Presentation 2: Civic Action -Angelina Thomas

For me, this second round of class presentations felt completely different from the first. From the moment we started, it was clear that everyone in the room had grown, not just in what we knew, but in how we carried ourselves. People spoke louder, made eye contact, and actually looked like they wanted to be up there. I think the biggest change was confidence. The nerves we all felt the first time were replaced with comfort and a sense of purpose. For our group, that made all the difference.

Our project, “Immigration & Families,” was one that really mattered to all of us. It wasn’t just another research topic. We wanted to show how immigration isn’t only about laws and borders, it’s about people, relationships, and resilience. Our group included Angeline Melendi, Brayleen Ruiz, Courtney Bailey, and me, Angelina Thomas. Each of us took a section that connected to a different part of the story: the history of immigration, the challenges immigrant families face, comparisons between countries, organizations that help, and real-life interviews that gave the topic a human voice.

Angeline started with the history and overview, and she did an amazing job setting the stage. She explained the difference between immigration and emigration and talked about why families move, usually to give their children a better life or to reunite with loved ones. She described how, throughout history, families have relied on each other to adjust and survive. Her part reminded us that family is the foundation of most immigration stories. I liked how she included the emotional side of it, how families serve as the first support system for new arrivals. It made the topic more personal and relatable instead of just being about policies and statistics.

After Angeline, the presentation moved into the challenges that immigrant families face. She discussed separation, mixed-status families, and adaptation struggles. This was one of the most eye-opening parts for me. I didn’t realize how long families could be separated because of visa backlogs or how stressful it can be for children who are citizens when their parents aren’t. The idea of “mixed-status” families really stuck with me, it’s something you hear about in the news, but hearing it explained in a human way hits harder. The cultural and language gaps that form when children adapt faster than parents also felt like something people don’t talk about enough.

Then it was my turn. My section compared the United States, Canada, and Mexico. I focused on how each country’s immigration policies and family values shape their systems. In the U.S., the main focus is family reunification, but the process is long and strict. Canada takes a more balanced approach, combining family and economic immigration, which helps them process faster and include more people. Mexico’s story is different, it’s about families separated by migration, but also about strength and sacrifice. I liked that this comparison showed how countries reflect their values through their immigration systems: the U.S. values law and structure, Canada values inclusion and balance, and Mexico values resilience and unity. When I presented this, I felt more comfortable than I did in the first round of speeches. I wasn’t just repeating facts; I was explaining what they meant.

Courtney followed with her section on organizations that support immigrant families. She explained how both national and local groups make a huge difference. She mentioned organizations like the ACLU, Catholic Charities USA, and UNHCR, which help immigrants find housing, legal aid, and safety. I liked how she also focused on local Miami Dade programs that assist families with food, healthcare, and education. It was good to see how something as global as immigration connects directly to our own community. I think her section grounded the presentation and made it more hopeful, it showed that help is out there, even if the system is complicated.

Brayleen ended with the interview section, and it honestly brought the presentation to life. She interviewed two people who had firsthand experience with immigration and law enforcement: Dr. Jorge Ruiz, a doctor at a Miami Dade jail who treats detained immigrants, and Robert Smith, a law enforcement officer who works with immigration cases. Their perspectives gave depth to everything we had researched. Dr. Ruiz talked about how family separation affects mental and physical health, while Robert Smith discussed the challenge of enforcing laws with compassion. Both agreed that better communication and cooperation are needed. Hearing real voices made the topic feel real, not just academic.

What I loved about our presentation this time was how natural it felt. Nobody rushed, and our transitions flowed smoothly. Everyone had practiced and knew their material and you could tell how much more confident we were compared to the first project. Even little things like posture, tone, and eye contact had improved. I think that came from actually understanding the topic and caring about it. When you connect to what you’re talking about, the nervousness fades and you start to sound like you belong up there.Another thing I noticed was how much better everyone in the class did overall. The improvement was obvious. I could tell we all took what we learned from the first presentation, like organizing content, speaking clearly, and keeping slides simple, and applied it. Seeing that progress in everyone else made me feel proud to be part of the class.

After our group presented, I really enjoyed the other topics, especially the one on Environment: American vs. Global Perspectives. Emily Suarez explained how countries like Germany, Sweden, and the UK have stronger consensus and more bipartisan support for fighting climate change, while in the U.S., it’s still a divided issue. She mentioned youth activism like the Fridays for Future movement, which I found inspiring. Caroline Duenas talked about local Miami Dade organizations that connect environmental work with public health, like tree planting, cleanups, and pollution prevention programs. I liked how she showed the overlap between environmental care and community health, it made the topic feel relevant to our everyday lives.

Another group that stood out was the Economy and Education: A Global Comparison group. They talked about how education connects to economic success, comparing the U.S. to places like Japan, Singapore, and Germany. I learned that those countries have closer partnerships between schools and industries, which helps students graduate with job-ready skills. They also compared college costs, pointing out how places like Germany and Norway offer free or low-cost tuition, while U.S. students often carry heavy debt. That hit home because it’s something many of us are already thinking about. I thought their message was really practical: education and economy grow stronger together when systems invest in people.

In the end, all the presentations tied together in a surprising way. Whether we were talking about immigration, the environment, or education, the message was about connection between people, communities, and systems. Each topic showed how human values shape policy and how individuals can make a difference.

Looking back, I’m proud of how our group handled the “Immigration & Families” topic. It wasn’t easy or light, but we treated it with care and showed how policy affects real lives. Most of all, I’m proud of how far we’ve all come as presenters. The growth in confidence, clarity, and teamwork from the first to the second round was incredible. If there’s one thing I took away, it’s that public speaking, and even working in groups, isn’t about being perfect. It’s about finding your voice, connecting to your audience, and having the courage to share what matters.