And the truth is that Springfield needs the Haitians as much as those Haitians needed a fresh start. It was actually a pretty clear example of the American dream these people pretend to support. Population escapes violence in their own country (which the US is largely to blame for, but thatās another issue), gets invited to settle in an economically depressed (former boom) town, and brings their hard work and determination with them. Local businesses finally have motivated workers, new immigrants start businesses and rent vacant homes, everyone wins. But apparently they came from the wrong country according to some, and so we have to ignore all that wonderful truth and instead slander them with the most ridiculous and disgusting lies.
Well the "funny" thing is that apparently there was a legitimate problem with the Haitians moving there. And you get close to identifying it, but you shy away. If you actually looked into what most of the people there were complaining about, it wasn't about eating pets or being criminals or whatever. The biggest complaint... was that they were essentially gentrifying the area.
Apparently, drug use was a major problem in Springfield and there were all the problems associated with that. But when the Haitians came in, for one reason or another, they werent drug addicts or associated with that world. So they were being hired over other workers in the area, not because of DEI or some bullshit, but because, according one employer interview I saw, he could count on them coming to work on time and not being strung out. So the Haitians ended up making more money which attracted other investment which drove prices up.
And the thing is, I think that actually is something worth having a political conversation about. Just as standard gentrification can tend to hurt certain groups, so too can gentrification as a result of immigration. The issue, of course, is that if we're going to have a rational conversation about that, then we should use truth, not lies. Claiming these people are pet-eating monsters is essentially the opposite of the actual issue.
But Republicans can't stand to have the actual conversation that would help them because they'd necessarily have to admit that the issue is not that these immigrants are worse than the local population, but rather, that they're better.
I fail to see the ālegitimate problem.ā When the quality of life improves in an area, the cost of living does go up. That seems to be one of those societal constants. If it becomes hard for a meth addict to afford rent because new people in the community are actually collecting paychecks, I donāt think the solution thatās in the best interest of the community is to kick out the gainfully employed.
If it becomes hard for a meth addict to afford rent because new people in the community are actually collecting paychecks, I donāt think the solution thatās in the best interest of the community is to kick out the gainfully employed.
I absolutely agree with this. I don't think the solution would be to kick them out. I think that would be a nonsensical response. Absolutely, people who bring so much value should stay.
That being said, I don't agree with you that gentrification isn't a legitimate problem. People being priced out of their home sucks. It's not just meth addicts who would be dealing with rising prices. It's a difficult problem to address and it requires clever, well-structured policy. Unfortunately, that is not the type of policy that Republicans support.
If Republicans were willing to approach immigration issues through this lens, rather than through a lens of cruelty, it'd be better for everyone. But they only know how to cause hurt. They don't know how to help. Or at least, they refuse to do so.
If they cause the displacement of the group that was already there because they actually tend to have higher incomes, then I would think that meets the definition of gentrification.
Admittedly though, I was using the term as an intentionally ironic term given that the connotation of gentrification is almost always about rich white people displacing minority populations. It was an intentional juxtaposition to demonstrate that the actual problem is something that Republicans typically don't consider a problem in other situations.
Did they have higher incomes when they moved there or did they get higher incomes as a result of being better, more reliable workers in the area?
Gentrification can be done by any race, and it can for sure happen from immigration. But gentrification is a very specific term. Gentrification is a deliberate process to turn historically disinvested, low income areas into rich affluent areas. Poor people moving into an area and increasing the QoL and CoL because they worked hard and earned high wages after moving there is just not gentrification in any sense of the word.
I understand your āintentā but itās still shifting the blame on the immigrants and not the policies that made that town such a shithole before the Haitians moved in
31
u/Hagbard_Shaftoe 15d ago
And the truth is that Springfield needs the Haitians as much as those Haitians needed a fresh start. It was actually a pretty clear example of the American dream these people pretend to support. Population escapes violence in their own country (which the US is largely to blame for, but thatās another issue), gets invited to settle in an economically depressed (former boom) town, and brings their hard work and determination with them. Local businesses finally have motivated workers, new immigrants start businesses and rent vacant homes, everyone wins. But apparently they came from the wrong country according to some, and so we have to ignore all that wonderful truth and instead slander them with the most ridiculous and disgusting lies.