Sonia Nazario

In the article “How to secure the border. Spoiler alert: A wall won't do it,” Sonia Nazario makes a case for violence-prevention programs that will help stem the flow of immigrants. Nazario begins by refuting each of the ways that the government has tried to deal with the problem of illegal immigrants. She then says that the best way to solve this dilemma is to deal with the root of the problem, which is not the people themselves, but what is forcing them out of their homes and into ours. The dangers of their home country are forcing them into the perilous journey of trying to cross the border. Next, Nazario used a city in Honduras as an example. By providing outreach programs, protecting the city’s citizens, and thoroughly investigating crime,

the number of Honduran children that tried to immigrate to the U.S. was cut in half within a year. The citizens of the city were no longer endangered, and no longer felt the need to flee. The message of this article is clear: instead of using violence to block immigrants, violence-prevention programs should be implemented. Nazario creates a pretty compelling argument with strong logos and pathos, but a somewhat weak ethos.
Nazario has a very cohesive article, with logos weaved into every aspect of it. Nazario's article is well-organized and flows well. Her thought process is clearly and logically laid out. She anticipates what questions a reader might have and answers them before moving on. The title begs the first set of questions: what is the method that will work, and why do methods even need to change, anyways? By answering the first part with all the ways that current methods have failed us, Nazario gives the reader a reason to read beyond just the first paragraph. She uses numbers and facts, which we will assume to be true, to back up her claims. A person might then concede: fine, so current methods don't work, but why do we even need to be interfering with other countries? Nazario counters this question by appealing to the reader's emotions. The horrors that immigrants, and especially immigrant children, must face will inevitably stir up a person's emotions and will set off the next question: so, what should be done? "Violence-prevention programs," would be the answer. This method is backed not only by facts, but also logical reasoning. First, she uses the fact that immigration rates from Honduras have dropped drastically to prove that it works. Not only that, it would cost a lot less than a wall, and help more than harm the multitudes of immigrants that are simply trying to find a safe home; it is clearly a win-win situation.
Nazario's argument is heavily reliant on pathos, and she makes effective use of it, too. One of the great uses of pathos in this article is the constant reminder that immigrants are not invading us, but escaping from the danger in their own homes. At paragraph six, Nazario begins to list out how immigrants are terrorized not just by the gangs or bandits of their home, but also by the laws, regulations, and policies of ours. Children were "robbed, raped, beaten and killed" or "held for ransom, enslaved, or prostituted" on their journey north, ambushed by "gangsters, bandits, or corrupt cops." However, the U.S., what the immigrants might have thought was a safe haven for them, is also a source of their problems. Nazario mentions two key instances where the U.S. has worsened the lives of those that have tried to immigrate. Once when the U.S. paid to Mexico to keep immigrants from the border, and twice when the U.S. deported criminals to Central America, thereby making those places the turf of gangs and bandits. Assuming the reader is American, it personally connects the reader to the problem. The reader would feel a range of emotions from shame to anger to sorrow to sympathy. These sort of emotions cause the reader to want to take action. Another strong use of pathos is in the third to last paragraph, where Nazario uses extremely emotional words, imagery, and tone. It ends the article on a heavy, but powerful and meaningful note. Nazario states, "We must offer compassion for vulnerable children running from harm and... to keep more children and families in their home countries." The emotions that the words "children running from harm" are quite obvious – pity, sadness, anger and the like. However, I think that the use of the word "home" is a subtle but just as powerful use of ethos. People don't just associate the word "home" with the definition "a place where a person lives." It is associated with memories and emotions that are indescribable, yet are somehow encapsulated in one word; people understand the need to and want to protect that, not just for themselves, but for others, as well.
Nazario's ethos is a bit is spotty; though it is strong in some aspects, it is weak in others.

Nazario's strong ethos is apparent at the beginning of the article, when she discussed all the methods to stem immigration that have been tried. Right at the opening of the article, Nazario is able to strike down three opposing views. Border enforcement? Costs billions and doesn't work. Guest worker programs? That only let more immigrants in. Legalizing immigrants? When it was tried, it caused the number of illegal immigrants to almost quadruple. One by one, Nazario swiftly and skillfully refuted arguments that the opposition might have. This shows that not only did she consider her opponents views, making her seem like a credible person, she was also able to counter them, making her seem witty and smart. Another instance where Nazario had strong ethos is when she discussed how she had followed the route that an immigrant boy took to get to the U.S. Nazario faced, firsthand, the horrors that are faces by immigrants daily. This shows that Nazario is not weighing in on the subject with no knowledge or experience of it, but has firsthand experience of what it is like to be an immigrant. In other words, Nazario's words carry weight and authority on the matter. Nazario might have had a few instances of strong ethos, but also had a few weak ones that undermined her character. For example, Nazario uses plenty of facts and statistics to support her claims, yet she uses zero sources or references. There could be a few reasons why Nazario did not include sources, but none spell a strong ethos. First, perhaps Nazario could not find the correct facts that were needed to back her argument, so she simply resorted to using false or partially true facts instead. Clearly, no one would trust or listen to someone that makes things up. Second, she might just not have cared to include her sources. This makes her seem careless, incompetent, and someone that does not care enough about the

subject to cite sources. Third, perhaps she simply does not know how to link to sources in an online article. This makes her seem like someone that is possibly out of touch with the current world, making the reader think that perhaps she does not the qualifications or recent enough experience to have input on this topic.
Nazario has made a pretty strong argument for violence-prevention programs. I agree with Nazario; violence-prevention programs seem like something that would be more than just a quick fix to a problem. I feel it would be more like changing the water pressure in a pipe, rather than continuously plugging up leaks; it might work for a short while, but is probably the worst solution in the long run. This article is well-written and the author is clearly very seasoned and knows how to write a persuasive and logically formatted essay, although the lack of sources is a concerning. She knows how to use a person’s emotions to her advantage, and was able to write a compelling and emotional argument.