Trump’s Misinformation on Immigrants and Pets: A Deep Dive

Former President Donald Trump has reiterated his controversial claims regarding Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, suggesting that they are not only eating pets but also consuming unspecified ‘other things.’ These assertions were made during a recent town hall event and follow a previous debate where he first introduced the topic, claiming that local residents were concerned about their pets being eaten. Trump’s statements have been labeled as misinformation, as they stem from unverified reports linked to extremist online communities.

During a Univision town hall, Trump was questioned by an undecided voter about his belief in these claims. In response, he dismissed the question by stating that he was merely repeating what he believed to be reported in the media, without providing any credible evidence to support his assertions. This lack of substantiation highlights the baseless nature of his claims.

Fact-checkers and news organizations have quickly dispelled Trump’s allegations, emphasizing that they have no foundation in reality. His remarks have been criticized for perpetuating harmful stereotypes about Haitian migrants and for stoking fears among the local population. The unfounded nature of these claims is significant, given that they were shared with a large audience during a presidential debate.

The issue is further complicated by Trump’s broader narrative surrounding immigration, where he has frequently framed the arrival of migrants as a threat to American communities. His comments about Springfield, where he asserted that an influx of 30,000 migrants in a town of 52,000 would lead to disaster, reflect a common theme in his rhetoric that seeks to instill fear regarding immigration.

Overall, Trump’s repeated and unfounded claims about Haitian immigrants are part of a larger strategy that relies on misinformation and racial stereotypes, undermining the integrity of public discourse on immigration issues. His statements have sparked outrage and calls for accountability regarding the spread of such false narratives.

(h/t: https://www.mediaite.com/trump/trump-now-claims-immigrants-are-eating-other-things-that-theyre-not-supposed-to-in-addition-to-pets/)

Trump Promises Mass Deportation Using 1798 Law Amid Controversy

During a recent rally in Aurora, Colorado, former President Donald Trump announced plans to use the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to initiate mass deportations of immigrants. Trump described immigrants as “the worst criminals in the world” and vowed to expedite the removal of individuals he referred to as “savage gangs”. This law, historically associated with the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, would empower the president to enact broad deportation measures.

Trump’s rhetoric included specific threats to Haitian-American immigrants, whom he stated would need to return to Haiti regardless of their legal status in the U.S. He asserted that local police would receive immunity from prosecution for actions taken under this mass deportation scheme, which he claimed would affect up to 20 million people.

The former president’s comments have elicited pushback from local officials, including Aurora’s Republican mayor Mike Coffman, who stated that the city is not overrun by gangs, contrary to Trump’s claims. The mayor emphasized that Aurora is a safe city, countering Trump’s characterization of the area as a “war zone”.

Critics have highlighted the potential human rights implications and economic consequences of Trump’s proposed deportations, warning that it could lead to widespread suffering among immigrant communities. Trump’s approach reflects a continuation of his administration’s hardline stance on immigration, aiming to galvanize support among his base by invoking fear related to crime and safety.

As Trump seeks to re-establish his influence in the political landscape, his latest remarks signal a return to familiar themes of fear and division surrounding immigration policy. The potential implementation of the Alien Enemies Act raises significant concerns about civil liberties and the treatment of immigrant populations in the United States.

(h/t: https://www.salon.com/2024/10/11/theyre-animals-vows-mass-deportation-under-law-used-to-justify-japanese-internment-camps/)

Racist Trump Says Immigrant Children Are ‘From A Different Planet’

Former President Donald Trump held a rally in Coachella, California, and made inflammatory comments regarding illegal immigration, stating, “Your children are in danger. You can’t go to school with these people, these people are from a different planet.” This statement has been perceived as racially charged and indicative of Trump’s ongoing pattern of divisive rhetoric concerning immigration and race.

Trump’s speech also included typical Republican critiques of California, including its struggles with homelessness and environmental regulations. He threatened Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom over water rights issues and referred to him derogatorily as “New-scum,” continuing a longstanding rivalry.

While Trump is unlikely to win California, his campaign aims to leverage the state’s significant population of conservative voters to boost participation in upcoming elections. The rally was part of a broader strategy to mobilize support in battleground states, following earlier stops in Nevada and Arizona.

(h/t: https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/donald-trump-holds-a-rally-in-california-a-state-hes-almost-certain-to-lose/3534279/)

Trump’s Controversial Claims About Migrants at Nevada Rally

During a recent rally in Reno, Nevada, former President Donald Trump made alarming claims about migrants crossing into the United States. He asserted that some migrants are equipped with weapons more advanced than those used by U.S. soldiers and suggested that they pose a significant threat to American sovereignty. Trump’s rhetoric implied that these migrants are attempting to ‘conquer’ the country, a characterization that echoes extremist narratives historically used to dehumanize marginalized groups.

Trump’s comments included unfounded claims that migrants are overwhelming hospitals and public schools to the detriment of American citizens. He alleged that there are no available hospital beds for Americans and implied that migrant children are prioritized over local children in schools. These statements are misleading and lack credible evidence, contributing to a narrative that fosters fear and division.

The former president’s remarks also included a call to action for his supporters, promising that under a potential future Trump administration, American citizens would be prioritized over migrants. He framed the situation as a battle for the country’s future, using language that evokes historical parallels with extremist ideologies that aimed to incite fear and justify discrimination.

Trump’s rhetoric has been criticized for its potential to incite violence and normalize hate against immigrant communities. His comparison of migrants to armed adversaries reflects a dangerous trend in political discourse that seeks to vilify and marginalize vulnerable populations. This approach not only distorts the reality of immigration but also undermines the values of inclusivity and compassion.

(h/t: https://www.mediaite.com/trump/trump-vows-to-end-migrants-who-are-trying-to-conquer-u-s/)

Donald Trump Claims Some Races Have ‘Murder Gene’ in Eugenics Rant

In a recent interview on The Hugh Hewitt radio show, Donald Trump made controversial claims suggesting that certain migrants possess “bad genes” that predispose them to violence and murder. He asserted that there are numerous criminals entering the U.S. due to lax immigration policies, specifically targeting Vice President Kamala Harris’s approach to immigration.

Trump’s comments included a sweeping accusation that Harris is responsible for allowing individuals with violent tendencies into the country, stating, “How about allowing people to come to an open border, 13,000 of which were murders, many of them murdered far more than one person.” He went on to state, “We got a lot of bad genes in our country right now,” implying a genetic basis for criminal behavior.

This rhetoric aligns with Trump’s previous remarks associating genetics with racial superiority. During his 2020 campaign, Trump suggested that he and his supporters had “good genes,” indicating a belief that genetics play a role in societal issues like crime and immigration. Such comments have drawn parallels to eugenics ideologies, which have historically been associated with racism and discrimination.

The backlash against Trump’s statements has been significant, with many social commentators and political opponents denouncing his views as dangerous and unfounded. Experts in genetics and social sciences have criticized the notion that criminality can be linked to genetics, emphasizing the role of socio-economic factors and systemic issues.

Trump’s remarks not only reflect his ongoing campaign strategy that includes targeting immigrant populations but also highlight a broader trend within certain political circles that seek to frame immigration issues through a lens of racial and genetic determinism. Such assertions raise concerns about the potential for increased stigmatization of minority groups and the perpetuation of harmful stereotypes.

 

Trump FEMA Claim Debunked: Agency Not Running Out Of Money Because Of Migrants

 

Former President Donald Trump has falsely claimed that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is running low on funds due to spending on migrant assistance. During a recent rally, Trump asserted that Vice President Kamala Harris had diverted billions from FEMA’s budget to house illegal migrants, echoing comments from Fox News host Jesse Watters. However, this claim has been debunked by multiple sources.

FEMA’s funding for disaster relief and migrant assistance comes from separate budget allocations. While FEMA has indeed allocated over $1 billion to aid communities supporting migrants this year, this funding is drawn from the Shelter and Services Program, distinct from the Disaster Relief Fund used for hurricane recovery efforts. This separation means that the financial challenges FEMA faces are not due to migrant-related expenditures.

On October 3, Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas acknowledged that FEMA is experiencing a cash crunch for disaster relief efforts but clarified that these financial difficulties are not linked to migrant assistance. The Disaster Relief Fund is specifically reserved for managing disasters, and its funds have not been diverted for non-disaster related purposes.

The current issues with FEMA’s budget stem from a lack of additional funding from Congress. Recent stopgap funding measures did not provide the necessary resources, forcing FEMA to prioritize immediate disaster needs while halting non-emergency rebuilding projects. Democratic lawmakers have raised concerns about FEMA’s financial situation, urging Congress to reconvene and allocate more funds.

As Hurricane Helene wreaks havoc across parts of the Southeast, estimates suggest the storm could lead to damages exceeding $34 billion. The financial strain on FEMA could hinder its ability to respond effectively to ongoing disaster recovery efforts, especially with hurricane season continuing through November.

Trump’s claims about FEMA’s financial situation have been met with strong rebuttals from the Biden administration, with officials emphasizing the agency’s commitment to assisting all communities affected by disasters without bias. The administration has stressed the importance of accurate communication regarding disaster relief efforts, particularly during such critical times.

 

Trump’s False Claims About Immigrants Eating Pets Spark Controversy During Debate

During a recent presidential debate, Donald Trump propagated a baseless and racially charged rumor regarding Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, claiming they were consuming pets. This statement, made in front of an audience of 67.1 million viewers, has been criticized for reinforcing harmful stereotypes. The rumor originated from fringe online communities, particularly from a neo-Nazi group known as Blood Tribe, which initially circulated the idea of pets being eaten in August. Trump’s comments were seemingly amplified by his running mate, Senator JD Vance, who has made similar claims about the influx of immigrants in the area.

Trump’s assertion was not only unfounded but also drew immediate backlash from various quarters, including his own party members. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham expressed concern, emphasizing that the focus should be on serious issues related to immigration, such as crimes committed by undocumented individuals, rather than whimsical claims about animals. This reflects a broader trend where Trump has consistently highlighted immigration issues, often framing them in a controversial manner.

The spread of the rumor on social media has been significant, with a notable increase in posts discussing the issue leading up to the debate. Research indicated that mentions of Haitians allegedly eating pets surged dramatically on platforms like X (formerly Twitter) in the days prior to Trump’s comments. Vance himself contributed to this narrative, posting about the supposed dangers posed by Haitian immigrants, which helped transition the rumor from fringe discourse to a mainstream debate topic.

Despite the sensationalism surrounding the issue, local law enforcement in Springfield reported no credible evidence supporting claims of pets being harmed. In fact, the claims about pets being abducted and eaten have been dismissed by the Springfield police, highlighting a disconnect between the online narrative and reality. Vance later acknowledged that these rumors could be false, yet continued to leverage them politically.

The incident underscores how fringe conspiracy theories can permeate high-profile political discourse, especially through the lens of social media. Trump’s use of this rumor during a prime-time debate illustrates a tactic of drawing attention to specific grievances that resonate with his base, despite their lack of factual basis. This approach is indicative of a broader strategy to mobilize support by highlighting perceived threats associated with immigration.

The debate echoed a long-standing pattern in Trump’s political career, where he has utilized inflammatory rhetoric regarding immigration, often to stoke fear and division among his supporters. Critics argue that such tactics detract from substantive discussions about immigration policy and public safety, instead prioritizing sensationalism and fear-mongering.

As the fallout continues, political analysts and commentators are left to ponder the implications of Trump’s comments and the role of misinformation in shaping public perception. This incident serves as a reminder of the potent intersection between social media, political rhetoric, and the dissemination of false information, particularly concerning immigration.

Ultimately, the Springfield rumor illustrates the challenges faced in combating misinformation and the potential consequences it holds for public discourse and policy discussions.

 

Trump Posts “The Great Replacement” Conspiracy Popular With Neo-Nazis

Former President Trump’s recent Truth Social post concerning immigration has drawn critical attention for echoing a dangerous and unfounded conspiracy theory – the “Great Replacement.” This theory, alleging a coordinated effort to replace white Americans with immigrants, has long been a cornerstone of white nationalist and far-right ideologies. Its presence in a mainstream political figure’s post demands careful analysis.

It’s becoming more and more obvious to me why the “Crazed” Democrats are allowing millions and millions of totally unvetted migrants into our once great Country. IT’S SO THEY CAN VOTE, VOTE, VOTE. They are signing them up at a rapid pace, without even knowing who the hell they are. It all makes sense now. Republicans better wake up and do something, before it is too late. Are you listening Mitch McConnell?

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/111667694816747840

While concerns about immigration trends and their potential impact on society are legitimate topics for discussion,Trump’s post utilizes inflammatory language and unsubstantiated claims. The assertion that millions of immigrants are being deliberately “unvetted” and signed up to vote solely for partisan gain fuels xenophobia and undermines trust in democratic processes. This narrative conveniently omits the complex web of economic, social, and political factors driving immigration patterns, instead choosing to paint a picture of nefarious outsiders infiltrating American society.

Trump’s post echoes disturbing historical rhetoric with its coded language and divisive framing. Phrases like “millions and millions” and “totally unvetted” bear striking resemblance to slogans chanted by white supremacist groups like those who marched in Charlottesville. Their hateful chants targeting Jewish communities openly invoked the “Great Replacement” theory, highlighting its dangerous potential to incite real-world violence and discrimination.

Dismissing such language as mere political rhetoric carries significant risks. Normalizing these narratives, even unintentionally, emboldens extremist groups and provides validation for their hateful ideologies. It has the potential to further erode social cohesion, fuel animosity towards immigrants and minorities, and ultimately weaken the fabric of American society.

Instead of indulging in fear-mongering and unsubstantiated claims, responsible political discourse should prioritize facts and evidence-based solutions. By addressing legitimate concerns about immigration while rejecting harmful stereotypes and conspiratorial narratives, we can foster a more informed and inclusive national conversation. Let’s focus on building a stronger nation where all members feel welcome and contribute to its shared future, rather than succumbing to the shadows of hate and division.

Trump Echoes Hitler’s Immigrants Poisoning Blood of the Country

Former President Trump’s recent Truth Social post, declaring illegal immigration to be “poisoning the blood of our nation,” reverberates with disturbing historical echoes. The language, while veiled, taps into a wellspring of dehumanizing and exclusionary rhetoric used throughout history to ostracize and discriminate against marginalized groups. Examining the post through this lens reveals the potential dangers of such inflammatory language and underscores the importance of responsible political discourse.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS POISONING THE BLOOD OF OUR NATION. THEY’RE COMING FROM PRISONS, FROM MENTAL INSTITUTIONS — FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD. WITHOUT BORDERS & FAIR ELECTIONS, YOU DON’T HAVE A COUNTRY. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/111593149429973351

Firstly, the stark metaphor of “poisoning the blood” is deeply concerning. It dehumanizes immigrants, reducing them to a toxic threat infiltrating the nation’s very core. This echoes similar language used throughout history to demonize groups based on ethnicity, religion, or origin. Nazi propaganda, for instance, frequently depicted Jews as a “poisonous bacillus” infecting the Aryan body politic. Such language not only creates a stark “us vs. them” dichotomy but also lays the groundwork for justifying discrimination, hostility, and even violence against the targeted group.

Furthermore, the post’s claim that immigrants come from “prisons, mental institutions, and all over the world” further fuels harmful stereotypes. This paints a generalized picture of immigrants as criminals, deviants, and outsiders, fostering fear and distrust. It disregards the vast diversity of experiences and circumstances among immigrants, reducing them to a monolithic threat instead of recognizing them as individuals seeking a better life. Such generalizations often stem from xenophobic sentiments and lack factual basis, contributing to an atmosphere of prejudice and discrimination.

Ultimately, Trump’s post exemplifies the perils of employing divisive and dehumanizing language in political discourse. It stokes fear, fosters prejudice, and risks normalizing dangerous rhetoric with historical roots in exclusion and hate. As responsible citizens and journalists, we must critically analyze such language, expose its harmful origins, and advocate for a more inclusive and fact-based political discourse. Only then can we truly build a nation where all members, regardless of their background or origin, feel welcome and valued.

Trump Speeds Up Plans To Force Foreign Students, Others Out Of U.S.

Faced with the prospect of losing the power to make immigration policy after the November 2020 presidential election, Trump administration officials are speeding up efforts to force foreign nationals to leave the United States, including a new policy that could push out many international students. The latest policy should be seen in the context of the June 22, 2020, presidential proclamation that blocked the entry of foreign-born professionals and encouraged them to depart the country by preventing the entry of many family members. The proclamation also included a plan, if implemented, that could drive many long-time H-1B visa holders out of America.

“The Trump administration seems to be doing everything it can to stop all immigration to the United States,” said Stephen Yale-Loehr, a Cornell Law School professor and an advisor to the National Foundation for American Policy, in an interview. “Families are separated and employers can’t bring in needed workers. These latest actions are hurting, not helping, our economy.”

On July 6, 2020, the Trump administration announced that international students at U.S. universities “operating entirely online may not take a full online course load and remain in the United States,” according to the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP). “The U.S. Department of State will not issue visas to students enrolled in schools and/or programs that are fully online for the fall semester nor will U.S. Customs and Border Protection permit these students to enter the United States. Active students currently in the United States enrolled in such programs must depart the country or take other measures, such as transferring to a school with in-person instruction to remain in lawful status. If not, they may face immigration consequences including, but not limited to, the initiation of removal proceedings.” (Emphasis in original.)

The announcement sent shockwaves through U.S. universities, many of which decided for health and safety reasons to offer classes exclusively online in the fall. Public universities facing state budget crises already expected to be harmed financially by the near absence of new international students, who often pay full tuition. Administration policies that may drive out existing international students as well will be a further financial blow and are likely to crush the dreams of many students, note analysts.

“By not allowing continuing international students who are studying at institutions that make the decision to continue with online classes, rather than moving to in-person or hybrid models, SEVP has made it more difficult for both these students and institutions. This is very unfortunate,” said Miriam Feldblum, executive director of the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, in an interview. She recommends the administration, at minimum, to continue the current flexibility from the spring on allowing all online classes, which was extended into the summer. Feldblum would also like to see online fall semester enrollment count towards eligibility to participate in Curricular Practical Training (CPT).

The Department of Homeland Security plans to publish a new regulation on the policy as a temporary final rule, allowing it to take effect immediately, though it is expected to be challenged in court. “The policy forces schools to pick a model and stick to it, despite the fact that Covid-19 is a moving target,” said Dan Berger, a partner at Curran, Berger & Kludt, in an interview. “Depending on how the virus progresses, schools with hybrid models [in-person and online classes] may go online this fall. The administration’s message does not allow much-needed flexibility based on public health as the Covid-19 situation plays out.” 

“The policy also forces some students to leave who are here and safe, even if the country they are going to has a Covid-19 outbreak or closed borders,” said Berger. “Schools offer more than just classes. There is support here for students who have nowhere to go, even if the students are taking classes online. And forcing schools that were online to add an in-person class to meet the ‘hybrid’ definition would mean bringing students into contact with each other just for immigration purposes.”

The new Trump administration policy may force international students currently enrolled at Harvard University to leave the United States. Harvard recently announced that “all course instruction (undergraduate and graduate) for the 2020-21 academic year will be delivered online.”

“We are deeply concerned that the guidance issued today by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement imposes a blunt, one-size-fits-all approach to a complex problem, giving international students, particularly those in online programs, few options beyond leaving the country or transferring schools,” said Harvard President Larry Bacow in a statement. “This guidance undermines the thoughtful approach taken on behalf of students by so many institutions, including Harvard, to plan for continuing academic programs while balancing the health and safety challenges of the global pandemic. We must do all that we can to ensure that our students can continue their studies without fear of being forced to leave the country mid-way through the year, disrupting their academic progress and undermining the commitments – and sacrifices – that many of them have made to advance their education.” (Note: On July 8, 2020, Harvard and MIT filed a lawsuit seeking to block the upcoming rule on international students.)

In response to the question, “Does it look like Harvard will have international students on campus in the fall?” William Stock of Klasko Immigration Law Partners said, “Apparently not.”

The new policy may upend hundreds of thousands of lives, but for Trump administration officials, who fear this is their final chance to institute lasting changes to U.S. immigration policy, it is just one of many measures designed to discourage international students and others to follow their dreams to America. Attorney Dan Berger said, “The chilling effect of this new policy on international students coming to the United States will be tremendous.” That is the point.

[Forbes]

1 2 3 4 22