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.