Comment on a Colleague's Work #2

I really like many of the thoughts you relayed in your editorial, but I do have suggestions that could strengthen your blog post. While there are many factual statements that do support your reasoning for wanting to eliminate the Electoral College, I would recommend using the entire rhetorical triangle in order to completely persuade your audience. The rhetorical triangle encompasses ethos (trust), logos (logic), and pathos (emotion) to convince your writer to believe you by showing them that you agree with them, but to look at things from your perspective. Also, I would make sure to watch grammar errors throughout your post. For example, “for coming presidential election” in the first paragraph should be “for the coming presidential election.” This occurred in a few other places throughout your editorial, which can distract the reader from the point you are trying to get across.  

In addition, I would try to embed quotes in the text rather than simply place them in, giving the reader some context behind the insertion so they are less confused. So, I would replace the sentence that you have as simply one large quote and break it up a bit, using some background information to make a smooth transition. Lastly, I would use a hook at the beginning that you can use to wrap up your conclusion in a more persuasive way. This could be something creative or something simple like “we all like to think our opinion matters, but the electoral college is going against this American ideal of equality for all.” I really like your editorial and feel that it brings up some good points, but these changes may strengthen your argument even further.

Original Editorial #2

As children, we love to think of a world with global peace, no climate change, and free college for everyone. But when we grow up, we realize that these things are a bit harder to accomplish, and are truly about as simple as finding a unicorn in the world. So, why should the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (or DACA program) be treated any differently? Deferred by definition means an alternate way of approaching something, but we need to, as citizens, ask ourselves if this policy is truly legal or if it is one of those complicated dreams from our childhood that we only hope can come to a resolution. In my opinion, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program is illegal and has only caused harm to our country and even the people it was designed to benefit by perpetuating a state of limbo. 

According to the Immigration and Nationality Act, this legal document “authorizes the Attorney General to grant asylum if an alien is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin because they have suffered past persecution or have a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of ‘race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.’” However, DACA covers many undocumented immigrants that came to this country illegally in pursuit of “a better economic life.” While I can appreciate their efforts to achieve a better life for themselves, it is still outside of the law. Our current policies are giving the impression that our laws are suggestions rather than standards. In addition, this lack of clarity about our laws is confusing to not only immigrants, but our own citizens, creating unnecessary hostility. Also, the Deferred Action for Parental Arrivals (or DAPA program that is the parent program to DACA), was found to be illegal by the Supreme Court. So, if the parent program to DACA was found to be illegal, why isn’t DACA already being discontinued permanently? Many of the people affected by this illegality of this proposed program had also been in the United States for many years. 

            Not only is DACA illegal, but it is also harming everyone included in this process. By providing in-state tuition and other low-income programs to DACA recipients, we are bankrupting our government even further, all while contributing to the overcrowding problem in the United States. While many feel these are not serious or negative implications, we must acknowledge that this program also hurts the people it is meant to benefit. President Obama implemented DACA as a two-year program to temporarily handle immigration while the House of Representatives and the Senate came to an agreement. However, this program has continued past its intended lifespan, causing DACA recipients to be in a constant state of limbo and never quite understand what is going to happen next. In addition, by having DACA, the House of Representatives and the Senate seem to feel less pressured to implement a permanent solution. 

Many of our laws seem arbitrary at times, for instance, widows or divorcees only receive social security benefits under their husband if they were married for ten years. Although that at times creates unfairly burdened situations, that is the standard. What is our standard for citizenship? Why is it not clearly and unambiguously defined and applied uniformly? 

The hard decision that we have put off for so long is clearly defining the legal reasons that we will allow people to become citizens. The House and Senate must come to a decision and enforce and apply these rules to everyone equally. Whether we will allow DACA recipients to have a pathway to citizenship must also be defined, so that exceptions are made standards if there are to be any. The president should not unilaterally have the power to make decisions contrary to our laws and create ambiguity as to the foundation of our nation. The lack of enforcement by President Obama and ensuing muddying of the waters created by DACA has made a compelling case for DACA recipients. The House and Senate need to make the immigration policies clear and defined,  backed by research, facts, and intent to implement, taking into account the fact that much of our current situation has been self-imposed by our leaders. I am someone that still has big dreams, but we need to find a better solution rather than continue to simply put a bandaid on our problems.

Comment on a Colleague's Work #1

I admire many of the ideas you relayed in your blog post, especially the logical argument behind funding for the wall President Trump proposed, but much of the language in the article is not as strong as it should be. In the first paragraph, the phrase “especially with the current treatment humans have been receiving,” why are you referring to society as “humans?” The word “humans” almost brings a derogatory tone to the article, reminding me of the “illegal-alien” terminology used to describe illegal immigrants. If you are trying to convince the reader that immigration is a positive thing and that President Trump’s actions aren’t improving America, I would suggest using more inclusive language. You want your reader to trust you, which goes back to the rhetorical device of ethos and your audience viewing you as trustworthy. By using words like “us” or “we,” you directly include the reader and show them that you are part of their community and are a reliable source. If you want to strengthen your persuasive writing overall, I would suggest intertwining the three rhetorical devices of ethos, pathos, and logos to fully convince your viewers of your central claim.

    In addition, I found some of your logic a bit flawed, which almost made me question your argument more than convince me of your main point. You stated that “many live in constant fear of being detained and deported to their past home,” but also note that the American experience “is often not what one expects and they are treated worse here than in their home countries.” This makes me think that immigrants should just go back home because they are constantly in fear of being deported from a place that is worse than where they came from. So, I would clarify, because these two conflicting arguments make me very confused. Lastly, using the phrase “messing with” to describe President Trump removing the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program makes me think of President Trump and DACA as two siblings pranking each other. I would use much more formal language to describe such a serious situation. I really like the points you bring across in your editorial, but I would strengthen them in order to fully convince your reader of your point and legalize immigration.

Original Editorial

By now, much of America now has the moto “Make America Great Again” ingrained in their memory, a phrase coined by President Donald Trump that has become sewn in red, white, and blue on any and every kind of merchandise imaginable. However, many have also heard of President Trump’s impeachment hearing.  As a public audience partially governed by this executive branch, we have to wonder - is President Trump or his subsequent impeachment going to truly make America great once again? In my opinion, President Trump’s impeachment will ultimately be in the best interest of the American public as we must place our trust in the people we elect and evaluate the illegal events leading up to his election. Many, such as David Brooks with the Austin-American Statesman, believe that the impeachment process “gives 100 mostly millionaire senators a voice in selecting the president.”  While this is true, we, as the public, elect our representatives for the House of Representatives that have the power to charge the president with impeachment. Just as we elect the President, we also elect the Senate, which  ultimately decides his fate. So, when we realize that the President of the United States of America may have performed illegal actions, we should trust the courts to decide his fate.

           On a 30-minute call with Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky, President Trump may have elicited illegal services to help him win the election against Hilary Clinton in 2016. This we know for certain, but is it worth impeachment? As someone who is seventeen and about to vote in the 2020 presidential election, I can say without a doubt that I want to do my research before casting my vote. So, one quality that is a dealbreaker for me in any candidate is the ability to break the law and then not confess for their crimes. If someone admits their crimes, the punishment is usually less. However, President Trump may have gotten away with something that puts the entire governmental system at stake, with the people not truly having their vote matter. In addition, President Trump recently cast blame on current Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, urging Ukraine and China to open investigations that have no basis. Is our government supposed to govern us or be a political game of Battle Royale, with the most ruthless candidate winning rather than the one most suited to lead the United States? If President Trump is willing to put our say in government at stake, what is he truly capable of doing? The Senate needs to convict President Trump once and for all, removing a corrupt leader from office.

Even though we may all enjoy the warm and fuzzy feeling and the vision that comes with making America great once again, that vision should not include a criminal as our president. No matter what our political views are, we must set these aside and realize that impeachment is the only way to learn the truth. We still have our patriotic spirit, and we must cling to the America we still have before falling into this phrase of deception once more.