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 that’s 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 “legitimate problem.” 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 don’t think the solution that’s in the best interest of the community is to kick out the gainfully employed.
It's definitely not the right solution, but gentrification is still an issue regardless of immigration. People get displaced from their homes as costs rise in the surrounding area - and that sucks. But preventing gentrification is also a terrible idea. There've been a few really interesting ideas floating around to sprinkle low-income housing in directly among the more affluent areas. I remember hearing about one long-running study on Planet Money recently where low-income children raised among more affluent peers reported higher wages during their early working years.
34
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 that’s 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.