English 101

The following is Sanjeev Khunkhun's rough draft for his Rhetorical Analysis essay. This first draft was strong. There is a great deal of analysis of the rhetorical context and strategies going on.  Especially effective is the way in which Sanjeev has determined that the appeals are to middle class values.

The essay's weakness, however, is the second analysis in which Sanjeev has claimed that the strategy is to create a sense of "fear."  The claim is effective (he has revised from even the first claim he suggested which was that the appeal was a logical one).  I recommended he provide more development of why the appeals created fear in the middle class.  That is, I asked him to develop the audience values being appealed to which might make them feel "fear" at the situations suggested by the arguments.

Please look at Sanjeev's revisions to see how he developed and fine-tuned his analysis into a well-thought out look at the rhetoric behind the controversial topic of immigration.

Rough Draft

Throughout history, people have always moved from country to country for many different reasons. Some people are in search of a better job and lifestyle while others are escaping from persecution for their religious or political beliefs. Still others have evacuated their native land because of disasters such as food scarcity or war. The majority of the time, people immigrate from nations that are struggling with overpopulation, unemployment, and poverty. The nation that has received more of these immigrants than any other country in history is the United States. The United States has even been named the Nation of Immigrants.

Many people today are beginning to try to determine the effects of such large numbers of people coming to the United States to live. Immigrants obviously significantly affect the economy and society of the nation but the question is whether immigrants make a positive or negative contribution toward these aspects of the nation. One side of the argument says that nations that receive immigrants generally benefit from them. The immigrants are believed to bring different ways of life that enrich their adopted land while also stimulating economic growth. The other side of the argument, however, believes that immigrants have an adverse effect and actually harm the nation. This side argues that countries such as the U.S. which receive large amounts of immigrants are harmed because the immigrants contribute to problems such as crime, overcrowding, and the general decay of the society and economy.

The two sides of this issue are presented in two unique ways that are strategically used in order to persuade the general public that the opposing view is inferior and stands no ground. The side that favors immigration portrays immigrants in a manner that appeals to the majority of Americans by creating a sense of sympathy in the audience and thus playing on the public’s emotions. The side that is against immigration presents its argument by discussing general everyday problems of society and logically concluding that these problems are the direct result of immigrants.

There are many sources that favor immigration and claim that it benefits the United States both economically and socially. These sources repeatedly use emotional appeals to address the audience. Before these sources could do this, however, they first had to decide who their audience is and what would appeal to this audience. The audience that is addressed is the general public--the middle class of America. Because these sources want to appeal to the majority of people in America, they strategically present their side of the issue in a manner which appeals to this class of citizens. This class of citizens can be characterized as people who believe they work hard, have high morals and ethics, and place a strong emphasis on the family and the surrounding environment. Thus, the side of the issue which wishes to appeal to this class citizens must also show that it shares the same beliefs and values. This is precisely what those favoring immigration have done in order to convince people that immigrants help the nation.

The Economist, a journal which discusses factors which effect the United States economy and society, supports immigration through the method of invoking emotion in the audience. This journal recently did a study on the effects of immigration in New York. In the article the author casually mentions that it is not uncommon to find within the city Indian engineers, Jamaican nurses, and Korean doctors. The article also mentions that many immigrants from Asia such as Chinese arrive in this country with enough money to go into their own business while others work hard running restaurants and selling vegetables in lower Manhattan. Although this information is casually presented in the article, that does not mean they are unimportant. This information is effectively included to appeal to the middle class of America. By mentioning Indian engineers, Jamaican nurses, and Korean doctors the audience becomes aware that these immigrants have worked hard in their lives to be educated and have a strong sense of dedication towards what they do in life. The National Review, another journal which focuses on immigration and the United States, mentions the old truism that states "Chinese work harder than anyone else and that they are instinctively entrepreneurial." This appeals to the middle class because this class of citizens also works hard to earn an honest living and must also dedicate themselves to everything they do in order to be successful. Hence, the author is able to establish common ground between the two groups which invokes a sense of sympathy in the audience towards immigrants. The author also mentions that many immigrants go into business on their own because (s)he is aware of the fact that many people of the middle class also do the same which once again invokes a sense of sympathy toward immigrants from the audience. Running restaurants and selling fish on the street are seen as high labor jobs and demonstrates the hard working ethics and determination in the minds of immigrants. These are all values which the middle class, the majority of the nation, also places a strong emphasis on.

Sources which support immigrants also state that immigrants demand little living space in crowded cities where density does not always mean slums. This also is used as an effort to appeal to the middle class of America. Many people belonging to the middle class have families to raise along with house and car payments. This means that these people who are by no means filthy rich must economize and use their resources wisely in order to adjust to the expenses of the American lifestyle. Thus, an audience who lives in this way also admires and sympathizes with others who must do the same, for they share the same lifestyle. Sources discuss the fact that many immigrants in New York and other large cities adapt to the limited space by even subdividing apartments with partitions. This demonstrates their ability to adapt to living expenses which many middle class people must also do.

Middle class parents also raise their children to be hard working and have high morals. This type of a solid family life prevents many adolescents who belong to the middle class from being involved with crime and other law breaking activities. For this reason, middle class parents also value those who share this type of strict upbringing. Hence, sources such as The Economist which attempt to appeal to the public to convince them that immigration helps America state facts about immigrants such as "family courts meet virtually no juvenile crime among Indian immigrants," or "...immigrant’s strong family and moral values." This appeals to parents of the middle class because they are trying to teach their children that things such as crime are also bad and once again they admire those who share the same ideas and values in life.

Although there are many who believe immigration positively effects the United States, there are also those who believe that immigration actually harms the nation. This side of the issue argues that immigrants have a negative impact on the society and the economy of the nation. Sources which support this view try to convince the audience that this is the case using a similar rhetorical strategy as the other side of the issue. However, instead of trying to create a sense of sympathy in the audience, the side which opposes immigration tries to invoke a sense of fear in the audience. These sources begin by first generally discussing some social and economic problems that our nation faces. The sources then state immigrants as the root of these problems and this causes citizens to fear immigrants due to the negative effects they can have on the nation. Some of the problems addressed by these sources that are blamed on immigrants are economic problems, social and cultural problems, and environmental problems.

The International Migration Review mentions that one of the major problems people feel immigrants cause is the strain on jobs. Due to the increased living expenses of today’s society, job security and availability are something that all citizens are concerned with. For most people not having a job means not being able to make car payments and house payments, thus making it difficult to raise a family. Recognizing the importance of jobs to citizens of the country, sources which oppose immigration strategically argue that immigrants take jobs away from citizens and lead to job insecurity. This causes citizens to fear immigrants because the citizens realize that the foreigners are searching and fighting for the same jobs they are. Thus, the topic of job insecurity and the strain on jobs is discussed to invoke a sense of fear in citizens and cause them to be scared of immigrants due to their contribution in the increase of competition for jobs.

The International Migration Review also discusses the fact that one-third of respondents to a 1986 opinion survey cited negative cultural or personal traits of immigrants as "the biggest problem" associated with immigration. Such traits consisted of items such as unwillingness to assimilate or learn English. These kinds of facts are used as an effort to propel the fear of immigrants. The national language of the United States is English and this is the only language that most native born citizens know. However, immigrant groups bring with them their own languages and means of communicating. Thus, large numbers of immigrants often speak their own language and thereby scare native English speaking people. These citizens are scared by this because they begin to feel like foreigners in their own country and English becomes often begins to seem like a second language of the nation behind a vast array of other languages. This is also very scary to native citizens because they know that in order for this country to excel and be successful all people of the country must be able to communicate and work with each other. Hence, sources which oppose immigration use the fact that many immigrants do not know English because these sources are aware of the fear that is invoked in the audience by such statements. Such sources purposely do not mention that in states like New York there is such a mass of immigrants who want to learn English that classes often have waiting lists. This is because the sources are conscientiously trying to scare the audience and the admittance of such a fact would lessen the degree of fear invoked in citizens.

Another common statement about immigrants identified by The International Migration Review is that immigrants perpetuate their own cultures. The perpetuation of foreign cultures is brought up because it too causes fear in native citizens. Most native citizens have been brought up in the "American culture" and share common social beliefs and values. However, foreign cultures often have contrasting values and beliefs and it is these cultures which scare native citizens. Native citizens are scared by foreign cultures mainly because they are different and often do not share similar values and beliefs. In addition, the perpetuation of such cultures by large numbers of immigrants causes many native citizens to fear that one day they will be foreigners in their own country living and the "American culture" will no longer exist. Thus, this source is able to scare the audience by playing with their patriotic sentiments.

Perhaps one of the most common arguments presented by sources such as the environmental magazine, Currents, is that immigrants hurt the environment the most by causing such long-term impacts such as loss of animal habitats and air pollution. Sources suggest that because of the necessary increase in housing, many wilderness areas where animals live are destroyed. Because most citizens are aware of the fact that the environment and natural resources are necessary for life, this argument also causes people to fear immigrants and be scared of the effects they inflict on the nation. Although many people are not too concerned with the environment and its resources running out in their lifetime, they are concerned about their children’s lives and what kind of lives they will have to live if the environment is decayed by immigrant populations. Invoking fear in the audience is used once again by causing citizens to fear the environmental effects that immigrants are believed to cause. Thus, Jim Motavilli in Currents, purposely chooses to ignore facts from the other side of the argument such as the fact that immigrants have an amazing ability to adapt and occupy little living space as compared to most natives of the country (Economist 1989).

Today, there is an increasing number of immigrants coming to the United States; the Nation of Immigrants. These immigrants unarguably have a significant effect on the United States both economically and socially. However, the issue in debate currently is whether immigrants make a positive or negative net contribution to the United States. The opposing sources which address this issue use similar rhetorical strategies but altering tactics in order to present their claim to the audience. Sources which support immigration attempt to establish a sense of sympathy for immigrants in order to convince the middle class that immigration benefits the nation. Sources which oppose immigration attempt to invoke a sense of fear immigrants to scare the audience of the negative effects that immigration has the nation. Because this issue is so highly but differently addressed, the sources both acknowledge that immigrants obviously do have a significant effect on the Nation of Immigrants.

Second Draft:

Throughout history, people have always moved from country to country for many different reasons. Some people are in search of a better job and lifestyle while others are escaping from persecution for their religious or political beliefs. Still others have evacuated their native land because of disasters such as food scarcity or war. The majority of the time, people immigrate from nations that are struggling with overpopulation, unemployment, and poverty. The nation that has received more of these immigrants than any other country in history is the United States. The United States has even been named the Nation of Immigrants.

Many people today are beginning to try to determine the effects of such large numbers of people coming to the United States to live. Immigrants obviously significantly affect the economy and society of the nation but the question is whether immigrants make a positive or negative contribution toward these aspects of the nation. One side of the argument says that nations that receive immigrants generally benefit from them. The immigrants are believed to bring different ways of life that enrich their adopted land while also stimulating economic growth. The other side of the argument, however, believes that immigrants have an adverse effect and actually harm the nation. This side argues that countries such as the U.S. which receive large amounts of immigrants are harmed because the immigrants contribute to problems such as crime, overcrowding, and the general decay of the society and economy.

The two sides of this issue are presented in two unique ways that are strategically used in order to persuade the general public that the opposing view is inferior and stands no ground. The side that favors immigration portrays immigrants in a manner that appeals to the majority of Americans by creating a sense of sympathy in the audience and thus playing on the public’s emotions. The side that is against immigration presents its argument by discussing general everyday problems of society and logically concluding that these problems are the direct result of immigrants.

There are many sources that favor immigration and claim that it benefits the United States both economically and socially. These sources repeatedly use emotional appeals to address the audience. Before these sources could do this, however, they first had to decide who their audience is and what would appeal to this audience. The audience that is addressed is the general public; the middle class of America. Because these sources want to appeal to the majority of people in America, they strategically present their side of the issue in a manner which appeals to this class of citizens. This class of citizens it the working class of America who work hard, have high morals and ethics, and place a strong emphasis on the family and the surrounding environment. Thus, the side of the issue which wishes to appeal to this class citizens must also show that it shares the same beliefs and values. This is precisely what those favoring immigration have done in order to convince people that immigrants help the nation.

The Economist, a journal which discusses factors which effect the United States economy and society, supports immigration through the method of invoking emotion in the audience. This journal recently did a study on the effects of immigration in New York. In the article the author casually mentions that it is not uncommon to find within the city Indian engineers, Jamaican nurses, and Korean doctors. The article also mentions that many immigrants from Asia such as Chinese arrive in this country with enough money to go into their own business while others work hard running restaurants and selling vegetables in lower Manhattan. Although this information is casually presented in the article that does not mean they are unimportant. This information is effectively included to appeal to the middle class of America. By mentioning Indian engineers, Jamaican nurses, and Korean doctors the audience becomes aware that these immigrants have worked hard in their lives to be educated and have a strong sense of dedication towards what they do in life. The National Review even mentions the old truism that states "Chinese work harder than anyone else and that they are instinctively entrepreneurial." This appeals to the middle class because this class of citizens also works hard to earn an honest living and must also dedicate themselves to everything they do in order to be successful. Hence, the author is able to establish common ground between the two groups which invokes a sense of sympathy in the audience towards immigrants. The author also mentions that many immigrants go into business on their own because (s)he is aware of the fact that many people of the middle class also do the same which once again invokes a sense of sympathy toward immigrants from the audience. Running restaurants and selling fish on the street are seen as high labor jobs and demonstrates the hard working ethics and determination in the minds of immigrants. These are all values which the middle class, the majority of the nation, also places a strong emphasis on.

Sources which support immigrants also state that immigrants demand little living space in crowded cities where density does not always mean slums. This also is used to appeal to the middle class of America. Many people belonging to the middle class have families to raise along with house and car payments. This means that these people who are by no means filthy rich must economize and use their resources wisely in order to adjust to the expenses of the American lifestyle. Thus, an audience who lives in this way also admires and sympathizes with others who must do the same for they share the same lifestyle. Sources discuss the fact that many immigrants in New York and other large cities adapt to the limited space by even subdividing apartments with partitions. This demonstrates their ability to adapt to living expenses which many middle class people must also do.

Middle class parents also raise their children to be hard working and have high morals. This type of a solid family life prevents many adolescents who belong to the middle class from being involved with crime and other law breaking activities. For this reason, middle class parents also value those who share this type of strict upbringing. Hence, sources such as the Economist which attempt to appeal to the public to convince them that immigration helps America state facts about immigrants such as "family courts meet virtually no juvenile crime among Indian immigrants" or "...immigrants strong family and moral values." This appeals to parents of the middle class because they are trying to teach their children that things such as crime are also bad and once again they admire those who share the same ideas and values in life.

There are also many sources which believe that immigration does not help the nation socially or economically. In order to convince the middle class of the nation that this is the case, these sources try to logically appeal to these people. These sources begin by first generally discussing the social and economic problems that our nation faces. Upon introducing these problems, these sources automatically assume and state that immigrants are the source of these problems. Hence, the sources leave no room for analysis or thought pertaining to these problems, they simply state immigrants as the source and use them as the scapegoats for the nation’s problems. Some of the problems addressed in these sources are economic problems, social and cultural problems, and environmental problems.

The International Migration review mentions that one of the major problems people feel immigrants cause is the strain on jobs. This is a rather simple and straightforward approach to make the general public believe this is true. Any logical person would assume the strain on jobs is obviously cause by the increase in population caused by immigrants. However, if one analyzes such an assumption it is evident that there are many things that could contribute to the strain on jobs and unemployment such as being unqualified for the positions and not having the proper credentials. Thus, these sources purposely do not mention such possibilities in order to appeal logically to the audience.

The International Migration Review also discusses the fact that one-third of respondents to a 1986 opinion survey cited negative cultural or personal traits of immigrants as "the biggest problem" associated with immigration. Such traits consisted of items such as unwillingness to assimilate or learn English. These kinds of statements are used to offer logical examples of problems that immigrants bring to this country. Upon hearing such a complaint as the one above most people would agree that not knowing English is a common problems for immigrants since they are from foreign lands. However, because these sources are trying to logically appeal to the audience, the sources strategically do not mention that in states like New York there is such a mass of immigrants who want to learn English that classes often have waiting lists. This is because people can logically assume that because immigrants do not know English they can in no way help the nation.

Another common complaint against immigrants identified by The International Migration Review is that immigrants perpetuate their own cultures. Sources such as this are trying to convince the audience that simply because such cultures are foreign, they are bad. This is effective because it is human nature to fear that which one does not know about. The natural and logical conclusion that most people in the United States would conclude is that because these cultures are foreign, they can in no way help this country even though this may not be true.

Perhaps one of the most common arguments presented by sources such as the environmental magazine, Currents, is that immigrants hurt the environment the most by causing such long-term impacts such as loss of animal habitats and air pollution. Sources suggest that because of the necessary increase in housing, many wilderness areas where animals live are destroyed. Because most middle class citizens are concerned about the environment where they raise their families this serves as an effective argument against immigrants. Upon hearing the argument, it simply makes sense that this must be the case. Thus, Jim Motavilli in Currents, purposely chooses to ignore facts from the other side of the argument such as the fact that immigrants have an amazing ability to adapt and occupy little living space as compared to most natives of the country (Economist 1989). Thus, once again the side of the issue that is against immigration uses a logical approach in convincing the middle class of America that immigration hurts the country both economically and socially.

Today, there is an increasing number of immigrants coming to the United States; the Nation of Immigrants. These immigrants unarguably have a significant effect on the United States economically and socially. However, the issue in debate currently is whether immigrants make a positive or negative net contribution to the United States. The opposing sources which address this issue use quite different rhetorical strategies in order to present their claim to the audience; the middle class of America. Sources which support immigration attempt to use an emotional appeal to convince the middle class that immigration benefits the nation. Sources which oppose immigration repeatedly use a logical appeal to convince the middle class that immigration harms the nation. Because this issue is so highly but differently addressed, the sources both acknowledge that immigrants obviously do have a significant effect on the Nation of Immigrants.

Final Draft with Works Cited

Throughout history, people have always moved from country to country for many different reasons. Some people are in search of a better job and lifestyle while others are escaping from persecution for their religious or political beliefs. Still others have evacuated their native land because of disasters such as food scarcity or war. The majority of the time, people emigrate from nations that are struggling with overpopulation, unemployment, and poverty. The nation that has received more of these immigrants than any other country in history is the United States. The United States has even been named the Nation of Immigrants.

Many people today are beginning to determine the effects of such large numbers of peoples coming to the United States to live. Immigrants significantly impact the economy and society of the nation. The debate lies in whether immigrants make a positive or negative contribution towards these aspects of the nation. One side of the argument says that nations that receive immigrants generally benefit from them. They are believed to bring different ways of life that enrich their adopted land while also stimulating economic growth. The other side of the argument, however, believes that immigrants have an adverse effect and actually harm the nation. This side argues that countries such as the U.S. which receive large amounts of immigrants are harmed because the immigrants contribute to problems such as crime, overcrowding, and the general decay of the society and economy.

The two sides of this issue are presented in two unique ways that are strategically used in order to persuade the general public that the opposing view is inferior and stands no ground. The side that favors immigration portrays immigrants in a manner that appeals to the majority of Americans by creating a sense of sympathy in the audience and thus playing on the public’s emotions. The side that is against immigration presents its argument by discussing general everyday problems of society and suggesting that these problems are the direct result of immigrants. This approach is effectively used to play on the citizen’s emotions and ultimately creates a sense of fear of immigrants due to the problems which they allegedly cause.

There are many sources that favor immigration and claim that it benefits the United States both economically and socially. These sources repeatedly use emotional appeals to address the audience. Before these sources could do this, however, they first had to decide who their audience is and what would appeal to this audience. The audience that is addressed is the general public--the middle class of America. Because these sources want to appeal to the majority of people in America, they strategically present their side of the issue in a manner which appeals to this class of citizens. This class of citizens can be characterized as people who believe they work hard, have high morals and ethics, and place a strong emphasis on the family and the surrounding environment. Thus, the side of the issue which wishes to appeal to this class citizens must also show that it shares the same beliefs and values. This is precisely what those favoring immigration have done in order to convince people that immigrants help the nation.

The Economist, a journal which discusses factors which affect the United States economy and society, supports immigration through the method of invoking sympathy in the audience. This journal recently did a study on the effects of immigration in New York. The author of the article states that it is not uncommon to find within the city Indian engineers, Jamaican nurses, and Korean doctors ("American" 20). The article also mentions that many immigrants from Asia such as Chinese arrive in this country with enough money to go into their own business while others work hard running restaurants and selling vegetables in lower Manhattan. This information is intended to appeal to the middle class of America. By mentioning Indian engineers, Jamaican nurses, and Korean doctors, the audience becomes aware that these immigrants have worked hard in their lives to be educated and have a strong sense of dedication towards what they do in life. The National Review, another journal which focuses on immigration and the United States, mentions the old truism that states "Chinese work harder than anyone else and that they are instinctively entrepreneurial" (Knecht 58). This appeals to the middle class because this class of citizens also works hard to earn an honest living and must also dedicate themselves to everything they do in order to be successful. Hence, the author is able to establish common ground between the two groups which invokes a sense of sympathy in the audience towards immigrants. The author also mentions that many immigrants go into business on their own because he is aware of the fact that many people of the middle class also do the same which once again invokes a sense of sympathy toward immigrants from the audience. Running restaurants and selling fish on the street are seen as high labor jobs and demonstrates the hard working ethics and determination in the minds of immigrants. These are all values which the middle class, the majority of the nation, also places a strong emphasis on.

Supporters of immigration believe that immigrants have a minimal effect on the environment, arguing that they demand little living space in crowded cities. Sources discuss the fact that many immigrants in New York and other large cities adapt to the limited space by even subdividing apartments with partitions ("American" 20). The middle class can identify with situations such as this one because they too must adapt to limited living space due to financial constraints. Thus, the audience also admires and sympathizes with the immigrants since they share the same lifestyle.

Middle class parents also raise their children to be hard working and have high morals. This type of a solid family life prevents many adolescents who belong to the middle class from being involved with crime and other illegal activities. For this reason, middle class parents also value those who share this type of strict upbringing. The Economist states that "family courts meet virtually no juvenile crime among Indian immigrants" ("American" 20). It also states that immigrants have strong family and moral values ("American" 24). This appeals to parents of the middle class because they are trying to teach their children that things such as crime are also bad and once again they admire those who share the same ideas and values in life.

Although there are many who believe immigration positively affects the United States, there are also those who believe that it actually harms the nation. This side of the issue argues that immigrants have a negative impact on the society and the economy. Opponents of immigration address similar aspects of immigration, but argue their negative impact from a different perspective. Instead of trying to create a sense of sympathy in the audience, opponents attempt to invoke a sense of fear. Sources opposing the issue hold immigrants responsible for this country’s social and economic problems. They believe that immigrants are the root of these problems, causing citizens to fear immigrants due to the negative effects they can have on the nation. Some sources blame immigrants for this nation’s economic, social and cultural, and environmental problems.

Many people believe immigrants are the cause of this country’s economic problems. The International Migration Review mentions that people feel that immigrants cause a strain on jobs (Espenshade 540). Due to the increased living expenses of today’s society, job security and availability are something that all citizens are concerned with. For most people, not having a job means not being able to make car payments and house payments, thus making it difficult to raise a family. Recognizing the importance of jobs to citizens of the country, sources which oppose immigration strategically argue that immigrants take jobs away from citizens and lead to job insecurity. This causes citizens to fear immigrants because they realize that the foreigners are searching and fighting for the same jobs they are. Thus, the topic of job insecurity and the strain on jobs is discussed to invoke a sense of fear in citizens.

The International Migration Review also discusses the fact that one-third of respondents to a 1986 opinion survey cited negative cultural or personal traits of immigrants as "the biggest problem" associated with immigration (Espenshade 540). Such traits consist of items such as the lack of will to assimilate or learn English (Curtis 496). These kinds of facts are used as an effort to propel the fear of immigrants. The national language of the United States is English and this is the only language that most citizens know. However, immigrant groups bring with them their own languages and means of communicating. Thus, large numbers of immigrants often speak their language and thereby scare native English speaking people. American citizens are scared by this because they feel like foreigners in their own country. English may seem like a second language of the nation behind a vast array of other languages. In addition, citizens realize that in order for this country to excel, all peoples must be able to communicate and work with each other. Hence, sources which oppose immigration use the fact that many immigrants do not know English. They also purposely fail to mention that in states like New York there is such a mass of immigrants who want to learn English that classes often have waiting lists. The sources are conscientiously trying to scare the audience and the admittance of such a fact is omitted because it would lessen the degree of fear invoked in citizens.

Another common statement about immigrants identified by The International Migration Review is that immigrants perpetuate their own cultures (Espenshade 540). The perpetuation of foreign cultures is brought up because it too causes fear in native citizens. Most native citizens have been brought up in the "American culture" and share common social beliefs and values. However, foreign cultures often have contrasting values and beliefs and it is these cultures which scare native citizens. Native citizens are scared by foreign cultures mainly because they are different and often do not share similar values and beliefs. In addition, the perpetuation of such cultures by large numbers of immigrants causes many native citizens to fear that one day they will be foreigners in their own country and the "American culture" will no longer exist. Thus, this source is able to scare the audience by playing with their patriotic sentiments.

Those who argue against immigration claim that immigrants are mostly to blame for this country’s environmental degradation. Perhaps one of the most common arguments presented by sources such as the environmental magazine, Currents, is that immigrants hurt the environment the most by causing long-term impacts such as loss of animal habitats and increased air pollution (Motavalli N. pag.). Sources suggest that because of the necessary increase in housing, many wilderness areas where animals live are destroyed. Because most citizens are aware of the fact that the environment and natural resources are necessary for life, this argument also causes people to fear immigrants and be scared of the effects they inflict on the environment. Although many people are not too concerned with the environment and its resources running out in their lifetime, they are concerned about their children’s lives and what kind of lives they will have to live if the environment is decayed by immigrant populations. Invoking fear in the audience is used once again by causing citizens to fear the environmental effects that immigrants are believed to cause. Jim Motavalli, author of a Currents article, purposely ignores the fact that immigrants have an amazing ability to adapt and occupy little living space as compared to most natives of the country for once again such a fact would weaken the argument ("American" 20).

Today, there is an increasing number of immigrants coming to the United States-the Nation of Immigrants. These immigrants unarguably have a significant effect on the United States both economically and socially. However, the issue in debate is whether immigrants make a positive or negative net contribution to the United States. The opposing sources which address this issue use similar rhetorical strategies but altering tactics in order to present their claim to the audience. Sources which support immigration attempt to establish a sense of sympathy for immigrants in order to convince the middle class that immigration benefits the nation. Sources which oppose the issue attempt to invoke a sense of fear to scare the audience of the negative impacts which immigrants allegedly cause. Because this issue is so highly but differently addressed, both sides of the issue acknowledge that immigrants indeed have a significant effect on the Nation of Immigrants.

"The American dream, the American nightmare." The Economist 313.7623 (89) : 19-24.

Curtis, Gregory. "Immigration: R.I.P.?" Population and Environment 14.6 (93) : 495-502. 

Espenshade, Thomas J. "American Attitudes Toward U.S. Immigration." International Migration Review 30.2 (96) : 537-543.

Knecht, Bruce G. "Wealth Hazards." National Review 46.21 (94) : 56-59.

Motavalli, Jim. "The Open-Door Policy." Currents (97) : Online. AT&T Worldnet. http://www.e.magazine.com/0997curr_-opendoor.html. 13 Oct. 1997.

Immigration and the United States

Sanjeev Khunkhun

English 101 Brown Section 44

Rhetorical Analysis Essay Rough Draft

22 October 1997