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.
No comments:
Post a Comment