Yosimar Reyes
Rhetorical Analysis Illegal immigrant, Illegal Aliens, and Undocumented are just some of the terms used as labels of those who travel across the US/Mexico border seeking a life that is bountiful and where social mobility is possible. For an estimated 12.5 million undocumented citizens (Raley 1) living in the United States today, these words are simply the labels that are attached to them— as their names and their stories are forgotten and overlooked. The struggle for an identity is clearly experienced in Yosimar Reyes’s narrative, We Have Never Needed Documents to Thrive, In this short narrative the reader receives first hand insight into the mind of an undocumented citizen living in the United States today. With Reyes’s moving story, he
…show more content…
employs powerful rhetorical devices to grab the reader’s attention, and gives an attainable feeling that anyone can experience at an emotional level. The cataloged struggles of undocumented immigrants by Reyes meetings at a crossroads with Margot Mendelson’s “Mythmaking in U.S. Immigration Courts” as Mendelson speaks to the harsh reality of remaining in the United States as an immigrant today. Being an undocumented citizen in the United States today is full of real struggles as undocumented citizens must prove their commitment to the country to the slightest chance of remaining in its borders, while simultaneously loosing their voices to the the media who sees their struggle as great coverage for American viewers. As Mendelson creates a timeline of the development of racism in the U.S. immigration courts, the use of genre proves to be an important factor her argument. Set in the genre of a legal review article, this format plays out well for Mendelson as she employs the tone of a legal review— which allows for her to give her own bias on the case. However, she is simply choosing the side of defendant while utilizing court cases from the the view point of the plaintiff which is the US government. By doing so, she is able to grab the audience’s attention and create this dynamic that is both informative and almost surprising. With a tone at time that seems to be almost ironic as she reiterates claims from the court system such as “Court decisions wax poetic about immigrants who attend church every Sunday, coach local little league teams, and raise their children speaking English. These values and lifestyles are understood to be quintessentially American…” (Mendelson 1015). In this excerpt the reader can see how her use of the genre of a legal review, while informative, is at time ironic and almost cringe worthy as even the reader can identify such generalizations to be incorrect. By creating this dynamic with the reader, Mendelson successfully opens up the reader’s mind to the harsh realities that the court system has created a systematic fallout for undocumented immigrants— and this evidence is hearty and unsettling. While Mendelson uses the genre of law review because of her education and experience, she understands her audience/reader to be seeking a deeper understanding of how the nations immigration system has arrived at present day, and citing documents from as far back as the early 1900s highlight the deep rooted truth that the country’s foundations have created apprehension to illegal immigrants and their placement in the profound “America” of rolling prairies and red, white, and blue running through our veins. In comparison to this genre is Yosimar Reyes’s piece on growing up as an illegal immigrant.
In this power passage Reyes employs the genre of a first-person narrative, which proves to powerful in both getting his message from the undocumented community across, as well as forming a bond with his audience. By telling his experience of exclusion and pain, a storyline is formed which gives the reader an experience that is far more personal compared to Mendelson’s review. Filled with powerful diction about his struggles, Reyes immediately grabs the readers attention with a deep rooted emotional connection. This is easily seen in his first remark “I was forced to make peace with the fact that my life as an undocumented queer was going to be one filled with challenged” (Reyes 2). In this excerpt, it is obvious that Reyes’s first-person narrative gives the reader a deep look into the being of undocumented and that the ideal mold of a heterosexual, employed person that Mendelson using as her foundational argument is not true— and in fact is oversimplified. Reyes understands the reader who very well could be a U.S. natural born citizen, and he succeeds at starting a moral and emotionally driven conversation about being undocumented in the US. He pushes the reader to think further and broader their mind to the realities that undocumented immigrants are human too. In that place, the reader can see undocumented citizens the same American as all citizens “with papers” today: gay, straight, white, black and everything in-between. And in that conglomerate of people: They all experience the freedoms of America. His narrative succeeds in pushing this idea to the reader that the often social media, “cookie-cutter” undocumented citizen that Mendelson refers to repeatedly such as “…Mr. Rodriguez, ‘a hardworking father,’ juggles two jobs, which ‘bring him happiness’ because they provide for his family’s ‘health and well being’” (Mendelson 1043). It is obvious that he doesn’t even fit
the very mold of a heterosexual family— and that is the argument that the defendant’s attorneys are making. Immediately, this is where the clash of genres meet as the personal touch of Reyes gives more detail in the actual being of undocumented in 2018, where as Mendelson’s legal review fails to give a personal insight of their struggles. Rather, she gives their struggles in the courtroom— however there are many struggles before reaching the judicial system. As Reyes’s narrative argues for understanding form the reader with his genre, his evidence proves to be hold more powerful rhetoric in the argument for undocumented citizens. Using his emotion driven argument, Reyes brings in powerful evidence to highlight the repeated drowning of the undocumented immigrants’ feelings by the social media in the United States. While reading at first, the evidence does not seem to fit his narrative on his life as a undocumented immigrant, however, his successful use of evidence creates a pathos driven argument of consequence. This argument develops the “hypothesis” that social media has hijacked their chance for social progress, and as a result the narrative of being undocumented became “weaponized to create a moral crisis for citizens— as bloc of people with actual voting power. As a result… [we] became victims with no agency” (Reyes 4). Reyes perspective on the social media is interesting, as he sees its outlet as the bane of social freedom for undocumented citizens as their struggles are exploited for viewer rating from news reports and votes from the moral uprising politicians using to push their agenda “of acceptance” while as Reyes highlights the sad truth that these organizations are viewed as “nonprofits and progressive politicians…using the same old talking points” (Reyes 6). The argument of consequence peaks at this point as Reyes calls out the very organizations that are embellished as pushing the pro-immigration view are no more than greedy organizations. An interesting parallel to the hypothesis that is formed at the beginning of his narrative. This use of stores for pages and readership meets at an exact crossroads with Mendelson, as the Yale Law Review, which is a major part of the the “Yale Law Journal” is a nonprofit organization. Striking a pathos driving argument for change among the undocumented community, Reyes succeeds at highlighting a point that would otherwise be overlooked. While Mendelson does a stellar job at elaborating on the history of racism in the court system in her nonprofit-published paper, she seems to steer clear a argument of consequences of the court’s actions— rather creating a argument of authority. In her argument, while she brings the court’s actions of defining whiteness into the reader’s view, she doesn’t seem to offer a weak argument of consequence as she states in the latter half of her review: In sum, discretion functions as a double-edged sword—clearing a small path through which some immigrants can gain status, but lining the way with hyper-normative vocabulary and imagery that both caricature the immigrant. (Mendelson 1057)
While Mendelson is successful in highlighting the truth that is seen in the immigration courts as undocumented immigrants face off for their right to remain in the US, her focus on using logos seems to fall short. While her evidence is powerful as it comes from an argument of authority, in the end there are consequences that are far larger than the bureaucratic processes that Mendelson writes on. The reader can also see this after reading both texts that Reyes’s usage of emotion strikes the reader with an actual moral conflict, where as Mendelson as seen in the quote seems to give an outsider perspective that its just a harsh reality— and one that she does not cope with. However, for undocumented citizens this role of the dice in proving their “Whiteness” is much more danger. Mendelson embodies the outsider perspective of undocumented immigrants and their struggle— and this obviously effects her credibility when comparing her to Reyes who has an emotional connection in his argument for freedom for exploitation. Being an American citizen is often taken for granted by many, however there are some many people who taken simply being an unbothered undocumented immigrant for granted as well. Mendelson and Reyes offer the reader great insight into the harsh realities of being undocumented in the United States. Mendelson’s legal review gives the reader a more sure genre, which gives her text immediately validation from the reader. However, her credibility is lackluster compared to Reyes’s as she lack the personal connection and moral objections that Reyes charges his reader with. Mendelson is successful in giving her reader a timeline approach to immigration in the US, but her text seems to conflict with Reyes’s as she uses the struggles of undocumented citizens for content, rather than motivating change in the reader. Reyes’s conscience reflecting narrative gives a first-person perspective that is hard to disagree with. As an undocumented citizen, his perspective gives a great contrast to the stories that Mendelson touches on.
employs powerful rhetorical devices to grab the reader’s attention, and gives an attainable feeling that anyone can experience at an emotional level. The cataloged struggles of undocumented immigrants by Reyes meetings at a crossroads with Margot Mendelson’s “Mythmaking in U.S. Immigration Courts” as Mendelson speaks to the harsh reality of remaining in the United States as an immigrant today. Being an undocumented citizen in the United States today is full of real struggles as undocumented citizens must prove their commitment to the country to the slightest chance of remaining in its borders, while simultaneously loosing their voices to the the media who sees their struggle as great coverage for American viewers. As Mendelson creates a timeline of the development of racism in the U.S. immigration courts, the use of genre proves to be an important factor her argument. Set in the genre of a legal review article, this format plays out well for Mendelson as she employs the tone of a legal review— which allows for her to give her own bias on the case. However, she is simply choosing the side of defendant while utilizing court cases from the the view point of the plaintiff which is the US government. By doing so, she is able to grab the audience’s attention and create this dynamic that is both informative and almost surprising. With a tone at time that seems to be almost ironic as she reiterates claims from the court system such as “Court decisions wax poetic about immigrants who attend church every Sunday, coach local little league teams, and raise their children speaking English. These values and lifestyles are understood to be quintessentially American…” (Mendelson 1015). In this excerpt the reader can see how her use of the genre of a legal review, while informative, is at time ironic and almost cringe worthy as even the reader can identify such generalizations to be incorrect. By creating this dynamic with the reader, Mendelson successfully opens up the reader’s mind to the harsh realities that the court system has created a systematic fallout for undocumented immigrants— and this evidence is hearty and unsettling. While Mendelson uses the genre of law review because of her education and experience, she understands her audience/reader to be seeking a deeper understanding of how the nations immigration system has arrived at present day, and citing documents from as far back as the early 1900s highlight the deep rooted truth that the country’s foundations have created apprehension to illegal immigrants and their placement in the profound “America” of rolling prairies and red, white, and blue running through our veins. In comparison to this genre is Yosimar Reyes’s piece on growing up as an illegal immigrant.
In this power passage Reyes employs the genre of a first-person narrative, which proves to powerful in both getting his message from the undocumented community across, as well as forming a bond with his audience. By telling his experience of exclusion and pain, a storyline is formed which gives the reader an experience that is far more personal compared to Mendelson’s review. Filled with powerful diction about his struggles, Reyes immediately grabs the readers attention with a deep rooted emotional connection. This is easily seen in his first remark “I was forced to make peace with the fact that my life as an undocumented queer was going to be one filled with challenged” (Reyes 2). In this excerpt, it is obvious that Reyes’s first-person narrative gives the reader a deep look into the being of undocumented and that the ideal mold of a heterosexual, employed person that Mendelson using as her foundational argument is not true— and in fact is oversimplified. Reyes understands the reader who very well could be a U.S. natural born citizen, and he succeeds at starting a moral and emotionally driven conversation about being undocumented in the US. He pushes the reader to think further and broader their mind to the realities that undocumented immigrants are human too. In that place, the reader can see undocumented citizens the same American as all citizens “with papers” today: gay, straight, white, black and everything in-between. And in that conglomerate of people: They all experience the freedoms of America. His narrative succeeds in pushing this idea to the reader that the often social media, “cookie-cutter” undocumented citizen that Mendelson refers to repeatedly such as “…Mr. Rodriguez, ‘a hardworking father,’ juggles two jobs, which ‘bring him happiness’ because they provide for his family’s ‘health and well being’” (Mendelson 1043). It is obvious that he doesn’t even fit
the very mold of a heterosexual family— and that is the argument that the defendant’s attorneys are making. Immediately, this is where the clash of genres meet as the personal touch of Reyes gives more detail in the actual being of undocumented in 2018, where as Mendelson’s legal review fails to give a personal insight of their struggles. Rather, she gives their struggles in the courtroom— however there are many struggles before reaching the judicial system. As Reyes’s narrative argues for understanding form the reader with his genre, his evidence proves to be hold more powerful rhetoric in the argument for undocumented citizens. Using his emotion driven argument, Reyes brings in powerful evidence to highlight the repeated drowning of the undocumented immigrants’ feelings by the social media in the United States. While reading at first, the evidence does not seem to fit his narrative on his life as a undocumented immigrant, however, his successful use of evidence creates a pathos driven argument of consequence. This argument develops the “hypothesis” that social media has hijacked their chance for social progress, and as a result the narrative of being undocumented became “weaponized to create a moral crisis for citizens— as bloc of people with actual voting power. As a result… [we] became victims with no agency” (Reyes 4). Reyes perspective on the social media is interesting, as he sees its outlet as the bane of social freedom for undocumented citizens as their struggles are exploited for viewer rating from news reports and votes from the moral uprising politicians using to push their agenda “of acceptance” while as Reyes highlights the sad truth that these organizations are viewed as “nonprofits and progressive politicians…using the same old talking points” (Reyes 6). The argument of consequence peaks at this point as Reyes calls out the very organizations that are embellished as pushing the pro-immigration view are no more than greedy organizations. An interesting parallel to the hypothesis that is formed at the beginning of his narrative. This use of stores for pages and readership meets at an exact crossroads with Mendelson, as the Yale Law Review, which is a major part of the the “Yale Law Journal” is a nonprofit organization. Striking a pathos driving argument for change among the undocumented community, Reyes succeeds at highlighting a point that would otherwise be overlooked. While Mendelson does a stellar job at elaborating on the history of racism in the court system in her nonprofit-published paper, she seems to steer clear a argument of consequences of the court’s actions— rather creating a argument of authority. In her argument, while she brings the court’s actions of defining whiteness into the reader’s view, she doesn’t seem to offer a weak argument of consequence as she states in the latter half of her review: In sum, discretion functions as a double-edged sword—clearing a small path through which some immigrants can gain status, but lining the way with hyper-normative vocabulary and imagery that both caricature the immigrant. (Mendelson 1057)
While Mendelson is successful in highlighting the truth that is seen in the immigration courts as undocumented immigrants face off for their right to remain in the US, her focus on using logos seems to fall short. While her evidence is powerful as it comes from an argument of authority, in the end there are consequences that are far larger than the bureaucratic processes that Mendelson writes on. The reader can also see this after reading both texts that Reyes’s usage of emotion strikes the reader with an actual moral conflict, where as Mendelson as seen in the quote seems to give an outsider perspective that its just a harsh reality— and one that she does not cope with. However, for undocumented citizens this role of the dice in proving their “Whiteness” is much more danger. Mendelson embodies the outsider perspective of undocumented immigrants and their struggle— and this obviously effects her credibility when comparing her to Reyes who has an emotional connection in his argument for freedom for exploitation. Being an American citizen is often taken for granted by many, however there are some many people who taken simply being an unbothered undocumented immigrant for granted as well. Mendelson and Reyes offer the reader great insight into the harsh realities of being undocumented in the United States. Mendelson’s legal review gives the reader a more sure genre, which gives her text immediately validation from the reader. However, her credibility is lackluster compared to Reyes’s as she lack the personal connection and moral objections that Reyes charges his reader with. Mendelson is successful in giving her reader a timeline approach to immigration in the US, but her text seems to conflict with Reyes’s as she uses the struggles of undocumented citizens for content, rather than motivating change in the reader. Reyes’s conscience reflecting narrative gives a first-person perspective that is hard to disagree with. As an undocumented citizen, his perspective gives a great contrast to the stories that Mendelson touches on.