SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
ted cruz
'Racist Piece of Sh*t' JD Vance Spreads False Rumors of Pet-Eating Haitian Immigrants
"White supremacist and antidemocratic movements have always used the claim that so-called Black savages are coming to destroy, especially when political power is up for grabs," said one critic. "This is no different."
Sep 09, 2024
U.S. vice presidential candidate JD Vance and other Republicans including congressional lawmakers and Elon Musk, the billionaire owner of the X social media platform, were excoriated Monday for spreading unsubstantiated rumors that Haitian immigrants are killing and eating pets and park wildlife in an Ohio town.
Vance, who is also the junior U.S. senator from Ohio,
wrote Monday on X—formerly known as Twitter—that "months ago, I raised the issue of Haitian illegal immigrants draining social services and generally causing chaos all over Springfield, Ohio."
"Reports now show that people have had their pets abducted and eaten by people who shouldn't be in this country," he added. "Where is our border czar?"
Haitians were also accused of killing and eating ducks and geese in the city's Snyder Park. However, a photo
purportedly showing a Haitian immigrant walking down a Springfield street carrying a dead bird was actually of an American and was taken in Columbus, Ohio—nearly 50 miles away.
The cat rumor originated nearly 100 miles away in Canton, Ohio, where a mentally ill woman—also an American—was
arrested last month for allegedly killing and eating a cat.
During a July Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee hearing, Vance read a letter from Springfield City Manager Bryan Heck, a Republican, highlighting some of the challenges faced by municipal officials struggling to accommodate thousands of Haitian immigrants.
Nowhere in the letter are pet-eating Haitians mentioned. Both Heck and Springfield police officials have
refuted the rumor.
"We wish to clarify that there have been no credible reports or specific claims of pets being harmed, injured, or abused by individuals within the immigrant community," Heck
toldThe Hill. "Additionally, there have been no verified instances of immigrants engaging in illegal activities such as squatting or littering in front of residents' homes."
By the time mainstream media outlets began debunking the rumor, it had already gone viral. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas)
posted a meme showing two scared kittens with the caption, "Pease vote for Trump so Haitian immigrants don't eat us."
Musk, meanwhile,
reposted an AI-generated meme published by House Judiciary Committee Republicans showing Trump hugging animals with the caption, "Protect our ducks and kittens in Ohio!"
Many observers reacted with disgust to the rumor-spreading Republicans.
"In MAGA world, the alleged pet-eating is already a matter of fact, and Republican elected officials, including Vance, are hurrying to join the clout rush, the scramble to get attention and likes and followers by treating it as a serious issue," wroteWashington Post columnist Philip Bump.
"This is a central reason that Vance and others on the right are susceptible to being described as 'weird,'" Bump added. "There's an online world in which things get taken to the nth-degree because its economy rewards that sort of hyperbole. But then these obsessions and claims are taken out of that bubble and presented to everyone else and they don't hold up. What else can you do but marvel at how strange it all is?"
Erik Crew, staff attorney at the Haitian Bridge Alliance, an advocacy group,
toldThe Hill that "this is the same old anti-Black playbook that we've seen for hundreds of years in Ohio being rolled out to divide and create hate, especially around election times."
Crew continued:
White supremacist and antidemocratic movements have always used the claim that so-called Black savages are coming to destroy, especially when political power is up for grabs. This is no different. This time they are saying it is Haitians, and this time it is being used to try to score political points around immigration as well.
The fact is Haitian immigrants have been coming to Springfield seeking to come and contribute to U.S. democracy and the economy, and Springfield and Ohio will benefit from that like U.S. communities have benefited in the past from Black immigrants' contributions.
"The fact is the rumors about Haitians in Springfield and pets have already been debunked, but we won't stop hearing them because certain people will want to keep spreading them as the election nears," he added.
Dave Zirin, sports editor at
The Nation, was more blunt in his reaction.
"You are a racist piece of shit," he
wrote to Vance on X. "You lie like Trump without an inkling of his twisted charisma."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Report Exposes Trump Proposal to Stop Taxing Tips as 'Hollow Promise'
"In contrast, low-wage voters will be asking, What are Democrats providing as an alternative?" said the head of the group that published the report.
Jul 23, 2024
Most U.S. workers who rely on tips to supplement their often meager incomes would see no benefits from a tax exemption proposed by former President Donald Trump that the authors of a report published Tuesday called a "hollow promise."
The report—published by One Fair Wage and the Food Labor Research Center at the University of California, Berkeley—details how the proposal by Trump, the Republican nominee for president, and Sen. Ted Cruz's (R-Texas) related No Tax on Tips Act would deliver little relief to tipped workers.
According to One Fair Wage, "66% of tipped restaurant workers would not benefit from tax exemptions on tips because they or their households do not earn enough to pay income taxes."
"Trump tried to make tips the property of owners the last time he was in office, so he's clearly NOT a genuine advocate for working people."
While the proposal may seem beneficial to tipped workers, the group said it "falls too short of having a real impact and fails to address the fundamental issue facing working-class Americans: the need for a stable, living wage."
According to One Fair Wage, the report's key findings include:
- Tipped restaurant workers earn a median income of just $15,198, a mere 37% of the national median income of $40,480;
- Over 95% of these workers earn less than $53,000 annually, with nearly half earning below the federal income tax threshold of $13,850, making them ineligible for significant tax benefits; and
- The proposal does not address the core issue of higher wages and economic insecurity: The subminimum wage for tipped workers, currently $2.13 per hour federally, perpetuates economic instability, high rates of sexual harassment, and poverty among workers, which tax relief on tips does not address.
While Trump has picked Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) as his running mate in an apparent bid to win over working-class workers, President Joe Biden on Sunday left the race and endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris to become the Democratic presidential nominee.
"Regardless of who's on the ticket, it's clear that candidates who want to win this cycle should address the needs of working people," One Fair Wage president Saru Jayaraman said in a statement. "Let's remember that for his part, Trump tried to make tips the property of owners the last time he was in office, so he's clearly NOT a genuine advocate for working people."
"In contrast, low-wage voters will be asking, What are Democrats providing as an alternative?" Jayaraman added. "In order to reach this critical voting bloc, their response should be loud and clear: It is time to raise the minimum wage and end the subminimum wage for tipped workers."
In a recent interview, Jayaraman toldCommon Dreams that "the restaurant industry has used tips for 150 years in place of what people need, which is a stable base living wage with tips on top."
"It is helpful, for sure, to not have your taxes tipped, but that is a red herring," she added. "That should be on top of what workers really need."
Last week, the Center for American Progress (CAP) published an analysis that found Cruz's bill is "deeply flawed": In addition to excluding 95% of low- and moderate-wage workers who are not working tipped jobs, "it contains few, if any, guardrails to prevent high-income professionals such as hedge fund managers from shifting their compensation to a tax-free tipping model."
"The No Tax on Tips Act potentially kicks the door wide open for tax abuse by the wealthy and fails to deliver any meaningful tax cuts for low- and moderate-wage workers," said CAP senior director for economic policy Brendan Duke. "Just 5% of all workers making less than $25 per hour receive tips. And even among those that do receive tips, the tax cuts would be minimal at best."
Duke asserted that restoring the American Rescue Plan's earned income tax credit and child tax credit expansions would broadly benefit "both tipped workers such as waiters and nontipped workers such as home health aides."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Bullying of Adeel Manji Tells Muslim Americans They Are 2nd Class Citizens
The treatment of the first Muslim federal appellate nominee sends a message to people of Muslim faith with aspirations for the federal bench: don’t bother, unless you, too, want to be branded as a terrorist-sympathizer.
Apr 10, 2024
President Joe Biden’s recent nomination of a Harvard-educated litigation partner from a white-shoe law firm to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit should have been pretty run of the mill, as far as judicial confirmation processes go.
But one aspect of the nominee’s bio has contorted what would likely otherwise have been an uneventful confirmation process into a grotesque spectacle: The nominee, Adeel Mangi, is a Muslim American of Pakistani descent. If confirmed, he would be the first Muslim federal appellate judge in the country.
No non-Muslim judicial nominee has been asked whether they condemn the October 7 terrorist attacks by Hamas on Israel, accused of celebrating 9/11, or asked to confirm that they condemn genocide.
It started at his confirmation hearings in December 2023, which his young children attended.
“Do you condemn the atrocities of the Hamas terrorists?” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) asked. “Is there any justification for those atrocities?”
“Do you believe that Zionist settler colonialism was a provocation that justified Hamas’ atrocity against Jews in Israel?” demanded Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.).
Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) insinuated that Mangi “celebrate[s] 9/11,” rattling off a list of speakers invited to an event organized by Rutgers Law School’s Center for Security, Race, and Rights to commemorate the 2001 attacks—which Mangi did not attend, had no apparent role in organizing, and, he said, of which he was not even aware. Mangi had been a member of the center’s advisory board.
When Democrats had the floor, they revisited the topic to give Mangi an opportunity to denounce terrorism and genocide—which he did, repeatedly and unequivocally. But even in their friendly form, the questions left an impression that religious and racial stereotypes had hijacked the hearings.
“Is there any hesitation on your part to condemn genocide?" Peter Welch (D-Vt.) asked. “Is there any hesitation on your part to condemn any person who commits terrorist activities in violence toward innocent people?”
As the CEO of the National Council of Jewish Women, Sheila Katz, put it: “It was a heartbreaking scene for the first Muslim American federal circuit judicial nominee to face relentless questioning on Israel, terrorism including September 11, and the Holocaust.”
This treatment is far outside the norm for nominees to the bench. No non-Muslim judicial nominee has been asked whether they condemn the October 7 terrorist attacks by Hamas on Israel, accused of celebrating 9/11, or asked to confirm that they condemn genocide.
Islamophobic questioning is not the only way Mangi’s treatment has departed from the average confirmation process. Republican senators have also given inordinate attention to Mangi’s record of pro bono service. He represented the family of an incarcerated man murdered by a correctional officer and is on the advisory board of Alliance of Families for Justice, a nonprofit that supports families impacted by mass incarceration that has advocated for the release of aging prisoners, including people convicted of killing police officers. The senators used this to say that he has “sympathy for, and association with, some of the most radical elements in society,” including, as Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) put it, “those who support cop killers.”
This twisting of Mangi’s pro bono record to paint him as criminal-adjacent is shocking but not surprising. Diverse nominees—including people of color and women—are routinely grilled on their positions on civil rights and criminal justice more intensively than white men nominated to the bench. One study found that nominees of color like Mangi get more than twice as many questions on criminal justice as white nominees. And nominees with experience in public defense—an essential role in our legal system—face particularly brutal questioning. In recent history, these inquiries have increasingly sounded less like questioning and more like badgering of women and people of color about their public interest work, heavy with insinuation that representing marginalized people makes one unfit for the bench.
This is illustrated in the case of Arianna Freeman, a Biden nominee who became the first Black woman to serve on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Referring to her 12 years as a public defender, Cruz told her that she had “devoted [her] entire professional career to representing murderers, to representing rapists, representing child molesters.” He branded her a “zealot” for defending a man on death row—whose sentence the Supreme Court later overturned.
And during confirmation hearings for Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) said that she had a “long record” of letting child pornography offenders “off the hook,” referring to sentences that experts called mainstream. Republicans also criticized Jackson for representing Guantánamo Bay detainees, referring to her “advocacy for these terrorists.”
With Mangi’s hearings, then, senators are yet again issuing bad faith characterizations of the public interest work of a nominee who would increase the diversity of the federal bench. At this point, even if Mangi’s confirmation goes through—which is increasingly doubtful, as three Democrats have announced in recent weeks that they no longer support him—damage will have been done.
Most fundamentally, the bullying of a prominent Muslim American on the national stage tells all our Muslim friends and neighbors that they are second-class citizens. And it comes at a time when hatred is surging: reports of Islamophobia have doubled in recent months, antisemitism incidents have skyrocketed, and hate crimes in general have surged. So it is more important than ever that we take a strong stand against bias and othering of underrepresented groups.
More specifically, Mangi’s treatment sends a message to people of Muslim faith with aspirations for the federal bench: don’t bother, unless you, too, want to be branded as a terrorist-sympathizer—in front of the world and, as in Mangi’s case, your young children. The potential chilling effect on Muslim Americans vying for federal judgeships undermines the legitimacy and effectiveness of the judiciary.
As my colleagues have previously noted, a diverse bench leads to richer jurisprudence. That’s because judges with underrepresented personal and professional experiences bring important and relevant perspectives to the problems in front of them and push back on assumptions that a homogeneous panel might hold. As Justice Sandra Day O’Connor put it, working with Justice Thurgood Marshall, a civil rights lawyer and the first Black justice, sometimes “change[d] the way [she saw] the world.”
On a more basic level, underrepresented communities are more likely to trust a diverse judiciary. This is important because courts derive their legitimacy from the public’s trust in them. “How can the public have confidence and trust in such an institution if it is segregated—if the communities it is supposed to protect are excluded from its ranks?” federal district court Judge Edward Chen once pondered.
Finally, the negative focus on Mangi’s pro bono record—especially on the heels of other hearings in which nominees have been disparaged for public interest work—casts that work in exactly the wrong light. Pro bono work should not be a political liability. To the contrary, it is the ethical obligation of every attorney to provide legal services to those who cannot afford them. And justice depends on it.
When someone loses a lawsuit, it is frequently not because their claim was meritless, but simply because they did not have a lawyer. In immigration removal hearings, for example, unaccompanied children without lawyers prevail only 15% of the time. By contrast, 73% of unaccompanied children with representation are allowed to remain in this country.
But, according to one study, in a whopping 92% of civil matters—from eviction to police brutality to discrimination—low-income Americans could not find legal representation. Pro bono practice by corporate lawyers like Mangi is crucial to filling the access to justice gap. We should be encouraging pro bono work, not giving talented young attorneys who dream of becoming judges a reason to avoid it.
Mangi’s confirmation process has been a blueprint for how not to treat a nominee for the federal bench. His hearing—and the subsequent campaign against him—has undermined our shared values of equality, inclusivity, and justice. We must do better.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular