Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Article: The Rhetoric of Immigration Reform by Lauren Gilbert

Collapse
X
Collapse

  • Article: The (Aristotelian) Rhetoric of Immigration Reform by Lauren Gilbert

    The (Aristotelian) Rhetoric of Immigration Reform

    by Lauren Gilbert

    On July 11, 2013, the full U.S. Senate began debate on comprehensive immigration reform (“CIR”). In a press release issued that day, the American Immigration Council urged that “[e]vidence, rather than grandstanding and rhetoric should drive the debate on the Senate floor.” I was struck by that statement, but what does it actually mean? Over the last few months, I have monitored the various lawsuits challenging the legality of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”), the Obama Administration’s policy announced a little over a year ago to defer the deportation of certain undocumented teenagers and young adults who came here with their parents when they were children. I have followed the debates in Congress on DACA, the DREAM Act and CIR. While supporters of the DREAM Act and CIR offer powerful moral and policy arguments for providing a pathway to citizenship to many of the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States, opponents continue to make inroads by offering up the strongest rhetorical arguments. These rhetorical arguments, while simplistic, xenophobic and deeply-flawed, are winning traction with the public, in Congress, and in the lower courts.

    If Aristotle’s Rhetoric, written over two millennia ago, is about the art of persuasion, Kris Kobach, the mastermind behind Arizona’s anti-immigrant S.B. 1070 and the lawyer for the immigration officers challenging DACA’s constitutionality, is a master rhetorician. Aristotle defined a rhetorician as someone who always keeps sight of what is persuasive. Aristotle recognized, however, that a skilled rhetorician can use his power of persuasion to do harm as well as to do good. Kobach, a former law professor at the University of Missouri Kansas City (UMKC) and currently Kansas Secretary of State, has adopted a multi-prong strategy: drafting state statutes, litigating in federal court, testifying before Congress, and appearing on Fox News to advocate his views publicly. I suspect, based on recent statements on the floors of Congress, that he has not only been lobbying members of Congress, but perhaps writing some of their speeches.

    A skilled rhetorician knows that he or she cannot persuade everyone, but effectively uses the rhetorical tools of ethos, pathos and logos to achieve the desired goal. Many advocates for immigration reform disdain the use of negative rhetoric and its ability to trigger the worst xenophobia. Nonetheless, it is important that they not yield the public sphere to Kobach and his followers but be prepared to counter their rhetoric with the rhetoric of immigration reform.

    Ethos turns on the credibility of the speaker, who must convince the audience that he is knowledgeable, virtuous and of good will. Chris Crane, the head of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Council, a union for ICE officers, and lead plaintiff in Crane v. Napolitano, is portrayed by Kobach as a dedicated ICE officer ordered by his superiors to violate the very immigration laws that he has sworn to uphold. In recent months, Crane has become a rock star among conservatives opposed to immigration reform. Yet the day the Group of Eight unveiled its plan, Crane had to be escorted out by federal marshals after repeatedly interrupting the senators. Similarly, in proposing an amendment to H.R. 2217, the Homeland Security bill, to cut off DACA funding, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) claimed that his amendment conformed to the vision of the Founding Fathers, who never would have tolerated the President usurping legislative authority. Rep. David Price (D-NC), in contrast, described King’s amendment as dangerous, irresponsible, and demagogic, as a “poison pill” and “very toxic addition” to the bill, and as “twisting the knife” by adding the DREAM Act children.

    Pathos relies on the speaker understanding the emotional state of the audience; Aristotle noted that emotions can stir people and cause them to change their minds. In recent testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on CIR, Kobach repeatedly referred to the Boston Marathon bombing and how the proposed legislation would not prevent terrorists like Tamerlan Tsarnaev from gaining amnesty. In the debate over DACA funding, Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), in opposing Rep. King’s amendment, made effective use of pathos when he asked the largely rhetorical question of why the U.S. government should spend its money “chasing down and hunting down and deporting people who came here as children who do not even know the country that they came from?” Rep. Gutierrez applauded the President for prioritizing enforcement so as to “go after the mean, ugly people who want to do us harm.”

    Logos emphasizes the internal logic of an argument. A speaker persuades by logos when he or she demonstrates (or appears to demonstrate) that something is true. In the Crane litigation, the ICE plaintiffs argue that the Constitution gives Congress the power under Article I to make law while the President has the power and duty under Article II to enforce the law. In providing relief under DACA, they claim, the Executive is engaged in law-making in violation of separation of powers. This argument relies, however, on the faulty premise that Congress’s and the President’s roles are sharply divided between law-making and law-enforcement, ignoring the fact that in certain areas implicating immigration, like foreign policy, their respective powers under Articles I and II are concurrent and overlapping.

    To give yet another example, in opposing CIR, Kobach and allies offer up what looks like a simple syllogism: 1.) the immigration laws should not reward lawbreakers over immigrants who have played by the rules; 2.) an amnesty providing a path to citizenship to illegal immigrants would reward lawbreakers; 3.) thus, any immigration reform in Congress should not offer a pathway to citizenship to illegal immigrants. A well-constructed syllogism appears to rely on internal logic but often depends on an unstated premise that reflects the belief system of the target audience. Here Kobach’s argument relies on the implicit premise, reflected in public opinion polls, that immigrants without legal status are lawbreakers. While claiming to persuade through logos, he effectively uses pathos by equating those who enter without inspection or overstay their visa with criminal aliens.

    Whether he is representing ICE plaintiffs in Court, appearing on Fox News, or testifying before Congress, Kris Kobach always keeps his sights on what is persuasive. Immigration reform requires, however, that advocates of reform not cede the public sphere of rhetorical debate. Rather, they must be able not only to identify negative rhetoric but to break it down: to show when it is ugly and mean-spirited, to demonstrate how it manipulates people’s emotions and triggers xenophobic responses, and to prove that it is based on faulty or hidden premises. At the same time, they must become adept at using the Aristotelian tools of ethos, pathos, and logos to set a better course, to demonstrate, for example, how DACA and the DREAM Act reflect a commitment to justice and fairness on behalf of the young women and men who were brought here as children, who consider themselves Americans, and who, until now, have been denied legal status based solely on the accident of their birth.


    About The Author

    Lauren Gilbert is a Professor of Law at St. Thomas University School of Law where she teaches Immigration Law, Constitutional Law and Family Law.


    The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM.

    • Guest's Avatar
      #1
      Guest commented
      Editing a comment
      Great article. I jsut finished reading about a hundred comments on a a conservative news site and though there were three sensible, logical people who attempted to inject facts in a quiet and mannerly way, nevertheless the majority of the comments were so negative it was discouraging. I write, speak and agree to be the lone pro immigration person on forums. I write for American Daily Herald where I am the "token libertarian" but I cannot complain as it was a conscious decision to not preach to the choir. I will probably be writing an article that will link to your well thought out presentation. It inspired me! Thanks so much.
    Posting comments is disabled.

Categories

Collapse

article_tags

Collapse

There are no tags yet.

Latest Articles

Collapse

  • Article: The EB-5 Immigration Program and the Investors Process By H. Ronald Klasko
    ImmigrationDaily

    If you are having difficulty viewing this document please click here.

    08-20-2018, 08:15 AM
  • Article: Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence By Karolina Walters
    ImmigrationDaily
    Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence by Karolina Walters The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), the union that represents the nation’s immigration judges, is challenging the government’s decision to remove an immigration judge from a well-known case and replace him with a judge who immediately ordered the immigrant in the case deported. NAIJ’s grievance addresses the treatment of one immigration judge, but its resolution will have implications for judicial independence throughout the entire immigration court system. The grievance was filed on behalf of Philadelphia-based immigration judge Steven A. Morley, who was presiding over the case of Mr. Reynaldo Castro-Tum. Castro-Tum’s case rose to national importance earlier this year when Attorney General Jeff Sessions chose to refer the case to himself to reconsider the Board of Immigration Appeals’ previous decision in the case. In reconsidering the decision, Sessions effectively eliminated judges’ use of administrative closure, a docket management tool. Sessions sent Castro-Tum’s case back to Judge Morley, noting that the immigration court order Castro-Tum removed if he did not appear at his next hearing. Castro-Tum did not appear at the next hearing. However, Judge Morley continued the case to resolve whether Castro-Tum received adequate notice of the hearing. Due process requires, at a minimum, that an individual be given notice of proceedings and an opportunity to be heard by a judge. But before the next hearing could take place, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) replaced Judge Morley with an Assistant Chief Immigration Judge who ordered Castro-Tum removed when he did not appear at court again. In their grievance, NAIJ asserts that the decision to remove Judge Morley from Castro-Tum’s case and reassign many other cases from his docket resulted in unacceptable interference with judicial independence. The grievance specifically claims that EOIR’s actions violate immigration judges’ authority under the regulations to exerci...
    08-17-2018, 11:12 AM
  • Article: Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico By Sophia Genovese
    ImmigrationDaily
    Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico by Sophia Genovese The Trump Administration is seeking to create and implement a safe third country agreement with Mexico . Under this agreement, asylum seekers arriving at the US border who have travelled through Mexico would be denied the ability to file their asylum claims in the US. Such an agreement would trample on the rights of asylum-seekers, violating both international and US asylum law. In particular, the US would be violating the international principle of non-refoulement , which provides that no State “shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his [or her] life or freedom would be threatened,” where Mexico has a proven track record of being anything but safe for asylum seekers . The US has also codified Article 33(1) of the Refugee Convention into Section 208(a)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) which provides that it will not return an asylum seeker to his or her country of origin, but may, at the determination of the Attorney General, remove the asylum seeker to a “safe third country… where the [asylum seeker] would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection.” Although Mexican officials have not yet indicated whether they would sign a safe third country agreement with the US, asylum advocates should proactively seek to prevent such a devastating policy with a country that lacks adequate asylum protections. As reported by Human Rights First and Amnesty International , 75 percent of asylum seekers apprehended and detained by the National Institute of Migration (INM), the Mexican immigration enforcement agency, were not informed of their right to seek asylum. Even if asylum seekers are able to make their claims, only 30% of the asylum proceedings are ever concluded , and even fewer are granted, leaving many bona fide asylum seekers stranded without a resolution. The treatment of unaccompanied minors’ asylum claims in Mexico are even more dismal. Of the 35,000 minors apprehended by the INM in the first half of 2016, only 138 were able to apply for asylum , of which only 77 were granted protection. Beyond the failing asylum system in Mexico, asylum seekers are also in extreme danger of kidnapping, murder, rape, trafficking, and other crimes by INM officers and civilians. A safe third country agreement with Mexico would violate the United States’ international obligations under the 1967 Optional Protocol to the Refugee Convention, to which we are a signatory, which adopts by incorporation the obligations outlined in the 1951 Refugee Convention, to which the US is not a signatory. Take the example of an asylum-seeker, Mrs. H, who is fleeing politically-motivated violence in Honduras. Her husband, Mr. H, was a vocal political activist who opposed the National Party and members of the Honduran government. Mr. H began to receive death threats due to his political beliefs and reported such threats to the authorities. The authorities, however, di...
    08-16-2018, 02:32 PM
  • Article: Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence By Eugene Goldstein, Esq.
    ImmigrationDaily

    Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence

    by


    On August 9, 2018 USCIS published a “Policy Memorandum” restricting the 20-year-old calculation of Duration of Status (D/S) for F-1, J-1 and M-1 entrants (and their derivative families). https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/...immigrants.pdf

    USCIS also published an announcement (hereinafter “announcement”) “USCIS Issues Revised Guidance on Unlawful Presence for Students and Exchange Visitors https://www.uscis.gov/news/uscis-iss...hange-visitors , and a general discussion “Unlawful Presence and Bars to Admissibility” ...

    08-15-2018, 12:57 PM
  • Article: Update On Express Entry Immigration To Canada By Edward C. Corrigan and Selvin Mejia
    ImmigrationDaily
    Update On Express Entry Immigration To Canada by Edward C. Corrigan and Selvin Mejia On January 1, 2015 the Federal Conservatives introduced significant changes to Canada’s economic immigration program. Formerly called the Skilled Worker program the new program was re-branded as Express Entry which included Skilled Workers, the Federal Skilled Trades program, and the In-Canada Experience Program. Canada modelled its revamped economic immigration program on New Zealand’s. There is also an Atlantic Immigration program. In addition there is a separate Live-In Caregiver program where individuals can apply for Permanent Residence after two years employment in this category. EXPRESS ENTRY The initial object of the changes was to create a list of Applicants where the Federal Government could select the best and the brightest from the list of Applicants. The Express Entry was supposed have applicants who had an approved Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) and a valid job offer from an approved Canadian Employer. Under the Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS) candidates were award 600 points for having an approved job offer. Applicants would have achieved a point score of around 1,000 with the 600 points for having a valid offer of employment under the CRS. The provinces in Canada were also allowed to select Applicants according to their economic needs and these applicants that were selected through the respective provincial nominee programs by a province were awarded 600 points to be added to their score. Ontario also has a program where graduates from an Ontario University with a Master’s or who were in a PhD. program would be approved and awarded 600 points which virtually assured that they would be approved and provided with an invitation to apply. There is a quota that governs this graduate program. LABOUR MARKET IMPACT ASSESSMENTS Things did not go according to plan with Federal Express Entry. Very few Applicants were able to attai...
    08-14-2018, 12:50 PM
  • Article: USCIS Finalizes Unlawful Presence Policy Putting F, J and M Nonimmigrants In Great Jeopardy By Cyrus D. Mehta
    ImmigrationDaily
    USCIS Finalizes Unlawful Presence Policy Putting F, J and M Nonimmigrants In Great Jeopardy by Cyrus D. Mehta The USCIS finalized its unlawful presence policy for F, J and M nonimmigrants on August 9, 2018. The final policy makes no significant changes from the draft policy of May 10, 2018. My earlier blog noted the flaws in the draft policy, which persist in the final policy. The final policy incorrectly breaks down the distinction between violating status and being unlawfully present in the US. As of August 9, 2018, F, J and M nonimmigrants who have failed to maintain nonimmigrant status will start accruing unlawful presence. Individuals who have accrued more than 180 days of unlawful presence during a single stay, and then depart, may be subject to 3-year or 10-year bars to admission, depending on how much unlawful presence they accrued before they departed the United States. See INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) & (II) . Individuals who have accrued a total period of more than one year of unlawful presence, whether in a single stay or during multiple stays in the United States, and who then reenter or attempt to reenter the United States without being admitted or paroled, are permanently inadmissible. See INA § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(1). Prior to August 9, 2018, foreign students (F nonimmigrants) and exchange visitors (J nonimmigrants) who were admitted for, or present in the United States in, Duration of Status started accruing unlawful presence on the day after USCIS formally found a nonimmigrant status violation while adjudicating a request for another immigrant benefit or on the day after an immigration judge ordered the applicant excluded, deported, or removed (whether or not the decision was appealed), whichever came first. F and J nonimmigrants, and foreign vocational students (M nonimmigrants), who were admitted until a specific date certain accrued unlawful presence on the day after their Form I-94 expired, on the day after USCIS formally found a nonimmigrant status violation while adjudicating a request for another immigration benefit, or on the day after an immigration judge ordered the applicant excluded, deported, or removed (whether or not the decision was appealed), whichever came first. This will no longer be the case. Under the new policy effective August 9, 2018, any status violation will start the accrual of unlawful presence. The nonimmigrant will not be provided with any formal notice of a status violation, and any violation from the past that has been discovered would have already started the accrual of unlawful presence. According to the pol...
    08-14-2018, 10:51 AM
Working...
X