Someone once said that the new immigrants to the United States were “beaten men from beaten races, representing the worst failures in the struggle for existence.” Who said that? Was it Donald Trump, or was it JD Vance? No, it was Francis Walker, president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who wrote those words in an article in 1896.
The bigotry and hate we see in today’s society were evident back at the end of the 19th century. My ancestors came from Austria-Hungary around that time, and the American public in those days railed against the Poles, Jews and Italians who were coming to this country.
Today, some of our national political leaders slander Haitians or Palestinians, causing the same sort of fear and rage that existed over a century ago.
Nothing has changed. Despising the immigrant is an American tradition.
— Francis Pauc, Oak Creek, Wisconsin
How is this not a red line?
A recent CBS News poll found that two-thirds of Donald Trump supporters believe Haitian immigrants in Ohio are kidnapping pets and eating them, similar to the percentage of Republicans who believe the 2020 election was stolen.
To say the obvious, both of these claims are without evidence and preposterous.
In the history of American politics up until now, malicious assertions like these would have been considered immediately disqualifying for a presidential candidate from either party. Thus, they went from disqualifying to believed.
Future historians will address: How could that happen?
— Sheldon Hirsch, Wilmette
Promotion of greater good
Regarding the article “Pope urges Catholics to vote for ‘lesser evil’ after bashing Harris, Trump” (Sept. 15): The pope speaks as both head of state and advocate for goodness. Abortion and migration are complicated human behavioral issues that require very thoughtful evaluation and guidance.
The pope has emphasized it is important to vote. He disagrees with both presidential candidates on abortion and migration. It is clear that neither of the candidates has proposed a clear understanding of how to deal with these issues.
It may be helpful to view the candidates from another perspective.
When dealing with human behavior, it appears to be more scientifically sound to approach it from a position of “the greater good,” i.e., which intervention will promote a more positive outcome. Perhaps if we use the same paradigm when voting for political candidates, it would result in a similar positive outcome.
Let us not vote for candidates who are the lesser of two evils but for those who are more capable of promoting the greater good.
— Vincent D. Pisani, Chicago
What about new ideas, plans?
Can anyone help me? Is there an 800 number to call for relief? Please. All the lies and fantasies swirling in my head from the political spouting of what should be sane people are destroying my sanity.
Immigrants eating cats? An economy that is heading our country to the dumpster? The worst of this and the lowest ever of that?
Where are the new ideas and real plans? Oh, look out for the restriction of personal rights. And someone help you if you don’t bow down to the Mighty Arch Goofball Around.
Where can I hide until my stress disorder passes?
— David Kravitz, Chicago
Reason for Electoral College
The op-ed “How the Electoral College concentrates candidate attention and why it matters” (Sept. 22) completely ignores why the Electoral College exists in the first place. Why would any of the original 13 states have joined the Union if population density determined representation? Low-population states wanted to be guaranteed a fair chance to have the issues important to them receive at least as much attention as the high-population states.
The Electoral College demands that we compromise. There will be no tyranny of the majority.
— Jane Thomas, Arlington Heights
Constitutionally protected
While reading Willie Wilson’s op-ed “It is time to turn the page away from divisive leadership” (Sept. 19), the following sentence caught my attention: “The right to vote, which is not enshrined in the Constitution, should not be taken for granted.” (Italics mine.) Wilson’s assertion, while technically true, does not convey the full story and probably led to some head scratching.
Yes, nowhere in the original text of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights does it explicitly say that U.S. citizens have the right to vote. States were left with the power to decide who qualified to vote, which led to considerable variation in the early years. However, the Constitution has been amended several times to make explicit what was implicit in the original document.
The 15th Amendment, ratified in 1870, prohibits restricting the right to vote due to race: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged … on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”
The 19th Amendment, ratified in 1920, extends voting rights to all women: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged … on account of sex.”
The 24th Amendment, ratified in 1964, bans poll taxes, which often prevented poor citizens of all races from voting: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote … shall not be denied or abridged … by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.”
The 26th Amendment, ratified in 1971, extends the right to vote to 18-year-olds: “The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged … on account of age.”
So while I agree with Wilson that the right to vote should not be taken for granted, readers of his op-ed should know that the right to vote is explicitly a constitutionally protected right.
— Darryl L. DePriest, Chicago
We need humanity for all
Kudos to Heidi Stevens for her well-reasoned, thoughtful approach to describing the relationship between lies and humanity (“Lies move us further from our humanity,” Sept. 22). With a voice of compassion, she teaches us an important lesson in the value of truth.
In this presidential campaign, we’ve heard volumes of misinformation and false narratives from members of one side. In fact, they’ve publicly confirmed this as their guiding strategy — if they have to create stories to get attention, that’s what they’re going to do! We have a presidential candidate who has long believed in “truthful hyperbole” to play to people’s fantasies. He claims it’s “an innocent form of exaggeration,” according to his 1987 book “The Art of the Deal.” In other words, it’s a lie, but who cares. Any idea of “truthful” has disappeared. To him, truth is just another concept; deception is the endgame.
Thank you to Stevens for driving home the point: We deserve better. America is home to humanity for all.
— Lindsay Resnick, Chicago
Resources for survivors
When the Tribune runs articles about the horrific rape in France of Gisèle Pelicot, whose husband is charged with drugging and raping her and then inviting at least 50 other men to rape her, please include resources for readers who have been affected by rape and sexual abuse. One such resource is RAINN, the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network, which can be reached at 1-800-656-4673.
It doesn’t have to be RAINN. It could be any of the other fine organizations out there. But please, give readers resources to process the sadness and anger that this story — rightly — may stir in them. This is frequently done when a news story (or TV episode) involves suicide. Please extend that practice to this situation.
There are a lot of sexual abuse survivors out there, and some of us read the Tribune. Please help us.
— Linda Falcao, Esq., North Wales, Pennsylvania
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.