I recently attended a forum discussing the harsh realities of our nation’s immigration system. Dr. Miguel De La Torre and Richard Froude, both immigrants, discussed the modern day difficulties of immigrating to this country. Both relied heavily on appeals to ethos, pathos and logos in order to convey their heartfelt stories and pursue their ultimate purpose of immigration reform.
Upon entering the nondescript room tucked away somewhere behind Jazzman’s Café, I noticed the presence of the presenters immediately. I also noticed their clear differences. Richard Froude was a younger man with a prominent English accent. Dr. Miguel De La Torre was an older man with a heavy Spanish accent. Their foreign accents naturally helped build ethos before the formal discussion even began because it was clear that they themselves had gone through the immigration process.
Froude began the discussion by recounting his story of immigration from London. He discussed the difficulties he faced even as someone who immigrated with financial stability, no language barrier and a similar cultural background. As Froude could claim none of these as obstacles to overcome, his discussion relied heavily on an appeal to logos. Froude discussed the antiquated immigration system of “the wealthiest nation in the world” and the numerous forms, procedures and the sheer confusion that he had to overcome. However, he was always certain to remind the audience every so often that what he faced as a native speaker can’t even come close to the challenges that those with language barriers must overcome. He spent most of his allotted time discussing the exasperating process and its intricacies such as having to complete certain requirements by a certain time in order to avoid having to start the entire process over again. This worked well as I could sense that Mr. Froude’s frustration was becoming the audience’s frustration as he described filling out what seemed like each and every document and form that Homeland Security has every produced.
Dr. Miguel De La Torre was the second presenter. He spent hardly any time discussing his expedited immigration process from Cuba and instead chose to devote most of his presentation to the ethical issues surrounding our country’s immigration policies. He expertly crafted a presentation that appealed to ethos, logos and pathos. As the author of many books discussing the realities of our broken immigration system, De La Torre came with a lot of ethos and brought up many good points that appealed to an audience largely filled with those who had limited knowledge on immigration. First, he set the stage by filling us in on what led to today’s complex immigration problem. He took us back to the Polk era when the United States took much of Mexico’s land and resources. Using logos, De La Torre simplified the issue by stating “If you build a road into my country to take my resources, I’m going to follow that road to chase what is rightfully mine.” Such an appeal seemed to be highly effective as even those who know nothing about our nation’s immigration problem could follow the simple yet sound logic De La Torre used in his presentation.
Continuing on with his presentation, De La Torre primarily stayed away from the present day politics of the immigration debate and instead went on to appeal to pathos. This was a very clever move in that by avoiding politics he was able to prevent alienating anyone whose political opinions may vary from his. He discussed the “Deterrent Factor” and how our government has pushed Mexican immigrants to cross in the treacherous mountain ranges and deserts along the southern border, knowing that many would die and thus, deter others from attempting to cross illegally. De La Torre stated that this is the first time since the Jim Crow era in the south that our government has essentially condoned a policy in which some would inevitably die as a result. Clearly appealing to pathos, De La Torre paused, opened his wallet, and displayed a photo of a 13-year-old girl who died after breaking her ankle in the desert while trying to cross the border with her family. He solemnly stated, “There is something morally wrong when a 13 year old girl dies of thirst and hunger in the richest nation in the world.” As the photo was passed around, there was no doubt in my mind that this part of De La Torre’s presentation resonated heavily in the hearts of the audience. After all, what kind of a human being doesn’t share sympathy with most innocent victims of a fatal problem?
Transitioning back to an appeal to logos, De La Torre ended his presentation by dispelling many myths associated with immigration: Immigrants use our public services for free, take American jobs, etc…. By transitioning back and forth between logos and pathos, De La Torre effectively confronted many elements of the complex immigration debate while still mostly shying away from the politics of the issue.
While both De La Torre and Froude effectively presented a call to action of sorts on reforming immigration policy, neither of their presentations was completely flawless. Froude came across as whiney at points as he complained about the extensive forms, fees and background checks he had to deal with as he tried to complete the immigration process. This was a poor attempt at pathos and I believe it somewhat weakened his appeal to logos. In talking to fellow attendees after the lecture, the general consensus was that it should be expected that prospective immigrants have to deal with such procedural hurdles because immigration is a complex undertaking. De La Torre’s presentation could have been stronger as well. Although facing limited time, De La Torre failed to suggest immigration policy changes and instead only presented us with a call to action. When asked by a member of the audience what the US must do to correct the insufficient system, De La Torre seemed to take the easy way out by plainly responding, “This problem has taken over 100 years to create and will take over 100 years to solve.” Also, De La Torre never once recognized the fact that America can be a great land of opportunity and instead chose to speak of the racism he sometimes faces.
Overall, De La Torre and Froude did a good job of sharing their compelling perspectives on immigrating to America. Their respective passions could be felt by the audience through the utilization of appeals to ethos, pathos and logos. From what I could tell, most who attended the forum left with a greater sense that something has to be done about our broken immigration system.
No comments:
Post a Comment