Rhetoric in the American Immigration Debate Essay -- Analysis, Logic,

According to Aristotle, a speaker could frame any debate exploitation three approaches an appeal to logic, an appeal from credibility, or an appeal to sensations. All speakers and writers employ the tripartite approach to rhetoric in varying degrees and ultimately the hearing judges their effectiveness in the context presented. In America, few topics atomic number 18 as hotly debated as that of undocumented migration, and it can be problematic to pick through the partisan and often vitriolic rhetoric in bon ton to come to a rational conclusion. Politicians frame the debate use elements of the American mythos. While the evidence they present to back their conclusions may be factual, it necessarily omits the full truth in order to present a partisan political front. As such, politicians predominantly rely on the lecturer or listeners emotional satisfaction. And even the most principled journalistsmeant to impart objective fact to the publicargon not barren from personal bias , making the discourse even more convoluted. In analyzing three prominent voices in the immigration debate, US president Obama, journalist Sonia Nazario, and azimuth congressman J.D. Hayworth, we can evaluate the effectiveness of the different rhetorical approaches by whether or not they reach their intended audiences. Nazario fulfills her journalistic raison dtre by succeeding at objectivity, while Obama and Hayworth as politicians succeed by imposition by omission in spoken languagees and in writing in order to pursue polity goals and appease supporters. Sonia Nazario, herself an immigrant, was aware of the acrimonious debate on undocumented migration through her work as a prominent Los Angeles journalist. The trim was brought to a head when her housekeepers son arrived unannounced from Guatemal... ...ted skein of immigration policy in America by words alone. Despite that after prudent analysis we the readers can more fully understand an issue and potentially come to expand ed schemas, we are left with the conclusion that social issues are rarely easy to answer. In our history, rhetoric has been transformative. The power of a well-worded speech or essay to suddenly shift the direction of discourse is real real. Though we were not there, we remember Lincolns address at Gettysburg, Martin Luther King Jr.s I Have a inspiration, and John F. Kennedys Ich bin ein Berliner because they were coups of emotion, logic, and ethos. But sometimes such moments neer come in a debate. Rhetoric is not always revolutionary it can also be petty, insubstantial, or merely ignored. Although logic demands answers and emotion is sated by tidy conclusions, they are rarely forthcoming.