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.