What Seems to Have Prompted Chavez's Essay? How Can You Tell? Supporting Family Values

"Supporting Family unit Values"

by Linda Chavez

Topic: assimilation of immigrants to the United states.

Author: For this topic, what is important near Chavez'due south background? What is her political identity, and why is that surprising here?

From her Wikipedia entry:

Linda Chavez (built-in June 17, 1947 in Albuquerque, New Mexico) is an American author, commentator, and radio talk show host. She is besides a Flim-flam News analyst, Chairman of the Center for Equal Opportunity, has a syndicated column that appears in newspapers nationwide each week, and sits on the Lath of Directors of two Fortune 1000 companies: Pilgrims Pride and ABM Industries Inc. Chavez was the highest-ranking woman in President Ronald Reagan's White House, and was the outset Latina ever nominated to the United States Chiffonier.

Audience: written in 2009 for townhall.com, a conservative news and information website. What is a bourgeois, and what is the typical (fifty-fifty stereotypical) bourgeois view about immigration?

Unusually, Chavez is using conservative ideals (family values) to debate for liberal policy (immunity for illegal immigrants). By doing so, Chavez makes information technology hard for either betoken to be successfully refuted! No matter which side you are on, y'all have little pick but to take PART of the opposition'due south position.

Context: How do y'all feel about immigration/illegal clearing? Are they criminals? Are they innocent victims? What about their American-born children? Are they something in between? Should we let them all in? None in? Some in? Which ones?

Thesis: Chavez starts with the common assumption that illegal immigrants are often considered lazy, uneducated or criminal, withal she argues this is wrong. Chavez points out that illegal immigrants often have amend values than established Americans, and thus..... (can you complete her thesis?)

---

Chavez begins with a hit statistic (what is the source?):

About half of illegal immigrants population of the USA made upwards increasingly of intact (= married) families and their American-born children (73% of them born in the United states of america, thus making them American citizens.)

Some hard-line anti-immigrationists will discover that disturbing, Chavez believes, but she believes it is a good trend!

Why? As Chavez reports, families are "breaking down" in the USA, but not amidst the immigrants.

proof:

21% of "native" households are 2 parents + kids (simply see below)
35% of legal immigrants = 2 parents + kids
but 47% of illegal immigrants = ii parents + kids.

What affects the numbers? Chavez lists the reasons:

one) Age--illegals are younger, while the "native" population number includes older couples whose kid have left home, and thus skew the results..
two) Out-of-wedlock births and divorce are much more mutual amid "natives" than illegal immigrants.

Chavez argue the greater concern is Non the numbers of children.

Instead, she argues information technology is...what?

1) the newcomers will ____________
2) they will remain ______________
three) and they will transform ______________

She points out these are not new fears:

"natives" (meaning merely people who had arrived before) believed this nigh German, Irish, Italian, Jewish, etc immigrants in their time:

Americans feared that the newer immigrants would be more than difficult to assimilate than the earlier immigrants; a common theory was that while the Irish gaelic and the Germans were used to democratic regimes, the Russian Jews and the Italians had never experienced democracy. They viewed immigrant communities as "ghettoized" colonies that were detrimental to absorption. Thus, during the late nineteenth century, programs targeted at Americanization of immigrants were introduced in public schools. --Immigration in New York City, by Priam Saywack

Some established Americans feared that these inferior Italians would be unable to digest into American society and, would ultimately, lead to the plummet of American civilization. Established Americans had similar fears about all immigrant groups; they feared the contagion of their lineages with second-grade blood and the destruction of America. Although fears nearly the Irish gaelic and Germans had subsided, the Jews and the Italians were still regarded with apprehension. Nonetheless, immigrants are what fabricated New York City a earth city. --Immigration in New York City, past Priam Saywack

Chavez argues these views are not rational or based on actual testify--non then, non at present.

She admits in that location is some truth to the thought that Hispanic immigrants today have a while to "catch up" with native built-in Americans--why does she acknowledge this?

However, she points out some suprising statistics that show us that these immigrants are doing fine:

1) Nearly half of illegal immigrants who graduate from loftier school attend college. --is this "doing fine?"
2) 25% of illegal immigrants have at to the lowest degree some college, with xviii% having completed college. --is this "doing fine?"

Earnings are lower than natives or legal immigrants, Chavez admits, but they are withal ok:

2007 median household income for illegals: $36,000, compared to $50,000 for native born.
Illegal immigrant males labor rates: 94%, compared to 83% native born.

Is that bad? good? is that fair? Is this a social justice problem which requires government intervention?

Detect that the but significant divergence between the families (native vs. illegal) is legal status. In nigh illegal families, made up of a mixture of legal and illegals, this distinction becomes meaningless. Why does this matter?

The full number of immigrants has really DROPPED, Chavez argues, reverse to popular stance. Why does she tell us this?
So, the number is still managable.

Thus, since it isn't the flood which fearfulness-mongers scream information technology is, what shall we do with them?

We shouldn't round them up and deport them--why non, argues Chavez?

Chavez' better approach is _____________ (what?)

This approach is supporting ________________ rather than merely ________________.

Why does Chavez wait until the end to offering her thesis to her audience? (Hint--remember who her audition is and what their preconceived notions about illegal immigrants are likely to exist.)

Is Chavez offer mass amnesty to all illegal immigrants?
Do yous see how Chavez maintains a clear, reasonable and appealing tone? What can you acquire from her example?

whitleyseentiourcio.blogspot.com

Source: http://djole.altervista.org/djole/SchoolPage/TCC/101/ReadNotes/SupportFamilyValues.htm

Share this post