In a recent quiet but telling moment, members of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration met with far-right lobbyists to discuss ‘humanitarian policy openings’ for white South Africans to expedite refugee status, citing persecution, land seizure, and "racial discrimination” as qualifying fears. These meetings, closed to the public, absent meaningful community input, and unaccompanied by widespread policy reform signal something far deeper and more sinister than immigration policy at play.
They expose the marrow-deep hypocrisy in how America defines who is worthy of refuge. As a legal expert and lifelong advocate for justice, I must say clearly and firmly:
This is not about humanitarian concern. It is about preference, privilege, and preserving whiteness under the illusion of compassion.
The Unequal Scales of Protection
Let us examine what the law actually says. Under the Refugee Act of 1980, a person may qualify for asylum or refugee status if they can demonstrate a "well-founded fear of persecution" based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.
White South Africans, however, hold one of the highest standards of living on the African continent. The South African government’s land reform policy, aimed at rectifying the injustices of apartheid, has not constituted genocide or state-sanctioned violence. Yet, here in the U.S., some lawmakers have been calling these reforms white persecution while ignoring or criminalizing Black, Haitian, Indigenous, and Latinx refugees who have faced mass political violence, natural disasters, and systemic collapse for generations.
Where was this sympathy when Haitian refugees were whipped at the Texas border?Where was this policy urgency when Indigenous Guatemalan mothers watched their toddlers die in ICE custody?Where were these closed-door meetings when Black asylum seekers from Cameroon were tortured and deported without due process?
Let us be plain: America’s refugee policies are not broken—they are biased.
The Legal Failures: Selective Enforcement and Constructed Compassion
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, alongside our international obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol, demands non-discriminatory treatment of refugees. Yet, our asylum system disproportionately targets Black and Brown immigrants for expedited removal, denial of claims, and prolonged detention.
We see it in:
The "Remain in Mexico" policy disproportionately affecting Central American asylum seekers;
The Title 42 expulsions of Haitians under the guise of public health;
The sharp contrast in treatment between Ukrainian refugees, who received parole and welcome centers, and African and Caribbean migrants, who faced detention and denial.
Now we are being asked to believe that refugee protections suddenly work—because the applicants are white?
This is not law. This is apartheid policy in disguise.
Why This Moment Matters for Black and Brown Communities
This moment is not just about South Africa or immigration. It’s about who is seen in the eyes of the law. It’s about whether justice will continue to be rationed out based on race, wrapped in red tape for some and a red carpet for others. It’s about whether our government will ever admit that global Black pain has never been met with global Black protection. But we are not helpless. And we are not voiceless.
My Call to the People—and the Lawmakers Who Serve Us
To the policymakers who read this:
Apply the law evenly. Enforce refugee protections for all, not just those who reflect your image. If we can create expedited channels for white South Africans, then we can—and must—do the same for those displaced by imperialism, climate injustice, and economic exploitation.
To my community:
Stay vigilant, vocal, and educated. Demand town halls, flood congressional inboxes, amplify our stories in local media, and link arms with immigration lawyers and advocates. We will not allow selective compassion to dictate who gets saved.
To the world watching:
America has a choice to make. Either our refugee system becomes the global model of equal protection under law, or it remains a reflection of systemic racism draped in legalese. We must demand that this nation lives up to its promises, not just in word, but in action.
Hope Is a Legal Strategy, Too
This is not the end. We can push for legislative review of all refugee determinations under an Equity Standard, one that requires a racial impact analysis before policy implementation. We can introduce a Refugee Justice Bill that prohibits disparate treatment of asylum seekers based on national origin or skin color. We can hold federal agencies legally accountable under the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Protection Clause, and the United Nations Human Rights Council for discriminatory policy execution.
Because justice must be for all or it is not justice at all.
We are not asking for favors. We are demanding fairness. We are not begging for inclusion. We are building power.
