In a recent hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Senator Tim Kaine clashed over the recent admission of a small number of white South African refugees into the United States.

After downplaying the well-documented plight of these Afrikaner refugees, Kaine objected to the fact that the Trump Administration made an exception for this group after shutting down other long-standing refugee programs.

Invoking the statutory standard that refugee status requires a “well-justified fear of persecution,” which these Afrikaners unquestionably have, Kaine then asked, “Should that standard be applied in an even-handed way?” (RELATED: Self-Proclaimed South African ‘Stalin’ Condemns White Refugees Fleeing Persecution)

The question was a blatant attempt to frame the admission of Afrikaners as a purely racially motivated exception, without acknowledging the broader aspects of Afrikaner compatibility with American civic values, shared legal traditions, their ability to speak English, and their European cultural ancestry, not to mention the relatively small number of refugees in question.

VAN HOLLEN: “I have to tell you directly and personally that I regret voting for you for Secretary of State.”

RUBIO: “Your regret for voting for me confirms I’m doing a good job.” pic.twitter.com/Ueqgk8rcwC

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) May 20, 2025

Rubio’s response was unapologetic and defiant: “The United States has a right to allow into this country and prioritize allowance of who they want to allow to come in. We’re going to prioritize people coming into our country based on what’s in the interests of this country.” 

Rubio continued, “The bottom line is this notion that somehow, we have to accept anyone who wants to come to the United States is absurd. No country in the world has an immigration policy like that.”

🚨 Rubio has FIERY exchange with Democrat Senator over Afrikaner farmers

KAINE: “Can you have a different standard based upon the color of somebody’s skin?”

RUBIO: “I’m not the one arguing that. Apparently, you are because you don’t like the fact that they’re white.” pic.twitter.com/DTxekvdvLv

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) May 20, 2025

Rubio’s position is both principled and pragmatic. The United States, as a sovereign nation, has the right to determine who it admits, based not only on perceived humanitarian need or economic utility, but also on cultural compatibility and long-term American national interest.

This position, however, runs counter to the egalitarian ethos that dominates modern liberal thinking, especially around immigration. In what could be called the “Statue of Liberty rationale,” the left has turned Emma Lazarus’s “The New Colossus” into de facto U.S. Immigration law.

“Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me.”

Under this view, liberals on the left believe immigrants should be admitted primarily based on how poor or persecuted they are, without further consideration.

For those on the right who adhere to economic liberalism, immigrants should be admitted primarily based on their economic potential. If they can increase the GDP, they’re welcome.

These two visions ignore the notion that immigration and refugee policy should serve more than abstract feelings of compassion or economic consumerist concerns. Immigration must also, and more importantly, serve the cultural and civic continuity of the nation itself.

The reality is that not all refugees or immigrants pose equal benefits — or equal risks — to that goal.

As Secretary Rubio highlighted in his testimony, there are far too many people in the world who could benefit from coming to the United States, and tens of millions already have, whether by legal or illegal means.

“If you look at all the persecuted people in the world, it’s millions of people. They all can’t come here,” Rubio stated. However, liberals do not see this as a problem. In fact, the more immigration from cultures and civilizations incompatible with or resistant to the dominant culture of the United States, the better.

This stems partly from their misguided belief in cosmopolitanism, which is a philosophical perspective asserting that all human beings belong to a single community and share a moral bond, regardless of their national or cultural affiliations.

But there’s a more sinister feeling underlying their support for mass immigration; the left believes the United States is an illegitimate nation, founded on stolen land. Through this lens, immigration from the third world can be viewed as penance for the sins of colonialism and imperialism. (RELATED: Liberals Have Finally Found A Group Of Refugees They Don’t Want)

The left also reminds us that “diversity is our strength,” yet without a shared national, civic, and cultural identity and assimilation mechanisms to reinforce all three, diversity has never been a strength of nations.

When taken to extremes, as we see within present-day America, diversity leads to internal strife, giving rise to populist and nationalist movements seen throughout the West. These movements are a natural response to the unprecedented cultural transformations experienced within Western societies over a very short period of time.

Rubio’s staunch defense of admitting a mere 59 white South African refugees exemplifies the broader, necessary reorientation of American immigration policy — one that finally prioritizes cultural cohesion and sovereign self-determination over liberal universalism.

Under President Joe Biden, the combination of mass illegal and legal immigration, lax border enforcement, and expansive refugee resettlement programs run by unaccountable NGOs has, as Rubio also pointed out, acted as a magnet for millions, with little consideration for the downstream effects on American communities like Charleroi, Pennsylvania.

Thankfully, the Trump Administration has begun to dismantle these mechanisms for national and cultural subversion using a variety of methods — by suspending the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP), deploying the U.S. military to help secure the border, empowering the State Department to revoke student visas or attempting to deport foreign gang members under the Alien Enemies Act, just to name a few.

And while the reforms undertaken by the Trump Administration mark an essential turning point after decades of misguided, egalitarian immigration policy, they must be only the beginning of a broader, multi-year project to regain and reassert national sovereignty.

Secretary Rubio’s statements emphasize that America’s refugee and immigration policies must prioritize something beyond humanitarian needs or perceived economic value; they must align with core American cultural and civic norms. 

As a sovereign nation, the United States has the right and duty to either shut down immigration entirely or admit only those immigrants who reinforce, rather than erode, its cultural and civic foundations. Without this discernment and the political will to enforce it, the very idea of cultural identity and national unity becomes unsustainable.

Adam Johnston is a writer whose work has been featured in The Federalist and The Blaze. He regularly writes about politics, history, philosophy, and technology. You can find him on X and Substack.