(COLUMBUS, Ohio) — Ohio’s Republican Gov. Mike DeWine has stepped in to dispel rumors that Haitian immigrants are eating pets in Springfield — an unsubstantiated claim amplified by former President Donald Trump and Ohio Sen. JD Vance and other Republicans in recent days.
“I think we should take the word of the city manager and the mayor that they’ve found no credible evidence of that story of Haitians eating pets,” DeWine told local reporters who questioned him at an unrelated event on Wednesday.
Reporters asked the governor if he was dismayed that the leader of his party, Trump, is repeating the unsubstantiated rumors that largely stem from a viral social media post in a local Facebook group in which the poster wrote that their neighbor’s daughter’s friend had lost her cat.
“Look, my job is to tell what the facts are and what we’re seeing and I rely, frankly, on Mayor [Rob] Rue, the other officials, and county officials,” DeWine responded. “Look, they’re the ones who are there, they’re the ones who know what’s going on.”
A spokesperson for the city of Springfield previously told ABC News the claims that migrants are eating residents’ cats and dogs are false, and that there have been “no credible reports or specific claims of pets being harmed, injured or abused by individuals in the immigrant community.”
Still, Trump brought up the rumor while on the debate stage with Vice President Kamala Harris on Tuesday when asked a question about immigration.
“In Springfield, they’re eating the dogs. The people that came in, they’re eating the cats, they’re eating, they’re eating the pets of the people that live there,” Trump said on Tuesday night.
The Ohio town estimates there are up to 15,000 immigrants living in the city, which has put a strain on some resources. The city, in a FAQ page on its website, explained that the Haitian population is in the U.S. legally under the Immigration Parole Program.
DeWine earlier this week announced the state would send more resources to Springfield, which is grappling with the rapid influx of Haitian migrants over the last few years. His office said local primary caregivers have been impacted due to increased number of patients and lack of translation services. DeWine has authorized $2.5 million to go toward expanding primary care access for the city of Springfield.
“In general, migrants from Haiti have had little to no healthcare services prior to arriving in the United States, including vaccinations,” the press release said.
Now, Springfield is also dealing with the fallout of the pet controversy.
Springfield City Manager Bryan Heck addressed the issue in a video posted to Facebook.
“It is disappointing that some of the narratives surrounding our city has been skewed by misinformation on social media and further amplified by political rhetoric,” Heck said. “While we are experiencing challenges related to the rapid growth of our immigrant population, these challenges are primarily due to the pace of the growth, rather than the growth, rather than the rumors being reported.”
ABC News’ Alex Presha and Alexandra Hutzler contributed to this report.
Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump attend a presidential debate in Philadelphia, Sept. 10, 2024. (Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — During the first presidential debate Tuesday, Vice President Kamala Harris took a page out of former President Donald Trump’s playbook, attacking Trump by using his exact words against him.
Trump has repeatedly touted the world is laughing at the United States, and that the country has become a “disgrace” as a result of the Biden-Harris administration’s foreign policies.
Harris instead painted Trump as the “disgrace” that the world is laughing at Tuesday night.
“I have traveled the world as vice president of the United States and world leaders are laughing at Donald Trump,” she said.
In addition to appropriating one of Trump’s regular lines, Harris also told the former president that dictators “can manipulate you with flattery and favors” and foes like President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia “would eat you for lunch.”
At the start of the debate, Harris said Trump would deliver “the same old tired playbook, a bunch of lies, grievances and name-calling.” However, she seemed to take a page out of this playbook with name-calling of her own.
She continued to reverse the foreign policy blame onto Trump and referred to him as “weak” and a “disgrace” — terms he has repeatedly directed towards her party and administration.
“It is very well known that Donald Trump is weak and wrong on national security and foreign policy,” she said. “It is well known that he admires dictators, wants to be a dictator on day one, according to himself.”
She added that military leaders that have worked with Trump “say [he’s] a disgrace.”
In terms of overall strategy, Harris also used Trump’s tactics against him, taking on an attack stance and attempting to get under his skin.
The vice president mocked Trump for talking about “fictional characters like Hannibal Lecter” and said he was “fired by 81 million people” — just a few of her many jabs throughout the night.
According to a New York Times analysis, Trump’s total speaking time spanned longer than Harris’, but the vice president spent more time attacking her opponent.
Harris spent 17 minutes and 25 seconds attacking Trump, while Trump spent 12 minutes and 54 seconds attacking Harris, the report said.
ABC News has reached out to Harris’ campaign regarding her debate strategy.
While Trump did not explicitly acknowledge Harris’ use of his signature phrasing and typical attack strategy, he insinuated that she was copying him.
“Everything that she believed three years ago and four years ago is out the window. She’s going to my philosophy now,” he said during the debate. “In fact, I was going to send her a MAGA hat.”
Vice President and Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris speaks during an ABC News presidential debate with former President and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump in Philadelphia, on Sept. 10, 2024. (Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Vice President Kamala Harris’ post-debate campaign visits to North Carolina and Pennsylvania on Thursday and Friday, respectively, represents the start of a “more aggressive” campaigning stage, her campaign said.
Harris is set to hold two rallies in North Carolina and one in Pennsylvania as part of the kickoff for her “New Way Forward Tour,” which her campaign said is an effort to “capitalize on her decisive victory” against former President Donald Trump at the ABC News debate.
The campaign said that Harris had such a “commanding debate performance” that it spent Wednesday going through the footage to pinpoint moments they can use in upcoming ads in the coming days.
This phase will also see the vice president do more media engagements primarily targeting battleground states and other important constituencies, the campaign said, with local media interviews set for the coming days. She will also participate in a discussion with the National Association of Black Journalists next week.
Second gentleman Doug Emhoff, Gov. Tim Walz and Gwen Walz will each hit the road as part of the tour as well.
Emhoff will be in Arizona and Nevada on Thursday; Gov. Walz will be in Michigan on Thursday and Wisconsin on Friday; and Mrs. Walz will be in New Hampshire on Thursday.
The campaign’s new tour will also feature surrogate events, including a Republicans for Harris function in Phoenix, Arizona, an HBCU student event in Savannah, Georgia, and a veterans and military families event in Columbus, Georgia.
(WASHINGTON) — Amid escalating rhetoric from former President Donald Trump threatening to prosecute his enemies should he win the 2024 election, Attorney General Merrick Garland delivered remarks to the Justice Department workforce on Thursday urging they continue to adhere to longstanding principles intended to protect DOJ from improper politicization.
“Our norms are a promise that we will fiercely protect the independence of this Department from political interference in our criminal investigations,” Garland said.
Garland added, “Our norms are a promise that we will not allow this Department to be used as a political weapon. And our norms are a promise that we will not allow this nation to become a country where law enforcement is treated as an apparatus of politics.”
The remarks come as Garland has sought to refute allegations from Trump and his allies of weaponization of the department through its prosecution of individuals involved in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, as well as Special Counsel Jack Smith’s dueling prosecutions of Trump himself for his alleged mishandling of classified documents and his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
Those close to Garland have disputed those accusations as baseless — pointing in part to DOJ’s prosecution and conviction of Democrats like disgraced New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez on corruption charges as well as the separate Special Counsel prosecutions of President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden.
Trump and his allies, in turn, have ramped up in recent months their promises to use the Justice Department as a tool of retribution against his political enemies — with Trump in a Truth Social post over the weekend threatening “long term prison sentences” for “Lawyers, Political Operatives, Donors, Illegal Voters, & Corrupt Election Officials” he baselessly accused of being involved in “cheating” in the 2020 and 2024 elections.
Garland forcefully rebuked what he describes as a “dangerous — and outrageous” spike in threats targeting DOJ employees under his tenure.
“Over the past three and a half years, there has been an escalation of attacks on the Justice Department’s career lawyers, agents, and other personnel that go far beyond public scrutiny, criticism, and legitimate and necessary oversight of our work,” Garland said. “These attacks have come in the form of conspiracy theories, dangerous falsehoods, efforts to bully and intimidate career public servants by repeatedly and publicly singling them out, and threats of actual violence.”
Garland used his remarks specifically to point to steps taken during his tenure he says have been aimed at isolating the department from allegations of politicization, such as re-implementing policies intended to limit contacts with the White House.
Those policies, however, were complicated by the Supreme Court’s July ruling that effectively granted Trump immunity in his federal election subversion case over his alleged efforts to use the Justice Department to overturn the election. The court’s conservative majority determined that Trump and other presidents should be shielded from any criminal liability for contacts with the DOJ, that they said clearly fall within the chief executive’s core powers.
As a result, Special Counsel Smith returned a superseding indictment two weeks ago against Trump that stripped out any mentions of the alleged DOJ plot.
(WASHINGTON) — Amid escalating rhetoric from former President Donald Trump threatening to prosecute his enemies should he win the 2024 election, Attorney General Merrick Garland will deliver remarks to the Justice Department workforce Thursday urging they continue to adhere to longstanding principles intended to protect DOJ from improper politicization.
“Our norms are a promise that we will fiercely protect the independence of this Department from political interference in our criminal investigations,” Garland will say, according to excerpts of his prepared remarks provided to reporters.
Garland will add, “Our norms are a promise that we will not allow this Department to be used as a political weapon. And our norms are a promise that we will not allow this nation to become a country where law enforcement is treated as an apparatus of politics.”
The remarks come as Garland has sought to refute allegations from Trump and his allies of weaponization of the department through its prosecution of individuals involved in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, as well as Special Counsel Jack Smith’s dueling prosecutions of Trump himself for his alleged mishandling of classified documents and his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
Those close to Garland have disputed those accusations as baseless — pointing in part to DOJ’s prosecution and conviction of Democrats like disgraced New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez on corruption charges as well as the separate Special Counsel prosecutions of President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden.
Trump and his allies, in turn, have ramped up in recent months their promises to use the Justice Department as a tool of retribution against his political enemies — with Trump in a Truth Social post over the weekend threatening “long term prison sentences” for “Lawyers, Political Operatives, Donors, Illegal Voters, & Corrupt Election Officials” he baselessly accused of being involved in “cheating” in the 2020 and 2024 elections.
According to the excerpts, Garland will forcefully rebuke what he describes as a “dangerous — and outrageous” spike in threats targeting DOJ employees under his tenure.
“Over the past three and a half years, there has been an escalation of attacks on the Justice Department’s career lawyers, agents, and other personnel that go far beyond public scrutiny, criticism, and legitimate and necessary oversight of our work,” Garland will say. “These attacks have come in the form of conspiracy theories, dangerous falsehoods, efforts to bully and intimidate career public servants by repeatedly and publicly singling them out, and threats of actual violence.”
Garland will use his remarks specifically to point to steps taken during his tenure he says have been aimed at isolating the department from allegations of politicization, such as re-implementing policies intended to limit contacts with the White House.
Those policies, however, were complicated by the Supreme Court’s July ruling that effectively granted Trump immunity in his federal election subversion case over his alleged efforts to use the Justice Department to overturn the election. The court’s conservative majority determined that Trump and other presidents should be shielded from any criminal liability for contacts with the DOJ, that they said clearly fall within the chief executive’s core powers.
As a result, Special Counsel Smith returned a superseding indictment two weeks ago against Trump that stripped out any mentions of the alleged DOJ plot.
Taylor Swift performs on stage during the “Taylor Swift | The Eras Tour” at Wembley Stadium in London, August 15, 2024. (Kate Green/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Taylor Swift made headlines after Tuesday night’s debate by endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris for president, and experts are already looking at the pop star’s possible influence on the 2024 election.
“If you self-identify as someone who sees the world like Taylor Swift does, you might go, ‘Huh, maybe I should be voting like that also,'” Marcus Collins, a marketing professor at the University of Michigan and author of the book For the Culture, told ABC News. “It sort of sends a bat signal for what potentially is acceptable for people like me.”
“This sort of social signaling is important to us,” he continued. “It helps us define who we are, our identity, what to think, how to behave.”
These effects can be subtle but significant, Collins said. For example, a conservative Swiftie might find those two identities at odds with each other and begin to question their beliefs.
“People may find themselves in cognitive dissonance, where their identity and how they see the world are in conflict with other parts of their identity,” he said. “There has to be some sense of reconciliation.”
The pop superstar said Tuesday night that she would be voting for Harris “because she fights for the rights and causes I believe need a warrior to champion them.”
Swift said she was voting for the Harris-Tim Walz ticket after doing her research and, in her post, encouraged her Instagram followers to do their own. She also shared a link to Vote.org, a resource to help people register to vote in their home state.
“She knows that she’s speaking to a number of people who will be voting either for the first time ever or for the first time for a president,” Megan Duncan, an associate professor at Virginia Tech specializing in political communication, told ABC News. “And she knows that getting that bit of education about how to register and that you can vote early in many states is the stuff that celebrities are effective at.”
This isn’t the first time Swift has encouraged her fans to register to vote. In 2018 and 2023, she also made Instagram posts about voter registration, and tens of thousands of people signed up in the days that followed.
Swift’s support for Harris shouldn’t come as much of a surprise. Though once publicly apolitical, Swift has become more outspoken about her political beliefs in recent years. In 2020, she endorsed President Joe Biden and lambasted then-President Donald Trump for “stoking the fires of white supremacy and racism” and putting “millions of Americans’ lives at risk in an effort to hold on to power.”
Fans had long anticipated her making an endorsement in the 2024 race. Much of her fanbase is young — predominately millennials and Gen Z — a demographic that consistently has lower voter turnout than older generations and whose members may have never voted.
It’s not just young people Swift is in a position to sway. Many of her fans belong to another critical demographic: white women, over half of whom voted red in both 2016 and 2020.
“It’s a huge voter block — and not only that, but it’s a voter block that we’ve seen be consequential with regards to elections, particularly with Donald Trump,” Collins told ABC News.
How Swift’s endorsement will shape the election is yet to be seen, but her message’s reach has already been massive. The General Services Administration told ABC News that, as of 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, more than 330,000 people had visited the voter registration site linked by Swift.
Not long after Swift’s endorsement, a spokesperson for the vice president said Harris was “very proud” to have the singer’s support and said it came as a complete surprise.
(WASHINGTON) — The act of certifying the presidential election results will now be given the highest security designation the federal government makes available, the Department of Homeland Security announced Wednesday.
Jan. 6, 2025, will now be designated a National Special Security Event (NSSE) by the Department of Homeland Security — on par with events like the Democratic and Republican national conventions. This designation allows for “significant resources from the federal government, as well as from state and local partners, to be utilized in a comprehensive security plan,” according to the agency.
“National Special Security Events are events of the highest national significance,” Eric Ranaghan, the special agent in charge of the U.S. Secret Service’s Dignitary Protective Division, said in a statement. “The U.S. Secret Service, in collaboration with our federal, state, and local partners are committed to developing and implementing a comprehensive and integrated security plan to ensure the safety and security of this event and its participants.”
An NSSE is designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security and is led by the Secret Service.
Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser made a request for the designation, according to the agency.
Jan. 6 is a formality, but the last time Congress attempted to certify the results of the presidential election, a group of supporters of former President Donald Trump breached the Capitol in an attempt to stop it.
The results of Jan. 6 resulted in hundreds of prosecutions by the Justice Department and criminal charges brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith against Trump, who has denied any wrongdoing.
Vice President and Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris and former US President and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speak during a presidential debate at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Sept. 10, 2024. (Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Climate change remains on the backburner of the 2024 election following little mention of environmental policy during the first — and possibly only — debate between the two presidential candidates.
Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump faced off for the first time on Tuesday night from the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, where neither candidate dedicated ample time to addressing what they would do to reduce the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions and bolster the clean energy industry.
“I think what we learned last night is that climate really is not on the ballot this fall,” Leah Aronowsky, a science historian at the Columbia Climate School, whose research has focused on the history of climate science and climate denialism, told ABC News.
Climate change has not taken center stage this election cycle due to other topics — such as the economy, immigration and abortion — but that doesn’t mean that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is any less important, John Abraham, a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota, told ABC News.
The first mention of greenhouse gas emissions came amid Trump’s claims that he “built one of the strongest economies in the history of the world.” The former president accused the Biden administration of enacting policies that would destroy the domestic oil industry and cause inflation to worsen.
But, the Biden administration produced 12.9 million barrels per day in 2023, breaking the record set in 2019 at 12.3 million barrels, data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration shows.
During the debate, Harris touted the Biden administration bringing domestic gas production to “historic levels.” Lena Moffitt, executive director of the environmental organization Evergreen Action, an environmental nonprofit, told ABC News the reference was likely an effort to entice a broad array of voters by promising to extend commitment to fossil fuel extraction while also building out a renewable energy industry and focusing more on electric vehicles.
Harris was also questioned during the debate on whether she has changed her “values” on whether to ban fracking.
Reliance on domestic stores of oil necessitates continued fracking, Harris said, making clear that she will not ban the technique used to extract oil and gas from underground rock formations, despite Trump’s insistence that she had been against it for “12 years.”
ABC News could not identify why Trump claimed Harris had been claiming for 12 years that she would ban fracking.
In 2016, while attorney general of California, Harris sued the U.S. Interior Department over its environmental assessment on the California coastline, which would have allowed fracking on the Pacific Outer Continental Shelf. Since 2020, Harris has made it “very clear” that she will not ban fracking, she said during the debate.
“I was the tie-breaking vote on the Inflation Reduction Act, which opened new leases on fracking,” she said. “My position is that we have got to invest in diverse sources of energy so we reduce our reliance on foreign oil.”
The only question explicitly about climate change came at the very end, just before the candidates’ closing arguments.
When asked what she would do to fight climate change, Harris first reminded voters that Trump has described the climate crisis as a “hoax” before talking about where Americans are being hit hardest by extreme weather events: their homes.
Homeowners in states that experience extreme weather events are increasingly being denied home insurance, or premiums are “being jacked up,” Harris said.
“You ask anybody who has been the victim of what that means — in terms of losing their home, having nowhere to go,” Harris said.
Appealing to homeowners was a smart move on Harris’ part, Aronowsky said, adding that homeowners will take the brunt of the economic hardships of the extreme weather that is predicted to increase as global temperatures continue to rise.
“We’re going to see more and more insurance companies dropping the homeowners from policies, Americans getting hit with exorbitant insurance premiums,” she said. “So, it’s really a looming political crisis.”
Harris said that young Americans “care deeply” about climate change. It’s because they’ve seen first-hand how climate change can affect their lives, Moffitt said.
“It is an issue that a lot of Americans really care about, especially young voters,” Moffitt told ABC News.
Trump did not answer the question on climate change, instead focusing on jobs that he said are no longer in existence due to Chinese-owned auto plants being built in Mexico.
“They lost 10,000 manufacturing jobs this last month,” Trump said. “It’s going — they’re all leaving.”
Investing in the clean energy industry will actually create more jobs, Abraham said. The U.S. now has an opportunity to participate in the green energy economy to power the country, which will create high-tech, high-paid jobs, he said.
“I think it’s a real missed opportunity for Republicans,” Abraham said. “If you’re a fiscal conservative, you want to be part of this new energy economy and make money off it.”
Clean energy employment increased by 142,000 jobs in 2023, according to a U.S. Department of Energy report released last month.
With the passing of the landmark Inflation Reduction Act, the Biden administration has made more progress than any previous administration on environmental policy, the experts said.
But environmental advocates and policymakers will have to find a way going forward to help the public understand how climate change will affect Americans in their everyday lives, Aronowsky said.
“It’s becoming clear that talking about climate as a … standalone issue is a political dead end,” she said.
(SPRINGFIELD, Ohio) — Shortly before the ABC News presidential debate on Tuesday, the parents of a child who was killed in a bus crash caused by a Haitian immigrant in Springfield, Ohio, last year made an emotional plea for former President Donald Trump, vice presidential candidate JD Vance and others to stop using the death of their child “as a political tool.”
“They have spoken my son’s name and used his death for political gain,” said Nathan Clark, who spoke at a Springfield City Commission hearing. Flanked by his wife Danielle, Clark said “My son was not murdered. He was accidentally killed by an immigrant from Haiti.”
“I wish that my son, Aiden Clark, was killed by a 60-year-old white man. I bet you never thought anyone would ever say something so blunt. But if that guy killed my 11-year-old son, the incessant group of hate-spewing people would leave us alone,” he said tearfully.
Aiden Clark was killed last year when a minivan driven by Hemanio Joseph crashed into his school bus. Joseph, whose legal team says has Temporary Protected Status (TPS), was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter and vehicular homicide and sentenced to nine to 13 years in prison in May. Joseph’s team has filed to appeal the conviction.
Some Haitian nationals present in the United States are eligible for TPS, which provides them with temporary permission to live and work in the country legally. The Department of Homeland Security designates certain countries for TPS when it deems it too dangerous for migrants to return due civil unrest, natural disasters, or other reasons.
Nathan Clark called for an apology from Vance, Trump, Bernie Moreno, the Republican Senate candidate in Ohio, and Texas GOP Rep. Chip Roy, who he called “morally bankrupt,” for spinning Aiden’s death “towards hate.”
“This needs to stop now,” he said. “They can vomit all the hate they want about illegal immigrants, the border crisis, and even untrue claims about fluffy pets being ravaged and eaten by community members. However, they are not allowed, nor have they ever been allowed, to mention Aiden Clark from Springfield, Ohio.”
The claims about the Haitian community in Springfield spread quickly through conservative circles with accounts like that of the House Judiciary Committee Republicans using AI tools to show Trump holding cats and ducks, portraying him as a savior of animals.
One of the main images circulating online showing a man holding a dead goose was taken not in Springfield, but in Columbus, Ohio, two months ago. The resident who captured the image told ABC News he was surprised to see his image used to “ push false narratives.”
In a Tuesday post on X, Vance made debunked claims about Haitian migrants eating people’s pets in the town — a claim he later conceded could be false.
“In the last several weeks, my office has received many inquiries from actual residents of Springfield who’ve said their neighbors’ pets or local wildlife were abducted by Haitian migrants,” Vance wrote on X. “It’s possible, of course, that all of these rumors will turn out to be false.”
But then he went on to say, “Do you know what’s confirmed? That a child was murdered by a Haitian migrant who had no right to be here.”
Vance then criticized Harris for the Biden administration’s Temporary Protected Status extension for tens of thousands of Haitian migrants.
A spokesperson for Vance did not respond when ABC News asked for comment and more information about the incident he described in the post.
Asked for comment on the Clarks’ plea, Karoline Leavitt, a spokesperson for the Trump campaign, said, “We are deeply sorry to the Clark family for the loss of their son. We hope the media will continue to cover the stories of the very real suffering and tragedies experienced by the people of Springfield, Ohio due to the influx of illegal Haitian immigrants in their community.”
At Tuesday’s debate, Trump brought up the unsubstantiated claims circulating online regarding immigrants in Springfield.
Bryan Heck, Springfield’s city manager, also condemned the misinformation being spread on social media and in the political arena.
“Our Springfield community is making notable progress that contributes to its growing appeal to new residents, including immigrants,” Heck said in an online statement. “This development is underpinned by our city’s diverse and robust industrial base that encompasses the technology, automotive, food production and distribution sectors. The growth in our workforce population has supported the expansion of local businesses, contributed to the stabilization of the local economy. Our commitment to promoting a business-friendly environment has attracted new enterprises to our region and we’ll continue to focus on collaborating with industry leaders who seek to establish operations here.”
He also stated that challenges related to the growing immigrant population are from the pace of the growth and not the growth itself.
“These rumors will not distract us from addressing the real strain on our resources including the impact to our schools, healthcare system and first responders,” Heck said.
Migrants have been drawn to the region because of the low cost of living and work opportunities, the city says on its site. The city estimates there are around 12,000 to 15,000 immigrants living in the county, and the rapid rise in population has strained housing, health care, and school resources.
But the city also says that the migrants are in the country legally and that many are recipients of Temporary Protected Status.
The Haitian Bridge Alliance condemned “baseless and inflammatory” claims about Haitian migrants, arguing they “not only perpetuate harmful stereotypes but also contribute to the dangerous stigmatization of immigrant communities, particularly Black immigrants from the Republic of Haiti.”
The group has also called for an apology.
At Tuesday’s debate, Trump ranted about migrants from Haiti stealing and eating people’s pets.
“They’re eating the dogs. The people that came in. They’re eating the cats. They’re eating — they’re eating the pets of the people that live there. And this is what’s happening in our country. And it’s a shame.”
Bryan Heck, Springfield’s city manager, also condemned the misinformation being spread on social media and in the political arena.
“Our Springfield community is making notable progress that contributes to its growing appeal to new residents, including immigrants,” Heck said in an online statement. “This development is underpinned by our city’s diverse and robust industrial base that encompasses the technology, automotive, food production and distribution sectors. The growth in our workforce population has supported the expansion of local businesses, contributed to the stabilization of the local economy. Our commitment to promoting a business-friendly environment has attracted new enterprises to our region and we’ll continue to focus on collaborating with industry leaders who seek to establish operations here.”
He also stated that challenges related to the growing immigrant population are from the pace of the growth and not the growth itself.
“These rumors will not distract us from addressing the real strain on our resources including the impact to our schools, healthcare system and first responders,” Heck said.
Migrants have been drawn to the region because of the low cost of living and work opportunities, the city says on its site. The city estimates there are around 12,000 to 15,000 immigrants living in the county, and the rapid rise in population has strained housing, health care, and school resources.
But the city also says that the migrants are in the country legally and that many are recipients of TPS.
The Haitian Bridge Alliance condemned “baseless and inflammatory” claims about Haitian migrants, arguing they “not only perpetuate harmful stereotypes but also contribute to the dangerous stigmatization of immigrant communities, particularly Black immigrants from the Republic of Haiti.”
The group has also called for an apology.
ABC News’ Julia Reinstein and Hannah Demissie contributed to this report.
Doug Mills/The New York Times/Bloomberg via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — Voters across the country tuned in to the ABC News presidential debate on Tuesday night to see Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump discuss issues and share their visions for the country.
Many were looking to see how Harris defined herself on the debate stage, especially given that she entered the race relatively late as a presidential candidate.
Some undecided or formerly undecided voters spoke with ABC News both before and after the debate.
Before the debate, they shared what they were hoping to see — and after, if they thought Harris made the case for herself as a presidential candidate as well as their thoughts a potential second debate between Trump and Harris. These voters also previously spoke with ABC News earlier in the election cycle, including before President Joe Biden dropped out of the race.
Patrick O’Rourke, a retired scientist and independent voter from Georgia, said ahead of the debate that he did not trust Harris to be a “unifier” for the country.
“If I can force myself to vote for VP Harris, it will be with the hope of [split-party control between the presidency and Congress] … I hope for a president who can respect the constitution and earn the respect of our country,” he told ABC News by text.
At 10:09 p.m. ET, as the debate was still on air, he texted ABC News that he had turned off the debate.
“Former President Trump has forced me into voting for VP Harris,” he said. The reasons: because of how Trump discussed Ashli Babbit — a Trump supporter who was fatally shot during the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the U.S. Capitol — whom the former president said “was shot by an out-of-control police officer;” and after Trump promoted being endorsed by Hungarian leader Viktor Orban, who is considered an authoritarian leader.
That doesn’t mean he thinks Harris made a strong positive case or defined herself enough, though.
Asked how he felt about her performance, O’Rourke said, “Still don’t know who she is other than not Donald Trump. Right now, that’s enough.”
Many voters feel they could benefit from more information about Harris and her platforms. A recent New York Times/Siena College poll found that 28% of likely voters said they feel they need to still learn more about Harris, while only 9% of likely voters felt that way about Trump.
O’Rourke said on Wednesday morning that he’s also not interested in another debate.
“One is enough for this cycle. I do not need to see another debate … I don’t need the candidates telling me what the other one’s policies are,” O’Rourke said.
But he said he’d like to see interviews with the candidates where they talk about economic policy, foreign affairs and civil justice priorities.
Rebecca Bakker, a registered nursing professor who lives near Grand Rapids, Michigan, told ABC News by text ahead of the debate that she was still undecided — although she had said beforehand she was not supporting Trump.
She was hoping to hear Harris “drill down on a clear economic message,” as well as clarity from her on how she would solve foreign policy and border issues.
Bakker told ABC News after the debate that the showing solidified her decision to not vote for Trump, who did not come across to her as “presidential” or as outlining clear policies.
“I think Harris did a great job to bait him so he [would] unravel during the debate and this worked to her advantage,” she said by text, but she felt Harris was still a bit “murky” on how her positions on some issues have changed.
“I remain undecided- she didn’t sway me enough (yet) to vote for her but for sure [Trump] swayed me enough NOT to vote for him,” Bakker wrote.
Bakker said she would like another debate to see if either candidate “reframes their narrative to address specifics on policies without ‘one of them’ losing focus and returning to childish behavior,” she wrote, adding she wants to see Harris discuss the economy and border issues more directly.
“So far, I don’t have a clear idea of her plan to address these areas.”
Karen Hughes, an independent voter and retired parole and probation specialist from Nevada, had previously been undecided but had decided to begrudgingly vote for Biden before he left the race in July. Ahead of the debate, Hughes told ABC News by text she was “hoping to see some policy discussions tonight. I’m interested in hearing Trump’s (final) position on abortion, and Harris’s explanation for why she won’t ban fracking.”
The debate affirmed her choice to vote for Harris, Hughes said on Wednesday, as she felt Harris “presents as competent, positive, and very sure of herself. I felt she knew exactly to get into Trump’s head and he fell for it every time,” Hughes said — although she said she felt Harris was still unclear about the shift in her position on fracking. Hughes also criticized Trump’s invocation of “wild conspiracy theories.”
But she’s not looking for another debate: “I think this one was good enough.”
Ian Mackintosh, a voter from Pennsylvania who lives in the Pittsburgh area, also said he hoped ahead of the debate to hear about policy. On Wednesday, he told ABC News by text, “Honestly, I thought it was a complete waste of 90 minutes. If anything, it moved me away from both candidates.”
While he said he understands the challenges of going in depth on complex policy stances in two minutes, it “could have been more substantial” with “less baiting and intentionally riling up the other candidate.”
Mackintosh said he is also disillusioned by Harris’ stance on Israel and Gaza, which he feels is the same as Biden’s.
He said he would not be interested in watching a second debate, and added, “After last night’s debacle I will probably only vote down-ballot.”
Brendan Fitzsimmons, a physician from Wyoming who is a Republican but does not support Trump, told ABC News by text before the debate that he did not expect much from the candidates, “although I would enjoy it if there is a lot of entertainment to it,” he said.
Fitzsimmons admitted that going into the debate, he didn’t feel sold on Harris: “I think she’ll be a terrible president, but I hope she wins,” calling her the “lesser of two evils.”
The morning after the debate, Fitzsimmons said the night changed how he was feeling about Harris.
“I enjoyed the debate and I thought they were both fairly strong, but all in all, Harris was stronger and won the debate and I think showed to a lot of people that she can be president … I am very concerned about foreign affairs, and I think she may be OK in that way,” he told ABC News by text.
Matthew Labkovski, a Republican voter from Florida who supported former United Nations ambassador Nikki Haley during the Republican presidential primaries, told ABC News by text before the debate that he hoped to see the candidates discuss policy, and not engage in personal attacks. He said Tuesday evening that he was currently not planning on voting for president.
After the debate, Labkovski said on Wednesday, “I think it actually convinced me not to vote for Donald Trump. All I saw was fear mongering from him and what seemed to be a stretching of the truth,” he said, particularly when it came to Trump’s false claims about abortion and about a false conspiracy theory over immigrants eating pets.
“I am still not convinced though with Harris, as I didn’t get enough policy with her in this debate. To be honest, I would love another debate to see if I was actually comfortable in voting for her,” he said.
Labkovski also criticized Harris’ laughter during the debate, saying that he wished she had remained more even-keeled.
He added that he would have liked her to discuss how she would implement the policies she was talking about.
“How is she going to fight inflation? How is she going to bring peace? That’s what I was hoping the debate would bring … I needed more from her to actually sway from not voting in the presidential slot.”
