Immigration, as of the late, has been a fiery topic of discussion in our country. Not just fiery but controversial as well. This issue is one of the most discussed through the recent presidential debates. And it should be. Immigration has been an ongoing obstacle that has yet to find a solution or has yet taken a path to success. With that being said, the United States government should address this issue head on instead of avoiding a major situation that is affecting our everyday lives and economy, starting with an immigration reform. The article, “Immigration Policy” tackles the major issues by using the rhetorical devices of logos, ethos and pathos.
Prior to 1965, immigration was set up on a quota system and allowed 2% of nationalities that America favored, which was Western Europe. Some countries were not allowed to immigrate to the U.S., such as China and the Philippines. From 1924-1965 approximately 6 million people legally immigrated to the United States. By 1960 some countries were claiming that the U.S. immigration policy was discriminating against them. With the civil rights movement happening, President John F. Kennedy and the Democratic Party moved to change the immigration policy.
“The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. The law did away with the racially discriminatory national origins quota system, which had governed admissions to the United States since the 1920s, and created what we have today: An immigration system largely based around family reunification and—to a lesser extent—employment-based
However, the fact is that most Americans have the impression that Hispanic immigrants are perceived as a threat for not assimilating into the American mainstream, more so into the Anglo-Protestant values. Why is that? Is it for fear that the Spanish Language may overrun the country? Similarly, Neil Foley, author of, Mexicans In The Making of America, asks the same questions, why fear? In his prologue chapter, Foley makes a point by proving the fact that in the past, Mexican immigrants were not a concern but were, “ let in to provide the labor force for the rapidly expanding economy”(2). So why treat it any differently now that we are in the present? And how it is that immigrants are supposed to assimilate when most Americans believe they are
Immigration is deeply rooted in the American culture, yet it is still an issue that has the country divided. Marcelo and Carola Suarez-Orozco, in their essay, “How Immigrants Became ‘Other’” explore the topic of immigration. They argue that Americans view many immigrants as criminals entering America with the hopes of stealing jobs and taking over, but that this viewpoint is not true. They claim that immigrants give up a lot to even have a chance to come into America and will take whatever they can get when they come. The Suarez-Orozco’s support their argument using authority figures to gain credibility as well as exemplification through immigrant stories. These strategies work on the rhetorical appeals ethos and pathos. Exemplification appeals to pathos by making the audience feel sympathy for the immigrants for what they give up, and authority figures appeal to ethos by giving credibility to an expert, by supporting the argument through strong facts. In this essay, I plan to explore how these rhetorical strategies act on their respective appeals, how this is used to strengthen the Suarez-Orozco’s argument to persuade their audience, as well as explore other sources that may support this claim.
During the late 1800s and early 1900s, the United States gained many new citizens – immigrants from other countries in search of the American Dream. However, the immigrants’ path to the American Dream was hindered by the prejudice they faced from native-born Americans. This prejudice, also known as nativism, depended on stereotypes that portrayed the immigrants as subservient and justified discriminatory actions. The “otherness” of the immigrants was further confirmed with Social Darwinism, a twisted extension of survival of the fittest that asserted failure as natural selection. Since many immigrants had a difficult time finding success due to cultural barriers and the already prevalent nativism, Social Darwinism allowed prejudice towards
Throughout time diverse regions have considered other societies to be barbaric, causing them to have the desire of “civilizing” them. Likewise, During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the American nativist groups, possessed a similar perspective towards immigration. Nativist’s opposed immigration, as they believed that it would negatively impact the United States socially, morally, politically, and economically. Socially and morally, the nativists feared that foreigners were a threat to the American society, as they were culturally inferior, possessed many ailments, and committed crimes. Politically, the ethnocentric nativists believed that immigrants would corrupt the government and negatively influence American politics.
Throughout the years of American history there has been an abundance of groups that have decided to immigrate to the United States from other countries. The Irish people, Italian and Jewish groups of people departed from their country and moved to have their chance to experience the “American Dream.” These groups moved over and experienced a numerous amounts of stereotypes, discrimination, and finally assimilating into American culture.
Samuel Phillips Huntington an American political scientist, adviser and academic. He spent more than half a century at Harvard University, where he was director of Harvard 's Center for International Affairs and the Albert J. Weatherhead III University Professor. The professor wrote a article called One Nation, Out of Many. In his article he mentions how American came to be and how many immigrants came to America. The article makes some crucial points about immigrants. Also, it mentions how immigrants got to be citizen in the first place. Samuel talks how immigrants can deconstruct America or Americans. Throughout the article Samuel gives example supporting his argument.
“The American story is a story of immigration. I would be the last person who would say immigrants are not important to America.”— Phil Graham, circa 1960. This quote may be from the mid-20th century, but it keeps its significance with the everlasting controversy on immigration and immigration laws. However, this is not the only time that the United States has experienced immigration controversies. Immigration laws have had an impact on the past, as the Chinese Exclusion Act and the National Origins Act are two out of hundreds of laws that were made to limit immigration. Currently, similar laws and actions are taking place with regards to a wall on the southern border of Mexico, and the exclusion of immigration from Middle East countries. With immigration laws playing a huge part in our present, and an even larger part in our past, future laws and disputes are inevitable, and will continue to be hotly contested in the US. However, immigration laws and the discrimination against immigrants needs to change. Immigrants provide this country with an immeasurable number of benefits, and limiting immigration will only leave the United States at a disadvantage to other countries. Immigration laws have also been very controversial about their morality and their actions can outrageously impact families lives forever. The future of immigration laws is unknown, but prohibiting immigration is not the answer the United States needs.
As immigration and relations between races become more influential issues in politics, there have been many opposing views on the treatment of minority groups. Some people believe that diversity and immigration is a threat to original identity while others believe that they are extremely beneficial to society. Writers Samuel P. Huntington in The Hispanic Challenge and Herbert Marcuse in Repressive Tolerance express these differing views regarding these important topics. Huntington takes the ‘threat to identity’ side when explaining how Mexican immigration is extremely different from European immigration. On the other hand, Marcuse takes a different route when explaining the idea of tolerance, claiming that majority groups who oppress the minority
“The Immigrant contribution” and “The Quilt of a Country” are two essays that share a similar focus, however, they cover two drastically different sides of the topic. Both of them share the main idea that America is a country made up almost entirely of immigrants. Kennedy’s essay, “The immigrant Contribution”, focuses on how immigrants have affected our country, whereas Quindlen’s essay discusses how people of many different cultures coexist and work together.The essays both concentrate on immigration in America and how immigration has shaped and molded our culture. The two authors describe the many different aspects of immigration in immensely different ways.
Not every immigrant get into the country using the legal means. There are those who get into the country on student visas and start working contrary to the visas they hold. There are others who get into the country illegally with no genuine United States visa. The immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 focusses on the matter of illegal immigration through placing major fines on the employers of those immigrants who hire them. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 allowed a number of barriers to immigration. The host family is only able accept an immigrant if it is accorded an income of about 125% of the poverty status. This Act additionally calls for the Immigration and Naturalization Service to ensure
Despite the multiple attempts at creating a well-rounded immigration reform the United States has failed to achieve the full capacity of the reform. The United States first failure at the reform was in 1986 when congress passed the “Immigration Reform and Control Act”. The purpose of this legislation was to amend, revise, and re-assess the status of unauthorized immigrants set forth in the Immigration and Nationality Act. The content of this bill is overwhelming and is divided into many sections such as control of unauthorized immigration, legalization and reform of legal immigration.