Sometimes after writing a column and reading some of the responses, it can be difficult to let certain statements go unchallenged. So it is after reading a number of letters to the editor and online comments to my last piece, “Our US Constitution.” Originally, I had planned to write a follow-up piece to bolster some of the points I had made. Instead, what follows is a rebuttal to points made by others. Meanwhile, the draft of what was planned will have to wait for another day.
The first comment I wish to address was made by an anonymous person. Online, they go by the handle, “Tafhdyd.” Responding to my observation that the Trump administration doubled the number of questions on the citizenship test, this person wrote, “Do you really believe that the purpose of increasing the citizenship test questions from 10 to 20 was to make new citizens better informed our country? Anyone who has followed the actions of Trump before and during his presidency can see that the sole purpose is to further restrict the ability of non-English speaking immigrants to become citizens.”
The challenge I would put to Tafhdyd is to cite one thing Donald Trump did before becoming president to keep non-English speaking persons from becoming citizens. For that matter, what did he do as president in pursuit of that purpose? Long before Donald Trump became president, the requirement that one be able to write, speak and understand English has been standard for citizenship applicants to the United States. Exceptions to the rule do exist but I know of nothing the Trump administration did to change or undermine those exceptions.
Next is a letter writer by the name of Garrett Epps, who also sent an email to me with similar comments. Regarding the “1776 Report,” he wrote, “That ‘report’ made sweeping statements about history and the correct way of teaching it; however, its authors did not include even one professional historian.”
I am uncertain what standard Mr. Epps uses to declare an author a “professional historian,” but the authors of the report include the following:
Larry P. Arnn is president of Hillsdale College in Michigan. Founded in 1844, Hillsdale has never used or accepted federal money — not in the form of grants, or in the form of student scholarships. It is wholly private. At the college, Mr. Arnn is also a professor of politics and history.
Carol Swain served formerly as a professor of political science at two universities: Princeton and Vanderbilt. She is also a retired professor of law from Vanderbilt’s Law School. Ms. Swain has authored several books, is a public speaker and news commentator.
Recommended for you
Finally, there is Matthew Spalding. Mr. Spalding is the Kirby professor in Constitutional Government and dean of the Van Angel Graduate School of Government, located at Hillsdale College’s extension campus in Washington, D.C.
Frankly, I am surprised Mr. Epp, himself a professor of law emeritus, University of Baltimore School of Law, would denigrate the credentials of Mr. Arnn, Ms. Swain and Mr. Spalding. It would appear to me that the three co-authors have the qualifications necessary to write the report for which they were commissioned. And while I suspect their perspective on history and politics may differ from Mr. Epps, they are at least equal in standing to him.
Finally I would like to address the words written by David Crabbe, who I fondly remember as a fellow San Carlos citizen, and who three of four times came boldly before the council to offer his deep and thoughtful insights.
David wrote, “It’s time for the Republican party to rid itself of Trumpism and bring back the “Grand Ol’ Party” of Abraham Lincoln, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan. A party that had ideas and policies based on facts, not conspiracies and lies.”
Well, David, if I may, I find it interesting that you, firmly cemented on the left side of the aisle as you are, should care one wit about the affairs of the Republican Party. If you are sincere, perhaps you should attend a Central Committee meeting and make your concerns known there.
Also, your having mentioned Trumpism and Ronald Reagan in the same sentence, it opens the opportunity for me to make this observation: The Republican president who picked up where Ronald Reagan left off was neither Reagan’s vice president, George H. W. Bush, nor his son, George W. Bush. Rather, it was the 45th president of the United States, Donald J. Trump, who took the torch of Reagan and carried it forward.
P.S. to Tom R. Halfhill: You alone wrote directly on the matter of the U.S. Constitution. Not wanting to ignore you, your points will be addressed when, hopefully, I return to the draft mentioned above.
A former member of the San Carlos City Council and mayor, Matt Grocott has been involved in political policy on the Peninsula for 17 years. He can be reached by email at mattgrocott@comcast.net.
I appreciate the fact that you are a dyed in the wool Trump fan and I am not. What I stated is my opinion and I will stick with it.
I cited an example in the next sentence after the quote you mentioned. I said that many people feel that the wording was changed slightly on some questions to make it more subjective rather than objective. I didn’t mention it in my comments at the time but the Trump administration also changed the answers on some questions to an actual wrong answer. Example: Who does a U.S. Senator represent? Answer, all the people of their state or the people of their state. Trump’s answer, the citizens of their state. Senators represent all the people of their state not just the citizens. If that were the case people legally here and children would not be represented. I concluded by offering a suggestion of doing a better job of educating our own citizens before we make things more difficult for others. There are some studies that show up to 30% of our own citizens can’t pass the test as it was.
It wasn’t mentioned in my previous comment but Trump’s dislike for minorities and some immigrants is well known. The purpose of trying to include a citizenship question on the 2020 Census form, which was stopped by the SCOTUS, was to intimidate minorities and non-citizens so they may not fill in the forms and be counted. The obvious reason is that most of the minorities are in Democratic states and that would reduce the number of congressmen when the allocations on number of people are made. Don’t forget in his own words he said he did not want people coming into the US from S##t H*%e countries.
Taffy - tell me again why non-citizens should be represented by a Congressman/woman or a Senator? I was on a 'green card' here for several years and because of that inability to vote, own firearms or become represented, I became a citizen. There is no country in the world that believes that non-citizens should have a voice in their government. And also, how would the census have intimidated minorities? I was a door knocker during the last census, and believe me, no minority person was overlooked on my routes unless they simply refused to participate. Many non-minorities refused as well. Even those with limited English proficiency were more than happy to answer all questions. Please don't repeat innuendo from the Left as there is no factual basis for your statements.
Perhaps you read my comments too fast. Tell me again where I said non-citizens should have a voice in the government? Tell me again where I said that the Census would intimidate minorities? I did say that a Senator represents all people of their state. Are you saying that persons legally residing is the US, be it by green card, visa or some other condition, can't send a letter to a representative and offer a suggestion on how to improve a situation, a law, a National or State Park? I did say that Trump's citizenship question on the Census would intimidate minorities. From what I remember of the creation of the Census, there job is to count all the people, not count only citizens, for the purpose of determining the number of representatives for each state. Being as more minorities typically live in blue states than red states, it is an obvious political ploy to reduce the blue states number of reps. If they can intimidate minorities so they don't respond and be counted it will help balance the numbers of representatives without actually increasing the the reps in the red states.
I have a clarification on one thought in my comment. In the sentence "If that were the case people legally here...." should be "If you go the next step and say that only citizens can legally vote, they would only represent people eligible to vote. If that were the case people legally here and children would not be represented." It originally sounded like I didn't consider children citizens. Obviously children born here are citizens but they can't vote. Now that I have thoroughly muddied the water, have a nice day.
Thanks for taking the time to rebut some remarks that oppose your point of view. This is truly what is meant by freedom of expression in the marketplace of ideas.
I enjoy your columns, and I enjoy hearing other points of view even when I disagree with them.
While the gentlemen mentioned in today's column were reacting to your earlier opinion piece on the Constitution in a reasonable manner, too often, we see comments offering rants instead of rationale. Yes... ranting is permitted and protected by the First Amendment, however, ranting can distract from the truth and clarity we would like to see when examining both sides of an issue. Ranting also lacks civility. Perhaps we (myself included) can ratchet down our exchange in the marketplace of ideas and try to bring more value to the daily discourse. There is no harm in trying...
Mr. Grocott - thank you for using your forum to rebut questionable assertions and criticisms. Your column today is comparable to watching the WWE Friday Night SmackDown. A Tuesday Morning SmackDown, if you will. Looking forward to your next columns.
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(7) comments
Mr. Grocott,
I appreciate the fact that you are a dyed in the wool Trump fan and I am not. What I stated is my opinion and I will stick with it.
I cited an example in the next sentence after the quote you mentioned. I said that many people feel that the wording was changed slightly on some questions to make it more subjective rather than objective. I didn’t mention it in my comments at the time but the Trump administration also changed the answers on some questions to an actual wrong answer. Example: Who does a U.S. Senator represent? Answer, all the people of their state or the people of their state. Trump’s answer, the citizens of their state. Senators represent all the people of their state not just the citizens. If that were the case people legally here and children would not be represented. I concluded by offering a suggestion of doing a better job of educating our own citizens before we make things more difficult for others. There are some studies that show up to 30% of our own citizens can’t pass the test as it was.
It wasn’t mentioned in my previous comment but Trump’s dislike for minorities and some immigrants is well known. The purpose of trying to include a citizenship question on the 2020 Census form, which was stopped by the SCOTUS, was to intimidate minorities and non-citizens so they may not fill in the forms and be counted. The obvious reason is that most of the minorities are in Democratic states and that would reduce the number of congressmen when the allocations on number of people are made. Don’t forget in his own words he said he did not want people coming into the US from S##t H*%e countries.
Taffy - tell me again why non-citizens should be represented by a Congressman/woman or a Senator? I was on a 'green card' here for several years and because of that inability to vote, own firearms or become represented, I became a citizen. There is no country in the world that believes that non-citizens should have a voice in their government. And also, how would the census have intimidated minorities? I was a door knocker during the last census, and believe me, no minority person was overlooked on my routes unless they simply refused to participate. Many non-minorities refused as well. Even those with limited English proficiency were more than happy to answer all questions. Please don't repeat innuendo from the Left as there is no factual basis for your statements.
Dirk,
Perhaps you read my comments too fast. Tell me again where I said non-citizens should have a voice in the government? Tell me again where I said that the Census would intimidate minorities? I did say that a Senator represents all people of their state. Are you saying that persons legally residing is the US, be it by green card, visa or some other condition, can't send a letter to a representative and offer a suggestion on how to improve a situation, a law, a National or State Park? I did say that Trump's citizenship question on the Census would intimidate minorities. From what I remember of the creation of the Census, there job is to count all the people, not count only citizens, for the purpose of determining the number of representatives for each state. Being as more minorities typically live in blue states than red states, it is an obvious political ploy to reduce the blue states number of reps. If they can intimidate minorities so they don't respond and be counted it will help balance the numbers of representatives without actually increasing the the reps in the red states.
Dirk: Correction: you don't need to be a US citizen to own firearms. Why would you?
I have a clarification on one thought in my comment. In the sentence "If that were the case people legally here...." should be "If you go the next step and say that only citizens can legally vote, they would only represent people eligible to vote. If that were the case people legally here and children would not be represented." It originally sounded like I didn't consider children citizens. Obviously children born here are citizens but they can't vote. Now that I have thoroughly muddied the water, have a nice day.
Matt
Thanks for taking the time to rebut some remarks that oppose your point of view. This is truly what is meant by freedom of expression in the marketplace of ideas.
I enjoy your columns, and I enjoy hearing other points of view even when I disagree with them.
While the gentlemen mentioned in today's column were reacting to your earlier opinion piece on the Constitution in a reasonable manner, too often, we see comments offering rants instead of rationale. Yes... ranting is permitted and protected by the First Amendment, however, ranting can distract from the truth and clarity we would like to see when examining both sides of an issue. Ranting also lacks civility. Perhaps we (myself included) can ratchet down our exchange in the marketplace of ideas and try to bring more value to the daily discourse. There is no harm in trying...
Mr. Grocott - thank you for using your forum to rebut questionable assertions and criticisms. Your column today is comparable to watching the WWE Friday Night SmackDown. A Tuesday Morning SmackDown, if you will. Looking forward to your next columns.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.