Trump's claim of Haitians eating pets in Springfield, Ohio has been widely ridiculed in the mainstream media.

A barmy bit of Trump rhetoric or a misguided attempt to focus on an issue of importance: migrant impact?

The Ohio governor has said he has heard no credible evidence of pets being eaten but he is rather worried about a more important issue, namely the influx of migrants into the state, which is posing, as he put it, 'a challenge'.

The hoohaa over the pet eating has raised this other more important issue, which is largely being ignored by the media in favour of ridiculing Trump.

According to worldpopulationreview.com:

The current population of Springfield, Ohio is 57,910 based on our projections of the latest US Census estimates (released May 2024). The last official US Census in 2020 recorded the population at 58,598.

According to the Ohio governor, the city has had a migrant influx of some 15,000 (a number presumably reflecting those that the authorities know about). So that's around 25% if these figures are accurate.

Whether or not any of these migrants are eating pets is not the point. Nor does it really matter what colour or religion they are. The point is that is a lot of migrants for a relatively small city to absorb without some issues surfacing. Issues a lot more important than eating pets.

You only have to look at Malmo in Sweden to understand the problems that can be caused.

There's also the conspiracy theorist perspective that flooding an on again/off again swing state like Ohio with migrants - enough for it to become a 'challenge' according to its own governor - might just tip the balance in favor of the democrats at the 2024 election, given that the state was won by less than 3 percentage points in the 2020 election and migrants don't generally like Trump.

So maybe bringing this issue to the attention of voters wasn't so barmy after all?