Recently arrived Africans are facing difficulties trying to integrate into South Africa, which should belong to everyone. The author notes that the US refugee program aimed at saving Africans from 'white genocide' in South Africa by crossing the Atlantic Ocean has encountered obstacles.
While Africans were heading to the US, Latin Americans were, conversely, being expelled from the country under the MAGA mass deportation program. This raises the question of how these Africans can be accepted into the American nation if African Americans still feel excluded from it, and how they will be accepted by a country that is still struggling with the full recognition of its indigenous peoples.
Although the refugee program may seem illogical, there is a certain reason behind it related to the controversial 'Great Replacement Theory' proposed by French writer Renaud Camus. This theory asserts that 'liberal' elites are deliberately organizing the replacement of the white population in Western countries with non-white people through unlimited mass migration with the aim of causing the extinction of the white race.
This conspiracy theory has supporters in MAGA circles. According to media reports, Elon Musk is one of the open proponents of this idea. Although Musk denies racism, he used his social media platform X to spread views bordering on this theory. In a February 2026 article in The Guardian, Musk is quoted as saying: 'White people are a rapidly dying minority.' It is also noted that in January 2026, Musk posted daily about race.
In March 2024, an article titled 'Elon Musk's Constant Reinforcement of Replacement Theory Uses Immigrants to Sow Distrust in Elections' was published on the America's Voice blog, revealing that X owner Elon Musk was criticized for openly promoting white nationalist and antisemitic 'replacement theory' among more than 170 million subscribers on the platform, formerly known as Twitter.
In one of his repeated statements, Musk falsely claimed that the Biden administration has a 'strategy' to 'attract as many undocumented immigrants to the country as possible' to create a 'permanent majority' for Democrats.
'The Great Replacement Theory' links the narrative of 'white genocide,' the refugee program, and Musk as a key figure strategically positioned as a confidant of US President Donald Trump, a MAGA insider, and a major donor. NBC News reported in February 2025 that President Donald Trump signed an executive order reducing US aid to South Africa, following Trump's statements about the discrimination against white farmers in the country.
The same report indicated that this order followed the enactment of a new South African land law. Focusing on South Africa, the president reflects the views of Elon Musk, who was born and raised in South Africa. The billionaire, who became part of Trump's inner circle, described his home country as having 'racist property laws,' accusing its government of failing to counter what he called 'genocide' against white farmers.
A casual reader might assume that the African refugee program is aimed at countering the existential threat to the white race identified by the 'Great Replacement Theory.' The arrival of African 'refugees' could increase the white population in the US, while strict immigration restrictions decrease the demographics of brown and black populations.
The author admits not to be an expert on such a complex topic, basing his knowledge only on reading Hermann Giliomme's book 'Africans: A Brief History.' However, knowing a little about Africans, he notes that they are as integral to South Africa as Pinotage wine, which was created by Abraham Isaac Perold in 1925 in Stellenbosch.
This grape variety developed on local soil as a hybrid of Pinot Noir and Syrah. Similarly, Africans formed on South African soil from a mixture of Dutch and French Huguenots amidst the colonial slavery environment of Cape Town, which included Malay, Khoi, and San peoples. The language Afrikaans is unique to South Africa and is a product of history.
Fortunately, only a small number of Africans have entered the refugee program. But the inevitable question remains: is the search for a new home by Africans across the Atlantic a repetition of their ancestors' Great Trek in the 19th century from Cape Town? Possibly. Many Africans struggle with one issue: belonging to South Africa, which belongs to all of us. Some even go further, seeking a sense of community in the ideology of apartheid 'separate development' and Bantustan-style solutions, instead of being equal among equals.
The Great Trek was an escape of African ancestors from the British, whom they did not trust. It was also a journey into the unknown deep within South Africa. Dominant political formations of Africans perpetuate this Trek mentality—the mentality of a people who fear disappearance and are forced to flee to a white paradise for safety and prosperity.
For such a worldview, Orania is a dream, not an isolated, desolate place in the Northern Cape. As a result, many Africans try to find solace in exclusive minority spaces regarding race, language, culture, and religion, although the country's future is actually colored by the rainbow.
Paradoxically, a people like our Pinotage can become prisoners of racial exclusivity idealism. F.W. de Klerk belonged to another group of Africans. He showed courage by leaving the apartheid system in 1990 and choosing a new path toward an inclusive South African nation. But he did not stop there. After his death on November 11, 2021, his foundation released a posthumous video in which he sincerely apologized for apartheid, stating: 'I, without reservation, apologize for the pain, offense, humiliation, and damage that apartheid caused to Black, Brown, and Indian people in South Africa.'
The author was pleased to hear that another prominent African, Christo Zeeman, chairman of Shoprite and Pepkor, recently supported De Klerk's sentiments. In his 'address to people wishing to leave South Africa,' he reportedly advised: 'I am staying for several reasons, but the main reason is that I believe most people in South Africa are good people... There are countries where you cannot say that. But most here are good people, and that will ultimately matter.'
It is unclear how long the Trek mentality can withstand the counter-trend presented by De Klerk's vision and Christo Zeeman's optimism about South Africa. It is hoped that this Trek, which sends some of our compatriots Africans to America, and others to Orania and private African schools and churches, will one day find a leader who is not afraid of a shared future for South Africa.
African nationalism can explain this fear, anxiety, and besieged fortress mentality. It arose from the struggle on South African soil, shaping this identity. However, at every stage of its transformation into a movement, leaders were important, and leadership remains crucial even today in helping Africans see South Africa as an indivisible nation.
The story of one woman attempting to reunite with her partner across borders highlights the complex picture of migration processes in South Africa. This region stands at a crossroads, raising the question of the necessity to join forces to create conditions that allow people to remain in their home countries.
Amidst the flows of migrants between South Africa and its neighboring countries, a story linked to love unfolded. A woman from KwaZulu-Natal, wishing to stay with her partner from Malawi, attempted to cross the border under a false identity, but her plan failed.
When she arrived at the temporary repatriation point in Musina, she presented herself as Malawian. However, after questioning by Malawian officials, her story began to unravel. As a result, authorities returned her to South Africa, where her true identity was discovered, and hopes of reuniting with her partner through voluntary repatriation were dashed.
Governments are facing increasing pressure regarding the resolution of complex immigration issues. The South African government has already repatriated 53,449 foreign nationals, the majority of whom are Malawians.
As protests related to repatriation subside, more measured voices are being heard across the continent. It is encouraging to see the discussion moving beyond strong emotions and focusing on the economic aspects at stake. One woman from Zimbabwe recently stated in a podcast that millions of Africans migrate in search of work, security, education, or better economic prospects.
She supported the view that if more countries offer stronger economies, better governance, reliable public services, and opportunities for youth, many would prefer to build their future at home. It was noted that South Africa should not bear this burden alone. The entire continent must participate in solving the problem: African governments, regional bodies like the African Union, businesses, and communities all play a role in building a future where migration is a choice, not a last resort.
African leaders are called upon to take decisive steps to open doors of opportunity across the continent. The continent cannot continue to boast of its rich mineral wealth while so many people suffer from poverty and seek hope elsewhere. The time has come to address these issues.
By investing in agriculture and manufacturing, and prioritizing skills development for youth, African governments can lay the foundation for sustainable employment and a prosperous future. Policymakers must strive for improved governance and greater transparency in resource management so that the continent's mineral wealth truly contributes to the upliftment of its population. By supporting regional economic integration, investing in infrastructure, and expanding access to quality education and healthcare, Africa can become a place where people thrive without needing to leave.
The author argues that in a young nation, the concept of belonging cannot depend on chance or automatic historical processes. The migration crisis in South Africa serves as a stark example of how difficult it is to embody the idea of belonging in human society.
Man is a social being, existing in the context of other people and within a specific territory. The difficulties in feeling a sense of belonging today are exacerbated by the Westphalian state system, which originated in Europe in the 17th century. The modern state behaves egoistically: it claims people as citizens and establishes territorial borders enshrined in the country's constitution, meticulously documenting citizens from birth to death.
Contrary to popular belief, the sense of belonging among South Africans has changed. Jan Smuts felt his belonging to South Africa as Prime Minister in the 1920s, as did Hendrik Verwoerd, who implemented apartheid policy in the 1950s. The African National Congress (ANC), founded in 1912, promoted the idea of South African unity against tribal division. The Freedom Charter of 1955 declared: 'South Africa belongs to all who live in it,' and Nelson Mandela's efforts after 1994 were aimed at creating a 'Rainbow Nation.'
Various groups, including the Coloured population and other communities, voice their opinions on this contentious concept, as reflected in books such as 'Belonging: A History of Indian South Africans.' Political parties use this complex issue for self-definition and determining their target audience. The ANC defines belonging through its theory of four national groups: Africans, Coloureds, Indians, and Whites. The Democratic Alliance seeks to base its politics on mobilizing so-called 'minorities'—Whites, Indians, and Coloureds—as groups whose interests need protection under a 'Black majority government.' Other parties adopt a narrower definition of who truly belongs, sometimes relying on racial or ethnic nationalism. Loud calls for secession are heard in the Western Cape and KwaZulu-Natal, among which uncompromising Pan-Africanists remain, wishing to send white South Africans into the sea.
The question of belonging sparks debate in intellectual circles. The widely accepted indigenous theory holds that Black Africans are the original inhabitants of South Africa and, therefore, the primary claimants to the country's land. However, this theory is challenged by the 'First Peoples' view put forward by some Khoisan intellectuals, who rightly point out that Bantu speakers may be Africans, but they are migrants from Central Africa who settled at the southern tip of the continent, which had been occupied for millennia by Khoi and San communities. During the colonial era and even in the 1960s, settler scientists propagated the false theory of 'empty land,' according to which parts of South Africa occupied by European settlers were 'empty' and thus belonged to no one. A related argument suggested that Bantu migrants from Central Africa arrived around the same time as European settlers landed at the Cape in the 16th century. Today, neither of these theses is accepted, as research has refuted their premises.
Within this South African discussion of belonging, three key issues arise: race, class, and gender. In the colonial social structure, not all Black people (Africans, Coloureds, and Indians) had the right to belong. White women were also not fully included in the group of belonging, only gaining the right to vote in 1930. Regarding the working class, their right to belong could be limited to providing labor to sustain the economy, and furthermore, their claims to belonging were hindered by numerous barriers to entry into this group.
It must be evident that the concept of belonging is linked to rights and entitlements. In the modern state, such rights can be guaranteed by the constitution. A member of the group can enjoy the rights granted to group members and receive corresponding benefits. This is where expectations come into play. A member has the legal right to sue to defend or seek compensation if they are denied the rights and benefits of the belonging group. However, emotions can get out of hand, and neighbors may begin to feud with each other if natural resources or access to public goods are at stake, causing the circle of those who belong to shrink to a minimum.
Now, in the context of high international migration, foreigners face the geographical boundaries of the Westphalian state and the social barriers that determine who truly belongs. These boundaries are influenced by racial, class, and other stereotypes. A foreigner from Europe or the US generally feels better in Africa, where the racial hierarchy established during colonialism already grants them superiority. The wealthy have enough means to shield themselves from surrounding chaos. In contrast, poor African foreigners are in a more vulnerable position, regardless of whether they are on their own continent, in Europe, the US, or anywhere else in the world. Regardless of nationality, skin color largely determines how they are treated in the host country. On their own continent, they have to deal with local residents in the same fishing ground. In Europe and the US, they may be attacked by far-right whites.
The boundaries in this sensitive topic are very narrow and often require arbitration. Is belonging determined by the legal document you hold, or by your place of origin? In the context of South Africa, this sense of belonging can also be dated to the period before or after 1994. Before 1994, race was the key factor. Mandela's Rainbow Nation united people around 'Springbok' and 'Bafana.' In 1996, its government introduced the SA Amnesty, granting permanent residency to undocumented foreigners from neighboring countries. Thabo Mbeki's speech in May 1998 before the South African parliament emphasized that despite achieving political independence from apartheid, the country remained divided into two nations: the First Nation—the white, wealthy, prosperous people with access to developed economy and infrastructure—and the Second Nation—the majority poor Black population with limited opportunities.
Looking at images of anti-immigrant demonstrators on television, we see another meaning—the power to define who belongs. This power manifests in how marchers dominate the streets, in their song that drowns out any dissenting voices. Their raised sticks, like a clenched fist, send an unambiguous message to anyone who dares to challenge their right to define our nationality. In such a situation, belonging is more than just legality, inherent boundaries, or violated territory; it also relates to the broader category of 'us' and 'them.' You belong if you agree; you do not belong if you have a different opinion. As Vladimir Lenin once asked? It is obvious that in such a young nation, belonging cannot be left to chance or automatic forces of historical change. It must be consciously and continuously cultivated—in schools, through religious centers, in the media, and through the statements of our leaders. It is not enough to simply know the anthem by heart. We can sing daily, swearing allegiance to the flag, but that is not enough. Our education system and media must instill the consciousness of our collective belonging in our worldview. Our leaders must also possess the wisdom to hold their ground in difficult times when the water overflows, just as anchors serve the ship in stormy weather.
