Reforming Immigration For Good Analysis

I am writing in response to a request from The Shorthorn’s editor stating the opinions of publishing or not publishing Mae M. Ngai’s “Reforming Immigration for Good.” The author claims the government 's approach to protocols regarding control of present immigration are failed ideas. She inflicts emotion to the reader on why illegal immigration will not stop, by stressing the need to give more opportunities and to be “flexible and fair.” I consider the topic at hand appealing to the demographic of international students at UTA, but I do not support her article. Ngai’s writing brings forth ideas of why actions of legalization happen. Her overall reasoning is the loss of money regarding border control, adding on to the true problem but not halting …show more content…
Besides her accomplishments relatability, her manuscript shows it is what she relies on. Ngai also disregards the audience and any other argument that contradicts hers. Having no rebuttal cripples your argument and conveys your claim is ineffective. Ngai seems to be disconnected from the topic of immigration and The Shorthorn readers. She confines in her evidence, conceals her values, and the interest with the topic. In other words, she does not relate to anything in her writing, its transparent, and it executes her entire plea. To conclude this analysis “Reforming Immigration for Good” abandons the right of publication. Ngai’s academic approach is unappealing to the youth of Shorthorn readers, and she rarely grants the article a breath from overused factual evidence. Her weak central claim was backed up by minimal support, and she made no attempt to have common ground amongst other arguments. Nevertheless, she somewhat had an idea that could enlighten new prospective of immigration, her execution was deficient. To truly make her argument solid she would need to distinguish who are her audience, revamp, glamour her