On May 12, 2025, 59 white South Africans arrived at Washington’s Dulles International Airport as refugees accepted by the Trump administration. Predictably, America’s liberal elite swiftly denounced the decision, framing it as ideological favoritism. More significantly, their reaction exposed deep political anxieties about acknowledging white victimhood — a truth that challenges progressive narratives about race and oppression.
The uncomfortable truth is clear: human suffering knows no ideological boundaries.
These refugees are genuine victims fleeing racial violence and systemic persecution. Yet their plight profoundly unsettles progressives, who instinctively dismiss the legitimacy of white victimhood. The same advocates fiercely highlighting persecution of Uyghurs, Rohingyas, or Middle Eastern refugees become dismissive when whites face similar threats. Guardian columnist Gary Younge illustrates this contradiction, declaring that acknowledging white victimhood “undermines genuine struggles against racism,” exposing a selective morality that weakens progressive credibility.
The situation in South Africa is undeniably severe. In 2023 alone, AfriForum documented 296 farm attacks and 49 murders, including the brutal killing of farm manager Brendin Horner. Despite this grim reality, South Africa’s ANC government dismisses these incidents as mere criminality, even as it intensifies explicitly anti-white policies). International bodies remain conspicuously silent, fearing diplomatic tensions with South Africa, a pivotal nation in African politics and global forums.
Politicians like Julius Malema openly incite violence, chanting “Kill the Boer” — rhetoric protected by South African courts as political speech. Concurrently, President Cyril Ramaphosa accelerates land expropriation without compensation, explicitly targeting white-owned properties and escalating racial tensions. Rather than addressing these concerns, the ANC attacks refugees fleeing to America, blaming them rather than confronting systemic issues fueling emigration.
The American left’s response starkly contrasts with their usual advocacy. Prominent liberal figures swiftly condemned the acceptance of these refugees as preferential. Yet, these same voices previously supported Salvadoran MS-13 affiliate Kilmar Abrego Garcia, arguing he deserved a second chance despite credible security risks.
Historically, Britain’s stance mirrors this selective empathy. When white Zimbabwean farmers faced dispossession under Robert Mugabe, Britain’s cautious approach prioritized immigration control over humanitarian aid, granting asylum sparingly — a stance echoed in current restrictive immigration policies toward white South Africans. UK immigration policy grants protection to white South African asylum seekers at a mere 22 percent rate. In contrast, refugees from Ukraine, Syria, and Afghanistan receive near-universal acceptance, reflecting geopolitical biases driven by international alliances and security considerations.
Most white South Africans thus rely on skilled migration or ancestry visas, representing around 90 percent of South Africans in the UK. These bureaucratic hurdles create prolonged uncertainty, financial strain, and emotional hardship, implicitly directing them away from asylum and underscoring systemic barriers that compound personal struggles.
Paradoxically, progressive voices regularly support individuals with extremist backgrounds, invoking human rights to oppose deportations. For instance, progressives vocally opposed deporting Hoda Muthana, an American-born woman who joined ISIS, claiming she deserved rehabilitation. Similarly, radicalized students facing deportation have received extensive defense in the name of tolerance and diversity, starkly contrasting the skepticism toward white South Africans fleeing real threats.
South African President Ramaphosa labeled these refugees “cowards,” suggesting they should endure violence instead of fleeing. British columnist Owen Jones echoed this sentiment, branding their acceptance “a dangerous validation of far-right narratives.”
White South Africans Buck the Narrative
Such selective compassion undermines foundational human rights principles affirmed by Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1951 Refugee Convention, guaranteeing asylum without discrimination.
The implications of maintaining selective empathy are severe, undermining global humanitarian credibility and eroding trust in international human rights standards.
Ultimately, the left’s reaction to white South African refugees reveals a profound contradiction: compassion is reserved for narratives aligning with progressive politics. This hypocrisy morally compromises Western liberalism.
The uncomfortable truth is clear: human suffering knows no ideological boundaries. Until progressives confront this reality, their commitment to human rights remains fundamentally compromised. The legitimacy of their ideals hinges on openly, consistently, and honestly acknowledging uncomfortable truths.
READ MORE from Kevin Cohen:
Media Focused on South While Cartels Move to the Northern Border