Crossed Wires: Unpacking Trump’s daft and dangerous Afrikaner refugee proposal

There were really two separate orders bundled into Trump’s 7 February bombshell presidential action. The first few paragraphs, not entirely unexpected, were basically “you keep holding hands and having affairs with people who wish us ill, so no more money for you”. It was not the Expropriation Bill that was the issue, that was just a convenient hook on which to hang decades of US frustration with South Africa.

It was the second part of the announcement that was more surprising. That was the offer of refugee status (with its path to a green card and citizenship) to a certain class of South Africans.

It needs to be read carefully:

“Section 4. Refugee Resettlement and Other Humanitarian Considerations. The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall take appropriate steps, consistent with law, to prioritise humanitarian relief, including admission and resettlement through the United States Refugee Admissions Program, for Afrikaners in South Africa who are victims of unjust racial discrimination. Such plan shall be submitted to the President through the Assistant to the President and Homeland Security Advisor.”

We will get to the daftness of this order later. But let’s unpack it:

Firstly, it refers to Afrikaners only. Whether it is intentional, or just the White House’s ignorance of differences between English-speaking whites, Afrikaans-speaking whites and Afrikaans-speaking non-whites is unclear. Social media seems to think they meant “whites”. We wait for clarification, which might be like waiting for Godot.

The next matter is who qualifies. It is those “who are victims of unjust racial discrimination”. Hmm. If you were attacked on an isolated farm, you would probably qualify. If you couldn’t get into medical school because of quotas (even with eight distinctions), do you qualify? What if you were passed over for promotion by someone less qualified? What if you were called a “white bitch” by a taxi driver a couple of years ago? 

You see the problem here. What qualifies as “unjust racial discrimination”? Nobody has thought this through, obviously. Oh, and it goes without saying that a black person at the receiving end of white-originated discrimination is excluded from this white man’s game. Not a new experience. The White House seems to think that white-on-black discrimination ended with Mandela. (I am not going to comment as to whether this order is racist, that is self-evident).

Read more: Donald Trump and South Africa — this is just the beginning

There are obviously not that many South Africans who can point to actual, on-the-ground disadvantage as a consequence of racial discrimination. Educational admission quotas, that hurts. Race-based hiring practices hurt too. Exclusion from tenders, OK. Nasty racial slurs on Twitter, not so much.

Let’s play the game forward. Assume that any white person who has suffered any unjust racial slight, no matter how big or small, direct or indirect, qualifies. Let’s say the US will listen to your story and just say, “You poor thing, just sign here and come on over to our house.”

I have no idea how many South African whites would qualify as “victims” under the most lenient and wink-wink of definitions. A couple of hundred thousand?

Now we get to the interesting part. If a couple of hundred thousand South Africans qualify, who would take advantage of the offer? You know, selling up, getting rid of the car, finding a home for the cat, closing bank accounts, scraping as much money together as possible. And sailing off into the new world. There would be some who would go, obviously. If you are uncertain about your future under the ANC and its race-obsessed regulations you might well take a punt, especially if you are young and fancy free.

Another segment might say, “Yeah, I missed that promotion, but I get to have a braai and watch the Boks on Sunday so I think I will stay.”

And others who might say, “Thank you for your kind offer, but I don't like your country and would rather live in North Korea” – probably only a smattering, to be fair.

Some who would say, “Ag nee, just too much of a hassle.”

But then there is this sobering thought. If the number who would take up the offer is one thousand, ten thousand, a hundred thousand, it doesn’t matter. Those people represent a terrible loss for this country. Whether they are medical students, fitters and turners, nurses, teachers, fired Eskom engineers or software developers.

We can’t afford to lose them. Every single one hurts our future.

Yes, this order is daft, as I mentioned earlier. But as much as it is daft, it is also dangerous and potentially disastrous for SA. Maybe it will get retracted, like the Canadian and Mexican tariffs and any number of other ill-considered knee-jerks emanating from the Oval Office.

Let’s hope so. DM

Steven Boykey Sidley is a professor of practice at JBS, University of Johannesburg, columnist-at-large for Daily Maverick and a partner at Bridge Capital. His new book “It's Mine: How the Crypto Industry is Redefining Ownership” is published by Maverick451 in SA and Legend Times Group in UK/EU, available now.