Stop punishing immigrant families and kids
The Trump administration has proposed rules that would make it harder for immigrants to become legal permanent residents if they receive a range of benefits to which they are legally entitled. According to the new changes, a person can be denied permanent residency if they have been a recipient of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP (formerly food stamps), Medicaid, federal housing assistance or other anti-poverty programs.
No one should ever have to choose between feeding their family and staying in this country. But that is exactly the situation many people will find themselves in if proposed changes are permitted to proceed. This is just plain wrong.
The public has 60 days to comment on the proposed changes. We all need to stand against this rule that will punish families and kids and to urge New Mexico Democratic Sens. Tom Udall and Martin Heinrich and Rep. Ben Ray Luján, D-N.M., to raise their voices as well.
Gerry Fairbrother, Ph.D.
Stopped the bleeding
Really? Bleeding cash (“Saving lives, bleeding cash,” Sept. 23)? I expect better reporting from The New Mexican. That headline would have been true before 2016, but not at the present time. The dedicated and excellent work of the current executive director, employees and board has stemmed the red ink that was a natural byproduct of rapid growth years prior to 2016. The current staff recognized early on that the level of spending while the facilities were being built could not be sustained and took immediate action. That, in turn, resulted in the ability to live within a slimmed-down operating budget while simultaneously not affecting the care of the animals. That is quite a feat in itself. I know that the good people in our community will recognize the life-saving work performed by an institution of which we have every right to be proud.
former treasurer and board member
Santa Fe Animal Shelter & Humane Society
The spectacle of the Republican-dominated Senate Judiciary Committee bulldozing Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the floor of the Senate for possible confirmation is one of the most depressing events of these depressing days. I believe we already have one sexual harasser on the Supreme Court. Do we need another one?
Lucy R. Lippard
Frank Bruni (“The many faces of Brett Kavanaugh,” Commentary, Sept. 26), of the New York Times, makes the case that people exhibit different aspects of their character in different situations with different people. This applies to all people with varying degrees of good and bad character. It is especially important for vigilance with people of authority, e.g., teachers, coaches, priests, sports doctors, employers. The principle should be taught from kindergarten (when Brett was good, he was very good indeed, but when he was bad, he was horrid) through university. And it should be included in the sexual misconduct policies of schools, universities and places of employment.
If gophers are a problem (“Council OKs deal to kill gophers,” Sept. 27), there are humane alternatives such as castor oil. But can we trust the city to distinguish between highly visible prairie dogs and rarely seen gophers? Both prairie dogs and gophers aerate the soil, sorely needed in this climate change world. I am appalled that Santa Fe Mayor Alan Webber, claiming to be “eco-friendly” voted to be cruel and inhumane. Thanks to Councilors Renee Villarreal and Signe Lindell for their compassion and the intelligence to understand that the problem is not gophers or prairie dogs, but ignorant humans who view other life as something to war against.