Argument Analysis: Syrian Refugees

My tentative claim is that the US has to be cautious about allowing so many Syrian refugees because they could damage our economy. Some counterarguments that I might encounter are 1) it is America's humanitarian duty to help as many Syrians as we can, 2) there is a scholarly article that proves that the Syrians can help boost a country's economy, 3)the European countries that are becoming concerned with their economy cannot be related to our own situation with the Syrians because the European countries have a significant population difference and their economic system is different than our's. The first counterargument is a principle because it is an accepted norm that when a country is in trouble other countries will do as much as they can to help those affected by the troubles in their home country. The second argument is a generalization because they would be saying that if the Syrians helped the KRI (the region that was studied in the article) then it can happen in the US

as well. The last counterargument is an analogy and a generalization (more of an analogy) because they are comparing the US and the European countries to each other.

I would argue against the first counterargument using refutation.

I would point out the fact that if our economy is in shambles then we can't help the Syrian. We will be doing more harm to everyone if we accept too many at once. The second counterargument I would argue against by using demonstration of irrelevance. I would argue that the statement isn't as relevant as they think it is because the scholarly article was only studying a region not a country as a whole and also the KRI's economy is different than our's. The last argument I would counter with by using strategic concession and refutation. What they point out is true. The European countries are different in population size and economy systems, but they are also similar in many aspects as well. So I would agree that we are different in some aspects, but in other aspects we are very similar. I would concede this point in the paragraph that I am discussing the concerns that the European countries are having with their own

economies.

It's hard to determine how much people know about my topic. It depends on how often they read the news and if they have an interest in my topic. I think that most people know about the Syrian Civil War and why the Syrians are fleeing the violent home country. Some information that will interest/surprise my peers is how many Syrian refugees there are and how many are in different countries. Another piece of information that will interest them is the way most Syrian refugees and other refuges live in other countries. Some values they might have is humanitarian duty and brotherhood/ sisterhood. A view they probably have is that we need to help these refugees quickly. They are homeless and in need of kindness. I am assuming that this view among people is a strong view, which could make them uncomfortable and angry at my claim. On the other side of the argument, people's values might be economic security and that we need to protect the American citizens first. This is probably a a strong view, as well. I think they way I'll address my split audience is by being on offense and defense throughout my essay, in stead of starting with one or the other.