The Truth About Cats And Dogs

Also, the truth about racism and the Trump-Vance team's focus on immigration.

I’m Michael A. Cohen, and this is Truth and Consequences: A no-holds-barred look at the absurdities, hypocrisies, and surreality. If you were sent this email or are a free subscriber and would like to become a paid subscriber, you can sign up here.

If money is tight or you’re already up to eyeballs in subscriptions, here’s another idea — share this article. Email it to a friend (or even an enemy). Post it on Facebook, Twitter, or LinkedIn. Text or email it to your wife, husband, mother, father, brother, sister, or even your creepy second cousin who lives in the world of the Mole People. Word of mouth is often the best way to build support for a creative endeavor, so if everyone here sends it to just one person … it would be much appreciated.

One week ago, at the presidential debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, the former president amplified a false claim on social media about Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, that “they are eating the dogs … They're eating the cats. They're eating the pets of the people that live there.”

Since then, Springfield has been buffeted by a steady stream of bomb threats, which has forced local officials to temporarily shutter government offices, hospitals, elementary and middle schools, and two colleges. On Monday, a local festival celebrating “diversity, arts and culture” was also canceled — a fitting monument to Trump and Vance’s racist attacks. Worst of all has been the effect on the local Haitian community, which is increasingly under siege.

News organizations have gone to great lengths to debunk these false claims. So, too, have local authorities. According to an ABC report, “A spokesperson for the city of Springfield has told ABC News these claims are false, and there have been ‘no credible reports or specific claims of pets being harmed, injured or abused by individuals in the immigrant community.’’’

All of this is well and good. But something is missing from this story: even if the claims of one or two Haitian immigrants eating animals were true, so what?

The problem with the Trump campaign’s attacks on Haitian migrants is not that they are spreading false claims (which they are); it’s the suggestion that the actions of a few individuals should cast aspersions on the entire Haitian community. Such an argument is literally the definition of racism.

If the Trump campaign said that two non-Haitian Black men in Springfield were eating pets … and thus “they” (all Black people in Springfield) are “eating the pets of the people that live there,” the accusations of racism would come fast and furious. They’d also be correct. Quite simply, you can’t make a judgment about an entire race or ethnic group based on the actions of a handful of individuals.

This might seem obvious, but it has gone largely unmentioned over the past week. Indeed, it rarely goes mentioned when Republicans use the example of a terrible crime committed by a migrant or undocumented immigrant to condemn all migrants or undocumented immigrants (as they regularly do). Yes, it’s true that undocumented migrants sometimes commit crimes (though they don’t commit them at a rate higher than the native-born population). It’s also true that Jews, Hispanics, Blacks, Asians, Eskimos, and even white people (sarcasm alert) commit crimes. But generalizing about all Jews, Hispanics, Blacks, Asians, Eskimos, and white people because of the actions of a few would be completely unacceptable. Why aren’t we calling out that kind of racism when it’s applied to Haitian migrants — or migrants in general?

I Love The 90s!

Along the same lines, the attacks on Haitian migrants have gone beyond merely stories of dogs and cats, but to the general proposition that Black migrants have no place in predominately white communities. As I wrote today for MSNBC:

As Vance’s rhetoric has made clear, his concern is not the Haitians’ immigration status: They are in America legally. Rather, the issue is their skin color and background of those moving to Springfield. As the vice presidential nominee argued on X this weekend, the real question about Springfield is, “Should we drop 20,000 people from a radically different culture in a small Ohio town in a matter of a few years?” 

Never mind that, like so many immigrant communities before them, the Haitian community in Springfield has more than acclimated itself to their new homes. Their “positive influences” on the town have been noted by everyone from Springfield’s Republican mayor and local business leaders to Ohio’s Republican governor, who has decried the Trump/Vance-led attacks as “garbage.”

But would Vance make such proclamations if the 20,000 people were, say, from Norway? Would he make the same argument about urban gentrification and thousands of white yuppies moving into a predominately Black or Hispanic community? 

When Vance claims that “what is happening in Springfield is coming to every town and city in this country if Kamala Harris’ open border policies are allowed to continue,” his intent is not difficult to discern. His incessant focus on “illegal immigration” and problems “at the border” is nothing more than a racist dog whistle to MAGA voters. And it’s one that minority communities have seen play out in America for centuries. 

I feel a bit like Captain Obvious in pointing out that immigrant-bashing by the Trump campaign is deeply rooted in racism, but sometimes the forest gets lost for the trees. Everything about this campaign of hatred against Springfield’s Haitian community is about scaring white voters into fearing the other — whether it’s people of color or migrants, in general. None of this has anything to do with immigration. It has everything to do with racism and fear.

Is Immigrant Bashing Smart Politics?