Key Takeaways
• Charl Kleinhaus arrived in the U.S. May 12, 2025, amid controversy over antisemitic posts.
• The Trump administration prioritized Afrikaner refugees, citing humanitarian relief from racial discrimination in South Africa.
• DHS policy since April 2025 states antisemitic social media posts can deny immigration, but exceptions spark claims of double standards.
On May 12, 2025, authorities at Dulles International Airport welcomed Charl Kleinhaus, a 46-year-old white Afrikaner from Limpopo, South Africa 🇿🇦, as he arrived in the United States 🇺🇸. He was not alone—Kleinhaus traveled with his daughter, son, and grandson, ready to settle into a new life in Buffalo, New York. This marked a significant moment in American immigration, as he was just one among a group of 59 white South Africans arriving on the same chartered flight from Johannesburg, powered by a new refugee resettlement program announced and set in motion by the Trump administration. The group’s arrival was met with both high-level greetings and immediate controversy, spotlighting issues of fairness, American policy, and the challenges that come with making life-changing immigration decisions.
U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau and Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security Troy Edgar were both on hand to greet the new arrivals. For many, including Kleinhaus, this arrival represented hope and protection from what they see as threats or injustice back home. But before the celebration could settle, Kleinhaus became the focus of a heated debate—raising difficult questions about how the United States 🇺🇸 handles its refugee resettlement policies and what kinds of standards should apply to new immigrants.
Social Media Posts Stir Controversy
Soon after the arrival of Charl Kleinhaus, reporters began examining his online activity. Several media outlets uncovered that he had repeatedly posted antisemitic comments on X, the platform formerly called Twitter. These were not vague or hidden comments. In April 2023, a now-deleted post from Kleinhaus read, “Jews are untrustworthy and a dangerous group they are not Gods chosen like to believe they are. Where is the Temple that must be their concern leave is alone we all believe in the God of Abraham, Moses and Jacob! I almost said something ugly…” This message appeared as a public reply to a video about Christians clashing with Israeli police near the Church of the Nativity.
The discoveries didn’t end there. On October 7, 2023, when the world watched the violent attack by Hamas on Israel, Kleinhaus shared a video from Al Jazeera showing Orthodox Israelis spitting on Christians. Soon after, he posted a Facebook video labeled “Israel Is a Terrorist State” alongside the comment, “Jews attacking Christians!” He did this just five days after the attack, marking a clear pattern of sharing, and sometimes supporting, antisemitic content.
When contacted by a reporter from The Bulwark, Kleinhaus admitted he was the owner of the X account linked to these comments. However, he refused to discuss his posts any further, saying only that he was busy with the paperwork that comes with refugee arrivals.
U.S. Immigration Policy and Inconsistency
The surfacing of Charl Kleinhaus’s antisemitic posts sparked intense discussion about whether current U.S. immigration rules are being applied fairly and evenly. Very recently, the Department of Homeland Security publicly stated that antisemitic online activity could be a reason for denying someone’s immigration request. The policy was announced in April, one month before Kleinhaus and his group landed in the United States 🇺🇸. The Department made it clear in several interviews: “antisemitic activity on social media will be grounds for denying immigration requests.”
Beyond that, the administration has pointed to antisemitism as a key factor in other immigration cases. For example, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio argued in court that a Columbia University protester, Mahmoud Khalil, should be deported because condoning anti-Semitic behavior could hurt U.S. foreign policy goals. As reported by VisaVerge.com, this has set a clear tone for how such cases are expected to proceed.
The facts sparked immediate questions: Given all this, why did Kleinhaus still gain refugee approval even after his history of antisemitic comments was well known and documented? Critics have openly raised the idea that there may be double standards at work. They suggest that race or political views could play an unfair role in who is accepted as a refugee, despite the stated policies. If one group is denied on the basis of antisemitism, they argue, shouldn’t the same standards apply to all, regardless of nationality or background?
Background to the Afrikaner Refugee Program
To understand why Kleinhaus and so many other white South Africans received refugee status in 2025, it’s important to look at the executive order that created this path. On February 7, 2025, President Trump issued a wide-reaching order that told U.S. immigration officials to focus on “humanitarian relief, including admission and resettlement through the United States Refugee Admissions Program, for Afrikaners in South Africa who are victims of unjust racial discrimination.” This was the founding document for the Afrikaner refugee resettlement plan. The full text of President Trump’s order can be found on the official White House website.
When facing questions about why Afrikaners were chosen above other groups needing refuge, President Trump did not shy away from his reason. On the day of the group’s arrival, he told reporters, “Because they’re being killed. And we don’t want to see people be killed. It’s a genocide that’s taking place… Farmers are being killed. They happen to be white, but whether they’re white or black makes no difference to me.”
This direct quote set the tone for the policy. President Trump’s administration said its main concern was the safety of people it saw as facing unacceptable levels of violence in South Africa 🇿🇦. The policy’s wording and the president’s statements made it clear: the idea was to help Afrikaners who might be attacked because of their identity.
Disputed Claims and Reactions
However, not all agreed with the president’s version of events. Leading up to and during the rollout of this program, both the South African government and a top South African court spoke out. In February—just weeks before the refugees’ arrival—a South African court ruled that claims about an active “white genocide” in the country were false. Top government officials in South Africa 🇿🇦 said, on repeated occasions, that there is no policy or pattern of discrimination against white South Africans. These statements were supported by research into crime data and other public statistics.
In the United States 🇺🇸, these debates have made waves, especially among those who keep a close eye on global refugee movements. Some say the administration went too far, shaping its policies around stories that South African courts have already disproven. Others believe that even if there is not an active “genocide,” life may still be very difficult for some Afrikaners in South Africa 🇿🇦.
The controversy was made even deeper by the new revelations about Kleinhaus and his online activity. Many voices—politicians, experts, and ordinary Americans—have asked whether the immigration policy was really about humanitarian relief, or whether other ideas, such as race, culture, or politics, played a more important behind-the-scenes role.
Policy Principles and Possible Double Standards
The way the U.S. government treats antisemitism and other hate-related activity in immigration cases is a major point of debate for legal experts. The Department of Homeland Security’s recent statement is clear: “antisemitic activity on social media” is a valid reason for denying any immigration application. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, too, has pressed hard for strong action against those who express antisemitic ideas or support violence in any way.
Yet when it comes to the case of Charl Kleinhaus, the policy was not enforced the same way. Despite several public posts attacking Jews—with some posts still viewable at the time of his arrival—his paperwork was accepted and his resettlement through the Afrikaner program went forward as planned.
Legal scholars and advocacy groups quickly pointed out this contradiction. If an outspoken protester at Columbia University is deported for supporting or appearing to support antisemitism, then, they ask, why did Kleinhaus face no such consequence? Advocacy groups worry that these differences send the wrong message about America’s priorities.
Some critics believe the Afrikaner program itself has created an unfair system—one in which certain refugees are “prioritized” not only because of their claimed risk of violence, but also because of their identity or political sympathies. While President Trump said his goal is to stop people from being killed, he also made statements that align with some right-wing narratives about South Africa.
These concerns, they argue, raise hard questions about how consistent, fair, and balanced American immigration policy really is—especially when it comes to sensitive issues like race and hate speech.
Stakeholder Impact and Wider Effects
The arrival of Kleinhaus and other Afrikaner refugees does not just touch on questions of paperwork. It has real effects for many groups:
- For Immigrants: Many new arrivals are likely to face extra scrutiny—by officials, the media, and the public. That scrutiny can make it harder for them to settle into new lives and to feel welcome in their new communities.
- For Refugee Policy: The episode may lead to a review of how background checks and policy standards are applied. Expect calls for clearer rules on social media history, especially when hate speech or antisemitism is involved.
-
For Host Communities: Towns like Buffalo, New York, are often eager to welcome newcomers. However, stories like Kleinhaus’s can shake trust or spark community debates about who should be allowed in and why.
-
For Legal and Political Rhetoric: When the government makes special exceptions—or appears to favor some groups over others—public faith in the fairness of the system is reduced. Requests for transparency and even court challenges can follow.
-
For International Relationships: The United States 🇺🇸 must balance its humanitarian goals with its foreign policy. If officials act in ways that seem to confirm one-sided stories about other countries, that can hurt diplomatic ties and create tensions.
The Road Ahead
For the Biden administration and future leaders, the challenge will be to apply the law as it is written—without special favors or double standards. The public expects immigration policy to be based on real facts and clear rules, not shifting politics.
Clear guidelines already exist. The Department of Homeland Security says social media activity will be checked for hate speech or threats. The U.S. Refugee Admissions Program is covered in detail by the U.S. State Department, which offers the rules for who can apply and what will be checked. Readers can find more information about the official program on the State Department’s Refugee Admissions page.
For now, the arrival of Charl Kleinhaus under the Trump administration’s new refugee resettlement plan stands as a case study in the complexities of managing refugee admissions. It asks Americans—and people around the world—to think about how societies decide who most needs help, how fairly the rules are applied, and what values stand behind those choices.
As related details continue to surface, and as debates grow both in Congress and in communities nationwide, Americans will watch closely to see if rules and reality begin to match. The case of Charl Kleinhaus reminds everyone that immigration is not just about numbers and documents. It is also about fairness, values, community, and the hard work of living up to those standards.
In summary, the controversy surrounding Kleinhaus’s past comments and his recent arrival puts the spotlight on difficult but important questions: Are America’s refugee rules transparent and fair for all? Or do gaps remain, making room for confusion, controversy, or even bias? As the United States 🇺🇸 continues to accept refugees, these issues will likely keep appearing, shaping the ways people think about safety, inclusion, and America’s place in the world.
Learn Today
Afrikaner → A white South African, mainly descended from Dutch settlers; central in this article due to the refugee program.
Refugee Resettlement Program → A U.S. government program that provides humanitarian protection by admitting people fleeing persecution or danger.
Antisemitism → Hostility to or prejudice against Jewish people; key to the controversy over Kleinhaus’s social media posts.
Executive Order → A directive issued by the U.S. President to manage operations of federal agencies, important here for establishing the refugee program.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) → U.S. agency responsible for immigration policy and security, involved in deciding refugee admissions.
This Article in a Nutshell
Charl Kleinhaus arrived in the U.S. with his family under a new Afrikaner refugee program. His antisemitic social media history, revealed after arrival, sparked debates about inconsistent application of immigration policies. Critics argue these double standards raise questions about fairness and transparency in American refugee resettlement decisions and priorities.
— By VisaVerge.com
Read more:
• Trump Administration Uses Refugee Resettlement to Aid ICE Arrests
• Trump Administration Picks Afrikaners Over Other Refugees
• Diplomat makes history as first refugee named UK High Commissioner
• Office of Refugee Resettlement shifts focus from immigrant children care
• White South African Refugees Get Trump’s Special Welcome in Iowa
