Tag: new bias

Article 2- Entrepreneur helping Refugees

The news article “70M People are Counting on this Social Entrepreneur to Succeed” was found on Forbes. This article was written by Devin Thorpe and was published on February 22, 2019. Forbes is known to be a neutral but has a slightly skewing right leaning bias on the media bias chart.

This article discusses the details of what John Kluge, the founder and acting managing director for Refugee Investment Network or RIN is doing to help refugees not have to pay for their travel loans. this company has aligned themselves with other brands and companies to help assist the refugees by “matchmaking” them with potential investors. This is beneficial since there are “70 million refugees and internally displaced people in the world.” That is a lot of people. people that are scraping to not be at the bottom. as Thorpe states it, these people are not living, they are surviving. which in my opinion, is not a way to live

A quote that stood out to me in the article was “Investing in opportunity for refugees domestically and around the world represents an opportunity for impact as well as for financial returns.” This stood out to me because it shows that even though Kluge is looking at this as a business transaction, he also sees it as an opportunity to help the refugees and assist them in process. this is not to say that they are having everything handed to them. many of the refugees have been displaced for many years and cannot live the way that they would like to.

Article Link: https://www.forbes.com/sites/devinthorpe/2019/02/22/70m-people-are-counting-on-this-social-entrepreneur-to-succeed/?fbclid=IwAR3bZEaWshMp0tmLZL786-srsYeg0CLmBJdKTD5AwOICU5VO1HhllyAn3mk#5a3b6c7c61fa

 

Families are Separated Instead of Brought Together During Time of Crisis

Unfortunately, everyone cannot be as welcoming as those of the Denver Health Refugee Clinic. It was announced families who migrated though the US Mexico border and were separated from each other may not be able to reconnect to each other for years. The problem is it will take the government up to two years in order to detect children who parted ways from their families. According to the federal government there are about 47,000 cases of children detained by immigration between 2017 and 2018. As one is aware, the number of cases is ever growing since the current year is 2019 and people who may continue to cross the border might unfortunately be separated from their families. So even though it is estimated it will take two years to reunite children with their family this timeline will constantly become pushed back.

The government places blame that the project to reunite families will take so long because of other immigration related issues the office of immigration is facing. White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney stated congress may also have to step in because the department of Homeland Security does not have the appropriate methods in place to handle the missing children. President Trump has even warned those who plan on fleeing to the United States that there is no more room for immigrants because the “US is full”. However, those who have already been detained in the United States should be reunited with their families in up to two years if the same schedule were to remain.

Immigrant and Refugees Welcomed In Denver

Denver, Colorado has a large immigrant population from Afghanistan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. In order to accommodate this growing population and help them in their process the Denver Health Lowry Clinic hosts an annual giveaway where they provide toys, clothes, shoes, backpacks, and pajamas. Before receiving items at the drive many of the families have to suffer with using inadequate items because that is all they can afford at the time.

This news story follows the Kemabala family from the Democratic Republic of Congo. Emmanuel Kemabala, his son Joshua and the rest of their family have been on the run from political pursuit in their home country for a few years now. After finding asylum in the states the major problem the Kemabala’s faced was their income not matching up to the high cost of living in Denver, Colorado. The annual giveaway, while not solving all of the Kemabala’s problems, helps to ensure they receive the necessities to start living a better way of life.

All of the items at the annual drive are free for families to receive. Along with necessities the clinic also offers toys and entertainment items for the children in order for them to actually enjoy their childhood and not focus on the daily struggles of being refugees and immigrants. The Denver Health
Clinic has hosted this event for four years and is one of four resettlement sites in all of Colorado. They aim to continuously provide this event and other services for refugees and immigrants every year.

Article Summary 2: Mexico’s View

Is Mexico really choosing to help for political reasons? My previous article talked about Mexico “helping” the united States with the amount of refugees for political reasons to not hurt Mexico’s and United State’s relationship. Though I found a new article from Mexico News Daily saying that it is not for political reason. The article, “Mexico Rejects US plan to extend ‘stay in Mexico’ policy for asylum seekers”, starts with announcing that Mexico does not agree with with the United States plan for refugees to stay in Mexico while they wait for approval to migrate to the US. They continue by saying the Mexican government is trying to help them by taking in returned refugees who were in dangerous border cities. They went to coordinate with the United states to help their people not to only please those in the politics. This article was also posted after the New York Time’s article and even quotes it themselves to try and further push their evidence to their point.

It is not fully disagreeing with the New York Times article, but it does say that the New York Times had things thought to be happening for the wrong reasons. Mexico News Daily is also unbiased and using strong emotional words. Again, in the headline this article uses the word “rejects” maybe not the strongest emotional word, but they could have used something more milder like deny, which to me seems less intense. I also believe the image they use in their headline on the page is more emotional and close to a false connection. It is related because it is migrants marching, but it is all black and white except for the family, has lots o children who look exhausted carrying heavy things across a dirty train track. That just screams “give us empathy”. SO both the articles I had were defiantly biased in a way.

Article Link: https://mexiconewsdaily.com/news/mexico-rejects-us-plan/

Article Summary 1: America’s view of Mexico

Is Mexico not allowing their citizens move to America? The article I chose from the New York Times: “Trump’s Surprising New Ally in Mexico? The Government” informs their readers about Mexico and their role in immigration. They discuss that Mexican authorities are preventing asylum seekers and refugees from migrating to the United States before they even reach the border. It also discusses Mexico’s new president’s, Lopez Obrador, role and he is currently choosing politics so he does not threaten his relationship with Trump and the United States. The articles also reviews the issues happening, for example the people who get stuck between the cities who are allowing entry and who are not or the people in danger in unfamiliar areas. Also, Trump wants asylum seekers to stay in Mexico while they wait for approval and the people try to flee the danger in their home are stuck their waiting with worry.

The New York Times is a relatively centered and credible, but they still use emotional words. A major one is in their headline, they use the word surprising in reference to Mexico potentially helping the United States. It is already swaying your thoughts with theirs that it should not be expected of Mexico. It also uses strong words like “violating”, “jeopardizing”, and “fleeing”. One strong paragraph said: When they begin talking about Tijuana, they talk about how “the Trump administration has plunged” asylum seekers and that they are “forcibly” sent, and then continuing to say “killings int Tijuana have skyrocketed“. The authors of the article could have used less strong, emotional words, to stay more centered in biases.

Article Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/01/world/americas/mexico-migration-trump.html