Donald Trump’s executive order, which granted White South Africans accelerated refugee status, was presented as a humanitarian gesture. Conservative and far-right narratives in the United States and other Western nations had an impact on this order. They also claimed that the White population of South Africa was under assault, further fueled by the perception of many Afrikaners and foreign critics that the law directly threatened White landowners.
Given that right-wing White lobby groups aim to “tackle the injustices” of Black majority rule domestically, US President Donald Trump’s offer to rehouse White South Africans as refugees escaping persecution may not generate the rush he expects.
Afrikaners reject Trump’s immigration offer
The idea of mass migration to the United States was strongly opposed by the majority of Afrikaner communities and civil society groups like the Solidarity Movement and AfriForum, despite the offer. Their answers demonstrated a strong sense of loyalty to their South African roots and a desire to deal with issues domestically rather than applying for asylum overseas.
South Africa has a history of strife between its main White groups of European heritage, despite its well-known history of intense prejudice by White South Africans against Black South Africans. The Boers, who primarily arrived from Holland and later referred to themselves as Afrikaners, were the first of two major White groups to immigrate to South Africa. Then the English came, first attracted by the strategic value of the area, then by the discovery of gold and diamonds and the promise of riches they offered.
Following the discovery of gold and diamonds, these disagreements escalated into hostilities in the 1880s and, by the turn of the century, a full-scale struggle for dominance. Leading Afrikaner novelist and politician Francis Reitz penned A Century of Wrong in 1899, just as the English-Boer War in South Africa was about to start. Following the British triumph in this very brutal conflict in 1902, the two parties were able to unite to form the Union of South Africa. But the minerals remained firmly in English hands, and tensions between the two groups only subsided in 1948, over 50 years after the South African War, when the Afrikaners took full control of the government.
Trump’s new agenda from this migration policy
Trump’s gesture to South Africans came under heavy criticism from many White South Africans, who regarded it as more of a political act than a humanitarian. His detractors believe his moves were largely aimed at boosting his domestic support base among conservatives and nationalist voters in sympathy with the suffering of White South Africans but without a proper understanding of the bigger picture. South Africans were also afraid of how the United States may use such an offer to advance its foreign policy objectives. It may lead to an increase in tensions that have been witnessed between Pretoria and Washington and may become a precedent for US engagement in the country’s domestic affairs.
Even though they are much fewer in number as compared to their numbers in the apartheid era, White South Africans still carry immense economic power. The business, agricultural, and economic sectors of the nation have been vitally important to White South Africans, including Afrikaners. For most, it was not feasible or desirable to uproot and relocate to a far-off continent.
A large percentage of White South Africans have demonstrated rather resilience to survive instead of flight by forming private security firms, agricultural cooperatives, and community projects in reaction to the economic post-apartheid climate.
What will be the effect on White farmers?
One of the most frequent claims used in support of Trump’s offer was the claimed persecution of White farmers, who are often referred to by the right-wing media as “farm murders” that disproportionately target White landowners. Although it is indeed true that farmers both White and Black are more likely than average to be victims of violent crime due to their rural isolation. The crime data suggest that farm attacks are more likely a reflection of South Africa’s general crime problem rather than a calculated attempt at racial genocide.
Although farm murders have occurred, White farmers are not singled out as victims, stated South African crime statistics. While all communities are affected by the country’s rate of crime, violent crime overwhelmingly targets Black South Africans. Farm attacks, said the South African government and police, are criminal rather than race-based. However, despite this, some Conservative Western groups hold on to the belief that farm killings are a form of “White genocide.”
