Week 13 Day One

Today's lesson was based on an essay by Star Parker called Se Habla Entitlement. This essay focuses on the claim that illegal immigrants have no rights or entitlements in the United States, and they are a strain on U.S. society.

This author's rhetorical stance is in sharp contrast to Roberto Rodriguez's essay The Border on Our Backs. Rodriguez claims that illegal immigrants should no longer accept the second-rate status they have been allotted in the United States.

Here is a YouTube video that had 3 million hits. You will see why it is so good.



Both essays were opinion pieces targeted for a sympathic audience. I had as an activity to do a debate on a slightly different proposition:

Should America maintain/increase the level of legal immigration?

The class was divided up into pairs with each pair given a pro or con reason. I got the argument from a great site called Balanced Politics. It can be found at http://www.balancedpolitics.org/

From that site, the Pro and Con Arguments were as follows:

PRO

1. Some of the most intelligent and ambitious individuals, who are unsatisfied with their own countries bring skills to America.
2. It increases the diversity and expands the culture of the country.
3. immigrants often take the low-paying jobs( like food service and hotel cleaning) that most Americans don't want to do at such low wages.
4. Decreasing or eliminating legal immigration will inevitably create more incentive to come to the country illegally, which leads to less assimilation and fewer taxpaying, law abiding citizens.
5. It improves the overall image of America internationally, as it is seen as an open, welcoming country; and immigrants who return home or maintain contact with family back home have a true image of America, not the one propagandized in much of the international media.
6. Adding an additional group of cheap labor adds to the flexibility of business, leading to cheaper prices, better quality products, and higher profits.
7. It gives struggling people all over the world an opportunity for a better life. This country was built on immigrants who sought opportunity, political and religious freedom.

CONS

1. More immigrants means more opportunity for terrorists, drug dealers, and other criminals to enter the country.
2. Immigrants, especially the poorer ones, consume a high amount of government resources (health care, education, welfare, etc.) without paying a corresponding high rate of taxes.
3. The national identity and language is disappearing. The great "melting pot" is being replaced by divisive multi-culturalism.
4. The emigration to the United States hurts the home country, as much of the male population, workers, and top intellectuals often leave their country.
5. Less skilled citizens earn less money and have fewer job opportunities because they must compete with immigrants in the job market.

Alex and Tim provided excellent evidence to back up their pro argument related to business.

Ryan and Rikki provided examples of citizens being forced to take low paying jobs by providing examples of Disney and the cruise ship industry but failed to go into detail. I had heard that Disney was a great company to work for in terms of benefits. I would have liked information on the salary ranges.

Brittany and James provided lots of stats using the Pew Research Center survey.

Rolando and Kasie also provided lots of stats on the con side of the argument.

Carly and Valeria actually found the balancedpolitics.org site and copied the information related to their pro argument. I was hoping the students wouldn't find the site because the site goes into detail on each of the reasons.

Okay, so this perfectly planned lesson that I imagined would ignite the masses to engage in a fiery debate fizzled. I know why.....I was micromanaging the whole thing by critiquing each person's evidence in the attempt to teach how evidence should be collected and presented.

The next time I do this kind of thing, the students will have a presentation of how evidence should be linked to reasons in a claim. I put the cart before the horse. Therefore, the whole activity became a chore. I didn't allow the cons to say anything. What I should have done was to have one pro present, followed by a rebuttal and then a con, then a rebuttal, a pro, etc.

The students were trying to engage in the debate and I held them off.

I think the activity is a good one. The procedure needs work. In the process, I found that great balanced politics website. I noticed that lots of students wrote down the link, so that was good for any students writing in other classes.

Two more weeks of classes. I think everyone is tired. Alas...always pidgeons in the grass.