Aishwarya Nandini
Professor Martin
ENGL 1301-060
22 October 2016
Rhetorical Analysis
After reading and analyzing the article “no, our immigration system is not broken”, it is apparent that the article contains valuable information and is suitable for being published in the UTA student newspaper, The Shorthorn. In this article the author presents an overall argument about the United States Immigration System, talking against the proposed argument that states that the US Immigration System is broken. The author of the text is the Chief Political Correspondent of The Washington Examiner, Byron York. His purpose is to inform the audience of his article, the citizens of the country and the readers of the text, about his own viewpoint on the argument. …show more content…
He again uses pathos when he quotes Sen. Rubio and says "We are the most generous nation on earth to immigrants, allowing over one million people a year to come here legally", and he uses data from the Yearbook to strengthen his point. He provides data to show how many people came to the US in 2012 and how many were given green cards to stay here, but in these paragraphs, in my opinion, he diverges a bit from the topic at hand and starts to talk about his own take on increased immigration. It gives the audience an idea that he is not a supporter of increased immigration when he talks about the Gang of Eight Bill and says “Is it wise to greatly increase the already large number of immigrants admitted to the country each year, especially in a time of high unemployment and economic anxiety?”. He does say that the System indeed is not broken because of more and more people coming into the country, but rather the illegal immigrants- the ones with expired Visa terms, are overstaying their permission and the Congress is not doing enough to remove them. This is where the flaw lies he …show more content…
It works, and in some instances, doesn’t seem to work only because the political leaders do not want it to, but still it is said that the System is broken. York justifies this behavior of the political parties by saying that, the supporters of comprehensive reform believe that is the best way to convince the public that action is urgently needed, that on an average, a voter might never even come to know that the U.S. successfully admits so many immigrants to the country. Going by the facts provided by the author, it seems the public opinion regarding increased immigration has compelling majorities opposing the increase. And of the people in favor of it are of wealthy, interest groups who want to increase the number of immigrants in the country. Some genuinely want to bring in more internationals because they believe it would be good for the country. But for others, a desire for increased immigration just happens to coincide with an advantage to themselves that such an increase would bring: more low-wage workers, or more potential voters or more potential union members.
The article enlightens the readers about the country’s immigration policies and provides some perspective about the system and its flaws. The publication of this article in The Shorthorn, now, would be beneficial for the students with the 2016 Presidential Elections just around the corner, and because the topic
Professor Martin
ENGL 1301-060
22 October 2016
Rhetorical Analysis
After reading and analyzing the article “no, our immigration system is not broken”, it is apparent that the article contains valuable information and is suitable for being published in the UTA student newspaper, The Shorthorn. In this article the author presents an overall argument about the United States Immigration System, talking against the proposed argument that states that the US Immigration System is broken. The author of the text is the Chief Political Correspondent of The Washington Examiner, Byron York. His purpose is to inform the audience of his article, the citizens of the country and the readers of the text, about his own viewpoint on the argument. …show more content…
He again uses pathos when he quotes Sen. Rubio and says "We are the most generous nation on earth to immigrants, allowing over one million people a year to come here legally", and he uses data from the Yearbook to strengthen his point. He provides data to show how many people came to the US in 2012 and how many were given green cards to stay here, but in these paragraphs, in my opinion, he diverges a bit from the topic at hand and starts to talk about his own take on increased immigration. It gives the audience an idea that he is not a supporter of increased immigration when he talks about the Gang of Eight Bill and says “Is it wise to greatly increase the already large number of immigrants admitted to the country each year, especially in a time of high unemployment and economic anxiety?”. He does say that the System indeed is not broken because of more and more people coming into the country, but rather the illegal immigrants- the ones with expired Visa terms, are overstaying their permission and the Congress is not doing enough to remove them. This is where the flaw lies he …show more content…
It works, and in some instances, doesn’t seem to work only because the political leaders do not want it to, but still it is said that the System is broken. York justifies this behavior of the political parties by saying that, the supporters of comprehensive reform believe that is the best way to convince the public that action is urgently needed, that on an average, a voter might never even come to know that the U.S. successfully admits so many immigrants to the country. Going by the facts provided by the author, it seems the public opinion regarding increased immigration has compelling majorities opposing the increase. And of the people in favor of it are of wealthy, interest groups who want to increase the number of immigrants in the country. Some genuinely want to bring in more internationals because they believe it would be good for the country. But for others, a desire for increased immigration just happens to coincide with an advantage to themselves that such an increase would bring: more low-wage workers, or more potential voters or more potential union members.
The article enlightens the readers about the country’s immigration policies and provides some perspective about the system and its flaws. The publication of this article in The Shorthorn, now, would be beneficial for the students with the 2016 Presidential Elections just around the corner, and because the topic