Immigration is a topic that has been argued many times in the United States. Many people support it while others believe that immigrants are criminals who commit the crime of entering the U. S. illegally. Roberto Rodriguez and Star Parker both use different styles of writing in “Border on our Backs” and “Se Habla Entitlement” respectively. Although Roberto Rodriguez uses a personal approach to convey his message, Star Parker’s method of using real life facts and details to support her opinion really pulls through and is therefore more convincing.
Roberto Rodriguez tries to use emotion to motivate and capture the reader’s attention to support his feelings for immigration but fails to back up any of his arguments with valid evidence. In “The Border on Our Backs” Rodriguez contends “We deny the nopal no longer. We know full well we’re not on foreign soil, but on Indian lands….. If anything we are back”(Rodriguez 560). Rodriguez states that Mexicans have always lived in America. This however is not true; the real occupants of the American land were the Native Americans and the Mayans and Incans before them.
He makes this bold statement yet provides no solid evidence to prove that the Immigrants are in fact on their land and not on foreign land. This is very personal and makes it difficult for the reader to believe him without any evidence. It is very clear that the author of “Border on Our Backs” is writing the article on a very personal level. Along with that it seems that Rodriguez uses many other strategies to disguise the real topic; immigration. He states “Or should we simply stop speaking our languages, stop eating our won foods…and stop identifying with our home countries of Mexico, El Salvador…”(Rodriguez 560).
The issue Rodriguez brings up here has nothing to do with immigration itself, yet the way he writes it, may provoke many people. It is very unclear whether he is writing about immigration at this point. Once again, making bold statements without any study or statistic to support his reason. Another technique that is used repetitively in the article by Roberto Rodriguez is questioning. He asks “Why is all the hate and vilification directed at brown peoples and the southern border?…. why are these politicians also not bothered by the millions of Canadians, Europeans, or Russians who overstay their visas? (Rodriguez 560).
Questioning is not considered to be very skillful in writing. By putting these statements in question form, Rodriguez is almost making them a fact, when the reality is that immigration laws and problems are aimed toward all illegal immigrants not just South Americans. The main objective of the author is to answer the reader’s questions not create more questions which may confuse the reader and derail them from the main topic. Not only is this confusing but Rodriguez continues to try to influence the reader without any proper validation.
On the contrary Star Parker uses research and real life statistics to influence the reader’s opinion. “Se Habla Entitlement” is filled with facts and research. She reports “Last year the Pew Hispanic Center surveyed adults in Mexico and asked them if they would come to the United States…Forty-six percent responded yes…When asked if they would do it illegally more than 20 percent said yes”(Parker 565). She continues “…almost half of Mexican adults say they would rather live in the United States, presumably because of the opportunities our free society affords”(Parker 565).
First she shows the facts about immigration then goes on to give her take on the matter making it easier for the reader to agree with her. Parker constantly provides valid evidence in her pursuit to ratify her opinion on immigration. In “Se Habla Entitlement” she argues “Part of the package deal that comes with showing up in the United States today is our welfare state as well as our free economy”(Parker 566). This is very true, as many immigrants not only Hispanics come to the U. S. for these benefits and opportunities. She goes on to say “Illegal immigrants’ children who are born here are U. S. citizens.
Significant demands are being made on our tax dollars in the way of schools, health care and government services”(Parker 566). She stresses that much of the money from the government goes to supporting these illegal immigrants’ children who occupy the schools and receive free education while their parents do not pay taxes. Parker uses reason and factual information to influence the reader’s thought one way; anti-immigration. Star Parker is one of the many authors who realize that evidence is necessary in order to make her point come across to both supporting and opposing readers.
In “Se Habla Entitlement” she contends …If we can be convinced that illegal immigration is a right, that those here illegally are innocent victims…Draping these bogus claims in the garb of the civil-rights movement is particularly annoying. The civil-rights movement was about enforcing the law, not breaking it…If Americans were kidnapping Mexicans and selling them into slavery here, I might see the equivalence…these are free people, who chose to come here and chose to do so illegally.
Parker makes a valid point here in showing the difference between the civil-rights movement that pro-immigration groups like to bring up and immigrants who fully knowingly commit the crime of coming to America illegally. I don’t know what else to say here I need an ending line that relates back to the thesis like how does she use evidence to prove her point. and just read the whole thing and let me know what you think. Both Parker and Rodriguez make relatively passionate arguments, but they do so differently.
Rodriguez’s “Border on Our Backs” has a more personal narrative style. He tries to use emotion as a weapon to persuade the reader but fails to do so because of the lack of evidence he supplies to support majority of his bold opinions made. Parker also shows her opinions in “Se Habla Entitlement” but unlike Rodriguez she backs up her statements with valid evidence. She makes it easier for the reader to follow along without being confused as to where these statements came from thus making a more convincing argument.