No problem, but what I said was that there was a racist subtext in play. I'll go back and link this to the post where I speak to that, but the short version is that, historically, racists have used rhetoric that reduces minorities to the animalistic, especially blacks, both in the particular (monkey and ape) and in general (beastial). The narrative here uses one character and a group of animals to represent two different groups. The human is a giver, an altruist who finds himself plagued by animals who clutter and crap and peck. Comparing those on assistance to animals is historically in line with that racist rhetoric I noted. It's sold more softly, and the human is framed as someone desiring to improve the welfare of the animals he later regrets helping. The author then ties that into immigrants, though the initial net covers a wider grouping. The author sums his point by suggesting the solution here might be to "take down the bird feeder".
When you compare immigrants and people on assistance to ill behaved animals and use a human being to represent the put upon giver/altruist, a racial card is being played.
