Worse
He’s a wannabe Hitler now, screeching about rounding people up and mass deporting them.
Donald Trump has said he will mass deport migrants in a small Ohio town that has been rocked by baseless claims that its Haitian
influxare eating pets and park animals.“We’re going to start with Springfield,” Trump said on Friday, adding the town had been “destroyed” by immigration. He mentioned a second city in Colorado, which right-wing commentators have falsely claimed is in the hands of a Venezuelan gang.
Springfield officials say that the debunked claim of pet-eating has sent shockwaves through its community, and has led to violent threats that have shut schools.
Wake up, BBC: don’t call people an “influx.” That’s trumpy talk.
Trump was asked whether he was considering a visit to the town during a press conference at his golf course in Los Angeles on Friday.
“I can say this, we will do large deportations from Springfield, Ohio – large deportations. We’re going to get these people out. We’re bringing them back to Venezuela,” he said.
He’s a foul, disgusting man. He taints us all (us Yanks) with his foulness.
Leaving claims of pet-eating aside:
From Cambridge Dictionaries: “influx”: “the arrival of a large number of people or things”, with the example sentence: “The town’s economy depends on the summer influx of tourists”. Doesn’t the normal sense of the word relate to people?
This is from NPR (hardly Trump/MAGA fans): “Springfield, a small city of around 60,000 people, has received 15,000 to 20,000 migrants in the past four years, many from Haiti, which has created tension as the city works to absorb so many newcomers in a short amount of time”. Reuters says: “… as many as 15,000 other immigrants from Haiti over roughly the last three years has reshaped this city of 58,000, …”.
How is that not reasonably described as an “influx”? Those numbers are ~ 30% of the population. What word do you want them to use?
This, by the way, is the mostly not the result of people crossing the border. This is mostly a Federal program that flies migrants from places like Haiti directly into the US, and then gives city authorities large amounts of money to take them.
I’m totally baffled as to why the Biden/Harris administration is doing this. If Harris does lose in November, this sort of thing will be a large part of why.
(Trump, is of course, an idiot, focusing on the dubious side-issue of pet eating instead of highlighting the issue itself, since likely ~ 80% of Americans would be against this policy.)
As for Biden/Harris’s motivation for pursuing this policy, I can only guess, though most guesses would be denounced as “conspiracy theories”. But then, isn’t the “conspiracy theory” label just an attempt to shut down discussion? Similar to objecting to the word “influx” to describe migration amounting to ~ 30% of the population in just a few years?
The logic behind the parole program, is that it will reduce the number of illegal border crossings, and it has.
Instead of dumping a group of homeless people on these cities with no resources. Correct.
DHS
(Note where it says “in a humane way”)
False claim check.
Trump is an idiot about the whole issue. The false pet earing claim is simply fearmongering, but mass removals of populations is significantly more sinister.
If it’s true that something is a conspiracy theory, then why wouldn’t we want it debunked, and yes, eventually ignored as a serious topic of discussion? Some disinformation could be described this way, surely?
One understands why Coel wants to leave false claims of pet-eating aside, and the threats of violence that have resulted from them.
I am not at all sorry to say this: Coel is a thoroughly unpleasant extreme-right troll who consistently argues dishonestly and in bad faith. and rehearses tropes that may be found throughout the extreme-right fever-net. There is nothing original in his protestations and arguments. Don’t bother with him.
@twiliter:
Ah yes, the weird and wonderful world of “fact checking” these days. This is indeed a good example, so let’s analyse it. From your link:
“Fact Focus: Claims Biden Administration Is Secretly Flying Migrants Into the Country Are Unfounded”
Then it quotes Trump’s remarks:
“Today it was announced that 325,000 people were flown in from parts unknown – migrants were flown in airplane, not going through borders … It was unbelievable.”
Notice that the quoted remarks don’t allege the “secretly”. That seems to have been added in order to then declare the claim false.
The only bit of the actual claim that they actually dispute is: “The migrants are not coming in from “parts unknown,” as Trump charged. CBP vets each one for eligibility and publishes the number of airport arrivals from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela.”
But the substance of the claim is actually true: “Biden has granted entry — by land or air — to at least 1 million people using parole, not just the 327,000 who flew from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua or Venezuela though December.”
But: “Angelo Fernández Hernández, a White House spokesperson, said Wednesday that reports of secretly flying people into the country were “categorically false” …”.
Again, the addition of the word “secretly” (did Trump actually allege this?) in order to thus declare the claim “categorically false”.
So the substance of the claim is true, Biden’s administration is indeed flying hundreds of thousands of migrants directly into the country, including: “67,000 Cubans, 126,000 Haitians, 53,000 Nicaraguans and 81,000 Venezuelans”.
But the “fact checkers” then declare the claim “false” because it is not done “secretly” (it is merely “enigmatic and lacking in transparency”), and because they are not “from parts unknown”.
This is for you Tim.
I am wholly uninterested, Coel.
An influx is an action, not a thing, and certainly not a human. Influxes of humans do occur, but as far as I know no influx has ever been observed eating dogs or cats or indeed anything animal, vegetable, or mineral. So the BBC’s wording is odd, at best.
As for the Haitians in Springfield, they’re there legally and to fill jobs. And while the city has had growing pains (not surprising for a city undergoing a sudden increase in population), crime hasn’t increased and overall it’s been beneficial.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/haitian-immigrants-fueled-springfields-growth-now-us-presidential-debate-2024-09-11/
Not to mention fact checking the fact checking, ad nauseum.
Trump:
Yeah, because no one has ever gone across borders on an airplane.
Fecking moron.
Tim, “…and the threats of violence that have resulted from them.” Right.
It seems like the only demographic that Trump wants to reach are the gun toting, ignorant xenophobes. You know, the kind who make bomb threats to children’s schools. He loves to kick that particular nest.
Ugh.
The “influx” question…
But the BBC didn’t say “influx of Haitians”; it said “claims that its Haitian influx are eating pets.” It’s not usual wording to talk about a [German, Canadian, Haitian, whatever] influx doing X. It’s not usual wording to talk about a [German, Canadian, Haitian, whatever] influx at all. It’s bizarre wording so it sounds thing-y – it sounds like referring to them as objects. It was a tiny, minor stylistic point, an aside, but then I’m a writer and an editor and I’m fussy about wording, so I tend to mention wording I consider bad in some way.
“Nobody’s eating cats. Nobody’s eating dogs’. John Legend says Haitian immigrants deserve grace.” {The Columbus Dispatch)
Very informative piece on what actually took place.
That certainly appears to be the case for his ludicrous and incendiary claim during the debate that the United States is awash in millions of violent, immigrant criminals, and that crime “all over the world” is decreasing because other countries are sending their criminals to the US, causing American crime rates to go “through the roof.” He all but said immigrant = violent criminal. That’s the idea he’s seeking to plant and cultivate. The pet eating is an attention-grabbing detail. However much that one detail is debunked or debated, his big take-away message remains: immigrants bad. That’s the “detail” that should be being debated, the major claim that’s left on the table once the chuckles jokes and guffaws over his “Trump being Trump” THEY’RE EATING OUR PETS! outrage fades away.
It’s really odd to see so many people flown in to a single town of 58,000. Are they living in tents, or did the city have block after block of empty housing?
True enough, YNnB. The dehumanizing and villifying is a constant with him, not to mention the gross (and false) idea that immigration has been somehow deregulated under Biden/Harris. The immigration laws are still in place, and there are legal channels to entering the US which are being bypassed. It’s just that the Biden/Harris administration has been working on the issue in a more compassionate and less cartoonish way than Trump’s “Build a big wall” and “Round them up and get rid of them” bullshit. These are people we’re talking about, not “animals” as Trump claims. The racist bastard.
@Ophelia:
This may be a minor difference between British and American usages, or perhaps it is a result of journalistic shortening, but it’s a normal-enough usage in the UK.
E.g. BBC: “Tourist influx turns Windermere green, researchers say” (link).
Reuters: “Montenegro’s Adriatic gem struggles with tourist influx”
BBC: “Dumfries university campus sees international student influx”
Or “… just two university cities have adequate [accommodation] for student influx …”
Disasters Emergency Committee: “Approaching summer and Syrian refugee influx add to Jordan’s water worries”.
UNHCR: “Six years since the Rohingya refugee influx in Bangladesh, UNHCR appeals …”.
Guardian: “Refugee influx helps halt decline in Germany’s population”.
And yet “tourist” “student” and “refugee” all have rather different connotations from “Haitian”.
But also, I said it was a tiny, minor stylistic point, an aside, so I’m not sure it merits all this “but I was right anyway” documentation. Or in fact I’m pretty sure it doesn’t.
This is for you Coel:
https://i.postimg.cc/3Nxq6F4X/459744897-1192370441932193-460759044385555691-n.jpg
“As for Biden/Harris’s motivation for pursuing this policy, I can only guess, though most guesses would be denounced as “conspiracy theories” (Coel)
What of course Coel is insinuating, without having the honesty or courage to come out and expressly say it, is that Democrats are allowing immigrants into the country solely because by diluting the white majority, they can win more votes – that is to say, he is espousing the White Replacement Theory, so influential on the extreme right. The tactic used is that of that revolting and corrupt individual Tucker Carlson who recently had an interview with a Nazi apologist that Elon Musk at once seized on, saying that it was worth watching. I remember well the ridiculous and wholly dishonest defence, both of the anti-Semite who wrote an anti-Semitic tweet and of Musk’s welcoming response to that tweet, that Coel mounted not so long ago here.
Ah yes. I failed to pick up on that dog whistle.
I said ugh first thing this morning and I’m saying ugh last thing this evening.
@Tim:
Nope, I’m not suggesting that that is “solely” their motivation, just part of their motivation. And, actually, I do have both the “honesty” and the “courage” to “come out and expressly say it”.
Indeed, at the time Tim made this comment I had already said so on another thread:
“Except that anyone with a brain can readily work out who migrants and black Americans do, de facto, tend to vote for. (And I don’t accept that this calculation plays absolutely no role at all, no Sir, in any Democrat’s support for any such policy.)”
People can make their own assessment as to whether such thoughts play any role at all in the minds of Democratic politicians. (Trying to win elections is what politicians do, and plenty are happy to accuse the Republicans of similar skullduggery, with gerrymandering and “voter-suppression laws”.)
The labelling as a “conspiracy theory” is just an attempt to shut down discussion.
But you only seem to find that ‘honesty’ and ‘courage’, Coel, when you are called on something, and then you attempt to wriggle out of it. Otherwise you proceed by insinuation, in the craven, falsely innocent manner of Tucker Carlson, whom you doubtless respect – after all, he’s made a lot of money, what’s not to like? He must have a high IQ, and of course a high IQ excuses anything!
Incidentally, I hope you saw the Youtube video in which Thomas Sowell and a person whose name I do not at present recall had the integrity to come out and admit that they were sadly mistaken in their questioning, in a previous discussion, of the findings of the two autopsies in the case of the murder of George Floyd and the finding of the court that Derek Chauvin was guilty of murder. Since you fiercely defended that first mistaken discussion and Derek Chauvin (someone who is nicely white, like you), I would hope, though not very much, that you might follow the example of Thomas Sowell and his interlocutor and admit that you were wrong, too. Will you? I doubt it.
It is interesting to notice that Coel has neither the courage nor the integrity to address the other issue I raised in my comment # 20, which was his ridiculous and wholly dishonest defence of a blatantly anti-Semitic tweet on X, and Elon Musk’s approval of it.
@Tim:
First, I suspect you mean Glenn Loury (not Thomas Sowell), with the other person being John McWhorter (though if you did mean Sowell then I’d be interested in a link to it).
Second, that’s not a fair summary of the what the second Loury/McWhorter podcast on this said (though why am I not surprised by that?).
Third, much of this derived from Coleman Hughes’s commentary on the affair. The latest piece by Hughes is this one at the Free Press. This is well worth a read for anyone interested in what led to Floyd’s death and the trial of Chauvin.
[Short summary, the death was caused by heart failure, most likely brought on primarily by a drug overdose; and in many ways Chauvin’s trial was not fair.]
I don’t know of any subsequent rebuttal to Coleman Hughes’s piece though if anyone knows of one please point me at it.
Tim, you put up multiple snide ad-homs; indeed all you really do is try to smear people in various ways. Why should I reply to them all? It’s utterly off topic in this thread, and anyhow Ophelia has said that she doesn’t want me to over-comment.
And besides, haven’t you declared at least six times that you’re ignoring me? Any chance you could stick to that?