framework and revenue proposals were adopted by both Houses of Parliament on Wednesday, nearly four months after the first planned attempt to table a Budget. Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana says it's now up to MPs to exercise their oversight and make sure the Budget is spent correctly. After a protracted process, South Africa is one step closer to finally passing a Budget after both Houses of Parliament approved the fiscal framework on Wednesday — but not without the usual party political jabs. Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana told the sitting, 'We have had a painful journey to arrive at this date, where the fiscal framework is being approved. It has been a painful journey. Definitely, from the [perspective of the National Treasury] we have drawn a number of lessons. 'But I suspect, also members of this House must draw a number of lessons as to how in practice we are going to manage the debates around the fiscal framework moving forward.' Godongwana said it was up to MPs to ensure the Budget was spent correctly. 'You can't fault this Budget — if it's not spent properly, that's your duty as members of Parliament to do your oversight,' he said. He was responding directly to a point made by National Coloured Congress MP Fadiel Adams about allocations within the Budget and how they could be spent. 'That should be the concern of this moment,' said Godongwana, who, since February, had attempted to pass a Budget. On Wednesday, 268 MPs voted in favour of the fiscal framework, while 88 were against it and two abstained. The ANC and the DA voted in favour of it. The MK party and the EFF voted against it, while Build One South Africa (Bosa) abstained from voting. Bosa's deputy leader, MP Nobuntu Hlazo-Webster, said the party had abstained because it was 'not a Budget that we can support. 'It's a Budget that is still not a good Budget in any way. It is still a Budget that ultimately punishes South Africans for the sins of the ANC,' she said. 'We absolutely want to see more catalysts for economic growth in the Budget… We gave alternatives — we proposed alternatives — that could look different for income generation for the state versus actually burdening South Africans further.' Hlazo-Webster said the National Treasury had not considered any of Bosa's proposals on income generation in the Budget. 'Ultimately, what this means is that the ANC's not listening to the people,' she said. 'This is still a very tax-heavy Budget, it's a stagnant budget. It's a Budget that doesn't speak to how [to] grow South Africa's economy. 'Shared vision of cooperation' The fiscal framework is a key step in the budgeting process; it establishes economic policy and revenue projections and sets the overall limits to government spending. This report must be adopted within 16 days from when Godongwana tables the Budget. The next phase in the budgeting process is the passing of various Bills, including the consideration and adoption of the Division of Revenue Bill and the Appropriation Bill. The ANC and the DA found common ground in Parliament's Standing Committee on Finance last week, both voting for the committee to adopt the framework report, Daily Maverick reported. Only the EFF and MK party rejected the report. When asked whether the ANC and DA — South Africa's two biggest parties — had now found each other after their previous public disagreements over the Budget, DA spokesperson Karabo Khakhau said: 'We've always maintained if we're agreeing on something and we're getting along and there is a shared vision of cooperation, then it would be easy for us to be able to pass through hurdles like the one of the fiscal framework now. 'The point of contention in the past that we've had, we've been able to deal with, so that's why there's a more open approach towards engagements, and that's what we've always wanted.' Khakhau said the party had wanted to see that issues of waste expenditure, ghost employees and infrastructure investment were being addressed. 'At the heart of why the DA is in the GNU is to make sure that we're able to grow the economy to alleviate poverty and make sure that people have jobs,' she said. Politics across the aisle On Wednesday, politics did not stop as the framework was passed, and the National Assembly Speaker, Thoko Didiza, had to call several MPs and political parties to order during the discussion. A loud cheer of 'weekend special' was heard from the ANC caucus when MK party spokesperson on finance, Des van Rooyen, spoke — in reference to his weekend stint as finance minister. When the Patriotic Alliance's Ashley Sauls spoke in favour of the report, MK party and Economic Freedom Fighters MPs shouted 'Free Palestine' in reference to the party visiting Israel for a ' fact-finding ' mission amidst Israel's ongoing assault on Gaza. ActionSA's Alan Beesley said he was 'proud' of the role his party played in the VAT hike reversal. From the DA seats, one MP shouted: 'No deal this time around, Beesley'. The EFF also tried to claim victory for the reversal. DM
Daily Maverick
3 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Loaded for Bear: African Parks has disgracefully sent more SA rhinos to repressive Rwanda
Much of Africa's wildlife lies within the borders of states with questionable governance or human rights records. But some lines can be drawn in the sand. The Kigali regime stands out for the sheer scale of its repression and the regional instability it has unleashed. Many conservation groups in Africa have a human rights problem. Pointedly, they often stand accused of being more concerned about the plight of Africa's animals than that of its people. This perception has been further entrenched by African Parks' announcement this week that it has just translocated another 70 white rhinos from South Africa to Rwanda – a sinister state that has been credibly linked to the killing of dissidents on South African soil. When African Parks, a Johannesburg-based NGO, announced in 2021 that it had relocated 30 white rhinos to Rwanda's Akagera National Park, I criticised it at the time in this publication, noting that those rhinos would be safer than the country's dissidents. That observation still holds and, if anything, Rwanda under the autocratic rule of Paul Kagame has become even more of a pariah state with its documented support for the M23 rebels in neighbouring DRC. The diabolical nature of the Rwandan regime under Kagame has been clinically dissected in veteran journalist Michela Wrong's troubling 2021 book, Do Not Disturb: The Story of a Political Murder and an African Regime Gone Bad. 'Do Not Disturb' was the sign placed on the room door at the posh Sandton Hotel where Patrick Karegeya, once Rwanda's head of external intelligence, was found murdered more than a decade ago. But what's the murder of a dissident or two or three – or a dozen for that matter – between friends? African Parks sees no issue with shaking hands with the devil if it advances its conservation agenda – which is disturbing. 'In 2021, African Parks moved 30 southern white rhinos to Akagera National Park. This initial population has increased to 41 animals today. Building on this success, the additional 70 animals will now play a crucial role in ensuring the presence of meta-populations across the continent, presenting opportunities for future range expansion,' African Parks said. It's all about the animals! It's like African Parks is living in a bubble, completely disconnected from the odious nature of the state it has chosen as a conservation partner. But that's perhaps not surprising, given the NGO's track record elsewhere in Africa. Last month it acknowledged that some of its eco-rangers had committed human rights abuses against the Baka community in Odzala-Kokoua National Park, Republic of Congo, based on the findings of an independent investigation it had commissioned to probe the allegations. 'African Parks acknowledges that, in some incidents, human rights abuses have occurred, and we deeply regret the pain and suffering caused to the victims. There is no place for any form of abuse in the name of conservation,' it said. There may be 'no place' for this kind of abuse 'in the name of conservation'. But if the state you have chosen to host a rhino conservation project is a serial human rights abuser, there is nothing to see here, folks. The rhinos will be fine! What will grab the headlines is that this is the largest translocation of its kind. African Parks has also been involved in a previous megafauna translocation which was billed as the 'largest of its kind'. In July 2022, 263 elephants were moved from Liwonde National Park in southern Malawi to Kasungu National Park, which borders Zambia along a frontier which has no fence. African Parks has since distanced itself from this project, but it certainly claimed some of the credit at the time. As I reported from the Zambian side of the park in 2024, this misconceived translocation has transformed the landscape into one of fear and loathing for the poor rural people who live there. Human-wildlife conflict is raging there, with a mounting death toll among both people and elephants. The big critters that have just been moved to Rwanda come from the 2,000-strong herd that African Parks bought in 2023 from rhino tycoon John Hume. Largely because of the efforts of the private sector, South Africa has enough rhinos for 'rewilding' efforts elsewhere, which broadly aim to restore wildlife populations to former ranges. Rwanda, by the way, is not a former white rhino range state. It is indeed the case that much of Africa's wildlife lies within the borders of states with questionable governance or human rights records. I recently covered first-hand the translocation of South African cheetahs to Mozambique, where last year's elections were hotly disputed, sparking nationwide protests. And let's face it, the ruling Frelimo party has followed other African liberation movements down the well-trodden path of corruption and misrule. But some lines can be drawn in the sand. Mountain gorillas, for example, are only found in Rwanda and neighbouring Uganda and the DRC, and so conservation efforts for this species need to be focused in those countries, regardless of the governments in power. That is not the case with white rhinos. There are plenty of other African countries where they can be translocated to and protected. The Kigali government stands out for the sheer scale of its repression and the regional instability it has unleashed. And Kagame has an instinctive understanding of what is important to the West. The rhino project comes with the prestige he craves, adding another layer of legitimacy to his regime – which does keep the streets of Kigali clean. Kagame got 99% of the vote in Rwanda's 2024 elections and unlike in Mozambique, no one was going to raise an eyebrow about that result, let alone lead a protest in the streets.
