
CNN guest stuns studio with outrageous claim about white South African refugees allowed into the US
Allison offered the advice during a panel on CNN NewsNight Monday, as she reacted to the 59 white South Africans who have been granted refugee status in the US.
The foreigners, many of whom are farmers, have been allowed to settle in America after the president deemed them victims of racial discrimination.
The farmers are at risk of losing their land due to a new law which seeks to address the imbalance of land ownership in South Africa.
But many claim to have been targeted by violence amid the upheaval and have now been granted refugee status by Trump.
The decision has enraged Allison, who railed against their, 'special treatment' and insisted that the Afrikaners should go back to their ancestral lands, those of South Africa's colonizers, if they want to escape persecution.
She claimed that while she would be happy to accept refugees from the likes of Sudan or the Congo, she does not believe the US should accept the Afrikaners.
'If the Afrikaners don't actually like the land, they can leave that country, They can actually even go to where their native land is,' she argued.
🚨Scott Jennings sits and listens patiently as CNN Panelist Ashley Allison stutters through her understanding of "the history of South Africa."
"That allowed for a racial reconciliation — one that this country has yet to do."
"The people who are native to that land deserve… pic.twitter.com/BHngFEwynD
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) May 13, 2025
Scroll down for video:
The progressive commentator argued that white South Africans have an inherent advantage over their black counterparts, as an unconvinced Scott Jennings sat and waited as she stumbled through South Africa 's history.
First, she blamed the apartheid system, and its abolition more than 30 years ago, for the land situation, saying they reformed their constitution under Nelson Mandela, and that allowed for 'a racial reconciliation.'
'One that this country has yet to do,' Allison explained referencing the US. 'But South Africa did it, and they reformed their constitution. And part of that is that the people who are native to that land deserve their rightful land back.'
The former deputy director and senior policy advisor for the Obama White House Office of Public Engagement further claimed that this, 'is not what the Afrikaners actually want to have happen'. She specified that Afrikaners 'are the white Africans.'
'Who are not originally from Africa, who colonized South Africa also,' she continued, as some have accused the president of giving the white refugees special treatment. 'And so, that is what they are saying is discrimination.'
'Now, if the constitution in South Africa is discriminatory,' she continued, 'they have their checks and balances in that land just like we do and that is for them to.
'So if the Afrikaners don't actually like the land, they can leave that country,' she argued, leading to a reaction from Jennings in the form of one of a characteristic quip.
'They are. They're leaving to come here,' he pointed out - to which Allison simply said, 'No.'
'They can actually even go to where their native land is,' she elaborated, ignoring how Americans, for instance, also have heritage from countries other than the one they reside in.
The former Democratic operative then attempted to rattle off countries who carved out presences in South Africa over the centuries - starting in 1652.
'Probably Germany...' Allison said, grasping for words, before receiving some much-needed help from fellow former political strategist Ana Navarro.
'Holland!' the View host and rampant progressive exclaimed, speaking over Jennings as he attempted to ask a serious question.
'Are you against them coming here?' he asked Allison again, this time receiving a reply that appeared to ignore his inquiry.
'I'm against the hypocrisy of this administration,' Allison argued, before being prodded again for a real answer from the panel's only conservative.
'If there was actually a genocide happening like there is in other places in Sudan, in The Congo, I would not I'm not opposed for Congolese and for the Sudanese to come to Africa just like I'm not opposed to Venezuelans and South Americans coming to America if they are fleeing and looking for asylum,' she said.
'What I am against, it's not about being against them,' she continued, referring to the recent arrivals.
The same people who had no problem with letting in 20 million illegal immigrants, gang members included, are suddenly outraged about a small group of white South African refugees.
Spare me. pic.twitter.com/KR1vLIo42P
— Scott Jennings (@ScottJenningsKY) May 13, 2025
'What I am against is that they are being given special treatment when there is not a genocide happening in South Africa, and they just don't like the law of the land. You know what they tell people.'
Jennings, at this point, rightly pointed out, 'Well, there's been violence.'
He was referring to the litany of white farmers being killed in the country by fellow citizens frustrated with the lay of the land.
Trump said much of the same Monday, when asked by a Time reporter why he was carving out spots for Afrikaners over those from other countries.
'Farmers are being killed,' Trump said, shortly after a plane carrying what was billed as only the first group of South African refugees landed at Dulles International Airport in Virginia outside of Washington Monday.
'They happen to be white but whether they're white or black makes no difference to me. But white farmers are being brutally killed and their land is being confiscated in South Africa.'
Stephen Miller, a White House deputy chief of staff, told reporters on Friday the first flight from South Africa is part of a 'much larger-scale relocation effort' from the US to address injustices occurring overseas.
He said what Afrikaners face, 'fits the textbook definition of why the refugee program was created'.
The South African government, meanwhile, has argued Trump's claims of white South African farmers being persecuted are largely made up.
'The South Africa Police Services statistics on farm-related crimes do not support allegations of violent crime targeted at farmers generally or any particular race,' the country's Ministry of International Relations and Cooperation said in a statement.
'There are sufficient structures available within South Africa to address concerns of discrimination.
'Moreover, even if there are allegations of discrimination, it is our view that these do not meet the threshold of persecution required under domestic and international refugee law.'
In February, Trump issued an executive order accusing South Africa's government of seizing land from white farmers without any compensation, an allegation also denied by Cape Town.
The plane that arrived Monday carried about 50 Afrikaners, marking a new phase of the US' refugee program.
When asked what the difference between the group of refugees and the thousands the US argued it does not have the resources to house in January, Allison emphatically declared, '[because] they're white.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Metro
5 minutes ago
- Metro
Trump says Gaza children 'look very hungry' after Israel denies any starvation
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Donald Trump has pushed against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the issue of starvation in Gaza, saying children in the region 'look very hungry'. Yesterday, Netanyahu flatly denied there were any such problems in Gaza after his government was accused of deliberately blocking off food. He told a Christian conference in Jerusalem this is a 'bold-faced lie', adding: 'There is no policy of starvation in Gaza and there is no starvation in Gaza.' Despite the status of the US as Israel's biggest international supporter, President Trump appeared to disagree with this assessment while answering questions ahead of a meeting with Keir Starmer today. Asked by a reporter if he agreed with Netanyahu's comment, Trump replied: 'I don't know. 'Based on television, I would say not particularly, cause those children look very hungry. 'But we're giving a lot of money and a lot of food, and other nations are now stepping up. I know this nation [the UK] is, right here.' Attention has been drawn to the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza in recent days, as images of malnourished children circulate widely on TV and in print. Philippe Lazzarini, the Commissioner-General for the UN's Palestine refugee agency UNRWA, said last week his health workers were surviving on 'one small meal a day, often just lentils, if at all'. UN humanitarian chief Tom Fletcher has accused the Israeli government of forcing starvation on the people of Gaza, which is classified as a war crime. Israel, in turn, has accused the UN of failing to distribute aid properly, saying Hamas has been allowed to siphon it off. Netanyahu's government announced at the weekend that secure routes would be opened in Gaza for aid delivery, while the UK is preparing to airdrop aid as part of plans led by Jordan. Starmer described the situation as a 'humanitarian crisis' and an 'absolute catastrophe' as he stood beside Trump, adding: 'I think people in Britain are revolted at what they're seeing on their screens.' More Trending The crisis in Gaza is among the top priorities as the two leaders talk at Trump's Turnberry golf resort in Ayrshire, with the PM pushing for a ceasefire. He has come under pressure in recent days to announce the UK will formally recognise Palestinian statehood, but has held off, with government figures saying the move should come when it would have the maximum impact. A No 10 spokesperson today repeated Starmer's recent comment that Palestinians have an 'inalienable right to statehood', adding it is a 'question of when, not if' the UK would recognise it. Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ For more stories like this, check our news page. MORE: Joey Barton branded 'bitter and twisted' after vile posts about England's Euro 2025 win MORE: Donald Trump labelled 'Commander in Cheat' after caddie drops golf ball next to bunker MORE: Gaza becomes 'most expensive place to eat in the world'


ITV News
5 minutes ago
- ITV News
Starmer meets Trump in south Ayrshire for talks at Scottish golf resort
The Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and his wife Lady Victoria Starmer have met Donald Trump at the US president's golf course in south Ayrshire, Scotland, for a series of wide ranging talks on trade and global affairs. Speaking on the steps of the president's residence at his Turnberry resort, and accompanied by the sound of bagpipes, Trump hailed the deal on tarrifs he and Starmer had struck, describing US-UK relations as "unparalleled", claiming: "We want to make the prime minister happy". Trump took a series of questions from journalists upon his arrival, who were keen to question the pair on what they would be discussing during the visit. Occupying most of the president's attention was the ongoing crisis in Gaza. "I think it's one of the main reasons for our meeting," he told reporters. Starmer has come under pressure in recent days to move further and faster on recognising Palestine as a soverign state. 255 MPs from nine seperate parties have all written to the PM demanding he move to recoginse Palestine. The UK's G7 ally France also announced last week it would be recognising Palestine's statehood. Asked whether he felt recognising Palestine as a state was a necessary step towards resolving the crisis, Trump refused to take a stance, adding: "I don't mind him taking one," as he signalled Starmer. Contradicting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's assertions there was no starvation in Gaza, Trump said: "I'm looking at getting people fed right now. "Maybe that's the number one position because you have a lot of starving people." The US President claimed America had given $60 million (£45 million) in aid to Gaza already but that other countries would need to step up. Jumping in, Starmer emphasised: "It's a humanitarian crisis, right? It's an absolute catastrophe. Nobody wants to see that. He added: "I think people in Britain are revolted at seeing what they're seeing on their screens. So we've got to get to that ceasefire." Among the President's remarks was a strongly worded condemnation of Russian Presdient Vladimir Putin and the suggestion he would bring forward the deadline given to Putin to negotiate a ceasefire. "I'm very disappointed in President Putin. Very disappointed in him," said Trump. "We're going to have to look and I'm going to reduce that 50 days that I gave him to a lesser number because I think I already know the answer - what's going to happen." The US President was referring to his previous announcement in the Oval Office that he had given Putin 50 days to negotiate a ceasefire deal with Ukraine before imposing 100% secondary tariffs. Secondary tariffs would target Russia's trading partners in an effort to isolate Moscow in the global economy, potentially including nations that rely on Russia for oil and natural gas. Donald Trump will also meet with Scotland's First Minister John Swinney druring his trip, at which Swinney will broach the subject of tarrifs on Scotch whisky. Speaking on Monday morning, Swinney claimed the tariffs on this industry are currently costing whisky manufacturers £4 million a week and he would use this meting to make the case for lowering them. Asked about this on the steps of Turnberry the president, who himself does not drink, said, "I'm not a big whisky drinker... We're going to take a look at it." The president will be back in the UK in just under two months when he will be hosted by King Charles during a second official state visit.


The Independent
5 minutes ago
- The Independent
Britain has no business laughing at Trump's EU trade deal
In a world where Donald Trump's tariffs and trade wars make everyone a loser, are there any winners from his latest deal, sealed by a handshake with the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, in a ballroom at one of the president's Scottish golf courses, of all places? One very clear loser is von der Leyen herself. If body language is anything to go by, she looked like she'd been badly bullied by the Big Orange Man – and, truthfully, so she had. In her own clipped remarks, she admits that a reduction in tariffs to 15 per cent, while 'not to be underestimated', was 'the best we could get'. President Macron has declared the US-EU trade deal a 'dark day' for Europe – and you can understand why. A general tariff level of 15 per cent – better than the 20 per cent proposed by Trump on his infamous 'Liberation Day' in April, and even better than the 30 per cent he was threatening a couple of weeks ago – is still prohibitive. It is certainly way above the 2 to 3 per cent levels that most EU exporters used to face. A trade war has been avoided, but this looks like the kind of deal the Americans have forced on the likes of Vietnam or Indonesia. So it is something of a humiliation for the mighty European Union, a global trade superpower. The feeling in some parts of Europe must be that if von der Leyen had played hard ball like the Chinese, a more evenly balanced and more advantageous relationship could have been reached in the long run. We will never know the truth about that. For European pride and for many of its great industrial concerns, the deal is disappointing, and will be expensive – the Volkswagen group is just one to speak out. But for European consumers, it is surely good news. They will be able to enjoy cheaper imports from the United States; it is American customers who will have to pay more for their French wines and Italian sports cars. Could it be that the EU's trade deal – which Trump has, well, trumpeted as the 'biggest ever', and whose biggest 'win' is the removal of a threat to raise tariffs to 30 per cent later this week – is marginally worse than the one Starmer did with Trump in May? Britain's trade deal lowered tariffs of UK goods imported into the US to 10 per cent, and imposed a lesser, 25 per cent tariff on the UK steel industry, with room for further concessions, while the 50 per cent 'worldwide rate' will remain for the EU. For those now cheering this as a rare Brexit benefit, it is a hollow victory. For the concessions to Britain are so minor, they cannot hope to make up for the ground lost since Brexit – essentially, a GDP loss in excess of 5 per cent. And we're not out of the rough, by any stretch. As Keir Starmer meets the US president for further trade discussions at the Trump Turnberry golf course, he will be acutely conscious of his counterpart's unpredictability. Starmer has milked the modest concessions he managed to wangle, particularly on cars and food standards, but much remains vague and far from nailed-down. The greatest danger is the fuzzy UK commitment to improve the trading environment for the US pharma groups will eventually mean an enormous increase in the drugs bill for the National Health Service, which it can ill-afford. Trump also omitted virtually the whole of the service sector from his UK deal, where the British actually enjoy a surplus, which is great until he decides otherwise. There are no legally binding rules here. The world economy remains highly inter-dependent, and globalisation, while receding, cannot sensibly be ended, as even Elon Musk tries to argue. All barriers to trade harm the country that erects them both directly and, in their depressing effects on world growth, indirectly. Consumers are charged more, on a highly regressive basis, companies are forced to pay more for inputs, and be less cost-effective, and competition and dynamic structural change are deliberately impeded. Whatever the details of the individual deals counties are trying to strike with one another, tariffs make us all poorer in the long run.