Writing
ISS 310 Michigan State University Restrictions on Immigration Articles Analysis

iss 310

Michigan State University

ISS

Question Description

I need support with this Social Science question so I can learn better.

In Part 4, your final analysis comparing the rhetoric of the two papers, including all thesis statements, a discussion of strategies with examples, a comparison of the two pieces, their sources and success or failure at making a compelling case.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Part 4: Comparing Rhetoric Final Paper In Part 4, your final analysis comparing the rhetoric of the two papers, including all thesis statements, a discussion of strategies with examples, a comparison of the two pieces, their sources and success or failure at making a compelling case. Deliverables You will submit one complete and polished paper that includes all of the following components. (1) A title that identifies your topic and intention. (2) A complete and proper citation (including the date and URL) for each of the articles you select. (3) A paragraph that provides an introduction to your topic and its geographic significance (Who does it impact? Where?), as well as a brief summary of the two news article (What is each article about?). Be sure to include all relevant dates, times, places, and people (or groups of people) in your summary, as well as the author’s purpose. (Note: A writer’s purpose may be to entertain, inform, explain, persuade, or reflect, and this will determine the type of article that is written -- expository writing, explanatory writing, persuasive writing, personal narrative, and so on.) (3) A paragraph that identifies the thesis of each author and your thesis statements about each paper. Remember that your thesis must identify a minimum of two rhetorical strategies used by each (so, two for each, four total), and no more than three, to support their thesis. [Note: the author’s thesis is NOT the same as their purpose. If you do not understand what a thesis is, please see the sample paper, suggested resources, and/or contact your instructor.] (3) Three to four paragraphs describing/discussing the two examples of each rhetorical strategy you identified in paragraph two, describing and explaining how each author has constructed their pieces to convey their thesis. You may devote one paragraph to each author or discuss the two together as long as it is clear and makes logical sense to do so. (4) Two to three paragraphs comparing the two articles and the authors’ success or failure at constructing a persuasive argument and conclude your writing. Things you should consider in this paragraph include: ⚫ The source of each article. Does this have any bearing on how the article’s validity? Why or why not? ⚫ The rhetorical strategies. Was one article more or less successful at the art of persuasive rhetoric? Why? How can rhetorical strategies influence readers? ⚫ The significance of the topic. Is this topic politically or culturally divisive (controversial)? Is it new, or has it been relevant for years or decades? Is it emotional? Example for Part 4: Example Response Suggested Student References Information about thesis statements ⚫ ⚫ Thesis Statements (The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) How to Write a Thesis Statement (Writing Tutorial Services, Indiana University Bloomington) How to write a rhetorical analysis ⚫ Writing a Rhetorical Analysis (UBC Writing Centre,The University of British Columbia) ⚫ Tips for Writing a Rhetorical Analysis (pdf; The Quality Writing Center at the University of Arkansas Fayetteville) ⚫ Rhetorical Analysis (University Writing Center, Texas A&M University) ⚫ Organizing your Analysis (Purdue Online Writing Lab, Purdue University) Technicalities Crafting a short paper is often harder than a long paper! The body of text (paragraphs) of your paper should be between 1400 and 1800 words. At the very beginning of your response, please type your word count in parentheses, for example: (Word count: 1550). Academic dishonesty (including plagiarism, in any form), will not be tolerated and will result in a ZERO for the paper and/or the course (see syllabus for details about academic dishonesty). Plagiarism includes reusing your own past assignments submitted in this or another course. You will turn your document in for grading by uploading it to the assignment (TurnItIn) dropbox. We use TurnItIn to scan all documents to detect unoriginal, improperly cited, and/or reused (that is, potentially plagiarized) content--you have access to this report. *Tip* You can use any citation style/format you like, so long as you use it correctly. The preferred citation style is the most recent edition of the Chicago Manual of Style (author-date). Please see the Proper Citation Format document in this module for guidance, or you can use Google to answer your questions about the Chicago Manual of Style format (for example, Google “Chicago Manual of Style, website citation”). Include your name, class, and date in the body of your submitted file. For example, write "Jane Doe, ISS310, Jan. 1, 2020" at the top of the first page of your file. Failure to provide this information can result in a deduction of points from your assignment grade. Be sure to use correct spelling and grammar, and fully answer the question to gain maximum points on this assignment. Writing quality is extremely important and can have significant influence on your grade. LATE submissions will NOT be accepted for full credit (see the course syllabus for the late submission policy). Note: This example is the work of an online geography staff member for the sole and intended purpose of giving you an idea of the type of paper you should be writing in terms of content. The topic and articles used in this example may NOT be the same as those used in the current semester/session. Also be advised that if you are given specific directives in your write-up and you do not follow those instructions, you will be marked down regardless of whether or not they are included in this example. Further, you must use in-text citations if you use any sources other than your two articles and provide a list of your references at the end of your work--this example does not use supporting sources to introduce or conclude the topic, however, it is likely that you will need support. You do not have to highlight your paper. The highlighting in this example is to direct you to important components. Yellow highlighting identifies the thesis of author Niraj Chokshi. Bright pink highlighting identifies the thesis of author Greg Re. Green highlighting identifies at least two rhetorical strategies used by each author. Blue highlighting identifies the source and its significance. Orange highlighting identifies a comparison of the two articles. Blue highlighting also identifies an evaluation of the success and failure of the author’s use of rhetoric. Karen K. Student ISS310, section 730, January 1, 2020 (Word Count: 1535) A comparison of the rhetoric of two authors reporting on the altercation that took place at the border on November 25, 2018. Article citations: Chokshi, Niraj. “Photo of Children Fleeing Tear Gas at Border in Mexico Sparks Anger.” The New York Times, November 26, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/26/opinion/sunday/migrant-caravan-immigration-lat in-america.html. Re, Gregg. “Trump: 'Grabber' migrants used children as human shields at border.” Fox News, November 26, 2018, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-grabber-migrants-use-children-as-human-shi elds. Over the past year, migrant caravans stemming from the politically, economically, and criminally volatile countries of the Northern Triangle in Central America, including Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, have repeatedly made news as they have advance toward the United States - Mexico border. Policies surrounding the people traveling in these caravans have not only been dragged through American and International media channels, but have also strained relations between the United States and Mexico along the borderlands, as quite often the drive has culminated in turmoil at the border between the two. The advance of several hundred migrants, part of a much larger caravan, on November 25 proved to be no different, except this time United States border patrol agents unleashed canisters of tear gas on the rushing crowd. Author of “Photo of Children Fleeing Tear Gas at Border in Mexico Sparks Anger” Niraj Chokshi uses his piece to chastise the Trump administration’s immigration policies and rebuke the United States Customs and Border Protection agency for their hasty decision to fire noxious tear gas upon a crowd that included the many in the most vulnerable population, children. Reporting on the same event, Re, in a story for Fox News, asserts that the actions of the United States Customs and Border Protection agency were both routine and necessary, as agents acted in self defense, and in the same way previous administrations did, against a violent mob that included criminals and migrants acting to fatally harm children and agents in wanton disregard for the rule of law. To make his case, Choksi leans heavily on pathos, or an emotional appeal to readers, with charged words and narrative, and calls upon eyewitness testimony to give an account of the events that took place, all while understating the seriousness of the altercation. Re, likewise presents his own story, also using authoritative evidence to appeal to the reader’s fears of the event and those involved, and presenting statistical evidence to discredit the opposition, specifically those that would say the actions taken by border agents were extreme or unjustified. The Chokshi piece opens with the image of a woman grabbing the hands of her two children amid a cloud of tear gas seen in the background. The narrative Chokshi begins to weave is one of a scared mother, the children, he points out, are barefoot and in diapers. Chokshi, in perhaps what could be considered a strategy of understatement, then refers to the entire situation as “chaos,” while the Trump administration has deemed it, per Re’s piece, “an extremely dangerous situation.” Chokshi continues his emotionally charged narrative with a quote from the mother describing her fear and sadness and saying she thought her children were going to die as they inhaled the gas. The photographer also provides eyewitness support for Chokshi’s assessment in a firsthand account of what transpired at the border. He had been travelling with the migrants in the days before taking photos, when, as he describes to Chokshi, several members broke from the group and rushed the border, a few men started digging at the border fence. Within minutes, tear gas was fired and the men retreated, leaving behind about 12 fuming canisters, including the one near the family. Another photo used to illustrate this shows one of the same children from the previous photo clearly distraught and in tears; he had lost his shoes from running, so not only was the tear gas causing him pain, but his feet were hurting too. Chokshi is sure to provide readers with expert testimony from the Center for Disease Control to back-up what readers see in the photo, noting the harmful effects of tear gas including, shortness of breath, choking, chemical burns, and blindness, particularly in the most vulnerable populations, like children. If we turn our attention to Re’s piece, a different view of the so-called chaos is revealed. The story opens not with the photo of a mother and her children, but a video of President Trump and his account of the situation. The President describes the migrants who rushed the border as “grabbers,” a term he created for “violent people” who snatch up children from the caravan and use them as human shields so that they can charge the border without being fired upon. Trump also notes that border patrol agents were “very badly hurt” in the charge as rocks were thrown at them. The narrative then switches to the mother, who, as reported by Re, knowingly put herself and her children in danger. Re uses the President’s authoritative testimony to paint a picture of a dangerous showdown during which violent migrants put innocent people, including children and border agents, in imminent, potentially fatal danger. Turning that rhetoric to fear, Re informs readers that the Department of Homeland Security can confirm that most of the migrant caravan is not even eligible for asylum--they are not fleeing danger or violence, Re notes, they are coming for good jobs and to join family--and includes hundreds of criminals who have been convicted for serious and abhorrent crimes including child abuse and rape. Re, knowing that his article is clearly written for those who support stricter border and immigration policies, uses the end of his piece to anticipate any opposition with some statistical evidence. Those, like Chokshi, who would say that these are the overreactions of a rogue president and his draconian ideas about immigration and asylum. Re says that while democrats lined up to admonish the President and the actions of border agents, these actions were no different than those of the Obama administration, a beloved democratic president, whose time in office was marked by the use of tear gas at the border once per month on average. The opposition who is now calling the use of tear gas “horrendous” (the quotes are Re’s), are clearly hypocrites who supported its use throughout the previous administration. The comparison of the two articles above illustrates how one story can be presented from two opposing viewpoints. One relying mostly on emotional appeal and eyewitness testimony to show how a minor altercation by a few out-of-line asylum-seekers resulted in an overzealous reaction by border agents, who, acting in accordance with the President’s policies, put a mother and her young children in danger of irreparable harm. All of this the result of a President’s “harsh tactics and uncompromising policies” on immigration and asylum. The other view dismisses the idea that this was anything but a violent uprising that had to quickly be put down with swift force before agents, mothers, and children were harmed. Re reports that these were not desperate migrants fleeing a dangerous situation, rather they are the dangerous situation, convicted criminals not only ineligible for asylum, but also looking to force their way into the United States and bring harm to the American people. The Trump administration simply followed suit with the Obama Administration and used tear gas to prevent what could have been a deadly outcome for border agents and, ultimately, a scourge on the American population. For those familiar with the media, it may come as no surprise that Re writes for conservative news source Fox News, while Chokshi is a contributor to The New York Times, one sympathetic to the President, the other a harsh critic (Katz 2018). It is likely that there are truths found within both stories, perhaps Chokshi chose to ignore the criminal behavior of some in the caravan as well as the outcome of past border altercations that happened during the Obama administration. Re, on the other hand, chose to emphasize the caravans criminal constituent and dismiss the idea that any in the caravan where fleeing a violent situations in their home countries. For readers who believe Re’s thesis, these migrants are illegal immigrants coming to the United States for good jobs and family. These same people attempted to sacrifice children to protect themselves and, with serious criminal backgrounds, are ultimately a threat to the American people. Considering at the source of both articles and thinking critically about the rhetoric that the authors chose, including the information that was presented as well as that which was not, it is clear that writing to inform can also be a powerful tool to persuade or confirm one’s existing beliefs. While I feel that Re’s article relied too much on the President’s account, the account of someone who was not there and presenting a theory of “grabbers” without substantiation, I also believe the Chokshi’s account was a bit narrow in its reporting of the situation by focusing so much on the experience of one photo and one family, including information like the potential, but not probable, damage that can result from tear gas, even though the mother and her children were unharmed. However, both authors were successful in their appeal to their audience, Chokshi to that of younger, left-leaning liberals and Re to that of older, devout conservatives (Sawhill, Krause, and Sawhill 2018; Mitchell et al. 2018). Chokshi evoked strong emotion and sensitivity toward a vulnerable population preyed upon by those with power, while the latter displayed patriotism by supporting the President and those protecting our borders, while also stirring fear of the criminals who wish to enter our country, break the law and take jobs and entitlements meant for American citizens. References Katz, A.J. "Here's the Median Age of the Typical Cable News Viewer." Adweek. January 19, 2018. Accessed November 29, 2018. https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/heres-the-median-age-of-the-typical-cable-news-v iewer/355379. Mitchell, Amy, Jeffrey Gottfried, Jocelyn Kiley, and Katerina Eva Matsa. "Political Polarization & Media Habits." Pew Research Center's Journalism Project. April 26, 2018. Accessed November 29, 2018. http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/. Sawhill, V., Eleanor Krause, and Isabel V. Sawhill. "Gauging the Role of Fox News in Our Electoral Divide." Brookings.edu. September 20, 2017. Accessed November 29, 2018. https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/gauging-the-role-of-fox-news-in-our-electoral-divi de/. Grading Rubric: Comparing Rhetoric Points to be addressed in your response: 1. Title that appropriately describes the paper's content. 2. Introduction of the topic and two articles. 3. Two thesis statements, one per author/article. 4. A minimum of two rhetorical strategies used by each author. 5. Description and examples of how each strategy is used by each author to communicate their thesis to the reader. 6. Identification and significance of the source of each article. 7. A comparison of the two articles to one another. 8. Statement(s) that details the success of the two authors in communicating their theses and significance of their rhetoric. Criteria Content Superior Good All of the points in the rubric provided in the writing assignment module are addressed specifically and elaborated upon. All of the points in the rubric provided in the writing assignment module are addressed to an adequate extent. Incomplete Inappropriate All of the points in the rubric provided in the writing assignment module are addressed, but topic coverage, explanations, Paper's content and details are Paper's content demonstrates a minimal. demonstrates good Paper's content an excellent understanding demonstrates understanding of rhetoric and an adequate of rhetoric and the authors' understanding the authors' use use of rhetoric. of rhetoric and of rhetoric. the authors' use of rhetoric. One or more of the points in the rubric provided in the writing assignment module are not addressed. Two or more of the points in the rubric provided in the writing assignment module are not addressed. Paper topic and line of argument are very well laid-out and is easily discernible. Paper topic and line of argument are vague. Paper topic and line of argument are discernible. Focus is mostly clear. Adequate Paper topic and line of argument are vague in parts. Focus is not clear. Paper at times goes off topic. Paper is off topic and does not Paper's content address the assigned topic. demonstrates an incomplete Paper's content understanding demonstrates of rhetoric and little to no the authors' understanding of use of rhetoric. rhetoric and the authors' use of rhetoric. Focus is not clear with no cohesive purpose. Writing is very confused and excessively vague. Organization very poor, Focus remains Easy to read Readable but transitions and a clear. Easy to and confused in logical flow of read and understand; places; shows Difficult to read ideas are Coherence & understand and good some logical ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment
Student has agreed that all tutoring, explanations, and answers provided by the tutor will be used to help in the learning process and in accordance with Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Final Answer

hello buddy, your assignment is complete. I will be around to help with
the edits or clarification. Otherwise, goodbye and remember to invite me
for future questions
Attached.

Surname 1
Student
Instructor
Course
Date
Comparing Rhetoric of Articles Advocating for Restrictions on Immigration
Citations
Walker, Francis A. "Restriction of Immigration." The Atlantic, 1896,
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1896/06/restriction-ofimmigration/306011/. Accessed 23 March 2020.
Kammer, Jerry “I’m a Liberal Who Thinks Immigration Must Be Restricted.” The New York
Times, 16 Jan 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/16/opinion/immigrationdemocrats.html?searchResultPosition=1. Accessed 23 March 2020.
Introduction
Immigration has a wide range of impacts on economies, cultures, and societies. Notably,
increased immigration into the U.S. has both negative and positive impacts on the country’s
economy and culture. For instance, foreign workers undertake jobs that allow them to contribute
revenues for economic development. As they interact with Americans, they introduce their
values and beliefs that enrich the country’s culture. Walker and Kammer present arguments
regarding the issue of immigration and offer sustainable ways to solve the problem. Walker
wrote the article, “Restriction of Immigration” in 1896 to urge the government to restrict
immigration to protect the rate of wages, living standards, and quality of citizenship in America.
Hence, the purpose of his article is to persuade policymakers and other Americans about the
importance of restricting immigration. Similarly, Kammer wrote “I’m a Liberal Who Thinks

Surname 2
Immigration Must Be Restricted” in 2020 to address the impacts of immigration on the country.
The purpose of his persuasive writing is to advocate for the legislation of immigration policies
because foreigners increase competition on American workers.
Thesis Statements
In both articles, the authors seek to raise awareness regarding the importance of
controlling immigration into the U.S. Walker’s thesis is that restriction of immigration into the
country is necessary because unlike foreigners in the past who contributed to population growth
and labor supply, contemporary immigrants have led ...

ProfHenryM (16583)
UIUC

Anonymous
I was on a very tight deadline but thanks to Studypool I was able to deliver my assignment on time.

Anonymous
The tutor was pretty knowledgeable, efficient and polite. Great service!

Anonymous
I did not know how to approach this question, Studypool helped me a lot.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4
Similar Questions
Related Tags