Immigration Reform. Pros and Cons Term Paper

S./Mexico border, and that the concerns go beyond simply illegal Mexican migrants.

Identify, in your own words, any propaganda techniques used by either of the authors.

Propaganda was used by both sides. Lamm (2002) uses the horror of September 11th to evoke emotion in the reader. He notes that those murderers were allowed into the country and lived, worked and played here before taking the lives of thousands of innocents. He exacerbates that emotion by continuing with the note that there are still terrorists among Americans, waiting for a chance to commit acts of terror, and thousands of Islamic schools training children to hate America, prepping them to do the same thing.

Campbell's (2006) propaganda centers on the American Dream and the desire for honest, hard-working people to just make a living. She too plays on the reader's emotions, noting that poor Alfredo's son, who is an illegal alien in New York City, won't be able to come home to visit his family, because he would then have to risk sneaking back into the States. She further victimizes the illegal alien in question by noting how the kind soul sends his hard-earned money home to his family in Mexico each month. Of course, she fails to recognize that this money, although hard-earned, was also illegally begotten,

How credible is each author? What are the author's credentials for writing this presentation?

Both authors are credible in some ways. Lamm is a notable politician that has done much research on the issue of immigration, the need for reform, and it's effect on terrorism. This comes through in the extensive use of facts and figures. Campbell too is credible. She is a writer for a respected periodical, and has interviewed Mexican citizens first-hand as support for her position.

Which author impressed you as being the most empirical in presenting his or her thesis? Why?

The author that impressed me as being the most empirical is Lamm (2002). Clearly, Lamm has done his homework on the statistics surrounding this hotly contested issue. Most importantly, his facts are relevant to the topic at hand, whereas some of Campbell's (2006) facts are ancillary. As an example, Lamm notes that to place Federal Marshalls on all flights, 14,000 Air Marshals would be needed, which is more than the total number of FBI special agents, and therefore not practical. This is clearly supportive of the need for another plan of protecting America, like immigration reform. Campbell, on the other hand, uses figures such as the number of deaths of migrants trying to cross the border, which really is not an effective reason to negate reform implementation.

Are there any reasons to believe the writers are biased? If so, why do you think they have these biases?

No, I do not believe that either writer is biased, other than by their own personal opinion on the issue, which they each clearly chose to support.

With which side (Pro or Con) do you personally agree with now that you have reviewed the material in these articles? Why?

I agree with the pro-side of the issue. Something needs to be done to secure America's borders. The number of illegal aliens has gone out of control, makes our country unsafe, increases the tax burden for legal aliens and citizens, and is simply unlawful. However, I also believe that there is some need for workers currently predominantly illegal aliens. For this reason, some sort of middle ground must be reached. The borders must be made secure, but Mexican workers, willing to perform tasks at lower wage rates, must be allowed to come into the country, for their own personal gain, as well as the economic health of the country.

References

Campbell, M. (17 May 2006). Mexicans see insult, danger in border plan. USA Today. Retrieved May 24, 2006, from Academic Search Premier database.

Lamm, R. (1 Mar 2002). Terrorism…