Regarding the Sept. 19 editorial “Trump’s crusade against ‘dreamer’ students in college”:
This letter has two authors: a Democrat and a Republican. The Texas Dream Act shared the same distinction, backed by both parties. One of us wrote the law; the other spent years defending it. It was never just about immigration policy. It was an investment in the Lone Star State.
In 2001, Texas became the first state to allow certain undocumented students who met specific residency requirements and graduated from its high schools to qualify for in-state tuition at public colleges and universities.
The question was simple: After educating many of those students for 12 years, using thousands of taxpayer dollars, would Texas let them finish and go to work or abandon that investment just before the payoff? The bill passed overwhelmingly.
The policy was never the giveaway its critics claimed. To qualify, a student had to graduate from a Texas high school, meet residency requirements and sign an affidavit promising to seek legal permanent residency when eligible. That is a higher bar than any out-of-state student needs to clear. And by 2021, undocumented students paid more than $81 million annually in tuition and fees to Texas public colleges and universities, according to the nonprofit Every Texan. Ending the policy, the American Immigration Council estimates, could cost the state more than $461 million a year in lost wages and spending power.
The country faces tough questions about immigration. People have different opinions about solutions, but “dreamers” educated in our public schools should not be collateral damage in that debate.
Richard J. Noriega, Austin
Byron Cook, Austin
Richard J. Noriega, a Democrat, represented Texas’s 145th district in the state’s House between 1999 and 2009. Byron Cook, a Republican, represented Texas’s 8th district in the state’s House between 2003 and 2019.
What to call machine intelligence
Regarding the Sept. 22 The Seven newsletter “Trump says he’s renaming AI to ‘super intelligence’”:
President Donald Trump is right to abandon the term “artificial intelligence” in favor of “super intelligence.” “Artificial” makes these systems sound like counterfeits of the human brain. However, “super” is not right either, since the term “superintelligence” is already used to refer to a system that outperforms humans in all aspects. Using it for modern chatbots and coding assistants will erase a line that should be maintained by everyone.
A more appropriate name would be “advanced intelligence.” It would refer to the process of development without making a claim of exceeding human intelligence. Moreover, it would preserve the abbreviation — AI will remain AI, and we won’t have to change every governmental document, textbook and product label because of renaming.
Names play a crucial role in the process of creation and regulation, and in the use of a technology. If we want to rename AI, we should choose a term that is accurate rather than idealistic.
Caner Dundar, Aventura, Florida
Paul Kingsnorth’s Sept. 27 op-ed, “A lesson from the Amish could help society cope with the future,” made me think about how artificial intelligence is described. How something is named affects how we think about it. President Donald Trump recently called to rename “artificial intelligence” to “super intelligence.” I don’t like either of those terms. I think a more accurate name would be helpful. Perhaps we should call it “simulated intelligence machine,” or SIM. “Simulated” intelligence implies that the machine is trying to emulate something, in this case human intelligence. Calling something “artificial” or AI does not indicate that the machine is involved at all. “Simulated” intelligence gives human intelligence more credit. I think it would help if people thought of AI or SI as a machine. Call it SIM.
Paul Zimmerman, Gaithersburg
In defense of shelter dogs
Jane Sykes’s Sept. 24 online Well+Being column, “I’m a vet. Here are 4 common mistakes I see new pet owners make,” painted an unfair picture of animals at shelters. Animals arrive at shelters for countless reasons that have nothing to do with their behavior, health or ability to be wonderful companions. Many are rescued from situations of neglect and abuse, surrendered by guardians facing housing or financial crises, abandoned by unprepared buyers who bought them on impulse, or left behind when a guardian is hospitalized or dies. Many animals in shelters are healthy and well-adjusted pets who need responsible, loving homes.
Breeders perpetuate an unsavory system that treats living beings as commodities. And as the column noted, purebred animals are more likely to have genetic problems than mixed breeds because of inbreeding practices used to select certain appearances or behavioral traits. For example, dogs bred to have distorted, flattened faces frequently struggle to breathe for their entire lives. These conditions cause years of suffering for animals and heartbreak and significant veterinary expenses for their guardians.
“Making a good, responsible choice” means never supporting an industry that exploits animals and contributes to their suffering. That means readers who have the time, resources and ability to provide a lifetime of quality care should visit their local shelters.
Teresa Chagrin, Norfolk
The writer is the animal care and control issues manager at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
Voters aren’t looking for this
Karen Tumulty put her finger on the matter in her Sept. 25 column, “With Iran war as albatross, Republicans are breaking from Trump.” She wrote that Republican candidates are hopping on the bandwagon to become more attractive to voters. Some are trying to campaign on ending the Iran war and bringing down the price of gas, diesel and food. They say we should be nicer to each other. Kumbaya.
Candidates should stop the shallow talk to garner votes and offer concrete solutions. Here’s where I think they should begin: End unwise tariffs that penalize Americans in both the short and long term. Start treating U.S. allies as friends and adversaries as competitors, without attempting to appease them. Strictly hew to the Constitution without equivocating. Respect and comply with all laws. Exemplify integrity in government with comity and call out any behavior that is not ethical.
I’ll vote for a candidate who addresses problems maturely, seriously and practically, and not vote for one who doesn’t.
Joseph Pallone, Fork Union, Virginia
Letter submissions
Send letters to [email protected].
Submissions must be exclusive to The Post and should include the writer’s address and day and evening telephone numbers. Letters are subject to editing and abridgment. Please do not send letters as attachments. Because of the volume of material we receive, we are unable to acknowledge submissions; writers whose letters are under consideration for publication will be contacted.
The post Republicans and Democrats can agree on ‘dreamers.’ Just look at Texas. appeared first on Washington Post.
