Why are we focusing on support for South African Refugees?

Over the last few days, there have been increasing reports that the Trump administration will start granting refugee status to South Africans of Afrikaans decent.

I invite civil, bipartisan discussion on this post.

As my last African Politics Class at Iowa State was in about 2007, my knowledge is slightly dated – the last two stories I remember about South Africa specifically are questions about which of Jacob Zuma’s wives would be first lady when he won in 2009, and when the African National Committee (ANC) lost power for the first time in decades in 2024.

According to one article in The Guardian, Afrikaners are still faring better than the general population in South Africa.  I have also seen articles claiming a lot of the population is eager to come to the United States but I do question if 70,000 people looking to claim asylum are truly doing so due to fear of persecution or other reasons with a total Afrikaans population of around  4.6 million in the country.

I believe it is important to welcome refugees, and I am thankful that Robert Ray was a driver for such programs in Iowa, bringing in the Tai Dam from Southeast Asia as a result of conflicts in the 1970s.  If widespread conflict and violence is causing undue harm to people in South Africa, I absolutely believe we should bring them in.

At the same exact time the Trump Administration is looking to welcome South African refugees, they were blocked from revoking legal status from people from Haiti, Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela and then asked the Supreme Court to weigh in.  They were even looking to revoke legal status of Ukrainian refugees.

I fully support asylum claims and helping resettle refugees in the United States.  But why is the Trump Administration choosing to support South African Refugees while turning their backs on those from other countries?

While his administration looks to overturn legal status for migrants of many countries, they are also considering suspending habeas corpus, and continuing brutal roundups of migrants in Massachusetts with ICE agents refusing to show a warrant, saying “we don’t have to show you anything.”

 

Sources:

https://www.npr.org/2025/05/09/nx-s1-5391815/first-afrikaners-granted-refugee-status-due-to-arrive-in-u-s

https://www.npr.org/2024/06/01/nx-s1-4987616/south-africa-election-results

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/which-wife-will-become-south-africas-first-lady/

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/06/white-afrikaner-donald-trump-america-us-administration

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjevg2vlwk4o

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa#Demographics

https://www.iowapbs.org/iowapathways/mypath/2687/robert-d-ray-iowa-governor-humanitarian-leader

U.S. appeals court rejects Trump bid to revoke 400,000 migrants’ legal status

Trump asks Supreme Court to revoke legal status of 500,000 immigrants

Trump weighs revoking legal status of Ukrainians as US steps up deportations | Reuters

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/09/us/trump-habeas-corpus.html?unlocked_article_code=1.GE8.6Mb9.RkVaomJCKryi&smid=url-share

Video: Worcester police hold teen girl down during ICE operation – NBC New York

Chaotic ICE arrest in Worcester leads to second arrest by local police – masslive.com

Today, I want to give a compliment for President Trump.

While I generally appreciate consistency, I can also respect the ability to adjust when it is necessary.  We saw this in a pretty shocking fashion in 2017 when Donald Trump struck a deal with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi related to DACA recipients.  We are now reportedly seeing him change his tune on income taxes for high income earners as a way to protect Medicaid.  The reporting is somewhat ambiguous, but it seems the proposal is approximately to raise the top marginal income tax rate from 37% to 39.6% for people making over $2.5 million.

So what do we mean by top marginal tax rate?  The marginal tax rate is the percent of your income you will pay in taxes above the threshold.  This means, with a marginal tax rate starting at $2.5 million if your income grows from $100,000 to $2.6 million, the tax is only assessed on the amount over $2.5 million.  Adding a top marginal tax rate of 39.6% tax on top of current tax rates, the total federal income taxes paid for someone making $2.5 million would be $882,020 and someone making $2.6 million would be $922,620, changing their total tax rate from 35.3% to 35.4%.*

For a long time, I have despised the lack of nuance in tax policy discussion.  It makes sense to me to decrease income taxes on lower income earners and increase taxes on higher income earners.  The current income tax for top earners is at a record low 1931.  We shouldn’t simply focus on the divide of increasing versus decreasing taxes when we can do both at the same time and reduce the deficit.  For reference, the top marginal tax rate ever was 94% in 1944-1945

Add onto the relatively low top tax rates, we are experiencing extreme differences in income – the GINI coefficient shows income inequality in the United States increasing substantially from the 1980s to today – with much of that happening from 1980 to 1992 before stabilizing at a much higher level.

Please do not consider this support for the bill in general, only for the provision of increasing taxes on higher incomes while lowering them for lower incomes.

* Note, for simplicity, this ignores tax credits and deductions.

Sources:

Schumer, Pelosi say they’ve reached a deal with Trump to protect ‘dreamers’ | PBS News

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5290814-trump-tax-hike-wealthy-gop-bill/

Trump revives millionaire tax talks as Democrats blast GOP on Medicaid

Marginal Tax Rate: What It Is and How To Determine It, With Examples

IRS releases tax inflation adjustments for tax year 2025 | Internal Revenue Service

https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2021/04/26/taxing-the-rich-the-evolution-of-americas-marginal-income-tax-rate-infographic/

GINI Index for the United States (SIPOVGINIUSA) | FRED | St. Louis Fed

Historical Highest Marginal Income Tax Rates | Tax Policy Center

 

I invite civil, bipartisan discussion on this post.

Stories of the United States deporting people to El Salvador have widely been reported, including many without criminal records, and many, apparently, without due process.  This isn’t just deportation.

In addition to El Salvador, discussions have been ongoing to send deportees to Rwanda and now they are underway to send prisoners to Libya.  This isn’t just deportation.

Similarly, we have seen reports on the conditions at CECOT in El Salvador.  According to Amnesty International, the conditions at Rwandan prisons are also dreadful.  The conditions at prisons in Libya are so terrible the United Nations has demanded their Migrant Detention Centers be closed while Amnesty talked of systematic torture in their prisons.  This isn’t just deportation.

I understand wanting a secure border, and I understand wanting to make sure people follow the appropriate legal process for coming into the United States of America.  This, however, isn’t just deportation.  We are trying to send people to prisons so cruel they would never be allowed in the United States.  This is designed to inflict the most possible harm on those deported by sending them to the most notoriously cruel prisons in the world.

This isn’t just deportation.  This is cruel and unusual punishment.

What will it take for Congress to weigh in?

 

Sources:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trump-deportation-el-salvador-cecot-prison-b2716191.html

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-records-show-about-migrants-sent-to-salvadoran-prison-60-minutes-transcript/

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/04/un-experts-alarmed-illegal-deportations-united-states-el-salvador

https://www.npr.org/2025/05/05/nx-s1-5387506/rwanda-talks-us-deportation-migrants

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/06/us/politics/trump-libya-migrants.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Fk8.qc7a.HMXoB2nD0GVb&smid=url-share

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trump-deportation-el-salvador-cecot-prison-b2716191.html

https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/africa/east-africa-the-horn-and-great-lakes/rwanda/report-rwanda/

https://libyareview.com/25728/security-council-demands-closure-of-migrant-detention-centers-in-libya/

https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and-north-africa/north-africa/libya/report-libya/

Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution – Wikipedia

On April 2^nd, Donald Trump announced sweeping tariffs across the world, declaring his “tariff policies would never change”.  After the stock market plummeted, the President ultimately capitulated and almost completely reversed his tariff policy on April 10th, except for those on China, by pausing them for 90 days.

On April 9^th, right before cancelling his unchangeable policy, President Trump said other countries were “kissing his ass” to make trade deals. So I want to take a moment to bullet each and every trade deal President Trump has announced with other countries over the past month.

The list is over.

Despite his claim that he has made over 200 trade deals, neither he nor any other country have made a single announcement.  Moreover, while meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, he pushed back on announcing trade deals and simply stated that we didn’t need to make deals, saying, “they want a piece of our market; we don’t want a piece of their market”.

There is no question that other countries want a piece of our market – exports led growth is a huge part of many countries, most notably among the “Asian Tiger Economies” but that ignores the importance of export led growth within the United States as well.  Notably, we are seeing farmers’ growing concern due to the expected constriction of the export market as a result of tariffs.

With many experts expecting to see rising costs due to tariffs, possible shortages on store shelves, and the economy showing a decrease in GDP, Donald Trump is clearly trying to change the story.  As indicators show signs of stress, the President took to Meet the Press and declared simply, “I think the good parts are the Trump Economy and the bad parts are the Biden Economy”.

This is just another example of President Trump trying to control the narrative and blame someone else.  Whatever happened to The Buck Stops Here!?

 

Sources:

Here’s The Full List Of Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ Tariffs

Trump: ‘My Policies Will Never Change’ | Newsmax.com

Dow tumbles more than 1,600 the day after Trump’s major tariff announcement | PBS News

Trump claims leaders are ‘kissing my ass’ to make trade deals as tariff onslaught begins – POLITICO

Trump says he’s negotiated 200 trade deals — but won’t say with whom – POLITICO

Ag Economist Explains Why U.S. Farmers Are Caught in Crossfire of Tariff Uncertainty

Trade war, tariffs ‘full-blown crisis already,’ U.S. farm exporters say

Here’s what could soon cost you a lot more because of Trump’s massive tariffs | CNN Business

China exports to U.S. plunge as tariffs hit, leading some experts to warn of product shortages – CBS News

Gross Domestic Product, 1st Quarter 2025 (Advance Estimate) | U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)

“The Buck Stops Here” Desk sign | Harry S. Truman

One of my 5^th grade teachers had a poster on his wall of a famous speech by Patrick Henry – and he often gave dramatic readings of it, encouraging us to give readings of it as well.  I still remember the highlight of the speech to this day:

“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?  FORBID IT*, almighty god.  I know not what path others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death.”

I have absolutely no idea why we did this in his class – he was our science and math teacher – but I will always appreciate those days with Mr. V at Mulberry Elementary School in Muscatine.

I will never forget my government class with Mr. Hansen at Muscatine High School.  In addition to being required to read The Federalist Papers 10 and 51, we were given an assignment I continue to appreciate: we spent several days discussing political topics that were issues at the time (fall 2003) – then we were given one topic and told to write a detailed essay on what a founding father’s opinion would be if he were alive today and why, based on their writings and opinions, we believe they would come to that conclusion.

I don’t remember which topic I wrote about, but I distinctly remember writing from the perspective of Thomas Jefferson, the conclusion being he would oppose almost every single power of the federal government on the grounds of state’s liberties.

The fear of political factions and the importance of creating independent branches of government stick with me to this day and I have Mr. Hansen to thank for those lessons in United States civics.

Also at Muscatine High School, I was part of the Speech and Debate Team.  While I tried my hand at Extemporaneous Speech, I wasn’t very good at it.  Instead, I stuck with Lincoln-Douglas debate.  In this style of debate, you were given a debate topic well in advance and you were tasked with writing arguments both for and against the topic.  On the day of the debate, you would typically have to argue your case, only being told which side you were supposed to argue right before starting.

I still believe strongly that the requirement to look at both sides of any issue is extremely important.  It helps me on a daily basis to understand the perspective of others as I do my best to encourage civil dialogue and promote civil discussion.

 

* When he said “I FORBID IT” he would slam a yardstick down on his desk for dramatic effect.  I would also like to note that Patrick Henry was a well-known abolitionist who spoke often about the freedom and the immorality of slavery, yet also owned many slaves and did not even choose to free them upon his death.  I certainly did not know that in fifth grade.

 

Somehow, I even have sources when talking about my memories:

Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death

The Federalist Number 10, [22 November] 1787

The Federalist No. 51, [6 February 1788]

Patrick Henry – World History Encyclopedia

Lincoln–Douglas debate format – Wikipedia