HUNTER INSPIRATION
BASED ON TRUE EVENTS, ‘GRINGO HUNTERS’, YAZPIK’S MAJOR PROJECT
OR ASK FOR SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE
NO ONE SHOULD JUDGE YOU FOR SEEKING TO UNDERSTAND BEFORE MAKING A DECISION
BASED ON FAKE NEWS, RUMORS, OR VIRAL VIDEOS, OVERRIDE EXPERT ADVICE AND SCIENTIFIC FACTS. MISINFORMATION CAN SPREAD LIKE A VIRUS—AND SADLY, ITS CONSEQUENCES CAN COST LIVES
Asking questions about vaccines is valid and necessary. However, allowing misinformation to stir fear is dangerous. Science, not fear, should inform our choices to protect ourselves and our communities
ORGANIZATIONS LIKE THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION (WHO), THE CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION (CDC), AND NATIONAL HEALTH AGENCIES PROVIDE EVIDENCEBASED INFORMATION
CONSULT HEALTH PROFESSIONALS
When it comes to vaccines, it’s natural to have questions and concerns. As a doctor—and as a father—I’ve seen how access to information can be a double-edged sword: it can empower us to make informed choices, but it can also fill us with fear if we don’t know how to tell reliable information from misinformation.
DOCTORS, NURSES, AND PHARMACISTS ARE TRAINED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AND DISPEL MYTHS
BE CAUTIOUS OF VIRAL MESSAGES
DON’T RELY ON “SOMEONE TOLD
IF SOMETHING SEEMS ALARMIST, PROMISES “SECRETS,” OR DEPENDS ON PERSONAL STORIES RATHER THAN FACTS—BE SKEPTICAL
BEFORE YOU SHARE, CONSULT A PROFESSIONAL OR CHECK WITH OFFICIAL SOURCES
VACCINES MAY CAUSE MILD SYMPTOMS LIKE ARM PAIN OR A LOW-GRADE FEVER. SERIOUS EFFECTS ARE RARE, AND THE BENEFITS GREATLY OUTWEIGH THE RISKS
VACCINES
Let me begin with something important: it’s okay to ask questions. Asking questions is the first step toward making informed decisions about our health and the health of those we care about. No one is born knowing about vaccines, immunity, viruses, or the side effects they can cause. We all learn, and asking questions is part of that learning process. However, we live in a time when information spreads faster than ever, and fake or outof-context news can go viral within minutes, causing fear and mistrust. And here’s the real issue: fear caused by misinformation isn’t okay.
THE GREATEST ACHIEVEMENT OF VACCINES: THEY MADE US FORGET REAL FEAR
Let’s take a moment to remember what life was like before vaccines were available. Entire families were affected by measles, polio, diphtheria, or whooping cough. Diseases that now seem distant, but just decades ago caused hospitalizations, permanent disabilities, and even the deaths of children and adults. Thanks to vaccines, those images are now largely in the past. The “biggest problem” with vaccines is that they’ve worked so effectively, we no longer see the real harm these diseases once caused.
Many young parents have never seen a case of polio or a child with measles-related encephalitis. Paradoxically, this can lead us to believe that “it’s not a big deal if we skip a vaccine”—or even fear the vaccine more than the disease it prevents.
AN OPPORTUNITY TO BUILD HEALTHIER ENVIRONMENTS
Every time someone asks about vaccines, we open the door to conversation and understanding. Doctor’s offices, schools, and even family chats can become places where doubts are addressed and trust in science grows stronger. Getting vaccinated isn’t just a personal choice—it’s a community effort. When we get vaccinated, we protect those who can’t (such as babies or people with weakened immune systems), and we help keep deadly diseases in the past, where they belong.
A PERSONAL MESSAGE FOR THOSE STILL UNCERTAIN
As a doctor, I’ve witnessed the worst outcomes of preventable diseases. I’ve also seen how misinformation can create unnecessary fear. My best advice is this: There’s no such thing as a silly question when it comes to your health. Ask. Learn. Demand clear answers. But don’t let fear— especially fear not backed by facts—stop you from protecting yourself and your loved ones. Science is on your side, and health professionals are here to listen and support you. Let curiosity be your ally—not fear your enemy.Get vaccinated with knowledge. Please do it for yourself. Please do it for your community.
Starting July 17, 2025, there will no longer be an option for specialized attention to LGBTQ+ folks. This news, along with other recent setbacks to the protection and promotion of human rights -especially those of minorities- are increasingly concerning.
According to WHO, suicide is the third leading cause of death among 15-29-yearolds; highlighting that vulnerable groups, such as migrants and LGBTQ+ people, are at higher risk due to consequences of discrimination and experiences of violence, abuse or conflict, among other factors of suicidal behavior.
Also, The Trevor Project Mexico’s 2024 national mental health survey exposed that 1 in 3 young LGBTQ+ people attempted suicide during the last year. These facts are consistent with The Trevor Project’s knowledge and experience, having provided nearly 50% of the over 1.3 million crisis intervention services catered to young LGBTQ+ folks through the 988 channel; just in 2024, The Trevor Project directly served more than 231,000 crisis contacts.
When talking about suicide prevention as a human right, it is important to know that what is being discussed is an ensemble of rights that make up the pillars of that concept. Suicide prevention services need to be seen as a means to guarantee human rights, such as the right to life (including the right to life free of violence), the right to health and the right to free development of personality.
The right to life is considered a fundamental human right, recognized in numerous treaties and conventions, that includes the obligation of a State to protect and respect human life. This translates into an obligation to prevent the loss of human life by any means at a State’s reasonable disposal.
The 988 Lifeline is a great tool that has helped save millions of lives since its launch in 2005 as the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. However, it is not enough to have a general line to attend all cases. Vulnerable groups are subject to higher suicide risk and, specifically, Trevor’s data shows LGBTQ+ young people are more than four times as likely to attempt suicide than their peers. Hence, it was an appropriate response by the government to launch specialized services tailored to support LGBTQ+ young people after July 2022, when the National Suicide Hotline was transformed into the 988 Lifeline. However, the 988 Specialized Services sadly come to an end just as the U.S. Supreme Court upholds a law in Tennessee that denies trans youth’s access to essential medical attention.Trevor’s research in the U.S. shows that anti-trans laws increase suicide attempts by trans youth up to 72%. Tailored crisis intervention allows for a community’s specific risk factors to be considered for counselors’ training, research and funding, which directly translates into a higher chance to prevent suicide attempts amongst that community’s members. This also means that the counselors’ personal experiences are more likely to play a part in the empathy felt and shown for a specific group, which can help a person who is reaching for help to feel seen and understood. According to Trevor Mexico’s mental health survey, more than half of folks who received some form of mental health aid didn’t find it useful.
As for the right to a life free of violence, this concept has developed in Mexico as a right for women living in violent circumstances in order to name specific types of violence and enact tailored measures in order to prevent these circumstances and appropriately act and sanction violent conducts. Even though the law that originated this concept has multiple issues, it helps expand the concept of the right to life beyond just “the
The Trevor Project, the leading suicide prevention and crisis intervention nonprofit organization for LGBTQ+ young people, recently received a “stop work” order from the current administration in the U.S.A., regarding its work through the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline’s LGBTQ+ Youth Specialized Services.
ABRIGHTLIFE
Suicide prevention as a human right
absence of death.” To say that the right to life includes the entitlement to live peacefully, in absence of all kinds of violence, is to say that it is also a State’s obligation to consider the quality of living in the mechanisms it uses or implements in order to safeguard its people’s lives. This goes hand in hand with WHO’s definition of health as “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity”.
Furthermore, the right to health must be understood as the entitlement to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. The preamble of the Constitution of WHO also recognizes that this is “one of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition.” Taking into account that attention to the “mental” part of the health definition has been historically neglected in favor of attention to physical health, and that mental illnesses, especially amongst women and other dissident identities were either generally dismissed or mistreated, it is imperative that suicide prevention as an essential mechanism to guarantee the right to health, is implemented with a gender perspective. Similarly to the positive implications of specialized care in guaranteeing the right to life, the right to health is positively impacted by considering the available information and statistics surrounding mental health and heightened suicide risks among minorities and vulnerable groups. It is a State’s mandate to use all available tools, including existing research, in benefit of its people, with special consideration to those in difficult circumstances. Human rights are interdependent, indivisible and interrelated; which means that the lack of access or guarantee to one human right can often lead to impairment of other human rights. Without health, there is no path to freely developing one’s life as one sees fit. In this sense, the right to free development of personality is composed of other fundamental freedoms, mainly the right to personal autonomy, human dignity and the right to privacy. When the Mexican Supreme Court first recognized it as a right, it stated that “an individual, whoever they are, has a right to freely and autonomously choose their life plan, the manner in which they will achieve the goals and objectives that are relevant to them”. Considering that being able to choose one’s partner, to have or abstain from having children, etc., are all intimate and essential decisions in a person’s life, which do not interfere with third parties’ rights or public order, different resources must be allocated in order for a person’s life journey to be as freely and pacifically lived as possible. Non-discrimination can’t just be in writing, practices must be aligned with legal and ethical sources, which in suicide prevention implementation translates into having specialized care for people facing external threats to autonomously carrying out their life’s project, such as violent threats or actions for being a part of a specific group. That is not to say that a State will be responsible for the results or consequences of a person’s life choices, but it is responsible for guaranteeing that person’s right and freedom to make those choices.
In order for a person to have a chance to live fully, suicide prevention must be looked at from an objective public health perspective, eliminating stigmas and judgements from the decision-making process and considering all rights involved and every source of information available. In the world we’re living in, tailored suicide prevention mechanisms are critical for the health and safety of high-risk individuals and neglecting this reality could sadly lead to different, more troubling statistics in the future.
BINATIONAL SECURITY DEMANDS BALANCE
AND IT’S MISSING
Interview with Topher McDougal*
My impression is that it's a one-way valve, that ports of entry are like a heart valve and anything can go that way, but nothing goes this way.
TOPHER MCDOUGAL
In 2022 alone, between 75,000 and 135,000 firearms were trafficked from the U.S. into Mexico. For comparison, Ukraine received 40,000 firearms from the U.S. between 2020 and 2024.
Key trafficking corridors include border cities such as Yuma, Arizona; Pharr and Brownsville in Texas; Tucson, Arizona; Laredo, Texas; and Las Cruces, New Mexico.
Statistical analysis suggests that a 1% increase in gun trafficking from the United States to Mexico is associated with a 0.5% rise in Mexico’s homicide rate. This growing violence also contributes to increased migration pressures. Each year, between 15 and 20 million guns are sold in the U.S. There are around 400 million firearms in civilian hands—an average of 1.2 guns per person. A small group known as “super owners” possess an average of 17 firearms each.
US A GENERAL OUTLINE OF THE FLOW OF FIREARMS FROM THE US TO MEXICO. HOW DOES THIS HAPPEN?
T.M. The United States is by far the largest civilian market for firearms in the world. We have, somewhere between 50,000 and 75,000 retail stores in the United States and by contrast, Mexico has two, both run by Sedena. In most cases, firearms being purchased in the United States are being purchased legally by what we call straw purchasers. Someone with some amount of legal standing in the United States, whether it’s a US citizen or a permanent resident who has the legal standing to go into a gun shop and purchase weapons. The phenomenon is defined by this process
*Topher McDougal is professor of economic development at the University of San Diego.
of straw purchasers who go into a shop, then turn around usually very soon in time after the point of sale and deliver them to somebody who will then take them over the border.
These networks of individuals who are involved in finding straw purchasers, establishing relationships with gun shops and then trafficking them southward are increasingly well organized and increasingly dominated and coordinated by cartels or other drug trafficking organizations. There are also folks who have licenses as collectors in the United States. About half of the guns owned in the United States by US citizens are owned by what are called super owners. These are 1 to 3% of the population who own on average 17 or more guns per person. These super owners should be points of concern for US policymakers. It’s oftentimes these folks who are most deeply involved in militant, sometimes white supremacists, xenophobic militias, but these are probably not the people who are involved in the trade.
06/07
MONDAY 07 / 28 / 2025 HERALDOUSA. COM/
Often, folks who are involved in most south trades will look very different to these folks. They won’t be collectors themselves, they may or may not own a gun themselves, but they will have just purchased say 15 AR-15s or 30 all in cash and yes it’s legal and the gun store in question, will make sure that the i’s are dotted and the t’s are crossed legally, but in most cases when we have successfully pursued a criminal suit against traffickers, what we catch them on is having to check the little box that you have to check on the purchase form that says that this is for personal use.
D.B. WHILE REVIEWING THESE DATABASES, HAVE YOU FOUND ANY STATISTICAL RELATION BETWEEN THE FLOW OF FIREARMS FROM THE US TO MEXICO AND INDEXES OF CRIMES RELATED TO GUNS IN MEXICO?
T.M. Absolutely. Yes. For every 1% increase in firearms that flow across the border from the United States into Mexico, the homicide rate in Mexico increases by 0.5%.
D.B. WHAT WOULD BE THE MAIN CHALLENGES IN PROSECUTING GUN TRAFFICKING IN THE US? ARE THERE ANY OPTIONS THAT WOULD HELP ESTABLISH A COMPREHENSIVE FIREARMS DATABASE OR IMPROVE THE COUNTRY’S ABILITY TO COMBAT GUN TRAFFICKING?
T.M. That is a comprehensive question and there are so many layers of answers to it. One of the things that you’re talking about is a registry of gun ownership in the United States. Certain states do have gun registries but on a federal level it is illegal to create one. Moreover, while the federal government does require that all purchases undergo a background check there are certain loopholes and there are certain caveats to that. Every time someone arrives at a gun shop and wants to make a purchase, that purchase needs to ping the FBI in what’s called the National Instant Criminal Background Check System or NICS. If the ping comes back that there’s no hold on their ability to purchase the weapon, the sale can go through. One of the strange things about this system is that I could be purchasing one weapon or I could be purchasing a hundred weapons and there will be only one background check required for that. And number two, whilst the FBI is required to provide a check on this person and whilst the gun shop is required to enforce that check, the FBI is barred by the Tiahrt Amendment, which is an agglomeration of laws that that got passed during the Bush administration, and one of the things that those laws did was to make it very difficult for the federal government to keep any data about gun sales in the United States. And so, while yes, they do the background check, but once they have determined that that person is legally allowed to purchase the weapon, then they need to get rid of that data. They can’t keep it as a record and put it into any sort of searchable database.
Another problem is that the causal chain must be very tight to create a legal argument. So oftentimes when you are trying to prosecute either a shop or owner or a smuggler, arms trafficker or a straw purchaser, the sale and the crime must have been committed quickly within a short period of one another. That the sale would happen, then the hand off happens, then it traverses the border and then something goes wrong, and they lose the gun, and it is recovered and seized by Mexican authorities, who then trace it. But most guns that go across the border are not recovered within a few months or perhaps even a few years.
D.B. WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE US SUPREME COURT RULING STRIKING DOWN MEXICO’S LAWSUIT AGAINST AMERICAN GUN MANUFACTURERS?
T.M. I think that this was always a long shot for the Mexican government to bring a case against US manufacturers, especially considering
PLCAA, the Protection of the Lawful Commerce of Arms Act, this piece of legislation that is designed explicitly to protect the arms industry from these sorts of lawsuits.
There are lots of domestic problems that come out of that fundamental contradiction that we have created a place legally where you can manufacture a product that is going to have a net negative effect on society, even from just the point of view of economics.
If you were to look at the benefit cost ratio of a gun in this country, even without looking at all of the deaths that they cause in other places, if we add up the cost to society in terms of emergency services, post-traumatic services, carceral services, the lifetime expected earnings of people who were shot and we now no longer have those with that productivity in the economy. If you add up all of that, we now have a sort of denominator for the benefit cost ratio. And it turns out that for every dollar of costs we have only made $0.63 of benefits for the economy.
So even within the United States, a very generous interpretation shows that this is a net loser for our economy.
If you then take into consideration that it has a huge negative effect for Mexico, a large economy with a government that is stable and very competent, then look at the effects that it has had on other countries across the region that are less capable of detecting and fighting these flows and of fighting back against non-state armed actors.
We’ve seen flows to Jamaica where gangs have become more powerful. Haiti has just collapsed and that’s a country where we know many US arms have gone. They’ve gone farther south as well to Guatemala and Honduras, and Panama now they’re flowing into Ecuador even. So, the benefit cost ratio is probably much lower than even that estimate that was made 15 years ago.
D.B. COULD AGENCIES LIKE THE ATF BE CONSIDERED MORE RESPONSIBLE, OR SHOULD THEY BE HELD MORE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE FLOW OF GUNS HEADING SOUTH?
T.M. That’s a great question.
One of the things that our analysis showed is that US regulation is effective when the ATF issues its warning letters. It doesn’t have many tools at its disposal. It basically only has these infraction warnings, and it can then rescind the license, an FFL, a Federal Firearms License to retail.
When the ATF issues these compliance citations, it really does have an effect. We found that every additional ATF citation depresses the number of guns sold by that FFL to the traffickers by 20 to 45% on average. Because on average, FFLs are issued five citations at a time, cited FFLs only contribute 6 to 20% as many guns to the U.S. Mexican traffic as uncited.
The ATF is chronically underfunded and it’s a weird agency in that it is a product of the sort of paradox that the US has made legal an industry that probably shouldn’t be legal. The ATF was originally set up to regulate a lot of industries that lent themselves to illegality: tobacco, alcohol, and firearms. These are all sectors of the economy that have had connections with organized crime in this country: the mafia, cartels, gangs, and in the case of firearms in particular I would argue that firearms are in some sense like a keystone species of illicit trades in general because if you are dealing in drugs or you’re dealing in humans or you are dealing in counterfeit, there’s no government that will be enforcing your claim on property rights and they will not be enforcing any contracts. There’s no law that will enforce that contract for you if someone backs out or reneges. So, firearms are the traditional way of keeping your property rights and your contracts intact when no one else is going to enforce those things. Without those, many other illicit industries start to weaken. And I think that we’ve seen this to a huge extent in Mexico. Yes, the US demand for illegal drugs has hugely inflated the coffers of drug trafficking organi
It seems like common sense: everyone should have the right to live in a healthy environment—after all, it’s even stated in the Constitution. But that’s not the case. It has taken decades of social struggles, international debates, court rulings, and yes, many disasters as well, for that right to start being recognized. And even now, there is still a chasm between what is stated in the law and what happens in the real world.
CLIMATE JUSTICE
AND THE HUMAN RIGHT TO A LIVABLE CLIMATE
BY: RAÚL GABRIEL BENET
The right to a healthy environment was first recognized globally in the Stockholm Declaration in 1972. Since then, it has gained strength: Rio in 1992, the 2030 Agenda, the Paris Agreement, and more recently, the 2022 declaration by the UN General Assembly, which recognized it as a universal human right. But the truly historic event happened just a few weeks ago: the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in its Advisory Opinion 32, declared that States have the obligation to respect, guarantee, and cooperate to protect the climate as part of human rights. In this way, climate change stopped being merely an environmental issue—it became a matter of justice, of health, of life. That changes the rules of the game. Because it’s no longer enough to claim that efforts are being made to reduce emissions. Now there is a legal obligation that challenges governments: Are they doing enough? Do their energy and economic decisions respect that right? Or do they contradict it?
The case of fossil gas—the one many call “natural” as if it were harmless—is a very clear example of that contradiction. It has been sold as “transition energy,” a kind of lesser evil to reduce reliance on oil or coal (which, by the way, are just as “natural” as natural gas). But the scientific evidence is overwhelming: methane, the main component of natural gas, is up to 84 times more potent than CO² in its capacity to trap heat in the atmosphere. And worst of all: leaks during its extraction, transport, and use make it a silent but powerful enemy.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the highest authority on the matter, to which the President of Mexico belongs) stated it plainly in its latest report: continuing to expand gas infrastructure
could completely cancel out any progress in climate mitigation. And yet, governments are investing billions in new pipelines, liquefaction plants, export platforms. Mexico included.
This is not an abstract or remote issue. In the country, there are reports of massive methane leaks along the entire supply chain, en route to thermoelectric plants, far exceeding acceptable limits. These are invisible emissions, with no odor or color, that escape monitoring and heat the planet at alarming rates. Meanwhile, we keep hearing that gas is clean, that it’s cheap, that it’s the future, and that gas-fired thermoelectric plants are ‘much cleaner’ than the previous ones.
But no. Fossil gas is not clean, nor is it truly cheap if we consider its cumulative impacts, the costly infrastructure it demands, and the long-term commitments and costs it imposes. And it cannot be the future if we take the climate emergency seriously. In a country like Mexico, where methane leakage levels far exceed the global average—according to estimates by the International Energy Agency (IEA) and independent satellite analyses—insisting on expanding gas-fired thermoelectric plants amounts to a step backwards. The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warns that methane leaks—a gas with a warming potential more than 80 times that of CO² over a 20-year horizon—make natural gas a critical threat. Insisting on it, under these conditions, is already difficult to justify as a rational energy policy. But doing so in the name of a climate transition is nothing short of sophisticated denialism. Or, in harsher but clearer terms: a climate crime.
Talking about climate justice means talking precisely about this: about taking seriously what’s at stake. About recognizing that not all people, nor all countries, bear the same burden in this crisis. That
those who contributed least to pollution— Indigenous communities, peasants, the most impoverished neighborhoods of the Global South—are the ones now facing droughts, fires, displacement, the loss of their ways of life. And that, at the same time, these territories are becoming sacrifice zones for new extractive projects.
In Mexico, the right to a healthy environment has been enshrined in the Constitution since 1999, and the international treaties ratified by the country—such as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Paris Agreement, or ILO Convention 169—are part of the legal framework, thanks to constitutional Article 133. The Supreme Court has also recognized that these rights must be interpreted with the pro persona principle: always in favor of the greatest protection possible. So, how is it that gas megaprojects are still being approved in Indigenous areas or environmentally sensitive sites, without consultation, without proper environmental studies, without guaranteeing basic rights? How is it that an energy policy is upheld as sovereign and clean, when it actually deepens fossil dependence, precisely when the world most needs to abandon them?
This isn’t just about pointing out flaws. It’s about recognizing a fundamental dilemma. There is a model that refuses to die, that changes its rhetoric but not its logic. That talks about energy transition, but proposes nothing more than swapping one fossil fuel for another, to keep doing the same thing. And there is another model being born from below, from communities that generate their own energy autonomously, that defend their rivers, their forests, their knowledge. From those who understand that climate justice is not measured in tons of CO², but in dignified lives, in living territories, in decisions made with participation and with respect.
KEIL
ARTWORK: ALEJANDRO OYERVIDES
MORE THAN 74 MILLION AMERICANS ARE UNAWARE OF HOW EXTENSIVELY THEIR INFORMATION IS SHARED ONLINE, ESPECIALLY WHEN PROVIDING DATA SUCH AS EMAIL ADDRESSES OR PHONE NUMBERS.
HOW DIGITAL CAMPAIGN UNDERMINE YOUR RIGHTS YOUR DATA, THEIR POWER
BY ERANDI ELIZABETH VILLAFAÑA ESPINAL
PHOTOART: ALEJANDRO OYERVIDES
Our social media channels do not contain the same ads and campaigns as your brother or your neighbor, and that is the point. Maybe your TikTok is showing you the latest dance trend, while your Venezuelan neighbor is watching an Instagram ad about electoral fraud.
Or maybe someone living near the Mexican border is seeing a Facebook ad about rising crime. But what is most important about this? None of these messages appear to us randomly; each of them was carefully tailored to you based on your online behavior, your demographics, your history of likes, purchases, follows, your political leanings, and even your personality. And no, your phone is not spying on you, or at least not in the way you think. This is just a way of welcoming you to the new way of creating campaigns thanks to algorithms. And without a doubt, thanks to these tools, our interactions within the political sphere have taken a 360-degree turn. Previously, politicians played politics through doorto-door campaigning, street giveaways, public square events, and televised debates. Nowadays, the entire electoral battle takes place live and in full color through your cell phone, your browser, and your social media channels, with personalized, invisible ads and propaganda focused on winning and manipulating. But what is the master weapon? The answer is the use of predictive algorithms and microtargeting, technologies that allow political parties to target you with the perfect message based on who they think you are.
The trick with these tools is simple: they collect and sometimes purchase data of each voter, revealing their voting history, geographic location, race, religion, emotional state, social media behavior, consumer habits, among many other things. Multiple algorithms analyze all this information to build a profile of you, including who you are, your fears, worries, interests, and how you might react emotionally to various scenarios. Thanks to this portrait of you, they can create personalized messages such as crimes near your zip code, proposals and solutions to social problems in your community, or attacks on the opposing party depending on who governs your state or city. Ultimately, all of this is intended to design a space just
Citizens need to understand how platforms use their personal information, and that social media content during political campaigns may consist of personalized messages designed not to inform, but to influence.’
for you where political parties can maximize electoral effectiveness while simultaneously fragmenting democratic debate.
It is abundantly clear to us that this is no longer traditional campaigning; it is a form of persuasion that, while it is a tool for many, can also be a machine that transforms democracy in dangerous ways. The most notorious example of these practices is the 2018 Cambridge Analytica scandal, where the now-defunct company collected information from millions of Facebook users; the company used this data during the U.S. presidential campaigns to recruit, or rather manipulate, voters.
This is undoubtedly alarming. Currently, there is no federal law in the US regulating how campaigns collect and use personal data. Although the Federal Election Commission requires ads to disclose their sponsors, it provides no information on the data used to target voters. In other words, your vote is being targeted by machines trained to target your strengths and weaknesses. What is the result? A regulatory loophole that allows campaigns to use your sensitive information that you do not even know they are using, and no one is obligated to explain it to you.
Digital platforms such as Meta, Google, and TikTok have introduced measures to promote transparency by limiting some microtargeting tools in the political arena. However, these efforts are insufficient; the integrity of elections should not depend on the voluntary political initiatives of these corporations. Clearly, this goes beyond fair play; it also threatens fundamental rights and democracy.
Perhaps when we talk about concepts like “data” or “algorithms,” we don’t think of the Bill of Rights; however, its principles are at stake in these concepts. The First Amendment protects freedom of expression, guaranteeing a public space for the open sharing of ideas. However, opaque algorithms hide political ads and messages from the general electorate, making them visible only to selected individuals, fragmenting the political sphere and weakening public debate.
On the other hand, we often overlook the Ninth Amendment, which tells us that the rights enumerated in the Constitution
are not exhaustive; meaning that the absence of an explicit right to digital privacy does not mean it does not exist. This also applies when campaigns use factors like race or religion to determine who receives persuasive messages and who they ignore. Even if it is not explicit, it is a form of digital discrimination. As a voter, you not only receive information differently, but you are also being strategically misinformed or excluded based on traits that perhaps, at this point in history, would not necessarily be a differentiator.
These tactics also influence our right to vote freely and to have access to a fair and transparent flow of political discourse. We know full well that the solution is not to return to a primitive campaigning process, but to modernize democracy. Technology is a tool that can and should be used to strengthen democratic participation, not to undermine it. But to achieve this, we need clear rules on the playing field, with vigilant institutions overseeing the entire process and ensuring that any political message is publicly accessible and debatable. More importantly, however, citizens need to understand how platforms use their personal information, and that social media content during political campaigns may consist of personalized messages designed not to inform, but to influence, a fact we may not even realize.
We must remember that democracy does not depend solely on the vote, but rather on the forms of citizen participation and the shared visibility of the ideas that compete for our vote. We cannot allow algorithms and unregulated segmentation to replace open debate, and no, we are not seeking to restrict freedom of expression. On the contrary, this right is even stronger when voters are well-informed. The fact that campaigns are regulated in their targeting of voters does not limit what can be said, comparatively, it is a way of ensuring that everything said can be seen, questioned, and debated.
The author holds bachelor’s degree with Honors in International Relations and Political Science from the University of the Americas Puebla. She was a fellow in the 2024-2025 class of the Presidential Fellowship Program in Washington, D.C.
AROUND 61 % OF THE GLOBAL POPULATION KNOW LITTLE OR NOTHING ABOUT WHAT COMPANIES DO WITH THEIR PERSONAL DATA.
2016
Cambridge Analytica, with only 277,000 people who were paid to take a test, managed to obtain personal information on nearly 87 million people. of internet users are unaware that their personal location is being collected to serve personalized ads.
32%
The Binational Migrant Education Program (PROBEM) brings Mexican teachers to U.S. summer schools to support migrant children through language, culture, and identity. It’s a powerful example of cross-border collaboration and educational inclusion.
Although education is not explicitly stated in the U.S. Federal Constitution, state constitutions recognize it as a fundamental right. Today, the human right to education—and to be taught in one’s mother tongue—is a key issue worldwide. In the border region of Tamaulipas, the Binational Migrant Education Program
(PROBEM from the Spanish acronym) stands out as one of the most meaningful and transformative collaborations between Mexico and the United States in education.
This initiative aims not only to strengthen learning but also to preserve the cultural identity of migrant children through games, music, and artistic expression. PROBEM was launched in 1989 with a noble mission: to serve the educational needs of migrant students, particularly those of Mexican origin living in the U.S. Over the years, the program has evolved to meet the realities of modern migration, opening its doors to more students of different nationalities who need support in the Mexican language and culture. Its goal is clear: “Migration has evolved, and so have our educational strategies.”
Participation in the program involves several selection stages, which can be demanding. Still, they help ensure that the teachers selected to travel to the U.S. on this exchange are among the best. Applicants must speak English, hold a valid
Mexican passport and tourist visa, and be available to travel during the summer for a six-toeight-week stay. In the United States, they teach at summer schools, aiming to teach Spanish and share Mexican heritage through cultural, culinary, musical, and playful activities.
Giving each selected teacher the chance to design strategies that celebrate our traditions and offer children a small taste of Mexico in every activity is a noble cause and a once-in-alifetime experience. This can mean anything from teaching traditional songs and games to proudly discussing the country and its values. The goal is to strengthen migrant children’s sense of identity and belonging, many of whom live between two worlds.
The program operates in select U.S. states such as Florida, Colorado, Oregon, and California. Even though education is a universally recognized right in every state, not all school districts have bilingual education programs. The demand for Mexican teachers is high, but available slots are limited. Still, this doesn’t discourage the many teachers who apply each year with enthusiasm and a love for teaching and representing Mexico abroad. Teaching is a source of pride, and taking on the responsibility of educating in intercultural contexts is deeply rewarding. It’s inspiring to see teachers grow and confidently affirm that they are well-prepared, with the tools and strategies to make a difference.
PROBEM is more than just an educational strategy—it is a social and cultural transformation tool. Thanks to the dedication of its teachers, Mexican education continues to transcend borders, leaving a lasting impact on children who, regardless of where they come from or where they’re headed, deserve a high-quality, culturally meaningful, and inclusive education.
* The author is in charge of the Binational Migrant Education Program
knows no
José María Yazpik
HIGH LIGHTS TIJUANA ROOTS
in new series
José María Yazpik discusses his role in Gringo Hunters, emphasizing the gripping true story set in Tijuana. He reflects on his familiar character, the series’ balanced message, and the potential for a second season.
BY: NAYELY
José María Yazpik is careful when selecting roles for his acting career. So, when he was introduced to the story of Gringo Hunters, he couldn’t say no.
“I thought it was incredible to tell a story set in Tijuana—a city I love and adore—with a reversed context, which made it all the more interesting,” he said in an interview with El Heraldo de México.
The Mexican actor, who spent part of his youth in that border city, said that his character, Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán, felt familiar to him. I know a few guys like him in Tijuana, so I thought the project might be fun.
The cast looked fantastic, and going back to Netflix, which has been like a second home to me—where I’ve enjoyed great experiences with people I already know—made it feel like the perfect fit. I couldn’t resist.
Yazpik, who also serves as a director, emphasized that the story is well balanced to prevent misleading viewers with xenophobic messages.
“Since it’s based on real events, nothing is made up—except my story.
The Nueva Tijuana part? Everything else, including all aspects related to the social dynamics between the two countries, is based on real cases. Maybe not exactly how we portray them, because you need to fictionalize a bit,” he explained.
He added, “But there was a group of Mexican police officers who sent American fugitives back across the border. So, when you include that element of truth, the message balances out. It’s not about ‘I want you out of here,’ it’s about ‘You broke the law, and you should pay for the crime you committed.’”
Regarding his character, Joaquín Meyer Rodríguez, he shared: “I’d describe him as a deeply insecure person. His entire backstory centers on his desire for his father to accept him as a respectable businessman. He means well, but eventually exhausts his personal resources—not financial, but emotional capacity. Things get complicated, and he begins making poor decisions. What I like is that he’s not a jerk; he’s not a typical villain.”
He added, “He genuinely wants to help people. He believes that in this modern capitalist system, everyone can win. But we’ve all seen that’s not true. Someone always gets screwed—and usually, it’s those at the bottom. Still, he’s a character who doesn’t realize the capitalist model needs to change.”
The Narcos: Mexico star indicated a possible second season.
“These days, every show ends with an open conclusion, just in case. Ideally, it would continue, since much remains unresolved. The main points are wrapped up, but a whole story remains open—and that’s what I find most interesting,” he mentioned.
“But that’s more of a structural thing—I suppose platforms ask for open endings to leave the possibility. Of course, we hope it does well, and a second season could happen,” he confirmed.
RAMÍREZ MAYA
ART: ALEJANDRO OYERVIDES
Debuted in the telenovela La Paloma, produced by José Rendón.
Portrayed the young villain in Pueblo chico, infierno grande, produced by José Alberto Castro.
Worked with Pedro Almodóvar on Talk to Her and Bad
(2004)
