Former U.S Congressman, Robert H. Clancy, in his article, An “Un-American Bill”, establishes his opinion on the Johnson-Reed Immigration Act of 1924. Clancy’s purpose is to persuade that the Immigration Act is racist and Un-American. He creates a passionate tone in order to show his readers the ugly truth behind what the Johnson-Reed Act is doing. Clancy supports his argument of the injustice and racial discrimination of the Johnson-Reed Act , by appealing to the readers emotions with his personal anecdotes and by providing facts of all the good things that immigrants do for society and America as a whole.
Clancy begins his article by explaining what the Johnson-Reed act is and why it exists. He appeals to the truth by providing the full
…show more content…
He appeals to the scepticism of the audience when he states that “over 300,000 Italian-speaking soldiers enlisted in the American Army, almost 10 percent of our total fighting force” (2). Another example is when he tells us that “Forty or fifty thousand Italian-Americans live in my district in Detroit. They are found in all walks and classes of life-common hard labor, the trades, business, law, medicine, dentistry, art, literature, banking, and so forth”(2). These facts show how important immigrants are in this country whether it be fighting for it or helping build and maintain the economy and our way of life.
He seals his claim by including anecdotes of his experiences as an immigrant. He appeals to the emotions of the reader when he tells us that his “mother’s father fought in the Civil War, leaving his six small children in Detroit … to fight against racial distinctions and protect his country” (3), He uses this same method again when he talks about when his uncle was “about 14 years old, and the eldest child, fired by the traditions of his family, plodded off to the battle fields to do his bit” (3).
In conclusion Robert Clancy presents a good argument with his strongest asset being his personal anecdotes of his life as an
In 1924 US congress passed the Johnson-Reed act. This act reduced the amount of immigrants coming to the US from any other country to a mere 2%. Many thought this act was unjust and consequently, “un-american”. One man, Robert H. Clancy, a Republican congressman from Detroit, stood up for those being oppressed by this act. Mr. Clancy states his points in the 1924 speech “An “Un-American Bill” through the use of diction, a myriad of anecdotes, and a motley of pathos.
Since the early 19th century case of Gibbons v. Ogden, Congress’ ability to regulate commerce under the Commerce Clause has rapidly expanded. What began as the power to control trade between two states soon extended to transportation, production of goods shipped between states, and eventually to activity with a substantial influence on commerce. In the latter half of the 20th century, the Supreme Court finally began to restrict the extent of the Commerce Clause with the cases of U.S. v. Lopez, U.S. v. Morrison, and later NFIB v. Sebelius. After the trend of lessening the power of the Commerce Clause, Congress does not have a Constitutional basis to enact the Beat the Flu Act. While some may equate the case to Wickard v. Fillburn in an argument
In William Brennan’s view on the American Constitution he focused on human dignity to determine his interpretation. As he states in his essay, “But we are an aspiring people, a people with faith in progress. Our amended Constitution is the lodestar for our aspirations. Like every text worth reading, it is not crystalline.” (Brennan).
Walker discussion of the division of racial battalions in World War 1, also creates the concept of just how devalued the blacks, Japanese and Indians were during this time and how being white meant power and bravery during the war. These examples that Walker gives help build on the previous assumptions that World War 1 did not create racism, but enforced racism that was already happening within the Canadian
In the editorial Merit Based Immigration Sounds Nice, But Who Deserves the Most Merit, John Carson asserts that the concept of merit based immigration, while justified, has several areas that need clearer guidelines. The author begins by giving unbiased background information on the issue, and why this merit is an arbitrary subject. Moving forward, Carson illustrates how from the founding of the nation, “merit [has been used] to justify inequality,” (Carson). In his passage the author, continuously displays the ways merit can be used in favor of certain groups, and how those in power later choose to extend human rights to. John Carson, believes that since the founding of the nation, “merit is employed as a way of unequal doling out limited resources,” (Carson).
The importance of citizenship is to give immigrants an “electoral representation” (Sapunar 6) and receive “the benefits” (Sapunar 6) that the recipients of legalization status that pay taxes like any other “American citizen” (Sapunar 6) would. The “Immigration system” (Sapunar 6) is outdated and faulty that it has an “absence of a pathway to citizenship” (Sapunar 6). Margaret Moran states that LULAC “adopted” a National Policy Platform 2011-2012” that opposes “any legislation” that threatens the Latino community such as the “rights of immigrants,” and that “criminalizes them and those” who provide them “assistance.” There are too many “restrictions (Fuentes 25) when it comes to this path to naturalization. In the case of Newman v. INS (originally LULAC v. INS) which challenges the INS and its interpretation of the Immigration Reform and Control Act 1986, which gave a onetime only, were aliens can apply for a lawful temporary resident status.
Makina, being the brave and courageous person she is, takes the book from the man and begins to “write with determination...without stopping to think which word was better than which other or how the message was turning out” (99). This letter is the start of Makina’s ordeal. In this short, powerful letter, Makina vigorously conveys her feelings about the prejudices that lie within America. Makina mocks American’s tendency to view immigrants as social
New York Senator Robert F. Kennedy said, “Our attitude towards immigration reflects our faith in the American ideal. We have always believed it possible for men and women who start at the bottom to rise as far as the talent and energy allow. Neither race nor place of birth should affect their chances. ”(Robert F. Kennedy). Kennedy expresses how the United States thrives on new beginnings.
One's country of origin or their native land cannot measure competency for success. Determination and persistence solely calculate one’s progress as well as prosperity; accurate determination of successfulness of a person prevail by their willpower to reach success altogether. In America, the government often times have had trouble believing in immigrants capabilities due to the fact that they are not indigenous to the United States. Immigration has been the topic of an ongoing, unsolved debate for multiple decades, and whether or not it is beneficial to both America’s economy and America’s society in its entirety. As we follow Alexander Hamilton's life and major accomplishments as an immigrant in the U.S. in Lin-Manuel Miranda’s Broadway soundtrack
Although this fact is not well known, he reveals how there are undocumented workers who positively contribute to the economy. He explains how “we gladly accept their taxes and sweat,” ultimately supporting the theory that undocumented workers do contribute towards the country’s tax system and labor force. Because Cardinal Mahoney recognizes their help, his tone embodies disappointment towards the way “we scapegoat them for our social ills and label them as security threats.” To conclude, Cardinal Mahoney’s final reflection on the immigration catastrophe justifies it as a “moral and ethical issue,” which is exactly why he and the other members of the church have decided to get involved with it. They feel a sense of obligation to help the immigrants, especially because they believe their mandate will move the nation towards overall improvement.
All authors have different intentions with what they write, even if two authors have the same subject. Since immigration is such a large topic with many different views, it’s important to read different texts with a different point of views to get the full side of the
We are ‘settlers’. We take up land that belongs to us, American citizens, by paying the government price for it.” (Burton 238). This comment on a deeper context was the view and beliefs of American in 1848. Additionally, the social hierarchy is apparent and supports Alamar’s comment that there is inequality and prejudices within the U.S. government.
It is merely a temporary fix for the bigger issue of a broken immigration system. They reason that their claim is true by offering up two personal stories of what people from both sides are saying and thinking. By putting the stories together, the author shows us that the two arguments are not so different after all. The warrant that the article rests on is that the reader has empathy for those coming into the country and that the reader wants immigrants to stay within the country. There is no counter-claim because the article chooses to focus on a middle ground between two arguments.
For this week I decided to write a summary of chapter 11: Anglo-Saxons and Mexicans. The new political ideologies were created between 1830 to the 1840s. These new ideas were influenced by pride and obvious racism. These beliefs inspired the idea that American Anglo-Saxons were the dominant force and that they should be the ones to shape the destiny of others. The idea of the American Anglo-Saxon race was influenced by the American Mexican war.
Undocumented immigrants live with fear of deportation every day of their lives. Those with control of state institutions who do not consider undocumented immigrants as worthy American residents in our society, take advantage of their power by instilling fear of deportation. The restrictive federal and state laws towards migration in the U.S. has become a way to keep undocumented immigrants and their families living in the shadows. Arrocha (2013) claims that the paradox of the U.S. migration seems be that our free democratic republicanism is viewed as the land of freedom, equality, and justice. Yet, these undocumented immigrants aren’t treated equally or given the freedom to live in our society without intimidation.