Quindlen and Kennedy both believe that immigrants are a large part of America. Quindlen is telling that discrimination is pointless and she is directed more towards educated people and people of power. JFK is focusing on how immigrants are a large portion of America and he is speaking to the average person, trying to inspire them.
While Quindlen’s tone is more serious and deep when talking about immigrant discrimination, Kennedy’s tone is more casual and explanatory on his thoughts of the importance of immigrants in his essay. Quindlen says “Once these disparate parts were held together by a common enemy, by the fault lines of world wars and the electrified …show more content…
Both of them are focusing on the fact that the foreigners who arrived here have been a huge part of developing our country. One of Kennedy’s points is that “All Americans have been immigrants or the descendants of immigrants” (Kennedy 1). Quindlen emphasizes the effect of foreigner discrimination. Quindlen says “Many of the oft-told stories of the most pluralistic nation on earth are stories not of tolerance, but of bigotry” (Quindlen 2). Here we can see how Quindlen is explaining how outsiders are discriminated through history. As we can see, both of these writers connect how immigrants have had an effect on our country. Both of these essays also have the same motive. They both display that they are trying to convince their reader to their ideas. Quindlen says “These are the representatives of a mongrel nation that somehow, at times like this has one spirit. Like many improbable ideas, when it actually works, it’s a wonder” (Quindlen 8). Here we view Quindlen trying to show that the all of us with different roots must not discriminate and it will work wonders for our country. Kennedy says “Every ethnic minority, in seeking its own freedom, helped strengthen the fabric of liberty in American life” (Kennedy 4). Kennedy is trying to convince readers that migrants to America have helped make America