More Top Picks Best Ergonomic Keyboards
player ready...President Donald Trump and his immigration czar have directed that all immigrants who are in the country illegally be rounded up like cattle and deported. My grandmother would have called it “tossing the baby out with the bathwater,” while I call it “government without brains.”
The Tribune’s story (“Immigration crackdown felt in Chicago’s suburbs,” July 27) about a 17-year employee being fired by Nestle Corp. for not having proof of citizenship and Tribune coverage of many law-abiding contributors to our society being arrested and deported for noncitizen status are reporting on an abomination.
Many states recognize common-law marriage in which a couple living as husband and wife for a lengthy period of time confers legal marital status. There are states that confer ownership of property after many years of a steward ably working the land. As a country, we recognize statutes of limitations dictate whether criminal charges can be brought after a lengthy period of time. Why is it so hard to apply some intellectual honesty and informed judgment for noncitizens who behave responsibly and demonstrate a work ethic that is indicative of the American Dream?
Undocumented immigrants who work hard to provide for and raise their families should not be treated worse than we treat actual criminals. I am a moderate Republican who is disgusted with the hypocrisy and “one-size-fits-all” of the Trump administration. Congress and Trump should not be surprised when I and my like-minded friends and family hold our collective noses and vote for whoever is running against the Republicans in future elections.
— Richard Baird, Palatine
Higher ed’s liberal bias
Kudos to the always-erudite Jonathan Zimmerman for extolling the virtues of intellectual and viewpoint diversity (“Why higher education needs diversity in viewpoints,” July 25) at the country’s so-called institutions of higher learning, including Ivy League universities such as Harvard (and, while unmentioned, his own University of Pennsylvania) while still decrying the Donald Trump administration’s efforts to prod institutions in that direction.
The professor may be correct in saying that the government cannot constitutionally compel universities to promote such diversity of thought, but I think he misses two important practical points.
The first is that private universities in particular — such as Harvard and Penn — also have no constitutional claim to the federal tax dollars on which they have long relied in shockingly massive amounts to support an essentially medieval guild system, the increasing cost of which for decades has far exceeded the rate of inflation of most other goods and services. And he who pays the piper calls the tune, just as the Barack Obama administration did with its infamous “dear colleague” Title IX letter some years back.
The second is that without the Trump administration’s overly aggressive prodding, American institutions of higher education would have had no incentive to change their one-sided ideological bias at the teaching and research levels.
The leftist bias of faculties and administrators is well documented, and Zimmerman cites striking examples, but let me add one. Some years ago, when Peter Salovey was announced as the incoming president of Yale University, I asked him at a reception in Chicago what he would do as president to increase political and philosophical diversity among the Yale faculty. Salovey’s response was essentially that he would do nothing; it was not his fault that all the intelligent people were on the left.
Trump is in many ways a bull in a china shop. But perhaps his greatest contribution in his second term as president may be forcing people in all sectors of society to confront important issues in education, immigration and citizenship that have for far too long operated on autopilot with little concern for the ultimate consequences.
Certainly, Zimmerman shows signs that point in that direction.
— David L. Applegate, Huntley
Questions for LaHood
On a recent Tuesday at 7:05 p.m., I received a call from my representative in the U.S. House, Darin LaHood. I was getting ready to go into a meeting but answered the call. A recording invited me to hold on to be transferred into a town hall meeting, where I could have my questions answered, but I had my meeting commitment.
The next day, I tried to send a message to LaHood through his website, but after entering everything, I found out it was not functioning. The next day, the congressman posted on his Facebook page that one of the most important parts of his job is hearing directly from his constituents and that he had 52,000 people on that call!
I’m sure LaHood is getting ready to run for either the Senate or governor since he now posts almost daily on Facebook with very safe pieces about how in touch he is, but a robocall town hall with 52,000 people doesn’t even come close to counting.
I have so many questions about why he and the rest of the Republican Congress have almost totally abdicated to the president their responsibility to govern, what his thoughts are on several key issues and if he is personally OK with an increasing number of the president’s actions. If he runs for higher office, he won’t be able to hide in his safely gerrymandered district and will have to let us know where he actually stands on some real issues that a significant percentage of us believe are going in a very wrong direction.
— Kent Kowalske, Dunlap
Government’s overreach
My thoughts are with Northwestern University, my alma mater and former employer, and all the current employees affected by these cuts. I can’t help but ask: “For what?”
The horrific acts of Hamas on Oct. 7, 2023, to slaughter so many innocents in Israel initiated worldwide debate and demonstrations. As the response from Israel made many ask about the equally horrific impact and death of innocents in Gaza, those debates and demonstrations heightened, particularly on college campuses globally.
Certainly, there were excesses of speech and actions on both sides of the debate and demonstrations for a period of time. However, how are the actions of the Donald Trump administration, under the guise of addressing antisemitism on U.S. college campuses, in any way in equal measure to those excesses? Slashing billions in university funding because of the use of free speech, no matter how uncomfortable? When overwhelmingly these demonstrations were peaceful, even if they were loud and uncomfortable? Even when cases of violence and abuse at these demonstrations were addressed by law enforcement and campus administrators using principles of the rule of law and judicial process? And particular to NU, even when opposing parties, including the Jewish NU community, came to a mutually negotiated resolution to the demonstrations on campus?
The overreach of the Trump administration in this matter is too much. No one voted for this. This is wrong.
— Mary Friedlieb, Chicago
More Top Picks Best Womens Softshell Jackets
Just release the files
I read that hundreds of government employees were diverted from their responsibilities to read the 100,000 pages of Jeffrey Epstein files four times, looking for red flags.
Wouldn’t it have been more cost-effective to simply release them and let the public and journalists do that work for free?
— Mary Davis, Chicago
Stand up for libraries
My family makes regular use of the Chicago Public Library, and I write with deep concern over the federal government’s decision to eliminate funding for the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS). This action will have a direct and devastating impact on libraries across the country, including our own here in Rogers Park.
In fiscal year 2025, Illinois received $5.7 million through the IMLS Grants to States program, placing it among the top recipients nationally. These funds have a broad impact on statewide services, individual library grants, and library operations and programs.
In light of the government shutdown of IMLS, it’s more important than ever to stand together for libraries and the vital role as public spaces — this especially in a time and climate in which isolation and fragmentation have done so much damage to community, decency and public goodwill.
— Nick Christensen, Chicago
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email [email protected].