By Kyle W. Bell | Political Contributor

The nation has turned its collective attention to the issue of gun violence in the wake of the tragic events in Newtown, Connecticut, where twenty children and six staff members were gunned down in cold blood. The past several weeks have been dominated by headlines involving gun violence: five more shootings have occurred on campuses across the country since Newtown. While mass shootings receive a bulk of the media's attention, over one-thousand Americans unnoticed by cameras have lost their lives in a month's time.

We are becoming all too accustomed to these tragedies. Whether it is the unrelenting bloodshed in the streets of Chicago or the mass shooting in Tucson where Congresswoman Giffords miraculously survived a gunshot to the head but where six others lost their lives, including a nine year old, gun violence continues. The horrific mass shooting in Aurora where a man armed with body armor set off tear gas grenades and unloaded an assault rifle, brutally murdering twelve and shooting fifty-eight others who were simply waiting to watch the latest Batman movie, is tragic. It seems that there is a new event every week.

To be sure, our country has a proud tradition of gun ownership dating back to before the American Revolution. I come from a gun state, Indiana, where law-abiding citizens use guns for recreational use and self-defense. However, just as we have adapted our laws to reflect the changing times on other issues, such as the threats of global terrorism, we also must modernize our gun laws to reflect the realities on the ground today. We cannot ignore the vast technological advancements that have taken place since the 1700s. Back then a one-shot musket was no guarantee of a kill, even with a precise aim. In the time of our founders, it would have taken well over ten seconds just to reload a single round, even for a well-trained member of the Continental Army.

Today, we find ourselves with weapons that are truly awe-inspiring — and not in a good way. The Bushmaster assault weapon used at Sandy Hook Elementary is capable of firing hundreds of rounds in a minute. It was designed for the battlefields of Afghanistan, not for the hallways of an elementary school.

We should not pretend that military-style weapons should be in the hands of civilians. These are machines of death, not of play or self-defense. The only civilian who truly needs these weapons is someone who means to do a great deal of harm in a fast, efficient manner without regard for life.

While there are plenty of common sense approaches that we can take to reduce gun violence, it will be an undoubtedly difficult political pursuit. Some powerful organizations with vested financial interests in selling these highly destructive weapons have attempted to sensationalize the issue by claiming that gun safety advocates support taking away all guns and abolishing the Second Amendment as we know it. Conspiracy theorists, with millions of views on YouTube, have even gone to the extreme of claiming that Sandy Hook was a hoax designed by the government to take away people’s guns. This could not be further from the truth. We can and should protect the Second Amendment while also coming to the realization that this is not the 1780s. The founders never intended for us to unleash firepower onto our streets that frankly would be more lethal than any weapons they could have ever imagined.

Gun advocates have also put up the ridiculous argument that new gun laws will not prevent every mass shooting or act of violence on the street, thus making the proposed laws unworthy of consideration. Clearly new gun laws will not end all acts of gun violence. In the same way that our government's counter-terrorism efforts are not a fail-safe against all potential terrorist attacks, the purpose of these laws is to prevent and minimize the massacre of our people while maintaining our rights as citizens.

Assault weapons are not the only issues at hand. There were over 30,000 gun-related deaths in the U.S. in 2010 of which there were 11,078 murders. We cannot simply turn a blind eye to this fact. Some would rather pretend that things like violent video games are the culprit or as some have rather comically argued, that America does not have enough guns. Contrary to these claims, the high gun ownership rate in the United States, surpassed by no one else in the world, enables not only violent criminals to wantonly murder, but contributes to a staggeringly high suicide count.

The proof is in the numbers. Slovenia and Norway had only 2 gun murders. Two! Before you say, “Well, that’s because they’re so small” in terms of population, Norway only has .05 gun murders per 100,000 people compared to nearly 3 per 100,000 in the U.S. And it’s not a difference due to culture, except perhaps gun culture. England and Wales have fewer than 50 gun murders per year at a rate of .07 per 100,000 people. The British have the same movies, music and video games that we do in the United States, leaving the violent media blame game without a basis in reality.

There’s only one logical conclusion: lax gun laws and easily accessible firearms enable mass shootings and allow for an inextricably high murder rate to take place in the United States.

So what do we do about it? Responsible gun ownership should be a requisite for owning a gun. Proper gun training should be mandatory. Likewise, one cannot expect a person with a felony to be a responsible gun owner. Felons, criminals and terrorists should never have access to any weapons whatsoever. And while we cannot completely dry up the black market of gun sales to these groups, we can certainly make it more difficult and expensive by properly funding vigorous law enforcement efforts, saving countless lives in the process.

The only way that we can fully prevent these transactions from occurring is by instituting universal background checks. In the same way that a teacher has to undergo a background check to be around children, purchasing a gun should be contingent upon a clean criminal record. Under current law, a person even with a violent felony can purchase any gun of their choosing at a gun show or through a private sale. It is estimated that up to forty percent of gun sales occur through these means. This loophole is simply not acceptable. It puts the lives of our citizens at risk. Closing it should be a top priority of Congress.

Finally, the issue of mental illness has been given scant attention in recent years. Congress has an obligation to examine America’s mental health system in a serious, thoughtful and thorough fashion. Just walk the streets of some of our biggest cities and you will see how poorly we have neglected to treat mental illness. Many people suffering from mental illness find themselves homeless, including tens of thousands of veterans. Not only will better funding for mental health prevent future gun violence, it will also help individuals with mental illness live more fulfilling lives.

All of these approaches are enormously popular with the American people. According to a Washington Post poll taken on January 10-13, which mirrors other recent polls taken on the subject, 88 percent of Americans support requiring background checks at gun shows; 76 percent support requiring a background check on anyone purchasing ammunition; 71 percent support creating a federal database to track the sale of all guns; 65 percent support banning high-capacity clips; and 58 percent support banning assault weapons. These are all measures that would enhance public safety with wide support from voters, not only protecting the lives of children, but also police officers, firefighters and others who put their lives on the line for us every day.

America needs a comprehensive approach to solving this critical issue. It is incomprehensible to think that we would allow violent criminals to purchase a gun thanks to a lack of universal background checks. It is equally appalling that assault weapons, such as the Bushmaster and others like it, are allowed on the streets of Newtown, Chicago or any other city. And of course the lack of mental health funding is not only a safety issue, but a moral one as well. To simply throw our hands up and pretend that we cannot solve this issue in a responsible way is ludicrous. We have the solutions right in front of us. Let's bring an end to this violent chapter in our nation’s history. Smart gun safety laws not only protect our most vulnerable, they protect our rights as responsible citizens.

Kyle W. Bell is an author and blogger with a B.A. in Political Science from Indiana University South Bend. He is the author of Operation Bald Eagle and other works of both fiction and non-fiction sold through major online retailers. His political commentary can be found at Kylebell.com.

By Jorge G. Zavala
Creative Director

In solidarity with the teachers from the Chicago Public Schools who officially went on strike this morning, I think about my own parents and their diligence within the CPS system. For many years, they both went to work with smiles on their faces, purchased school materials and goods out of pocket because "no budget" was allocated, dealt with 1st generation Americans, students with limited English capacity, and those in special education.

While my father is now a community liaison, businessman, and activist, he still stands in solidarity with my mother, a current educator, and fervid believer in social justice. Monday through Friday, she is the wonderful teacher with a variety of cute outfits who introduces concepts in English and Spanish while serving as a role model for our future generations.

My mother, a role model for the community and myself, is nothing short of someone I admire because of the heart she places into her work. With a compassionate heart and a sharp mind, mom regularly strives to foster a strong sense of self and community among her elementary school students. Whether it is learning the importance of the 4th of July or debating whether a tomato is a fruit or a vegetable, she is a passionate educator who sees her job as more than a profession. Her role as an educator, as my mom sees it, is really about giving back. As mom likes to put it, "social responsibility will change the world". I wholeheartedly believe her.

The hundreds of educators currently on strike in Chicago reflect more than a system gone wrong: it is a sign of the times. With a changing student population and a new decade 2 years young, the strike is a symbol of so many of the changes our society hopes to implement. Whether we are talking about the type of education our children need or the importance of the Spanish-language in public schools (and society), we are living in a time of change and it is our duty as citizens to facilitate this transition.

What's more, our own mayor, Rahm Emanuel, is regularly making our educators' lives more challenging. While there are many positive things Emanuel has done for Chicago, if you haven't walked in a teacher's warm, fuzzy shoes you don't have the right to make policy when you've not done the work.

As our current president speaks of "going forward, not backward", let's keep this in mind as we commute to work, school, or place of recreation. Give a helping hand to the teacher next door, offer an ear and receive wisdom. Like Sandy Cakes of Panaderia Azucar in Chicago, one can donate generous gifts of food and beverages to sooth our fellow (wo)man's constitutional right to protest.

Let's do this, friends, community members, and advocates of social change. Support the teacher next door - the agent of change for your child's future . I support our Chicago Public School teachers' right to protest and seek their rights as professionals, educators, and public figures in our communities. 

Si se puede: Yes we can.

By Samantha Nguyen
Guest Contributor

With the U.S. election right around the corner, how are we as Americans to feel about choosing the figure that will lead our great nation for the next 4 years? What to do if you’re an incumbent president running for reelection with few accomplishments to your name? You’re presiding over the most anemic economic recovery in 70 years. Unemployment is still above 8% three years after the recession supposedly ended. Your signature stimulus and health care bills are massively unpopular, and your approval rating hasn’t broken 50% in months.

That’s the challenge facing President Obama as he campaigns for another four year term. Gone is the “hope and change” rhetoric or the pledge to “change the way that we do business in Washington.”  

Gone indeed is any attempt by the incumbent to offer a strategy to improve our common economic circumstances and prospects. In its place, Obama is attempting to assemble support with patronizing appeals to separate pieces of the electorate, hoping he can tape together an electoral majority. He has overladen this approach with a healthy dose of cynicism and class warfare rhetoric designed to focus the public’s anger on other Americans – anyone besides the man in charge.

I cannot help but feel President Obama is picking and choosing strategic communities of people that are desperate for some loving and using them to gain votes. Just who are the specific targets of his strategy? Here's my list:

Liberals. Let's begin with President Obama’s relentless focus on the “1%” of wealthy Americans who he constantly attacks and, worse, implies are responsible for our poor economic circumstances. Never mind that the 1% already pay approximately 37% of all federal income taxes. Never mind that his plan to end the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and implement the so-called “Buffet rule” would have virtually no impact on our long term deficit picture or create one single new job. The ploy here is purely political, designed to pin the economic blame elsewhere through class warfare and fire up far-left liberals who favor economic redistribution policies. This is perhaps one of the most frightening because liberals now feel entitled to shove their ideology down everyone's throat in the name of false progress.

Women. There has been a gender gap in America for years so it must be because Republicans are waging a “war on women”. Obama’s weapons here focus heavily on yet more federal laws supposedly mandating equal pay for “similar” positions. (Note:  Equal pay has been the law of the land for many years.) He is also placing heavy emphasis on free contraception and access to abortion drugs, going so far as to require every health plan to cover these costs. Obama is even willing to throw the Catholic Church and the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom under the bus in pursuit of another wedge issue. I am all about giving women the right to choose their own destiny, but I think this rhetoric would receive more credibility if an actual woman spoke such fine words.

African Americans. At the recent NAACP convention, Vice President Biden renewed a 25 year old feud with retired Judge Robert Bork, who currently serves as co-chair of Governor Mitt Romney’s justice task force, attacking Bork for wanting to roll back civil rights in America. In 1987, as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a budding presidential candidate, Biden attempted to ride to the White House with attacks on Bork’s judicial record. He succeeded in defeating Bork’s Supreme Court nomination, but his presidential aspirations were cut short when he was caught plagiarizing his speeches from a British politician and quickly dropped out of the race.  At the same NAACP convention last week, Attorney General Eric Holder lashed out at GOP-inspired state voter registration laws requiring individuals to show an ID before voting, arguing that such laws would be harmful to minority voters. Though Democrats are skilled at playing the race card, the dance is more complicated this year since, for political reasons, Obama will have to utilize surrogates like Biden and Holder to handle this grubby business.

Latinos. Having done nothing for four years to effectively reform immigration, Obama issued an executive order this year suspending arrests of certain categories of undocumented aliens. Obama also sued Arizona over a state law that essentially requires the state to help enforce federal immigration law, something the feds have refused to do themselves. The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the law’s centerpiece and rejected Obama’s position. While I don't agree that undocumented people deserve the same freedoms hard-working U.S.-born Americans are entitled to, Obama's rhetoric on giving DREAMers a fighting chance to DREAM is sad. Like my liberal friends have commented in the past, more work and less talk. These kids are seriously going to spend their days DREAMing away because public opinion very much is opposed to offering criminals freebies.

Gays, Lesbians. In 2008, Obama made a big deal of his “opposition” to gay marriage. Most everyone suspected he didn’t mean it, and indeed after “careful consideration,” he now supports gay marriage just in time for this election. Most Americans rightly see this as a purely political conversion. He was against it before he was for it. Obama’s views even on issues of this magnitude are disposable and interchangeable. Again, I'll believe that Obama cares about the gay community when he signs a little piece of paper stating they're allowed to marry across the board.

Asian-Americans. This community, perhaps equally as ignored as the Native American community, is small in numbers and makes up no more than 4% of the population. 68.4% of Asians in America are between the ages of 18-54. Nearly 73% of Asians are foreign-born and rarely interact outside their respective ethnic community. As this group struggles with English-language classes and, slowly but surely, assimilates to American values, it neglects to actively engage in civic society. To many, the Asian-American vote is not significant enough at this point in U.S. history: maybe in a few years.

The common denominator with all of these piecemeal campaign strategies is that they form no coherent whole, no larger vision for America. All are primarily designed to enhance the Obama Campaign talking points and contribute very little toward solving the major problems we encounter. Worse, they divide Americans because their primary purpose is to focus blame on anyone and everyone but President Obama.   

Politics is a rough and tumble business, and thankfully, Americans tune out most politicians and political promises. But any Obama victory based on this lame duck strategy would be achieved at a high price. 

His divisive plan would have no mandate for anything positive, allowing the country’s downward drift to worsen while he scrambles to address the great economic crises we face. Bipartisan cooperation would be difficult to achieve, and the 2012 election would have provided little focus or clarification for any way forward.

This year, the only thing worse for Obama than losing this election might be winning. Let's hope and DREAM for the best.

By Samantha Nguyen
Guest Columnist

I consider myself a multicultural person. I am a Vietnamese-American woman, a native of Santa Rosa, California, and a practicing Catholic. I grew up middle-class, studied political science and communications in college, and became one of the only Asian-American women in California to rally for the Republican party. Currently living in Boston, I am an advocate of women's rights, access to education, and the end of the war in the Mid East.

Additionally, I consider myself a patriot. I am a defender of truth, justice, and the American way. What concerns me at the moment is the state of our nation, America the Beautiful. During the last few months, some of my close friends have begun discussing politics quite regularly. My closest girlfriends, a Palestinian-American and a Venezuelan-American, enjoy dragging me into debates regarding the 2012 race for presidency, immigration, healthcare, and education, among others.

It's quite a challenge for me, really. Growing up Asian-American, I never felt like a person of color. The majority of my friends were white, upper-middle class, and I lived in a typical American household with a white-picket fence (don't judge me). I never felt like the token Asian that college friends would constantly refer to me as. I looked in the mirror and I saw Asian features, but never identified with Asian-American culture.

My parents emphasized leaving our Vietnamese culture behind when they immigrated to the U.S. in the 1970s. They came right after immigration laws became more favorable to Asian people. My mom, while she had the heaviest Vietnamese accent when speaking English, never taught me Vietnamese. My father, an accountant, regularly encouraged me to pinch my nose a bit everyday so it could be fair and pretty like the Korean models he adored. I remember one year, my young brother, Brad, and I discussed our interest in learning Vietnamese over a lasagna dinner mom made. Dad hit his fist on the table, looked at my brother and I, and I vividly remember him screaming that "we aren't boat people". I blame my dad for instilling me with a phobia for Asian-Americans with hyphen identities.

During college, I became more familiar with the diversity that is America. I became friends with other Asian-Americans who actually understood their culture, heritage, and language. I was enamored with Mexican food, sushi, and Indian saris. I studied Spanish in high school and decided to pursuit it in college. My professors encouraged me to study abroad in Oaxaca, Mexico, where I would stay with a host family for 3 months. I decided to pursuit it. In 2005, I lived in the city of Oaxaca with Guadalupe and Pablo de la Rosa, small-business owners with children. To Guadalupe, I was a china, an Asian. To her teenage kids, I was an American who played soccer in her sports bra every evening with the neighborhood kids.

After graduating with a political science degree from a liberal arts college in California in 2007, I moved to Boston where I would work with a local non-profit organization heavily focused on helping inner-city youth. Two days after arriving in Boston, there was a protest against the Iraq war. I observed the protesters and the diversity in their faces. Their struggle, however, was the same. What I didn't understand was how so many people brought other issues to light during these anti-war movements. Signs that read "Legalize now!" and "Amnesty for all!" popped up quite regularly. Who are we legalizing? The war?

Reema and Lucia are both remarkable women. One is a believer in a free Palestine and another in human rights for all. I find myself to be a believer of the human spirit so long as it doesn't interfere with my own success and the success of those I love.

A recent topic of conversation was illegal immigration and the DREAMers, as they've infamously been dubbed. Lucia mentioned that she was "content" that undocumented students would no longer suffer deportations, for the time being, and have the opportunities to attend college. Reema felt that Obama strategically is using the issue of illegal immigration as bait to more closely secure the Latino vote.

In my opinion, I don't think Obama, or anyone for that matter, needs to reform immigration or the so-called DREAMers. While I am an advocate of education reform and more opportunities for students during financial struggles, this is simply ridiculous. How is allowing this group of people to attend college and confidently state that they're illegal a sense of pride for the nation? Where have our values, commitment to U.S. citizens, and the security of our own gone?

I offered Lucia my two cents: Obama needs to focus on pulling out of the Mid East and offer more funds for American citizens, the documented ones, who are interested in obtaining higher education. He also needs to work on healthcare reform and alleviate society of the welfare queens out there. I hate to say it, but there are plenty of people out there living off the backs of many Americans, including my own. We should not have to support the lazy and the ignorant simply because they don't want to work. My dear President, offer them jobs: cleaning staff, janitors, crossing guards, Safeway bag people, anything. However, don't use my tax dollars to support welfare princesses too lazy to look for a job.

If we didn't have the illegal immigration problem, these welfare folks could find a job that many are doing illegally. Don't give undocumented people more reason to continue coming to our fine nation illegally. Don't support the DREAMers or their cause.

Lucia thinks me to be a bit ecstatic at time and says my conservative Republican upbringing is the root of "my troubles", as she bluntly puts it. Reema thinks that my Asian face means I should have to be a liberal, a fan of everything counter-culture. The reality is that my Republican friends consider me very liberal. I support women's rights, civil unions for the LGBTQ community, and scholarships for inner-city youth.

Illegal immigration is creating a fundamental problem in our country for many reasons. 1) Illegal people take away jobs other Americans could use, replacing the need for more funds for welfare, 2) Many don't pay taxes and use plenty of our services, such as education and healthcare, 3) Their presence wastes plenty of tax dollars by supporting their children in public education, welfare, and jails.

If I could choose between Romney and Obama, I would choose neither. Let's be realistic, Romney doesn't care about women. I want the choice to do with my body as I see fit and would dislike it if someone governed my decisions. Obama, while his vision is idealistic, fails to act for the people. Take a lesson from the Republicans and start doing something for the voters who put you in office, Mr. President. Let's start by repealing rights for undocumented students and offer those opportunities to documented American citizens who have the same goals. I know plenty of folks made in the U.S.A. who are equally (if not more) talented than these kids who deserve a spot in college. Don't turn your back on American citizens, Mr. President.

Would American citizens living in a foreign country illegally be given the same opportunities we give these kids?

Reema and Lucia think it's funny that I speak my mind so bluntly. After all, no one expects the five-feet tall Asian-American chick to have an opinion.

Samantha Nguyen is a California-native currently living in Boston and working at a top accounting firm. Her interests include photography, travel writing, Cuban food, and political analysis. She considers herself a 'moderate conservative' with a sprinkle of liberal reason.

by Jorge Zavala
Managing Editor
Twitter: @ProfZavala, #Zavala4CHGO

After my interview two weeks ago with attorney Benjamin Crump, the lawyer representing Trayvon Martin-young man assassinated by George Zimmerman,  I consider what he said in our conversation: no one should be above the law. Besides the Martin-Zimmerman case, an example of such would be the antitrust case against Carlos Slim.

Super billionaire and Mexico’s wealthiest resident, Carlos Slim, is facing a $1 billion fine over practices of his telecom company, Telcel. The company is charged with unfair pricing practices. Telcel is part of the “Slim monster empire” anchored by America Movil, which dominates 70 percent of Mexico’s mobile market. Carlos Slim, who owns Telcel, has been bogged down in court appeals and dispute for a year. Mexican federal competition commission, Cofeco, slapped Telcel, the cash cow of Slim giant telecoms with the record sanction in April 2011 after ruling the company charged excessive prices to wireless and wireless competitors to connect to its network.

Telcel appealed the fine and even managed to ban Cofeco’s President Eduardo Perez Motta from taking part in  a second vote, arguing that Eduardo Motta had made biased comments to the media. Cofeco said it was notifying the affected parties of its decision. If it ratifies, drops or modifies the fine against Slim, the world’s richest man would have some serious issues to consider.

While Slim remains the richest man in the world, he is not immune to the rules and regulations that govern society.

Why is it that the United States, often the nation that brags about how it defends human rights internationally, does not do anything to regulate companies such as ComEd, Nicor, Comcast, and Ford Motors, among others? Just to mention an agency, CUB (Citizens Utilities Board) is supposed to regulate ComEd and Nicor. CUB regulates the price rates of these companies yet for some reason allows them to abuse their pricing. ComEd uses Smart Grid, an instrument used to detect the occurrence of power shortages, as a means to increase pricing, stating that they need the extra money to fix their infrastructure. Smart Grid would allow ComEd to know where problems arise in their system. However, it is not the solution: it was tested in Park Ridge, Illinois and the power was gone for 3-4 days.

What ComEd needs to do is reinvest some of the profits it made over the years. ComEd needs to have its structure underground, but if it is not possible they need to update their equipment. This is not much to ask for considering how much people pay for their services. ComEd is charging an additional 97 cents per bill as of now. It does not only abuse the people with hefty charges but also has the authority to shut your service in case one doesn’t pay a bill.

ComEd does not seem to care if there is a sick relative at home who needs equipment connected to an electrical outlet or if one’s home is getting flooded and the water pump is not working because of lost electrical power. They will disconnect you. They do not claim responsibility for these and many other things. That is why we must demand that agencies like CUB regulate these companies that constantly abuse consumers. If CUB cannot do their job, it is very simple: let’s get rid of them. They are useless to us.

How can this country not do anything for its people? In the end, we are the ones that pay taxes and go out to fight for this country. Wars are not bringing about any positive changes to the local people. Instead, they leave us in debt. In legal cases, it is important that the facts are presented so that the court systems could take whatever means they consider necessary to enforce the law. As in the cases of Martin-Zimmerman and Carlos Slim, evidence needs to be placed for others to examine in order to take the most appropriate action.

Whether one is a working-class individual or the richest man in the world, it is crucial to acknowledge that we must hold everyone accountable for their actions and that no one is above the law.

by Jorge Zavala
Managing Director

Have you ever stopped to think what is happening to our children? Are we doing enough as parents, educators, and society to prevent violence?

Despite claims that schools continue to be some of the safest places for children, recent school shootings have contributed to the perception that few places are safe anymore. No rural community, suburb, day care, elementary, high school or college is immune to potential impact of violence. Even if a school or district has well-developed safety plans, security personnel, metal detectors, and hotlines, children in those schools are regularly exposed to violence. Given the attention paid to the tragedies in places like Jonesboro and Columbine on local and national television news, in newspaper headlines, and in conversations of parents and school staff, the very fabric of what it means to a young child to “go to school” is disturbed.

Violence at school can have a significant impact on young people, affecting emotional, physical, and mental health and their academic achievement. Most importantly, it also affects overall socialization and adaptation. In an effort to reduce the incidents of violence in public schools, several state legislatures and, subsequently, Congress passed laws implementing school disciplinary sanctions that became known as Zero-Tolerance Policies.

Every day since Zero-Tolerance Policies were implemented throughout the United States, children have been deprived of the education system. These policies require that children in kindergarten through 12th grade receive harsh punishments. This doesn’t surprise me that even at the college level this might be happening. Often for minor incidents that pose no threat to safety, students and their families regularly receive severe hardship. A strong body of compelling research indicates that these “get-tough” disciplinary measures most often fail to meet sound educational principles, and in cases their application defies common sense if we all agree on what common sense means.

More alarming than punishment meted out in schools is the tracking of children into the juvenile justice system for minor misconduct in school, which could also be misinterpreted. What is minor misconduct? Often, minorities, such as African-American and Latinos, are the students that bear the consequences of these policies. Also, children with disabilities or those who are a part of the special education program are categorized in this group. Policymakers, educators, and parents should be very concerned with the long-term implications of denying educational opportunities to millions of children, especially when effectiveness of these policies in ensuring school safety is highly suspect.

School safety is a critically important issue. Recent tragedies have heightened the public’s fear, which has led to legitimate calls for stronger preventive measures. We must ensure that schools remain one of the safest places for children and students of all ages, including college. Yet, the evidence gathered makes it clear that efforts to address drugs, guns, and other dangerous school situations have spun totally out of control, sweeping up millions of schoolchildren who pose no threat to safety into a net of exclusion from educational opportunities and into criminal prosecution.

by Jorge Zavala
Managing Director

First thing to remember is that we are a country built by immigrants. We are the land of opportunity, and when the U.S. became involved with World War II it was the Mexican workers that saved the U.S. economy while Americans were fighting overseas.

Until 1948, the US had an open-door policy with regards to immigration. It was back then when the relationship between Mexico and the U.S. was excellent. The U.S. has not been always been grateful for the support and assistance during a “man power shortage” Mexico helped with.

As a nation we are rather fickle when it comes to asking for help and what we do. Like in 1948, Americans are now in need of help and what do we do? We beat our wives, we scream at the kids. We blame immigrants for everything without looking at the lack of responsibility that is missing when it comes to businesses that are monopolizing all the money. Government assistance is not always present to facilitate such events.

We forget to acknowledge how good a neighbor Mexico has been. Last year, Mexico did over 400 billion dollars worth of business with the U.S. That’s more than Brazil and Argentina combined. Is this how you treat neighbors?

Even though the decline in undocumented immigration is no surprise, there are several explanations. The U.S. economic is weaker while Mexico’s economy is strengthening. Its growth demographic per capital is 15,000 dollars: a third of what Americans make. Some of Mexico’s competitiveness is due to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Because it avoids U.S. tariffs, Mexico’s exports are cheaper than China’s.

President Obama has spent more on immigration enforcement than his predecessor, George W. Bush. Obama has deported more than 400,000 immigrants in one year. What is surprising, however, is the drop in net legal migration. Obama has disappointed many Mexicans by failing to deliver on immigration reform. Instead, the Department of Homeland Security has spent over 250 million dollars building the nation’s largest fleet of domestic surveillance drones, such as fences, surveillance planes, and personnel. Clearly the Democrats talk about it in a tone that is much more appealing to Mexicans than the way Republicans talk about it. According to the Pew Hispanic Center, the high rate of unemployment has caused Mexicans to return to Mexico.

The Pew Research Center shows we’ve clamped down on undocumented immigration, but it also shows that Mexicans don’t want to come here legally as much as they did before. Perhaps an increase in economic stability and steady jobs have allowed for Mexicans to flourish and remain in Mexico so as to decrease the overall numbers of immigration into the United States. It is actually a mixed picture.

What are we doing when an aging country creates a deficit of workers and a surplus of retirees who spend? Instead of preparing for the future we are trying to demonize undocumented immigrants, and hoping they self-deport. We seem to have forgotten that it is the spirit of acceptance and hospitality that has made America so attractive to legal immigrants for centuries.

by Jorge Zavala Sr.
Managing Director

I ask myself, why is it so easy to criticize someone and why is so difficult to praise them? In a debate I had with a well known columnist with regards to the 50,000 dead in Mexico due to drug trafficking violence, we had a disagreement about who the culprits were. If there were no consumers of drugs here in the U.S. then we would not have this violence in Mexico. The well known columnist tried to put the blame on President Felipe Calderon.

According to El Universal, a Mexican newspaper, the state of Nuevo Leon in Mexico confirms that the last 49 people were killed by the drug cartel Los Zetas. This group is responsible for most reason killings in the states of Veracruz, Jalisco, Michoacán and Nuevo Laredo in Nuevo Leon. The municipality of Cadereyta, Nuevo Leon has been used as a clandestine trench to bury the remains of the Golf cartel killed by the Zetas.

Based on forensic evidence, the dead’s ages ranged from 20 -30 years old. Where would we be now if President Calderon had not declared war on the Cartel’s leaders?

The United States as well as Mexico have not done enough to prevent the use of drugs or their control. These wars have been going on before Calderon came in as President. But no one knew they existed as frequent because they had never been brought out to the public. A few people affirmed that Calderon made a mistake by going after the Cartel’s leaders. This caused a war among cartels for control of the market. It is easy to criticize, talk and write but to do something to make this world you think twice before you do anything.

This criticism of Calderon confirms that the media is more interested in negative publicity that sells then positive information.

Why don’t they write or talk about all the positive things Calderon has done? In the past 12 years, people have been able to buy an automobile, buy an apartment, build thousands of miles of new roads, new hospitals, schools and many more things. Additionally, there is more freedom of speech.

Why can’t we see the two perspectives?