Immigration: The ABC’s

Buckley, William. "Immigration: The ABC’s." National Review 19 June 2006,Web.

In the article, the author lays out President Bush’s plan for immigration reform. He talks about four key points to President Bush’s former plan. The first was about creating a program for immigrants to begin learning English. The second point was making an attempt to fortify the border, the third was prosecuting companies that hired illegal immigrants, say on par with not paying taxes. The fourth was a plan of what to do with illegal immigrants who are already here.

English Should Be America's Official Language

Blackwell, Kenneth "English Should Be America's Official Language."Opposing Viewpoints: Immigration. Susan Musser. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2009. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Brigham Young University - Utah. 8 Mar. 2010
.
The author of this article tries to prove that English is the language of America and everyone should learn to speak it, because it will only open up their opportunities. He starts by talking about the EEOC prosecuting the salvation for requiring their employees to speak English in the workplace after working for a year. Then he talks about how a bill came up for vote in the senate to give these employers the right to require their workers to speak English, and Democrats stopped the bill in the House. He then uses stats to show that the majority of the U.S. believes that immigrants should speak English, and even more Americans believe that speaking English would be a beneficial thing for them. The author finishes by saying that teaching immigrants English only opens up doors for them in the U.S., and our goal should be to give them those possibilities.

English Should Remain the Primary Language of the United States

Hewko, John "English Should Remain the Primary Language of the United States."At Issue: Bilingual Education. Loreta Medina. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2003. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Brigham Young University - Utah. 8 Mar. 2010
.
The author in the article uses a lot of personal experience to further his claim that bilingualism is a waste of time and should have never become a program of the U.S. He is the son of an immigrant Ukrainian who came to the U.S. not knowing any English, but when he came he came with the knowledge and the realization that if he was coming to the U.S. that he would have to learn English. The author later uses an example of how his young son learned English in Prague even though he had very little experience in English before he went to school, and the reason he learned it was because that was the only language that was spoken there in school. The author speaks six languages and his wife is from Argentina, and he concludes that bilingual education only hurts immigrants, and it is something that they don’t even want.

English-Only Requirements Are Anti-Immigration

Weber, Rebecca "English-Only Requirements Are Anti-Immigration."At Issue: Bilingual Education. Janel D. Ginn. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2008. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Brigham Young University - Utah. 8 Mar. 2010
.
The author in this article wants to point out the fact that non-bilingual programs are anti-immigration. She tries to prove that only by assimilating the latino population into bilingual programs will we truly show that our nation accepts and wants them. She uses examples from states like Arizona where recent laws have made it so that teachers cannot say non-English words in class to clarify material. He also adds an interesting bit of information by talking about a study that shows a child will learn a second language better if they first become fluent in their native tongue.

Latino Parents Don't Want Their Children in Bilingual Education

Freedman, Samuel "Latino Parents Don't Want Their Children in Bilingual Education."At Issue: Bilingual Education. Janel D. Ginn. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2008. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Brigham Young University - Utah. 8 Mar. 2010
.
The author in this article gives many reasons as to why bilingual education is a bad thing for immigrants. He quotes many immigrant parents who don’t want their children to be stuck in their economic circumstances. Instead, they want their children to be able to live a better life, and they understand that the only way they will find themselves capable of doing so will be through their children’s mastery of English. The author believes the solution to this problem is to be found in the extermination of bilingual programs where these children fall well behind other classmates their age. The argument is that it is harder on the youth to learn English, but it is what they need to do to have the same opportunities as other children in the U.S.

English-Only Education Should Be Standard in Most Schools.

Unz, Ron "English-Only Education Should Be Standard in Most Schools."At Issue: Bilingual Education. Loreta Medina. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2003. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Brigham Young University - Utah. 8 Mar. 2010
.
In the article, the author argues that bilingual education is utterly useless. He gives a lot of statistics in the article regarding the cost of education and also the amount of “bilingual” students who actually learn English, and remarkably enough only 5 percent of the students in the bilingual education program in California learn English. The author’s proposal is to get rid of bilingual programs completely because they aren’t doing our kids any good. He points out that even though some pay-raises are to be gained from bilingualism, the norm around the world is still English, and our goal should be to educate those around us with the language which will do them the most good.

English Should Not Replace a Child

Souto-Manning, Mariana. "English Should Not Replace a Child." Bilingual Research Journal 30.2 (2006): 559-577. Web. 8 Mar 2010. .
In the article the author argues against a long held tradition among many Americans that bilingualism would harm children. She starts by talking about how many people believed and still believe that learning a second language would retard the growth of their children, but in reality it is different. The author points out that in most of the world bilingualism is the norm and only in the U.S. is it thought of as a bad idea. The author does a very good job in arguing that bilingualism is beneficiary to many children.

A Second Chance

Zuckerman, Mortimer. "A Second Chance ." U.S. News & World Report 138.22 (2005): 84. Web. 8 Mar 2010. .
In the article the author argues that we do not need more illegal immigrants in our country. He uses a playful example from a political cartoon where two Indians are looking out of a bush towards the Mayflower and one says to the other "Looks like we are going to need an immigration policy." The author then goes on to try to convince his audience that the Republicans have the right plan. Once again the topic of a guest worker program came up in this article, and the author argued for having it. He also states that illegal immigrants who are already living here must wait their time before they can be granted amnesty.

Sensible, Effective Immigration Answers

Forbes, Steve. "Sensible, Effective Immigration Answers." 177. 9 (2006): 23. Web. 8 Mar 2010. .

In this article, the author tries to communicate what should be done on illegal immigration. He starts by establishing that it is a problem that we need to deal with, and then goes into the many different ways in which people are trying to deal with it. For example he talks about a new bill that had just been passed that would make it an 11 year process for an illegal immigrant to receive citizen status in the U.S. Part of that procedure would be for the immigrant to learn English. Then he goes into giving his opinion on some other immigration issues. He states that students who have a job offer in the U.S. should automatically get to stay even though they don’t have citizenship, and the U.S. should start a guest worker program which would allow upwards of 400,000 immigrants to come to our country on a work permit. Finally he points out that part of the reason why people want to come to the U.S. is because Mexico’s economy is stagnant and would be much better off if it were easier to start a business there.

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.

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.

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.

Strike Gold or Hit the Road

U.S.A. Today's article is used to justify the "tsunami" of illegal immigrants by an emotional appeal to the olympics, which according to the commenter-citizensrevolt, is about to break out on the U.S. U.S.A today tries to play to people's emotions in regard to the Olympics. The Olympics are a time when every American is bound to be become more nationalistic. It is a time when Americans' hearts become knit together in unison as they watch with bated breath, hoping that their world-class athletes will put on a display of American superiority and outclass the rest of the world. U.S.A. today would wish to persuade their audience that immigrants benefit their country extremely because they win gold medals for them in the Olympics. They would have Americans release this frantic flood in the vain hope that these illegal immigrants can one day bring home a gold medal. In this battle of pathos the writer-citizensrevolt strikes back with his own skillful use of pathos. "U.S.A. today has a long record of being open border harlots"(3rd comment, par. 1) says the author. He starts out by attacking U.S.A. today's faithfulness to the United States border patrol. Pointing out that they have "fawned" over many of the immigration bills in the past. Then he gets to the bread and butter of his pathos. He says this-

"No dice. When the Olympics are long over, citizens still get to suffer waiting in line behind illegal aliens in the emergency room and pay for services that the illegals will receive at taxpayer expense. Citizens get to pay for insurance premiums and deductables for our childrens' birth while at the same time paying for 300,000 anchor babies annually, as native birthrates are below replacement levels and theirs are thriving, again at taxpayer expense.

We get to watch our childrens education suffer cuts in sports, music, field trips, etc. while (ESL) English Secondary Language expenditures explode."(par. 3-4)

First he invokes the imagery of hobbling, injured, into a hospital wing only to find he has to wait in line behind a bunch of illegals, that use of pathos definitely would get his audience moving. Next he pulls on their heart strings again by telling them that their kids will not even benefit from the taxes they are paying because instead it will be going to a bunch of kids that they don't know and whom they probably don't even want in their country. Finally he finishes by helping his audience recall how much fun they had doing sports, going on field trips, and playing music, and he points out that their kids will not have that luxury because illegal immigrants are pilfering their schools' coffers, and instead the audience's children will learn how to speak Spanish.

Then he closes by attacking USA today-

"US Citizens must grapple with these treacheries and much more 365 days of every year. Yet, USA Today editors have the gall to invoke a two-week event that occurs once every four years attempting to justify it all."(par. 4)

Citizensrevolt chooses his words very carefully to further his argument. Words such as "grapple", "treachery", "tsunami", "open border harlots", and "fawned" work very well to persuade his audience to believe that not only is U.S.A. Today's article deceiving, but it could also be downright wrong.

Would the audience agree with him? Do these hard working Americans work 365 days a year only to see their money lost to illegals? The author does an amazing job at emotionally equalizing U.S.A Today's use of pathos. He puts the article in perspective for his audience. He helps them realize that U.S.A. Today cleverly uses emotion to further their viewpoint. Perhaps a viewer, after reading both article and post, would come to realize that 365 days is a lot longer than a 4 week period. And after the dust clears from the Olympics, they will be the ones left to live with the remainder of the immigrants.

RJeremy's view on immigration

I want to shortly describe RJeremy's Ethos. Here's a man who uses relatively good logic. He uses good logic to prove his point on the article, but he lacks one important point. He does not establish his Ethos. From his absolutely ridiculous picture, to the end of his article, he gives his audience very little, if any reason to trust him. In turn, because of this, I am sure that his audience will be less inclined to listen to his argument. Now it would be bad enough to see a picture of a man who already seems to have little respect for his country, but then he continues to poke fun at candidates, which his audience of Americans voted for. Of course, he is allowed his opinion and his own freedom of speech, but his audience will most certainly not see any credibility behind his words. Instead they would only see the picture of a fat deranged poser, posing in front of an American flag, trying to give them advice on how they should run their country. Without an eloquent establishment of ethos I would much rather that an individual just kept his freedom of speech to himself.