Immigration has always been an important factor in the functioning of the American economy. With the advent of highly competitive industries, new technologies and globalization, businesses thrive to find the right candidates to meet their needs. We all know that the number one goal of a business is to make a profit and while many businesses try hard to operate within the moral standards set by societies, others will do whatever it takes to meet that number one goal. Yes, this does include the price of labor and yes I am talking about illegal immigration. One of those hot topics that continues to widen the divisions amongst American politicians.
The editorial board for the USA Today newspaper published an article that rejects current American policies on immigration laws while congresswoman Sue Myrick published an article in the House of Representative editorial in favor of strict immigration laws. The purpose of this article is to rhetorically analyze both arguments in favor of logical, emotional and ethical appeals.
The USA today focused their argument on pathos, the “simple humanity” aspect. Their main argument in pro of illegal immigrants is that while they are here illegally, most do not brake the law and are only looking for a better chance at living. They state that state laws on immigration show no mercy on “immigrants with steady jobs, deep community roots, a history of paying taxes and children who are citizens.”
Most of the logos used by the USA Today editorial board is mainly to fuel the emotional appeal they are trying to build on the reader. For example, they state that 25,000 illegal immigrants have left the state of Oklahoma after the implementation of stronger laws in the state against immigration and end with the statement that families are being “uprooted, and parents are separated from their kids” because of these new laws. They further use logos to communicate that according to a study, Oklahoma’s new laws could end up costing the state’s economy about a billion dollars. The source for such study was not given.
The overall tone is one of compassion. However, little credibility is established. As a national newspaper, the article is targeted to all Americans. The conclusion offers “President Bush’s immigration bill” as an abandoned yet best solution for current immigration problems, this was one last attempt to appeal to the reader’s emotions.
The first positive aspect any reader might find on Sue Myrick’s argument is in ethos, her personal credibility. As a congresswoman, the reader expects her to know what she is about to argue. As a representative of the state of North Carolina, she makes sure to establish full credibility on the subject of immigration through ethos by stating “North Carolina has the 8th largest illegal alien population in the country.”
Mrs. Myrick wastes no time in appealing through logos, the basis of her argument. In making a strong argument, she provides the source of her statistics, a report titled “Dropping Out: Immigrant Entry and Native Exit From the Labor Market, 2000-2005” and written by Steven Camarota, of the Center for Immigration Studies. Her statistics include numbers that support her argument such as the low composition of immigrants in the 473 major occupations in America and the high percentage of illegal immigrants with no more than a high school education.
Mrs. Myrick tone is defensive and unapologetic. Her audience is first and foremost the non-immigrant citizens who reside in the state of North Carolina. This is a clear because she always returns to statistics involving the state and, of course, the title of her article. After stating her argument through the use of statistics, she goes back to pathos by providing solutions that she believes will benefit her audience: “American workers would find jobs, and obtain wages that would help them get off government programs. Businesses would create new technology that would lower costs, and could actually help our economy expand further.”
In the subject of 12 million illegal immigrants living in America and the effects this causes on the rest of the population, judging strictly on a rhetorical analysis, congresswoman Sue Myrick makes a much stronger argument than the editorial board of USA Today. However, as an immigrant I can’t help but add my two cents to the debate. Yes, illegal immigrants must be punished, but before we try to round up and deport the 12 million illegal immigrants that are now part of the force the keeps the American economy moving, let us study the full outcome of those actions and other possible solutions. In my logic, illegal workers would not try to call attention on themselves by taking jobs away from people who rightfully deserve them and might get them deported. They are not drinking from our glass of milk, they are collecting the cookie crumbs that fall from the table. Congresswoman Sue Myrick said it best:”immigrants (legal and illegal) compose the majority of workers in just four out of 473 major occupations in America.” It seems to me we have enough time to come up with a plan that will put an end to the problem of illegal immigration once and for all.
Tags: american economy, american policies, american politicians, Antonio, better chance, Bullen, communism, community roots, congresswoman, congresswoman sue myrick, credibility, editorial board, emotional appeal, emotions, ethics, hot topics, illegal immigrants, illegal immigration, immigration laws, job, Marketing, moral standards, new laws, no mercy, pathos, paying taxes, people, politician, politicians, problem, school, state of oklahoma, sue myrick, time, usa today
