In the internet age, viral videos are king, and no politician produces more of them than Donald Trump. During a debate with Vice President Kamala Harris, Trump acknowledged the plight of Springfield, Ohio, where local residents are dealing with a large influx of Haitian immigrants brought in by the Biden-Harris administration. Trump's “They're eating dogs, they're eating cats” claim became the breakout video of the debate and quickly became a viral trend on TikTok, and even The inspiration behind hit dance songs.
Despite media attempts to “fact-check” and censor, the Streisand Effect took hold. Dozens of conservative and independent journalists began investigating the town and interviewing residents. The public soon learned that not only was the situation in Springfield out of control, but the city was just one of many across the nation facing the threat of replacement-level immigration.
The right to interact with others, to form communities, and to maintain the character and way of life of those communities is the most fundamental natural law.
Once it became clear that replacement-level immigration was occurring, the media moved to the next level of gaslighting: Of course it was happening, and it's a good thing. The debate shifted from wondering whether the government was orchestrating the mass migration of foreigners into Midwestern towns to debating whether this mass migration was bringing about any benefits.
Liberals quickly adopted neoconservative rhetoric, relying on the idea that pure economic activity was the sole determinant of a community's well-being: immigrants were “reinvigorating” the economies of these small, forgotten towns, they argued, and that was all there was to it.
Claims of economic recovery are incredibly dubious. Most Haitian “refugees” live on heavy federal subsidies that cover everything from housing to health care. Yes, technically there is more money in these areas, but the funding comes from unsustainable, inorganic sources and drives up the cost of living for locals. Working-class families are being squeezed out of the housing market as federally subsidized immigrants drive up rents. Crime and car accidents are soaring, and parents are pulling their children from local schools overcrowded with non-English-speaking students.
None of this means anything to the ideologues who justify replacement migration. If any economic chart shows an upward trend, the whole project is a success. No one explains why giving the same amount of money to the town's existing residents would not boost its economy. Somehow, only a large immigrant population is supposed to have this magic.
As the debate over economic gain continues, residents of towns like Springfield are suddenly being asked to justify their desire to maintain the character of their communities. While both sides in the immigration debate tout abstract statistics about economic development and crime, it's the families who have lived in these communities for generations who are seeing the real impacts.
The boring and lazy accusation of racism is the default smear against these communities, even though black residents suffer discrimination. Most vocal Resist mass immigration. Cynical politicians and journalists demand that victims of cynical political ploys make rational, statistically objective arguments to defend their communities, but they can also make the most basic moral arguments. Because we live here.
The right to associate with others, to form communities, and to maintain the characteristics and ways of life of those communities is the most fundamental of natural laws. The idea that what a community builds is a legitimate inheritance for its descendants, that the continuity of culture from one generation to the next is worth preserving, forms the basis of civilization. This principle is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, but it was taken for granted. In any previous era, the idea that people should need abstract academic arguments to justify preferring their community and putting its welfare above that of others would have been seen as absurd.
Sudden shifts in epistemology serve as convenient tools for smuggling in dogmatic assumptions. The idea that expert opinion and data are the only valid source of truth in any public debate allows the institutions that produce the experts and generate that data to define the parameters of any debate. The oldest appeals suddenly become invalid in the face of expert institutions and statistics.
What if community is more than just a site of economic activity? What if there are important factors, like social cohesion, that don't show up immediately in the data but are essential to defining human well-being? These questions will never be answered, because they are not easily solved by our new sources of authority. They will call into question the very foundations of authority.
Of course, our ruling class considers some communities more worthy and legitimate than others. Recently, the Chicago City Council approved $51 million to house a large number of illegal immigrants for 30 days. During the City Council meeting, police removed several outraged residents who demanded why that huge amount of money was not being used to improve the lives of members of the community. The community in question is predominantly black, and while it can escape the wrath of the media and the scorn of the Democratic Party, the debate is the same one being played out in forgotten Midwestern towns. Because we live here and we have a right to make our community a priority..
Economic data is valuable, and crime statistics are important, but these metrics are meaningless without first understanding the communities they represent. America's towns and cities should not be treated as sandboxes where the ruling class can conduct social experiments until they produce their preferred subjects.
It is enough that people in the United States like their neighbors and the way of life they have built in their communities. It is natural to expect a degree of ownership in what our ancestors built. It is also acceptable to love and protect something because it is yours, without needing abstract data or expert validation. We should not be ashamed to believe that it is moral and just to protect our communities from displacement because “we live here,” and we never will.
