On July 7th, USA Today's editorial board (a group comprised of seasoned editorial editors, writers, and journalists that collaborate on editorials for the establishment) published an article concerning the Justice Department's lawsuit against Arizona's newest immigration law. The editorial board page gives pictures and a short bio of each of it's ten members, a seemingly diverse group of people eventually brought together by a love of journalism. While I'm sure there are two sides to every story, this particular view seems to be in opposition to the decisions of the government. The writer uses words such as "righteous", "pretend", and "suffered" to paint a picture of a villainous government taking advantage of an already weakened state. These words, which have bad connotation, can give the reader a sense of sympathy to Arizona through the use of ethos and pathos.
The law in question "requires local police to question the legal status of anyone they reasonably suspect" of being in America illegally. USA Today's editorial board conveyed their extreme annoyance in regards to the lawsuit, claiming that Arizona would not have had to create this law if "Washington had done its job enforcing federal immigration laws in the first place". Essentially, the writer of this article is trying to put them blame on the government. This article relies on the argument that the government is acting prematurely, instead of waiting for racial profiling to actually happen. But isn't it part of the government's job to eliminate a problem before it occurs? Seeing as how the problems formerly mentioned are the only ones presented in the article, we must question which side is really the right one and not just go with the ideas put in front of us.
Though the feelings in the article are valid (in that we have not necessarily seen the reforms in immigration laws that we would like to), I think that we must always remember to be patient. Some may not agree with the President and his actions regarding certain topics, however things are not always as simple as they seem. And furthermore, while the immigration laws may benefit America in terms of more job opportunities, is it ethical to force someone out of this country who so badly wants to turn their lives around? We pride ourselves on being the land of opportunity, which should apply to everyone. And although the writer stresses the fact that this law is popular among citizens, we cannot be sure how accurate the statistics are. Are the people voting well informed? Have they truly investigated what the law entails?
The article's conclusion goes on to help redeem itself somewhat with the idea of a compromise, which is probably a good idea -- if agreements can be made without creating even more tension between state and national governments.
While it must be frustrating for those eagerly awaiting the day that the national government finally makes it's immigration laws more strict, one must also see this situation from Washington's standpoint. Though many in favor of the law may say a lawsuit is premature, perhaps the government is really trying to protect the state by preventing racial profiling and the trouble that may ensue.
No comments:
Post a Comment