Three answers

I chose to answer three questions: violence on television, Chilean education and immigration. I think that violence on television should only refer to the violence seen on open or free television. Along with this, you have to consider the purpose for which it is displayed. If it's free violence, then I don't like it; However, if your employment is didactic or artistic, the criteria for its prohibition should consider more variables. About Chilean education, I think we have a big problem to solve. The triad constituted by teachers, students and families is lacking in more sense. The parents, protected by the State (or forced, maybe), leave the education to the teachers. Teachers are overwhelmed with work overload and the inability to respond to the needs of each student. And the students, accustomed to the instantaneity of technology, seek to learn by pressing a button. In addition, the value of memory use has been lost, which makes learning processes even more difficult, making them tortuous and less attractive.

On immigration, the issue is complex. If you consider the economic variable at the macro level, it is good for the country. If the micro, family variable is considered, there are certain items that are very affected by the increase in competition (more workers, more stress). If the humanitarian variable is considered, denying entry to others for mere nationality is an attempt against all common sense, which seeks to protect and care for those in vulnerable situations. Anyone who decides something about immigration should take care of these three variables: favor immigration for the country, not collapse certain sectors, and differentiate the context that produces immigration, which can sometimes be life or death.