Immigration: Does it Create Poverty?

Rector, Robert. "Immigration Is Increasing Poverty in the United States." Opposing Viewpoints: Poverty (2007) Galegroup Online Web. 25 Feb. 2010.

The article focuses on three main questions regarding immigration and proverty: 1) What percentage of all poor persons in the United States are first-generation immigrants? 2). How much is it estimated it will cost American taxpayers to support the 6 million legal immigrants? and 3). How does high-skilled immigrants cancel out low-skill immigrants, so no change in immigration policy is necessary? The predominant purpose of this article is to establish the poverty level among the immigrants' population. Opposing Viewpoints is a scholarly journal. This article supports the fact that bilingualism does not benefit the United States.

Bordering on Absurdity is trustworthy

Michael Mandel wrote an article titled "Bordering on Absurdity" for Business Weekly. Right underneath his title he said, "Cars can move more easily from country to country than people, and that is crimping both human potential and economic growth." I thought it summed up the article quite nicely. Mandel is pro immigration and he will use the article to tell the readers why.

Ehtos is a "persuasive strategy built on trust" says Gary Layne Hatch (Writing and Rhetoric chapter 4). We generally trust those who have authority and/or those who have good characteristics (is. knowledgeable, experienced, reliable, etc.). There are a few moments in Mandel's paper where he makes it easy to trust him.

The first thing I noticed was that the article was found on businessweek.com. The title is exactly what it says. Weekly Business articles. An article on this website would seem trustworthy to the reader because the website itself is truthful and trustworthy.

Mandel also gains the readers' trust in paragraph 6. He is talking about an other economist's research to prove his pint on immigration. Not only does he give this economist authority by telling the reader that he is from UC Berkeley, but he also gives the reader al ink to the economist's own article on the subject. Showing the audience where he got his information is a huge sign to trust him.

At the very end of the article it says "Mandel is chief economist for BusinessWeek." That shows the reader that Mandel is also in a position of authority, and so he is therefore trustworthy.

Audience Analysis

Mandel's article on immigration is written very well for any audience. The reason why is hte structure of his article. He has an introduction, a body, and a conclusion. Inside of the body he has headers to organize the different catagories he will talk about. So it is very easy to understand where his article is going. An other good thing he has in his article is that he has a rebuttal with every point he makes. he lets the reader know what the other side is saying, and then defends his side according to the other side's opinion. The structure makes it easy for all audiences to read this article and understand Mandel's opinion. He can't hide anything, there is no reading in between the lines. This allows the reader to take the information given to them and go their own way. I think that it is important that his article is written to all audiences so that he has the opportunity to change some reader's opinions to his own.

Beck's emotional Bash on Obama

Roy Beck's article "What A Jobs-Focused State-of-the-Union Address Ought to say about Immigration" gives his opinion on what to do about jobless Americans. He believes that legal and illegal immigrants are taking jobs from Americans. He appeals to his audience through their emotions (pathos), and metaphors and personification (language tools). Unfortunately for him, he also has some fallacies.

Good Pathos should use the audience's emotions to persuade them to side with the author and take action. An example for this would be a presidential candidate visiting an elementary school, reading a book to the kids, and giving them hugs and handshakes. American voters who are parents of little kids will be touched that this candidate cares about kids. Those parents will most likely vote for that candidate. An other form of pathos is getting to the audience's angry emotions. This is what Beck does in his article.

Beck immediately grabs the audience's angry emotions by opening his article up with "What Pres. Obama says -- or doesn't say..." By telling the audience that President Obama is not saying something, he is implying that Obama is keeping something from U.S. Citizens. Hearing that the leader of America was not telling the people something would upset the reader. Especially if the reader was an American citizen.

Word choice is very important when it comes to Pathos. Beck claims that "Americans are suffering catastrophic unemployment" because the "illegal immigrants" are stealing jobs (para. 4 & 11). The two phrases "catastrophic unemployment" and "illegal immigrants" should grab the reader's attention and emotions. The words catastrophic, unemployment and illegal describe negative actions or situations. When putting them in his sentences, Beck has been able to create negative emotions about immigration.

Paragraph 12 is just full of negative emotions towards the government and immigration. Beck talks about “chain migration.” Chain migration is pretty much an immigrant receiving a green card in the U.S. They then can bring their family into the U.S., and their spouse can bring their family, and it just keeps going. Beck does not give any opinion on the matter, but he doesn’t need to. Just these facts alone will create negative emotions.

Beck also uses a metaphor and an example of personification. The metaphor in paragraph 16 is really good. “… suffering U.S. workers begging for jobs just outside their hiring gates.” If the reader takes this sentence literally; they should imagine people dressed in ragged clothing pressed up against a locked gate, begging the key holder to let them in. But as most of us know, a metaphor is not supposed to be taken literally. So the reader would then know that the sentence simply means that many Americans are applying for jobs and not getting hired.

In paragraph 5, Beck uses an example of personification to try to get his point across. Personification is when a human characteristic or trait is given to something that is not human; like an animal or object. The sentence is “Every principle of justice calls for those jobs to be transferred to 7million unemployed Americans.” “Calls for” is the human trait and “principle of justice” is the nonhuman thing.

As good as Beck was with his pathos and language tools, he also had some fallacies in his article. The title of the article is “What A Jobs-Focused State-of-the-Union Address Ought To Say About Immigration.” The title tells the reader that the author has an opinion about immigration that they feel the president whould address. However, Beck uses his article on immigration to bash the president. He seems to be trying to trap the president into saying something – or not saying something – that could get him into trouble. Beck has three obvious attacks towards President Obama in his article. His first attack is the very first sentence of the article. “What Pres. Obama says – or doesn’t say – about immigration wil be the easiest tip-off to whether his first priority truly is putting Americans back to work.” He is already implying that Obama is not telling the whole truth and possible not care about Americans getting jobs.

In paragraph 8 he then says “This should be easy for Pres. Obama…” Beck is pretty sarcastic throughout this article, so he most likely does not believe that what he wants Obama to do will be easy for him.

His third attack is in paragraph 13. He starts off the paragraph by saying, “No president whose top concern is putting his unemployed fellow citizens back to work would allow this to continue.” As there have been no major movements to stop immigrants being hired in place of Americans, he has now “proved’ that this is not a top concern of Obama’s. But he trapped Obama with the “poisoning of the well” fallacy. Obama can’t defend himself without somehow proving Beck to be right. The reason there was any fallacy was because Beck led the reader to believe that he wanted to give an idea about immigration, when he really used it to Bash Obama as a president.

Celebration!

This post is for Crysta's own self satisfaction after she finished all her rhetorical analysises (too tired to figure out what the proper plural is). Yay! I finished! (Insert laughter as people read this and shake their head while saying, "Crysta, is crazy!") Hurray for finishing homework!!
THE END

Reading Logic

“The Greek word logos has several different meanings. It can mean ‘word, thought, reason, or order’ ” (Writing and Rhetoric pg. 70). Logos is what causes the reader to see the writer’s logic. It’s what allows the reader to see where the writer was coming from. It helps the reader see why one should believe what the author believes.

In the article Congratulations, Graduate. Now Leave the USA, the USA Today explores the issue of refusing jobs to immigrants. It says “Around this time each year, thousands of foreign students graduate with science and engineering degrees from U.S. universities. Many are eager to start in America and contribute to the U.S economy. So does the United States welcome them with open arms? No, the government tells thousands of them to hit the road—and take their sought-after skills and brainpower to countries and companies that compete with the USA” (par.1-2). The article goes on to explore the idea that this is self-defeating policy—allowing other countries to make a profit at America’s expense. The USA Today journalist gives points that are crucial to the argument and oftentimes includes links so that one can continue to read up on the issue. The author not only clearly states his case, but he also makes it so that the reader can see through his thought process and logic.

Why Read?

When one looks for an article to read in their spare time, oftentimes one looks for an article that appeals to their interest. It isn’t very likely that one will choose to read an article that’s about something they aren’t interested in.

In Dan Amato’s article The Dark Side of Immigration he says “Most Americans are against illegal immigration, but I feel that the majority just don’t know that dire situation that our country is in and the damage that illegal aliens are doing to the United States” (Introduction, par. 4). Here he’s stating that he believes that most of his readers know nothing and are anti-immigration. He then goes on in his article to consistently give facts and data—just as if his audience knew nothing.

Is his audience really that uninformed though? Maybe they are. Most people in the United States are unaware of exact data and not many people can quote statistics at the top of their head. Is this what his readers are going to want though? Most people don’t want to read through long lists of every single thing that every single immigrant has done in the United States. Most people don’t even care whether or not this crime happened on this date at this time and at this place. They just want to know how this effects them in their life. Most readers are going to be paying attention to what’s in it for them—not what happened to some person in L.A five years ago.

Crafting the blade for the bearer

I'm sure we've all been in a situation where we've listened to a speaker who wasn't very highly dispositioned towards our viewpoint and in turn when we heard this, we weren't very keen to listen to his. A vital part of rhetoric is the ability of the speaker or writer to connect well with his audience. They have the job of not alienating us as readers. U.S.A. Today's article on illegal aliens has the difficult task of appealing to a very large audience, many of whom will not be favorably disposed towards this particular argument, but the writer does an excellent job at writing a one-sided argument and not alienating his audience.

He starts by appealing to the educated workers and normal laborers, "Carlos Nieto holds a degree in engineering from a university in Mexico but earns far more here, laying bricks in "McMansions," than he would at home."(par. 1) This citation of an experience allows educated Americans to think about a couple of things. First it allows them to wonder what they would do if they had studied, received a degree, and then found they could make more money doing honest labor in another county. Secondly it appeals to the educated workers because they see that these illegal immigrants are actually honest workers not some scoundrels on the street.

Next he asks the question, "Who will do the hard jobs?"(par. 6) This time he appeals to the audience's sense of comfort. He tries to connect with the educated class again and perhaps the people who wouldn't want to do this kind of hard labor. On the other hand, he doesn't appeal to the working class of America, many of whom believe that they would do those jobs if they had an opportunity.

All in all the author does a good job with his article, but on such an issue it is nigh impossible to completely satisfy the demands of his entire audience.

Acting for Themselves

When one thinks of a fallacy, they often think of a lie— an untruth. Sometimes it may be a blatant lie and other times it just may be that its something that hasn’t been proven to be true yet. In writing oftentimes a common logical fallacy is to state their own personal opinion instead.

In Roy Beck’s article What a Jobs-Focused State-of-Union Ought to Say About Immigration he oftentimes makes the mistake of telling the audience what to think. He says “The President should tell the Members of Congress that if they aren’t willing to gather their unemployed voters, look them in the eye and explain why illegal aliens and new foreign workers have precedence over the 500,000 unemployed in every district” (par. 29). Instead of giving the facts and letting the readers decide what they should do, he tells the what course of action they should take. Even at the very beginning of the article when he says “be sure to send this fax to President Obama with State of the Union suggestions” (par. 1), he’s telling his readers how they should behave instead of letting them figure out for themselves what they should do.

Standing On a Soapbox

"Think about the people you trust. Why do you trust them? You might trust them because they have authority... Generally, we trust people who are knowledgeable and experienced... Because we can't know everything about every issue we need to form an opinion on, we often value the opinion of experts" (Writing and Rhetoric, pg. 56). Ethos is all about trust. We trust people that believe what we believe or who have a greater level of knowledge than we have. Oftentimes we feel most comfortable trusting those who respect our intelligence and who act as such.

In Roy Beck’s NumbersUSA article What a Jobs-Focused State-of-the-Union Ought to Say About Immigration, he tries to set up his ethos by saying “What Pres. Obama says—or doesn’t say—about immigration will be the easiest tip-off to whether his first priority truly is putting Americans back to work. Or whether his talk about jobs is mainly a political ploy to gain back support from Independent voters. Here is what he should say (be sure to send this fax to President Obama with State of the Union suggestions)” (par. 1) Here Beck is trying to establish trust with his readers by talking in what he thinks will be an easier way to understand him. Like saying “Pres.” instead of “President.” By using writing in an informal style, Roy Beck is giving up a lot of credibility in showing that he’s not a professional writer. Readers read that and think he’s inexperienced and believed Beck doesn’t know what he’s talking about. They aren’t sure whether they can take his writing seriously or not. They're also not sure if he's doing that just because he doesn't believe they're smart enough to understand him if he talks less informally.

A little later in his article, Roy Beck writes “Thus far, federal spending to put (or keep) nearly 1 million Americans in jobs has cost between $200,000 and $350,000 per job. (See my earlier blogs on Stimulus jobs vs. opening u jobs held by illegal foreign workers)” (par. 2). Here instead of linking a credible source to back up his information, Beck puts up a link to his own blog where he wrote his own opinion on the matter. This doesn’t add to his credibility because it makes the reader wonder if what he just said is really fact or if its his own opinion. It makes the reader wonder if its really worth their while to continue to read this article if all its going to do is advertise Beck’s opinions instead of addressing issues that the reader’s themselves are looking for answers to.

Effective Tools?

Style is what sets writers apart. An author’s use of metaphors, similes, metaphors, irony, and kennings can make or break an piece of writing. Oftentimes, it will be the language of the writing that will make the piece meaningful to the readers.

Laura Parker, a writer for the USA Today, uses the language tools in an interesting and effective way in her article USA Just Wouldn't Work Without Immigrant Labor. She uses the simile in an interesting way to make her point, “Most of the nation's 17.7 million immigrant workers toil, like those who preceded them, in jobs that native-born Americans refuse to do. They work as meatpackers, hotel maids, hamburger flippers, waiters, gardeners, seamstresses, fruit and vegetable pickers, and construction hands” (par. 5, emphasis added). Parker makes an interesting comparison to the past by saying that immigrants today still behave like immigrants always have. It was like she was comparing the jobs that immigrants get to leftovers– the positions that nobody else wants.

Later in the article, Laura Parker says. “Lured by employers who have recruited them aggressively, immigrants have moved from the coasts and border states and settled in the heartland” (par. 8). Here Parker plays with a dangerous metaphor. She first uses the word lured which makes it sound like they were attracted to America with promises of either wealth or power. After she says that though, Parker went on to use the words “recruited… aggressively.” These words don’t quite match up with the word “lured.” Lured implies that the employers carefully thought and planned their strategy to get them– like a fisherman does when he chooses what type of lure he’s going to use when he fishes. Fisherman don’t usually go after their fish aggressively. When one is trying to lure another person they don’t attack them or try to force them. They usually go after them with subtle means. By using the words “lured” and “aggressively,” Laura Parker contradicts herself and leaves her readers wondering whether the employers recruit their potential immigrant employees with subtleties or force.

Are They Doing Anything To Help Us Now?

In 2004, many people were still worried about immigration. After 9/11, many immigration laws had been put in effect, but the opinion of many was that they were still not being implemented. Many were worried that there was nothing being done to stop terrorists from entering the United States.

Heather MacDonald, a writer for the City Journal, address this issue in her article The Illegal-Alien Crime Wave. She says, “Some of the most violent criminals at large today are illegal aliens. Yet in cities where the crime these aliens commit is highest, the police cannot use the most obvious tool to apprehend them: their immigration status” (par. 1). MacDonald realized that using by using an example of growing crime and then pointing out how the police are doing nothing to stop the illegal immigrants that congress passed laws to insure that crime like this wouldn't happen again. By writing this article at a time when many people were wondering how the laws were being enforced, it would’ve fed off of people’s curiosity about whether or not the laws were doing their job. It would’ve answered the question as to whether or not another terrorist attack would be prevented by these laws.

One thing that Heather MacDonald failed to do in this article was use more recent examples. She starts off promising with getting the reader’s attention, but then fails to give concrete recent examples of failed law enforcement. She instead brings up events that happened in 1995 through 1997. When she does mention more recent events it is to quote government officials. The only mention of the devastating attack is to say “On September 5, 2001, his handpicked charter-revision committee ruled that New York could still require that its employees keep immigration information confidential to preserve trust between immigrants and government. Six days later, several visa-overstayers participated in the most devastating attack on the city and the country in history” (par. 20). A fact that while interesting does nothing to answer reader’s questions about whether or not the immigration laws in force now are being enforced and if so to what success. MacDonald never mentions the facts that most of her American readers would be interested in– whether or not the immigration laws are going to protect their country from being attacked again.

Vivid imagery

In an article on the illegal-alien crime wave the author makes very good usage of language tools. One way she uses it is when she talks about how afraid everyone is of illegals, then she says this:
"The ordinarily tough-as-nails former LAPD chief Daryl Gates enacted Special Order 40 in 1979—showing that even the most unapologetic law-and-order cop is no match for immigration advocates."(Par. 13) Here she quickly paints the picture of a tough cop, someone who most people probably look up to as a protectorate and in whom they find hope. Then she proceeds to say that this great police officer who is afraid of nothing, is afraid of the immigration advocates. This in turn creates a feeling of disdain in the audience.

Next she adds the term "Cordon Sanitaire"(par. 13) which is a french term denoting a barrier. It is cleverly used in this scenario to invoke the imagery of the illegals being untouchable to law enforcement. Although, perhaps most of the audience would not understand this play on words, and would only think of some sneaky Frenchman trying to be smart.

Then she adds a very interesting paragraph:

"L.A.’s sanctuary law and all others like it contradict a key 1990s policing discovery: the Great Chain of Being in criminal behavior. Pick up a law-violator for a “minor” crime, and you might well prevent a major crime: enforcing graffiti and turnstile-jumping laws nabs you murderers and robbers. Enforcing known immigration violations, such as reentry following deportation, against known felons, would be even more productive. LAPD officers recognize illegal deported gang members all the time—flashing gang signs at court hearings for rival gangbangers, hanging out on the corner, or casing a target. These illegal returnees are, simply by being in the country after deportation, committing a felony (in contrast to garden-variety illegals on their first trip to the U.S., say, who are only committing a misdemeanor). “But if I see a deportee from the Mara Salvatrucha [Salvadoran prison] gang crossing the street, I know I can’t touch him,” laments a Los Angeles gang officer. Only if the deported felon has given the officer some other reason to stop him, such as an observed narcotics sale, can the cop accost him—but not for the immigration felony."(par.14)

Here she uses very clear imagery by citing problems in the nations courts where it should be one of the safest places in the states. Audiences should be frightened by the words he uses with dangerous illegal gangs flashing their signs in these courts. Or when she uses the wording of casing a target, she uses gang terminology to show just how much of a problem this really is.

In all reality language tools can make or break your argument. In this article the author uses it very well and in turn she is able to manipulate the mood of her audience to reflect her own viewpoints.

Timing is everything

As the state of the union address approached, one writer decided to take matters into his own hands and tried to secure jobs for unemployed Americans. He stepped forward at a time when he needed to act. Winston Churchill put it this way-"To every man there comes in his lifetime that special moment when his is figuratively tapped on the shoulder and offered a chance to do a very special thing, unique to him and fitted to his talents, what a tragedy if that moment finds him unprepared or unqualified for that which would be his finest hour."

Now this writer's timing is great but unfortunately not impeccable. He posts his article just two days before President Obama gives his state of the union address. He does; however, create a very easy way for his audience to positively react to his article. He provides a link to a website which allows them to fax congress. He also adds a link to allow people to send a certain fax to congress which upholds the ideals which he puts forth in the article.

Next he writes about four main issues and how the President's address could directly affect all of them. He understands the importance of this speech, this one moment in time, and he wants others to not only understand it, but to also add their say. He then proceeds to present a well outlined argument on what President Obama should have talked about in regards to immigration. His timing allowed others to take their own stand at a critical moment.

In a world where timing is everything Kairos plays a key role in allowing us to identify when those crucial moments come into our lives. The author acted and the rest was then up to the audience.

Absurd or obscured?

Bordering on Absurdity is an article which rants on how Americans are too caught up in their own self-interests to care for the self-interests of others, and in this case especially immigrants. He presents a somewhat powerful argument from an economic standpoint and tries to convince his audience to have an open view on immigration because they will in reality benefit our economy. In so doing, he leaves out some important information, perhaps obscuring the truth.

The writer makes his first point by saying "Immigration policy should facilitate the movement of people, just as trade policy facilitates the movement of goods.

From an economic perspective, this is a no-brainer. Right now, there are massive differences across countries in the rewards that skills garner. According to a new paper from Mark Rosenzweig, an economist at Yale, immigrants to the U.S. who are high school graduates earn far more than they did in their home countries. The same is true for college grads. An immigrant from Mexico with a college degree can earn almost 10 times more in the U.S. compared with what he or she would receive in Mexico."(Par. 3-4)

Now that would be a fine statement to make if it wasn't for the fact that the writer is trying to use it to prove immigrants will benefit our country. His fallacy is that he uses a hasty generalization. He tries to prove from this quote that immigrants will benefit our economy because they make more money here than in the country that they left, but he doesn't take into account what they will do with the money, or the fact that if they didn't come to the U.S. that an
American would have that job and would be making that money. Instead he just generalizes and obscures the information by not specifying how them making more money here would benefit our economy.

Another fallacy which I found a little more comical came out in the latter part of his article. He says this:

"Another objection is that a higher number of immigrants will add to the country's fiscal burden, through higher future medical and education costs. There's more validity to this argument. It costs local governments a lot to educate immigrant children, and future Medicare and Medicaid expenses could effectively bankrupt the government(italics added), according to current projections.

But these problems are not as big as they seem. As the children of immigrants grow up, their contributions to the overall economy should exceed the costs of their education(italics added), even though that may not help the finances of the towns or cities where they grew up. And the long-term state of Medicare and Medicaid is an issue that is going to have to be dealt with regardless of whether or not there are immigrants here."(Par. 8-9)

Here I just have to pause and grin because it seems that the writer tries to slip in unawares that simple line that immigrants could effectively bankrupt the government. I mean maybe I'm just overreacting, and it's a common occurrence that our government goes bankrupt, but something tells me that that could be a very big deal. Later the writer tries to justify his words by saying that their contributions should exceed the costs of their education, but once again I feel as if I have been robbed of some key point, and I was; he never explained whether or not their use of health care would cause us to go bankrupt. That's a very interesting fallacy because he is appearing to stack the issue, but at the same time he wants to show that he is not being partial to one side or the other. The ensuing result is confusion on the side of the readers, or just humor from his obscure hypothesis.

The undeniable usurpation of American's right to security

One of the most frightening debates on illegal immigration is on crime. Many believe that by allowing them to be here we are increasing our crime rate in this country. Many others believe that such a fear is ungrounded, and illegal's cause no more harm to our country than a pesticide to an apple, perhaps it changes the taste a little, but if anything it is only beneficial and not detrimental. Such is the nature of the debate, perhaps some have lived nearby an immigrant and grown to love them, but inevitably at the same time some have grown to hate them. And so one must tread softly when trying to skirt this issue. In this article Heather Mac Donald uses a very good combination of ethos and pathos, but the backbone of her article is her logos, and the evidence that it presents on such an issue.

Much of the beginning of her argument is using eyewitness participants in this war against crime, citing many police officers who have fought on ground zero for many years: " 'We can’t even talk about it,' says a frustrated LAPD captain. 'People are afraid of a backlash from Hispanics.' Another LAPD commander in a predominantly Hispanic, gang-infested district sighs: 'I would get a firestorm of criticism if I talked about [enforcing the immigration law against illegals].' Neither captain would speak for attribution."(par. 3)

Next she goes on to cite statistics giving her logos even more solid footing.

"In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide (which total 1,200 to 1,500) target illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens.

• A confidential California Department of Justice study reported in 1995 that 60 percent of the 20,000-strong 18th Street Gang in southern California is illegal; police officers say the proportion is actually much greater. The bloody gang collaborates with the Mexican Mafia, the dominant force in California prisons, on complex drug-distribution schemes, extortion, and drive-by assassinations, and commits an assault or robbery every day in L.A. County. The gang has grown dramatically over the last two decades by recruiting recently arrived youngsters, most of them illegal, from Central America and Mexico.

• The leadership of the Columbia Lil’ Cycos gang, which uses murder and racketeering to control the drug market around L.A.’s MacArthur Park, was about 60 percent illegal in 2002, says former assistant U.S. attorney Luis Li. Francisco Martinez, a Mexican Mafia member and an illegal alien, controlled the gang from prison, while serving time for felonious reentry following deportation."(par. 8-10)

What would an audience think after hearing such facts? Most would probably come away thinking that illegals were horrible and were destroying our country. That is the phenomenal moving power of logos. It causes us to think and broadens our minds, allowing us to see new spectrums. The author uses it well. She lays down evidence from eyewitness policemen to scientific data, but one problem with logos is a logical argument can tell the truth but in fact not tell the whole truth.

For example, a young boy who wants to go play with a friend whom his mother doesn't approve of. If he is smart and wants to use logic to further his case, he'll just ask her if he can go play with a friend, maybe even cite another friend who might be there, but he will be sure not to let his mother know the whole truth. Logos must be done with great care. And it is no different with this article. The author furthers her cause, but will a reader receive all the information to make an educated decision? We will see. The first stat she cites is that in L.A. over 95 percent of warrants for homicides target illegal aliens. Now the question is how her logic fits here, because earlier she already established that policemen aren't allowed to ask about a person's legal status. So how does the police department come to know that 95 percent of their warrants are for illegals. Perhaps the reason is because they are "outstanding", which would imply that they haven't been caught yet. And an audience may remember the words "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law." So to say that we have warrants for 1,200 illegal immigrants who have no papers and no real way for us to identify them is a bit of a stretch. Indeed perhaps it is only 95 percent because the police actually, and only have an inkling as to whom the other 5 percent are.

My point is that her logic is great, but readers must remember that telling the truth does not create irrefutable evidence. Indeed it only creates gaps in that ever so elusive reasoning power of logic.

People vs. Things

Humans want to be important. Everyone wants to be considered as special and unique. Nobody wants to be compared to an object or a thing. Nobody wants to have it inferred that things are held more in value than they are.

In his article Bordering on Absurdity, Michael Mandel starts out an emotional appeal by saying that Americans value their 'toys' more than they do people of other nationalities. He points out the fact that while "goods and services move easily across national borders... flows of people are strictly regulated" (par. 1). This attracts people's attention by causing them to realize that while we make laws that allow all the appliances that make our lives convenient to enter our country, we have laws that prevent allowing many immigrants to enter the country.

Being an economic writer for BusinessWeek, Madel focuses on the economic side of the issue of immigration. He focuses on the effect immigration has been having on the economy by talking about the issue of wages and the value immigrants can add to America's economy. For example he says, "A world of open borders would mimic, on a larger scale, the situation that already exists within the U.S. People can move long distances from one part of the country to another, chasing better jobs and higher pay. Florida and Arizona do not erect barriers saying, 'No more immigrants from the Midwest.' Instead, they welcome them and even boast about the number of people moving to their states as a driving force for growth" (par. 5). By comparing the issue of closed borders to something that strikes closer to home, Madel creates the feeling that Americans are completely self-interested. That we are willing to allow other Americans to move into our neighborhoods to create new jobs but when it comes to allowing foreigners we'd rather have them make our 'toys' in their own countries than to come and make them in our own backyards. He uses examples that will strike a cord in people's minds; causing them to realize that we as Americans really do this. Mandel is trying to create an appeal with the business world of America that while "open borders for immigration are not going to happen anytime soon. The political and cultural obstacles are too large, as the latest immigration debate in the U.S. shows. But over time, facilitating the free flow of people is going to be a critical step toward achieving a truly global economy. " (par. 12). Mandel is trying to appeal to American's sense of fairness and compassion by saying that we aren't willing to carry these values that we believe in to outside of our own country.

Parker is Pro Immigration

Laura Parker wrote an article for USA Today called "USA just wouldn't work without immigration labor." She believes that immigrant workers are a positive attribute to the United State's economy. Because immigration is usually a negative subject, Parker would need to some logical and powerful reasons as to why immigration is positive. Phil has already posted on the logos of this article. He commented on how Parker's logos was not strong enough. Although I understand and agree with what he said, I found moments in the article where Parker's logos was pretty strong.

According to Gary Layne Hatch, "logos has a broader meaning than logic." Logos is "arguing through reasoning," it is "rational thought through language," and "appeals to our ability to think." So the information in an argument should make the reader really think about what was said and then formulate their own opinion.

One of the very first things Parker says in her article is that immigrants "fill low-income jobs scorned by American citizens." (Para. 2) That sentence should make the reader think about that jobs that they "scorn" and if those jobs are taken up by immigrants. For example, I don't like working fast food. When I am looking for a new job I will not apply to any fast food places. And if you look at places like McDonalds, Taco Bell and Wendy's, a good portion of their crew are hispanic immigrants.

To go along with the above paragraph, Parker quotes John Gay, a lobbyist for the American Hotel and Lodging Association, who is pro immigration. He says that as Americans we "push our own children into college to be rocket scientists or computer programmers." (Para. 6) With Americans getting better education degrees, they will be going after the higher jobs, leaving the lower jobs for the immigrants. I look at my own life as an example. My fiance and I are born U.S. citizen college students. We will graduate with a Bachelor's in our different areas and get pretty decent jobs. His parents, however, are legal immigrants from El Salvidor. They did not get past an elementary education, so they can only get a lower job. But it's very nice that they can still find one.

In paragraph 11, Parker says that immigration is part of America's history. The examples she gives are the European immigrants that built the Brooklyn Bridge and the Chinese immigrants that built the railroads connecting the Atlantic to the Pacific. This should make the reader think about other historical examples of immigrants helping out America. The one that came to my mind was the Irish factory workers during the industrial revolution.

Laura Parker's article on immigration gives enough information and good examples for the reader to really think about what she is saying. The reader should use what she says to think about their own life or information that they might already know. They should then put the two together and create their own opinion. In making this possible, Parker's article has great logos in it.