Pro-Immigration Argument Analysis

With a topic as polarizing as the United States’ policies on immigration and open borders, a writer would need to make consistently strong and accurate points in order to convince people to side with them in the situation. This is especially true in the case of an argument that is pro-immigration as many people consider pro-immigration arguers to be biased liberals, much like how many consider anti-immigration arguers to be biased conservatives.With this being said, Eliane does a decent job of making a logical plan for the United States to follow and refuting her original point, she should have made a more effective and less frequent usage of quoting, as well as avoiding the ad hominem fallacy usage.

Eliane’s most effective paragraph, argumentatively,

Doing this weakens an argument as it makes a writer seem as though they need the crutch of someone else’s words in order to express their own opinions. The audience is not going to have faith in the writer’s plan if most of their body, space they should be using to connect with the audience and prove their own point, is overstuffed with quotes. Quotes should be used to support an argument, not create it. In addition, Eliane used the ad hominem fallacy when she referred to anyone who agrees with Kuznicki’s anti-immigration stance as “ people [who] happen to be a little on the close minded and paranoid side and see all immigrants to be bad people.” When making an argument, the writer should not alienate any potential readers, because these are people who could have been on board with their ideas, until they are verbally slandered.

In conclusion, Eliane’s argument had its highs and lows. Although the basis of the body, the first paragraph, showed major potential for the argument and displayed that Eliane had a decent idea for a plan of how to make less strict immigration policies work, she took away from the strength of her argument with her usage of the ad hominem fallacy and overuse of