With DACA’s future uncertain and Trump tightening his policies, many Americans are wondering what is to become of the immigrants in our nation. While some advocate for harsher patrol of the border and deportation, some espouse that focusing primarily on the safety of everyone in the proximity is of utmost importance. In The Devil’s Highway: A True Story (2004), Luis Alberto Urrea, poet and novelist, promotes the latter as he describes the journey of the Wellington 26, which is a group of Mexican immigrants attempting to cross the border. In an excerpt from the chapter “The Long Walk”, the walkers try to find their way out of the desert. As their situation worsens, the author creates a feeling of sorrow over the approaching deaths of more than
…show more content…
To them, there were many faults, from Mendez to the desert to themselves, even. By villainizing so many different aspects, the audience is overwhelmed by the impossible struggles Mexican immigrants face. However, Urrea reveals the biggest perpetrators through anaphora. He implements the phrase “No, it was” in the beginning of the sentences in which he accuses the two nations’ administrations (134). As the blame is shifted from the Mexican government and its selfish officials that don’t care about the people to the American government and its “racist hatred of good Mexican workingmen just trying to feed their children” (134), Urrea contemplates which of the two nations are more at fault. While the readers are confused, the author, who has spent hours upon hours researching and analyzing the Yuma 14 case, is equally perplexed about whom to hold accountable. Although he doesn’t make a decision about which of the two was responsible for the fatalities, he criticizes the two governments for turning a blind eye to the serious issue of immigration policies because of their preoccupied with trivial matters and stubborn beliefs. Through this emphasis, the audience realizes that with their power, both of the bordering nations can do the most to prevent more
To them, there were many faults, from Mendez to the desert to themselves, even. By villainizing so many different aspects, the audience is overwhelmed by the impossible struggles Mexican immigrants face. However, Urrea reveals the biggest perpetrators through anaphora. He implements the phrase “No, it was” in the beginning of the sentences in which he accuses the two nations’ administrations (134). As the blame is shifted from the Mexican government and its selfish officials that don’t care about the people to the American government and its “racist hatred of good Mexican workingmen just trying to feed their children” (134), Urrea contemplates which of the two nations are more at fault. While the readers are confused, the author, who has spent hours upon hours researching and analyzing the Yuma 14 case, is equally perplexed about whom to hold accountable. Although he doesn’t make a decision about which of the two was responsible for the fatalities, he criticizes the two governments for turning a blind eye to the serious issue of immigration policies because of their preoccupied with trivial matters and stubborn beliefs. Through this emphasis, the audience realizes that with their power, both of the bordering nations can do the most to prevent more