President Trump signed an executive order on January 27, 2017, at the Pentagon, promising to keep radical Islamic terrorists out of the United States. The directive, titled “Protecting the Nation from International Terrorist Entry into the United States,” prevented Syrian refugees from entering the country and barred citizens of Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen from entering for 90 days. The Trump administration blamed former President Barack Obama, claiming that the countries targeted in the executive order had already been designated by the Obama administration as countries of concern for terrorism. The subject remains a huge controversy with varied views being presented on the same. In an effort to determine the most logical viewpoints one needs to critically examine the articles published on the same through an in-depth analysis by using different techniques. From the scrutiny of the contrasting viewpoints presented in the form of newspaper articles, it is apparent that Jahncke’s article is more preferred as the statement are justifiable and less fallacius compared to Rocha’s commentary that is more biased, deceptive, and misleading.
The first relevant article that will be used in the analysis of President Trump executive order are, “President Trump, immigrants are not bad dudes” by Chuck Rocha from San Diego that was published in the Union-Tribune. According to the author, President Trump’s radical immigration and refugee executive orders are dangerous and betrays American value. The other relevant article is “Trump’s Immigration Proposals Aren’t Mean — They’re Reasonable, Legal and Entirely Doable” a commentary by Red Jahncke published in Investor’s Business Daily. The opposing viewpoint here presents a scenario where the author affirms that Trump’s order is straightforward and sensible, which thus emphasizing that border security and the removal of criminal aliens is justified.
From a critical assessment of the two articles, it is evident that assumption and fallacies guide their composition. Jahncke’s article is more logically sound considering the featured assumptions, fallacies, ambiguity, and the appropriateness of the use of evidence. Meanwhile, Rocha’s article is a sharp contrast because it has the most assumptions and fallacies out of all courses, although Jahncke contains a few as well. Rocha argument draws a conclusion of American culture’s belief without any proof to defend the statements. For example, she says that “The demonization of immigrants and refugees is nothing new in our country. Every generation has faced this challenge with a new group of people believed to be dangerous to American culture and society” (Rocha). The statement is fallacious because she does not only make descriptive assumption with the fallacy resulting from the combination of ad hominem appeal and emotion. She tries to attack immigrants and refugees by stating they are demons and evil spirits. It also appeals reader’s emotion when they hear how the outer world feels about immigrants and refugees.
Furthermore, it is also noted that the two articles differ in the understanding that one gets about the president’s order. Rocha says that a new group of people always bring troubles and will hurt the American culture, but she does not provide any evidence to prove it. Therefore, her assumption misleads the reader’s apprehension of the article from a logical perspective. Similarly, Jahncke’s article also embodies notable assumptions especially when he described that “Research shows that, as more violators are caught and penalties are meted out, fewer people violate the law’ (Jahncke). A slippery slope fallacy and description assumption thus appear in the quote. He tries to persuade the reader that having more penalties will result in fewer crime rates. It really does sound like common sense but it is not always the truth. Violators know that lawbreakers have to meet the consequences. Thus, both articles fail in answering the issue logically because they are focused on theoretical analyses.
It is also identified that the articles contrast in the fallacious reasoning perspective. Rocha’s article contains a lot of fallacies, while Jahncke contains none. A glittering generality is being used when she states, “The United States must continue to be the place of opportunity for all, no matter where they come from, the language they speak, who they love, or what religion they practice” (Rocha). The use of valued concepts and beliefs, such as ‘the place of opportunity for all’ tends to convince readers emotionally without supporting information or reasons. There are many other depictions of fallacy on Rocha’s article which make her work looks unprofessional. Meanwhile, Jahncke’s article remains clear and cohesive because any possible fallacies are proved with the use of evidence.
Ambiguity is also a prominent feature in the contrasting views by the two authors on the subject of banning immigrants from the US. Ambiguous statements involve the type of languages where the assertions can be interpreted in more than one way. Rocha’s article clearly contains several ambiguous statements which damage the quality of its information. A notable case of ambiguity in the article is when the author states that “These outstanding men represent the real American Dream and are examples of what can happen when immigrants are given an opportunity to become a part of our society without any limitations” (Rocha). The word outstanding constitutes vagueness because it constitutes an unclear expression. Readers cannot justify the viewpoint presented on how outstanding the immigrants are neither can they determine the true meaning of the word.
Meanwhile, there is variation in the level of research that each editor does in their narration. Jahncke’s article is well-explored because the author uses reliable research studies to support his argument. He uses varied statistics to justify that the evidence presented has been subject to intensive studies and qualitative analysis of data. On the other hand, Rocha prefers using case examples to describe her viewpoints. Rocha thus fails to provide reliable evidence in her statement especially when she tries to explain the Mexican mother’s case in Arizona. She states that the mother as a non-criminal, which is false. The Mexican mother is a convicted felon, who were staying illegally and working under a fake social Security number. Although she was trying to seek for a better future, she failed to understand that it is wrong to lie to the government by being in the country illegally.
In summary, it is reasonable to relate to President Trump’s executive order because his primary goal is to protect the country and his citizens. He welcomes all immigrants to the United States, but not those from the for the illegal controversial nations. It is, however, important to underscore the fact that the issue is not about race, religion, or color but entirely about the law. From the assessment of both articles, it is noted that Jahncke’s argument is more logical based on the comparison of assumptions, ambiguous language, fallacies, and the use of evidence. Meanwhile, the fallacious statements presented by Rocha that are further weakened by the lacks of adequate research mean that the quality of information presented in inferior to that presented by Jahncke. However, as it still remains to be a hotly debated issue, it is upon the citizens to gauge the efficacy of the President’s order on the impact it has on the nation’s security.