Michael Correa's Argument Essay

Immigration in the United States is a complex demographic phenomenon that has caused widespread controversy throughout the last decade. Many have taken to debate whether or not immigrants are socially and culturally accepted within society. The article “How Immigrants Are Marked as Outsiders” by Michael Correa argues that it is difficult, if not impossible, to truly define what makes an insider versus an outsider. Louis Mendoza, however, states in his article “No Longer an Outsider, but Still Distinct” that, even though immigrants may never be completely included in society, with the technology we have today it is possible. While Mendoza and Correa both create convincing arguments, Mendoza constructed an argument that is more effective due

to his use of ethos, logos, and pathos that better appeals to his audience.

One of the first things written in the article by Mendoza reads, “Louis Mendoza, chairman of the Department of Chicano and Latino Studies at the University of Minnesota, is the author of “A Journey Around Our America: A Memoir on Cycling, Immigration, and the Latinoization of the U.S.”(Louis Mendoza “No Longer an Outsider but Still Distinct”), which gives the reader a small background into who the writer is and if he is qualified. This is one of the most important aspects of his credibility as his chairman status at a university gives him an edge over other authors that may be writing a similar article. His audience is more likely to take what he says seriously not only because of his impressive profession but also because he has written a book similar to the topic of the article. These two aspects tell the audience before even reading the article that Mendoza has an extensive background in the topic of immigration, which creates a sense of trustworthiness between him and his readers. As well as background, Mendoza uses a quote from Martin Luther King Jr. to back up his claim. He states, “Martin Luther King Jr. said: ‘We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly’”(Mendoza, par. 4) because most, if not all, of his readers should be familiar with the history behind Martin Luther King Jr. Mendoza uses evidence from a well respected figure of the past in order to express that he knows what he is talking about. He also uses the idea of technology to support his claim that, although immigration today is still difficult, it is easier due to the connectivity of technology. Mendoza uses ethos throughout his article in order to gain trust and logos to augment his claims to better appeal to his target audience.

In the article “How Immigrants are Marked as Outsiders”, Michael Correa uses a similar approach to strengthen his ethos.

In his background, it reads, “Michael Jones-Correa, a professor of government at Cornell University, is a co-author of “Latino Lives in America: Making It Home” (Michael Correa “How Immigrants are Marked as Outsiders”). Similar to Mendoza, Correa has a professional career at a university and has published a book that covers the same topic as the article written. Throughout his article, he uses facts to increase his credibility. For example, he states, “This may result in their pulling back . . . or it could fuel the opposite reaction, with immigrants pressing their demands . . . as many did in the 2006 marches in the United States for immigrants’ rights” (Correa, par. 5). Correa provides the audience with evidence of what happened in the past to support his argument that immigrants need to be perceived as included by insiders in order to fully adapt to the culture. Correa is able to present himself throughout his article as credible due to his background and reasonable through his use of evidence; however, Mendoza has a better argument due to the fact that he is more experienced, he uses an admirable historian figure, and backs up his argument with the use of

logos.

The use of pathos, or emotion, is one more important aspect when it comes to creating an effective argument. Mendoza uses emotion to appeal to the interests and perspectives of his audience. For example, he compares today’s immigrants being like immigrants of the past by saying, “those courageous, daring and often desperate working folks who left the economic and social uncertainties of their home country to risk an uncertain but more hopeful future in the U.S.” (Mendoza, par. 1), which allows him to begin his article by presenting his readers with background on the difficulties of being an immigrant. Using “courageous” and “daring” shows the audience that Mendoza views immigrants and the working class as heros, much like most of America does. By comparing the past to the present, he establishes a sense of continuity that adds an aspect of raw emotion right as he begins his article. He goes on to say, “These forebears of ours have led us to proudly claim immigrants as an integral part of our national heritage” (Mendoza, par. 1), which establishes a sense of pride and common ground between the audience and himself. Mendoza shifts to argue that, “In the past, we expected assimilation of every immigrant . . . we now know that one can truly live bilingually, biculturally, and transnationally” and states that “knowing this is true doesn’t mean it’s considered acceptable when some sectors of society hold on to older models of assimilation that demand full allegiance” (Mendoza, par. 2). Here Mendoza implies that, while we as a country are making progress, there are still unresolved issues that restricts insiders from receiving the benefits of immigrant integration into culture and economy. This idea appeals to the emotions of the audience by saying that insiders need to change. Throughout the article, Mendoza engages his audience through his extensive use of pathos in order to evoke a response and a change within the way immigration is handled.

Michael Correa, however, used a small aspect of pathos towards the end of his argument. He reflects on his argument by saying, “These three things mark immigrants as outsiders, but it is harder to define what truly makes people insiders. At the very least, we know that as long as people remain outsiders, they will never feel, or truly be, insiders.” (Correa, par. 6). In this aspect of his article, Correa reinforces his argument to make sure his audience understands his point while still using careful language. He uses careful language throughout his article in order to avoid offense on a touchy subject. However, this approach may not be as effective for his New York Times audience.

Michael Correa and Louis Mendoza both create effective arguments, however, Mendoza creates an argument that is more effective towards his target audience. His credibility backs up his use of evidence and his appeal to his readers emotions allows his argument to be more rhetorically effective.