Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Drunk driving 40 to 50 words essay
Drunk driving 40 to 50 words essay
The problem with drunk driving
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Geraldo Rivera and Bill O’Reilly have a heated argument over immigration in this video clip when Bill O’Reilly brings up an incident when an illegal immigrant was involved in a drunk driving crash that killed another motorist in Virginia Beach. Geraldo Rivera asserts the only reason the incident is being so closely in the media is because the driver was an illegal alien and if it was a “Bubba” or “Bob” Americans would not have heard about the incident. O’Reilly then cites the illegal alien driver had been arrested two previous times and should have been deported the first time he had contact with the police and this drunk driving fatality would never have occurred. Rivera argues that this incident has nothing to do with illegal immigration and what nationality you are has nothing to do with the fact you are driving while intoxicated. Both Rivera and O’Reilly begin getting angrier and talking over one another not allowing the other to respond to one another’s accusations.
O’Reilly
…show more content…
Rivera’s argument also passes the test of relevance because the truth of his claim that drunk driving fatalities have nothing to do with the drunk driver’s nationality relate to the truth of his reason that drunk driving fatalities occur because people, not just illegal immigrants, drive drunk.
The test of non-circularity that if the reason and the claim say the same thing, the argument is not solid. Rivera’s argument that drunk driving fatalities have nothing to do with the driver’s nationality is not the basis for believing in the truth of his reason that drunk driving fatalities are due to “any” nationality driving while
When such a hot topic as drunk driving is introduced, any reader, regardless of whether or not he agrees with Pitts, is more inclined to hear out the argument. In addition, the
John F. Kavanaugh, a professor of philosophy and a Jesuit priest, wrote the article “Amnesty? Let Us Be Vigilant and Charitable” for an issue of America, a Jesuit publication. In his article he discusses the negatives of American immigration laws and argues for their reform.
Recently illegal immigration has become a very pressing issue among people. Many people around the borders are being greatly affected by the issue and think immediate action needs to be taken to put a stop to the issue. The Documentary Border War: Battle Over Illegal Immigration takes a stand on the issue using many examples of pathos, ethos, and logos to try and persuade people that illegal immigration is a very serious issue and we need to put a stop to it. This documentary follows the lives of people who have been affected by illegal immigration, and explains how they feel about the issue. Another way that people can look at the issue of illegal immigration is through the eyes of the immigrants, and the reasons why they might be trying migrate to another country. The documentary Wetback: The Undocumented Documentary focuses on the issue from this point of view. This documentary uses pathos and logos to show the lives and hardships of those people who are trying to migrate to a new country. Although Wetback used many examples of pathos and logos to show the struggles of the migrants, Border War did a better job showing pathos by following the lives of people who were affected by the illegal immigrants they were also very persuasive with ethos by following credible people.
In an article written by a Senior student they discuss a monumental moment in Mexican American history concerning equality in the South. The student’s paper revolves around the Pete Hernandez V. Texas case in which Hernandez receives a life in prison sentence by an all white jury. The essay further discusses how Mexican Americans are technically “white” americans because they do not fall into the Indian (Native American), or black categories and because of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848. The student’s paper proceeds to discuss the goals connecting the Hernandez V. Texas case which was to secure Mexican American’s right within the fourteenth amendment [1].
There are several theories to look into when discussing the morality of borders. I specifically look into Stephen Macedo’s chapter “The Moral Dilemma of U.S. Immigration Policy, open borders versus social justice?” in Debating Immigration and Joseph Carens article “Aliens and Citizens: The Case for Open Borders.” Using political theory back up his argument, Carens uses Rawlsian, the Nozickean, and the utilitarian to support and explain his claims that there is little justification for keeping oppressed people from other countries seeking a better life out of the United States. Macedo also uses similar liberal philosophy referencing Rawlsianism to support the opposing idea of a more restrictionist society, posing the question of cosmopolitanism
immigrant discrimination. He uses good sources and a well organized argument to get his point
Ariana Vivas was only 9 years old when she handed a note to Illinois Representative Luis Gutiérrez during a press conference an advocacy group had organized. Ariana, like many young Hispanics, had been born in the Unites States. However, her father was part of the recent deportations that countless of undocumented immigrants and family members dread. Ariana’s testimony of her father’s deportation is a common story among children with undocumented parents. The documentary, Immigration Battle, explores the controversial issue over immigration. Immigration Battle takes you inside the halls of Congress to give you a perspective on the fight over immigration, the debate, the politics, as well as how Washington really works.
Latino/a immigrants share similar experiences of anti-immigrant rhetoric, just like other immigrant groups. Many Latino/as in America have faced negative comments based on their identity. For example, Rush Limbaugh, a radio host, expounds negative comments toward Latino/as, particularly Mexicans. He claimed that Mexicans are “a renegade, potential[ly] criminal element” that is “unwilling to work” (Media Matters for America, 2/28/06). These malice comments were similar to those of other immigrants.
Though immigration is not a new phenomenon in the world’s history, it has been notice that now days immigration has increased more than ever. This is mainly caused because of better ways of communication and transportation, which it makes it possible to people to move and enter other countries. However there are many types of immigrations such as economical, retirement immigrants or even ‘natural disasters’ immigrants. People sometimes seek a new life to save themselves from poverty and misery, thus they decide to enjoy the benefits of another country. Still there are other immigrants who are forced to leave their countries because of wars or even natural disasters, such as the tsunami in Japan 2011. Some philosophers consider closed borders to restrict people freedom of movement and that global justice is been violated. On the other hand Miller and other philosophers argued that immigration causes more disadvantages than advantages into the country they enter. Also they agree that states have a moral right to limit immigrations in order to prevent any changes in their culture, as immigration affects several things, even if this means that they will violate human rights. Another concern for the states is the welfare state where sometimes it may be limited and countries cannot afford any immigrants. However, is it right to oppose people rights of freedom, or is it correct for states to limit immigration?
Main Point I: I’d like to start off by talking about the penalties of drinking and driving. Did you know that drunk driving is the nation’s most frequently committed violent crime? A chronic drunk driver is a person who has driven over 1,000 times before being caught. They do not respond to social pressures, law enforcement, and the messages that have been combined to reform the drinking and driving behavior of our society.
(Roman, 2013) In the case ofTrayvon Martin many believed the Stand Your Ground laws gave George Zimmerman a free pass to kill anAfrican-American boy. However, not every case is the same and a law cannot be repealed due to one failed case. Stand Your Ground laws value the life of the victim over the life of the criminal, which means that even if a criminal enters your home without the intent to kill or cause physical harm, they are still entering with a criminal intent. Proof that the victims life was in danger is no longer necessary because the presumption that the criminal intended to commit a crime speaks for itself. Many don’t agree with taking the life of a criminal if they didn’t intend to do physical harm to a victim, but it is impossible to know what an aggressor is planning on doing. It’s better to be safe than to have a dead victim with their back against a wall. Another issue that many find with Stand Your Ground laws is the propensity of racial bias within the court room. In a recent study done by the Tampa Bay Times newspaper, it was found that the courts seemed to value the lives of white victims more than those of black victims. (Ackerman, Goodman, Gilbert, Arroyo-Johnson, and Pagano, 2015) However, this study did not discuss the amount of black on white crimes compared to
The case was against a 31 year old illegal immigrant, Antonio Martinez-Nunez. Martinez-Nunez was the main suspect in a murder case involving Armando Castaneda. Castaneda was found dead in a parked car in Reynoldsburg, Ohio in August 2009. The cause of death was ruled as asphyxiation. In February of 2010, Martinez-Nunez, was arrested by border patrol, while trying to illegally re-enter the country via Texas. Upon his arrest, border patrol was advised that he was a suspect in the above murder case. Before being sent back to Ohio, Martinez-Nunez was questioned via phone by Reynoldsburg police. The questioning was done with the help of a Spanish interpreter. Martinez-Nunez’s statement led to a nine count
There is a need for the introduction and implementation of new drunk driving laws by the legislature, because presently the united States drunk driving laws are too lenient. The continuous rate of drunken driving fatalities makes a case that the united States drunk driving laws are too lenient and makes a call for stricter laws. According to Valenti “countries with strict drunk driving penalties have a far lower incidence of accidents than the United States (1). The United States being a first world country is weak in enforcing strict punishment for drunk drivers. Valenti is emphasizing on the fact that the united States need to improve their present laws and be firm in enforcing these new laws. There is a need for the United States to improve on their severity of its drunk driving penalties just the way the other part of the world have done and this is giving them a reduced rate of drunk driving fatalities. The claim of the leniency of the United States drunk driving laws is further stated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), this is a prominent body when it comes to the issue of drunken driving fatalities. It claims that the drunken driving laws are severe enough. “Despite great strides in awareness, education and enforcement in the last two decades the United States still has one of the most lenient drunken driving standards in the world”. (NHTSA of existing laws. There is a need for stricter laws to be introduced as the United States ranks behind the world when it comes to effort to combat drunk driving and more efforts need to be put in place by the implementation of harsher laws so as to reduce the high rate of repeat offenders and first time offenders.
Officers immediately noticed that the car was driven by a middle-aged Latino man without his shirt and there were three women in the car with him. The vehicle smelled of alcohol and there was an open 12-pack
Immigration poses an ongoing debate in which people are becoming increasingly unsure as to whether immigrants are benefiting their society. This paper will examine three of the main benefits of immigration: the increase in diversity it provides, the rise in skills and labor and the benefits to the economy. Immigration leads to cross-cultural integration, therefore increasing ethnic variety. This increase in diversity is beneficial as it leads to improvements in society, as well as educational development. Increased immigration also means there are more skills and experts available to the hosting countries, as well as extra workers to take up jobs that need filling. Immigration also leads to improvements in the economy as taxes are paid and employment and wages increase.