I
chose to revise the Argument Analysis essay.
Within my revision, I combined a few paragraphs, which was to omit some
of the summary about the first article.
I also elaborated on some places that were left needing more details in
the original essay. The long quote from
President Obama, I had to block, as it was originally not, but for some reason its not showing up blocked on the blog. When I reread this essay, I saw some grammatical
errors which I fixed. There were also
places where I could have made two sentences or combined to make one, so I
worked on combining my thoughts, making things more concise.
Sarah
High
Mrs.
Thomas
SEGL
102
2
May 2013
How to live the American Dream:
The Debate over Immigration Reform
For
years one specific topic has been brought up to Congress over and over
again. Immigration reform seems to be an
issue our Government has a problem laying down a solid law for. Because of this not only are American
citizens left feeling frustrated, but President Obama as well. As American citizens are striving and
struggling to make a living for themselves, many have a hard time dealing with
so many immigrants residing on US land.
Some feel it takes away from their living, while others find it to be
beneficial for everyone. President Obama
sees every American and immigrants’ point of view on the topic, and has
struggled with Congress since his first term with a proposal for immigration
reform.
Our President first laid out the
DREAM Act, having solid evidence for ways he feels will work to boost our
economy, and at the same time allow those wanting to live the American dream to
do so successfully. But while the debate
continues, illegal immigrants are continuing to have American born children and
more immigrants are sneaking into the country.
There are approximately eleven
million illegals already residing in American, and this is causing the
Immigration Reform to continue being unsuccessful (Obama). With many putting demands on Congress to make
quick decisions, some are trying to persuade them in believing immigrants
brought in the country are damaging our economy putting us at risk for a
downward spiral, while others are presenting solid evidence to prove
differently.
Two people specifically, one of
which is a Senator, have written articles stating their reasons why immigration
reform will be beneficial to our economy.
Senator Marco Rubio wrote “Ex-Las Vegan Rubio Outlines a GOP Vision for
Immigration Reform” which was published for the
Las Vegas Review, and David Brooks wrote “The Easy Problem” for The New York Times. Both of these men make logical arguments that
emphasize the immigration reform needing to be rushed for the purpose of benefitting
our economy, while they also use the ad hominem fallacy against President
Obama, Congress, and our country. In
reviewing the two arguments, one can clearly see that David Brooks incorporates
evidence which produces a more trustworthy stance on why it is the optimal
choice for immigrants to reside in America, while Marco Rubio simply uses his
political knowledge to force his stance on readers.
The article by Senator Marco Rubio states
that our Congress needs to address
three key factors in order to fix our broken immigration policy. He
gives details why a modernized legal immigration policy, strengthened law
enforcement, and addressing the illegal immigrants already here, would build a
policy which is fair and honorable to ancestors; at the same time it would help
the economy (Rubio). In the first
paragraph of his article he mentions how immigration built our country, and how
it is a part of our future. President Obama agrees as he is quoted in
January 2013, “we define ourselves as a nation of immigrants, that’s who we are
-- in our bones.” On the other hand, because Rubio has
this erroneous belief that, “our dysfunctional Congress has been unable to put
in place a new legal immigration system that honors our heritage as both a
nation of immigrants and a nation of laws,” makes his statement seem he is not out to make an argument about immigration
reform, but to claim our Government as a failure.
As
the article continues, he expresses his opinions in that the first key area
needing to be addressed is a modernized immigration system with new aged
technology. Besides Rubio’s
political background, he gives no verification this is what our country needs. However,
with President Obama saying “Now we all know that today we have an
immigration system that is out of date and badly broken,” gives Marco Rubio’s article more credibility because our President agrees needing updates to the system. Rubio feels updating the system this will provide a way for immigrant entrepreneurs,
those in the fields of math, science, engineering, technology, and seasonal
workers into our country, which will open the job market for American born
citizens. According to the Americas
Society/ Council of the Americas 28% of new US businesses were immigrant owned in 2011; this created one in ten
new jobs. Those foreign students who
graduate in the top fields and remain in the United States will create
approximately 262 jobs for Americans.
They also state passing the DREAM Act would bring $320 billion to the
economy and create 1.4 million jobs by 2030.
Although Marco Rubio didn’t offer any of these supporting statistics in
his article, his intellect of how immigrants will boost our economy is clear.
Rubio proceeds with the need to
strengthen our law enforcement. Not only is his argument weakly supported,
but he has contradicting views on how to penalize those who improperly crossed
the borders. He blames our broken immigration
system on the law enforcement because
they do not properly force the immigration laws. In his opinion, this is why our country
is flooded with undocumented Dreamers and Congress is having this drawn out
debate. Since Marco Rubio follows
Obama’s immigration proposal he knows our President recently spoke to a crowd
in Las Vegas about his visions for the reform.
President Obama announced,
“During
my first term, we took steps to try and patch up some of the worst cracks in the system. First, we strengthened security at the
borders so that we could finally stem
the tide of illegal immigrants. We put
more boots on the ground on the southern border than at any time in our history.
And today, illegal crossings are down
nearly 80 percent from their peak in 2000” (Obama).
With Rubio declaring enforcement
needs to be strengthened, overlooks what has already been proposed making his
assertion unsupported.
Rubio states, “They knowingly
broke our immigration laws and do not have a legal right to remain here. But they are also human beings who made those
choices in pursuit of a dream we recognize as the American dream.” On one hand he says they don’t have a right
to be here, while on the other it will be difficult rounding up the millions of
undocumented to have them deported. So
they should come forward, pay back taxes, go through a background check, and
perhaps be granted a temporary non-immigrant status which would prevent them
from benefitting from government funds, including college financial aid (Rubio). So even
though Rubio’s opinions on current illegals shift, they are supported by
Obama’s current proposal, in that it’s only fair they play by the same rules as
every other American, including paying their taxes (Obama).
As
Rubio concludes his argument, he directs fallacies toward Republicans and Democrats
which includes the President, with “both sides should want this kind of
common-sense reform.” He also blames our country on having a “de facto
amnesty,” meaning current immigration laws are temporary that allow those
immigrants to continue with no penalty, and the risk for family separation
through deportation, is the cause of arguing politicians. Rubio addresses the debate between
congressmen without giving logic as to why they struggle with the vast issue. Because he doesn’t verify his theory will
function, it seems he is casting an “easier-said-than-done” option for
immigration reform. He shouldn’t assume
every member of Congress ought to favor his theory because there’s an unlimited
amount of methods that need consideration.
There are obviously no quick fixes to this issue.
In
the second article by David Brooks, he agrees with Rubio’s argument on the best
chance in saving our economy is through immigration reform; however Brooks
focuses on normalizing the illegals already here. Also, he wants our immigration policies more
like Canada and Australia which allow high-skilled immigrants into the country. Although Brooks uses his own research to establish
his credibility on the topic and to validate his claim being more suitable for
immigration reform, he also uses the ad hominem fallacy against our nation.
According to Brooks, “The Office of
Punditry” deals with many hard issues that are full of mixed evidence, except
for immigration reform. He feels there
is enough evidence to prove immigration reform is the only option, and is so
clear that even a “Forlorn Pundit” knows the answer to the debate. He completely insults Congress when comparing
them to a forlorn pundit, who is a miserable critic. If a columnist who can’t give a proper critique
knows the answer, Congress must be in a complete and inexcusable condition. But
with him opening the article insulting our Government seems he wants to draw
attention to how horrible they are instead of focusing on immigration reform. Does he think by starting his article with
this he will make connections with more of his readers? Just because him and some
Americans feel there is ample evidence for a solution, doesn’t mean Congress thinks
there is.
Brooks continues expressing his
perspective on the reform by alerting his readers on how immigrants would have
a positive impact on the economy. He includes evidence by Michael Greenstone and
Adam Looney of The Hamilton Project which states, “Immigrants are 30 percent
more likely to start new businesses than native-born Americans, and a quarter
of new high-tech companies with more than $1 million in sales were also founded
by the foreign-born (Brooks). He also
includes a study by Madeline Zavodny, an economics professor at Agnes Scott
College, who discovered that 262 jobs for U.S. natives were created for every
100 foreign-born workers. These
statistics are accurate, as I previously mentioned the Americas Society/Council
of Americas’ facts. With Brooks citing
reliable sources, this gives his argument influential strength.
According to Brooks, the Congressional
Budget Office reveals, “giving the current illegals a path to citizenship would
increase the taxes they pay by $48 billion and increase the cost of public
services they use by $23 billion, thereby producing a surplus of $25 billion.” As he quotes the Congressional Budget Office,
his understanding on immigrants boosting our economy is clear, yet this data
seems to single out America as solely being a “take-all-you-can” country
instead of a land full of liberty and prosperity, which is what the American
dream is centered around.
He recalls the last major immigration debate
in 2007, with the focus on immigrants lowering pay wages for low-skilled
workers. Brooks uses the previous debate
to compare how time has changed, and with research it is proven immigrants
don’t have a negative effect on American-born workers. In some cases he shows wages were actually
raised. He points out that in 2007 economists
were divided on the debate, but in current time the Economic Policy Institute has
presented reviews to support immigration reform and the effects on pay
wages. As a result in Brooks analyzing
and comparing data from the 2007 and current debates, the readers understand
that society has advanced over the years, so past opinions on the issue are no
longer accurate. Because Brooks presents
the justifiable claim, “The argument that immigration hurts the less skilled is
looking less persuasive,” makes his view more appealing and accepted. Most
Americans will see Brooks as a competent writer on this issue, therefore lean
more towards his concepts on immigration reform.
There is no doubt every country
competes with one another for recognition; Brooks describes this as “competing
to win the global talent race.”
According to him, over 60% of nations have improved their policies,
which now have more talent from around the world entering, but has America
losing the competition. In order to get
back in the race he suggests for our country to organize the system to be more
like Canada and Australia’s. According
to Citizenship and Immigration Canada,
one can qualify in becoming a Canadian
citizen after completing several steps.
The first being a permanent resident of three years and at least
eighteen years old , unless the parent is applying at the same time or adopting. After applying one must know proper English
or French, pass a criminal background check, and have complete knowledge of
Canadian history, symbols, and values.
Canada also has a variety of requirements for work or visitation visas
and for refugees. It seems as though those with visitation
visas feel very welcomed in Canada. This
has helped Canada with seasonal jobs and to have a successful economy, which is
why Brooks thinks having an immigration policy like Canada’s will give America
success in regaining economic strength.
Although David Brooks has the
intentions of providing an example of such a prestigious stature, one must
realize that Canada is not perfect.
According to Citizenship and
Immigration Canada, they are working on updating their immigration system
in hopes of using biometrics to help track immigrants. They say even with strict immigration
policies about 80,000 illegals remain in their country. Although the Canadian immigration system
seems more successful than America’s, there is no proof using their policy as
an outline will be beneficial for American people because our country is dealing with a larger population and separate
issues.
As Brooks concludes the article, he emphasizes
his point on immigration reform being the better alternative in fixing the
economy than tax reform and fiscal reform, but focuses on us needing Canada’s
policy to better the work ethics brought into the country. With his ending statement he uses the ad
hominem fallacy against our Government,
calling it pathetic if unable to finalize an immigration law this year, given
the evidence that supports it. By him
putting our country down and saying Canada is better, is like saying he no
longer has confidence in America. As a result citizens might lose respect for
his opinion and begin feeling even more timid about their future.
Although David Brooks presents a
strong argument by citing reliable sources, Marco Rubio’s argument is drawn
from his experience in politics. With
both of these men feeling passionate about the reform, they manage to redirect
the readers’ attention many times by showing animosity towards American
bureaucrats. Yes, immigration reform is
an issue that Congress is struggling to conclude, but considering the amount of
information they are working with its no wonder they are slowly
progressing. Because there are several
points of view that have to be taken into consideration, can one really blame
Congress for wanting to make sure this is done right the first time? So these
men’s opinions on how immigration reform will brighten our economy are fully
supported; however, the need to call names and be impatient on such a crucial
topic isn’t providing evidence Rubio and Brooks are familiar enough with the
issue. The evidence presented has me
believing immigration reform will boost our economy, but how and when, leave it
up to congress to continue debating on.
Works Cited
Brooks,
David. “The Easy Problem.” the New York Times. 31 Jan. 2013. Web.
12 Feb. 2013.
Citizenship
and Immigration Canada.
Canadian Government. 6 Feb.
2013. Web. 16 Feb. 2013.
Marczak,
Jason. “Get the Facts: Immigrants and
the Economy - Five Reasons Why the U.S. Economy Needs Immigrants.” Americas society/council of Americas. 12 Feb. 2013.
Web. 16 Feb. 2013.
Obama,
Barack. “Remarks by the President on
Comprehensive Immigration Reform.” Del
Sol High School. Las Vegas, Nevada. The
White House. 29 Jan. 2013. Web.
16 Feb. 2013.
Rubio,
Marco. “Ex-Las Vegan Rubio Outlines a
GOP Revision for Immigration Reform.” Las Vegas Review-Journal. 27 Jan. 2013. Web.
12 Feb. 2013.
No comments:
Post a Comment