As Jimmy Valvano took the podium during the 1983 ESPY awards, after a forty five second applause, the crowd hushed to a unanimous silence, and something amazing took place shortly after. Jimmy V captivated the audience with his instinctual, off the cuff speech and his smooth, comforting tone. His presence was made known as he fascinated the crowd talking about how life should be taken advantage of, and the power to help other people by sacrificing a little bit of yourself is one of the most satisfying things one can do. It was on of the most legendary speeches in the history of American sports. Jimmy V dedicated his life to helping people; he was a hall of fame material coach, a mentor, and his legacy will live on and on forever.
The ESPY awards stands for Excellence in Sports Performance Yearly. In the sports world, this speech is one of the most incredibly moving and inspiring sports speeches ever given. Jimmy Valvano is a legendary college basketball coach who took the N.C. State basketball team to the 1983 NCAA Championship and won against very high odds. He won the ESPY Courage award, this award is given to someone who has stared adversity in the face, and Jimmy V certainly has. Two months after giving this speech, ten years after he won the NCAA basketball tournament and ran up and down the sideline looking for someone to hug, he died of cancer. The sports world was absolutely devastated after it’s loss of such an amazing ambassador. The impact of his speech was due to his stature in the sports world; everyone knew who he was, what he stood for, and what he was fighting against. His credibility as an amazing coach and mentor created a sense of a personal affiliation, he made the audience feel like they were a part of his family, or a group of people that he knew well enough to pour his heart out and open himself up. At the same time, he makes the audience feel at ease; joking about his illness and putting a smile on peoples faces, “I’m gonna speak for longer than anyone else has spoken tonight, I’ve got tumors all over my body, what do I care about a guy in the back holding up a sign that says thirty seconds”. This kind of playful tone lets the audience sit back, relax a little, and really listen to what he wants to say.
Jimmy Valvano addresses the crowd in a way that they can almost feel his pain and try to understand where he is coming from. That is one of the reasons it makes this speech so affective, the audience is able to relate to him because they want to help people they love who are suffering from what he is suffering from. Jimmy V gives them a way to help their loved ones and try to do something for everyone or anyone who is suffering from cancer. In his speech, he tells the audience that there are three things we all must do we all must do everyday, “number one is laugh, you should laugh everyday. Number two is think, you should spend some time in thought. And number three is you should have your emotions moved to tears, in happiness or sadness.” Jimmy Valvano is trying to tell the audience how to take full advantage of life, because no one in that room sees life from the way he now does. He sees life in a way, “you don’t know what you got till its gone”. He evokes something from the audience that causes them to feel sad, and want to help, and as an orator, that’s all you can ask for.
Throughout this speech, Jimmy V is speaking from the bottom of his heart, and when people know someone is speaking from the bottom of their heart with passion, it is one hundred percent more effective. Jimmy V is basically on his last leg, he is in his last stage of life and he announces that at the beginning of his speech. He sees life in a completely different way. He asks the audience take full advantage of what’s in front of them and cherish the time you have on this earth, because you never know when it could be taken from you.
Since his death, the Jimmy V foundation has raised over 70 million dollars for cancer research; this just goes to show what a difference people with money can create when they are convinced and driven by someone they love like Jimmy V. Jimmy Valvano is a legend. Even without life, Jimmy V continues to help people every single day because of his passion, peace of mind, and motivation. “I’ve gotta go, I’ve got one last thing and iv said it before and I’m gonna say it again, cancer can take away all my physical abilities, but it cannot touch my mind, it cannot touch my heart, and it cannot touch my soul, and those three things are gonna carry on forever”(Jimmy Valvanos, 1993 ESPY awards)
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Local Representative Urges Council to Support Bike Sharing, by JoJo Cuchiaro
A Regional Air Quality Council (RAQC) board meeting was held on Friday, February 4th. The primary topic discussed in the meeting was Denver Bike Sharing. A representative, Parry W. Burnap, gave a detailed presentation on the work of the organization to the board of RAQC representatives. She did so in hopes that that the council will allow the association to include air quality alerts in their “B-cycle” media. Also, fundamentally, it is important to have big names in the community (such as the RAQC) in support of up and coming public businesses in order to gain more popularity and federal funding.
Ms. Burnap used a PowerPoint presentation and introduced a strong argument for how the organization has and will continue to better the city of Denver. Denver Bike Sharing is a Colorado non-profit corporation that has been organized and will be operated to promote health, quality of life and preservation of the environment in Denver. Denver Bike Sharing is a 501 (c) 3. By building and operating a comprehensive, city-wide bike sharing system, Denver Bike Sharing is offering residents and visitors an alternative form of public transportation, which is both environmentally-friendly and affordable. Denver B-cycle will complement and be integrated with the City’s overall transportation system.
Burnap emphasized what Denver Bike Sharing can do for our city. She mentioned how the system is a perfect example of urban planning at its best. The system stimulates the city’s economy, while promoting both community and sustainability. She persuaded the audience with the statement, “The City’s vision is to change the culture of transportation in Denver by implementing bike sharing, reinforcing the innovative and environmentally focused way Denver and its leadership work toward solutions to reducing obesity, lowering carbon emissions, and providing affordable transportation.” Why not help this organization, and ultimately help contribute to the bettering of our community?
Furthermore, Ms. Burnap adds to her argument that, “Public bike sharing is a personally and environmentally healthy solution that will improve our traffic congestion and showcase Denver’s recreation/health-related lifestyle.” The City has made and continues to make strides to improve the infrastructure for safe cycling. Bike sharing will support the City’s Strategic Transportation Plan and be integrated into the larger multi-modal transportation system, including buses and the light rail, which makes Denver one of the most accessible downtown areas of any city in the U.S.
At the conclusion of Ms. Burnap’s informative presentation, the board took a vote on weather to be in support of Denver Bike Sharing. The Regional Air Quality Council voted unanimously in favor of the new organization, and expressed their excitement for helping with future endeavors and cross promotions. Parry W. Burnap did an excellent job of informing her audience of the many benefits of having her organization in the City of Denver. Through rhetoric, she successfully persuaded the RAQC board to support Denver Bike Sharing. The partnership will without a doubt make a positive impact on our already wonderful community.
Ms. Burnap used a PowerPoint presentation and introduced a strong argument for how the organization has and will continue to better the city of Denver. Denver Bike Sharing is a Colorado non-profit corporation that has been organized and will be operated to promote health, quality of life and preservation of the environment in Denver. Denver Bike Sharing is a 501 (c) 3. By building and operating a comprehensive, city-wide bike sharing system, Denver Bike Sharing is offering residents and visitors an alternative form of public transportation, which is both environmentally-friendly and affordable. Denver B-cycle will complement and be integrated with the City’s overall transportation system.
Burnap emphasized what Denver Bike Sharing can do for our city. She mentioned how the system is a perfect example of urban planning at its best. The system stimulates the city’s economy, while promoting both community and sustainability. She persuaded the audience with the statement, “The City’s vision is to change the culture of transportation in Denver by implementing bike sharing, reinforcing the innovative and environmentally focused way Denver and its leadership work toward solutions to reducing obesity, lowering carbon emissions, and providing affordable transportation.” Why not help this organization, and ultimately help contribute to the bettering of our community?
Furthermore, Ms. Burnap adds to her argument that, “Public bike sharing is a personally and environmentally healthy solution that will improve our traffic congestion and showcase Denver’s recreation/health-related lifestyle.” The City has made and continues to make strides to improve the infrastructure for safe cycling. Bike sharing will support the City’s Strategic Transportation Plan and be integrated into the larger multi-modal transportation system, including buses and the light rail, which makes Denver one of the most accessible downtown areas of any city in the U.S.
At the conclusion of Ms. Burnap’s informative presentation, the board took a vote on weather to be in support of Denver Bike Sharing. The Regional Air Quality Council voted unanimously in favor of the new organization, and expressed their excitement for helping with future endeavors and cross promotions. Parry W. Burnap did an excellent job of informing her audience of the many benefits of having her organization in the City of Denver. Through rhetoric, she successfully persuaded the RAQC board to support Denver Bike Sharing. The partnership will without a doubt make a positive impact on our already wonderful community.
Writer Supports Concealed Carry on University Campuses, by David Madsen
Colorado State University was one of the few University’s that allowed concealed carry weapons on campus. That was until 2009 when a ban was set on concealed weapons on campus. CSU faculty board voted 7-0 to ban concealed weapons on campus. Even with the Student Association vote of a 21-3, the ban was till set. Colorado State University (CSU) allowed students with concealed weapon permits to carry on campus in 2003. There are many arguments out there about concealed carry on school campuses. There will always be the question, if teachers were allowed to conceal carry at Columbine High School or students at Virginia Tech were allowed to conceal carry, would have there been fewer casualties? This question cannot be answered. There are schools that do allow students or faculty to conceal carry, which it is argued that the crime in those schools are low and there has not been any school shootings. The reason I am interested in this article is because I am a concealed weapon carrier, and believe that colleges and universities should allow concealed weapons on campus.
The author argues that concealed weapons do belong in schools. The author explains that the state of Utah prohibits schools from banning concealed weapons, which means that public schools allow concealed weapons on campus. Utah has not had any deaths caused by guns on a school campus, other than suicide. The author uses an example of a shooting at a mall in Salt Lake in 2007. The mall was a posted gun-free zone. The shooter was taken down after killing 5 people by an off duty police officer who was carrying a firearm. If that off duty officer was not carrying a firearm, how many people could of died? Knowing that the mall was a gun-free zone makes it an easy target. The shooter knows that nobody will have a gun to stop him and he can kill unarmed people. The author uses another example in Texas passing a law allowing teachers to carry concealed weapons. With this law in place it eliminates shootings at the schools. This law allows the teachers to protect the students a lot more. As the author said before, knowing that the school allows teachers to carry a concealed weapon makes the school less of a target. The author provides the readers with graphs of the crime rate at CSU. In 2003, CSU allowed students with concealed weapons permits to carry concealed weapons on campus. It was expected that the crime rate would skyrocket. As the graphs show the crime rate going down significantly. Crimes such as sexual assaults and aggravated assault on campus. The author concludes that concealed weapons do belong in schools and concealed carry does not lead to Wild West shootouts and random guns fights.
On the opposing side of the argument say that having concealed weapons on campus can make a distraction for the students. What if a student gets a hold of a teacher’s weapon? Students are human, they get upset and angry. Having a concealed weapon and being angry with another student is a bad mix, its like putting gas on a fire. The opposing side says that the less weapons on campus, the less chance of a shooting to happen. The author responds to these arguments by bringing up schools in Utah and how there has not been a school shooting in any Utah schools. He also brings up the crime rate decrease at CSU after 2003 when students were allowed to carry concealed weapons.
The author tries to keep the readers for concealed carry on campuses and to bring in the readers against concealed carry on campuses. The author first starts his article with the facts of the change of concealed carry on CSU campus. As said before, the author gives two examples of a shooting at a mall in Salt Lake and a law that passed in Texas that allows teachers to conceal carry. He gives these examples to help his argument. These examples show that conceal carry will lower crime in schools and could prevent a lot of deaths in a public shooting. The author also provides graphs of crime rates in CSU in his article. These graphs show the crime rate drops after allowing students to conceal carry on campus in 2003. These graphs help the author’s argument by showing the readers that allowing students to conceal carry will prevent crime on campus and could save life’s if a shooting did take place on campus. The author also states his personal experiences with carrying a firearm into elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, and colleges and universities in the state of Utah. He states that he has carried a concealed weapon on school campuses in Utah and did not have to turn around and take his weapon back to his vehicle or break the law by carrying the weapon. He also states that he has never gone crazy and started shooting just because he is on school property.
In this article the author argues that concealed weapons should be allowed at schools. The author is a concealed weapon carrier and has carried his weapon on school property in Utah, where schools cannot ban concealed carry. The author believes that concealed carry at schools have the benefits of reduced crime and the ability to protect yourself and believes that every school in the county should allow concealed firearms. The author uses the schools that do allow concealed carry as an example why concealed carry is a good idea for schools. There has not been an shooting in any of the Utah schools. The author believes that if a school allows concealed carry then the chance of a shooting is lowered extremely, and if there is a shooting then the casualties will be minimal. CSU was one of the few that allowed concealed weapons on campus. In 2009, the CSU school board voted 7-0 on a ban of concealed weapons on campus. CSU first started to allow students with concealed permits to carry on campus in 2003, the crime on campus decreased over the next few years. As a concealed weapons carrier, I too believe that concealed weapons should be allowed on school campuses. It would reduce crime on campus and allows the students to protect themselves. Just because someone has a weapon does not mean they are going to start shooting everyone.
CSU Bans Concealed Carry
By Robert G. Heinritz, Jr.,
WWW.youcancarry.com
The author argues that concealed weapons do belong in schools. The author explains that the state of Utah prohibits schools from banning concealed weapons, which means that public schools allow concealed weapons on campus. Utah has not had any deaths caused by guns on a school campus, other than suicide. The author uses an example of a shooting at a mall in Salt Lake in 2007. The mall was a posted gun-free zone. The shooter was taken down after killing 5 people by an off duty police officer who was carrying a firearm. If that off duty officer was not carrying a firearm, how many people could of died? Knowing that the mall was a gun-free zone makes it an easy target. The shooter knows that nobody will have a gun to stop him and he can kill unarmed people. The author uses another example in Texas passing a law allowing teachers to carry concealed weapons. With this law in place it eliminates shootings at the schools. This law allows the teachers to protect the students a lot more. As the author said before, knowing that the school allows teachers to carry a concealed weapon makes the school less of a target. The author provides the readers with graphs of the crime rate at CSU. In 2003, CSU allowed students with concealed weapons permits to carry concealed weapons on campus. It was expected that the crime rate would skyrocket. As the graphs show the crime rate going down significantly. Crimes such as sexual assaults and aggravated assault on campus. The author concludes that concealed weapons do belong in schools and concealed carry does not lead to Wild West shootouts and random guns fights.
On the opposing side of the argument say that having concealed weapons on campus can make a distraction for the students. What if a student gets a hold of a teacher’s weapon? Students are human, they get upset and angry. Having a concealed weapon and being angry with another student is a bad mix, its like putting gas on a fire. The opposing side says that the less weapons on campus, the less chance of a shooting to happen. The author responds to these arguments by bringing up schools in Utah and how there has not been a school shooting in any Utah schools. He also brings up the crime rate decrease at CSU after 2003 when students were allowed to carry concealed weapons.
The author tries to keep the readers for concealed carry on campuses and to bring in the readers against concealed carry on campuses. The author first starts his article with the facts of the change of concealed carry on CSU campus. As said before, the author gives two examples of a shooting at a mall in Salt Lake and a law that passed in Texas that allows teachers to conceal carry. He gives these examples to help his argument. These examples show that conceal carry will lower crime in schools and could prevent a lot of deaths in a public shooting. The author also provides graphs of crime rates in CSU in his article. These graphs show the crime rate drops after allowing students to conceal carry on campus in 2003. These graphs help the author’s argument by showing the readers that allowing students to conceal carry will prevent crime on campus and could save life’s if a shooting did take place on campus. The author also states his personal experiences with carrying a firearm into elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, and colleges and universities in the state of Utah. He states that he has carried a concealed weapon on school campuses in Utah and did not have to turn around and take his weapon back to his vehicle or break the law by carrying the weapon. He also states that he has never gone crazy and started shooting just because he is on school property.
In this article the author argues that concealed weapons should be allowed at schools. The author is a concealed weapon carrier and has carried his weapon on school property in Utah, where schools cannot ban concealed carry. The author believes that concealed carry at schools have the benefits of reduced crime and the ability to protect yourself and believes that every school in the county should allow concealed firearms. The author uses the schools that do allow concealed carry as an example why concealed carry is a good idea for schools. There has not been an shooting in any of the Utah schools. The author believes that if a school allows concealed carry then the chance of a shooting is lowered extremely, and if there is a shooting then the casualties will be minimal. CSU was one of the few that allowed concealed weapons on campus. In 2009, the CSU school board voted 7-0 on a ban of concealed weapons on campus. CSU first started to allow students with concealed permits to carry on campus in 2003, the crime on campus decreased over the next few years. As a concealed weapons carrier, I too believe that concealed weapons should be allowed on school campuses. It would reduce crime on campus and allows the students to protect themselves. Just because someone has a weapon does not mean they are going to start shooting everyone.
CSU Bans Concealed Carry
By Robert G. Heinritz, Jr.,
WWW.youcancarry.com
Panel Introduces DU Students to Immigration Issues, by Shelby Dunstan
The chairs were aligned in a tight knit circle all facing one another. Every seat was filled by a curious and intrigued individual. All sat in silence, waiting for these two ‘outsiders’ to speak and share their stories. The anticipation grew. Finally, a young woman welcomed everyone. A grad student at the University of Denver, she began to introduce the controversial topic at hand. “Immigration in a new light,” was to provide others with the knowledge of immigration past what we hear beyond the news. She presents two individuals in order to show the audience the true stories of immigration. Without hesitation, she states that immigrants should be treated better in our society and be given a rightful opportunity in this country.
First, the woman presents Richard Froude. As soon as he opens his mouth, the entire audience’s ears open wider, giving their full attention to this scruffy looking man. His strong English accent automatically categorizes him as someone different, as an outsider to American society. With his arms crossed and a coffee in his hand, he begins saying “I have had a great deal of privilege as an immigrant in America.” The look on people’s faces clearly illustrates that it is odd to think of a white English speaking man as an immigrant. Froude continues to explain even though he came from a similar culture with the same language; as soon as he speaks people begin to judge him. Barley glancing up from his paper of typed notes, Richard Froude gives a brief summary of his life in America. He explains the difficulties of maintaining multiple visas and the anxiety from jumping from job to job. According to Froude, Americans do not understand the complex cycle one must endure to apply for a green card. While Froude believes he was very lucky with the opportunities he had in America, he still does not understand why such a wealthy country treats immigrants so poorly. While Froude clearly explained the difficulties living as an immigrant, the other speaker argued his point much better.
“Buenos tardes,” began Dr. Miguel De La Torre in a cheerful voice. A Professor of Social Ethics, Miguel moved to the United States from Cuba. On April 3, 1961 he was told he had 30 days to leave the country. According to the INS code, he had overstayed his tourist visa and was an undocumented immigrant. “You all probably believe I came to America looking for freedom,” he says to young eyes all set on him. He refutes his statement stating everyone is naive and wrong for thinking so. Miguel De La Torre came to America because of the United States foreign policies in Latin America. He continues to expand on his historical evidence about the country of Cuba and its recent laws. His use of hard evidence convinces his audience that he knows what he is talking about.
Unlike Richard Froude, Miguel De La Torre’s use of pathos captures his audience. He sat forward, with his elbows on his knees, engaging with each individual. Every person felt as though his story was meant for them. Starting off as energetic, his voice soon become more serious. Miguel began to talk about the issue of the border patrol. Immigrants come into this country with the intent of escaping theirs or looking for a new opportunity in ours. The people working the border patrol stated that “brown people will die crossing the border, but it will deter others from crossing later on.” This statement is brutal in the fact that they do not care if immigrants suffer and die in the process of crossing over a single border. The dead and rotten corpses will show the others that their plan of escaping did not work, and that others should not try. Miguel De La Torre emphasizes this point by taking out a wallet size picture of a child; a 14 year old girl. The young Mexican girl was an example of one to show others the consequences of her actions. She tried crossing the border, sprained her ankle, and her corpse was later found by the border patrol half eaten by coyotes. Eyes opened wide and jaws dropped. The thought of a young child dying with no purpose at all stirred the emotions in the room. He passes the photograph around the room. Actually holding the small picture of a young girl smiling before her death is absolutely heart breaking and makes one see firsthand the reality of this situation. Miguel removes his glasses and leans forward; “there is something morally wrong when a 14 year old girl dies in the richest country.”
A young student girl raises her hand; “How do we resolve this issue then?” He replies, “I have absolutely no idea.” It has taken over 100 years to make a mess out of immigration, and it will take longer to resolve. Miguel begins, “I don’t know what to think about immigration, but it is unacceptable how are dealing with it.” This single sentence sums up his entire view on the issue of immigration. He believes that no matter race, gender, or ethnicity, we should be humane to each other. Not supplying immigrants with medications in detention centers is inhumane. Deporting women and kids with no access to resources is inhumane. Making women take birth control because they will probably be raped is even more inhumane. All of these issues need to be solved in order for immigration to go anywhere.
Proven both by Richard Froude and Miguel De La Torre, immigration is a topic that is judged intently by Americans. As Americans, we view immigrants as having lower status than us and as different people overall. We do not look at their reasons behind their choice to move to the United States. Froude and Torre successfully illustrate the struggles immigrants have to overcome just to live in America. They both agree that “the richest country in the world” should be more understanding about their situations. Overall, it is argued that people should be treated with respect, no matter where they come from. With the standing ovation at the end, it shows that the people only agree.
First, the woman presents Richard Froude. As soon as he opens his mouth, the entire audience’s ears open wider, giving their full attention to this scruffy looking man. His strong English accent automatically categorizes him as someone different, as an outsider to American society. With his arms crossed and a coffee in his hand, he begins saying “I have had a great deal of privilege as an immigrant in America.” The look on people’s faces clearly illustrates that it is odd to think of a white English speaking man as an immigrant. Froude continues to explain even though he came from a similar culture with the same language; as soon as he speaks people begin to judge him. Barley glancing up from his paper of typed notes, Richard Froude gives a brief summary of his life in America. He explains the difficulties of maintaining multiple visas and the anxiety from jumping from job to job. According to Froude, Americans do not understand the complex cycle one must endure to apply for a green card. While Froude believes he was very lucky with the opportunities he had in America, he still does not understand why such a wealthy country treats immigrants so poorly. While Froude clearly explained the difficulties living as an immigrant, the other speaker argued his point much better.
“Buenos tardes,” began Dr. Miguel De La Torre in a cheerful voice. A Professor of Social Ethics, Miguel moved to the United States from Cuba. On April 3, 1961 he was told he had 30 days to leave the country. According to the INS code, he had overstayed his tourist visa and was an undocumented immigrant. “You all probably believe I came to America looking for freedom,” he says to young eyes all set on him. He refutes his statement stating everyone is naive and wrong for thinking so. Miguel De La Torre came to America because of the United States foreign policies in Latin America. He continues to expand on his historical evidence about the country of Cuba and its recent laws. His use of hard evidence convinces his audience that he knows what he is talking about.
Unlike Richard Froude, Miguel De La Torre’s use of pathos captures his audience. He sat forward, with his elbows on his knees, engaging with each individual. Every person felt as though his story was meant for them. Starting off as energetic, his voice soon become more serious. Miguel began to talk about the issue of the border patrol. Immigrants come into this country with the intent of escaping theirs or looking for a new opportunity in ours. The people working the border patrol stated that “brown people will die crossing the border, but it will deter others from crossing later on.” This statement is brutal in the fact that they do not care if immigrants suffer and die in the process of crossing over a single border. The dead and rotten corpses will show the others that their plan of escaping did not work, and that others should not try. Miguel De La Torre emphasizes this point by taking out a wallet size picture of a child; a 14 year old girl. The young Mexican girl was an example of one to show others the consequences of her actions. She tried crossing the border, sprained her ankle, and her corpse was later found by the border patrol half eaten by coyotes. Eyes opened wide and jaws dropped. The thought of a young child dying with no purpose at all stirred the emotions in the room. He passes the photograph around the room. Actually holding the small picture of a young girl smiling before her death is absolutely heart breaking and makes one see firsthand the reality of this situation. Miguel removes his glasses and leans forward; “there is something morally wrong when a 14 year old girl dies in the richest country.”
A young student girl raises her hand; “How do we resolve this issue then?” He replies, “I have absolutely no idea.” It has taken over 100 years to make a mess out of immigration, and it will take longer to resolve. Miguel begins, “I don’t know what to think about immigration, but it is unacceptable how are dealing with it.” This single sentence sums up his entire view on the issue of immigration. He believes that no matter race, gender, or ethnicity, we should be humane to each other. Not supplying immigrants with medications in detention centers is inhumane. Deporting women and kids with no access to resources is inhumane. Making women take birth control because they will probably be raped is even more inhumane. All of these issues need to be solved in order for immigration to go anywhere.
Proven both by Richard Froude and Miguel De La Torre, immigration is a topic that is judged intently by Americans. As Americans, we view immigrants as having lower status than us and as different people overall. We do not look at their reasons behind their choice to move to the United States. Froude and Torre successfully illustrate the struggles immigrants have to overcome just to live in America. They both agree that “the richest country in the world” should be more understanding about their situations. Overall, it is argued that people should be treated with respect, no matter where they come from. With the standing ovation at the end, it shows that the people only agree.
Speakers on Immigration Reveal Difficulties with U.S. System, by Chris Kyriazi
The United States of America has always had immigration as one of its cornerstones. In fact, almost every single person living in the U.S. currently was or descended from an immigrant; hence, the nickname of “Melting Pot of the World”. In recent years, the debate on how immigration should be limited has become a key component of politician’s platforms, as well as a topic of many heated debates. Dr. de la Torre and Dr. Richard Froude are two immigrants to the United States within the past 50 years. They came and shared their experiences, but more importantly they revealed how difficult it is to immigrate to this great country.
Dr. Richard Froude first came to America as a student. His original thought was that he would spend some time here and then go back to Great Britain, which is where he is originally from. His first visa, which was a F1 visa, allowed him to finish his schooling, and then when it expired in two years he had to go back to Europe. His education left him with a writing degree. He attempted to find a job that would appeal to his possession of such degree. This was difficult for him, but he finally found work and he got his visa renewed. He went through the cycle of moving from job to job, and renewed visa to renewed visa, until he found himself in L.A. He worked post-production for some movies and television shows for some time, but then his visa completely expired. He then struggled to obtain a professional visa. This would allow him a much longer stay in the United States. But unfortunately, the process needed to acquire a professional visa was very confusing and expensive, involving thousands of dollars. He finally got the visa, but by then he had a girlfriend. They discussed getting married, but they didn’t want the main reason to be assuring his stay in the U.S. Right as they finally agreed that they in fact would get married, Dr. Froude received a letter saying that he qualified for a green card. This said that he was a “permanent resident” of the United States. This is his current status. He is not allowed to vote, nor does he get Social Security or other benefits, but he still has to pay taxes. At the moment, he is trying to attain dual citizenship. He told us a story of how complicated this process is, although he is slowly pushing through it. Throughout the whole talk, it was stressed that he had no language barrier at all, and almost no cultural barrier. Becoming an immigrant to the U.S. would have been much more difficult had he had those hurdles to jump over as well. Take this into consideration, looking at how much he had to go through without the other barriers.
Dr. Richard Froude’s direct description of the immigration process into the United States is that it is a “difficult, confusing, expensive process.” In a way, that is an appeal to pathos. He is doing this by almost subconsciously asking for our pity in how difficult the route of immigration is. He explained how many people come here for a better life, and they have to do so much to achieve that. Dr. Froude also exhibits good timing for this speech. The current spectrum of immigration might not apply specifically to British immigrants, but the topic is still a much-discussed issue. He made his point well with many facts and examples. For instance, when he was discussing the high costs of getting dual citizenship, he used specific numbers. He said that it cost him $3000 just to file all of the papers, and then sometimes you might even need a lawyer to read over everything. Overall, Dr. Richard Froude was a very convincing speaker. He was not very animated, but you could tell he was passionate about this topic, as it had changed his life.
The other presenter was a man named Dr. de la Torre. He had come to the United States when he was a child from Cuba. On April 3, 1961, he was forcibly asked to leave the country. He claimed that the reason why he came to the United States in the first place is because of U.S. foreign policy. He specified that “We didn’t cross no borders, the borders crossed us.” So, in essence, he said that he, and all other Latin American immigrants, belongs here. He supported his argument moderately well, as he talked about the United States’ “gunboat policy” of the past century and how that affected immigrants and Latin America in general. He also discussed how, in 1994, NAFTA ruined every farmer in Mexico; within a year of NAFTA being passed, over one million farmers had lost their farms.
Dr. de la Torres had an especially strong appeal to pathos. He passed around a picture of a fourteen year old girl that died trying to cross the desert into the U.S. because she sprained her ankle. This is founded on the commonplace that (obviously) it is wrong that a young girl should die trying to have a better life. He also explained how the border patrol works mostly on the notion of “deterrent policy”. This is the idea that if you let people die trying to cross the border, it will discourage and frighten other people from trying. Dr. de la Torres’s kairos was also perfect because this is such a huge argument in modern day America.
Both Dr. Froude and Dr. de la Torres arguments were convincing, and their presentation and delivery sound. I look forward to possibly going to listen to people like them talk again.
Dr. Richard Froude first came to America as a student. His original thought was that he would spend some time here and then go back to Great Britain, which is where he is originally from. His first visa, which was a F1 visa, allowed him to finish his schooling, and then when it expired in two years he had to go back to Europe. His education left him with a writing degree. He attempted to find a job that would appeal to his possession of such degree. This was difficult for him, but he finally found work and he got his visa renewed. He went through the cycle of moving from job to job, and renewed visa to renewed visa, until he found himself in L.A. He worked post-production for some movies and television shows for some time, but then his visa completely expired. He then struggled to obtain a professional visa. This would allow him a much longer stay in the United States. But unfortunately, the process needed to acquire a professional visa was very confusing and expensive, involving thousands of dollars. He finally got the visa, but by then he had a girlfriend. They discussed getting married, but they didn’t want the main reason to be assuring his stay in the U.S. Right as they finally agreed that they in fact would get married, Dr. Froude received a letter saying that he qualified for a green card. This said that he was a “permanent resident” of the United States. This is his current status. He is not allowed to vote, nor does he get Social Security or other benefits, but he still has to pay taxes. At the moment, he is trying to attain dual citizenship. He told us a story of how complicated this process is, although he is slowly pushing through it. Throughout the whole talk, it was stressed that he had no language barrier at all, and almost no cultural barrier. Becoming an immigrant to the U.S. would have been much more difficult had he had those hurdles to jump over as well. Take this into consideration, looking at how much he had to go through without the other barriers.
Dr. Richard Froude’s direct description of the immigration process into the United States is that it is a “difficult, confusing, expensive process.” In a way, that is an appeal to pathos. He is doing this by almost subconsciously asking for our pity in how difficult the route of immigration is. He explained how many people come here for a better life, and they have to do so much to achieve that. Dr. Froude also exhibits good timing for this speech. The current spectrum of immigration might not apply specifically to British immigrants, but the topic is still a much-discussed issue. He made his point well with many facts and examples. For instance, when he was discussing the high costs of getting dual citizenship, he used specific numbers. He said that it cost him $3000 just to file all of the papers, and then sometimes you might even need a lawyer to read over everything. Overall, Dr. Richard Froude was a very convincing speaker. He was not very animated, but you could tell he was passionate about this topic, as it had changed his life.
The other presenter was a man named Dr. de la Torre. He had come to the United States when he was a child from Cuba. On April 3, 1961, he was forcibly asked to leave the country. He claimed that the reason why he came to the United States in the first place is because of U.S. foreign policy. He specified that “We didn’t cross no borders, the borders crossed us.” So, in essence, he said that he, and all other Latin American immigrants, belongs here. He supported his argument moderately well, as he talked about the United States’ “gunboat policy” of the past century and how that affected immigrants and Latin America in general. He also discussed how, in 1994, NAFTA ruined every farmer in Mexico; within a year of NAFTA being passed, over one million farmers had lost their farms.
Dr. de la Torres had an especially strong appeal to pathos. He passed around a picture of a fourteen year old girl that died trying to cross the desert into the U.S. because she sprained her ankle. This is founded on the commonplace that (obviously) it is wrong that a young girl should die trying to have a better life. He also explained how the border patrol works mostly on the notion of “deterrent policy”. This is the idea that if you let people die trying to cross the border, it will discourage and frighten other people from trying. Dr. de la Torres’s kairos was also perfect because this is such a huge argument in modern day America.
Both Dr. Froude and Dr. de la Torres arguments were convincing, and their presentation and delivery sound. I look forward to possibly going to listen to people like them talk again.
Condoleeza Rice Defends Post-9/11 Policies, by Monica Duffy
I chose to watch a speech made by Condoleezza Rice, one of our very own University of Denver graduates. This speech was delivered on April 8, 2004 in Washington D.C. in response to the attacks of 9/11. On September 11, 2001 one of the most horrific and devastating attacks in the history of our country was made on the United States. The terrorist group Al-Qaeda hijacked four commercial airline planes and proceeded to crash one of them into the Pentagon and two of them into the World Trade Center in New York. The fourth plane was heroically taken over by the passengers after it had been hijacked but devastatingly still crashed into a field in Pennsylvania. Condoleezza Rice delivered this speech to make the people of our nation aware of the steps that our country was taking to retaliate against this national crisis.
This speech was successful based upon a couple key rhetorical devices used by Rice. She was able to incorporate the use of pathos, logos, and ethos as well as including many other rhetorical strategies such as extrinsic evidence and commonplaces.
One of the main reasons that Condoleezza Rice’s speech was so successful in regards to the American public would be the fact that she addressed commonplaces that applied to basically the entire nation. We, as the American people, were all deeply affected and moved by the tragedy of 9/11. This is something that affected each person in this country personally and emotionally thus creating it a commonplace. The citizens of the United States all have identical or at least extremely similar feelings of anger, shock, and patriotism. This is the commonplace that Rice tried to address. She states, “And as an officer of government on duty that day, I will never forget the sorrow and the anger that I felt, nor will I forget the courage and resilience of the American people, nor the leadership of the President that day. Now we have an opportunity and an obligation to move forward together.” Rice addresses the fact that the American people all feel the same way about the attacks on 9/11. By doing so, she unites her audience together, and is able to create a stronger message towards them. Rice’s argument that “the entire nation believes that what Al Qaeda did to our country was wrong and horrific” is an argument that is already in general circulation. Basically what this means is that Rice is stating the obvious. We know that the country feels this way about 9/11, but by Rice bringing this up in her speech, she is able to successfully add to her persuasion of her audience’s beliefs.
Condoleezza Rice was also able to use logos in her speech to successfully persuade her audience. She uses deductive reasoning to convince the people that the actions that President Bush has taken following 9/11 are the right steps to carry out. She states, “Bold and comprehensive changes are somewhat -- sometimes only possible in the wake of catastrophic events, events which create a new consensus that allows us to transcend old ways of thinking and acting… President Bush is leading the country during this time of crisis and change. He has unified and streamlined our efforts to secure the American homeland by creating the Department of Homeland Security… And he has done this in a way that is consistent with protecting America's cherished civil liberties and with preserving our character as a free and open society.” Rice creates this clear and concise argument by using deductive reasoning. In her first sentence, she makes a broad and general statement that could apply to any kind of situation, not necessarily this one particularly. Then, she takes the time to apply this idea to the issue that she is faced with today. By applying this general idea towards a specific situation, she is delivering her opinion in a way that makes it hard for her audience to argue or disagree with her.
Probably the most effective rhetorical device that Rice used in her speech was pathos. 9/11 was clearly an extremely emotional event for our country. By addressing the emotional side of this speech topic, Rice had an upper hand in convincing her audience of her argument. She states, “So the attacks came. A band of vicious terrorists tried to decapitate our government, destroy our financial system, and break the spirit of America. And as an officer of government on duty that day, I will never forget the sorrow and the anger that I felt, nor will I forget the courage and resilience of the American people, nor the leadership of the President that day.” This statement is filled with phrases that will make the American people feel either distressed, angry, or have some other extreme emotion. She appeal to the audience’s emotions on the subject by using language that is blunt and extreme. When people have emotional connections to a topic or to an idea, they have much more incentive to make that idea their own and imitate that opinion. Rice was very strategic in appealing to the audience’s emotion, especially in regards to such a strong topic such as this one.
Lastly, Rice seems like a credible source and a reliable person to listen to towards her audience. She uses extrinsic evidence to back up what she is saying. Instead of just using opinions and conjectures, she delivers her speech and fills it with facts and information for her listeners. For example, “The Department of Defense issued at least five urgent warnings to U.S. military forces that al-Qaida might be planning a near-term attack, and placed our military forces in certain regions on heightened alert.” Another example could be, “The FAA issued at least five Civil Aviation Security Information Circulars to all U.S. airlines and airport security personnel, including specific warnings about the possibility of hijacking.” Rice uses these facts from different departments of the government to prove that what she is saying is correct. By using extrinsic evidence, she is able to convince her audience of her argument by using actual facts instead of strictly opinion. People in general will always listen to facts over opinion. Facts are facts, so to speak. They are statements that cannot be contradicted because they are true. Whereas, contrary to facts, opinions are ideas that can be changed and argued against. So, by Rice using this extrinsic evidence to further her point, she strengthens her overall argument and ultimately wins the trust of her audience.
Condoleezza Rice creates an extremely compelling and trustworthy argument in the deliverance of her speech on the topic of 9/11. She not only uses logos and pathos to persuade her audience, but she also uses rhetorical devices such as commonplaces and extrinsic evidence to connect with her listeners and win their trust in her beliefs and opinions.
This speech was successful based upon a couple key rhetorical devices used by Rice. She was able to incorporate the use of pathos, logos, and ethos as well as including many other rhetorical strategies such as extrinsic evidence and commonplaces.
One of the main reasons that Condoleezza Rice’s speech was so successful in regards to the American public would be the fact that she addressed commonplaces that applied to basically the entire nation. We, as the American people, were all deeply affected and moved by the tragedy of 9/11. This is something that affected each person in this country personally and emotionally thus creating it a commonplace. The citizens of the United States all have identical or at least extremely similar feelings of anger, shock, and patriotism. This is the commonplace that Rice tried to address. She states, “And as an officer of government on duty that day, I will never forget the sorrow and the anger that I felt, nor will I forget the courage and resilience of the American people, nor the leadership of the President that day. Now we have an opportunity and an obligation to move forward together.” Rice addresses the fact that the American people all feel the same way about the attacks on 9/11. By doing so, she unites her audience together, and is able to create a stronger message towards them. Rice’s argument that “the entire nation believes that what Al Qaeda did to our country was wrong and horrific” is an argument that is already in general circulation. Basically what this means is that Rice is stating the obvious. We know that the country feels this way about 9/11, but by Rice bringing this up in her speech, she is able to successfully add to her persuasion of her audience’s beliefs.
Condoleezza Rice was also able to use logos in her speech to successfully persuade her audience. She uses deductive reasoning to convince the people that the actions that President Bush has taken following 9/11 are the right steps to carry out. She states, “Bold and comprehensive changes are somewhat -- sometimes only possible in the wake of catastrophic events, events which create a new consensus that allows us to transcend old ways of thinking and acting… President Bush is leading the country during this time of crisis and change. He has unified and streamlined our efforts to secure the American homeland by creating the Department of Homeland Security… And he has done this in a way that is consistent with protecting America's cherished civil liberties and with preserving our character as a free and open society.” Rice creates this clear and concise argument by using deductive reasoning. In her first sentence, she makes a broad and general statement that could apply to any kind of situation, not necessarily this one particularly. Then, she takes the time to apply this idea to the issue that she is faced with today. By applying this general idea towards a specific situation, she is delivering her opinion in a way that makes it hard for her audience to argue or disagree with her.
Probably the most effective rhetorical device that Rice used in her speech was pathos. 9/11 was clearly an extremely emotional event for our country. By addressing the emotional side of this speech topic, Rice had an upper hand in convincing her audience of her argument. She states, “So the attacks came. A band of vicious terrorists tried to decapitate our government, destroy our financial system, and break the spirit of America. And as an officer of government on duty that day, I will never forget the sorrow and the anger that I felt, nor will I forget the courage and resilience of the American people, nor the leadership of the President that day.” This statement is filled with phrases that will make the American people feel either distressed, angry, or have some other extreme emotion. She appeal to the audience’s emotions on the subject by using language that is blunt and extreme. When people have emotional connections to a topic or to an idea, they have much more incentive to make that idea their own and imitate that opinion. Rice was very strategic in appealing to the audience’s emotion, especially in regards to such a strong topic such as this one.
Lastly, Rice seems like a credible source and a reliable person to listen to towards her audience. She uses extrinsic evidence to back up what she is saying. Instead of just using opinions and conjectures, she delivers her speech and fills it with facts and information for her listeners. For example, “The Department of Defense issued at least five urgent warnings to U.S. military forces that al-Qaida might be planning a near-term attack, and placed our military forces in certain regions on heightened alert.” Another example could be, “The FAA issued at least five Civil Aviation Security Information Circulars to all U.S. airlines and airport security personnel, including specific warnings about the possibility of hijacking.” Rice uses these facts from different departments of the government to prove that what she is saying is correct. By using extrinsic evidence, she is able to convince her audience of her argument by using actual facts instead of strictly opinion. People in general will always listen to facts over opinion. Facts are facts, so to speak. They are statements that cannot be contradicted because they are true. Whereas, contrary to facts, opinions are ideas that can be changed and argued against. So, by Rice using this extrinsic evidence to further her point, she strengthens her overall argument and ultimately wins the trust of her audience.
Condoleezza Rice creates an extremely compelling and trustworthy argument in the deliverance of her speech on the topic of 9/11. She not only uses logos and pathos to persuade her audience, but she also uses rhetorical devices such as commonplaces and extrinsic evidence to connect with her listeners and win their trust in her beliefs and opinions.
Friday, March 4, 2011
Immigration in a New Light, by Sheridan Sleeper
In a recent on-campus lecture discussing immigration, Dr. Miguel De La Torre of Cuba and Richard Froude of England discussed the issues of immigration as well as the perception of immigrants in the United States. They conferred their experiences of coming to America, addressed the various generalizations made by US citizens about immigrants, and compared their stories for the audience. The audience consisted of students, professors, university staff, and others from outside the DU population. We all sat in a circle to generate a sense of community as well as to foster conversation. The environment was as first awkward however became relaxed as Dr. De La Torre and Froude spoke of their immigration.
Richard Froude spoke first of his arrival in the United States as a student. In 2002, he traveled to Boulder with a two year visa and the hopes of achieving a master’s degree. After receiving his masters, his visa expired which meant he needed another in order to work towards a graduate degree. With each new visa, his desire to live in the United States heighted tremendously. There are many differing types of visas based on conditions and time lengths. Richard began with the F1 Student Visa. The last visa he lived on was the H1B Visa which allowed him to work in Portland. Applying for a visa is an incredibly expensive and lengthy process. They can range from $50 to $2000 in addition to filling out six or seven forms. Many are exceptionally confusing which he pointed out is even more challenging for an immigrant with a language barrier. He and his current wife decided to wed not solely for the purpose of obtaining a green card, but he had few other alternatives. Richard continuously stressed how difficult this process would have been had he not spoken English and come from such comparable culture. He stated, “I have a huge respect for those people and their families,” when referring to language barriers. Richard Froude’s experience was certainly no walk through the park and he had much more in favor of his immigration than most. As spectators, we felt sympathetic to the people who are subjected to such a confusing system standing in the way of their freedom.
Froude was rhetorical in the narration of his story through his emphasis on culture variations and language differences. He stated, “I pay taxes, more than actual citizens, yet I can’t vote or claim social security.” Immigrants pay thousands of dollars to stay in the country whether gaining citizenship or reapplying for visas and green cards. His appeal to pathos in these comments forced the audience to step back and appreciate our natural citizenship as Americans. Most Americans do not understand the process and its difficulty, yet we create biases and hatred towards ethnic groups in our nation. He is persuasive simply in communicating the process of immigrating because it is strenuous and over-whelming. In addition, he depicted to the audience that he is an invisible immigrant in our community. He looks American and blends in racially until his accent is heard in conversation, then he is considered “different”.
The second speaker, Dr. Miguel De La Torre, faced a dissimilar migration. Dr. De La Torre has been a citizen of the United States for over 50 years and was granted citizenship as a child because he was a Cuban resident. During his time of exodus, Cubans were automatically granted naturalization if they were able to reach the US. He began his lecture by stating that he was here because of the US foreign policies in Latin America, not to take advantage of the systems like most Americans assume. This comment was powerful in addressing the immature stereotypes and accusations we place on immigrants in our nation. Furthermore, Dr. De La Torre established his ethos in declaring that, “We didn’t cross no borders, the borders crossed us.” During the Mexican-American War, the US seized hundreds of thousands of acres of land from Mexico to further establish this economic powerhouse of a nation. Our economy is extremely influential in Mexico and due to our significant agriculture industry, we export much of our crops to Mexico. This exportation drives up prices in Mexico. Consequently, the citizens of Mexico who are paid twenty dollars a week must pay US prices for goods which are contributing majorly to the poverty rates. Dr. De La Torre referred to a quote from a man he met while working on the border to support his pathos, “I make $20 a week when the pimple-faced kid over the border at the Golden Arches makes $20 in two or three hours of work.” This is a brutal truth that is unfortunate and devastating because the poverty levels are brought into realization.
One of his major points though that hit the audience hard and perturbed many people was that our country’s attempt at deterring people from crossing the border is by allowing some to pass only to die in the process. He averred, “A sprained ankle or blister is a death sentence when crossing the border.” To affirm the comment he provided an example of a thirteen-year-old girl that died crossing the border after spraining her ankle. Again to add to his pathos, Dr. De La Torre passed a picture of the girl around for everyone to view. The picture made us feel truly sad and genuinely reflect on the process of immigration. Seeing the face of a child, who should have had a long life ahead of her that died because of crossing the border, is upsetting. Personally, I felt extreme anger towards our government and border patrol at this point of the lecture. We treat immigrants, particularly those coming from Mexico, like dogs, which is inappropriate for such a “great nation”.
Dr. De La Torre was much more persuasive in his arguments because he works with immigrants to help in crossing the border safely and successfully whereas Richard Froude talked only of his personal experience. Dr. De La Torre added kairos into his discussion through addressing the major concerns and controversies surrounding our current border patrol. He disagrees with Obama’s stance on border patrol and the minute men. In regards to the US soil being previously owned by Mexico, he stated, “Obama needs to realize the United States builds roads to take cheap labor and natural resources from Mexico and the immigrants are taking the roads we build to find what was taken from them”. We receive fifty to sixty percent of world’s resources for only six percent of the world’s population, according to De La Torre. These facts and astonishing numbers were eye-opening to audience because we are ill-educated about this information.
Overall, the United States is a very selfish nation and the majorities are not willing to give up what we have so others we do not know can eat. Emigrating from another country into the US seems like an impossible process that should be an equal opportunity. In order for nationalism to ensue we must realize these people from other nations are contributing members of our society that deserve respect. The challenges these people face in order to gain American freedom are grueling obstacles that we frequently disregard. Many of us take advantage of our freedom and immigration is going to continue whether we like it or not. We need to be respectful of foreigners in our country and work to tolerate these racial differences that are ever prevalent in our communities. The US is evolving and as citizens of a great nation, we must embrace diversity.
Richard Froude spoke first of his arrival in the United States as a student. In 2002, he traveled to Boulder with a two year visa and the hopes of achieving a master’s degree. After receiving his masters, his visa expired which meant he needed another in order to work towards a graduate degree. With each new visa, his desire to live in the United States heighted tremendously. There are many differing types of visas based on conditions and time lengths. Richard began with the F1 Student Visa. The last visa he lived on was the H1B Visa which allowed him to work in Portland. Applying for a visa is an incredibly expensive and lengthy process. They can range from $50 to $2000 in addition to filling out six or seven forms. Many are exceptionally confusing which he pointed out is even more challenging for an immigrant with a language barrier. He and his current wife decided to wed not solely for the purpose of obtaining a green card, but he had few other alternatives. Richard continuously stressed how difficult this process would have been had he not spoken English and come from such comparable culture. He stated, “I have a huge respect for those people and their families,” when referring to language barriers. Richard Froude’s experience was certainly no walk through the park and he had much more in favor of his immigration than most. As spectators, we felt sympathetic to the people who are subjected to such a confusing system standing in the way of their freedom.
Froude was rhetorical in the narration of his story through his emphasis on culture variations and language differences. He stated, “I pay taxes, more than actual citizens, yet I can’t vote or claim social security.” Immigrants pay thousands of dollars to stay in the country whether gaining citizenship or reapplying for visas and green cards. His appeal to pathos in these comments forced the audience to step back and appreciate our natural citizenship as Americans. Most Americans do not understand the process and its difficulty, yet we create biases and hatred towards ethnic groups in our nation. He is persuasive simply in communicating the process of immigrating because it is strenuous and over-whelming. In addition, he depicted to the audience that he is an invisible immigrant in our community. He looks American and blends in racially until his accent is heard in conversation, then he is considered “different”.
The second speaker, Dr. Miguel De La Torre, faced a dissimilar migration. Dr. De La Torre has been a citizen of the United States for over 50 years and was granted citizenship as a child because he was a Cuban resident. During his time of exodus, Cubans were automatically granted naturalization if they were able to reach the US. He began his lecture by stating that he was here because of the US foreign policies in Latin America, not to take advantage of the systems like most Americans assume. This comment was powerful in addressing the immature stereotypes and accusations we place on immigrants in our nation. Furthermore, Dr. De La Torre established his ethos in declaring that, “We didn’t cross no borders, the borders crossed us.” During the Mexican-American War, the US seized hundreds of thousands of acres of land from Mexico to further establish this economic powerhouse of a nation. Our economy is extremely influential in Mexico and due to our significant agriculture industry, we export much of our crops to Mexico. This exportation drives up prices in Mexico. Consequently, the citizens of Mexico who are paid twenty dollars a week must pay US prices for goods which are contributing majorly to the poverty rates. Dr. De La Torre referred to a quote from a man he met while working on the border to support his pathos, “I make $20 a week when the pimple-faced kid over the border at the Golden Arches makes $20 in two or three hours of work.” This is a brutal truth that is unfortunate and devastating because the poverty levels are brought into realization.
One of his major points though that hit the audience hard and perturbed many people was that our country’s attempt at deterring people from crossing the border is by allowing some to pass only to die in the process. He averred, “A sprained ankle or blister is a death sentence when crossing the border.” To affirm the comment he provided an example of a thirteen-year-old girl that died crossing the border after spraining her ankle. Again to add to his pathos, Dr. De La Torre passed a picture of the girl around for everyone to view. The picture made us feel truly sad and genuinely reflect on the process of immigration. Seeing the face of a child, who should have had a long life ahead of her that died because of crossing the border, is upsetting. Personally, I felt extreme anger towards our government and border patrol at this point of the lecture. We treat immigrants, particularly those coming from Mexico, like dogs, which is inappropriate for such a “great nation”.
Dr. De La Torre was much more persuasive in his arguments because he works with immigrants to help in crossing the border safely and successfully whereas Richard Froude talked only of his personal experience. Dr. De La Torre added kairos into his discussion through addressing the major concerns and controversies surrounding our current border patrol. He disagrees with Obama’s stance on border patrol and the minute men. In regards to the US soil being previously owned by Mexico, he stated, “Obama needs to realize the United States builds roads to take cheap labor and natural resources from Mexico and the immigrants are taking the roads we build to find what was taken from them”. We receive fifty to sixty percent of world’s resources for only six percent of the world’s population, according to De La Torre. These facts and astonishing numbers were eye-opening to audience because we are ill-educated about this information.
Overall, the United States is a very selfish nation and the majorities are not willing to give up what we have so others we do not know can eat. Emigrating from another country into the US seems like an impossible process that should be an equal opportunity. In order for nationalism to ensue we must realize these people from other nations are contributing members of our society that deserve respect. The challenges these people face in order to gain American freedom are grueling obstacles that we frequently disregard. Many of us take advantage of our freedom and immigration is going to continue whether we like it or not. We need to be respectful of foreigners in our country and work to tolerate these racial differences that are ever prevalent in our communities. The US is evolving and as citizens of a great nation, we must embrace diversity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)