Greg MD Blog

https://1drv.ms/w/s!Ajf2AJCkjjUonDgm6k6I1o3pG3Xr?e=yPiWtn

The Wall Opposing Legalization of Immigrants

Greg McDowell-Dresden

Professor Ann Price

March 6th, 2020

Introduction

These articles recently composed during President Trump’s administration.  Between the core readings “President Trump’s Wall of Compassion” (Lepor,2019) and “Legalization of unauthorized Immigrants would benefit the U.S. Economy” (Fitz, el at.,2016) there are significant discrepancies between the two.  One report says build “President Trump’s Wall of Compassion” (Lepor,2019) to keep out immigrants, and the tone Lepor used is against certain groups of the media and select audiences. However, the other article states, “Legalization of Unauthorized Immigrants Would Benefit the U.S. Economy” (Fitz, et al.,2016) by legalizing unauthorized immigrants both Congress and the White House would need to persuade their constituents. Throughout this essay, I will outline specific areas that I would use logos, pathos, ethos, and why this would appeal to the author themselves or to their audiences.  Both articles are complete the opposites in their language, tone, and the approach as well as the appeal to their audience.

Topic

The tone and language used by Lepor in the article “President Trump’s Wall of Compassion” is oppositional. Lepor states that “…liberal media and liberal commentators…” (Lepor,2019) do not give the President enough credit. The tone that is used here appeals to Lepor’s audience by pathos to ignite emotion and ethos by trying to establish his own credibility.  What exactly does this imply?  He is drawing a political line to segregate citizens and between parties. Trump’s audience is mostly Republicans and radical groups who despise the “liberal media and liberal commentators.” (Lepor,2018) The President has set the tone among the Americans and other groups by using behavior, causing rhetoric, and Trump supporters agree with him.  This would appeal to his audience by emotions using pathos.  This will affect our U.S. national security borders or the interference of cyberspace. President Trump selected a specific nationality or group by calling them dangerous, rapists, or bad people, but not condemning Russia.  By calling these groups names this would apply by using logos as lack of logic, pathos using emotion for his audience and ethos by establishing credibility as President Trump’s lack of knowledge.  Russia has been accused and found to be responsible for interfering in the 2016 election, yet Trump continues to defend them not only pertaining to the 2016 election but also with Hilary Clinton’s emails. “He is encouraging this attack on our democracy,” Michael Morell, a former acting director the Central Intelligence Agency, said of Trump, whom Morell accused of aiding an attempt by Russian Vladimir Putin to influence the U.S. presidential election.” The Washington Post (Wagner, 2016) This would specifically appeal to logos as logic in the attack on Hilary Clinton emails and appeal to her audiences.

Lepor ignores essential facts that do not contribute to his narrative. What are people saying who live near the border, and is immigration a problem? In “The Fight Against Trump’s Border Wall Hits Home Along the Rio Grande” (AFP News Footage 2019), there was an interview of a homeowner affirming the opposite of what Lepor had written in his article. The video is showing a homeowner’s calm and peaceful scenery at this particular border instead of a caravan of stampeding immigrants.  The interview at the Rio Grande would establish logos by using logic to rebuke there the idea that is an immigration problem at the border.  It also to discredit Lepor ethos which apply to his lack of creditable source to his audience.

According to Lepor (2018) “…President Trump must immediately ensure that the U.S. military on the border is fully prepared…” Trump ignores history. According to Mize (2019), in 1954, U.S. President Eisenhower previously sent the military to the border to secure. “The U.S. militarized its southern border once before. It did not work.” published in The Washington Post (Mize,2019) Trumps administration could be repeating history without success as did President Eisenhower.  This certainly would apply ethos as a lack of creditability by researching history itself.  Learning a lesson from the previous administration can undoubtedly benefit the direction in which the U.S. President leads the country.  According to Lepor (2018) “…the placement of troops and razor wires” at the border is one measure to help secure the border to eliminate immigrants from illegal entry.  Lepor supports the claim that immigrants are dangerous which is appealing to pathos by using emotions for his audience to support his claim about immigrants. At the border, the wall will not make it any safer for the U.S. citizens. According to Eli Watkins, “…Trump was right to call El Paso safe, but he was wrong to attribute its drop in crime to the construction of a barrier along the border…” CNN Newsource Sales, Inc. (Watkins,2019). El Paso is safe, but that safety has nothing to do with the border wall. Lepor picks and chooses his facts of logic, which undermines credibility using ethos.

Lepor then contradicts his own argument which does not appeals to logos of any source for logic. For example, he discusses an investigation by Ami Horowitz, who is a right-wing activist.  Horowitz is a filmmaker who has done many documentaries and produced a short film for Fox News on the issue of immigration.  When researching for his credentials, there is nothing other more than short films or him being on Fox News did not validate him as a journalist or his credibility or credentials.

According to Horowitz (2018), the group Pueblo Sin Fronteras is well prepared and is a calm, orderly group that discussed with Lou Dobbs on Fox Business. According to Horowitz, their organizers “stick it in the eye of Trump and undermine U.S. sovereign and border security” (Dobbs & Horowitz, 2018).  In the interview Horowitz (2018) describes instead of mob of criminals he shows rational, organized human being only seeking safety. The immigrants are evading brutality to have quality living, better education and having a job; that is why they are seeking asylum. According to Horowitz (2018), he had interviewed different individuals, so watching the video about the caravan crisis hoping to hear from some immigrants themselves; he did not show any interview on camera. (Dobbs & Horowitz 2018).  Regarding ethos, the author’s position failed to establish credibility.

Kate Smith wrote an article for CBS News title, “Trump’s border wall would stop less than half of illegal immigration in the U.S,” in which she stated “…Mr. Trump tweeted a video called “crisis on the border” painting depicting rioting migrants trying to rush into the country.” (Smith,2019) According to the Center of Migration Studies (CMS), only one-third of undocumented immigrants came to the U.S. through the southern border. The rest came legally on a work visa but stayed after they expired.” (Smith,2019) Why is it interesting that the immigrant population in the U.S. has hit a low. According to Smith’s (2018) article, “The undocumented immigrant population hit a 12-year low in 2016, the most recent year for which data is available, almost entirely due to a sharp drop in unauthorized border crossings by Mexican nationals, according to the Pew Research Center. Pew estimated that the unauthorized Mexican immigrant population decreased by 22 percent since its peak in 2007.” CBS News (Smith,2018).  The logos would appeal to logic in the research of national immigrants that are crossing the border.  There has been a shift with Americans on immigration and their viewpoints are changing. The article is fascinating.  “A growing number of Americans are open to increases in legal immigration, according to a new Pew Research Center survey.” (Garcia,2018).  For their audience to understand what is happening at the U.S. border with the immigrant, they used credibility and emotion with logic to get their message across to their readers.

Fitz, Oakford, and Wolgin (2016) shows “The facts are clear: Immigrants are not a drain on the U.S. economy.” Their own article, “Legalization of Unauthorized Immigrants Would Benefit the U.S. Economy,” which explains shows how immigrants help America by contributing to taxes and social security that benefit the U.S. government shows both logic and credibility. The audiences are divided on these particular issues of immigration, but the appeal would be for most people that support “…legalizing our nation’s undocumented immigrant population and reforming our legal immigration system would add a cumulative $1.5 trillion to U.S. GDP over a decade.” (Fitz, et al.,2016)

The Heritage Foundation’s, Robert Rector, is a conservative Republican who argued his opinion against legalizing undocumented immigrants. The tone used is misleading, and his audience is conservative Republicans. He uses pathos by playing on audience emotions to persuade that legalizing immigrants and welfare is not suitable for our communities. A misleading snapshot, according to Fitz, Oakford, and Wolgin (2016) “… these immigrants will cost taxpayers a significant amount of money by using programs such as Social Security and Medicare…” (Fitz, et al.,2016) yet, these workers had contributed by paying taxes and Social Security, but most of the immigrant with a work permit will not be able to collect from these agencies. Researching Rector, many of his viewpoints are opinionated and slanted to his beliefs.

The U.S would benefit financially from immigrants doing the jobs that a lot of Americans refuse to do.  Some examples of those jobs are working at meat packing houses that process livestock, construction industry, kitchen staff, maids, gardener or janitors just to name a few.  These positions are mostly low wages, extremely hard work and not the idea job, especially processing meat. Thinking about if we remove these worker’s, what would the cost be for us to travel and stay in a hotels, the meat you eat or the cooks and prep cooks at the restaurant, the homes you buy can affect the bottom line to the consumers.  Below are some facts from the USDA including a chart.  By using logos to establish logic in supporting facts and using ethos to verify credible source for our audiences.

According to United State Department of Agriculture Economic Research Center USDA The hired farm workforce is aging(Castillo,2020) “As fewer young immigrants are entering agriculture, the average age of foreign-born farmworkers has risen, pulling up the average for the farm workforce as a whole. The average age of immigrant farmworkers rose by 3 years between 2006 and 2014, and then by 3 more years between 2014 and 2017. By contrast, the average age for U.S.-born farmworkers has remained roughly constant over this time.”  As of 2017, you will see a big number of immigrant workers on the chart below is essential for the audience by appealing logic to understand who is working our farms and what percent of immigrants. The appeal is to the specific audience using logic, emotion, and credibility is essential for the reader to understand what is happing at the U.S. border with the immigrants.

Conclusion

There is a difference in each approach after reviewing these two articles. The article by Lepor (2018) describes how President Trump has been against the media and commentators by attempting to change the narrative by manufacturing facts. He has played on peoples’ emotions by creating havoc and by controlling the border with troops and razor wire. The article written by Fitz, Oakford and Wolgin (2016) illustrates the importance of immigrants to our country and the work they do.  Getting Congress and the White House to work in harmony to reform immigration can be beneficial to the U.S. economy.  Each article speaks to its own audience and attempts to persuade the reader through their use of tone and language.

Written by: Greg MD