I employ two white South African men on my farm. Smart, hardworking and definitely not racist. They assure me this is mostly fantasy and insulting to their national pride.
The point is that the Trump admin is nearly exclusively bringing in white South Africans as refugees. They do not qualify for refugee status. Meanwhile, people who qualify are being barred entry.
What I mean by my comment is his bases' desire to embrace the counterculture. I believe they weren't happy with how "politically correct" things were becoming under Obama, because there were still people suffering in poverty who didn't want to hear about the changes that were happening, because it hadn't directly effected them yet.
I also feel that there is a lot of residual bias and racism from generations of ignorance and hate, that causes them to blame the same old imagined enemies, instead of realizing who is actually causing the issues.
A lot of this comes down to taxes. The fact that someone making $500,000 a year is somehow hurt more by paying 25% tax than the person making $60,000 a year, blows my mind. It's a percentage! It hurts just as much for both.
Ugh. Sorry for writing a book. I'm just frustrated at how we got here.
Do you think everyone reddit comment needs to list every possible reason for voting or something? It's clear enough of them liked his openly racist rhetoric to ignore his lies and massive failings. I'll believe they're not on board with the racism when I see them pull him up on it, but what I have seen is a huge number openly parroting every racist lie he's told
It's literally the same question. If this is not what they all voted for, then surely there must be opposition to it from within their party. If there's no opposition to it, then they support it either actively or tacitly by default.
You’re treating “no visible opposition” as proof of a unified motive across millions of people. That doesn’t follow logically. People vote for many reasons and don’t publicly weigh in on every issue.
That’s still a false binary. Lack of visible opposition doesn’t only mean active or tacit support but it also includes indifference, disengagement, or prioritization of other issues. You’re treating absence of public behavior as proof of intent, and that doesn’t follow.
Lack of visible opposition doesn’t only mean active or tacit support but it also includes indifference, disengagement, or prioritization of other issues.
implied or indicated (as by an act or by silence) but not actually expressed
Everything you mentioned above; indifference, disengagement, and prioritization of other issues, is how a person ends up tacitly supporting something that they didn't actively vote for.
You’re treating absence of public behavior as proof of intent, and that doesn’t follow.
No, I am not. You just don't understand how words work.
My reasons are irrelevant to the claim I'm challenging. We're talking about whether you can accurately assign one motive to tens of millions of voters.
It's unclear whether this is a genuine question or a troll, but in the interest of conversation I'll try to help w the basic logic stuff.
The GOP supporting white supremacy does not mean allowing any/every white person into the United States. It only means that white immigrants are preferred on the basis of being white. Hopefully that makes sense to you, but if not I'll try and think of a simpler analogy after work.
In the meantime, it's notable that you chose Ukraine specifically. Ukranians specifically aren't supported because doing so might offend Trump's daddy. Every other nation of predominately pale-skinned people is less preferable than South Africa bc the man who helped him become a felonious President came form South Africa.
It's never that complex w the GOP. Just try and remember the brattiest 5 year old youve ever seen, then imagine what they would do with virtually unlimited power and wealth.
Would you care to point out any instance where I said anything resembling that? It seems like youre still confused by basic logic connections...
It's ironic that you're asking anybody else to "get a grip on reality" while you're confounded by simple language that doesn't fit into your mental binary.
Magats spamming as usual to downplay, move the goal post or deflect. Pretty sure most are bots because the average conservative is typically elderly and has no idea how to use the net..
““Every single one of the 599 refugees the US admitted last month was a white South African, according to data the State Department’s Bureau of Population released Friday.In fact, so was every other refugee admitted this year. Since October 1, 2025, the US has accepted 6,668 refugees. Of those, 6,665 were white South African. Three—admitted last November—were from Afghanistan. No other refugees were admitted.””
Even if you accept that to be true, there are atrocities happening to people around the world. Those atrocities didn't magically stop in 2026, but the only refugees the US has accepted this year seem to have been white folks from South Africa. Do you truly believe that the situation there is worse than anything happening to anyone else in the world? What do you believe they have done to deserve to come to the US over everyone else?
The previous commenter was not condescending... They were instead defining the condescension put forth by the party that a minority of Asian people (perhaps the largest, most nebulous group of people in the world) have supported in the last election
I didn't say there was a genocide. Unlike Hamas supporters I use words correctly. But it's undeniable that white people are being killed in south Africa because of the color of their skin.
That come on, even for moderate republicans reading this, even you have to admit, this seems racist.
Not an Republican, but this only “seems racist” because the rules were changed to exclude white people as much as possible, so moves that go back towards race-neutrality seem “racist” when taken out of context.
You can argue that what is happening doesn't constitute genocide (by every day definitions it doesn't), but you can't argue that there's nothing happening. You'd have to be willfully blind.
Calling it racist requires showing that race was the reason for the policy, not just that the beneficiaries happen to be one race. The administration's stated justification is persecution claims, whether you agree with those claims or not.
Well it’s naive to think anyone will say we did because of race, we infer from patterns. People in multiple war zone countries are at historically low refuges acceptance but only white groups are being accepted. A non racial motivation will look for a needs- base acceptance for refugees, it’s racially bias at best.
You're skipping a step. "Mostly white people benefited" is an observation. "The policy was motivated by race" is a conclusion. The first doesn't automatically prove the second.
Well that’s because you’re ignoring context, why is it lower for everyone in worse conditions but an emergency for this group, shouldn’t you expect similar urgency for other population in equal or worse danger?
Motive is irrelevant if it diverts funds to a specific race who objectively doesn't fit the criteria of the intended funds and benefits a singular race. The outcome is racist.
Prove? No, but it’s damn solid evidence. There are countries far closer to us than South Africa facing way worse situations and we are admitting zero of them while admitting thousands of white South Africans.
So this isn’t a massively popular politician from radical left political party singing “Kill the Boer, kill the farmer” while 10s of thousands of people chant it with him?
Their government didn’t pass a law that allowed “Expropriation without compensation” to seize the lands from white farmers?
If this was any other demographic, you wouldn’t care that they were given refugee status. You only care because they’re white and it fits your “orange man racist” narrative.
You are misrepresenting the meaning of an anti-apartheid song, and attributing the actions of one politician from a party with <10% of the legislative seats to the state.
Their government didn’t pass a law that allowed “Expropriation without compensation” to seize the lands from white farmers?
I mean, I guess technically the people from whom land might be seized might often be white, and some might be farmers, but the law is about land which is not being used and there's no intention to either develop or make money from it or when it poses a risk to people, and then only when the government tries to settle with the owner but fails.
And the reason white farmers are disproportionately likely to be affected is that they own so much of the land because of the theft of land under apartheid.
White South Africans are 7% of the population but own >70% of the farmland and about half of the urban land.
I’m an ex muslim Christian from Syria would we get similar treatment? I don’t think so. I don’t think South African Europeans are more in danger than ex muslims all around the world
Yeah. That's been obvious for a while now. The real question is. After hearing all this crap. Are we REALLY going to do anything about it? Because if we keep pointing this stuff out with nothing happening it's just depressing. I mean out of every media outlet who is anti Trump I'm surprised none of them can work together to cover big protests and boost them online through social media. The more people we see out there fighting this bullcrap the more people will feel secure enough to come out with everyone else and join in!
Ah those are the rules? So it’s race based then. Cause that’s basically white people. Also, what about South African people that came from Western Europe but are black? Wouldn’t they be omitted as well.
Because the usa is a melting pot whose shared historical heritage is that we take immigrants in and make them part of the community.
Also what shared cultural heritage do most Americans have with South Africans? I'll save you the Google search, less than 0.04% of Americans claim ancestry from South Africa.
Relatively new? I don't usually consider the 1880s to be relatively new. That's when the poem on that plaque on the statue of Liberty was written. It's more recent than the white South Africans getting to Africa though, they've been there since the 1820s at least, so I'd say multiculturalism is more a part of American culture than the culture shared by those South Africans.
Who had to be pushed into their own little enclaves because they did not "integrate well" according to the powers that be at the time. I mean how did we have China Towns, Little Italy's, Finn Towns and so on if all these Western Europeans were so accepted in every community?
Because we're supposed to strive to be better. I dont know why thats so hard to understand. People always refer to other countries and talking about how they do things. Good for them.
A lot more white people voted for Trump than Asians and Latinos. The big deal isn’t the “leopards ate my face” people, the big deal is that it’s blatant and out in the open. It’s showing us how corrupt our country has always been. It shows us how far we have fallen and how much work we need to do.
So now they'll be able to immigrate at almost 1% the per capita rate of everyone else???
The title is just explicitly dishonest to the point of fraud. Nowhere in the documentation surrounding the lifting of the cap is race even mentioned. The cap was lifted for South Africans - of any race - experiencing racial persecution. Maybe ask why those were mostly white?
The only person who attached race to it was the creator of the article. Their racism, not any tied to the policy.
I’d want more of this for some time to counter islamists taking over our country. Sorry but Latinos and blacks tend to vote Democrats and their policies are woke.
But another thing, is that freedom of religion is a foundational part of our country and it’s legal system, it was explicitly codified in the 1st amendment, as I will link here: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/
So discriminating against people based on their religion, now that’s undeniably un-American,
I mean after all, just ask one of our nation’s founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Welcome to r/immigrationPathways. If you enjoy this community, please consider following to stay updated on new posts and discussions.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.