By Abdikarim H Abdi Buh

In a sweeping and controversial move, the President of the United States has issued an executive order banning entry to citizens from more than a dozen nations, most of which are majority-Muslim or located in Africa and South Asia. While the administration cites national security concerns, the glaring exception to this restriction has raised alarms among legal experts and human rights advocates: White Afrikaners from South Africa are being offered special resettlement privileges under what the administration calls “a humanitarian exception” due to their alleged persecution.

The administration claims that White Afrikaners are victims of a “slow-burning genocide,” citing incidents of farm attacks and political marginalization in South Africa. However, international human rights organizations, including the United Nations, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International, have refuted this characterization. They argue that while South Africa faces high levels of violence broadly, there is no credible evidence to support the claim of targeted, systemic genocide against White Afrikaners.

Despite this, the U.S. is fast-tracking resettlement for Afrikaners while simultaneously slamming the door shut on refugees and immigrants from countries including Somalia, Yemen, Iran, Syria, Libya, Pakistan, Nigeria, Afghanistan, and Sudan. The ban halts all visa categories — including tourist, student, work, and immigrant visas — from these nations. Even U.S. citizens are now barred from sponsoring their parents if the parents originate from one of the listed countries.

“This policy is a betrayal of everything America has stood for in terms of welcoming the oppressed,” said Omar Haddad, legal director at the National Immigration Justice Center. “It blatantly discriminates based on religion and race while falsely invoking humanitarian principles to justify racist preferences.”

The announcement has sent shockwaves through immigrant communities across the country. American citizens with foreign-born parents, spouses, or children are scrambling to understand what the new rules mean for their families. Lawyers are already preparing lawsuits challenging the executive order on constitutional and humanitarian grounds.

“My mother had completed her medical exams, cleared security checks, and was due to fly here next week,” said Mariam Farah, a Somali-American living in Minnesota. “Now we are told she can’t enter the U.S. because of where she was born. But white South Africans with no family or cultural connection to America are being fast-tracked? This is not security policy — this is white supremacy.”

The U.S. has long maintained a family-based immigration system that prioritized reunification, but this executive order marks a sharp break. Critics argue that it reflects an effort to reshape American immigration policy to suit an ethno-nationalist agenda, prioritizing white, Christian, or politically favorable populations over others.

Adding to the controversy is the administration’s complete silence on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Since October 2023, Gaza has been subjected to a brutal bombardment campaign and total blockade, resulting in what international observers describe as the most severe humanitarian catastrophe since World War II. At the time of writing, more than 14,000 children have died from bombing, injuries, or starvation. Hospitals have been destroyed, aid convoys blocked, and entire families buried under rubble.

Yet while the U.S. government claims to be acting in defense of persecuted minorities, it has used its veto power at the United Nations to repeatedly block ceasefire resolutions aimed at halting the bloodshed in Gaza. Palestinian refugees, many of whom meet internationally recognized criteria for asylum, remain barred from even temporary refuge in the U.S.

“If the U.S. government truly believes in protecting vulnerable populations from genocide, then why are they not offering sanctuary to Palestinians?” asked Hanan Ayyad, legal advisor at the International Refugee Assistance Project. “Why has the administration vetoed every effort to stop the mass starvation and bombing in Gaza while embracing discredited claims about White South Africans?”

The contradiction is not lost on international observers. Human Rights Watch issued a statement condemning the hypocrisy: “By advancing disproven narratives of persecution to justify white refugee preferences while actively enabling real-time atrocities in Gaza, the U.S. undermines its credibility on human rights.”

Within the U.S., the backlash is building. Protests have erupted in major cities, civil rights groups are preparing legal challenges, and even members of Congress are questioning the administration’s motivations.

“Let’s be clear: This isn’t about national security,” said Representative Rashida Tlaib. “It’s about reshaping America’s immigration system to reflect a racial hierarchy that places white immigrants at the top and Muslims, Africans, and Asians at the bottom.”

The White House has defended the policy as “a necessary measure” to protect Americans and prioritize “cultural compatibility,” a term many have criticized as a euphemism for racial and religious preference. Meanwhile, immigration attorneys are working overtime to help families navigate the uncertainty. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has already filed a legal brief arguing that the executive order violates the Equal Protection Clause and international refugee obligations.

Foreign governments have also expressed concern. The African Union issued a statement condemning the ban as discriminatory and urging the U.S. to reconsider. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) called the policy “an attack on the dignity of Muslim nations” and demanded accountability.

What is perhaps most troubling to observers is the dangerous precedent this policy sets. By defining humanitarian need along racial and ideological lines, the U.S. risks normalizing a tiered system of human worth. The message is clear: suffering and persecution only matter if they come from the right kind of people.

“This is not just about visas and borders,” said Dr. Lila Haddad, a scholar of international law. “It’s about what kind of world we want to live in. A world where human rights are universal, or one where they’re selectively applied based on politics, race, and religion.”

As the global refugee crisis deepens and conflict zones continue to proliferate, the U.S. response will set a tone for international norms. So far, that tone appears to be one of selective empathy, driven more by ideology than by principle. The executive order, unless overturned by the courts or repealed by a future administration, could permanently alter America’s role as a haven for the persecuted — a role that, critics argue, is now being reserved for a select few.

Abdikarim Haji Abdi Buh 
Email: abdikarimbuh@yahoo.com