“This is Springfield, Ohio on a late Saturday afternoon. Springfield in the last calm and reflective moment – before the monsters came.”
The debate over immigration, particularly illegal immigration, has long been a point of contention in American politics. Reasonable people can argue over how to manage the border, what to do about those who are already here illegally, and how to reform a system that’s been broken for decades. Both sides have their entrenched positions: Republican priorities are securing the southern US border, stemming the flow of illegal immigration, and enforcing existing laws. Democrats refuse to compromise - trusting in early 21st century exegeses that unchecked migration into the United States would result in a permanent democrat vote bank. Democrat intransigence has contributed to the rise of populism in the Republican party, and empowered the nativist faction within the GOP - those who wish to end all immigration to the United States and deport the illegal population en masse.
The town of Springfield, Ohio has become a synecdoche for the immigration debate in the ongoing 2024 election campaign. In late August, a driver caused an accident that resulted in the death of an 11-year old child. The driver was from Haiti and in the country illegally. While he was sentenced to jail, neo-Nazi groups paraded through the town and threatened the mayor during a City Commission meeting for allowing Haitian migrants to live in the town. They may have been the initial vector for the hysteria that followed and engulfed Springfield.
Rumors began to spread on social media that the Haitians migrants in Springfield were kidnapping people’s pets and eating them. Videos of Springfield City commission meetings went viral, showing angry citizens expressing concerns about their safety due to Haitian migrants. An image of a black man holding a goose became proof that even the local wildlife wasn’t safe. The general impression one received from social media was that a small Ohio town had suddenly been invaded by foreign barbarians wreaking havoc on its citizenry. Sensationalist memes began to circulate, and people who doubted these rumors were ridiculed as braindead liberals. In his debate with Kamala Harris, former President Trump said “They're eating the dogs, the people that came in, they're eating the cats.”
Ultimately the rumors about Springfield proved to be completely false. The viral image of a man holding dead geese was from Columbus, Ohio, not Springfield. The man was picking up geese hit by a car, and there is no proof he was planning on eating them, or whether he was even Haitian. The woman arrested in Canton, OH (173 miles from Springfield) for killing a cat was in fact, an American with mental issues. A woman who wrote a viral facebook post about her neighbor’s missing cat admitted she had no proof of what she wrote. The Wall Street Journal investigated a police report filed by a woman who said her cat had been stolen by her Haitian neighbors and found the allegations to be false. The woman who was a Trump supporter, apologized to her Haitian neighbors.
In his history of the QAnon conspiracy movement, author Mike Rothschild referred to the Illusory Truth Effect, where repeated exposure to false information makes it seem more credible: The repetition of certain conspiracy tropes across social media platforms gives them a veneer of legitimacy. People exposed to QAnon ideas repeatedly—whether through friends, family, or algorithm-driven content—are more likely to accept them as fact, even if they initially seemed outlandish.
This susceptibility to repeated misinformation is not a new challenge, considering the historical accusations leveled at the outgroup, including blood libels. One hoped that Americans in the 21st century would be educated enough to overcome humanity’s worst impulses. Tragically, that is not the case. The presence of an outgroup in small town America, increasing economic and social pressures, and the prevalence of social media have proven to be fertile ground for the revival of a moral panic.
Cognitive scientist Ákos Szegőfi has analyzed the evolution of blood libels in cultures from around the world. In Szegőfi's analysis, blood libels thrive in environments where sensationalist media and an authoritative intellectual "game master" collaborate to manipulate public opinion. The game master crafts a narrative using cultural, religious, or pseudo-scientific language, and the media amplifies this narrative, ensuring that it resonates emotionally with the public. This combination makes blood libels particularly effective at mobilizing hate and violence against outgroups, both historically and in modern times.
Religion has played its role in this moral panic: In response to the initial news about Springfield, many users on X shared horror stories of their mission work in Haiti. Hearkening back to Donald Trump’s unkind comments calling Haiti a ‘sh–hole’, many evangelicals brought up the Haitian practice of Voodoo as an example of their inability to integrate with the Christian population of Springfield. Images of the privations of poor Haitians were used to imply that the Haitians in Springfield were transporting satanic practices amidst god-fearing Christians of Ohio. While I don’t claim to be an expert on Voodoo, many Haitians seemingly practice it alongside Catholicism in a syncretic fashion, without blood or animal sacrifice.
My friend Vishal Ganesan has been documenting 19th-century America’s perception of Hinduism on his substack Hindoo History. In his latest he notes, “Catholicism and Hinduism alike were characterized as inversions of the ideal social and political order, an "offense against democracy, republicanism, and individualism”. Similarly, Voodoo was portrayed as devil worship to spread stereotypes about the black population after the Civil War. Sensationalized newspaper accounts reported on voodoo, cannibalism, and child sacrifice in Haiti - and warned white men from buying ‘lamb chops’ at the market in Port-Au-Prince. After the Civil War, newspapers reported on the spread of Voodoo among the freed Negro population in America. These racist tropes were used to argue against enfranchising freed slaves, with the implication that they were too superstitious and incapable of practicing their constitutional rights. One cannot help but notice similar language being employed 200 years later - through derogatory tweets that question Haitian intelligence and evangelical rhetoric that falsely labels Haitians as demonic, demonstrating their incompatibility with American society.
Thankfully, many Christian leaders have condemned these vile ideas, including conservative radio host Erick Erickson. Pastor Ben Marsh’s condemnation of evangelicals spreading this hoax got to the heart of the issue: people who know better continue to lie because it’s politically expedient. But there were no forthcoming apologies from prominent conservatives who helped spread the hoax. They simply doubled down. Trump’s running mate JD Vance blamed the news media for ignoring the crisis of illegal immigration and took credit for getting the media to pay attention to Springfield. The fact that the neo-nazi group ‘Blood Tribe’ considers Mr. Vance a ‘race-traitor’ for marrying his Indian-American wife, coupled with his past comments on immigrants suggest his stance is a cynical campaign strategy. For him and many others on the right, spreading rumors about foreigners stealing pets and eating them was fair game in service of the election campaign.
The Springfield hoax is a classic "motte and bailey" tactic. The outrageous claim—that Haitian immigrants are eating people's pets—is the bailey, a hard-to-defend position. When challenged, proponents retreat to the motte, a more defensible stance, expressing general concerns about illegal immigration. This shift diverts attention from the baselessness of the original allegation and keeps the controversy alive.
Credit where it’s due: the news media did their job. Reporters actually traveled to Springfield and talked to residents directly. Conservative media outlets also sent their reporters, but their minds were made up before they even arrived. They found people to interview who fit their narrative, and demeaned reporting from those they considered to be on the left. Determined to find poor whites oppressed by Haitians, they somehow kept tripping over racists, kooks, and cranks. The basic requirement of evidence and facts were overlooked by those eager to fuel outrage.
Consider, if a citizen from Springfield said on camera that they saw Bigfoot, they wouldn’t be believed in the absence of proof. Yet conservative outlets were happy to share grainy videos, questionable photos, and record vox-pop testimonials as proof that Haitians were stealing and eating pets. When Springfield city officials said there were no recorded arrests of any Haitians for animal cruelty, it only fueled the online frenzy. Officials were accused of covering up the truth and bomb threats were sent to schools and government buildings. When the grieving father of Aidan Clark, the 11 year old boy killed in an accident, asked Republicans to stop using his son for political purposes, the right responded by calling him weak - and worse. One wonders what the grieving parents of Kate Steinle or Laken Riley would’ve been subjected to, had they asked Republicans to simply stop using their children’s names for politics. Oh wait, they did, and it didn’t matter.
The focus on the Springfield hoax inadvertently benefits the Democrat Party and the far left. It allows them to paint Republicans as racists and xenophobes. No need to defend Joe Biden leaving the Southern border open if the Republicans are barking about cats and dogs. A media circus in Springfield means Harris and the Democrats don’t have to answer for millions of people entering into the country illegally. They don’t have to be asked about first responders in Eagle Pass dealing with mental trauma from seeing so many drowned bodies in the Rio Grande. Indian-Americans frustrated with the immigration backlog don’t have to wonder who to vote for, when Republicans seem hell-bent on validating the Democrats' negative portrayal of them.
It also illustrates the obvious: the GOP is shifting towards a nativist, immigration restrictionist stance in response to the Democrats de-facto open borders policy. This shift is fueled by a toxic combination of online trolls, grifters, xenophobes, and extremists who embrace the Great Replacement theory, promote mass deportations and a total ban on immigration as legitimate answers to the immigration issue. By riding the wave of public discontent with immigration policies, they aim to frame all immigration as detrimental to society.
The trouble with our nativist friends isn’t that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so. They begin with false assumptions, then wonder why people aren’t as outraged about the thing that they just made up. Then they point to the lack of outrage as proof of a larger conspiracy, that people are being misled. They view themselves as specially imbued to fight battles the rest of us are too stupid to understand, or are too complicit in ‘the system’.
Take the conversations they have online about Haitian migrants. They ask who allowed them inside the country and into Springfield, hinting at vague conspiracies and suggesting local officials in Ohio, or Springfield itself should be allowed to deny entry to anyone they choose. Apart from the fact that the Haitians arrived in Springfield legally, and were in fact welcomed by the city, this argument displays ignorance of historical proportions. I don’t know whether to cite the Magna Carta, John Locke, Burke, or English Common law, all of which support the very fundamental concept of liberty: that individuals have the freedom to move inside the borders of a country. With a few exceptions, America does not follow the European tradition of checking people’s papers.
Right wing host Tucker Carlson responded to liberal outrage by asserting that prioritizing the outgroup over the ingroup is a sign of narcissism. While his heart is in the right place, I would say demonizing the outgroup is also bad. Otherizing people is equally bad. By expressing sympathy for the Haitian people, it's not because I’m excluding Americans. You’re not morally superior because you don’t believe in borders. You’re also not superior for indulging in horrific stereotypes to “start conversations” because ‘they’ are importing migrants to destroy America. Neither side has the high ground here.
I wonder what Tucker makes of Indian-Americans, who came here legally and don’t have a ‘crime problem’. Do they count as part of the ingroup? His platforming of racist professor Amy Wax would suggest not. Recently, a Christian Church group in South Texas protested the presence of a Hanuman statue at a Hindu temple. Right-wing commentary on the protest employed the same rhetoric used against Haitians, labeling Hanuman as a demon, with other accounts perpetuating common racist tropes about Indian immigrants. This summer also saw a surge in hate against Indian immigrants, with numerous right wing accounts sharing and disseminating racist memes. When a prominent racist twitter account was banned, conservatives rallied in support - of the racist. No one enjoys a good meme, even an anti-Indian meme, more than us Indians. But somewhere in the last year, the fine line between humorous roasts and 4chan style racist propaganda was obliterated. Had it not been for these events opening my eyes to the deteriorating discourse on X regarding immigrants, I might have remained blind to the shifting sands on the right, and would have happily continued sharing the cat memes.
I’ve never commented on the Haitian diaspora before because I haven’t needed to, until today. I went to high school in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. My French teacher Mr. Daquin was from Haiti and he was a good mentor during my teenage years. He never talked about his experiences in Haiti under Papa Doc Duvalier, but he always emphasized the value of giving back to the community through volunteering and charity. When I think of Haitian immigrants, I think of people like him. I’m willing to bet many Americans in South Florida and Springfield feel the same.
I’ve been in Republican politics since I became a naturalized citizen in 2008. I’m proud to be a member of the party of Lincoln, Nixon, Reagan, and Bush. Over the years, I have defended the GOP from charges of racism and extremism in public and private. Today, I find myself questioning whether it’s possible to square my own background as a legal immigrant with the present direction of the party.
Donald Trump succeeds best when he’s punching up at the corrupt elite - those who have exploited and profited from the system. Every time he targets vulnerable groups, he punches down, and makes things worse. It only hands another weapon to the far left - who don’t have to defend their policies, they just have to tie down the GOP to racist memes. I want the party to do better, because I want America to do better.
Fear not, I shall make no grandiose endorsement of any Democrat, let alone Kamala Harris. I am not about to join the Bulwark, or sell myself cheap for an MSNBC contract. No Kevin Williamson am I, though at times I wish to borrow a small amount of his smug, pedantic writing style. I am proud to be an American, and will always stand for the American way of life. I continue to support the GOP and any legitimate policy debate focused on securing the border, dealing with the undocumented population in America, and reforming immigration. But I will have no truck with the real monsters of Springfield, Ohio.
“For the record, prejudices can kill ... and suspicion can destroy ... and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all of its own”
Addendum: I want to highlight the work of independent journalists on the right like Julio Rosas, and Asra Nomani, both of whom have reported on exigent issues related to Haitian migrants in Springfield. Civic and community leaders in Springfield would do well to follow up on the concerns raised by both.
As someone that has lived in Miami I have lost all respect for the Cuban exile community. Why should people that couldn’t prevent a clown like Fidel Castro and a few of his buddies taking over their beautiful island and destroying it get preferential treatment in America?? Haitians have it much worse and yet the Cuban exiles have refused to fight for them over decades to have the same access to protected status in America and American citizenship as Cuban migrants?!? And the worst episode was Cubans in Miami standing with the Cuban family that kidnapped Elian Gonzalez and refused to return him to his father all so George W Bush could win Florida!! Bush then proceeded to be the worst president in history failing to stop 9/11 and invading Iraq while shipping jobs to Red China and driving the economy into the ground!! We should rescind the special privileges Cubans get with respect to immigration and citizenship today!!! Or in the alternative the Cuban exiles could use their considerable power in politics to defeat Trump and help the people of Haiti!! Cuban exiles have the power!!