A Rhetorical Analysis Of The Article By Chad Stone

When I was a child, around 11 years old, I lived in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. My parents were recently divorced and moved into separate houses. My mother had trouble paying rent on her own, so she started putting out ads for a roommate. The first person to move in was a man named Marco, an illegal alien from Mexico. Recently, while at Marine Corps PT, I met a DACA recipient who attempted to join the Airforce and was now trying to join the Marine Corps. I’m no stranger to illegal aliens, I know for a fact that some of them can be good people willing to contribute to our country. I’m also no stranger to rules, and I know that allowing a law to be broken is one of the worst things anyone could possibly do if preventing people from breaking the law

He starts by first defining DACA and telling a few of the sympathies President Trump has expressed on the issue. Stone then makes it clear where he stands on the issue, calling the decision to end the DACA program inhumane, unwarranted, and economically nonsensical. The economic aspect is the only point of view supported by evidence in this article; although, I suppose that is because Mr. Stone specializes in economics as opposed to moral philosophy. Stone brings to light statements made by the likes of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who claim that DACA, along with other forms of illegal immigration, denies jobs to Americans and is responsible for the high levels of unemployment among the poorer members of society. Stone counters this by saying that immigration has been proven as beneficial to the American economy, but there seems to be some miscommunication here. Stone calls the beliefs held by those opposing DACA “anti-immigrant” and explains the benefits of immigration, but the claims made by the likes of Sanders and Sessions were not directed towards immigration as a whole. Stone seems to view remarks made about illegal immigration as criticisms of legal immigration. The evidence presented by Stone makes a strong case in favor of legal immigration, but no evidence

Camarota begins by establishing what the DACA program has given to illegal aliens who arrived as children, clarifying what exactly a repeal of DACA would entail. He then clarifies his position on the issue, calling DACA illegal, overbroad, and likely to lead to further amnesty. Camarota elaborates on the legality of DACA by using a quote from Barack Obama himself, wherein Obama said he is not allowed to suspend deportations via executive order. He touches on the job argument the same Stone, but Camarota honed in on how DACA recipients affect the job market, pointing out that they would be competing for jobs against legal American citizens. Camarota infers that, while it may not have an effect on the overall unemployment rate, DACA has a negative effect on the number of Americans who are employed. He then explains what was meant in calling DACA overbroad, pointing out that DACA applies to a much larger group of people than the “sympathetic description” we are often told about. Camarota clarifies that DACA applicants need not identify as Americans nor present any affinity for American culture. He brings to light that trips to and from the applicant’s native country do not violate the five years of continuous residency required to enter the DACA program, and further explaining that the ability to speak English is not required for DACA