:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/tronc/5TJS6OO4CFNJXU2BKWLVGWEWK4.jpg)
The Colorado Supreme Court decision that disqualifies Donald Trump from running as a presidential candidate in the state for his role in the Jan. 6 insurrection is historically significant. Without a doubt, it marks the emergence of the juridical rainbow the country absolutely needs to protect itself from dark and cloudy authoritarian actions, impulses and plans threatening our democracy.
If the nation’s Supreme Court sides with Trump this time around, particularly on the basis of allowing American voters, and not our constitutional courts, to decide who can be a presidential candidate, what’s clear is that even if Trump ends up losing in the national election, he will not accept his defeat once again.
Trump’s nonstop efforts to appeal his multiple legal cases and indictments, again and again, demonstrate his inability to understand or accept that in our American system of high-stakes competition, losing with integrity, not only in presidential elections but also at the Super Bowl, for example, is a badge of honor. Real Americans graciously concede and then move on to the next worthwhile competitive challenge.
Unfortunately, Trump’s transformation from an entrepreneur and nationally known television figure into an unprecedented political figure who openly questions the ideas, ideals and the foundation of our democratic system has become a lose-lose situation for our nation.
Tragically, if our rule of law, including the insurrection clause in the 14th Amendment, turns out to have no legal teeth in Trump’s historically unprecedented case, America runs the risk of transforming itself into the complete opposite of our first 250 years of experimentation in democracy.
— Alejandro Lugo, Park Forest
Lack of Christmas spirit
On Christmas, Donald Trump wished that his foes would “rot in hell.”
Even Ebenezer Scrooge, the embittered voice of the yuletide season, was smart enough to keep his mouth shut when a rare opportunity for redemption was at hand.
Trump, however, is seemingly incapable of either a silent night or a character makeover, leading many to ask if they really want this man as their leader.
In the immortal words of Scrooge, the only logical response is “Bah humbug!”
— Bob Ory, Elgin
Immigration in the US
There has been a considerable amount of commentary regarding our immigration policy, our border crisis, the transport of migrants to sanctuary cities and the decision by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas to “make a political point,” as George Comer puts it in a letter (“Legislation on immigration,” Dec. 28). Much has been said of the history of the United States in accepting and welcoming immigrants in centuries past. There those who believe accepting any and all who want to leave their homeland and establish life in the U.S. should continue.
While this appears most virtuous, there are many considerations that we need to make.
There is a time and place for everything. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, the United States was still a developing country. The immigration flow into the country was a blessing and of little burden. Immigrants were coming to work and establish a life for their families under the flag of freedom that was the signature of the United States. They were not expecting the government to provide for them but rather allow them the opportunity for a free and better life.
At those times, the United States had a very formal process, mostly through Ellis Island, and people from around the world came through in an orderly and legal process. That is not what we are experiencing today.
We must adapt to what exists in today’s world. While we should always aspire to be a country of “open arms,” the reality of our own limitations and what we are dealing with at any particular time must take precedence. We are a country severely in debt. It is beyond a crisis and could become devastating. Our “welcoming cities” are rife with crime and considerable challenges to provide for their citizens. Having the added burden of processing and accepting immigrants is not only a massive challenge that most cities cannot handle but is also very irresponsible to the cities’ citizens.
Abbott may very well have decided to make a point. Since the Biden administration decided to stop the construction of the border wall, Abbott made a decision for the citizens of Texas. It was not feasible for Texas to be forced into having to bear the work and cost of the influx of the massive numbers of immigrants, which is the result of bad policy and bad management.
— Dave Roberts, Frankfort
Parties’ different ideas
A Tribune reader calls on Congress to tackle our immigration system and problems in a bipartisan way (“Legislation on immigration”): “I firmly believe both parties must be willing to put aside their differences and develop strong bipartisan legislation that will be fully endorsed and consistently enforced by both parties.”
Bipartisan legislation is hard to do today, not because politicians are putting their parties over the country’s best interests, but because the parties have very different ideas what those best interests are.
One party believes that congressional bills should be as large as possible, cover as many things as possible and spend as much money as possible. To that same party, compromise means to vote for five things you don’t want to get five things you do.
The other party thinks bills should be small and focused so that the bills can actually be read and debated, and then you only have to vote for things you actually do want.
Chicago Tribune Opinion
One party thinks that immigration laws should be followed and enforced. The other party won’t follow immigration laws it doesn’t like.
One party looks out for the interests of the citizens of our country first; the other party looks out for the citizens of other countries first.
If we want Congress to act on immigration, I think the best approach is to take a broader approach. Pressure Congress to submit smaller, more focused bills. Immigration is too large of a subject, encompassing myriad issues. Break it down into smaller pieces, and do it a piece at a time.
— Larry Craig, Wilmette
Join the conversation in our Letters to the Editor Facebook group.
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.