Nunez Vs Mez

Immigrants. A word which can be defined as a parasite in an economy or an outcast to society is viewed differently in the eyes of both Anne-Marie Nunez and James Meza Jr. A time in which the United States of America suffers from an immigration conflict deems to be an unworthy obstacle for these two as they share both positive aspects and ways to help immigrants. Nunez’s piece entitled “Immigrants Bolster Academic and Civic Engagement in the U.S” portrays a general look into the positive aspects of immigration in the U.S while, Meza’s article entitled “A problem for some school districts” discusses more about the problems encountered by immigrants in school. Although these two pieces of writing share a similar topic; their writing style, point

It is evident that the complexity and directness of Nunez’s work shows that her article is more suitable for readers that are much more educated and are more interested in reading about facts rather than opinions and personal statements. This can be concluded by the numerous amount of undeveloped facts which were written by Nunez on her article. Meza, however, targets a much easier going set of readers. The language is calm and simple and is used to develop a less numerous amount of facts. Furthermore, the usage of personal experiences and stories (anecdote) varies in the two articles provided. Meza’s article shares more examples based on is personal life such as talking about his father in the concluding paragraph. This is useful as it can relate to some of the people reading this particular article. Nunez, on the other hand, provided little to none personal experience and story which is intended for people who are not “immigrants” and are only reading for facts and statistics regarding this particular issue.

In short, one may conclude that both writers—Nunez and Meza—approached their ideas using different techniques of writing. This includes their respective writing styles, point development and appeals to their target audience. However, it is blatantly obvious that both authors lacked depth in their writing and it could have been significantly improved if their articles were slightly lengthier. Nevertheless, it is still fair to say that these two writers succeeded in writing out their respective opinions on such a sensitive