Okay a few things need clarifying on the whole Springfield Haitian Migrant thing.
1. These are not 'migrants' who crossed illegally. They are legal immigrants approved by American Immigration services. They're not just random people who appeared suddenly out of nowhere.
2. The population regarding it being a 'small town' is misleading. The…
Okay a few things need clarifying on the whole Springfield Haitian Migrant thing.
1. These are not 'migrants' who crossed illegally. They are legal immigrants approved by American Immigration services. They're not just random people who appeared suddenly out of nowhere.
2. The population regarding it being a 'small town' is misleading. The city itself of Springfield Ohio has a population of 58,662, but the actual metropolitan area has a population of 136,001. Also, we're not talking about a place in the middle of absolutely nowhere, the city is 25 miles from Dayton which has a population of 814,049. That's like a half hour drive. We're not talking an old west town of 3,000.
3. The reason they focus specifically on Haitian is because it's code for 'black' and people need to say that. They're going 'Haitian migrants!' because they're pushing great replacement dog whistles. Again, these aren't illegal immigrants, so rather than call them that, they're just saying that any black migrants are bad. That needs to be mentioned!
4. The race thing absolutely needs to be brought up AGAIN because Haiti is 80% Christian; mostly catholic no less. They're portraying Haitians as 'savages' in the most racist way because saying 'a bunch of Christians came legally into the US' undercuts their whole arguement. So instead they go 'black people are ruining America.'
Let's stop using the framing of the right wing, okay? They're not speaking some hidden truth, they're being openly racist and people need to say so.
I’m trying to figure out the ethics of engineering where new migrants settle, in order to avoid enclaves. It’s a recipe for local resentments, but I understand the draw of migrants preferring familiarity of cultural fellow travelers.
Ever since the US began new immigrants tended to settle near people who were like them. It's only human to want to be around people you feel some familiarity with. A couple of generations later, the groups are more dispersed.
Yep, definitely true. And local resentment is historically the same. The difference now, at least to my mind, is that local politics has become national politics, and we stand to lose a lot more due to local resentment.
The difference in terms between "migrant" and "immigrant" is that "immigrant" denotes permanent residency. The Haitians in Springfield are here legally, but have no permanent status--they've been allowed in by law under Temporary Protected Status that for Haitians under current law will expire in 2026. That status may be extended again, or they may ultimately be granted a different more permanent form of residency. But for now "migrant" remains the precise term.
I mean, it's not even that well coded or subtle. They're basically saying, "black people are savages." And yet I still see random people believing it. The bigotry that has been unleashed these last 8 years has been really, truly ugly and appalling to witness.
Yes. The bigotry Trump unleashed has continually been part of our country since colonial days. This is just the most recent episode of white backlash - the negative response of some white people to the progress of Black people - and it was brought to the surface by Obama's win. I fully expect the backlash to increase if Kamala wins.
Thanks for this clarification, Silver. You're absolutely right.
As a slight aside, one of the reasons they can get away with this is that the media and the discourse have now forever muddled the distinctions among immigrants and migrants who have come here legally (whether through traditional, slow channels, or as legal asylum-seekers) and undocumented immigrants (whatever desperate circumstances have made risking the border worth it to them). The desire on the left to elide the distinction was (I hope) noble (no person is "illegal") but the net effect is that we can't talk about the distinction and what it means for policy. And people here legally get lumped in with those who are not here legally, and then all immigrants are targeted. We desperately need immigration to shore up our falling birth rate and fill needed labor roles (both at the top and the bottom of the education spectrum). All this muddying of the waters, besides allowing for plays like the Springfield one that are heinously racist and opportunistic, gets in the way of us seeing the problem clearly.
Okay a few things need clarifying on the whole Springfield Haitian Migrant thing.
1. These are not 'migrants' who crossed illegally. They are legal immigrants approved by American Immigration services. They're not just random people who appeared suddenly out of nowhere.
2. The population regarding it being a 'small town' is misleading. The city itself of Springfield Ohio has a population of 58,662, but the actual metropolitan area has a population of 136,001. Also, we're not talking about a place in the middle of absolutely nowhere, the city is 25 miles from Dayton which has a population of 814,049. That's like a half hour drive. We're not talking an old west town of 3,000.
3. The reason they focus specifically on Haitian is because it's code for 'black' and people need to say that. They're going 'Haitian migrants!' because they're pushing great replacement dog whistles. Again, these aren't illegal immigrants, so rather than call them that, they're just saying that any black migrants are bad. That needs to be mentioned!
4. The race thing absolutely needs to be brought up AGAIN because Haiti is 80% Christian; mostly catholic no less. They're portraying Haitians as 'savages' in the most racist way because saying 'a bunch of Christians came legally into the US' undercuts their whole arguement. So instead they go 'black people are ruining America.'
Let's stop using the framing of the right wing, okay? They're not speaking some hidden truth, they're being openly racist and people need to say so.
Your #2 is a good point. It’s not like Springfield is the Spahn Ranch.
I’m trying to figure out the ethics of engineering where new migrants settle, in order to avoid enclaves. It’s a recipe for local resentments, but I understand the draw of migrants preferring familiarity of cultural fellow travelers.
Ever since the US began new immigrants tended to settle near people who were like them. It's only human to want to be around people you feel some familiarity with. A couple of generations later, the groups are more dispersed.
Yep, definitely true. And local resentment is historically the same. The difference now, at least to my mind, is that local politics has become national politics, and we stand to lose a lot more due to local resentment.
The difference in terms between "migrant" and "immigrant" is that "immigrant" denotes permanent residency. The Haitians in Springfield are here legally, but have no permanent status--they've been allowed in by law under Temporary Protected Status that for Haitians under current law will expire in 2026. That status may be extended again, or they may ultimately be granted a different more permanent form of residency. But for now "migrant" remains the precise term.
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-temporary-protected-status
Thank you for the facts, Andrew.
Well said…:)
I mean, it's not even that well coded or subtle. They're basically saying, "black people are savages." And yet I still see random people believing it. The bigotry that has been unleashed these last 8 years has been really, truly ugly and appalling to witness.
This didn’t start 8 year.ago. It started long before. But escalated when Obama won the 2008 election.
Yes. The bigotry Trump unleashed has continually been part of our country since colonial days. This is just the most recent episode of white backlash - the negative response of some white people to the progress of Black people - and it was brought to the surface by Obama's win. I fully expect the backlash to increase if Kamala wins.
Thanks for this clarification, Silver. You're absolutely right.
As a slight aside, one of the reasons they can get away with this is that the media and the discourse have now forever muddled the distinctions among immigrants and migrants who have come here legally (whether through traditional, slow channels, or as legal asylum-seekers) and undocumented immigrants (whatever desperate circumstances have made risking the border worth it to them). The desire on the left to elide the distinction was (I hope) noble (no person is "illegal") but the net effect is that we can't talk about the distinction and what it means for policy. And people here legally get lumped in with those who are not here legally, and then all immigrants are targeted. We desperately need immigration to shore up our falling birth rate and fill needed labor roles (both at the top and the bottom of the education spectrum). All this muddying of the waters, besides allowing for plays like the Springfield one that are heinously racist and opportunistic, gets in the way of us seeing the problem clearly.
Why is no person illegal?
Because existing as a person is not illegal. One can be in the country illegally, but one's personhood is not illegal.
People are lazy and don't want to bother to know the differences.
Excellent