Dream On Rhetorical Analysis
The DREAM On Rhetorical Review
Illegal teenagers who have attended American schools are emotionally and psychologically Americans by right, but should they be allowed to become United States citizens? The authors’ interpretation of the Dream Act from 2010 age requirement differs from Pelosi’s and Reid’s bill that allows teenagers under the age of sixteen to become American citizens. Mark Krikorian feels the Dream Act of 2010 has loopholes that allow illegal aliens to take advantage of this new bill. The author claims the Dream Act encourages massive fraud and the laws implemented need to be enforced by state and local governments. The author uses logos and pathos effectively to persuade the audience by giving examples to convey his issues …show more content…
and context in his article about the 2010 Dream Act bill Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid’s passed in the House of Representatives.
The essay titled “Dream On” was written by Mark Krikorian, who is the executive director for the Center for Immigration Studies and the author of The New Case Against Immigration, Both Legal and Illegal (2008).
He is also a contributor to the National Review Online, a source for “Republican/conservative news, commentary, and opinion,” where this commentary appeared in December 2010. The commentary was written to tell the audience that not only was Pelosi targeting the youth of immigrant parents to citizenship, but also to show to the audience other items in the bill that were not in favor of the United States. Krikorian’s approach was effective in swaying the audience that the United States needed new guidelines on how to control immigration into the United States. The author’s commentary utilizes logos and pathos to support his appeals, supported by being director of the Center for Immigrations …show more content…
Studies.
Setting the age limit to sixteen for United States citizenship for illegal aliens is not a comprehensive Immigration Reform that allows fraud to be committed. Krikorian states, “The Roman Catholic Church and Common Laws set the age of reason at seven. That with a combined requirement of at least ten years’ continuous residence here, seems like a more defensible place to draw the line.” (Mark Krikorian, Pg. 505-506) Krikorian’s examples included if a child who was brought to the United States as an infant, than the child is already psychologically an American. Krikorian’s second example stated, “Perhaps one-fourth of those legalized under the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act received amnesty fraudulently, including Mahmud Abouhalima, a leader in the first World Trade Center Attack.” (Mark Krikorian, Pg. 506).
By not verifying in good faith applications and enforcing young recipients’ parents a time-limited work visa the author feels the 2010 Dream Act will attract new illegal immigration.
Krikorian feels this new bill rewards all migrant people and this bill encourages migration to the United States. The author writes, “This would include mandatory use of E-Verify for all new hires, explicit authorization of state and local government to enforce civil Immigration law and full implementation of an exit-tracking system for all foreign visitors.” (Mark Krikorian, Pg. 506.) Krikorian gives statistics as an example, proving his appeal from 1986 to 2010. By using stringent enforcement measures Krikorian feels this will control an overflow of migration to the United
States.
The authors’ use of rhetorical strategy was very effective by revealing an example of age requirement discrepancies by comparing the Dream Act bill to the Roman Catholic Church, the bill allowing the use of massive fraud, and finally, the laws implemented to state and local governments. His use of logos and pathos was effective towards the audience’s opinion in deciding whether they should support Pelosi’s and Reid’s new 2010 Dream Act bill. The author also persuaded the audience by releasing this article right before the Dream Act of 2010 was introduced to The House of Representatives by Pelosi. Krikorian was factual and showed fatal flaws in this 2010 bill. I was convinced the Dream Act of 2010 was not written effectively because Krikorian proved how important is was for the bill to prevent fraud and implement the rules state and locally.
Illegal teenagers who have attended American schools are emotionally and psychologically Americans by right, but should they be allowed to become United States citizens? The authors’ interpretation of the Dream Act from 2010 age requirement differs from Pelosi’s and Reid’s bill that allows teenagers under the age of sixteen to become American citizens. Mark Krikorian feels the Dream Act of 2010 has loopholes that allow illegal aliens to take advantage of this new bill. The author claims the Dream Act encourages massive fraud and the laws implemented need to be enforced by state and local governments. The author uses logos and pathos effectively to persuade the audience by giving examples to convey his issues …show more content…
and context in his article about the 2010 Dream Act bill Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid’s passed in the House of Representatives.
The essay titled “Dream On” was written by Mark Krikorian, who is the executive director for the Center for Immigration Studies and the author of The New Case Against Immigration, Both Legal and Illegal (2008).
He is also a contributor to the National Review Online, a source for “Republican/conservative news, commentary, and opinion,” where this commentary appeared in December 2010. The commentary was written to tell the audience that not only was Pelosi targeting the youth of immigrant parents to citizenship, but also to show to the audience other items in the bill that were not in favor of the United States. Krikorian’s approach was effective in swaying the audience that the United States needed new guidelines on how to control immigration into the United States. The author’s commentary utilizes logos and pathos to support his appeals, supported by being director of the Center for Immigrations …show more content…
Studies.
Setting the age limit to sixteen for United States citizenship for illegal aliens is not a comprehensive Immigration Reform that allows fraud to be committed. Krikorian states, “The Roman Catholic Church and Common Laws set the age of reason at seven. That with a combined requirement of at least ten years’ continuous residence here, seems like a more defensible place to draw the line.” (Mark Krikorian, Pg. 505-506) Krikorian’s examples included if a child who was brought to the United States as an infant, than the child is already psychologically an American. Krikorian’s second example stated, “Perhaps one-fourth of those legalized under the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act received amnesty fraudulently, including Mahmud Abouhalima, a leader in the first World Trade Center Attack.” (Mark Krikorian, Pg. 506).
By not verifying in good faith applications and enforcing young recipients’ parents a time-limited work visa the author feels the 2010 Dream Act will attract new illegal immigration.
Krikorian feels this new bill rewards all migrant people and this bill encourages migration to the United States. The author writes, “This would include mandatory use of E-Verify for all new hires, explicit authorization of state and local government to enforce civil Immigration law and full implementation of an exit-tracking system for all foreign visitors.” (Mark Krikorian, Pg. 506.) Krikorian gives statistics as an example, proving his appeal from 1986 to 2010. By using stringent enforcement measures Krikorian feels this will control an overflow of migration to the United
States.
The authors’ use of rhetorical strategy was very effective by revealing an example of age requirement discrepancies by comparing the Dream Act bill to the Roman Catholic Church, the bill allowing the use of massive fraud, and finally, the laws implemented to state and local governments. His use of logos and pathos was effective towards the audience’s opinion in deciding whether they should support Pelosi’s and Reid’s new 2010 Dream Act bill. The author also persuaded the audience by releasing this article right before the Dream Act of 2010 was introduced to The House of Representatives by Pelosi. Krikorian was factual and showed fatal flaws in this 2010 bill. I was convinced the Dream Act of 2010 was not written effectively because Krikorian proved how important is was for the bill to prevent fraud and implement the rules state and locally.