The children of immigrant parents’ having dreams of becoming an American citizen, may not become a dream after all according to Mark Krikorian’s DREAM On review. The author uses logos to persuade the audience by giving examples to convey his issues and context in this article of about the 2010 Dream Act bill Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid’s passed in the House of Representatives legalizing illegal immigrants’ children before the age of 16 if they comply with certain requirements is not effective. Mark Krikorian, is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, wrote a commentary in December 2010 for Republicans/Conservative news uses strong logos to persuade his audience in this article. The authors’ interpretation of the Dream Act age requirement differs from Pelosi’s and Reid’s bill, the author claims the Dream Act encourages massive fraud on filing for citizenship by immigrants by claiming work histories from picking watermelons from trees and cherries out of the ground, and finally the author claims the children who are legalized, their parents or relatives are put in limbo by only receiving green cards to work in the United States and eventually citizenship would be abolished for all legal-immigration for family members other than spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens. The author’s interpretation of the age need involving the Dream Act is in favor of the Roman Catholic Church and the English Common Law, sets the age of reason at 7 combined with need of residency of 10 years continuous in the United States.
…show more content…
He defended his example by stating that all advocates claim that infants and toddlers were brought here very young, yet the student body president at Fresno State University, Pedro Ramirez was revealed to have arrived in the United States illegally at the age of 3 in the new bill introduced by Pelosi and Reid. The authors’ second example claims the new bill allows massive fraud. He claims that during the amnesty process the bill measure prohibits fraud investigation. The last example the author uses are the children who were legalized, their parents or relatives are put in limbo by only receiving green cards to work in the United States and eventually citizenship would be abolished for all legal immigration for family members other than spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens. These three examples the author uses are reasons why he feels the 2010 Dream Act bill is flawed and unless revised will not work. The author gives two major rhetorical appeals by using logos to defend his reason to the audience for not agreeing with the 2010 Dream Act. The author states how we allowed Mahmud Abouhalima amnesty into the United States, who …show more content…
The author feels the 2010 Dream Act will attract new illegal immigration. The author writes without mandatory use of E-Verify for all new hires, enforcement of civil Immigration law and exit-tracking system for all foreign visitors this new Dream Act is a failure. The second minor rhetorical appeals the authors addresses to the audience is the amnesty recipient would be given a time- limited work visa indefinitely renewable as long as they stay out of trouble. The author feels without any doubt if these laws are not enforced this new Dream Act bill is not a bill people should not support. By using these appeals to address his audience and giving examples he has used proper
He defended his example by stating that all advocates claim that infants and toddlers were brought here very young, yet the student body president at Fresno State University, Pedro Ramirez was revealed to have arrived in the United States illegally at the age of 3 in the new bill introduced by Pelosi and Reid. The authors’ second example claims the new bill allows massive fraud. He claims that during the amnesty process the bill measure prohibits fraud investigation. The last example the author uses are the children who were legalized, their parents or relatives are put in limbo by only receiving green cards to work in the United States and eventually citizenship would be abolished for all legal immigration for family members other than spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens. These three examples the author uses are reasons why he feels the 2010 Dream Act bill is flawed and unless revised will not work. The author gives two major rhetorical appeals by using logos to defend his reason to the audience for not agreeing with the 2010 Dream Act. The author states how we allowed Mahmud Abouhalima amnesty into the United States, who …show more content…
The author feels the 2010 Dream Act will attract new illegal immigration. The author writes without mandatory use of E-Verify for all new hires, enforcement of civil Immigration law and exit-tracking system for all foreign visitors this new Dream Act is a failure. The second minor rhetorical appeals the authors addresses to the audience is the amnesty recipient would be given a time- limited work visa indefinitely renewable as long as they stay out of trouble. The author feels without any doubt if these laws are not enforced this new Dream Act bill is not a bill people should not support. By using these appeals to address his audience and giving examples he has used proper