Earlier this month, we told you about the Trump administration launching a contentious refugee programme, granting asylum to approximately 49 white Afrikaans South Africans, though this number varies. We also asked YOU what you thought: should these Afrikaners, who claim to be fleeing persecution, be allowed to keep their South African citizenship? The response was clear: most of you said no.

Since then, the issue has only heated up — especially after US President Donald Trump met with President Cyril Ramaphosa last week. The meeting, initially intended to focus on trade and economic relations, took an unexpected turn when President Trump confronted President Ramaphosa with allegations of a so-called “white genocide” in South Africa.

During the meeting, President Trump presented a video montage and printed articles purporting to show evidence of violence against white South African farmers. One segment featured a field of white crosses, which Trump claimed were burial sites for murdered white farmers. However, these crosses were part of a 2020 protest in KwaZulu-Natal, intended to draw attention to farm murders in general, not actual graves. Another Trump held up showed medical workers in white protective clothing lifting body bags. This visual was from the aftermath of fighting of the war in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo.

President Ramaphosa responded by emphasising that while crime is a serious issue in South Africa, it affects all citizens, predominantly black South Africans. He stated, “There is criminality in our country… people who do get killed through criminal activity are not only white people; the majority of them are black people.”

Back home, South Africans are fuming — not just about the asylum approvals but about what it means for citizenship, loyalty, and identity.

A recent poll conducted by explain revealed that, on average across our four platforms (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and WhatsApp), 66% of respondents support revoking the citizenship of Afrikaners who have accepted refugee status in the US, while 29% support the idea of maintaining dual citizenship. The sentiment is clear: if you claim to be persecuted by your own government, why should you retain the right to return to it? 

But legally? It’s not that simple — and, as it turns out, not even an option.

The Constitutional Court has already spoken

On 6 May, South Africa’s Constitutional Court declared Section 6(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act unconstitutional. That provision had previously stipulated that South Africans automatically lost their citizenship if they acquired another nationality without prior government permission.

But in the case of the Democratic Alliance v Minister of Home Affairs (ZACC 8/2025), the court ruled that automatic deprivation of citizenship violates the constitutional right to citizenship and due process.

In essence, the Court ruled that citizenship cannot be quietly revoked by bureaucratic technicality. Instead, it must involve a deliberate and transparent process, with opportunities to contest or appeal the outcome. The judgment also clarified that no one can be deprived of citizenship unless they have voluntarily renounced it or have undergone a lawful and fair procedure for revocation.

Here’s the twist: this case was decided before the Afrikaners left South Africa. It had nothing to do with them directly, but it dramatically changed the legal landscape in which they’ve now sought asylum.

As a result, even if they are granted US citizenship, these individuals will retain their South African citizenship — unless they voluntarily renounce it through a formal process done through the Department of Home Affairs.

But are Afrikaners actually refugees? 

This is the part that’s stirring global debate.

Under international law — specifically the 1951 UN Refugee Convention — a refugee is someone who has a “well-founded fear of being persecuted” based on race, religion, nationality, social group, or political opinion.

To qualify, one must demonstrate targeted persecution, not generalised violence or economic hardship.

So, how do the Afrikaners fit in?

At the beginning of the year, when the Trump administration granted asylum to white South Africans, mainly Afrikaners, he cited racial persecution and South Africa’s land expropriation policies. 

Trump has also continued to make references to the so-called “genocide” against white farmers, despite this being a claim that international observers widely debunk. 

The South African government and human rights organisations have repeatedly argued that while violent crime affects all South Africans (black and white), there’s no credible evidence that white South Africans face systemic persecution.

Furthermore, land reform policies like the 2024 Land Expropriation Act aim to redress historical land imbalances. They are controversial, yes — but not universally recognised as “persecution” under refugee law.

Legal experts and scholars have been vocal on this. A 2018 Monash University article pointed out that fast-tracking visas for white South Africans distorts the intent of humanitarian programmes and undermines legitimate refugee claims (and this was before Trump returned to office).

Additionally, critics have highlighted the disparity in the US administration’s refugee policies, noting that while Afrikaners were granted expedited asylum, many individuals fleeing conflict zones in countries like Sudan and Afghanistan have faced significant barriers to entry.

What’s more, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which typically reviews and vets refugee claims, was not involved in these asylum approvals.

So yes, while they’ve been granted asylum by the US, their status as true refugees under international law is shaky at best — and possibly more political than principled.

Citizenship, identity – and politics

So what now for these Afrikaner families in Idaho and Texas?

Legally, they remain South African citizens. That cannot be changed by a social media poll — or even by Parliament — without following a clear legal process that includes voluntary renunciation or judicial action.

Politically, however, the episode has struck a nerve. In a country still grappling with inequality and racial division, the notion of white South Africans claiming “refugee” status while citing state persecution feels, to many, like a provocation.

Dual citizenship in South Africa allows individuals to hold citizenship in South Africa and another country simultaneously. However, it comes with certain obligations, particularly that citizens residing abroad retain the right to vote in South African elections. In the 2024 general election, a significant number of South Africans living overseas participated, influencing the electoral outcome.

This saga is about more than just paperwork. It’s about who gets to claim South African identity and on what terms. While the law is clear that citizenship cannot be taken away without due process, public opinion is clearly pulling in another direction.

In a country where the scars of apartheid are still raw, the idea that white citizens — once the beneficiaries of a brutal system — are now being positioned internationally as its victims strikes many as offensive and revisionist.

Yet, South Africa is also a constitutional democracy. That means even unpopular rights are protected. The Afrikaners in question may no longer live in the country, but their legal ties remain. And unless they voluntarily renounce them, those ties can’t be cut,  no matter how loudly the Twitter mob may demand it.

So perhaps the real question isn’t whether they can keep their citizenship. It’s whether they should. And what it means for a country still reckoning with who belongs and who decides.

Emma@explain.co.za |  + posts

Emma is a freshly graduated Journalist from Stellenbosch University, who also holds an Honours in history. She joined the explain team, eager to provide thorough and truthful information and connect with her generation.