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.
Showing posts with label immigration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label immigration. Show all posts
Sunday, March 6, 2011
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.
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.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
DU Panel on Immigration Critiques System, by Cam Seglem
Have you ever thought about what it would be like to immigrate to another country and all the hardships of becoming a citizen in that country? How about trying to get into another country illegally? These are problems that many people experience all too often. A lot of the hardships are due the lack of help people receive in such situations.
These were the issues that were addressed in suite 1800 in Driscol hall on Thursday Feburary 10th in a small intimate group of people at the University of Denver. We were in a small circular group with no more than 20 people. After the introductory remarks the two rhetor’s were introduced, being Miguel de la Torre and Richard Froude. Richard Froude being more so concerned with the obtaining of a green card in America and the difficulties of that and Miguel de la Torre is an activist fighting for a better boarder system and to help illegal immigrants. This event was held as an information session more so than an open debate about Immigration and boarder control of our country. It touched on aspects of foreign policy and local policies for things such as obtaining work visas, green cards, citizenship and the reason why so many illegal immigrants especially from Mexico enter our country. Richard Froude had a very interesting story to tell the group however, Miguel de la Torre’s segment was much more provocative in its material.
One such man who tries to help these illegal immigrants is Dr. Miguel de la Torre. He is from Cuba and is all too familiar with our countries immigration policies and the hardships that come with them. On April 3, 1961 he was asked to leave the country or face being deported because his work visa had expired. He works for a group called “No more Deaths”, in which they support immigrants who cross our border illegally. They are not assisting these people to cross our boarders illegally but, instead to give them resources such as food and water so that they don’t die. Miguel is an activist that is trying to change the way our boarders, especially on the American side, are handled and to stop the unneeded deaths. No country is perfect however; there is no need for deaths to occur to people who are trying to better themselves and their families.
In a Country that uses 60-65% percent of the world’s resources for only about 6% of the world’s population, it is no wonder that people are trying to get into our country any way they can. However, as stated by Dr. Miguel this is not the only reason why there has been an influx in people trying to enter our country. Due to globalization, free trade, and certain US policies the United States has been able to subsidize goods that Latin American countries produce at a much lower price. These prices are so much cheaper that people like farmers, cannot compete in the market. Think of it this way, if the skill set you had developed your entire life suddenly became overshadowed by the most powerful country in the world, what would you do? Your profession and product you make becomes useless because no one wants your goods for the price you have to sell them for because they can get the same product for much cheaper. This leaves a person with very few choices, and in the case of Latin Americans, especially Mexicans, the choice becomes obvious. Get into the country that has taken your business and start to work and make a living there.
When Dr. de La Torre presented our group with this scenario it invoked a lot of different emotions. Especially when he said that there have been over 3600 deaths trying to cross our boarder and this number could easily be underestimated by 60%. However, when he was asked for his personal opinion on how to fix these problems he had no solution. This was quite disappointing because he grasped the attention of the entire audience through his pathos but, didn’t deliver a final all inclusive solution.
I do see the flaws in our system, however it is entirely too complicated of a system for a quick fix. The first steps are to remove the inhumane aspects used on border patrol, deportation, and immigration. The unprovoked beatings of illegal immigrants cannot continue to occur, and the repercussions of these beatings should be enforced. It’s impossible to please everyone however this doesn’t mean that we cannot protect people’s personal safety. In a world where being internationally conscious because of the continued growth of globalization can be seen everywhere there will have to be changes in certain policies or we will never be able to coexist being free of fear or racial tensions.
These were the issues that were addressed in suite 1800 in Driscol hall on Thursday Feburary 10th in a small intimate group of people at the University of Denver. We were in a small circular group with no more than 20 people. After the introductory remarks the two rhetor’s were introduced, being Miguel de la Torre and Richard Froude. Richard Froude being more so concerned with the obtaining of a green card in America and the difficulties of that and Miguel de la Torre is an activist fighting for a better boarder system and to help illegal immigrants. This event was held as an information session more so than an open debate about Immigration and boarder control of our country. It touched on aspects of foreign policy and local policies for things such as obtaining work visas, green cards, citizenship and the reason why so many illegal immigrants especially from Mexico enter our country. Richard Froude had a very interesting story to tell the group however, Miguel de la Torre’s segment was much more provocative in its material.
One such man who tries to help these illegal immigrants is Dr. Miguel de la Torre. He is from Cuba and is all too familiar with our countries immigration policies and the hardships that come with them. On April 3, 1961 he was asked to leave the country or face being deported because his work visa had expired. He works for a group called “No more Deaths”, in which they support immigrants who cross our border illegally. They are not assisting these people to cross our boarders illegally but, instead to give them resources such as food and water so that they don’t die. Miguel is an activist that is trying to change the way our boarders, especially on the American side, are handled and to stop the unneeded deaths. No country is perfect however; there is no need for deaths to occur to people who are trying to better themselves and their families.
In a Country that uses 60-65% percent of the world’s resources for only about 6% of the world’s population, it is no wonder that people are trying to get into our country any way they can. However, as stated by Dr. Miguel this is not the only reason why there has been an influx in people trying to enter our country. Due to globalization, free trade, and certain US policies the United States has been able to subsidize goods that Latin American countries produce at a much lower price. These prices are so much cheaper that people like farmers, cannot compete in the market. Think of it this way, if the skill set you had developed your entire life suddenly became overshadowed by the most powerful country in the world, what would you do? Your profession and product you make becomes useless because no one wants your goods for the price you have to sell them for because they can get the same product for much cheaper. This leaves a person with very few choices, and in the case of Latin Americans, especially Mexicans, the choice becomes obvious. Get into the country that has taken your business and start to work and make a living there.
When Dr. de La Torre presented our group with this scenario it invoked a lot of different emotions. Especially when he said that there have been over 3600 deaths trying to cross our boarder and this number could easily be underestimated by 60%. However, when he was asked for his personal opinion on how to fix these problems he had no solution. This was quite disappointing because he grasped the attention of the entire audience through his pathos but, didn’t deliver a final all inclusive solution.
I do see the flaws in our system, however it is entirely too complicated of a system for a quick fix. The first steps are to remove the inhumane aspects used on border patrol, deportation, and immigration. The unprovoked beatings of illegal immigrants cannot continue to occur, and the repercussions of these beatings should be enforced. It’s impossible to please everyone however this doesn’t mean that we cannot protect people’s personal safety. In a world where being internationally conscious because of the continued growth of globalization can be seen everywhere there will have to be changes in certain policies or we will never be able to coexist being free of fear or racial tensions.
Friday, February 18, 2011
A View into the Flaws of U.S. Immigration Laws, by Clay Danielsen
A table scattered with bite-sized cupcakes and informational pages greeted us as we arrived. A small intimate circle of no more than 20 people fit snugly in suite 1800 in the Driscol Bridge. We all gathered to hear two speakers give their tales of immigrating to the United States, and their thoughts on current immigration reform. Speaking was Richard Froude, a British immigrant in his eight year in the states currently applying for citizenship, joining Mr. Froude was Dr. Miguel de la Torre, an illegal immigrant from Cuba and now current United States citizen. Mr. Froude began the festivities with a quick recounting of the trials and tribulations of attempting to navigate living in America from visa to visa and attempting to gain duel citizenship. The keynote speaker was Dr. Miguel, who briefly touched on his experiences of immigrating, but focused more on highlighting the flaws with the current U.S. immigration policies. What ensued over the next 30 or so minutes was a very opinioned, radical, and one-sided presentation on the current front-page topic. With everything that happened in Arizona, and the new proposed immigration laws for Colorado, current discussions on immigration reform are obviously extremely relevant. The rhetorical situation was ideal, but it was Dr. Miguel’s emotional delivery that made his speech so persuasive.
His ability to create an emotional connection with the audience was what kept his speech poignant, but it was his ethos that grabbed lured the audience in. His credibility on the subject was never in question; the MC of the event introduced him as a very special quest speaker with vast knowledge and experience on the subject at hand. Not only was he himself an immigrant, but also he has published a book showcasing the tragic stories of numerous Mexicans in their attempt to illegally cross the boarder, and is on the board of the non-profit No More Deaths, an organization that frequents boarder towns and provides immigrants making the journey to the U.S. with food, water, and medical supplies. He didn’t simply rest on his laurels, and he made sure throughout the speech reference details from either his own experiences, or the experiences of the many immigrants he has interviewed. He is also a professor of ethics, which again gives him further authority but he also uses various ethical frameworks to structure his argument.
After all of the introductions, by both the MC and himself, Dr. Miguel began his speech by stating, “People who think that immigrants come to this country for a better life are wrong. They come to regain the natural resources that were stolen from us.” From there he gave his speech, a wonderful combination of deeply emotional stories and powerful fact and data. This is where many rhetors stumble, by focusing too heavily on either emotion or empirical data. Dr, Miguel’s was full of fluid transition from one to another. About half way through the speech, after saying that one of the main problems with getting support for immigration reform is that it Americans are too disconnected with the fact that these are real people not just statistics, he took out a picture of a 14-year old girl who died trying to cross the boarder to join her family. The picture went around the circle, and every single person starred into the eyes of a cute young girl who feel victim to what Dr. Miguel called the countries most inhumane and unethical law. He continued by saying that the current immigration law is the only American law since the Jim Crow Laws that use death as a deterrent, which is ethically and fundamentally wrong.
Dr. Miguel also backed up his argument with expressive empirical data. Throughout his speech he made sure to augment all of his key points by either creating an intense emotional connection or using persuasive empirical evidence. After his introductory sentence claiming that immigrants are coming to collect their stolen resources, he supplemented that claim by showcasing that “60%-65% of the worlds resources are used by Americans, who make up only 6% of the population.” In the midst of the conversation about the 14-year old girl, he again used empirical data to enhance his claims that of the inhumanity of immigration laws. He stated that “3600 people die (every year) trying to cross the boarder and it is thought to be underestimated by %60 due to not counting deaths on the Mexican side, and all of the bodies never found.” His use of data points created the necessary balance between empirical evidence and pathos.
Dr. Miguel’s combination of empirical evidence and his ability to emotionally connect the audience to the issues of immigration made his speech very persuasive and thus extremely effective. There was occasionally a flaw in his ability to create a unified argument, but he made up for his lapses in logos by his mastery in his use of the ethos and pathos.
His ability to create an emotional connection with the audience was what kept his speech poignant, but it was his ethos that grabbed lured the audience in. His credibility on the subject was never in question; the MC of the event introduced him as a very special quest speaker with vast knowledge and experience on the subject at hand. Not only was he himself an immigrant, but also he has published a book showcasing the tragic stories of numerous Mexicans in their attempt to illegally cross the boarder, and is on the board of the non-profit No More Deaths, an organization that frequents boarder towns and provides immigrants making the journey to the U.S. with food, water, and medical supplies. He didn’t simply rest on his laurels, and he made sure throughout the speech reference details from either his own experiences, or the experiences of the many immigrants he has interviewed. He is also a professor of ethics, which again gives him further authority but he also uses various ethical frameworks to structure his argument.
After all of the introductions, by both the MC and himself, Dr. Miguel began his speech by stating, “People who think that immigrants come to this country for a better life are wrong. They come to regain the natural resources that were stolen from us.” From there he gave his speech, a wonderful combination of deeply emotional stories and powerful fact and data. This is where many rhetors stumble, by focusing too heavily on either emotion or empirical data. Dr, Miguel’s was full of fluid transition from one to another. About half way through the speech, after saying that one of the main problems with getting support for immigration reform is that it Americans are too disconnected with the fact that these are real people not just statistics, he took out a picture of a 14-year old girl who died trying to cross the boarder to join her family. The picture went around the circle, and every single person starred into the eyes of a cute young girl who feel victim to what Dr. Miguel called the countries most inhumane and unethical law. He continued by saying that the current immigration law is the only American law since the Jim Crow Laws that use death as a deterrent, which is ethically and fundamentally wrong.
Dr. Miguel also backed up his argument with expressive empirical data. Throughout his speech he made sure to augment all of his key points by either creating an intense emotional connection or using persuasive empirical evidence. After his introductory sentence claiming that immigrants are coming to collect their stolen resources, he supplemented that claim by showcasing that “60%-65% of the worlds resources are used by Americans, who make up only 6% of the population.” In the midst of the conversation about the 14-year old girl, he again used empirical data to enhance his claims that of the inhumanity of immigration laws. He stated that “3600 people die (every year) trying to cross the boarder and it is thought to be underestimated by %60 due to not counting deaths on the Mexican side, and all of the bodies never found.” His use of data points created the necessary balance between empirical evidence and pathos.
Dr. Miguel’s combination of empirical evidence and his ability to emotionally connect the audience to the issues of immigration made his speech very persuasive and thus extremely effective. There was occasionally a flaw in his ability to create a unified argument, but he made up for his lapses in logos by his mastery in his use of the ethos and pathos.
His ability to create an emotional connection with the audience was what kept his speech poignant, but it was his ethos that grabbed lured the audience in. His credibility on the subject was never in question; the MC of the event introduced him as a very special quest speaker with vast knowledge and experience on the subject at hand. Not only was he himself an immigrant, but also he has published a book showcasing the tragic stories of numerous Mexicans in their attempt to illegally cross the boarder, and is on the board of the non-profit No More Deaths, an organization that frequents boarder towns and provides immigrants making the journey to the U.S. with food, water, and medical supplies. He didn’t simply rest on his laurels, and he made sure throughout the speech reference details from either his own experiences, or the experiences of the many immigrants he has interviewed. He is also a professor of ethics, which again gives him further authority but he also uses various ethical frameworks to structure his argument.
After all of the introductions, by both the MC and himself, Dr. Miguel began his speech by stating, “People who think that immigrants come to this country for a better life are wrong. They come to regain the natural resources that were stolen from us.” From there he gave his speech, a wonderful combination of deeply emotional stories and powerful fact and data. This is where many rhetors stumble, by focusing too heavily on either emotion or empirical data. Dr, Miguel’s was full of fluid transition from one to another. About half way through the speech, after saying that one of the main problems with getting support for immigration reform is that it Americans are too disconnected with the fact that these are real people not just statistics, he took out a picture of a 14-year old girl who died trying to cross the boarder to join her family. The picture went around the circle, and every single person starred into the eyes of a cute young girl who feel victim to what Dr. Miguel called the countries most inhumane and unethical law. He continued by saying that the current immigration law is the only American law since the Jim Crow Laws that use death as a deterrent, which is ethically and fundamentally wrong.
Dr. Miguel also backed up his argument with expressive empirical data. Throughout his speech he made sure to augment all of his key points by either creating an intense emotional connection or using persuasive empirical evidence. After his introductory sentence claiming that immigrants are coming to collect their stolen resources, he supplemented that claim by showcasing that “60%-65% of the worlds resources are used by Americans, who make up only 6% of the population.” In the midst of the conversation about the 14-year old girl, he again used empirical data to enhance his claims that of the inhumanity of immigration laws. He stated that “3600 people die (every year) trying to cross the boarder and it is thought to be underestimated by %60 due to not counting deaths on the Mexican side, and all of the bodies never found.” His use of data points created the necessary balance between empirical evidence and pathos.
Dr. Miguel’s combination of empirical evidence and his ability to emotionally connect the audience to the issues of immigration made his speech very persuasive and thus extremely effective. There was occasionally a flaw in his ability to create a unified argument, but he made up for his lapses in logos by his mastery in his use of the ethos and pathos.
His ability to create an emotional connection with the audience was what kept his speech poignant, but it was his ethos that grabbed lured the audience in. His credibility on the subject was never in question; the MC of the event introduced him as a very special quest speaker with vast knowledge and experience on the subject at hand. Not only was he himself an immigrant, but also he has published a book showcasing the tragic stories of numerous Mexicans in their attempt to illegally cross the boarder, and is on the board of the non-profit No More Deaths, an organization that frequents boarder towns and provides immigrants making the journey to the U.S. with food, water, and medical supplies. He didn’t simply rest on his laurels, and he made sure throughout the speech reference details from either his own experiences, or the experiences of the many immigrants he has interviewed. He is also a professor of ethics, which again gives him further authority but he also uses various ethical frameworks to structure his argument.
After all of the introductions, by both the MC and himself, Dr. Miguel began his speech by stating, “People who think that immigrants come to this country for a better life are wrong. They come to regain the natural resources that were stolen from us.” From there he gave his speech, a wonderful combination of deeply emotional stories and powerful fact and data. This is where many rhetors stumble, by focusing too heavily on either emotion or empirical data. Dr, Miguel’s was full of fluid transition from one to another. About half way through the speech, after saying that one of the main problems with getting support for immigration reform is that it Americans are too disconnected with the fact that these are real people not just statistics, he took out a picture of a 14-year old girl who died trying to cross the boarder to join her family. The picture went around the circle, and every single person starred into the eyes of a cute young girl who feel victim to what Dr. Miguel called the countries most inhumane and unethical law. He continued by saying that the current immigration law is the only American law since the Jim Crow Laws that use death as a deterrent, which is ethically and fundamentally wrong.
Dr. Miguel also backed up his argument with expressive empirical data. Throughout his speech he made sure to augment all of his key points by either creating an intense emotional connection or using persuasive empirical evidence. After his introductory sentence claiming that immigrants are coming to collect their stolen resources, he supplemented that claim by showcasing that “60%-65% of the worlds resources are used by Americans, who make up only 6% of the population.” In the midst of the conversation about the 14-year old girl, he again used empirical data to enhance his claims that of the inhumanity of immigration laws. He stated that “3600 people die (every year) trying to cross the boarder and it is thought to be underestimated by %60 due to not counting deaths on the Mexican side, and all of the bodies never found.” His use of data points created the necessary balance between empirical evidence and pathos.
Dr. Miguel’s combination of empirical evidence and his ability to emotionally connect the audience to the issues of immigration made his speech very persuasive and thus extremely effective. There was occasionally a flaw in his ability to create a unified argument, but he made up for his lapses in logos by his mastery in his use of the ethos and pathos.
Immigration in a New Light, by Alice Xu
I went to a conversation on Thursday, February 10. The topic is about immigration. The reason why I am interested in this topic is because I am an international student here in the U.S.. After I graduate I have to facing the same problem with Dr. Miguel De La Torre and Richard Froude, which is stay here or go back to my home country.
Froude is from England. He came to the U.S. to visit when he was young, and he also visit Denver to found out if there were anything he wanted to do there. Finally, he finished his master degree in Colorado University Boulder campus. After he got his master degree, he went to university of Denver to study Theology.
Froude said, F1 visa which is student visa only last for a specific years for a student. Therefore, after he graduate he has to have a job or get married. Froude wanted to live in LA, but he knew that should be so different from England. Then he found a job as a productor of TV shows in LA. Therefore, he got the working visa and his employer pay for the application. However, this time he has to do the whole process by himself, because nobody would tell him what to do and how to do. After several years, Froude met his wife, who is an india, but move to the U.S. when she was one year old. At that time, his visa just got expired. Therefore, he has to do something. Get marry with his girlfriend, or back to England. He knew marriage is a serious problem, so he cannot get marry because of the visa. Therefore, he began to work in different company as different worker, just for the working visa.
On 2007, he finally married his girlfriend, and he felt that was a right decision. After he got married, he needed to apply a green card. However, he really did not know how to apply it. So he found a lot websites about how to apply green card, but those won’t help. Then he made an appointment with NSCIS. This appointment worth three thousands dollars just for 10 years green card. Also, it was just a permanent one, so it could be take away anytime. Because the application fee is so expensive, therefore he and his wife take it very seriously. At the day that they made an appointment to apply visa, denver was snowy heavily. They thought the department should be closed at that day, but they were not sure. Therefore, they tried to catch the bus to the department. They waited for half an hour but no bus come. Then they realize everything was closed that day. However, they still afraid that the NSCIS was open. Therefore, they drove their small car in dangerous situation to apply their green card. When they arrived, there were a lot people standing outside the building. They realized that the departement also closed that day. He said, everyone knew that the place should be closed, but they just wanted to make sure their money was still useful for the appointment.
Froude’s speech made the listener felt that to stay in a foreign country is a very hard thing in the life. His experience made me felt that I still have a rough future need to overcome. Now is just a beginning.
Immigration Panel Sheds New Outlook on the West, by Tanner Krall
Immigration is an issue some see as a serious problem in the United States. Immigrants form Mexico and Central America come to our country to take jobs, utilize social security, and take advantage of welfare. Now this is not the belief of all Americans, just a general stereotype that some have chosen to adapt. However, Dr. Miguel De La Torre, a professor of Social Ethics, Iliff School of Theology, is a Cuban professor at the University of Denver who has written numerous books and has first hand experience on the issue of immigration. He himself has been to the deserts of Arizona and helped countless immigrants make the long journey to the U.S. He has a passion for defending the rights of Latino people and feels that they deserve to have what is rightfully there, returned to them.
So what does Dr. De La Torre feel the people of Mexico and Cuba and all Central America have the right to? Hundreds of years ago, The United States went to war with Mexico, or what is now the western portion of the United States that once was Mexico. After the war, The Unites States seized huge portions of Mexican land, perhaps some of the most plentiful land in the whole country. Not only did the U.S. expose them for their resources, but also for cheap labor. Much of the Unites States wealth and power comes from the west in areas such as California where gold was discovered, Texas for oil, and the entire west coast used for shipping. Without these resources, the U.S. never would have been so successful, Dr. De La Torre is here to ensure that this wealth is restored to its rightful people.
Being an immigrant from Cuba, Dr. De La Torre, is lucky to be here in the United States. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, he was allowed to leave Cuba and come to America without too much hassle. Whether he is happy to have lived here for nearly 50 years is hard to tell given that he speaks of America like a villain. Perhaps a better word to describe his feelings would be a bully, someone who is stronger and more powerful who takes what they want. His tone is not angry, but strong, he is upset about something. What he is upset about, in addition to how the U.S. took the land from Mexico many years ago, is how immigration has turned into a way to kill off those crossing the border. He is upset about the 13-year-old girl who died of thirst and hunger in the Arizona desert trying to make it to America. He is upset about the women who are raped on their way to America and the over 12,000 immigrants who die in both the U.S. and Mexico.
Dr. De La Torre is on a mission, a mission to ensure the safe passage of Mexican immigrants to the U.S. In order to complete this task, he has spent weeks at a time in the very same deserts where these thousands of people die every year. With the help of a team of volunteers, they go into the desert of Arizona and walk the very same trails immigrants from Mexico walk every year. Carrying food and water, the aid immigrants trying to make it to America. Often times they encounter the unfortunate, one of those 12,000 who didn’t quite make it and perish in the sun. And if the sun doesn’t kill you, then the snakes, mountain lions, and other various creatures will. What he asks is “How is it that people are dying in the richest country in the world, the richest country in the world?” As the crowd sits in silent for s moment he passes around a picture of a little girl, the same girl who at the age of 13 died trying to come to America looking for a better life.
Although he is not a Mexican immigrant himself, he does fight for the people of Mexico as well as all people of Central America. He not only fights to keep them alive as they roam the desert, but he fights for what he feels is fair. He doesn’t directly say it, but it is easy to pick up on what he is trying to say. That is that, if the U.S. took all this land from the Mexican people years ago, and they export them for their cheap labor, don’t they deserve some of that wealth? The reason Mexico is so poor is because the U.S. took all their resources to gain its own wealth and power. No wonder much of Mexico lives in poverty and its people die trying to make it to America. In Dr. De La Torres’ mind, when Mexican people immigrate back to the U.S. they are actually coming home.
The title of the segment was “Immigration In a New Light,” which is suiting because that is how I saw it. Whether good or bad, after attending the seminar I learned how one becomes a U.S. citizen, along with how one loses all their land, resources, and power to another country. The seminar was very educational on how difficult it is to become a citizen of this country, both legally and illegally. Dr. De La Torre is an ambitious man who is a savior to people south of the border, whether he is wrong or not is up to you.
So what does Dr. De La Torre feel the people of Mexico and Cuba and all Central America have the right to? Hundreds of years ago, The United States went to war with Mexico, or what is now the western portion of the United States that once was Mexico. After the war, The Unites States seized huge portions of Mexican land, perhaps some of the most plentiful land in the whole country. Not only did the U.S. expose them for their resources, but also for cheap labor. Much of the Unites States wealth and power comes from the west in areas such as California where gold was discovered, Texas for oil, and the entire west coast used for shipping. Without these resources, the U.S. never would have been so successful, Dr. De La Torre is here to ensure that this wealth is restored to its rightful people.
Being an immigrant from Cuba, Dr. De La Torre, is lucky to be here in the United States. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, he was allowed to leave Cuba and come to America without too much hassle. Whether he is happy to have lived here for nearly 50 years is hard to tell given that he speaks of America like a villain. Perhaps a better word to describe his feelings would be a bully, someone who is stronger and more powerful who takes what they want. His tone is not angry, but strong, he is upset about something. What he is upset about, in addition to how the U.S. took the land from Mexico many years ago, is how immigration has turned into a way to kill off those crossing the border. He is upset about the 13-year-old girl who died of thirst and hunger in the Arizona desert trying to make it to America. He is upset about the women who are raped on their way to America and the over 12,000 immigrants who die in both the U.S. and Mexico.
Dr. De La Torre is on a mission, a mission to ensure the safe passage of Mexican immigrants to the U.S. In order to complete this task, he has spent weeks at a time in the very same deserts where these thousands of people die every year. With the help of a team of volunteers, they go into the desert of Arizona and walk the very same trails immigrants from Mexico walk every year. Carrying food and water, the aid immigrants trying to make it to America. Often times they encounter the unfortunate, one of those 12,000 who didn’t quite make it and perish in the sun. And if the sun doesn’t kill you, then the snakes, mountain lions, and other various creatures will. What he asks is “How is it that people are dying in the richest country in the world, the richest country in the world?” As the crowd sits in silent for s moment he passes around a picture of a little girl, the same girl who at the age of 13 died trying to come to America looking for a better life.
Although he is not a Mexican immigrant himself, he does fight for the people of Mexico as well as all people of Central America. He not only fights to keep them alive as they roam the desert, but he fights for what he feels is fair. He doesn’t directly say it, but it is easy to pick up on what he is trying to say. That is that, if the U.S. took all this land from the Mexican people years ago, and they export them for their cheap labor, don’t they deserve some of that wealth? The reason Mexico is so poor is because the U.S. took all their resources to gain its own wealth and power. No wonder much of Mexico lives in poverty and its people die trying to make it to America. In Dr. De La Torres’ mind, when Mexican people immigrate back to the U.S. they are actually coming home.
The title of the segment was “Immigration In a New Light,” which is suiting because that is how I saw it. Whether good or bad, after attending the seminar I learned how one becomes a U.S. citizen, along with how one loses all their land, resources, and power to another country. The seminar was very educational on how difficult it is to become a citizen of this country, both legally and illegally. Dr. De La Torre is an ambitious man who is a savior to people south of the border, whether he is wrong or not is up to you.
The Rhetoric of Immigration, by George Cooper
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.
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.
"Immigration in a New Light", by Adam Pettyes
Walking into the room, there were chairs laid out in a circular pattern; very similar to how an anonymous meeting would look. I was immediately concerned I was in the wrong place. It turned out, I wasn’t.
On February 10, 2011, I attended a presentation on immigration. The title of the event was called “Immigration in a New Light”. Giving this presentation was two immigrants who came to America for different reasons. There was also a third person that contributed as well. She introduced the two speakers and gave a short introduction of what this event was about. While walking to the location, I expected a large presentation setting. I had expected a stage and possibly a PowerPoint as well. This was the opposite of what happened. The speakers did not stand up. They were not on a stage. They were a few feet away in the same type of chair I was sitting in. Only 28 people attended this event. This type of set up had a different effect on me than a large auditorium would. I felt closer to the speakers. It was more of a personal story telling than a boring, distant feeling lecture. This was a more persuasive and effective setting.
The first speaker was Richard Froude from England. He told his story of how he came to the United States and the troubles he faced along the way. He came to the United States in 2002 to start his master’s degree in Boulder. In order to do this he needed to apply for his first of many visas. He went on to explain the struggling events that occurred while applying for all of his visas and the high prices of each. He commented on the complicity of immigrating to the United States. He explained, “I am from a place with a very similar culture and I speak the same language. I can’t imagine coming here and not being able to understand anyone and having to figure everything out by myself.” This shows that he knows what it is like to go through this, but even he can’t imagine the difficulty of navigating through these unknown situations when the language is completely foreign. Though this story was very interesting, I did not think it was very persuasive. The message was very vague. It was very descriptive, but the purpose of telling it was not made entirely clear.
The second presenter, Dr. Miguel De La Torre, did a much better job at making his position clear. Dr. La Torre is an immigrant from Cuba. He is a professor of Social Ethics at Illif School of Theology and is also the author of the book “Trails of Hope and Terror”. This alone builds his ethos. He knows what he is talking about and this gives the audience a reason to listen. Instead of talking about his personal experiences right away Dr. La Torre began by giving a brief history lesson about Mexico and Cuba. He explained that much of the United States used to be Mexico. When looked at this way, he argues that Mexican’s have a right to this land. He said that Mexican’s use the fraise, “We didn’t cross the border. The border crossed us.” This gives a pathetic appeal and a logistic appeal as well. Dr. La Torre attempts to create a connection between his audience and the Mexican people by explaining their situation differently than many U.S. citizens would normally hear it. Dr. La Torre mentioned NAFTA and how this operation caused farmers in Mexico to shut their farms down and caused larger farms to become rich. NAFTA is a free trade agreement between Canada, Mexico and the United States. Though this has allowed for easier trade between countries, it has put many Mexican farmers out of business. He used these examples to show that the United States has taken much of the wealth from the Mexican people. His message to his audience was, “what do we owe the people of Latin America?” In his mind, a portion of the wealth of this country belongs to the people of Latin America. So, immigrants who cross the Mexican border are not trespassing, they are claiming what is rightfully theirs. This was one of his major claims.
Because of Dr. La Torre’s passion, he also works with a non-profit organization whose mission is to help immigrants crossing the border. He volunteers with his youth group giving immigrants food and water. Dr. La Torre uses his experiences to create his most effective rhetorical appeal, the appeal to pathos. Dr. La Torre passed around a picture of a 13-year-old girl who died in the desert while trying to come to the U.S. She was inside the United States border when she died. Dr. La Torre says that there is “something morally wrong if a 13-year-old girl could die of thirst and hunger in the richest country in the world.” This shows the irony and also the tragic truth of events that occur inside our borders. This example sticks with many people because of the common place in our culture. No one wants to see innocent children die. Children are precious to us and many people have children of their own. Seeing the picture of the girl triggers emotional ties within each person. He begins his argument by showing this picture to get the audience on his side and then goes on to explain all of the terrible things that can happen to immigrants while traveling to their new homes. He uses more personal stories to back up his claims. This is effective and causes the audience to believe him and his judgments.
Though Dr. La Torre did a better job of expressing himself and his opinions, he did not have a solution to this problem. His entire speech was for the sole purpose of informing his audience of the problems that are occurring and to get his audience on his side. In this regard, he did a great job. I was expecting a proposal for a solution, but Dr. La Torre did make a valid point when saying that this problem has taken hundreds of years to develop and it could take about a hundred years to be resolved. With his objective of informing his audience, Dr. La Torre successfully portrayed the issues regarding immigration into the United States. This event was informative and gave different views on immigration than would normally be heard in this country. The arguments were persuasive for the most part and Dr. La Torre gave many elaborate stories and evidence for the accusations he was making. Overall, this experience was educational and interesting.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Immigration in a New Light, by Jenn Etzel
On Thursday February 10 I attended the lecture, “Immigration in a New Light”. The discussion took place in Driscoll and was in the form of a small circle discussion with about 12-15 people. Kristen Andersen, who is the University of Denver Chaplain Assistant, ran the lecture. Andersen began the discussion by saying that immigration is not just a political issue, but it is also a moral issue. She then introduced the two speakers, Dr. Miguel De La Torre and Richard Froude, and then Richard Froude took the floor first to tell his story followed by De La Torre.
Dr. Miguel De La Torre was born in Cuba and came to the U.S. as a refugee on April 3, 1961 at the age of six. He answered the question, why do you think I came? To this he said, “some might say to take services or steal, but all of these are naive and wrong.” The real answer is that he was forced by U.S. foreign policies of Latin America. This way of asking his audience a question, De La Torre clarified why he came to the U.S. He also knew that some of the people he may be speaking to could think that he came to the U.S., “to take services or steal.” By including this as part of his answer he is speaking to all audiences and understanding that there are two sides to the argument of immigration.
In his talk, Dr. Miguel De La Torre gave some history of Mexico border issues. By starting his story off with some history of the border issues that ultimately affected him, he was very creditable. De La Torre knew what he was speaking about and everyone listening definitely knew that through his great understanding of Mexican border issues. Mr. De La Toree is also creditable because he helps men, women, and children along the border so he experiences the border issues on a day-to-day basis and sees the horrible things that are happening to immigrants trying to cross.
One story that Dr. Miguel De La Torre told was about a young girl who was raped and died while trying to cross the border. He stressed that something is morally wrong when a 14-year-old girl dies in the richest country in the world.
Also, the story about the young girl was definitely a perfect story for his specific audience. Since mostly young men and women were at the lecture, the story definitely helped get his point across and hit closer to home with us younger students; it was perfect to catch the attention of everyone. The story was a great use of pathos because he pulled out an emotional response.
De La Torre also made clear why he was in the U.S. in the first place. He says he is here because he is following all his resources that were originally stolen from him; he says this is what I owe to Latin America. Dr. De La Torre also says, “this house was built on my cheap labor.” He believes that he owns his house and deserves it because it was built because of his work. This point that De La Torre makes also creates an emotional response from the audience. He really puts things into perspective about what immigrants, like himself, bring to the United States. The people who he previously referred to as naive and rude, may feel an emotional response to De La Torre’s point.
Another interesting part of the lecture was when Dr. Miguel De La Torre made the point that even though he has been a United States citizen for some years, he would more likely be stopped by a border patrol over Richard Froude, who is only a lawful permanent resident. Dr. Miguel De La Torre has the dark skin, dark hair look that many people on border patrol view as an immigrant and often question as being illegal. Although, in reality, Richard Froude who is white and does not look like an immigrant until you hear his British accent, is not even a U.S. citizen yet. Both De La Torre and Froude agreed with each other on this idea.
A small way that Dr. Miguel De La Torre relaxed the mood of the somewhat argumentative topic of immigration was by using humor. This humor was very slight and just got a chuckle out of the listeners. By doing this everyone’s attention seemed more focused and interested in what he was going to say next.
Dr. Miguel De La Torre did a great job in telling his story because it was interesting and kept everyone’s attention throughout the entire time he was speaking. When compared to Richard Froude I think that De La Torre used more rhetorical emphasis in his story and had more of an argument about immigration, although both were interesting to listen to because it gave two very different perspectives on immigration.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)