Letters to the editor: On international students at NMSU

These letters published in the July 12, 2020, print edition of the Las Cruces Sun-News.

ICE regulations costly

I feel immense pain for my international student peers here at NMSU.

The new regulations released by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement are not merely discriminatory — they threaten student well-being, undermine the American economy, erode fragile university budgets, and exacerbate the COVID-19 crisis.

First, our international students have formed deep friendships here at NMSU. They work hard. They contribute to the local economy. Forcing them to leave the U.S. not only jeopardizes their future but tears at the fabric of the student community.

Second, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce, international students contributed $45 billion to the U.S. economy in 2018. Furthermore, our international students here in Las Cruces contribute to the rich cultural diversity of our community. We, as a community, benefit when we protect them against this #StudentBan.

Third, there are over 1,200 international degree-seeking and exchange students at NMSU. Assuming no grants or scholarships, and using the most recent tuition rates for the Las Cruces campus, that means that NMSU will lose over $15,399,600 in Fall 2020.

Fourth, by forcing our international students to travel, the chance for spreading COVID-19 remains high. This does not only affect essential workers in the travel industry. Our international students, many of whom are self-isolating to protect all of us, may contract the coronavirus as they comply with this harmful regulation.

As an NMSU grad student, I am calling on the people of Las Cruces to oppose this #StudentBan and protect our international students from this callous regulation. Please contact your representatives and senators.

Cory Cascalheira, Las Cruces

Do your part to end pandemic

Just wanted to say Sandra Crane's letter in last Sundays paper ("Unintended consequences") was spot on. My husband was in the hospital and/or rehab from Jan. 18, 2020 to May 26, 2020.

He finally came home but within two weeks he was back in the hospital and passed away. The isolation I'm sure had a huge impact on him. He was not the same when he came home. I don't know what would help these patients other then more phone calls, cards etc.

Let's all do our part to help end this pandemic, wear masks, stay home as much as possible and pray it gets over with soon.

Mickey Rowlands, Las Cruces

Legislature needs emergency board

The COVID-19 experience has been an extraordinary, stressful time. The state/governor has imposed unprecedented restrictions on work, travel and religious activities. Lately she has imposed a $100 fine for not wearing a mask in public places.

I have reviewed the legal authorities cited by the governor which she claims allows her to impose these restrictions. I’m not a lawyer (and individual lawyers will differ) so I don’t know if her interpretation is valid.

However, it is clear to me that this was not/should not have been the intention of the laws cited. Some date back to 1978 (40+ years ago). The general framework of laws in our system is to have checks and balances. The laws should be constructed to prevent any single individual from imposing rules/laws without review. Generally, this is done by limiting the governor’s authority.

I sense that the governor believes there is no limit to her authority and has acted accordingly. I seriously doubt the law passed in 1978 granted the governor alone the right to close private businesses; to close churches, etc. If it does, then we need to correct the laws.

Realizing it may be impractical to convene a special session of the Legislature for health emergencies, I propose that the Legislature severely restrict the governor’s authority while simultaneously creating a bipartisan Emergency Review Board. All members of the board would be appointed by the Legislature, not the governor (perhaps 5 members — 3 from one party; 2 from the other party). If the governor wishes to exceed her newly restricted authority in an emergency, she would need to get the approval of the board.

Robert Loveless, Las Cruces

Adequate taxes necessary

On June 28, Grover Norquist and Paul Gessing had a commentary strongly recommending that the New Mexico Legislature not raise taxes in their special session to cover reduction in tax revenue due to the coronavirus and falling oil prices. On June 30 Gov. Grisham signed a budget bill that vetoed $30 million in budget cuts for public school support, but reduced 2021 fiscal year appropriations by about $415 million dollars. Proposed salary increases for teachers were reduced from 4% to 1%. Taxes were not raised.

What is wrong with this picture? For over 50 years, conservative policy proposals have been reducing taxes and regulations, destroying unions and building wealth for billionaires on the backs of average workers. Businesses do a good job of producing and selling everyday goods and services — but do not provide resources for good education for all students; physical and mental health access; infrastructure like roads, bridges and broadband internet for rural and poor families; and support for people that need a helping hand. We use to do this back in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s — but no longer. Top-down tax and other policies have created economic inequality in the U.S. that does not exist in other developed countries around the world. Pulling yourself up by the bootstraps doesn’t work if you have no straps, e.g. wealth, education or contacts.

New Mexico is one of the largest tax havens in the U.S., offering numerous economic incentives and tax breaks for personal and corporate income. Some examples: a person with a million-dollar income pays the same tax rate as someone payed $16,000; there is no inheritance tax, estate tax or franchise tax; and businesses are constantly receiving tax incentives to come to the state. What happen to the progressive tax system based on ability to pay?

Paul O’ Connell, Las Cruces

Electoral College needs to go

The recent US Supreme Court ruling on its interpretation of the establishment and procedures surrounding the Electoral College captured my attention. This ruling is seen by many to have finally, and deservedly so, initiated the disbanding of this outmoded apparatus which according to the US Constitution does officially cast the votes that elect the US president and vice president.

The Electoral College is part of the US Constitution. Its inclusion was a result of a compromising lengthy debate among our early legislators. The legislators from states that allowed human beings to be considered as slave labor and to be bought and sold as chattel feared fellow legislators representing larger states would eventually force dispensing with this immoral practice. Additionally, the relative policy making power of smaller states could have been swamped in the overall grand scheme if our executive branch leaders had been elected solely by popular vote. Thus, the compromise resulting in its inclusion in the US Constitution.

Although currently many appear to be in favor of eliminating this clumsy apparatus for selecting a president and vice-president, I am not. My view is that the Electoral College should be preserved in some form as our smaller more rural states need to maintain a share of the overall system for developing US policy.

As an agricultural economist focusing my career on issues of food supply, natural resource conservation, energy creation and distribution, and rural development, it is apparent that these increasingly critical policy topics are geographically centered in our smaller more rural states.

Roger Beck, Las Cruces