The recent presidential debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump descended into farce as the topic of immigration veered into absurdity, with unfounded claims about migrants eating pets. No one could have anticipated the strange turn the conversation would take, despite immigration being one of the main themes.
There was a rumor that sparked controversy.
During the debate, former President Trump repeated a baseless claim that immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, were eating cats and dogs. “They’re eating the dogs, the people that came in, they’re eating the cats,” Trump said, prompting Vice President Harris to laugh and look away as the moderator intervened to say there were no credible reports to support such information.
This has since become the talk of social media, with “THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS” headlining across platform X.
The most bizarre accusations were nothing new. Just days before the debate, Republican Vice-Presidential candidate JD Vance had repeated a rum our about Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio, supposedly eating pets. That small city was also the center of these bizarre allegations because it received a large number of migrants in recent years.
Local officials have refuted the baseless claims, which originated from far-right activists and local Republicans who instilled fear about the growing immigrant community.
Lie in the Digital Age
No sooner had these rumors started to spread than social media platforms were filled with memes and AI-generated images. Memes of Trump saving kittens and dogs, as well as AI-generated depictions of him riding a lion, surfaced online. Even X’s owner, Elon Musk, furthered the narrative by posting such images to his millions of followers.
Local police denied these claims, but with the active hand of political figures and social media influencers, such rumors tended to stick around. For example, Republican politicians such as Rep. Tom Tiffany and Rep. Andy Biggs used the rumor for emotional arousal to garner support from their base.
Fear and Misconceptions About Immigrant Foods
In America, the stereotype of immigrants eating pets is old, dating back to American history. Indeed, disparaging rhetoric against various minority communities has long used food habits as a weapon. This kind of marketing has targeted various different groups, from labelling Italians “garlic eaters” to stereotyping Mexicans with bean diets.
Of course, the latter is the most historically entrenched stereotype: dogeating has been employed to malign Asian immigration. Many Asian Americans have spoken out about how the stereotype affected them growing up and continues to be a source of prejudice. The latest controversy uses the same dehumanising tactic to vilify Haitian migrants.
The Great Replacement Theory plays a significant role.
Many link this controversy to the “Great Replacement” theory, a baseless belief that minorities are systematically replacing white populations. Springfield Republican committeewoman Glenda Bailey echoed that theory, saying the Haitian migrants had “replaced the population in Springfield, Ohio.”
Such theories only serve to divide and engender fear in the community. The local authorities, including the Springfield Police Division, have vented their frustration over such false reports, stressing that they have not encountered evidence that would support the stories about immigrants harming pets.
The Effectiveness of Fearmongering
Yet in the real world, such false rumors have serious repercussions. Vance’s posts also embroiled the president of the NAACP chapter at Springfield, Denise Williams, in a cascade of racist emails. She said she was worried about her and the community’s safety. The spread of misinformation leads to this outcome.
Accountability sought
Organizations like the Haitian American Foundation for Democracy have condemned the lies, calling on the authorities to take action against politicians who perpetuate this sort of rumor. “They are putting the most vulnerable communities at risk while committing hate crimes.”
What happened in Springfield, Ohio, serves as a reminder that misinformation will always find it rather simple to spread—mostly when voices of influential persons and social media platforms magnify the information. With the 2024 election looming, the rhetoric on immigration is seemingly reaching new lows.
Conclusion
The presidential debate illuminated some of the dangers of parlaying into false and divisive narratives. Accusations, such as those by Trump and Vance, are not only strange in themselves but reflect a larger pattern to keep public opinion hostage through fear and misinformation.
Communities, media, and leaders have to dig into such disinformation with facts and compassion. Only then will we be able to build a more inclusive and understanding society.
There is no doubt that the immigration debate will continue, and how we handle it will shape our nation for generations.