Undocumented Immigrants
The counting of undocumented immigration based on Pew numbers shows that the unauthorized population from 2014 to 2016 fluctuates from 11.1 to 11.3 million people (3.4% of the total U.S population), but the labor force contribution of unauthorized residents amounted to 8 million (5% of the total civilian labor force) (Krogstab). According to Williamson, approximately 11 million illegal immigrants worked in the farming sector in 2014; this makes up roughly 50% of the entire farm labor in the country. However, today, the limiting of undocumented immigrants has become the hottest topic in the United States; it has led to many dissenting options. In the Immigration and the economy, an article published in February 2017 by Micheline Maynard, the debate over limiting illegal immigration between Steven Camarota, a Research Director of the Center for Immigration Studies, and Ediberto Roman, law Professor of Florida International University shows how this law impacts the U.S. economy. However, Ediberto Roman’s article has a better argument that Steven Camarota’s because it explains the issue completely, utilizes the rhetoric techniques persuasively, and fits all the audiences.
For many decades, America has been battling with the challenges of illegal immigration. However, since the beginning of the 17th century, a number of undocumented immigrants with legal visas have been permitted entry into the country for work purposes, and they have since contributed to the economy through labor resources, especially in the agriculture and the construction fields (“The History). After winning the presidential elections, Trump began a course of immigration restrictions, such as suppressing the “sanctuary cities,” proposing the construction of a wall on the Mexican border and prohibiting immigrants from seven Middle East countries. His actions have generated many different opinions from advocates for and against the enforcement of the undocumented immigration policy (Maynard, 184). As an opponent of this law, Steven Camarota writes that deporting immigrants brings many benefits to the low-educated Americans and the taxpayers. He also emphasizes that the immigrant restriction will alleviate crime in the U.S. (Maynard, 185). On the other hand, to point out the damages of deportation, Ediberto Roman asserts that the tightening of immigration will drop the aggregate U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Furthermore, the massive deportation costs the U.S. financially and increases the unemployment rates. Moreover, it is a serious affront to humanity (Maynard, 185). In general, as Roman and Camarota discuss above, undocumented immigrants creates many benefits for the economy, but it negatively impacts those who live in the country legally. Since both arguments have effects on the audiences’ perception, the audience usually base their opinion on the most influential argument.
Although Roman’s and Camarota’s arguments focus on explaining the importance of this issues, as well as claiming their stances assertively, Roman’s arguments explain the issue less sensitively. In Camarota’s pro-article, with a pragmatic tone, he describes that the benefits of an increasing GDP per capita lead to rising wages and employment for the poorest Americans, which saves the government taxpayers’ money, and regains the country’s security. However, his arguments end with a half-hearted conclusion that leaves the audience concerned about its lack of concrete evidence. Roman’s argument, with an ethical and assertive tone, explains how limiting illegal immigration negatively affects the economy because many businesses need the undocumented workforce. It also puts the pressure on illegal immigrants and their families; moreover, he finishes the argument with criticism of immigrant proponents who simply satisfy audiences. Even though Camarota’s argument concentrates on the numbers and statistics, the tone and the half-hearted conclusion of his argument only appeals to certain audiences. While accompanying an ethical and assertive tone with sufficient evidence, Edibertos’s argument easily approaches multiple audiences.
Although each author has a different point of view, each wants to persuade audiences to agree with his position. To convince their audiences, both writers manipulate the rhetoric (reasons, beliefs, and emotions). Roman’s argument utilizes the rhetoric more successfully than Camarota’s because his information is connected more logically.
Steven Camarota, as a Research Director of the Center for Immigration Studies, studies the influence of immigration on the U.S. with valid information. He appeals to the audience as a credible person (ethos). By using his personal experience, Camarota proceeds to research on illegal immigration and shows that 63% of illegal households-their U.S. born children-cost the taxpayers billions of dollars in welfare (Maynard, 185). He utilizes his research to qualify his argument and shifts people to promise of gain (pathos) because billions of dollars in taxes will be saved. The author also affirms that if the illegal immigrants are deported, employment and wages for those who are in the U.S. legally will be assured as well as their security (Maynard, 185). As a consequent, the standards of living of legal citizens will increase leading to a feeling of life enjoyment. Roman uses facts and data (logos) to support his argument, yet primarily focuses on costs and benefits. He uses the data and facts to show that deportation does not damage the total GDP since illegal immigration only amounts to 2-3% of GDP. It brings many benefits to the bottom class in raising wages from ” $99 to $118 billion a year”, increasing employment for 23 million people, and deductible for the taxpayers on welfare (Maynard, 185). Therefore, limiting illegal immigration is an advantage for U.S. citizens. Unfortunately, the logos found in Caramota’s argument commit a logical fallacy that is “hasty generalization”. With all the benefits from restricting illegal immigration, it appears to affect inflation. Meanwhile, Caramota is opposed to illegal immigration, but with inflation negatively impacting on the U.S. economy, his stance becomes ambiguous. If Camarota’s article doesn’t commit to a logical fallacy, it will likely entice a number of audiences because of his credibility, as well as the promise of gain and enjoyment for legal people in the U.S.
In contrast to Caramota’s ethos, Ediberto utilizes other personal credentials. Because Ediberto is a law professor at Florida International University and supports the undocumented youth student’s in-state tuition (“Ediberto Roman”), his audience could critique his argument to contain a little bias. However, he employs the interference of two other political experts: the U.S. Senator, John McCain, and former United States Secretary of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge. They contribute to the credibility and success of Ediberto’s arguments. Ediberto’s arguments are based on humanitarian aspect and touch people’s feelings (pathos). He writes that deportation is an “inhuman” process and a “life sentence of exile” causing stress on children and their families because it tears their families apart (Maynard). Those poignant and unfair cases produce a feeling of empathy and mercy from people which shifts audiences’ feeling to an expression of anger and disgust. While Camarota commits to “hasty generalization” in the logos, Ediberto manipulates the logos rationally by using cause and effect technique. In his essay, he highlights that the deportation will lead to a reduction of the U.S. GDP by 1.46 %( over ten years the cost is $2.6 trillion). According to Tom Ridge, the deportation itself is a costly process, limits immigration hence it cannot be considered a valid plan for a workable reaction (Maynard, 185)Roman’s argument has logic and adds more authority that moves audiences persuasively.
While Camerota includes in hos logos, the logical fallacy, Roman does the better job in connecting the information logically. Moreover, with the rationale of explaining the cause and effect of the issue to the audience, Roman succeeds in conveying information about the loss of mass deportation and how immigration affects the U.S. economy. Although Camarota has comprehensively recognized the benefits of deportation of the undocumented immigrants, his arguments are not persuasive enough to more the audience emotionally hence only appeal to a section of the audience. Both the pro and con articles bring the notion of dreamers (children of illegal parents) into controversy. The “pro” article brings the children to the damage and blames the illegal immigrants for using their children to enjoy the benefits of the state; it invisibly builds a tentative picture in the article. While the “con” article protects the right of undocumented immigrants and their children, it establishes a certain rapport with audiences that is essential for it to be a winner.
With the comprehensive explanation for this issues, the utilization of tones appropriately and the employment of rhetoric persuasively, Ediberto Roman’s argument wins the case because it is more logical and kinder than Steven Camarota’s. The existence of illegal immigrants brings more benefits than disadvantages to the U.S. economy; moreover, the massive deportation has caused loss of money to the U.S. government. Thus, the illegal immigrants deserve compassion from the government and public rather than deportation. In any case, illegal immigration makes up about 3% of the total population and, at the same time, hold 50% of the labor force in agriculture. If the limiting of illegal immigration law is enforced, it will be a massive loss for the economy, as well as the agriculture industry; besides, if all the undocumented immigrants are deported, would all the legal individuals accept work with the current prevailing wages?