Is Ending Daa Pros And Cons

The main discussion regarding these two articles concerns immigration reform and the action done under the Trump administration, specifically his action to suspend the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA in September of 2017. Both of these articles address the topic, although they both address the President’s decision in a different viewpoint than that of the other article. The author of “Is Ending DACA the Worst Decision Trump has made?,” Finnegan argues that ending DACA has led to personal turmoil, distress, and it will ultimately be bad for the future of the country as a whole due to the suspension of the program. In contrast to this, the author of “DACA is Unconstitutional, as Obama Admitted” Spakovsky states that the

He begins this article by illustrating the ethos of Trump, and how he has addressed the issue of illegal immigration, and has shown the picture that he is a hardline conservative where he wants to stop the impacts of illegal immigration all together in the United States. For example, Finnegan states, “Under President Trump, the crackdown has come in many form, beginning with the slapdash ban on travel from several Muslim-majority countries. Trump has voted to triple the number of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers; expand the Border Patrol…” (Finnegan, 2017). In addition to this, Finnegan addresses the point made by Spakovsky and Attorney General, Jeff Sessions who state that the program is unconstitutional as just utter lies, a direct counterargument. This is because there has been no case where the DACA program was found unconstitutional, Finnegan says. Moreover, he increases his rhetoric as he states that the immediate ending of the DACA program has caused not only personal and social pain by the people’s uncertainty about their status in the United States, but also economically as Finnegan addresses the loss to national G.D.P. as a result of the removal of immigrations. He states, “Indeed, it is estimated that the loss of the Dreamers’ output will reduce the G.D.P. by several hundred billion dollars over a decade” (Finnegan, 2017). As a result of the evidence that Finnegan has provided and how he addresses the counter argument, I believe that his article was extremely effective as not only did it play to the emotional aspect of the topic, but also to the political and economic aspect as well. He illustrated the facts, and painted the disbanding of the program as a negative for the