On Sunday night, as the minutes ticked down in the Mexican national team’s World Cup defeat to England, I couldn’t help but wipe tears from my eyes. This time was different; they weren’t heartbreaking, gut-wrenching, defeated tears. It was me reflecting on something Dr. Seuss is credited with saying: “Don’t cry because it’s over. Smile because it happened.”
I thought of the joy of all my people from every corner of the globe who had a reason to smile and laugh and celebrate being us. We celebrated in our amazing cities with our people and with strangers who couldn’t help but join in on the fiesta. The whole world found out what we know. We’re beautiful people who love México, love life and love the amazing land we are blessed to either call home or the land of our ancestors.
I remembered last September when people like me were persecuted in the streets of Chicago and could legally be racially profiled and taken away without due process. That period was mentally and physically taxing on thousands of people like me who stayed in the house for fear of being the next one federal agents took. I remembered when the capture of an infamous drug cartel head brought attention to Mexico for all the wrong reasons, and in some cases, people questioned whether the only Latin American nation to host two World Cups (and the Olympic Games) could host a third.
I remembered taking my father to the World Cup’s opening game this year at Estadio Azteca in Mexico City on June 11. Gosh, did that immigrant deserve it after working two jobs for most of his life as a baker, and during that period, his son proudly became a United States Marine. His other son worked with the U.S. national soccer team, and his daughter, helping younger people accomplish their goal of higher education.
I remembered my mother, a working mom whose matriarchal disposition kept it all together and allowed us to live our American Dream.
During Sunday’s game, I was grateful and proud to be Mexican and knew the victory was our squad giving us a reason to smile and celebrate ourselves.
May it be this way forever. Viva México.
— Sinhue Mendoza, Chicago
FIFA president caved to pressure
I watched the U.S. men lose to Belgium on Monday night. My feelings were complicated. At best, I’m a casual soccer fan, but, hey, it’s the World Cup, and it’s here. USA!
I also watched the U.S. versus Bosnia and Herzegovina match, and I watched as Folarin Balogun received a red card. Ouch. Brutal, but them’s the rules, right? And has there ever been a match without a controversial call? In any sport?
I was horrified to read that President Donald Trump pressured FIFA President Gianni Infantino to repeal Balogun’s suspension. Infantino, the same guy who invented and awarded Trump the “FIFA Peace Prize,” caved pretty quickly.
I hoped against hope that, this time, someone would stand up for integrity and rules and a bully wouldn’t get his way. And maybe give the USA a chance to win fair and square.
But, like Charlie Brown and the football, I’m still hoping.
— Suzanne Zettle, Naperville
FIFA lacks an appeal process
The recent controversy surrounding U.S. striker Folarin Balogun’s red card reversal highlights a glaring flaw in international soccer’s governance. Balogun was cleared to play against Belgium after FIFA suspended his automatic one-game ban and placed him on probation instead. While American fans were glad to have him back, the arbitrary way this decision was reached undermines the integrity of the sport.
Major American sports leagues have a formalized, transparent appeal process built into their core rules. In the NFL, MLB and NHL, if a player or team faces a major penalty, there are clear, structured channels for arbitration.
In contrast, FIFA, an organization that operates with hundreds of staff members globally and is projected to bring in a staggering $13 billion over this World Cup cycle, lacks a formal, equitable appeal process for on-field discipline. With a referee’s decision on the field being considered final, teams have no way to challenge a bad call, which does happen during a game.
In fairness to the players and to the nations participating, FIFA must establish a legitimate, independent appeal process. With modern video technology and multiple camera angles showing exactly what happens, there is no excuse for this organization to rely on nonappealable referee decisions.
It is time for FIFA to adopt the transparency and fairness that other major sports leagues have practiced for decades.
— Al Zvinakis, Lemont
Balogun should have sat out
Despite the reinstatement of the U.S. soccer team’s star player for Monday’s match, sitting him out might have gone a long way toward restoring the goodwill the team — and the U.S. — had been enjoying.
— Jase Frederick, Evanston
Goals of democratic socialists
Regarding “Centrist Dems must not let ‘democratic socialists’ take over their party without a fight” (July 5): Wow! Did Joe McCarthy write the editorial about democratic socialists?
This piece is ill-informed fearmongering, and this nonsense really needs to stop.
Most Americans support individual pieces of the democratic socialist platform. This includes universal healthcare; increasing taxes on the super-rich, decreasing military spending; raising the minimum wage; expanding social services such as childcare; strong public education and paid family leave; and adopting green energy technologies. It also includes putting guardrails on corporations to ensure clean water, air and soil, and fair worker treatment and compensation.
The editorial board knows that democratic socialism is not communism. This opinion was irresponsible and inflammatory.
— Rebecca Palumbo, Tinley Park
Definition of a centrist Democrat
I would put this question to the Tribune Editorial Board: What defines a “centrist Democrat”? This editorial is written as if the readers already know what a centrist Democrat is. But without a clear definition, how are we to compare?
Simply using extreme examples from some far-left democratic socialist candidates is not sufficiently illustrative. Does a centrist Democrat support universal healthcare? How about taxing the very wealthy at higher rates rather than giving them tax breaks? Do centrist Democrats want to reduce wealth disparity or keep it growing? What about working for policies that increase affordable housing? Spending less on our already-bloated military and more on programs that help our people? How about commonsense campaign finance reforms such as overturning the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision?
Do centrist Democrats support partisan gerrymandering or term limits for Supreme Court justices and members of Congress? If the answers to these questions are “no,” then a centrist Democrat is no different than a Republican.
This piece reads more like fearmongering than a thoughtful analysis. I do give the board credit, however, for not going as far as using the “communist” label that our current Republican president is slinging about.
— Ronda Schiess, River Forest
Platner did not wait, fortunately
Former Maine U.S. Senate candidate Graham Platner did not take a page from President Joe Biden’s 2024 playbook. Biden afforded his Republican challenger Donald Trump an advantage by waiting too long to drop out of the race. With the growing allegations against Platner, he reassessed his campaign and bowed out of the race. Had he waited longer, it would have only inured to the benefit of Republican incumbent Susan Collins. A Collins victory would dash Democrats’ hope of taking the U.S. Senate, which — except for the pending bipartisan affordable-housing legislation — has been rubber-stamping this administration’s objectives and policies.
— Ava Holly Berland, Chicago
Why is Trump above scrutiny?
It has become very clear that Maine Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Graham Platner was a terrible choice to face Republican incumbent Susan Collins.
Platner has a shady past, and he may be a rapist.
Having said that, why is Platner subjected to scrutiny that is not applied to the president of the United States, the leader of the free world who, among his many misdeeds, was found by a court to be liable in the sexual assault of a woman and who has been accused of rape and sexual misconduct by several people?
In one of their debates, President Joe Biden accused Donald Trump of having “the morals of an alley cat.” That was an insult to all alley cats.
What is good for the goose should be good for the gander.
— Oren Spiegler, Peters Township
Illinois clings to partisanship
I am disgusted that Illinois refused to officially participate in the Great American State Fair, part of the nation’s 250th anniversary celebration. That isn’t principle — it’s partisanship placed above the state and above the country every one of us belongs to, regardless of who holds office.
It’s also hypocritical. Democrats have spent years warning about division in this country. Yet Illinois chose to boycott its own country’s 250th birthday celebration because of who’s in the White House. That doesn’t fight division — it manufactures more of it.
It’s an embarrassment on the world stage. Other nations watched how America marked this milestone, and Illinois’ absence sent a message that this state can’t set politics aside even for one moment of national significance.
I expect the people who represent me to rise above petty partisanship. This time, they didn’t.
— Thomas Hoerner, Mokena, Illinois
Protected right to free speech
As America celebrated its 250th Independence Day, white supremacists marched openly in Washington, spreading hatred with little public condemnation from our nation’s highest office. Their presence raises a simple but uncomfortable question: What am I missing?
For years, political leaders have argued that even hateful speech by white supremacists is protected by the First Amendment unless it crosses the line into criminal conduct. If that constitutional principle is valid, it must apply equally to Americans who peacefully advocate for human rights, including the rights of Palestinians.
Let me be clear: Anyone who promotes violence or supports terrorism deserves condemnation and accountability. But peacefully speaking out for civilians suffering in war is neither terrorism nor extremism. It is protected speech.
The Constitution does not create one standard for white supremacists and another for those who peacefully call for justice. The First Amendment cannot depend on politics, race, religion or whether those in power approve of the message.
America’s strength has always rested on defending constitutional rights consistently, not selectively. When free speech is protected for some but questioned or punished for others, we are no longer defending the Constitution.
We are defending hypocrisy.
God bless our Constitution — not hypocrisy.
— Masood Akhtar, Madison, Wisconsin
Restricting birthright citizenship
Since the Constitution is clear about the fact that anyone born in the United States is automatically a citizen, the U.S. Supreme Court made the correct decision in affirming that right. That said, I do agree with those who feel that there should be some exceptions. For instance, asylum seekers who have a child born here but then are denied asylum by the courts. Another example would be tourists who come here with the explicit desire to have their child be born in the United States.
The problem is that since this right is in the Constitution, it would probably require a constitutional amendment, which would be difficult during this administration’s term. Perhaps Congress could pass some restrictive laws, but I’m afraid the legislation would be challenged and struck down by the courts.
Therefore, it appears that we are stuck with this situation, and President Donald Trump should forget about it and move on to other important matters.
— Dan Schuchardt, Wheaton
Can our American values endure?
American values — democratic governance, adherence to the rule of law, cooperation among allies, equal opportunity, journalistic freedom — have been, for the past 250 years, a model for the rest of the world. The perversions served up by this U.S. Supreme Court and the administration stand at the forefront of an assault on those values.
But there is a glimmer of hope in the willingness of this court and other courts to reject the administration’s egregious departures from the moral high ground. Do the birthright citizenship ruling, the tariff rejection, the felony convictions of the president and preservation of funding for the press represent a chance for us to redeem our experiment in democratic governance?
We face a test. Is our system strong enough to withstand this assault on its fundamental values? Is the public motivated sufficiently to rise peacefully and demand changes? Can “this nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, long endure”?
— Del Bloem, Hoffman Estates
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
