We still seem far from fully understanding the events that unfolded earlier this summer when Thomas Crooks shot former President Donald Trump in the ear. However, as the campaign heats up, Trump’s team is grappling with a different issue: stopping their candidate from metaphorically shooting himself in the foot.
During a campaign stop on Friday, Trump stirred controversy by claiming that Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio, were killing and eating household pets, ducks, geese, and other animals. While these comments energized some of his supporters, the mainstream media wasted no time in discrediting the claims—and, for once, they had a solid basis for doing so. (National Review)
At the event, Trump pledged to carry out the “largest deportation in the history of our country” if elected in November, starting with Springfield, Ohio.
Springfield made headlines this week when Allexis Telia Ferrell, a woman who is not from the area, was allegedly arrested for killing a cat by stomping on its head, then eating the animal “in a residential area in front of multiple people,” according to police. Canton Police Department spokesman Lt. Dennis Garren confirmed, “we have no reason to believe that [Ferrell] is not a U.S. citizen. She has lived in Canton for quite some time; for sure since she was a juvenile.”
Despite this, Trump’s campaign amplified unverified claims that Haitian immigrants in Springfield were eating dogs, cats, and geese. The campaign took to social media, posting that “President Trump will deport migrants who eat pets.”
In a way, it’s easy to see why Trump might latch onto the Springfield story, as it touches on key issues related to illegal immigration under the Biden administration and the impact of increasing numbers of migrants on small communities. The problem is that much of the story has been debunked. The woman who originally reported seeing these disturbing acts has since admitted that she made it up, saying she was shocked at how quickly the story “just exploded.”
Trump could have mentioned “rumors” of disturbing acts committed by migrants—there are plenty of verifiable examples—and then pivoted to how fewer migrants entered the country during his presidency. Instead, he promised, “We will do large deportations in Springfield, Ohio.”
That statement fires up the crowd, but Trump needs to be careful not to overpromise. He could reissue the same executive orders he signed in 2016, focusing on stronger borders, more detentions, and deportations, but that won’t happen overnight. Federal immigration personnel are overwhelmed and understaffed after nearly four years under Biden. Deploying resources to Springfield right after taking office might make headlines, but it could also pull vital assets away from border communities and cities where shelters are dangerously overcrowded.
Immigration is a winning issue for Trump. Polls consistently show him far ahead of his competitors on this front, and Vice President Kamala Harris is vulnerable on the topic, given her role as Biden’s former border czar. There’s no reason Trump shouldn’t already be running away with this race, and yet he isn’t. While Trump is unlikely to take my advice, focusing more on the issues where he is strongest and avoiding the hyperbole of the latest news-cycle rumors could go a long way toward securing victory.
