Scott Russell Sanders Immigration

Scott Russell Sanders, an author, responds to writer Salman Rushdie’s belief that the effect of mass migration leads to, “‘the creation of radically new types of human being: people who root themselves in ideas rather than places,’” (Salman). He disagrees with Rushdie's response of migrating and explains how he should have responsibility and care for the environment then his desires.Sanders expresses his opinion through the utilization of description, cause and effect, and example.
In Scott Russell Sanders’ response, he utilizes description to convey that moving is both beneficial and harmful. He states, “If we fish out a stream or wear out a field, or if the smoke from a neighbor’s chimney begins to crowd the sky, why, off we go to a new stream, a fresh field, a clean sky,” (Lines 10-13). This relates to his opinion because Sanders is explaining that mass migration leads to human “trails.” After moving from one place to another, people see that the land is no

longer useful, thus forcing them to find better territory to start over. This shows that although people may benefit from their surroundings, the Earth may deteriorate because of it. In addition, this idea corresponds to Rushdie’s since he states that, “‘...people...root themselves in ideas rather than places.’” In other words, people are drawn to the idea that they must move to find new places and items without the care of the aftermath they left. This is relevant to the strategy of description because Sanders is describing what occurs in the mass migration process. Sanders’ disagrees with his decision and uses direct quotes with acknowledgement of Rushdie's statement. He explains by using stylistic techniques in a way to make Rushdie feel guilt.
Sanders uses cause and effect by contrasting the ideas of the “consequences” and he respectfully refutes Rushdie’s point. In addition it states, “I quarrel with Rushdie because he articulates as eloquently as anyone the orthodoxy that I wish to counter: the belief that movement is inherently good, staying put is bad; that uprooting brings tolerance, while rootedness breeds intolerance; that imaginary homelands are preferable to geographical ones; that to be modern, enlightened, fully of our tie is to be displaced.” (Lines 63-70) This connects to what Sanders believes and when one statement was made it was being opposed to another. As Sanders pulled out quotes from Rushdie’s writing, he doesn’t agree with the statements that was being asserted but it can respond to other readers. He explains how Rushdie's believed that his claims were as eloquent as anybody ese and shows the consequences occurring. Rushdie and sanders both compare the meaning of American beliefs and how one might feel strongly about his response. This is relevant to the strategy because it’s showing how the words that were being used was to justify the meaning of tolerance and one’s action thats being made.
To add, Scott Russell Sanders uses examples to convey the progress of Americans and other inhabitants of the nations that were once “...sailors, explorers, cowboys, prospectors…” (Line 4).

In his response to Rushdie, he says, “Americans have dug the most canals, laid the most rails, built the most roads and airports of any nation,” (Lines 18-19). He explains how they have a system and attempts to persuade him into believing that there are many systems that are built which helped the environment. He makes Rushdie feel guilt for his actions but respectfully disagrees with his assertion. In addition it states, “...our heroes have been sailors, explorers, cowboys, prosecutor's, speculators, backwoods ramblers, rainbow-chasers, vagabonds of every stripe.” (Lines 3-6) This is a diversity quotes that explains how they haven’t shaken of the “unlimited space” and how the nation has restless movers who are working. The quote shows how Americans are mandatory to share Rushdie’s enthusiasm of his choice for

migration.