JD Vance sat down with The New York Times’ Ross Douthat this week, and the vice president had quite a bit to say about a variety of issues, but one comment from the Ohio Republican stood out as especially notable.

While reflecting on “the common good” and immigration levels, Vance argued:

I really do think that social solidarity is destroyed when you have too much migration too quickly. That’s not because I hate the migrants, or I’m motivated by grievance. That’s because I’m trying to preserve something in my own country where we are a unified nation. And I don’t think that can happen if you have too much immigration too quickly.

With an eye toward history, the vice president’s rhetoric was certainly familiar. In generations past, too many Americans used nearly identical phrasing to condemn different kinds of immigration.

“It’s not that I hate the Irish,” they said, “I’m just trying to preserve something in my own country. Maybe if there were fewer Irish immigrants who arrived at a slower pace.”

Similarly, Kevin Kruse, a historian at Princeton University, joked via Bluesky, “See, he doesn’t hate migrants for racist reasons, he just thinks they’re irredeemably different and so unassimilable that their mere presence is an existential threat to the nation — but don’t say he’s motivated by grievance.”

But what also stood out for me was the vice president’s comment to the Times columnist about the fabric that binds a society together. Referring to immigration policy, Vance said, “The point that I’ve tried to make is I think a lot about this question of social cohesion in the United States.” It was moments later when he expressed similar concern about the possible destruction of “social solidarity.”

While I’m certainly not able to read the Republican’s mind, I also find it hard to believe that he’s personally invested in the preservation of “social cohesion” or “social solidarity.” I’m skeptical of his sincerity because I remember the 2024 presidential election.

With seven weeks before one of the most important elections in generations, the then-senator was heavily invested in an incredibly reckless and utterly false message: Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio — a state Vance ostensibly represented — were abducting and eating household pets, while slowly destroying a once-great town.

The results were predictable: Bomb threats closed local elementary schools, City Hall, universities and even medical facilities. There were local reports of vandalism and threats to public safety, and at least one right-wing group organized a march in Springfield as part of a hate campaign against the immigrants.

Local officials — including Republicans — called on Vance and his allies to stop lying. Even Ohio’s Republican governor, Mike DeWine, said that the lies were “garbage,” adding that local Haitian immigrants were hard-working people who’d brought “positive influences” to Springfield.

Vance not only didn’t care, he explicitly said he was willing “to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention.”

It wasn’t immigrants who put “social cohesion” and “social solidarity” in jeopardy. On the contrary, it was an ambitious politician, hungry for power, who expressed complete indifference to “social cohesion” and “social solidarity” in order to advance his career, shrugging his shoulders as the community suffered in the wake of his lies.

If the vice president expects the public to believe in his purported goals about national unity, is he prepared to express any regrets for his role in trying to tear Springfield apart for his own political benefit?

This report updates our related earlier coverage.