As he does so often, Donald Trump accepted something he read or heard as gospel truth and repeated it as fact, this time in a Presidential debate, and was promptly ‘factchecked” and subsequently ridiculed. The back-ground: a large number of Haitian “migrants,” who may or may not be here legally, seem to have ended up in Springfield, Ohio. One resident complained that they were eating pet geese and cats, her claim went viral, and the meme-makers have had a field day…
…as you can see.
The evidence of actual cat-eating by the Haitians is weak to non-existent, though Christopher Rufo claims to have evidence of a cat barbecue by African immigrants in next-door Dayton, Ohio. As usual, the woke weaction to the controversy manages to focus on metaphorical trees instead of the far more substantial forest, and, also as usual, the conservative side of the dispute has allowed a complex issue to be made to look silly by Trump’s incurable carelessness.
The question that Americans need to be considering is whether there are cultures so objectively bad, corrupting and contrary to core American values that those steeped in these cultures should be allowed into this country only in limited numbers and under strict requirements. Even to ask that question has been tarred as racist and xenophobic, because the Left’s bonkers subjective ethics hold that all cultures are created equal, which is demonstrably false. American culture is one of the miracles of civilization, and its spectacular success should mandate protecting and nourishing our shared cultural values within constitutional limitations.
It would be difficult to name a more toxic culture than Haiti’s. The nation has been a disaster since its inception, and no leaders, no movements, no reforms have been sufficient to overcome sick traditions, an addiction to violence, and a terrible history. When Trump, as President, allegedly talked about how the U.S. shouldn’t accept so many immigrants from “shit-hole” countries, Haiti could have been his Exhibit A. It has earned that distinction.
Any single family from any nation is likely to be changed for the better by exposure to the powerful American culture (which much of the Left wants to dismantle), but in large groups, immigrants who carry bad cultural values with them can be the human equivalent of viruses, altering the host in permanent and dangerous ways.
This has been Europe’s experience with unrestrained immigration from Muslim countries. (Yes, I regard Islam as another example of an objectively unethical culture.) The problem, of course, is determining where a toxic culture that the U.S. has good reason to isolate and avoid ends, and where bigotry and racism begins. The exact argument that I just summarized has been used in the past in this country to oppress and discriminate against Jews, Catholics, blacks, Asians, Italians, Irish and Hispanics, all groups that have proven they can assimilate into the American culture while greatly enriching it.
Is it in the best interests of the United States to welcome all cultures across our borders, and if not, how shall we determine which cultures should be excluded without damaging our own culture in the process?
This is a crucial issue for the public to consider carefully and intelligently. Focusing on whether Haitians eat cats makes that harder to do.
Meanwhile, we are being bombarded with this kind of thing…
…funny, but beside the point. And because it warps the discussion, maybe not so funny after all.
Ethics Alarms 
For Trump to recite, for the umpteenth time, some demented claim as fact might be passed off as carelessness. To stick to his guns on it, also for the umpteenth time, indicates either that he believes it or that he finds it to be a useful lie. To have it tacitly supported by his party–“I mean, gosh, it COULD have happened”–does the immigrant conversation about as much good as a bland “open borders” statement does.
The Right gets a pass on its articulation of the immigration problem and its possible solutions. Their statements are invariably centered around anecdotes which are untrue or so wildly exaggerated without context on to be not true. I would suggest this is not carelessness.
So, what you’re saying is, immigration can only be discussed in terms the left dictates.
For example, “No person is illegal” posits that the United States, unlike every other country in the world, is prohibited from controlling its border and people from all over the world have every right to enter the United States, live here, and avail themselves of the country’s social safety net with impunity and any citizen or taxpayer who objects needs to simply get with the program.
It’s like the George Floyd or Michael Brown scenarios. Using individual anecdotes to bolster policy can have powerful results, but if the anecdote is questionable, then so is the policy. How many Haitians are there in the Springfield-Dayton area, and out of that number, how many credible reports of Haitian poaching do we have?
What Gully said is that the right shouldn’t tell racist lies.
If that sounds like he said “immigration can only be discussed in terms the left dictates,” what does that say about the right?
The post is not abut Trump. I appreciate that the Trump Deranged want to bring every topic back to how horrible they think he is, but the post was specifically about how this is a deflection of the real ethics issue, an important one. So you immediately yank it back to Trump.
How is it NOT about Trump?
Hatians eating and stealing people’s pets isn’t a real ethics issue.
Do you expect this falsehood to start an honest debate about immigration? That’s not how honest conversations happen. So of course this is about Trump.
You are ridiculous. The title makes it clear what the post is about, which even says that concentrating on Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric distracts from the real issue, which is valid but difficult. Nor did I say the cat-eating trope “starts” any debate: the issue of cultural compatibility with the U.S. is an immigration issue of long-standing, and I said that too.
This is how commenters discredit themselves. Good job.
Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric distracts from the real issue…
Exactly, it does distract from the real issue of immigration, because people aren’t talking about immigration are they? They’re talking about Trump spreading a gross falsehood to prove a point.
But what you’re missing is …that’s the real issue here.
You want it to be about something else when that’s not what this is about. It’s about someone running for president spreading such a ridiculous and unproven claim about Haitian people.
Congratulations, you made me ban you. Pretty clever responding to an earlier comment after my statement that you were cut off on this thread, but I’m not that gullible. You had every chance to be a productive commenter here, and you just couldn’t do it. What a shame.
ALERT: THOR is banned forthwith. Do not respond to any comments of his on any post from 2:39 pm. EST, 9/14/24, or your erudite comment will end up in SPAM Hell when his illicit comments heads there.
Darn, he was hanging in there for a while. I figured there was a good he’d go a step too far, but I hoped the longer he’d stay the more likely he’d learn something.
Sigh. The offer is still open for you to attend the Values Reconciliation Workshop; it helps with being persuasive.
Your assertions about “the real issue” and “what this is about” have no ground. It’s fine if you yourself want to talk about Trump being sloppy with his own assertions, but this post is about actual immigration issues, and yes, it did use Trump’s comment about cats as a segue. You’re free to think it’s not a good segue, but if you don’t understand that the post is about the problem of immigrants bringing toxic cultures to the U.S. when migrating in large numbers, then your reading comprehension needs work.
That’s the key sentence right there. If we’re walking in the woods and I tell you to watch out for mountain lions because they’ll cook you for dinner, you can argue with me about whether or not mountain lions cook their food, but if you don’t actually watch out for mountain lions you may get eaten regardless, and it won’t matter whether or not you’re cooked. Some facts are more important than others.
Some banned person took offense to my cartoonish mountain lion story, so I’ll post this here for general edification.
That example scenario was not meant to represent any form of immigration, legal or otherwise. I had a meeting to get to, and it was the best I could come up with in a few minutes to provide a concrete illustration of an abstract principle: namely, why it is foolish to allow an argument about something stupid to distract from a critical issue, *even when you’re right*. I’m sorry that it created the impression that I regard immigrants, legal or otherwise, as akin to mountain lions in some way.
Arguments about facts are fundamentally arguments about risk, so I had to use an example of a risk to illustrate the problem. If you like, I could make up an example involving financial risk, or the risk of falling off of something, or machinery breaking, or forgetting something important–whatever doesn’t indicate condemnation of any particular group of humans.
Regardless of the analogy, the situation at hand is that some people see immigration as introducing a risk. You could also describe the issue of immigration as one of trust, since it involves people with agency and motivations, and with whom we can build relationships. I don’t know that we’ve met, but you know me enough to know that it’s beneath me to imply that a group of humans is dangerous like wild animals, you may also know that I assert that humans should be looking for win-win outcomes to conflicts.
I hope that address your core concern about my previous post.
The right gets a pass? Like the Steele Dossier? How Trump is in Putin’s back pocket? “Good people on both sides”? Trump said to drink bleach? Trump is a rapist? Trump is racist? Anti-abortionist just want to control women? Shall I keep going?
Not to excuse Trump; his way of communicating is maddening. He isn’t as precise as he should be. He takes communication shortcuts. But I think he’s trying to point out issues the public should be more concerned about.
The bigger picture should be concerning. Even if someone is “just trying to make a better life for their family”, they bring custom, beliefs, and ethical baggage with them that drag down the society they are in. Cultures aren’t equal – one says to love your neighbor while another says it’s ok to kill them for petty reasons.
As I said, the Right gets a pass on its articulation of the immigration problem and its possible solutions. What this has to do with drinking bleach, I cannot imagine.
It was Trump who in fact deflected this particular opportunity to discuss the issue, by spreading a rumor ridiculous on its face and to insist on its truth to this day. It is no kind of derangement to state this. Is your argument that the Left should have said, “Trump once more has stated something verifiably false, but we should nonetheless pretend he raised the issue in a reasonable and truthful way, the better to argue for solutions?”
(The cat-eating is NOT, in fact, verifiably false, and the part of the story regarding ducks and geese appear to be accurate. The cat-eating rumors have not been verified as fact, and should not have been represented as fact. That is not the same as them having been proven false.)
By this logic, of course, any candidate could say anything at all that couldn’t be proven definitely not to have happened. “Planned Parenthood is harboring Bigfoot!” “Laura Loomer is an intergalactic plant!”
What is clear that Trump derailed his own conversation about immigration, by bringing in loopy internet rumor. The issue with immigration is not the danger Haitians pose to household cats. For the Right to propose, and then to insist, that it is, is irresponsible and unethical.
There were comments in a City Council meeting, comments to reporters from citizens, and a police report of Haitians eating cats. The City Council and the police don’t want to deal with it. So, it is murky.
It was Trump who in fact deflected this particular opportunity to discuss the issue, by spreading a rumor ridiculous on its face. . .
Why is this ridiculous on its face? Obama himself recanted a story in which he ate dog in Indonesia. Different cultures do eat dog and cat meat so it is not ridiculous on its face. The only thing we can say is a fact the the statement about Haitians eating pets has yet to be verified with any degree of confidence.
So, are you saying it’s okay to spread falsehoods in order to make your argument stronger or to prove a point?
People should use real facts to make up their mind about an issue, and not be feed insane lies in order to be manipulated into believing one thing vs another.
Pretty close to the opposite of what the post was about.
Then what’s your point? Because that seems like what you’re advocating.
Meh sure it’s a totally insane lie, but who cares! Immigration is an important topic we need to discuss as a country.
Why would you think spreading such a sick falsehood would lead anyone to have an honest and open debate about immigration?
It does the opposite. People don’t like being lied to or manipulated.
AAAND you’re cut off from THIS thread after that non-responsive and deliberately obstinate comment.
If you try to comment again on this post, you’ll be banned from all posts.
Does that apply to everyone? Or just those who you disagree with? Be honest, do you believe the media and the left have been completely fair and honest in their attacks on Trump? They haven’t told any insane lies about him?
somewhere between it is all lies and every thing is factually truthful lies reality. Trump’s manner if speaking is terribly imprecise, the VP’s manner of speaking is also objectively terrible. Avoiding the issue that is raised is a disservice to the voting public. Bringing 10 to 20 thousand 3rd world folks into a community of 50000 is insane.
You owe me a keyboard for those first two meme pics!
I hardly ever wear any kind of themed t-shirt or sweatshirt, but I may have to make an exception if I can find one with the “Don’t Snack” flag.
But to the point… I once had a conversation with a business broker that included asking about the types of people who came looking to buy a small business. He said he knew it sounded bad, but he hated to see a “middle-eastern type” walk in.
Any buyer client has to sign an agreement that they will not bypass the broker (cut out his commission) and try to directly buy a business he has presented to them. This broker said that, invariably, when he showed a buyer in this group something they had an interest in, that the owner would shortly get a call from “uncle Ahmed” wanting to discuss a purchase. The broker said that when clients did go through his company, US buyers would generally negotiate until both parties had compromised a bit and were mostly satisfied with the terms. He said “eastern types” didn’t seem happy unless someone got cheated.
In much of the world, your profit margin is what you can steal.
I think the cats and the dogs are a big distraction from the most important issue: how the influx of migrants – legal or otherwise – is being handled, particularly the wisdom of sending large numbers of them to towns and cities that cannot accommodate them safely.
There are allegedly missing pets in Springfield. Whether or not they are being caught and destroyed (and/or eaten) by Haitian migrants has not been proven. This doesn’t mean it’s not happening, but it also doesn’t mean it is. Mr. Trump, as always, is a lazy, irresponsible speaker. Additionally, his team is apparently just as lazy and irresponsible when it comes to making sure the anecdotes that back up his points are true.
What is being lost in all of these memes and so-called fact-checking (please add “credible” to the list of terms the Left has co-opted and redefined to mean: “What we want to believe is true”; “noncredible”= “What we don’t want to believe is true”) are the verifiably true problems existing with large numbers of unassimilated migrants, Haitian or otherwise, being funneled into areas without enough infrastructure to support them.
Verifiably true are overwhelmed social services, such as Medicaid, that leave tax-paying American citizens footing the bill to provide these new arrivals with food stamps, medical care and housing, while depriving local taxpayers of those same benefits.
Verifiably true are the increased number of car accidents caused by unlicensed* drivers that are either unable or unwilling to obey traffic laws. *Apparently, foreign licenses are being honored and the migrants are given one year to get their official documents. Part of the Ohio governor’s recent action has been to provide additional funds and personnel to facilitate driver’s education. In the meantime, people are losing their vehicles to wrecks and some are losing their lives.
Verifiably true are the videos of citizens of these areas addressing council meetings with concerns for their safety.
This does not even address crime issues caused by those who are being supported by the taxpayer, as well as evidence that, at the very least, geese and ducks are being killed and eaten by migrants.
The real issue here is a sloppy, incompetent and negligent immigration policy that is targeting vulnerable communities and could very well be part of a strategy to change the demographics of these communities come election time.
Two days ago, I renewed my driver’s license on my state’s website. There was an option to check if I wanted to register to vote. The AP just revealed that at least 300 illegal immigrants were registered to vote on the Oregon DMV’s own license renewal site. We only know how many they’ve admitted to, not how many more there could be. But, as we have been assured repeatedly, it’s illegal for non-citizens to vote so what the AP reported must be impossible. Just as it’s impossible for criminals to get guns if guns are outlawed. Just as it’s impossible for voter fraud to happen.
In “The Dead Don’t Die,” a quirky zombie movie satire starring Bill Murray, one of the first signs that people are turning into zombies is that cats start disappearing. I don’t think zombie movies and TV shows intended as metaphors for the illegal immigrant phenomenon, but come to think of it, they could be.
The cat-eating claims can be fairly translated as “These people are bringing habits, conduct and practices into our community that are harmful, that we don’t want there, and that should not be tolerated.” That’s the issue. And it has nothing to do with cats, or Trump.
Aren’t domestic cats eaten on a regular basis in China?
The Babylon Bee: Ohio Chinese Buffet Forced To Close After Haitians Decimate Food Supply
PWS
“There are allegedly missing pets in Springfield”
As we all know, towns with low immigrants populations never have missing pets.
I’ve said before that even when I was under a nonimmigrant visa, the state of Washington insisted I needed to get registered to vote, encouraging me to commit a federal felony. I bet twenty years later that is still the case, and with everything online now probably the same as with Oregon.
As is often the case with Trump, he goes into the weeds and misses the big point. Why are vast number of Haitians being imported into seemingly random towns in the US? The answer is that this is basically human trafficking. In each of these towns, there are large manufacturing facilities. The Haitians are being used to replace the US workers at a fraction of the cost. There are ‘staffing agencies’ who are acting as middlemen provide labor to the factories. The wages are being skimmed. The Haitians are able to survive with the low wages because their housing, food, and other expenses are being paid for by the taxpayers.
The big question is, why not subsidize the current (US) workers rather than illegals-made-‘legal’-by-executive order?
During the Biden administration, roughly 3 million jobs for illegal immigrants have been created while 1.4 million Americans have lost their jobs. Who is benefiting from this scheme?
I agree that the pet eating claim was not in his best interest to make without having an actual police report to back it up. I have seen a video snippet that appears to be a police body cam in which a person is asking a Haitian looking person who simply gives a blank stare to the questioner if he or she ( not sure) killed the cat and what is he doing with it – are you eating it is asked. Is this credible I have no idea. Far too many are creating false videos.
With that said, what foods do Haitians typically obtain protein. It is a fact that Indonesians eat dog meat and other cultures eat what we keep as pets – cats and guinea pigs. It is not so far fetched that some in this group bring a culture that could very well eat what we consider pets.
As I understand Jack’s point the idea that every culture can be easily assimilated into our own without doing damage is a fiction. We rationalize unfettered migration as a great benefit to our society which is too a fiction. To assume that the Us only gains from immigration fails to accept that not every aspect of a culture is a good fit and reduces the quality of life for all.
On balance, regulated immigration works to our advantage socially, technologically and commercially. Unfortunately, we have been sold a bill of goods that we must take in everyone no matter the cost so we can save them from the hell they left behind. The problem with that is they were partly guilty for creating that hell.
I will take a contrarian position regarding Trump’s claim. If no one is paying attention to the complaints that are easily proven such as increased costs on school systems, bad drivers, escalating costs in housing, health care and social benefits for this massive number of Haitians who were placed in Springfield by the federal government then this allegation of eating cats does nothing else it gets people talking about the extreme economic and social costs of this immigration policy and pleas from residents that they were once ignoring
So it’s ok to lie about a minority group for your political agenda. Nice of you to admit that so freely.
So it’s ok to lie about a minority group for your political agenda.
Apparently it is, since progressives do it all the time.
Or, for example, would you consider it factual to have as a big part of your political agenda that blacks or other minorities are not smart enough or not clever enough to be able to get an id card?
I reject cultural relativism and consider myself in a decent position to judge aspects of human cultures, considering that I have the ability and inclination to consider the advantages of an otherwise counterproductive tradition when even the humans practicing the tradition may not realize what benefit they get from it.
I appreciate American culture insofar as it’s associated with individualism, anti-authoritarianism, ambition, and probably a few more concepts that I’m forgetting at the moment. That said, I do think that American culture is missing some vital qualities that are required for a healthy culture. A healthy culture needs a population that understands the constructive principles of investment, preparation, challenge, and ethics, and that can work together to implement those principles. Without them, the only options are slow decay or quick collapse.
Do not despair, EC. Find a piano teacher or a dance instructor and attend one of their recitals. You’ll see parents (oftentimes a man and a woman, sitting amicably together) and younger brothers and sisters sitting quietly and watching their children performing. And they pay for lessons! Of course, it’s called giving your kids an advantage. And of course, the morons on the left call it unfair “privilege.” Morons.
“A healthy culture needs a population that understands the constructive principles of investment, preparation, challenge, and ethics, and that can work together to implement those principles.”
Great points, EC; if you think these constructive principles have ever been present in American culture, why would they get $#!tcanned?
PWS
Thanks! In many cases, humans have trouble passing along wisdom or skills they jave accumulated because they struggle with defining or articulating it so that other humans can absorb and apply it.
Humans commonly assume that wisdom is simply the product of experience, which is false. Experience without the right concepts to make sense of it does not make a person wise, because they can’t generalize their experiences to deal with situations they’re not familiar with. (Sometimes they think they can anyway.)
It is true that people must calibrate their application of relevant concepts to a particular context, and this process does indeed require experience. Calibration is how we know what amount of change in a system’s output requires an adjustment in the input we’re giving it. E.g. “Can I make it back home with the fuel gauge where it’s at, or do I need to stop for fuel now?”
Humans developed their wisdom after certain experiences like reading certain books, or participating in certain activities independently or in groups, and so their plan for instilling wisdom in the next generation is to subject them to the same experiences they had and hope that some of them learn something. That’s why revolutionizing the human education system is my next step after revolutionizing human politics.
Does that all make sense?
EC
Which demographic in the US population lacks the constructive principles of investment, preparation, challenge and ethics. Are these traits uniformly distributed among all demographics and if one group lacks the traits how do you suggest we develop them within those demographic groups if there is a risk of being labeled something negative by the mere suggestion of such a lack of skill?
How exactly does one benefit from a counterproductive tradition? This is axiomatically impossible. The first paragraph beyond your rejecting cultural relativism is beyond my comprehension.
Our culture once practiced the tools of investment, preparation, etc that you described until progressive policies turned much of our population into government dependents.
The United States is what it became because migrants were left to their own devices without any government interference. I see very little in the way of net benefits to a counterproductive policy of unfettered immigration that results in even higher numbers relying on government for an improved standard of living.
we became consumers and stopped being citizens and stewards of our traditions.
The first paragraph was me acknowledging Chesterton’s Fence: Don’t get rid of something seemingly pointless (like a tradition) until you know why it was put there in the first place. Most humans don’t know the reasons behind their own traditions, but with my toolbox of foundational concepts, it’s easy to come up with hypotheses for the most useful and the most likely purposes that those traditions might serve or have served.
A tradition is usually not strictly counterproductive, unless it’s derived from another tradition (i.e. as a logical consequence of the beliefs that define the other tradition).
Most traditional beliefs and practices serve (or once served) a purpose. They instill habits that help people work together to maintain the cohesion and health of the group. Some of them become maladaptive as the world changes. Some of them were tradeoffs that accepted a drawback in order to obtain some other benefit, but we have better options now. Traditions can help people challenge themselves and stave off the stagnation of decadence, but they can also lead to the stagnation of dogma, preventing people from challenging their beliefs or looking for better options.
I don’t have enough data to make generalizations about demographics or communities when it comes to constructive principles. Also, keep in mind that these principles describe ways people can handle problems in various contexts, and humans don’t always apply their skills from one context to other contexts. A person might practice investment when it comes to their time but fail when it comes to their money, or vice versa. It’s rare for a culture to be completely missing a constructive principle, although individuals certaintly might. If you describe the beliefs or behavior of an actual culture, I can identify where the people of that culture would benefit from constructive principles.
There are several angles to consider when getting a group of people to learn and practice constructive principles.
First, get buy-in from leaders inside the group. They can adapt the concepts principles to the group’s cultural background so the group can make the concepts their own, leaving behind destructive parts of their culture and building on the rest.
Second, make them think about what it takes to run a society that produces the standard of living they desire, and what roles they want to play in that society.
Third, make sure that they have support and guidance on their own terms when practicing constructive principles. They need to see the progress they make on the path to becoming independent.
Does that all make sense?
EC
Thanks for the reply.
In my varied career as a trucking business owner then in as an business assistance person for an NGO in west Baltimore followed by twenty plus years in an academic setting teaching Economics, managing programming in a correctional setting or counselling entrepreneurs in a business incubator at a community college, I have met a varied of people. Each contact I have ever had had been part of a unique cultural environment.
Every one of the tools you described was in one form or another part of that culture except investment. In some cultures investment was seen as not providing sufficient ROI so it made sense to simply consume. Instant gratification was the norm. Even academic officers who use flowery language about being student centered balk at new ideas unless the institution (meaning more money for their pet projects) benefits. Students are merely a means to get money to build monuments to themselves.
When you talk about getting buy-in from leaders inside a group that assumes that the leaders will forego their own immediate needs of gratification to achieve a higher purpose. I would not hold my breath on that one.
Your second point is achievable insofar as getting them to think about what it takes to make a society produce a standard of living they desire. However this assumes the players are rational. Trying to do this at the molecular level such as a neighborhood group or even at a city council meeting will be potentially impossible. I hate using the term impossible because anything might be possible.
The question becomes does the group itself have sufficient cohesiveness to begin with that it does not fracture when results are a long time in coming. My example for that is the entire narrative that systemic racism persists in America. How can this be measured? If we cannot measure something how can we declare it does exist. Some have chosen to just claim it to be true and if you challenge that assertion you are demonstrating just how systemic the racism is in America. If you agree and become an ally that too is proof that it exists. The same holds true for other highly controversial issues be it climate change or who is the actual God.
What happens when the fundraising is no longer needed to fight whatever issue is at the heart of the civic leader’s raison d’être? Will the civic leader want to abandon his or her power and status when the problem is resolved?
As much as I would like to agree that this should be done, I believe unfortunately leaders become leaders by giving their followers what the want to hear.
Real leaders, especially great ones arise when the group is under a known threat. The great leaders get their followers to take risks and behave in a manner that can even violate the desire for self-preservation. There is no leadership when the followers were going in a given direction anyway.
Anyway, I hope your ideas prevail and I am shown to be wrong.
” The back-ground: a large number of Haitian “migrants,” who may or may not be here legally, seem to have ended up in Springfield, Ohio”
They are in fact there legally.
”The question that Americans need to be considering is whether there are cultures so objectively bad, corrupting and contrary to core American values that those steeped in these cultures should be allowed into this country only in limited numbers and under strict requirements.”
The problem with this is that when large numbers in a population start asking questions like that, in the best case scenario, we get bomb threats (which are happening now) and in the worst case scenario, we get pogroms.
So I disagree that Americans need to be considering this question.
Even the New York Times conceded that some may not be here legally.
”Some” of any ethnic group is not here legally. That’s not a fair standard. How many of them need to be illegal to make their opponents’ claims that the town has been overrun by illegal immigrants valid? 2%? 10%?
Overrun with Haitian immigrants. That was the statement in question. Whether they are technically illegal or not isn’t the issue.
This guy, “John,” came on here apparently to get banned as soon as possible, and succeeded. Not with this post, but with his next (let’s see) five comments after that, all of which are in SPAM Hell now. Among his other tricks, he wrote that I accused Trump of a “Nazi Lie” in 2016 when he said he saw Muslims in the US on TV cheering the 9-11 bombing. I just wrote that was a lie, which it was, or close enough to one (Trump may have believed he saw that, but no such TV shot existed), but I never have called Trump a Nazi, and never will. It’s his opponents who are using the techniques of fascism, and quite openly too.
Considering a legitimate policy and societal norms issue results in bomb threats as the best case scenario. It’s dangerous to consider reality. Brilliant. Classic totalitarian logic.
My summary opinion is definitely generally in line with the conclusions of the post –
“The eating of cats is an unsubstantiated accusation and is a sideshow of a real problem.”
Welp…there’s THIS.
PWS
I’ve seen the blurry shaky video.