Afrikaner refugees from South Africa holding American flags arrive, Monday, May 12, 2025, at Dulles International Airport in Dulles, Va. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson)
In recent months, the case of the 49 white South Africans, widely described as Afrikaner “refugees”, has ignited a global conversation.
They were granted asylum in the United States after allegations of systemic racial persecution and what some have called a “white genocide” in South Africa. US President Donald Trump endorsed the narrative, saying “a genocide … a terrible thing that’s taking place”.
It is important that we clarify that these claims are not only false; they are dangerous.
Let us be clear, there is no white genocide in South Africa. There is no legally valid refugee claim to be made by these individuals under either South African law or international conventions. And there is no monolithic, endangered “Afrikaner” identity under siege.
What we have here is a cynical distortion of fact, history and law. A distortion that threatens to undermine South Africa’s social cohesion and the integrity of international refugee systems.
South Africa’s crime levels are high. Our country recorded more than 27,000 murders in 2023 (an average of 74 a day), ranking among the highest per capita globally (about 45 per 100 000 people).
But these numbers must be contextualised.
The overwhelming majority of murder victims are black South Africans. According to the Institute for Security Studies and police data, white South Africans, who make up about 8% of the population, account for less than 2% of murder victims.
Farm attacks, though often politicised, make up less than 0.3% of total murders annually.
In 2022, only 50 out of 23,000 murders were farm-related. These attacks, while tragic, are not part of a racially targeted campaign. As International Relations Minister Ronald Lamola stated plainly: “The country’s crime statistics do not support the argument that white farmers are being persecuted … there is no data at all that points to the persecution of white people.”
It is true that violent crime affects everyone in South Africa. But there is no statistical or credible factual basis for the claim that white South Africans face racial extermination.
Quite to the contrary. Statistically a white South African is proportionally less likely to be murdered than a black South African is. This is not genocide. This is a national crime problem that affects all citizens, regardless of race.
Regarding international law, the legal framework for determining refugee status is unambiguous.
Article 1(A)(2) of the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, echoed in section 3 of South Africa’s Refugees Act of 1998, defines a refugee as someone who, owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of their nationality and is unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country.
This definition excludes people fleeing general crime, economic hardship or declining social standing. For a refugee claim to be valid, there must be state persecution or a credible fear thereof based on protected grounds. In the case of the 49 who went to the US, no such evidence exists.
Under the US Refugee Act of 1980, refugee status may only be granted to people who demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.
The Act explicitly excludes those fleeing general crime or economic insecurity, aligning with the 1951 UN Refugee Convention. In the case of the 49, there is no evidence of state-sanctioned racial persecution, making their admission a politically motivated exception rather than a legally grounded determination.
There is no South African law, government policy or public practice that targets white South Africans.
The South African government is meant to protect all citizens equally under the Constitution, particularly under section 9 (Equality Clause) and section 12 (Freedom and Security of the Person).
White people continue to occupy leading positions in business, law and agriculture. They remain represented economically and politically, and not oppressed.
Even if generalised crime were a basis, which it is not, the state’s ability to offer protection must be considered. The police services, albeit overstretched, do respond to and investigate crimes involving white victims, including farm attacks. No credible evidence suggests that white South Africans are refused police assistance because of their race.
Finally, under international refugee law, returning to your home country voluntarily is incompatible with refugee status. Yet, media reports suggest that many of the 49 intend to return for visits, holidays or even to manage businesses. This alone calls their claims into serious doubt.
The US’s decision to grant these 49 refugee status was not the product of legal merit. It was a political gesture.
The Trump administration’s February 2025 executive order fast-tracked their applications, citing “unjust racial discrimination” as the justification. Meanwhile, the same administration suspended broader refugee admissions for war-torn regions such as Sudan, Myanmar and Gaza.
Respected analysts have pointed out the hypocrisy. Bill Frelick, of the Human Rights Watch, called the move “highly unusual”, noting that most refugee applicants wait years in camps for UN Refugee Agency referrals.
The 49 were flown out of a middle-income democracy in under three months. Some reports have stated that: “White South Africans have been allowed in, while people from majority black and brown countries have been kept out.” The racial optics are troubling and the message it sends to the international community is worse.
Compounding this failure is the international media’s role in amplifying the false narrative. While some reputable outlets such as The New York Times and radio broadcaster NPR contextualised the situation, many others ran sensationalist headlines about “refugees fleeing persecution” without scrutiny. Misinformation was allowed to travel faster than facts, contributing to a distortion of South Africa’s image abroad.
It is also important to note that the refugee narrative rests on a narrow, racially defined conception of the term “Afrikaner” — a conception that does not pass historical or linguistic muster.
People of mixed origin at the Cape referred to themselves as Afrikaners because they no longer could identify with the countries they originally came from. Afrikaans is a South African language with deep multicultural roots. It evolved not only from 17th-century Dutch, but also from Malay, Khoisan, Portuguese and African influences.
The first written Afrikaans was an Arabic script, used by Muslim scholars at the Cape. As historian Neville Alexander explained, “If the Khoi, San and especially the slaves had not been forced to speak Dutch to their masters, then Afrikaans would not really have developed.” Today, 60% of Afrikaans speakers are not white, but predominantly brown, with a significant number of black speakers as well.
To claim persecution of “Afrikaners” as a racial group ignores the inclusive and evolving reality of Afrikaans identity. The language is one of South Africa’s 12 official languages. It thrives in literature, music and education, and particularly in historically brown communities.
The claim that “Afrikaner culture” is being extinguished is not only false, it is dismissive of the millions of non-white South Africans who have built and sustained that culture.
This case matters not just because of the lies being told, but because of the harm they cause. Every false claim of genocide trivialises the plight of genuine refugees around the world.
Every false claim of racial persecution damages the credibility of international law and undermines the real transformation work still needed in South Africa. The FW de Klerk Foundation stands firmly against these distortions.
We affirm that no South African citizen is being persecuted on the basis of race. We affirm the integrity of our Constitution, the legitimacy of our courts and the shared future of all South Africans, whether black, brown, Indian or white.
As President FW de Klerk once alluded: “South Africa’s future will be founded on reconciliation and sharing.”
Let the world take note: South Africa is not perfect, but it is not a country of racial persecution. It is a country working — daily, deliberately and democratically — towards a future where truth matters more than fear and unity matters more than political spectacle.
Ismail Joosub is a research intern at the FW de Klerk Foundation.