Letters: The Tribune Editorial Board is hypocritical in criticizing US Rep. Delia Ramirez
The editorial board writes: 'But Americans expect their leaders to confirm their belief in and allegiance to this country.' In these challenging and frustratingly difficult times, I often have to search to find pride in my own American birthright. Our authoritarian president continues his daily attacks on our democracy and has made astounding progress in deconstructing our government with the active assistance of Congress and the Supreme Court. Are there Tribune editorials about Donald Trump's authoritarianism that decry his words?
Should I find myself in a discussion with any French, Canadian, British or other person born outside the U.S. about America's values, I would struggle to find the words to support our domestic agenda and the government's poor treatment of other nations with the administration's threats and bullying.
What is the importance of words if editorial board members make their living through the use of words but don't see the overriding importance to speak out about the downfall of our democratic institutions?
Does the Tribune Editorial Board honestly believe that words matter or is the editorial on Ramirez just clickbait?I am profoundly disappointed with the editorial on U.S. Rep. Delia Ramirez's speech to the Panamerican Congress. A responsible editorial staff would have published the original Spanish transcript as well as her English remarks and given its audience a fuller context.
Instead, the editorial board jumped on the right-wing narrative clearly designed to outrage people. There are competing translations that support the interpretation that she meant to say she identified as American first. Has the editorial board even bothered to consult with Spanish speakers? With so many Spanish speakers in Chicagoland, it is incredible that the editorial board could botch a simple assignment.
How is this contributing to the civil discourse that is severely stressed under this current regime?The editorial on U.S. Rep. Delia Ramirez takes out of context a statement in which Ramirez declares her pride in her ethnicity, twisting it to sound like she is unpatriotic.
Does this editorial writer know of anyone of Irish or Mexican or Indian descent who is proud of their ethnic origin?
I wonder if the Tribune writer spoke to Ramirez to ascertain what she said or look at her record as a U.S. representative. Her record is as patriotic as any and more courageous than most. She speaks truth to power, risking her political career.I can say that I'm a proud Italian before I'm an American since my father emigrated from Italy and I was born in America, but I would blemish the pride he exhibited as a U.S. citizen who assimilated in his adopted country. He had no formal education and always followed the direction offered by the local Democratic precinct captain who visited our home with instructions on pulling the lever at the polling machine to vote straight Democrat.
Recently, Democratic U.S. Rep. Delia Ramirez of Illinois made a controversial comment in saying 'I'm a proud Guatemalan before I'm an American.' She was born in Chicago to immigrant parents and became a birthright citizen.
I'm not attacking Ramirez, but her choice of words in the public domain casts doubt on her loyalty as a federal official taking an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Will she represent all Illinoisans?For the millionth time, the issue is not immigrants. The issue is unbridled immigration in which we don't know who is coming in. And then on top of that, our government now feels responsible to take care of these migrants when our federal, state and local governments are deeply in debt.
, 'out of many, one,' is one our nation's mottos. Immigrants of the past assimilated to our American culture to become full Americans. Now we are ashamed of America and its culture, and we encourage our immigrants to be diverse. Not all assimilate.
And that is a weakness. Our country is no longer united. There are very few things that we are united on. Congress is split down the middle. Our country is split down the middle. Our modern immigration policies encourage only more division, not less.Reflecting on The Associated Press article 'Many Dems not happy with party' (in print Aug. 4), the Democratic Party is perceived as 'weak' and 'ineffective' at thwarting the growing power and influence of the current White House administration. Conversely, I would like to offer a different perspective and a blueprint for the Democratic Party.
Protesting, holding rallies, conducting filibusters in the Senate or expressing unrelenting criticism of the current president is not a formula for sustained, future success. It further divides disillusioned Democratic voters while alienating moderates, independents and Republicans not enamored with the current administration. Instead, the Democratic Party needs to promote a political, economic and social platform that appeals to both its loyal core and disillusioned voters.
The Democratic Party needs to focus on issues that unequivocally resonate with its base, such as a robust economy that prioritizes the middle class while providing aid and economic opportunities for the poor. Democrats need to reprioritize clean energy (solar and wind) while providing job training for coal miners and other workers whose jobs will eventually become obsolete. They need to focus on rebuilding and modernizing our nation's infrastructure and aggressively promote mass transportation to curtail traffic gridlock. They need to promote an objective and fair immigration policy that encourages immigrants to immigrate to America legally while humanely addressing immigrants in the country illegally. They need to promote a foreign policy that proactively reaches out to and works collaboratively with our allies in addressing unprovoked aggression. They need to embrace a trade policy based on laissez faire principles and eradicate punitive and erratically enacted tariffs.
Most importantly, the Democratic Party needs to actively reach out to and listen to its constituents and disillusioned former supporters.
The upcoming 2026 congressional elections are a golden opportunity for the Democratic Party to sway the current political climate toward an empathetic, kinder atmosphere. The American people are seeking solace and inspiration from its leaders, not pettiness and skullduggery.
The time to act is now. The world is watching.It was with great interest and gratitude that I read Heidi Stevens' column 'President not owed quiet subservience' (Aug. 3).
At a time when too many universities, law firms and politicians are rolling over and capitulating to this president's threats, it is a relief to see articles, such as Stevens', appearing in our local newspaper.
But perhaps we are already witnessing a shift in attitude as President Donald Trump's actions become more and more dictatorial and erratic. Economists and others are voicing concerns over his blustering, threatening use of tariffs as a weapon in international affairs. A few Republican members of Congress have spoken out about his threats and denials regarding the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics employment report. Some law firms and universities are standing firm against intimidation. And, of course, there are the rallies and demonstrations where thousands of ordinary citizens are coming out in defense of democracy.
I hope the 'quiet subservience' is actually coming to an end, because a Hungarian-style of government will not appeal to many Americans if it should come to pass.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
More Americans are driving to Canada than Canadians to the U.S., report finds
More American travellers drove to Canada in July than Canadians did to the United States, according to a new report by Statistics Canada. This is the first time such a reversal has taken place since before the COVID-19 pandemic. The dramatic decline of Canadians travelling to the U.S. was sparked last year, with U.S. President Donald Trump's heated rhetoric about Canada becoming the 51st state that led to an ongoing trade war and lingering tension between the two countries. The data for last month shows that 1.8 million American residents drove to Canada, compared to the 1.7 million Canadian residents who made a return trip from the U.S. by car. Canadian road trips to U.S. plunge for seventh month as boycott continues Both countries saw a decline at land border crossings last month. For Americans driving to Canada, there was a slight dip of 7.4 per cent compared to the same month last year. It was also the sixth consecutive month of year-over-year declines. However, the decline was much steeper for Canadians returning from the U.S. this July compared to the previous year, at nearly 37 per cent. Last month marked the seventh consecutive month of year-over-year declines, StatCan said. 'In 2024, Canadian-resident trips to the United States totalled 39 million, representing 75 per cent of all Canadian-resident travel abroad,' according to another StatCan report published earlier this summer about travel to the U.S. 'However, recent data on foreign travel suggest that Canadians' travel sentiment toward their southern neighbour has been shifting in early 2025.' Although the data reflects a 'notable change in travel patterns,' StatCan said it is 'unclear whether the change is temporary or part of a more permanent shift.' As for air travel, the number of non-resident visitors who flew to Canada increased in July. There were 1.4 million of them — up by just over 3 per cent since the same time last year. While the bump was largely due to residents who came from overseas (up 5.6 per cent this year), American travellers were also up by just under 1 per cent. The highest number of U.S.-resident arrivals by air was 31,600 Americans on July 3, before the Independence Day long weekend in the U.S. Meanwhile, the number of Canadians returning home from abroad by air last month was down by 5.3 per cent compared to the previous year. In particular, Canadians flying back from the U.S. also decreased by nearly 26 per cent since the same time last year. Canadian permanent residents will now have to pay 'visa integrity fee' to enter U.S. Here's what it is An American sent to Canada was shocked by how furious Canadians are at the U.S. Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.
The Hill
12 minutes ago
- The Hill
Tariff rebate checks in 2025? What we know about current legislation
(WJW) – It's not a pandemic stimulus check, but Congress is currently weighing the possibility of sending the American people more money. As part of the American Worker Rebate Act, introduced by Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri in July, people would receive hundreds of dollars in tariff rebate checks, which work to counteract the financial burden imposed on families by the Trump administration's tariffs. As the bill stands now, a household would get $600 for every child and adult – meaning a family of four would receive $2,400. Check amounts go down for those U.S. residents who are making more than $150,000 as a family or $75,000 individually. The bill has not been passed by the Senate or the House, and it must overcome multiple obstacles before being brought to President Trump's desk to sign. However, last month, Trump did say he was 'thinking about' approving a rebate. If the revenue from the latest tariff rollout exceeds projections, the bill leaves room for a larger rebate to be sent out to the American people. So far, there has been no word from Congress or the IRS on the possibility of a fourth stimulus check, like those issued during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. A rebate is a refund of something already paid for, while a stimulus is simply money given to pump up the economy. The U.S. Senate is currently on break for the summer and will be back in action on Sept. 2.
The Hill
12 minutes ago
- The Hill
Appeals panel declines Louisiana's invitation to gut Voting Rights Act
A federal appeals court panel declined Louisiana's invitation to gut a key provision of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) that has required the state to draw additional majority-minority districts, ruling Thursday that the argument is foreclosed by binding precedent. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision upholds a judge's ruling that blocked Louisiana's state legislative maps by finding they 'packed' and 'cracked' Black communities in violation of Section 2, the VRA's central remaining provision. The state urged the 5th Circuit, regarded as the nation's most conservative federal appeals court, to use the case to rule Section 2 unconstitutional by finding that conditions in the state no longer justify race-conscious remedies. The panel wrote that the Pelican State's position would 'eschew a clear mandate from the Supreme Court and disregard Congress's intent,' only briefly addressing the argument in the final three of the opinion's 54 pages. 'The State's challenge to the constitutionality of § 2 is foreclosed by decades of binding precedent affirming Congress's broad enforcement authority under the Fifteenth Amendment,' the ruling reads. Left unmentioned was the Supreme Court's case next term over Louisiana's congressional map, which raises overlapping questions about the VRA's future. The high court heard arguments this spring but will rehear the case Oct. 15. 'We strongly disagree with the Fifth Circuit panel's decision. We are reviewing our options with a focus on stability in our elections and preserving state and judicial resources while the Supreme Court resolves related issues,' Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill (R) said in a statement. The 5th Circuit panel on Thursday also rejected Louisiana's separate argument that would broadly weaken the VRA: private parties have no right to sue under Section 2. It would take away the ability for cases to be brought civil rights groups like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, which brought the underlying lawsuit, and leave any challenges to the Justice Department. Louisiana's case has attracted attention particularly after the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals adopted the position at the urging of other Republican-led states. But the 5th Circuit panel relegated the argument to a footnote, saying it 'is foreclosed by Fifth Circuit precedent.' The panel comprised James Dennis, nominated to the bench by former President Clinton, Catharina Haynes, nominated by former President George W. Bush, and Irma Carrillo Ramirez, nominated by former President Biden. Most of the panel's unsigned opinion was dedicated to Louisiana's narrower arguments to overturn the lower ruling blocking its state legislative maps. Louisiana argued U.S. District Judge Shelly Dick improperly set an expedited trial date, she was required to transfer the case to a three-judge panel and she failed to correctly apply Supreme Court precedent on the VRA. The panel rejected all those arguments, leaving the Obama-nominated judge's block in place. Dick ruled in February 2024 that the designs disenfranchised thousands of Black voters in violation of Section 2. She was prepared to order the state to conduct a special election rather than wait for the next cycle in 2027, but the 5th Circuit declined to allow her to do so as they considered the case.
