Written by Michael Davidson.

On September 10, 2024, Nathan Clark, the grieving father of 11-year-old Aiden Clark, made a jaw-dropping declaration at a Springfield, Ohio city commission meeting. Nathan, known for his progressive views, stated that he wished his son had been killed by a 60-year-old white man rather than a Haitian immigrant. While most parents would be focusing on mourning their child, Nathan seemed more concerned with the political fallout of his son’s tragic death.

Why, you may ask, would any parent make such a statement? According to Nathan, he feared that Republicans would use Aiden’s death as evidence in debates over illegal immigration. He didn’t want his son’s death to contribute to the growing argument that illegal immigrants, especially those entering the country unlawfully, commit many heinous crimes, including murder.

Nathan’s remarks followed a national conversation that erupted after Aiden’s death last year. Blaze Media reported that Aiden was killed when a Haitian immigrant, lacking a driver’s license, crashed into his school bus. The tragedy sparked outrage across the U.S., drawing attention to the dangers posed by unlicensed drivers, many of whom are undocumented immigrants.

A Father’s Controversial Words

During the meeting, Nathan didn’t hold back his controversial view, boldly stating, “You know, I wish my son, Aiden Clark, was killed by a 60-year-old white man. And 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.” His choice of words left many speechless.

Instead of demanding justice for his son’s tragic death, Nathan appeared to be more focused on shielding the immigrant community from criticism. He lashed out at Republicans, accusing them of using his son’s death as a “political tool” and labeling such actions as “reprehensible.” According to Nathan, the real tragedy wasn’t Aiden’s death—it was the narrative surrounding it, which he believed unfairly targeted immigrants.

Among those he criticized were notable figures like U.S. Senate candidate Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, Donald Trump, and Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio. His fury wasn’t just reserved for local politicians, either—he seemed intent on silencing anyone who dared to bring up Aiden’s case in the broader debate about illegal immigration.

Disturbing Denial of Reality

In what can only be described as a betrayal of his son’s memory, Nathan took his rhetoric even further, suggesting that Aiden wasn’t “murdered” but rather “accidentally killed” by an immigrant from Haiti. This, despite the fact that the driver in question had no right to be in the country or behind the wheel, making the tragedy entirely preventable.

Mark Sanders, whose daughter witnessed the horrific crash, offered a more straightforward perspective. “There are things that can be prevented. That guy should not have been in the country. He shouldn’t have been driving. He was working for a company, local, that was actually supplied to them,” Sanders said, highlighting the systemic failure that allowed an unlicensed immigrant to operate a vehicle and ultimately cost young Aiden his life.

Nathan’s refusal to hold the driver accountable, coupled with his determination to protect the immigrant community at all costs, has left many baffled. Rather than demand justice for Aiden, Nathan appears more interested in advancing a political agenda, even if it means ignoring the circumstances that led to his own son’s death.

Our Take

Nathan Clark’s comments are a disturbing example of how far some will go to protect their political ideologies, even at the expense of their own children. The fact that Nathan would wish for his son’s killer to be a white man, simply to avoid a political debate about illegal immigration, is both mind-boggling and tragic. It’s clear that Nathan values his role as a “woke” ally more than the safety of his own child.

This is deeply concerning for the public because it shows just how disconnected some individuals have become from reality. Instead of focusing on the preventable nature of Aiden’s death and demanding accountability, Nathan is using his son’s tragedy to shield illegal immigrants from criticism. This mindset only fuels the very divisions Nathan claims to abhor and prevents any meaningful discussion on the dangers posed by illegal immigration and lax enforcement.