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.

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.

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.