An Analysis Of Sam Ferguson And George Lakoff's The Framing Of Immigration

Amidst the current political climate of the nation, immigration is a controversial topic. Sam Ferguson and George Lakoff discuss in “The Framing of Immigration” that the way in which immigration is debated “impoverishes the conversation” (15). Through the use of illustrative and hypothetical examples, linguistic definitions and historical evidence derived from legislative actions, the main claim is reached. The main claim that is developed is, that the linguistics, also known as framing, used to describe immigration often narrow the issues presented and thus limit solutions, and therefore must be changed. Furthermore, Ferguson and Lakoff develop sub claims that detail the flaws as well as solutions to the issues at hand. Such sub claims include:

Framing is the use of differing words or phrases to describe a certain issue that needs to be solved. Ferguson claims that “Issue defining frames” (15) are powerful and provides reasoning, that the the way in which a frame is used points out certain problems. Such linguistic examples include; “Medicare Reform”, Social Security Reform” and “Lobbying Reform” (15). By detailing the linguistic basis of framing, it provides support to the main claim in that it can narrow the issues at hand, in effect limiting solutions. In developing their main claim, they are able to provide hypothetical situations that can be interpreted as evidence such as the “lobbyist problem” (16). In doing so, it allows the audience to further support their argument and draw in the skeptic

Such evidence includes “Economic Refugee” which are known as “people fleeing their homeland as a result of economic insecurity” (23). By providing this linguistic framing, it allows the authors to develop their reasons for keeping the use of frames in debate. The reasons provided are built upon the definition the frame evokes, rather than being negative, the definitions of the new frames are positive. Ferguson and Lakoff provide the reason for such linguistic framing in that “refugees are worthy of compassion” (23), and such use will allow a more civilized debate. By providing a more humanitarian approach to debate, as the authors suggest, it will allow for more solutions that do not attack the individual. Furthermore, another reason for using such frames, is that it provides a “broader view of why many people flee” (25) and not on the immigrants themselves. Such reasoning provides support for the main claim, that change is needed to allow for better discussion and more effective