Writing 1010-015
July 23rd, 2009
Illegal Immigration—Can We Deal with It in a Rational Way?
The United States, a country of immigrants from the very start, currently has the issue of immigration that continues to be a hot spot. As a legal immigrant myself, I know firsthand that the immigration law is strongly enforced for those who chose a legal way of entering this country. At the same time, America has a problem of illegal immigration, so difficult and multi-faceted, that all attempts to solve it have not been successful. Year after year, the situation becomes more complicated and acute so it requires an immediate solution. During the past decades, the issue of illegal immigration has been discussed extensively and passionately by politicians, various lobbies, social scientists and journalists proposing a wide range of solutions. There are some who advocate a total ban on illegal immigration, and there are others who advance a very liberal approach to allowing millions of temporary workers into this country. Is it possible to find a solution that would satisfy everybody? To make proposals look credible, their authors use a wide arsenal of rhetorical techniques to win the argument.
Two fairly recent op-ed columns on illegal immigration that were written for general audiences are good examples of the use of rhetoric in advancing the authors’ positions. The titles of both articles reflect their main ideas. Both writers agree on the urgency and necessity of solving the problem of the illegal immigration now, but offer different solutions. One focuses solely on the change in the immigration law by adding an extensive guest-worker program, while the other claims that only a two-step action (complete border control followed by the full amnesty for the illegal immigrants already in this country) will do. The question for us is which of them uses rhetoric more effectively in persuading their readers.
The first column, “Immigration Law Should Reflect Our Dynamic Labor Market,” by Daniel Griswold, was published in the The Dallas Morning News on April 27, 2008. Daniel Griswold is director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute in Washington; he has authored or co-authored major studies on globalization, trade, and immigration. In his article, Griswold states, that the American immigration law collides with reality. We do not have a simple system that provides for guest workers to enter the United States. At the same time, Griswold says, millions of low-skilled illegals cross the border because there are many jobs for them that Americans do not want to take any more. In the author’s view, illegal immigrants mostly are not bad people--they seek economic opportunities that are not available in their home countries. Griswold says that we can either continue to put the emphasis on the enforcing of the current immigration law spending more billions of dollars, or we can change our immigration rules to reflect the reality of our labor market. Griswold’s main point is this: if millions of otherwise good and law-abiding people pursuing their reasonable goals are forced to violate a law, it indicates a problem with the law. He reminds us that we have already had a successful historical experience with legal temporary guest workers in the early 1950’s, when Congress “rumpled up enforcement” along with the larger number of guest-worker visas. As a result, illegal border crossings dropped 95 percent. Griswold then points out that there are other examples from our history when, by changing the law, we made it “compatible with how people actually arrange their lives.” Such examples should guide Congress in its approach to fixing the Immigration Law.
The author of the second op-ed, “First a Wall--Then Amnesty,” is Charles Krauthammer. He is a widely respected columnist for The Washington Post. He also writes for New Republic, Time, and Weekly Standard and has numerous awards, including the Pulitzer Prize and the Bradley Prize. “First a Wall--Then Amnesty” appeared in the Washington post on April 7, 2006. Krauthammer’s main thesis is that the solution to the illegal immigration problem must be done in sequence: first, “to regain control of our borders” (which, according to him, we have lost) and second, to “legalize the situation of the 11 million illegals among us.” Krauthammer reminds us that during the immigration reform of 1986 “nearly 3 million people got permanent residency,” but the reform did not include a mechanism to stop the continued flow of illegal immigrants. So now we have 11 million more of them in our country, and Americans are wary of the proposed solutions that deal only with the legalization. Krauthammer also asserts that the employer sanctions (the basis of the 1986 reform) were “not only useless,” but even “pernicious”, because the border control enforcement “is the job of government, not landscapers.” His main point is that first of all we need to convince those opposed to legalization that we can radically reduce future illegal immigration. The way to do it is to build a tight barrier on the border. Even though border fences are ugly and expensive, they work, and many countries have been successful “in keeping out potential infiltrators.” After we reduce “the river of illegals to a manageable trickle,” Krauthammer says, “dealing generously with the residual population of past immigration” will become politically possible. In conclusion, Krauthammer tells us that the final result will not be a “mushy compromise,” but “full amnesty (earned with back taxes, learning English, and the like) with full border control.” And the problem would not only be solved, but we would also act “as one nation.”
As we can see, both articles look logical and convincing, so it is important for the reader to understand the rhetorical techniques each author uses to convince their target audiences.
In his first paragraph, Griswold uses strong emotive words, such as “many virtues” and “glaring exception.” He sets up his main topic, the United States as a nation of laws, and highlights one exception to that. “Among its many virtues, America is a nation where laws are generally reasonable, respected and impartially enforced. A glaring exception is immigration." The author's goal here is to appeal to our sense of virtue and to emphasize the gravity of the problem.
In Krauthammer's introductory paragraph, he brings his readers into the conversation by using words such as "our," "we," "us" ("our borders," "we who decide," and "among us.") He says, "Every sensible immigration policy has two objectives: (1) to regain control of our borders so that it is we who decide who enters and (2) to find a way to normalize and legalize the situation of the 11 million illegals among us." The use of the personal pronouns serves to involve the reader in the debate and transforms a general societal problem into a personal one. Here the author tries to reconcile the value of sovereignty with our sense of humanity.
In the next paragraph, Krauthammer builds his credibility by being objective in considering the two main sides of the problem. On the one hand, "No one of good will wants to see these 11 million suffer." On the other hand, by itself, "legalization creates an enormous incentive for new illegals to come." Krauthammer's first point is to appeal to our sense of goodness and the second one is to appeal to our sense of reason. By considering the two sides of the problem the author demonstrates his fairness, thus gains reader's sympathy.
Another interesting rhetorical device is how one frames an issue. For example, Griswold presents the problem of illegal immigration as a lack of an effective guest-worker program. Thus his solution is a simple choice between defending the border at all costs vs. passing a expansive guest-worker program. Griswold says,
We can spend billions more to beef up border patrols [..] erect hundreds of miles of ugly fence slicing through private property along the Rio Grande [..] raid more discount stores and chicken-processing plants from coast to coast. We can require all Americans to carry a national ID card and seek approval from a government computer before starting a new job. Or we can change our immigration law to more closely conform to how millions of normal people actually live.
He deliberately describes one possible solution in the darkest and most extreme terms (“spend billions more,” “hundreds of miles of ugly fence,” “raid more discount stores,” and “require all Americans to carry a national ID.”) Then he paints his preferred solution as simply logical (“to more closely conform to how millions of normal people actually live.”) In describing possible approaches, Griswold uses the “difficult-easy” pattern making it clear which one the author wants us to accept. In doing so, he appeals to both our emotions and sense of reason.
Using logical arguments and reasoning is one of the strongest rhetorical tools that help authors to win their readers over. Here is, for example, how Krauthammer uses this technique.
If the government can demonstrate that it can control future immigration, there will be infinitely less resistance to dealing generously with the residual population of past immigration. And, as Mickey Kaus and others have suggested, that may require that the two provisions be sequenced. First, radical border control by physical means. Then, shortly thereafter, radical legalization of those already here. To achieve national consensus on legalization, we will need a short lag time between the two provisions, perhaps a year or two, to demonstrate to the skeptics that the current wave of illegals is indeed the last.
Here he uses the cause-and-effect argument (if—then), then makes his “sequencing” proposal while enhancing his own credibility by citing an expert on the subject, and concludes the paragraph with the likely outcome. Krauthammer’s logical reasoning is clear to the readers and works effectively towards advancing the author’s argument.
The authors also build their credibility by using statistics, facts, and historical examples. Griswold furthers his argument by framing the illegal immigration issue in terms of a well-known historical event. He writes, “In the 1920s and '30s, Prohibition turned millions of otherwise law-abiding Americans into lawbreakers and spawned an underworld of moon-shining, boot-legging and related criminal activity." Since most of people know about Prohibition and its unintended effects, they can probably agree with the author when he moves to his point in the next sentences, "We eventually made the right choice to tax and regulate alcohol rather than prohibit it."
As we can see from the examples above, rhetoric is very important, and its skillful usage determines a writer’s ultimate success. In our chosen examples, both authors have high reputations. Both Griswold and Krauthammer are very accomplished and experienced writers, but after reading their two articles, I decided that Krauthammer’s piece is more convincing to the reader. From the first sentences he engages the reader in the discussion; his whole op-ed is built as a dialog with the reader.
Krauthammer constructs his writing using strong and logical arguments; he reviews the issue in its historical context, honestly acknowledges the other points of view, and makes concessions and rebuttals. In my opinion, Krauthammer uses the most successful combination of rhetorical techniques. I did not find any fallacies in his writing, while in Griswold’s piece I noticed a couple of them. For example, Griswold claims, “The fundamental choice before us is whether we redouble our efforts to enforce existing immigration law, whatever the cost, or whether we change the law to match the reality of a dynamic society and labor market." So, does the last part of this sentence mean that changing the law will not cost us anything? Another problem with Griswold's writing is that he does not specify what kind of change in the immigration law we should enact to solve the problem. Instead, he uses general phrases like "match with reality," or "The law must be compatible with how people actually arrange their lives." In Krauthammer's article everything is clear and logical, and supported by strong evidence and examples. His article helps us to understand the power of properly used rhetoric. By using a rich and balanced complex of rhetorical methods (including voice tone, word choice, sentence structure and tempo of writing), Krauthammer successfully achieves the goal of persuading his audience of the urgency of the problem and his proposed ways of solving it.
The issue of illegal immigration is complex and often polemic. Therefore, it is important to carefully balance each argument. It is not always easy to distinguish between logical reasoning that might produce positive result and fallacies that may lead to mistaken conclusion. The art of rhetoric may serve to reinforce sound logic, but also sometimes disguises an author's bias, preferences and subjectivity. When considering such a loaded topic as illegal immigration, the reader must always take into account the power of rhetoric.
No comments:
Post a Comment