Roosevelt Four Freedoms Rhetorical Analysis
Shutting our Doors and Disappointing Franklin Roosevelt “The third is freedom from want, which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants — everywhere in the world” (The Four Freedoms). These words rang clear on January 6th, 1941. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt gave his State of The Union Address, when at the time, war was raging across Europe and Asia. The United States was not yet involved but soon would be with the attack on Pearl Harbor just eleven short months later. Roosevelt was trying to focus on the security of the United States, as well as the world. Even today, we still debate the safety of our nation. Recently, President Donald
…show more content…
They are more concerned with the safety of the nation as a whole, not with the people they are shutting out. The biggest concern of the people who share this opinion is the threat of terrorist attacks caused by immigration. In the first section of the ban itself, it is stated that “In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law” (EXECUTIVE ORDER). This argument is concerned with the safety of the citizens of the United States, and their quality of life. While this concern is completely justified morally, the facts just don’t add up. According to CNN, “the primary perpetrators of the major terror attacks have mostly been US-born citizens or permanent legal residents originally from countries not included in the ban”. To summarize, refugees really are not the problem here! Most terror attacks that happen within the United States are domestic. Take Dylan Roof for instance, who stormed into an African-American church and shot nine people. He is a white christian, born in the United States. Not even his parents were immigrants. That is not to say that there are no terrorist attacks committed by immigrants— but the facts show that most aren’t. So if safety isn’t REALLY the issue, why can’t we just drop the ban? If immigration is not the cause of our safety issues, what is stopping us from helping these innocent people? You tell
They are more concerned with the safety of the nation as a whole, not with the people they are shutting out. The biggest concern of the people who share this opinion is the threat of terrorist attacks caused by immigration. In the first section of the ban itself, it is stated that “In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law” (EXECUTIVE ORDER). This argument is concerned with the safety of the citizens of the United States, and their quality of life. While this concern is completely justified morally, the facts just don’t add up. According to CNN, “the primary perpetrators of the major terror attacks have mostly been US-born citizens or permanent legal residents originally from countries not included in the ban”. To summarize, refugees really are not the problem here! Most terror attacks that happen within the United States are domestic. Take Dylan Roof for instance, who stormed into an African-American church and shot nine people. He is a white christian, born in the United States. Not even his parents were immigrants. That is not to say that there are no terrorist attacks committed by immigrants— but the facts show that most aren’t. So if safety isn’t REALLY the issue, why can’t we just drop the ban? If immigration is not the cause of our safety issues, what is stopping us from helping these innocent people? You tell