Arguments against immigration have been made in different states since time immemorial, with the majority of them lacking adequate background knowledge. The majority of the cases were the result of people using myths, prejudices, and other false statements to convey their disdain for immigrants. Eduardo Porter claims in his article “Will Immigration Hurt the Economy?” published in the New York Times in February 2017 that immigration has a negative impact on a country’s economy. He makes many arguments to support his position, including examples from the past, evidence that seem to be credible, and the reasoning appeal to demonstrate how immigration adversely affects the economy. However, towards the end of his article, he lists few positive impacts of immigration that if put into consideration might outweigh the negative aspects of immigration on the economy, thus weakening his credibility and consequently his argument.
On the other hand, Patricia Sabga in an article, “How Trumps Immigration Policies Could Cost the Economy” published in March 2017 in Aljazeera she notes that immigrants are a competitive threat to the American workers. In her arguments, she also uses the logic appeal, through quotations and readings to her readers to show them how the immigrants take up their working opportunities. She also uses examples geared towards convincing her audience of the effects of the same but later contradicts herself in later statements that indicate that immigration has positive economic impacts.
In his article, Eduardo Porter begins by outlining how the immigrants will take away the jobs of the local people and hurt the poor. He further describes the displacement effect terming it as a significant effect to the natives. In his powerful language, he argues that the immigrants are likely to compete with the natives rather than with their fellow immigrants. He uses the emotional appeal to demonstrate that as a result of that competition, the less skilled natives will get affected in some ways. Further, he quotes a Harvard professor, George Borjas to show a state that increased its size of population by 7% in less than two months that in turn created a plethora of economic problems especially to the less skilled natives of that country (Helbling, Marc and DorinaKalkum 18).
Eduardo Porter continues disregarding the positive impact of immigration by adding that immigrants carry with them ideas and cultures that do not promote productivity. He uses examples such as laziness, lack of exposure and innovativeness among others as an avenue to appeal to his audience that immigrants lead to the destruction of their stable economic and political structures thus affecting the productivity of a nation. He also cites works of scholarly articles to prove his points and appeal to the ethos that infers that immigrants transmit these unfavorable factors to the natives. In addition to the active logos and ethos appeals, he also uses story-telling techniques when he says that most of the immigrants are generally from developing countries that suffer from post-colonial problems and are aiming to rise above their poverty status. He describes the immigrants as people who admire the already established institutions thus lazy. He quotes a late labor historian who once said that government’s operations slow when borders are more open as opposed to when immigration is restricted the most.
In addition, Eduardo Porter continues to employ the emotional appeal by using statements such as , immigrants consume more of the benefits that are offered by the government as opposed to what they generate in tax revenue. He uses examples such as that, in most cases the illegal immigrants evade taxes leading to huge losses by the government hence getting affected economically. He also cites the empirical evidence that supports his argument in an effort to appear more credible. He further uses the emotional appeal by asking questions such as, “do you feel safe in areas you live, how about the safety of your property”? By asking such questions, he implies that most of the immigrants are prone to crime. He uses statistical evidence to illustrate the criminal records, most in which the immigrants are usually the culprits(Gerber, Alan, et al., 168).
He does not stop at safety but also urges his audience to resist immigration since they are mostly involved in violent crimes and destruction of property. He points out that the more they loot property, the more the business entities feel unsafe, and that rampant theft leads to the destruction of the economy. His entire goal is to make his audience feel the need to live in a peaceful environment without fear of losses accruing from frequent interruptions by the burglars who in his opinion are mostly the immigrants. He wants his audience to perceive them as people whose aim is to sabotage property.
Along with strong pathos appeals, Eduardo uses logos appeals too, like for example when he argues that some states fail to enforce the immigration laws and policies put in place. He also notes that there exist inferior ethnic groups and races that need to be barred from breeding with the natives racial genes.
Patricia Sabga on her part, like a double-edged sword, she looks at the effects of immigration both positively and negatively. Unlike Eduardo Porter, she uses logos and ethos appeal to demonstrate to her audience that indeed, immigration has its pros and cons too. For example, in her article, she starts by describing how immigrants are said to increase economic inequality. She appeals logically to her audience that as much as much as it could be true, the individual standard of living is critical rather than the distribution of earnings (Gerber, Alan et al., 165).
Also, she employs the logical appeal by pointing out that innovativeness in technology is the future for advanced economies to remain competitive and relevant. Thus, there has been an issue quoted that there has been overcrowding in places of work and further impoverishing their countries of origin. She uses empirical evidence to demonstrate that brilliant workers who come from less productive nations to high productive ones are well remunerated. They, in turn, develop their countries of origin as well as influencing the economies of the present nation positively. She uses the logical appeal to infer that brilliant immigrants should not be castigated as they lead to innovations that benefit the world at large.
Also, she uses the logical appeal to her audience to embrace immigrants who are often thought as posing risks because of terrorism. Her name and origin might pronounce bias while defending the myth about immigrants, especially from the Middle East. She, however, uses historical evidence to show that terrorism is not a modern-day strategy aimed at destroying the economy but it has been overly used to achieve other goals such as issuing threats. She adds that according to the studies conducted, not all terrorism activities are attributed to immigration and again, the threat posed by the immigrants is small compared to the benefits that have been outlined in several studies (Gerber, Alan, et al. 157)
Additionally, Patricia quotes a paper by Ryan Edwards, an economist that showed that undocumented workers contributed a 3% of goods and services that had been produced in the non-governmental sector translating to huge amounts of money in the years to come in a particular country. Thus, the elimination of many immigrants due to unfounded claims would be a negative impact on the economy and lead to job losses. To enhance her credibility, she also quotes another economist, Yelena, and uses illustrations that if immigrants are to be eliminated, the workforce would be affected hence disrupting business activities. Thus, she uses appeals on embracing the immigrants because they have elaborate work ethic and are always motivated and they lead to a more productive nation (Gerber, Alan, et al., 169).
Throughout her article, she has used the logical appeal to show her audience that immigrants deserve a chance work just like any other citizen of a particular country. She has illustrated that immigrants too have rights like the rest and thus should be respected. In some instances, she has demonstrated how immigrants have been segregated due to immigration policies. She has also used the same appeal to reason with authorities and show them that it is not right to adopt policies that lockout immigrants due to their political affiliations. In most cases, immigrants migrate to benefit themselves whether in business, career furtherance or education. These benefits are mutual because as they progress, the nation too improves thus promotion of stronger economies.
Gerber, Alan S., et al. “Self-interest, beliefs, and policy opinions: understanding how economic beliefs affect immigration policy preferences.” Political Research Quarterly 70.1 (2017): 155-171.
Helbling, Marc, and DorinaKalkum.”Migration Policy Trends in OECD Countries.” (2017): 17-25.