The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Trump's Racially Discriminatory Refugee Policy
There is no non-racist justification for prioritizing white Afrikaner South Africans while closing the door to virtually all other groups.

The Trump Administration recently announced a policy cutting US refugee admissions to a record-low of 7500 over the next year, while seeking to allocate those slots "primarily" be to Afrikaner South Africans and "other victims of illegal or unjust discrimination in their respective homelands." Given the administration's actions so far (admitting Afrikaners while seeking to bar virtually all other refugees), it is obvious few or no "other victims" are going to be admitted under the new policy. There is no remotely defensible justification for this policy, which is just a form of blatant racial and ethnic discrimination.
As explained in my previous post on this topic, I am not opposed to admitting Afrikaners, and there is even a plausible case they are legally eligible for refugee status, based on the South African government's discriminatory policies (which include various forms of affirmative action favoring Blacks as a way to compensate for the injustices of apartheid). But the idea that white South Africans have a stronger claim to refugee status than virtually every other group in the world is utterly absurd. Around the world, numerous racial, ethnic, and religious minorities, and victims of political persecution face vastly more severe discrimination and oppression.
There is no other good reason to privilege Afrikaners, either. In my earlier post, I criticized the idea that all or most white South Africans are inveterate racists, inimical to American liberal democratic values. That stereotype is simplistic and dated. But it's also wrong to make the opposite assumption, that they are somehow more attuned to those values than other would-immigrants and refugees. There is no basis for that assumption, either.
The same goes for claims that white South Africans can assimilate better based on language and culture. There are many potential English-speaking refugees who could do just as well, most obviously English-speaking Black Africans fleeing oppressive governments. And, as discussed in Chapter 6 of my book Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom, social science evidence indicates that immigrants from non-English speaking countries generally learn the language quickly, and otherwise assimilate successfully. In sum, there is no reason to think that Afrikaners are a better fit for America than other refugees, unless being American is somehow synonymous with being white.
Conservatives who favor color-blindness in government policy in other situations (as I do) would do well to condemn Trump's policy here. Otherwise, it sure seems like their support for color-blindness is limited to situations where whites are the ones disadvantaged.
In almost any other area of government policy, blatant racial or ethnic discrimination like this would be struck down by the courts. Unfortunately, Supreme Court precedents like Trump v. Hawaii have created a double standard under which the government can get away with discriminatory policies in the immigration field, that would not be permitted elsewhere.
I have argued this double standard is indefensible, and the Supreme Court should reverse precedents suggesting otherwise. That may not happen anytime soon. But, even if this kind of racial discrimination in refugee policy is legal under current (badly misguided) precedent, that doesn't make it right.
Trump's extension of refugee status to Afrikaners might, I have suggested, set a precedent for expanding it to a wide range of other groups, one that can be effectively exploited by a future, more pro-immigrant, administration. Perhaps it might someday lead the federal government to rethink the current unduly narrow legal definition of "refugee," which excludes victims of many types of severe oppression. Trump and his minions surely don't intend any such effects. But unintended effects often occur with government policies.
Regardless, Trump's policy of favoring white South Africans while barring almost all other refugees, is utterly reprehensible. If you support color-blindness and abhor racial and ethnic discrimination in other contexts, you should condemn it here, too.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
White South Afrikaners are at risk for physical violence.
No. This is a white nationalist canard.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/white-farmers-south-africa/
Snopes says it's a myth because ADL says it's a myth so it must be a myth. It's not THAT many killings crybaby!
Gee wouldn't it be something if the Left's first instinct for every refugee group claim would be to go all Judge Dredd ultra skeptical Inquisitor and look for any way to debunk it rather than just groups they find politically inconvenient?
Tell you what. You put the same energy into screening all immigrants and I think we have a deal we can work with.
You sure do wanna believe.
Yep. You won't be putting the same energy into screening all immigrants. You need to be selective.
And shocking nobody his only selection criteria is anti-white.
Yes, I sure am a race traitor! Excellent counterargument.
Yes, the ADL is a big proponent of replacing Whites with non-whites.
ADL has always been unreliable, now more than ever since it has become totally entwined with the Democratic Party.
Would this be more properly characterized as racist antisemitism, or antisemitic racism?
We've finally found where Ilya the Lesser draws the line for refugees.
I don't know what he lines he's drawing but if his goal is to be legally incoherent, I would say well done. Or we could just say that he's jumped the shark on his open borders obsession. The admission of refugees or immigrants is NOT governed by constitutional due process. The entire premise of his post is legally absurd, as is his attempt to characterize the administration's polices as even factually racist
How is Trump "barring almost all other refugees?"
He is barring economic so-called refugees which is upwards of 75-85% of those claiming refugee status when they don't qualify. Those numbers are even according to previous administrations.
The US should withdraw from the 67 protocol. It is ridiculous that we are hamstrung by such an outdated agreement, and we can legally withdraw merely with 12 months notice. The the US can set its own priorities and definition of a refugee. People coming for work and a better life are not refugees in any way.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/realigning-the-united-states-refugee-admissions-program/
The Secretary of Homeland Security shall suspend decisions on applications for refugee status
That's not just economic, that's everyone.
Oh, man, that's not fair. Citing facts. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Keep in mind that's the refugee program which is only tiny % of migrants overall, usually in the tens of thousands. The vast majority, which rose to about 2 million each year under Biden, were asylum seekers at the Southern border. Different program, even though they are both based on the UN Refugee program treaty.
What a heartless man Mr. Somin is. He preaches that we shouldn't fall for zero sum fallacies like 'dirty imgrints takin' our jerbs' but we should fall for his zero sum fallacy that the tiny drop of dirty African immigrants are somehow taking up immigration slots from his preferred superior race of immigrants? Also shouldn't we be for diversity? Isn't America supposed to be a rainbow nation? Why should we import solely from peoples and areas that tend to support Democrats?
That's not what Prof. Somin says.
You remain the king of the strawmenifiers.
"...I am not opposed to admitting Afrikaners..."
Maybe actually read the OP before you comment.
The MAGAts love Trump because he hates the same folks they hate.
If the left really was proimmigrant/refugee they should be glad that South Africaners are coming over. His supposed motivations are zero reason for all the bile and venom I've seen directed at the refugees themselves. Its not like there are a limited hard coded number of immigrant slots per year that nobody can change that Trump just used up for these people. Or if they are Mr. Somin certainly hasn't acted like it outside of this instance.
You'd think the world was coming to end and they brought UltraCovid with them with all the wailing and gnashing of teeth this relatively tiny group of refugees has caused.
'I thought you liked tax cuts. But once we started only giving them to minorities, now you hate them?!?
Make up your mind, hypocrites!!'
Wow a prog thinking you can make unlimited cuts to government revenue. It's a miracle.
Don't feed the troll under the bridge.
That's what I was about to say to SarcastrO.
How do you give tax cuts to people who don't pay taxes?
Minorities don't pay taxes?
It's literally exactly like that.
I just love getting what I voted for.
Your loving the Trump Administration harming people is duly noted.
You're talking about foreigners with no right to claim being here are somehow harmed by being denied entry. By that retarded logic YOU harm people by denying them access to your house or car or bank account.
Ilya's claim that only Afrikaners will be admitted under the new policy is not supported by facts in evidence. He offers no tangible evidence whatsoever to support his claim. Next Ilya makes the claim that there are politically persecuted groups besides Afrikaners that will not be admitted from all over the world, yet he fails to name one single group. He then references his own book as supporting evidence for his argument in this article. How ridiculous it is for Mr.to cite citing himself as evidence for his argument, "the claim is true because I say it is true." Mr. Somin exhibits the only racism on display in this article. He chooses to define Afrikaners by the color of their skin. The standard of judgement is political persecution not skin color Ilya. Ilya's article is short on evidence and long on his clinical Trump Derangement Syndrome.
"Ilya's claim that only Afrikaners will be admitted under the new policy is not supported by facts in evidence. He offers no tangible evidence whatsoever to support his claim."
Do you think that is so? https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/addressing-egregious-actions-of-the-republic-of-south-africa/
Now you know he is called Ilya The Lesser.
Of course it's discriminatory, it's completely in line with the "whatever we think will make lefties mad" policy platform of this administration. And in line with the cruelty of capping actual refugee intake (not "economic refugees", actual refugees who have been processed and interviewed and found to be in actual danger) at less than 10% of what it was under the Biden administration. The lowest it's ever been!
But hey, what else would you expect from the "we don't care about foreigners" America of 2025? You've already killed hundreds of thousands of them through the needless gutting of lifesaving USAID programs, why would you welcome them to your country? It's not like America was ever a country built on the contributions of immigrants or anything. Or a country with a reputation for humanitarianism.
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" (but not if you're brown)
it's completely in line with the "whatever we think will make lefties mad" policy platform of this administratio
<<<<<<<<<<<<<
It IS all about exposing Dem hypocrisy and everyone should be paying attention. The left has zero principles on refugees other than harvesting votes. Completely losing their minds over a tiny group while having screaming at anyone who questions 10s of millions per year for their side. Your saintly compassionate welcomer act ain't washing no more (I notice a few progs are in here still trying to wear the mask in between showing their true hatefulness like malfunctioning robots) and you're hopping mad about it.
<<<<<<<<
Give me your tired, your poor,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" (but not if you're brown)
<<<<<<<<
Change brown to white or right supporting and it fits
Do you think refugees can vote?
I do like you acknowledging this indeed a shitty policy, created out of spite.
I'm generally not a bleeding heart on a lot of issues. I can take the moderate position on just about anything.
But not this. On the question of "should we let more refugees into our countries" I am the most bleedingist of hearts there ever was. We live in the world's richest countries! We can afford to help people out! It's the right thing to do!
I don't even know why the protection of people literally fleeing for their lives has to be this partisan left/right thing. Right-wingers are often Christian, right? Bush Jr was a compassionate Christian, right? So was Reagan! Why not be like them?
(sorry for ranting, this is just an issue that gets my blood flowing)
The purpose of immigration is to improve America. Not to "help people out."
Go to the third world and do missionary work there if you want to "help people out."
Also, we're not a rich country. We have $38 trillion in debt.
Refugees and immigrants are different categories. The purpose of admitting refugees is in fact to help people out.
Whenever I read people like that I can readily imagine them cheering while the St. Louis is barred from entry in 1939.
WW2 was theoretically a lesson in the desirability of helping asylum seekers. But apparently no lesson, even from a war like that, can stick.
Why was it America's responsibility to take Jews in from Europe? There were plenty of places in the world that didn't want Jewish refugees either.
Thanks for proving my point.
Either you think humans have responsbilities to other humans or, being a sociopath, you do not.
Problem is 99% of them aren't actually fleeing political or religious persecution.
Refugees aren't legally allowed to vote. Do they? Who knows. Efforts to make sure only citizens vote face tremendous hurdles at every turn.
What refugees actually do is give states like California and New York extra representation in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College.
No, but their "citizen" children surely do get to vote in 18 years.
And Democrats make sure "accidents" are easy to make, hard to detect and impossible to correct.
I'm so tired of people presenting Lazarus' poem in the Statue of Liberty as though it carries the force of law.
I am so tired of people claiming to uphold norms and traditions and a Great America of some time past who ignore the fact that for most of the period since it was written that poem on the statue was celebrated as one of the best things about America.
Count the number of movies of people crowded on a ship coming across the Atlantic seeing the Statue for the first time, little knowing that the idea of being welcomed to the land of liberty is for some Americans a terrible idea.
America became great in spite of mass immigration, not because of it. In fact, we only became great because we put a moratorium on new immigration for 41 years (1924-1965). Had we continued flooding America with cheap labor, we would not have been.
We weren't great before 1924? The people who arrived before 1924 weren't in [part responsible for it being great after 1924? You have a curious sense of history.
They may have been, by the post-war boom time in the 1940s. They weren't before.
We've reached the point at which, in the Republican Party, being falsely accused of being a moderate is more damaging to one's career than being truthfully accused of being a racist.
The problem you have here is that you changed the definition of 'racist'. It's now no longer something someone can choose to be or not.
So if we're all inherently racist then there is no longer any reason to worry is any action is racist or not - because of course it is, we can not be any other.
Well you can still choose to be racist if you support immigration policies that openly discriminate in favor of white Afrikaaners.
By the way, if we are inherently prone to racism as humans, your theory is that it therefore doesn't matter what we do about it or not? Is that your same view of inherent human tendencies towards other sins, gluttony, theft, violence?
Trump and MAGAs are racist. Simple as that.
Huh? From a supporter of the party of slavery, KKK, Jim Crow, La Raza, Mexican and Central American cartels, and most recently vile antisemitism.
Is that supposed to be an argument that Trump and MAGA aren't racist?
Anybody who confidently asserts that today's Democrats are the party of slavery is really too dim to be worth much of a response.
All immigration and refugee policies are racist and discriminatory. Every other country in the world has discriminatory policies about who gets to live there. Get over it.
Somin is a Russian Jew who wants to repopulate the USA with Black foreigners.
Prof. Somin is an American, not Russian, but you don't care about that anyway; it's the Jew part that bothers you.
And he has spoken up in favor of black refugees like… Ukrainians, Venezuelans, and Afghanis.
You must be wrong, I've learned here that all American antisemitism is on the left.
"Everybody else is terrible so we get to be too" That, in a nutshell, is the MAGA code of ethics.
Well, no. There are also those who aren't terrible but would be, given a chance, so MAGA has to be terrible to them preemptively.
True. I may be giving MAGA too much credit.
Real question not rhetorical as I know little about the South African situation.
They are Dutch colonists why aren't ones who want to leave simply going to the Netherlands? Why do they even need America asylum?
Their families haven't been in the Netherlands in hundreds of years.
Which means they will be due reparations?
That would be like saying Americans are British colonists and could just go back to the UK.
That would be great, I could watch Premier League games without having to pay for Peacock!
Under Roe, courts struck down laws prohibiting abortion for race and sex discrimination reasonson grounds the constitution prohibited morality-mongers like Professor Somin from imposing their tired old ethics on the ability of American to choose freely whom, and what sort of people, to include into their family.
Because constitutional rights like equal protection have no more extraterritorial application than they have prenatal application, the national government is as free to choose whom to allow in to the country or naturalize as a citizen for any reason, no reason, or a bad reason as a woman in highly blue states remains free to choose an abortion for any reason, no reason, or a bad reason.
Just as with abortion under Dobbs, Congress under Trump v. Hawaii can if it wants to pass laws imposing moral norms that cabin the discretion of the Executive in deciding what aliens to allow or not allow into the country. But as Trump v. Hawaii held, it hasn’t done so. Thus the law in its current state gives the Executive complete freedom to choose.
Professor Somin remains free to criticize the Administration for imposing policies reminiscent of the Immigration Act of 1924 that explicitly favored white people. He also has a right to petition Congress to change the state of the law and cabin the Administration’s discretion. He may well have the better side of justice in doing so. But the President has the legal power to ignore Professor Somin and institute a de facto whites-only policy if it wants to where Congress has given him discretion. Only Congress has the power to stop him.
Exactly. We have a moral and Constitutional obligation to treat people in America fairly. We don't have any such obligation to apply equitable treatment to everyone in the world.
prohibited morality-mongers like Professor Somin from imposing their tired old ethics
Somin strongly supports a "my body, my choice principle." He would expand it more broadly than many, including organ markets.
The morality he is promoting here is equal protection.
the national government is as free to choose whom to allow into the country or naturalize as a citizen for any reason, no reason, or a bad reason
Congress pursuant to the First Amendment "shall make no law," except for naturalization. So, e.g., Congress can decide only to naturalize those who support Jesus as our Lord and Savior. It's a naturalization exception to the Establishment Clause.
The Constitution not only protects rights. It also limits powers, including extraterritorially. Note, however, the assertion here includes naturalization of people on U.S. soil.
Congress under Trump v. Hawaii
He acknowledges his views to some degree clash with precedents he (in this case correctly) deems wrongheaded. His posts are partially an exercise of advocacy for change.
He also argues, in part, as a matter of policy.
Put bluntly, religion is a characteristic of persons. If you aren’t a person, the First Amendment like the rest of the Bill of Rights simply doesn’t apply. You don’t have a religion of the sort the Constitution is concerned about. Elephants have funerals, but the Constitution doesn’t protect their religious practices. Same with extraterritorial aliens. Any protection of extraterritorial alien behavior, like any protection of animal behavior or fetal behavior, is a matter of morality, not constitutional law.
The First Amendment did not prohibit the United States from going to war with the Ottoman Empire even though the Sultan was also the Caliph of Islam, a pope-like figure. Nor did it prevent us from going to war with England, despite the fact that the Sovereign of England is also the head of the Anglican Church. Nor would it prohibit the United States from going to war with Vatican City. If we can go to war with the head of a religion, we can prohibit its members from entering this country.
Separation and church and state only applies, and need only exist, within the United States. There often isn’t , and need not be, any such separation outside it. For this reason, the religious implications of our foreign policy, if any, are simply not matters the Constitution says anything about.
Let's say we accept your whole theory, and no foreigner has any right to equal protection on religion or anything else, for that matter.
What about equal protection for US citizens? Specifically, are all citizens equally entitled to marry a foreign spouse of their religion?
Let's just go full Godwin and say Congress passed a law that spousal visas are available for all foreigners except for Jews. Would or wouldn't that violate equal protection?
The United States Supreme Court ruled on this very issue very recently, in Department of State v. Munoz. It held a citizen has no constitutional right to have their foreign spouse admitted into this country. Under Munoz, being married to a US citizen does not affect the US government’s discretion regarding whether or not to admit a foreigner. Congress can of course consider it in setting immigration law. But it doesn’t have to.
So while equal protection applies to the US citizen, it doesn’t apply to the foreigner-spouse, at least as to decisions about whether to admit or not. And the fact of marriage doesn’t change that.
You may consider the theory wacky. But it does a pretty good job of predicting how the Supreme Court will rule. It also does a pretty good job of explaining those rulings.
You came up with a wierd gotta-be-crazy hypothetical. And yet there’s an actual relevant case where the Supreme Court ruled against you.
That's not precisely on target, unless the exclusion was on the basis of religion (or some other protected characteristic).
Of course there's no right for a citizen to bring in a foreign spouse. The right is for the citizen to not be treated differently because of his/her religion.
Immigration Officer: "Mr. Shapiro, since you are a citizen and have rights, I am not allowed to say anything about your religion or ethnicity. However, this female you want to import and marry is a filthy Jew, and for that reason I won't let you do it. In fact, according to legal authority ReaderY, she isn't even a person unless I decide to recognize her as one, and I don't. Now get out of my office."
Are you seriously claiming the SC would OK that, on the basis that it was totally unrelated to Shapiro's religion?
Also, under Roe, courts actually struck down applying equal protection principles to the realm of abortion. Prohibiting sex- or race- selective abortion was considered morality-mongering and tired old ethics. The constitution didn’t PERMIT imposing such principles. Under Dobbs, the situation is the same as with extraterritorial aliens under Trump v. Hawaii. Government can impose such principles if it wants, but it need not.
If you’re not entitled to any protection at all, any protection given is strictly optional and need not be equal. The principle is the same here. Without constitutional personhood, principles like equal protection are totally irrelevant. The fact that the constitutional status of an extraterritorial alien is effectively the same as that of a fetus has consequences. Very serious ones.
That first paragraph seems irrelevant to your argument. Equal protection from private action isn't and never has been a constitutional issue. Laws about equal employment or public accommodations are commercial regulations that Congress was not obliged to pass and could still repeal. And that was true before Roe, during Roe, and after Dobbs.
"The Afrikaners need our help!"
Afrikaners: Fuck off, liar. We're fine!
Never mind the ones rotting in unmarked graves because some unhinged mob was aimed their way by the local power structure. So much compassion.
Those who think in English should have preference ...
Please more of this. More white immigrants. No black Africans, no middle easterners, no Latin Americans. Euros and East Asians only.
So your solution is to only admit white people? You realize that some people in Mexico or Iran or Lebanon actually look pretty white. So how would do the test, with a paper bag?
I love how the people on this blog thread so fervently prove the point. MAGA is just, at its core, unapologetically racist.
Anti-racist is code for anti-white.
How’s the cargo delivery going?
I undertand some people have been waiting for you to arrive.
An accusation of racism plus 67 votes in the Senate will finally rid America of the orange menace.
"An accusation of racism"
Wolf! Wolf!
Just for the record:
They sky is not falling.
Sure there is. They are educated and share similar cultura and political values.
Most of the speak English as a second language already too.
Which cultural value is that - white supremacy?
And if the test is English, education and cultural values, well that's pretty easy to make criteria. But adding skin color seems to be based on a whole different rationale.
>my book Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom, social science evidence indicates that immigrants from non-English speaking countries generally learn the language quickly, and otherwise assimilate successfully.
Tell that to the Dearbornistanis.
Also, it doesn't matter if the assimilate 'eventually'. Until 'eventually' happens they are a disruption and a drain.
These seffricers assimilate quicker and are less of a drain.
It really matters though because assimilating after instantiating the caliphate is a bit different from the traditional melting pot idea of America.
The parents will learn enough to get by. The kids will grow up with English natively. And probably be obese, video-game playing couch potatoes.
Melting pot! American cultural imperialism! McDonald's! Starbuck's!
USA! USA! USA!
Except that even by the 3rd and 4th generations, Jamaican and Mexican-Americans still trail far behind white Americans.
Why is that?
"In 2019, Jamaican Americans had a median household income of $62,044, higher than the American average of $57,761. Jamaican Americans had a poverty rate of 11.2%, lower than the American average of 12% (U.S. Census Bureau 2019)."
"In 2019, 30% of Jamaican Americans had a bachelor's degree. This is higher than the American average of 24.3% (U.S. Census Bureau 2019)."
And here's another one for you. 2022 US household income by ancestry.
Mexican 66,481
Jamaican 65,789
Appalachian 49,747
Please refer to Hasan Piker for what this more closely resembles.
> But it's also wrong to make the opposite assumption, that they are somehow more attuned to those values than other would-immigrants and refugees. There is no basis for that assumption, either
We are not allowed to look at how they live in South Africa?
>have argued this double standard is indefensible, and the Supreme Court should reverse precedents suggesting otherwise
Because the law is not what you want it to be you want the virus to make the law like you want it to be.
Very 'law professor' of you.
>Trump's policy of favoring white South Africans while barring almost all other refugees, is utterly reprehensib
Thing is Somin, *everything* Trump does is reprehensible isn't it? Even the way he drinks his diet coke.
So, do you think that this is good? It's difficult to tell, because you replaced an actual argument with a personal attack and a strawman.
Does T drink diet coke badly? It wouldn't surprise me, he is declining fast. Or are we referring to the ostentatious installation of a diet coke button on his desk, forever demonstrating to pikers like Obama or Biden what real egoism looks like.
I'm sure Ilya would hold the same anti-white perspective if we were talking about Jewish refugees from Europe in the 1930's and 40's, a much better comparison than people that voted to make themselves poorer.
Man this post is bringing out a lot of people who want to talk a lot about Prof. Somin being Jewish!
[The OP is advocating for being colorblind, not anti-white. I'd wager you didn't read the OP.]
Who voted to make themselves poorer?
The majority of the population of Venezuela for one, Brasil currently and every other instance of socialism or communism in Latin America and the Caribbean.
I read this comment on Threads.
https://www.threads.com/@david_photowell/post/DRE9wBrEUoq
If i had unlimited bank I would in a heartbeat - I don’t why ppl think the US is so great. Health care is expensive & terrible, public policy terrible, violence, guns, unresolved race issue, cost of living, income disparity, poor public transportation, unsafe cycling, high infant mortality, poor health care for women/ WOC … what did I miss
Why would anyone seek asylum in the U.S.?
The fact that a white man cares about health care for WOC shows to me he's an idiot lefty.
That's right. Real men don't give a shit about anyone but themselves and people exactly like them.
They certainly don't care if poor black women have bad outcomes because they're obese and don't take care of themselves.