Argument Analysis: DACA Immigrants In The United States
“DACA allowed them to get over the table employment, and the extra money they made led to financial stability and a big increase in car and home purchases…. Six percent even started businesses on their own, thus creating more jobs for others” (No-DACA, 3). This supports that DACA was very beneficial for dreamers by allowing them job permits that gave them an opportunity to have a job and earn a salary like US citizens which opposes session’s speech about how DACA recipients stole jobs from Americans. In this op-ed, Bryce tended to use ethos and logos as she used her authority and supported her argument with statistics and her point of view about the situation which makes sense to the readers, but she failed to give more evidence to support her claim. In the second op-ed “How DACA pits ‘good immigrants’ against millions of others” the author argues that DACA wasn’t the best solution for immigrants. “And while some continue to debate the fine points of DACA, the policy was never an adequate solution to our nation’s immigration situation.” (Sati, 2). Sati thinks that DACA only favored a small group of immigrants and wasn’t in favor for others who aren’t looking for higher education or good jobs and that they also don't get full rights in the US and still undocumented immigrants without papers that make them legal. In this op-ed, the …show more content…
Six percent even started businesses on their own, thus creating more jobs for others.” (No-DACA, 3). In this quote, Bryce used logos as it makes sense that more jobs give more money which means economic growth. Bryce used statistics to support her main claim that DACA didn’t steal jobs from Americans. The evidence that the author uses to support her main claim is misleading as it makes the person convinced that DACA was the best reliable source for dreamers, but by doing further research DACA actually didn’t give people legal status and immigrants were still undocumented and it only came in favor of those seeking high education but it wasn’t beneficial for immigrants who had old criminal records or not seeking higher job positions.
The other op-ed written by Joel Sati, a DACA recipient, supports that DACA wasn’t the best solution for immigrants and there is a distinction made by favoring the good deserving immigrants “dreamers” over others. The author used ethos in writing his argument as he is a DACA recipient which makes him a credible source to relay on. He also used pathos in his argument when he wrote: “we deserve this not because we are good, but because we are human beings”. This appeals to the emotional part of the reader. Sati knew how to successfully affect the reader and