Less Carbon Footprints, Better Environment

In the fist fall after I had been here, after a long hot summer, my friend told me, it would be snow in October. However, the snow was not begun until November. As we all know recently the global warming changed the climate obviously. The snow season came shorter and the summer turned to be longer is an obvious sign of global warming. What’s cause the global warming? “Carbon dioxide and other air pollution that is collecting in the atmosphere like a thickening blanket, trapping the sun's heat and causing the planet to warm up.” Also, these carbon dioxides and air pollution are named greenhouse gases. Carbon footprints measure how much carbon dioxide we produce in daily life. To decrease carbon footprints, there are two important points, reduce and recycle.

Matthias mentions that more carbon dioxide can increase the growth of the plant. We would have more food. This is because the plants need carbon dioxide to grow. “With free airborne plant fertilizer and longer growing seasons, food production will skyrocket.” Also we can suffer a shorter cold days during the winter. Although summer itself would not get longer, days with warm temperatures will last longer then before. “So stock up on bathing suits.” It sounds like not a bad thing.

Nevertheless, what’s more important, the increase of temperature has bad effect of people’s health. As the weather become warmer, some diseases get a suitable environment to alive and spend. Because of the climate change, heat, humidity and rainfall will bring more mosquitoes, ticks and other parasites and carriers of tropical and subtropical disease to spread. Even to the area where these disease are not exist. Another fact as we all know is that if the temperature keeps increasing the sea levels are also rising as a result of global warming. This is harmful to islands and low-lying areas. People who live in that area may loss their home if is continues. There are some place disappeared because of global warming, like the Tiny Island which was in Bay of Bengal. All over the word faced these problems. If we focus on Colorado specially, for example, the longer time of summer and the shorter snow season changes water and snow pack, which is a great risk for Colorado. “Environment Colorado pointed to the current Boulder County Fourmile Canyon fire which has burned over 7,000 acres and 169 structures, along with the 2009 Boulder County Olde Stage Fire which burned over 3,000 acres during the winter, as examples of severe damage that extreme weather can cause.”

As it brings such a huge influence, where are these large amounts of greenhouse gas come from? A research shows that, 32 present of greenhouse gas come from electricity and heat. Land use change and forestry produce 24 present of greenhouse gas, there is 17 present from transportation, other fuel combustion are produce almost 10 present of greenhouse gas and industrial processes produce about 3 present greenhouse gas. As a result the carbon prints have connection with our individual life are from the electricity and heat and the transportation. The greenhouse gas they produced almost half of the whole quantity.

It is not as hard as we considered reducing carbon prints. We can start it from our daily life. There are two important points: reduce and recycle.

There are many things we can do to reduce the carbon footprints. As the above mentions, there are about 50 present carbon footprints come from electricity and heater and from the transportation. At the warm days, turn the thermostat up two degrees, and during the cold weather turn the thermostat down two degrees. In this way, it will decrease carbon output by about 2,000 pounds per year and can save about $98 per year for everyone. It is a quite good way, which benefit both the environment and people themselves. Nowadays people cannot leave without cell phone to connect with their family, friends, or people they have work relations. We usually keep them on even if we don’t use them, like after going to bed at night. Because we use our cell phone a lot, the battery used up quickly. Some of people include we have a bad habit, we don’t unplug electronics when don’t use them. Also like our stereos, after we used them, we always forget to unplug electronics. And we feel it is convinces for us because next time before we use them we don’t need to put the electronics on. However, even when electronics are turned off, something like cell phone charges, stereos, toasters and computers keep using energy. If people pull plugs out of the wall, they can save about 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide and $256 per year. It is easier to figure out there are too much traffic on the road. More and more people prefer to have a car because it makes life easier. While standing besides the street, people could not feel comfortable, as the cars produce too much carbon dioxide. If people can take the bus or light-rail, ride a bike, walk or carpool at least on day a week, they could avoid producing large mounts of carbon dioxide. From a research, every time people avoid driving one mile, they save one pound of carbon dioxide. Also, fill the car tires while driving. Inflated tires need more energy to roll, it means people need more frequent fill up gasoline. According to the Department of Energy, people can improve their fuel economy by about 3.3 percent if them keep their tires inflated properly. It shows that a car that normally gets 25 miles per gallon and drives 12,000 miles per year would require on extra 16- gallon fill-up annually and this extra 16 gallon need about $50. Multiply that by a million cars and the difference really adds up.

Another useful method to reduce carbon dioxide is recycling. Every time we recycle one pound of garbage, we reduce our carbon dioxide emissions by one pound. In Denver, there is a website (www.denvergov.org/DenverRecycles ) for people to recycle the old or useless stuffs. At home there are always some old things like laptop, television and so on. We don’t use them any more, but they still stay at our home. This is because we don’t know where to throw them away and we afraid they might damage environment. While in this website, they prove us a easy way to recycle our useless things. What you need to do is sign up for pick up. If you live in a single-family house, town home, or an apartment building with fewer than seven units, you can get residential pick up for free. If you live in a larger apartment complex, you can click on the recycling directory link to find the closest drop off recycling center.

We all know global warming had already become a world wild issue, it has close connection with everyone. While to cut down the carbon footprints, is the key point to solve global warming. If we pay attention “reduce” and “recycle”, control the production of carbon dioxide in the nature environment would not be tough any more.

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.

Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Dream of Equality, by Xiaoting Liu

In 1863, president Abraham Lincoln signed in the Emancipation Proclamation, which claimed “all persons held as slaves within the rebellious areas are, and henceforward shall be free.” Nevertheless black people still could not get respect from white people in United States. They could not go to the same school with white people, they could not vote for the policy events which have connect with them, and also they could not get respect from other people because their skin color. In a word, they had not freedom actually. As a result, a great people named Martin Luther King gave a speech “I have a dream” at the Lincoln Memorial, Washington, D.C. in 1963.

Even though, the Emancipation Proclamation had been issued for a hundred of years, black people didn’t have right in United State. Martin Luther King came out to strive for black people’s right. He announced that black people should have the same right as white people because they are both God’s son and they born as equal.

At the beginning, Martin Luther King explained that because the historical problems black people loss their right. And now in a democratic country black people should have right. Also, all people had accepted the Emancipation Proclamation. However, the promise of free for black people was like a check that has not been cashed. Here he metaphors their freedom as a check that has not been negotiate, which is easy to understand what the situation is and why it should be turn into fact.

In his speech, he uses many repetitions to add his words become more power and more pervasive. For example, he repeats “one hundred years later” to describe what was the situation of black people. From his words, it would let people think about how unfair the condition was for black people. Later, he asks himself a question and answers also in repetition. “when will you be satisfied ?” In his replies, he mentions equal in every situation like black children could in hands with white children. It shows people the his strong wish of equal of all people.

Also, he gives out his reasons why it is urgent to solve this problem. If this problem would not be solved, black people would keep legitimating discontent. There will have no pace in United States. From the reasoning and the resulting, it shows people how serious the problem is. Everyone wants to have a peaceful life in his or her country.

Martin Luther King also mentions how to solve this people. He believes it should be solve by soul instead by violence. “Let us not seek to satisfy our theist for freedom by drinking form the cup of bitterness and hatred.” He put their thirst of freedom into a situation of thirst to have water and he claims that we should not get out our thirsty by drinking bitterness and hatred. In this way, he corrects many black people’s radical minds. At that time when black people would not get respect from white people, instead they were discriminated by white people. Black people would not feel comfortable at that situation, so it is easy for them to hate white people. While this emotion existed, it is not good for the calm of United States’ society.

At the end of his speech, he uses repetitions and metaphors to show his goals. He repeats “I have a dream” to lead all his good wishes for black people. Imaging what happened if all black people gain the rights that belong to them. For instance, their children would not be judged by their skin color but by the real content that they have. It gives all people a beautiful picture of their future. Also, encouraging all people to work together to make this beautiful future come true.

Randy Pausch Urges Audience to Achieve Childhood Dreams, by Jeremy Noble

The lecture I decided to report on was “The Last Lecture: Really Achieving Your Childhood Dreams”. This lecture was by Randy Pausch who was a courageous and inspiring human being. Randy was born October 23rd, 1960 and passed away July 25th, 2008. He left behind a wife named Jay and three kids name Dylan, Logan, and Chloe. Randy was born in Baltimore, Maryland. He is known for his creation of Alice software, virtual reality research with Disney imagineers, and his inspirational speech “The Last Lecture”. He was an American professor of computer science and human-computer interaction at Carnegie Mellon University. Randy was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in September 2006 and then in August 2007 he was given a terminal diagnosis with 3 to 6 months left of good health. He gave an inspirational speech at Carnegie Mellon University on September 18th, 2007. The speech has became very popular and currently has over 12 millions views on youtube. This alone says a lot about the speech. If there have been over 12 million people that have viewed the lecture on the computer, it must be very good.


During Randy’s last speech he was very happy, humorous, and shared inspirational life lessons. The lecture he gives is to his kids and it is about achieving your childhood dreams. It was based upon if you had to give a last lecture before you die, what would it be. Randy runs through all the experience he has gone through in his life and how the people and situations have affected him. There are two ways that Randy could have gone. He could have been depressed and upset, or he could cherish the time he had left and make it what it’s worth. He decided to look at his death as a positive thing and cherish every moment he had left. He does not look as this situation as unfair but as the way the world works. He uses a quote to sum this expression “We all stand on the dart board, but a very small amount of us are going to get hit by the dart called pancreatic cancer.” This quote explains itself by saying that being hit with this illness is just the way the world works. Some people are going to get sick and die and he is one of those people.


Throughout Randy’s speech he uses personal stories, quotes, humor, and life lessons to get his point across of achieving your childhood dreams. Randy uses personal stories that all sorts of people can relate to. There is a story where Randy was in football practice and his coach was riding him all practice. There was nothing Randy could to right in the coach’s mind. After practice the assistant coach goes up to Randy and says “Coach Graham rode you pretty hard today didn’t he” and Randy replied “Yeah.” The coach says back to him “that’s a good thing. When you are screwing up and nobody says anything to you anymore, then that means they have given up.” The whole general idea of this story is to make Randy realize that when people are on your case and correcting you, it means the care about you and want to make you better. A lot of people can relate to this example in many different ways other then in sports. This makes the audience think about times when people are on your case and that they are doing it for a reason.


Randy persuades his audience to achieve their childhood dreams. He uses life lessons and quotations to make people want to change and live their life to the fullest. An example of this is "It's not about how to achieve your dreams, it's about how to lead your life, ... If you lead your life the right way, the karma will take care of itself, the dreams will come to you." This is an example of Randy telling the audience a quote and making them think to themselves. There are many different thoughts that could be going through their minds. He uses his example of being very sick to make people realize how lucky they are. One example he says is to put yourself into his position. Think about how it would affect if you were told that you only have 3 to 6 months left to live. It really puts your life into perspective for yourself and makes you think. One day you could be here and the next day you could be gone. During Randy’s speech he uses humor to keep the audience attentive and interested. He does not want his speech to be a sad speech and all about him but rather what do with your life and to be grateful for what you have. He is positive through the whole experience since finding out about his diagnosis. People look at this as very inspirational because he does not curl up in a ball and dwell on what has happened. Instead, he is positive about it and makes the most out of the rest of his life. At the very end he sums up his speech and the type of person he is. He says he did this speech for his kids and to teach them life values.

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.

Susan Thornton Hopes to End Abuse, by Skylar Anderson

The cycle of domestic violence is seemingly endless and statistics seem to show a gradual increase in the number of reported domestic violence cases today. But why do we often find ourselves hitting the ‘channel’ button on the remote every time a news reporter blabs on about a new case of these crimes? Domestic violence has become such a prevalent issue in our society today that we each write it off as a too-complicated, common happenstance. It is easy to write off the issue as too difficult to think about, and move on with our lives. The Denver Post’s Susan Thornton aims to bring attention to the “Women’s Crisis and Family Outreach Center” in Douglas county, which is a safe shelter for battered women. She hopes to push the citizens of Colorado to think about domestic violence again, and to help get battered women the help that they deserve. Susan Thornton effectively uses ethos, logos, and pathos to persuade her readers to spread the word about the new Women’s Crisis Center.

Susan Thornton opens her argument with “We know a lot about domestic violence,” using the word “we” to include all of her readers (Thornton). She grabs the attention of the reader by referring directly to the target audience. The reader will either choose to identify with Thornton at this point, or will doubt her claim, feeling falsely addressed. In order to restore certainty in those who may doubt her assumption that everyone knows a lot about domestic violence, she moves on to talk about common beliefs about domestic violence. She mentions how children exposed to violence at home tend to be more hyperactive, stressed, throw more temper tantrums, and are more likely to commit suicide or repeat the cycle of violence in their own families later on in life (Thornton). Now that the audience is aware of the common ground ideas about violence, she ponders, “We all know [these common beliefs], so why do we as a society do so little about it?” again using the word “we,” to suggest that ignoring domestic violence includes everyone. This is her call to action, and request for a sense of collective consciousness within society members. By widening her target audience with the all-inclusive “we”, Thornton surely also hopes to catch the attention of the battered women who choose to remain quiet about struggles at home. Maybe the abused will be able to feel a sense of a commonplace with the rest of the world when Thornton places us all in the same category. And this commonplace could also give the battered women the sense of community and belonging needed to come forward and seek help from the Women’s Crisis Center.

The use of inductive reasoning—that is, using a number of smaller facts to prove a larger point—also contributes to the effectiveness of her argument. As mentioned before, Thornton uses a few common beliefs early in the development in order to gain a commonplace for her audience to agree upon. The opposition argues that since so many domestic battery cases go unreported, it is a lost cause to help those who do not want it. But then she blows the opposition out of the water and points out that domestic violence is costly for taxpayers as we pay for cops who do respond to domestic calls, and is therefore an issue that needs to be resolved through awareness and the implementation of more safe shelters (Thornton). Everyone pays taxes, which is why we should care: because domestic violence cases take money out of our pockets.

Thornton’s most effective persuasion technique demonstrates when she alludes to the recent case in Aurora where a husband drowned his wife and then hanged himself. This image is gruesome and painful for most to even think about. It also forces the reader to feel the wrath of domestic violence and shine light on the safe haven the Women’s Crisis Center provides. She states that up to “90 percent of the homicides in the past 11 years in Douglas County have been linked to domestic violence,” which means that out of all the crimes reported, nearly all of them are related to domestic violence (Thornton). This demographic is shocking and is impetus enough for the reader to advocate for more safe centers for battered women. She mentions that suicide rates are much higher in children that are raised in households with lots of violent tendencies (Thornton). No parent wants to be responsible for the death of his or her son. The thought of someone killing themselves over conflict within the household is sickening enough to allow families to end the violence, or seek help through the Crisis Center.

Thornton first establishes a connection with her adult audience by throwing some grim statistics about children from violent households. Children are the future of our nation, and when many suffer from hyperactivity and depression because of brutality at home, everyone worries about the future of the youth. She addresses everyone directly and asks us all to spread the word about the new Women’s Crisis Center to help end the shockingly high numbers of domestic violence that exist today. To those who disagree and feel that battered women usually do not come forward, Thornton also says that the Crisis Centers save the county $1 million in court and jail costs that could be used for other critical causes. Maybe some battered women will come forward and seek help from the Crisis Center in response to support from the general public. Thornton hopes that the next time a case of domestic brutality is reported on the news, instead of reaching for the remote, we reach out into the community to support those in need.

Thornton, Susan. "Thornton: Shelter Helps Break Cycle of Abuse." Denver Post. 6 Feb. 2011. Web. 19 Feb. 2011.

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.