Trump again singles out Springfield, immigrants in social media rant
Jun. 13—Springfield was a specific topic of more immigration-focused rhetoric from President Donald Trump this week on his social media platform Truth Social.
In a post Thursday, Trump said of immigrants, "They have stolen American jobs, consumed billions of dollars in free welfare, and turned once idyllic communities, like Springfield, Ohio, into Third World nightmares," Trump wrote. "I campaigned on, and received a historic mandate for, the largest mass deportation program in American history."
Trump and the Department of Homeland Security in the past month have sped up efforts to deport more immigrants, in part by revoking certain people's status. The vast majority of Haitian immigrants in Springfield are believed to have entered the United States on humanitarian parole — a then-legal program that Trump's team has since ended — and many have received other immigration designations such as Temporary Protected Status.
Thursday's post contained Trump's frequent claims that illegal immigrants had "destroyed" America's schools, hospitals, parks and more, and that his deportation plan was about "saving America."
Ohio's Republican governor Mike DeWine, asked about the friction between the Trump administration and Haitians in Springfield, spoke up for the immigrants Friday.
"The Haitians who are here, they're working every day, they show up every day," DeWine said. "They want what every other person in this country wants, and that is, they want to support their families. ... Those are just the facts. Again, I don't control what's going to happen."
Trump's post, on the other hand, said many illegal immigrants are "murderers, rapists and terrorists."
This isn't the first time Trump has singled out Springfield. In September, he and other Republican figures amplified false rumors that Haitian immigrants here were eating pets.
At a New York campaign rally that month, he continued his rhetoric: "How about in Springfield, Ohio? ... This is a little, beautiful town. No crime, no problem," Trump said. "Thirty-two-thousand illegal immigrants come into the town so, they almost double their population in a period of a few weeks. Can you believe it?"
Neither the "no crime" claim, nor the number of immigrants he cited, nor their legal status, nor the timeframe for their arrival, were accurate.
In his address to Congress in March, Trump said Springfield and Aurora, Colorado, had "buckled under the weight of the migrant occupation and corruption like no one's ever seen before. Beautiful towns destroyed."
Springfield Mayor Rob Rue, also a Republican, quickly responded to Trump's claims in March.
"The greatest hardship we have faced in the past six months is the mischaracterization of our city. We need to be recognized as a community that, despite its challenges, is continuing to move forward and is far from being destroyed," Rue said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
25 minutes ago
- The Hill
Okinawa marks 80 years since end of one of harshest WWII battles with pledge to share tragic history
TOKYO (AP) — Okinawa marked the 80th anniversary of the end of one of the harshest battles of World War II fought on the southern island. With global tensions escalating, its governor said on Monday it is the Okinawan 'mission' to keep telling the tragic history and its impact today. The Battle of Okinawa killed a quarter of the island's population, leading to a 27-year U.S. occupation and a heavy American troop presence to date. Monday's memorial comes one day after U.S. attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, adding to a sense of uncertainty on the island about the heavy American military presence and in its remote islands, already worried about getting embroiled in a potential conflict in Taiwan. Gov. Denny Tamaki, noting the escalating global conflicts and nuclear threats, made a resolve to contribute to global peace studies, disarmament and the preservation of war remains. 'It is our mission, as those living in the present, to preserve and pass on the reality and lessons to future generations.' U.S. troops landed on the main Okinawa island on April 1, 1945, beginning a battle in their push toward mainland Japan. The Battle of Okinawa lasted nearly three months, killing some 200,000 people — about 12,000 Americans and more than 188,000 Japanese, half of them Okinawan civilians including students and victims forced into mass suicides by Japan's military. Okinawa was sacrificed by Japan's Imperial Army to defend the mainland, historians say. The island group remained under U.S. occupation until its reversion in 1972, two decades longer than most of Japan. Monday's memorial was held at the Mabuni Hill in Itoman City, where the remains of most of the war dead reside. Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba was in a hot seat when he attended Monday's ceremony. Weeks earlier, one of his ruling party lawmakers Shoji Nishida, known for whitewashing Japan's wartime atrocities, denounced an inscription on a famous cenotaph dedicated to students as 'rewriting history' by portraying the Japanese army as having caused their deaths, while Americans liberated Okinawa. Nishida also called Okinawa's history education 'a mess.' His remark triggered an uproar in Okinawa, forcing Ishiba days later to apologize to the island's governor, who had criticized the remark as outrageous and distorting history. The Himeyuri Cenotaph commemorates student nurses who were abandoned near the end of the battle and killed, some in group suicides with teachers. Japan's wartime military told the people never to surrender to the enemy, or die. Nishida's remarks add to concerns about the whitewashing of Japan's embarrassing wartime past as memories of the tragedy fade and ignorance about the suffering grows. Ishiba, at Monday's memorial, said Japan's peace and prosperity is built on the sacrifices of Okinawa's history of hardship and that it is the government's responsibility to 'devote ourselves to achieve a peaceful and prosperous Okinawa.' Okinawa remained under U.S. occupation from 1945 until the 1972 reversion to Japan. The U.S. military maintains a heavy presence there due to Okinawa's strategic importance for security in the Pacific. Their presence serves not only to help defend Japan but also for missions elsewhere, including in the South China Sea and the Middle East. Private properties were confiscated to build U.S. bases, and the base-dependent economy has hampered the growth of local industry. Fear of a Taiwan conflict rekindles bitter memories of the Battle of Okinawa. Historians and many residents say Okinawa was used as a pawn to save mainland Japan. There are also ancient tensions between Okinawa and the Japanese mainland, which annexed the islands, formerly the independent kingdom of the Ryukus, in 1879. Okinawa remains home to the majority of about 50,000 U.S. troops stationed in Japan under a bilateral security pact. The island, which accounts for only 0.6% of Japanese land, hosts 70% of U.S. military facilities. Even 53 years after its reversion to Japan, Okinawa is burdened with the heavy U.S. presence and faces noise, pollution, aircraft accidents and crime related to American troops, the governor said. Nearly 2,000 tons of unexploded U.S. bombs remain in Okinawa, with some regularly dug up. A recent explosion at a storage site at a U.S. military base caused minor injuries to four Japanese soldiers. Remains of hundreds of war dead are still unrecovered on Okinawa, as the government's search and identification effort is slow to make progress.
Bloomberg
26 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Four Scenarios Facing a Trump-Rattled World Economy
With his decision to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities and join Israel's war on Iran, President Donald Trump has injected new geopolitical risks into an already fragile global economy. It also makes what comes next in his trade and economic conflicts all the more important. It should be causing some recalculations. And perhaps deleting a popular meme.
USA Today
30 minutes ago
- USA Today
Do you think the Supreme Court is partisan? Well you're wrong.
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court ruled on a religious liberty case, a firearms case and a DEI case, and most Americans probably didn't hear about any of them. Why? Every decision was unanimous. Recent polling has shown that Americans continue to view the Supreme Court as extremely partisan. Just 20% of those polled view the nation's highest courtas politically neutral, and its favorability is far higher among Republicans than Democrats. These opinions on SCOTUS come from a lack of nuance in conversations around the court, in which Republicans are furious when one of their preferred justices occasionally disagrees with President Donald Trump, and where Democrats ignore the Supreme Court cases that don't get decided along political ideology. The ideological lines on the court shouldn't be chalked up to the party of the president who appointed each justice, and the media narrative suggesting such should be dispelled. Can we finally leave Justice Amy Coney Barrett alone? There is no better example of the lack of nuanced conversation surrounding the Supreme Court than Justice Amy Coney Barrett. She has been villainized by the left for being a Trump sycophant and has been smeared as a liberal in disguise by some of Trump's most ardent supporters. In recent months, Barrett has been under fire from MAGA for not being sufficiently committed to their cause. Glossing over the fact that the job of judges is to determine what the law is, rather than what it ought to be, these individuals have gone from praising Barrett's integrity at her confirmation to demanding she sacrifice it for Trump's causes. Opinion: Liberals owe Justice Barrett an apology. She's clearly not in Trump's pocket. What has Barrett done to deserve any of this? Well, she had the audacity to rule against Trump on a couple of occasions. That's it. Justice Barrett joined the liberal justices in dissent against the majority decision to allow Trump to use the Alien Enemies Act for deportations, as well as voting against the Trump administration's attempts to freeze funds from the U.S. Agency for International Development. Since arriving on the court in 2020, Barrett has joined majorities to overturn Roe v. Wade, restore the right to carry a handgun, eliminate racist affirmative action practices, rein in executive bureaucracy and even expand presidential immunity. No reasonable person could argue that her jurisprudence in these cases is advancing any liberal causes, but the fact that she has ruled against Trump on occasion somehow overrides all of that evidence. Both parties have a warped view of who Justice Barrett is, and that is a symptom of a much larger problem about Americans' information about the court. The news media has played a role in that overall view. News media needs to do a better job of covering SCOTUS Earlier this month, the Supreme Court ruled on a religious liberty case, a firearms case and a discrimination case, and most Americans probably didn't hear about any of them. Opinion: There is no 'reverse discrimination,' people. There is only discrimination. The reason for that is the fact that every one of these decisions was unanimous, each written by one of the three liberal justices, so they didn't fit the narrative of the extremely polarized Supreme Court that Americans have been barraged with in recent years. Naturally, the court tends to split on the highest profile cases, which intuitively makes sense. After all, they are divisive. However, the vast majority of cases undermine the partisan tale often told of the court. For the 2022-23 term, the last for which data has been published, conservative justices only agreed with each other on roughly half of their cases, and in some cases, even they were more likely to agree with a certain liberal justice. Some experts have categorized the justices according to their regard for the consequences of the rulings, instead of political leanings. Justices Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts seem to be more concerned with consequences outside of the specific case they are ruling on. The result is that, in some respects, this group of three is closer to the liberal justices than their conservative colleagues. Furthermore, each justice has individual tendencies that differentiate them from even their ideological allies. Neil Gorsuch has a libertarian streak of generally standing up to the government and has a soft spot for the rights of Native Americans. The popular partisan narrative for the Supreme Court gives a very narrow view of how the justices' ideologies actually play out in practice. Americans should look to the justices' own personal tendencies and judicial philosophy to characterize them, rather than simply grouping them by party. Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.
