Trump’s Citizenship Proposal for White South African Farmers Faces Legal Challenges

President Trump has proposed extending citizenship to white South African farmers due to alleged persecution by their government. However, legal experts, including Rosanna Berardi and Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, argue that he lacks the authority to enact such measures without Congressional action, criticizing the focus on specific ethnic groups amidst broader immigration reforms.

President Donald Trump recently proposed extending citizenship to white South African farmers, which he claims are facing government persecution. He stated on Truth Social, “Any Farmer (with family!) from South Africa, seeking to flee that country for reasons of safety, will be invited into the United States of America with a rapid pathway to Citizenship. This process will begin immediately!”

However, legal experts assert that Trump lacks the authority to unilaterally extend citizenship to specific groups. Rosanna Berardi, an immigration law firm managing partner, highlighted that the creation of visa classifications is a Congressional responsibility, emphasizing that executive orders cannot change the law. She remarked, “He does not have the authority to do this. Executive orders can change policies, they cannot change law,” further noting that the proposal may encounter immediate legal resistance.

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, supported this view. He noted that there exists no mechanism for a “rapid pathway to citizenship” as suggested by Trump, since the fastest route currently available is through marriage to a U.S. citizen, requiring a green card period of three years instead of five. He remarked, “Trump can’t create a new pathway without Congress.”

Moreover, the South Africa proposal underscores a pattern in Trump’s immigration initiatives that may contravene legal guidelines. Last month, concerns were raised regarding his proposal to sell “Gold Card” pathways for citizenship to wealthy foreign investors, another initiative seen as exceeding presidential authority. Berardi reiterated, “There’s a lot of case law that backs up the facts he doesn’t have the authority to do that.”

This proposal raises questions about the Trump campaign’s immigration stance, particularly as it seeks to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for certain groups while simultaneously inviting South Africans and affluent investors. Berardi cautioned that TPS is generally reserved for countries experiencing blatant safety crises and characterized the situation in South Africa as specific to a particular demographic. She noted, “Typically TPS is reserved for countries where it’s just egregious and obvious that it’s not safe to be there.”

Trump’s narrative focuses on the alleged confiscation of land by the South African government from white farmers, many of whom maintained ownership during apartheid. His association with influential figures with historical ties to South Africa, such as Elon Musk and Peter Thiel, reinforces these sentiments. To further this agenda, Trump recently signed an executive order condemning discrimination against “ethnic minority Afrikaners,” calling for a specialized refugee program for them, thus intertwining his immigration policy with racial dynamics.

In conclusion, President Trump’s proposal to expedite citizenship for white South African farmers raises significant legal and ethical questions. Legal experts emphasize that such initiatives require Congressional approval, and argue that the true safety needs of various populations are not being adequately addressed. This proposal may highlight inconsistencies in the Trump administration’s immigration policies. The administration’s approach evidences a controversial blend of immigration privilege and national identity discourse.

Original Source: www.salon.com