Last week, a group of white Afrikaners set foot in the United States. They arrived looking for protection under an asylum promise that was extended to them by former President Donald Trump. This development has spurred fierce debate. Lawmakers and advocacy groups have been particularly concerned about its effects on the U.S. asylum system.
As soon as they landed, the white Afrikaners started opening their homes to claim their portion of what Trump was promising. Asylum seekers They are escaping these same socio-political issues in South Africa, where they say they are victimized and threatened. The Trump administration went in the opposite direction by granting them asylum status, a move that has faced blistering criticism from all sides.
U.S. Senate Appropriations Vice Chair Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) expressed his outrage at the administration’s maneuvering. He criticized it for “making a mockery” of the U.S. refugee program. He highlighted the shocking lack of support—the contrast between white Afrikaners and those fleeing countries like war-torn Sudan. In the midst of their new, dangerous realities, these refugees are being rejected. This message from Van Hollen underscores a growing concern. Many argue that the asylum system is biased in favor of applicants from some races and nationalities over others.
The U.S. refugee process is under examination. The choice to grant asylum to the Afrikaners has raised doubts about the fairness and integrity of the decision. Here’s what critics say about the administration’s decision and the systemic inequalities it uncovered in the asylum framework. They’re particularly worried about how it prioritizes people in dire need from war zones such as Ukraine. The crisis has reopened a difficult but necessary national conversation on lifesaving asylum. We’re cutting each other off, arguing with one another about who really deserves to be protected.
In defense of its decision to cut the program the Trump administration pointed to its goal of protecting those with a true fear of persecution. The double standard between white Afrikaners and everyone else who has been oppressed and dispossessed raises major questions of conscience. Advocates for refugees require the U.S. to commit to a permanent, transparent process. Their instinct is to say we need to put humanitarian needs first—regardless of race, color or nationality.
In the meantime, as this important controversy plays out, it’s an open question how this decision will affect the disposition of asylum cases going forward. The effects on existing and future refugees could be far-reaching. This is particularly urgent as the U.S. continues to chart its future course in global humanitarian leadership.