America's Mixed Messages To Foreigners At The Gate Analysis

In his op-ed piece “America’s mixed messages to foreigners at the gate,” published in the Seattle Times in 2004, Ruben Navarrette, Jr dives into a topic prevalent if not more so in the fourteen years that have passed since this article’s publication. Navarrette criticizes the message broadcasted to those who immigrate to America and specifically from Latin America illegally: “Come legally, or don’t come at all.” He not only retorts in his op-ed piece how oxymoronic this message comes across by providing examples of these messages which present mixed signals from issues such as employment, education and taxation but also continues to perpetuate the narrative on America’s disorganization and lack of a clear plan. Navarrette opens his piece
For example, he discusses America’s strict ideology on making sure illegal immigrants don’t pass the border then describes the always available employment of illegal immigrants as a means of cheap labor. This comes in the form of dialogue following each piece of generalized evidence, “Stay out. If you don't come legally, you're not welcome.” and “Come right in. We're glad to have you. Tell your friends.” This dialogue’s consistency being provided at the end of each argument made. Though this may be perceived as a way of weakening his points instead of highlighting America’s indecisiveness on illegal
With a topic as versatile as immigration with social, political and economic ties in American policy the use of deductive reasoning does not dispense much trust in the author’s reasoning since it comes after the conclusion. The immediate presentation of his claim has the rest of the article trying its best to meet the qualification of making it true. And true or not, the evidence given is lacking in sound logic. Furthermore, instead of relying on clear, factual evidence that solidifies each point the use of dialogue afterwards does quite the opposite. An example of this is, “Demands that immigrants blend into their surroundings” and yet no “demands” are provided. Without giving clear indication of the information and remaining transparent in each of his arguments the vague wording in each points instead of being agreed or disagreed with is left confused on what is the problematic choice and which is