Marked As Outsiders
In the past few presidential elections, the topic of immigration has played a significant role in a plethora of important political discussions and debates about policy reformations. A percentage of Americans lobby for the US to completely close its borders to immigrants, whereas others are convinced it is in the best interest of America to continue to allow immigrants into the country, and even go as far to say America should increase the amount of immigrants sanctioned into the country. In the article “How Immigrants Are Marked as Outsiders,” the author, Michael Jones-Correa, a professor of government at Cornell University and co-author of the book Latino Lives in America: Making it Home, defines exactly what an immigrant is and explains the three critical steps of transitioning from “outsider” to “insider.” In a corresponding fashion, the author of “No Longer an Outsider, but Still Distinct,” Lois Mendoza, who is the chairman of the Department of Chicano and Latino Studies at the University of Minnesota and author of the book, A Journey Around Our America: A Memoir on Cycling,
…show more content…
Immigration, and the Latinoization of the US., focuses on the way technology has improved the emotional tolls of immigration, also presenting the idea that society should tailor itself to be more accepting of so-called “outsiders.” Though Jones-Correa and Mendoza both accurately approach the subject of immigration in respect to their audience’s emotions, Mendoza is more successful in accomplishing the goal of encouraging the New York Times readers to alter their views about immigration, as he presents himself as a knowledgeable source and offers reliable evidence and anecdotes to support his claims.
The aforementioned articles’ exigence is utterly relevant to the time of publication, as the articles were both published in November of 2012, the inaugural month of an election year. As presidential elections approach, immigration progressively becomes a more commonly debated topic in political discussions, as both sides of the political spectrum typically have opposing opinions on immigration. As the two articles are published on the New York Times website, both have the same audience of reasonably to very well educated readers, seeking up-to-date news from a credible and dependable source. To cater to the audience, Jones-Correa takes a professional approach of writing, as the purpose of his article is to explain the technicalities and reasons it is vital for immigrants to go about transitioning from outsider to an insider, to both immigrants and non-immigrants alike. Whereas, Mendoza takes a more poignant and empathetic approach of writing, as it is intended to educate readers on the emotional impact immigration has, as well as open the mind of readers who may not understand the significance of immigration in America. Mendoza and Jones-Correa both establish situated ethos, as both hold respectable jobs within a relating field, and are published authors of books pertaining to immigration.
However, Mendoza better appeals to ethos through using phrases such as “We now know that one can truly live bilingually, biculturally and transnationally,” (Mendoza, New York Times) as he uses distinctive vocabulary and language, appropriate for the discourse community he belongs to, while still maintaining enough simplicity for an unassociated layman to easily understand the main idea of the article. Though Jones-Correa also uses appropriate vocabulary, phrases such as “At the very least, we know that as long as people remain outsiders, they will never feel, or truly be, insiders,” (Jones-Correa, New York Times) are difficult to interpret, leaving the reader more confused, than persuaded to believe his
ideas. In continuation, Mendoza uses vocabulary and language to his advantage, by applying a particular writing style that allows the reader to consider and develop their thoughts on the topic, versus Jones-Correa’s writing style that presents facts for what they are, with little room for exploration. Though consistent references to facts is important for credibility, when it comes to a political topic, it is important to analyze those facts in way that encourages the reader develop their own ideas. Mendoza succeeded in this by appealing to pathos, and alluding to the emotions that come with leaving home, or being excluded by a majority of society, both evoking feelings of sorrow and loneliness in the reader. By making the reader feel something, the author is able to win them over to their side of the argument. Overall, immigration will continue to be an important political discussion topic for the foreseeable future. Jones-Correa and Mendoza both penned persuasive editorial articles on the subject of immigration, answering questions and evoking new thoughts within readers.
Immigration, and the Latinoization of the US., focuses on the way technology has improved the emotional tolls of immigration, also presenting the idea that society should tailor itself to be more accepting of so-called “outsiders.” Though Jones-Correa and Mendoza both accurately approach the subject of immigration in respect to their audience’s emotions, Mendoza is more successful in accomplishing the goal of encouraging the New York Times readers to alter their views about immigration, as he presents himself as a knowledgeable source and offers reliable evidence and anecdotes to support his claims.
The aforementioned articles’ exigence is utterly relevant to the time of publication, as the articles were both published in November of 2012, the inaugural month of an election year. As presidential elections approach, immigration progressively becomes a more commonly debated topic in political discussions, as both sides of the political spectrum typically have opposing opinions on immigration. As the two articles are published on the New York Times website, both have the same audience of reasonably to very well educated readers, seeking up-to-date news from a credible and dependable source. To cater to the audience, Jones-Correa takes a professional approach of writing, as the purpose of his article is to explain the technicalities and reasons it is vital for immigrants to go about transitioning from outsider to an insider, to both immigrants and non-immigrants alike. Whereas, Mendoza takes a more poignant and empathetic approach of writing, as it is intended to educate readers on the emotional impact immigration has, as well as open the mind of readers who may not understand the significance of immigration in America. Mendoza and Jones-Correa both establish situated ethos, as both hold respectable jobs within a relating field, and are published authors of books pertaining to immigration.
However, Mendoza better appeals to ethos through using phrases such as “We now know that one can truly live bilingually, biculturally and transnationally,” (Mendoza, New York Times) as he uses distinctive vocabulary and language, appropriate for the discourse community he belongs to, while still maintaining enough simplicity for an unassociated layman to easily understand the main idea of the article. Though Jones-Correa also uses appropriate vocabulary, phrases such as “At the very least, we know that as long as people remain outsiders, they will never feel, or truly be, insiders,” (Jones-Correa, New York Times) are difficult to interpret, leaving the reader more confused, than persuaded to believe his
ideas. In continuation, Mendoza uses vocabulary and language to his advantage, by applying a particular writing style that allows the reader to consider and develop their thoughts on the topic, versus Jones-Correa’s writing style that presents facts for what they are, with little room for exploration. Though consistent references to facts is important for credibility, when it comes to a political topic, it is important to analyze those facts in way that encourages the reader develop their own ideas. Mendoza succeeded in this by appealing to pathos, and alluding to the emotions that come with leaving home, or being excluded by a majority of society, both evoking feelings of sorrow and loneliness in the reader. By making the reader feel something, the author is able to win them over to their side of the argument. Overall, immigration will continue to be an important political discussion topic for the foreseeable future. Jones-Correa and Mendoza both penned persuasive editorial articles on the subject of immigration, answering questions and evoking new thoughts within readers.