Trump`sorder doesn`t serve as the first time the U.S. has banned individualsbased on their nationality and paid a huge price for it. David Cook’sand FitzGerald’s demonstrate the truthfulness of this statement intheir article “Trump’s Immigration Order is Bad Foreign Policy.”These authors say that the President’s policy barring the Muslimcommunity from entry will only damage the country’s well-being(FitzGerald& Martín, 2014).This paper seeks to discuss the application of rhetoric in thearticle in rejection of the new policy by the President.
Theauthor sets the stage by explaining the nature of the policy underscrutiny. The beginning also involves the identification of thepowerful and experienced individuals who have shown a lack ofconfidence in this type of governance. The former Vice President DickCheney, Sen, and Bernie Sanders are among the persons who reject theapproach (FitzGerald& Martín, 2014).The authors identify the key challenges of the initiative. Theseinclude the ability of such measures to trigger the formation andexpansion of the terrorist groups. Additionally, the country is underthreat of losing or straining its diplomatic relationships. In thisidea, the authors tend to show that no nation can stand on its ownregardless of the present resources. The U.S., as the authorsuggests, is not and should not be an exception.
Theauthors begin by building their credibility with professionalopinions. They make use of convincing facts and past encounters toprove their assertions regarding the new policy. For instance, theycite Bernie Sanders’ opinion. They describe how the ban will act asa tool for the recruitment of terrorists. The authors include theactual words used by the expert to portray credibility of the claims.Additionally, another expert’s opinion is the use of GermanChancellor Angela Markel to support the idea of possible loss ofdiplomatic ties as a result of the ban. He insists on the irrelevanceof the prohibition by narrating how the similar measures in theancient days led to even greater trouble. The author uses areflection to the past to show that President Trump’s policies area repeat of the past failures. The author says, “Americans saw thechallenge of singling out nationalities again after the 2001terrorist attacks (FitzGerald& Martín, 2014).”they emphasizes that the detention of the Arabs and Muslims who werenot convicted of terrorism facilitated to terrorism at the time.
Useof emotional appeals to persuade the audience to believe in the mainidea of the article is prominent in this article. They associate mostpopular tragedy in the history of America to the formulation andadoption of such laws. They main aim of this approach is to create animage in the minds of the audience concerning the severity of theimpacts of this policy. For instance, the authors say, “It cancreate new enemies. This ban may put the United States at risk.” Inthese statements, the authors make use of repetition to emphasize onadverse impacts of Trump’s order. The repetition is intended topersuade the readers into acknowledging the problems identified inthe article. On the other hand, the audience’s emotions aretriggered.
Inmy opinion, the author proves with no doubt that President Trump’shumiliation of religious groups and nationals will be a completefailure in the attempts of ensuring Americans safety. The authors didnot include any possible solutions or approaches to minimize thechallenges identified. Despite the suggestion that the new order willlead to the rise in the cases of national insecurities, the authordoes not cite any factors that would overcome them. They rely on thefact that the only way to reduce the challenges is the considerationlifting the ban. The authors also show how such strategies worked inthe past. For instance, the failure of the NSEERS program and theassociated challenges were solved through its abolishment in the year2011 by President Obama (FitzGerald& Martín, 2014).This explanation is meant to show how the ban is harmful to thewell-being of the U.S. The authors also bring up the issue of racialand other forms of discrimination. The ban targets a specific groupof individuals who might not be necessarily terrorists. Thisacknowledgment of the aspect of inequality is evident in the authors’overemphasis on the nature of the policy. They portray the banning ofthe Muslims and allowance of all the Christians as unfair and unjust.
Inconclusion, as evident in this paper, the authors have arranged thecontent of the article as well as the ideas in a way that attractsthe audience’s attention. They make use emotional appeal,repetition, and expert opinions to trigger a positive response of thereaders. These approaches are utilized to express the need to abolishthe new order developed by President Trump of the U.S. Some of thechallenges associated with this prohibition include increased localinsecurity, formation, and growth of terrorism and damage to thediplomatic relations. The only solution to these difficulties wouldbe lifting the ban. The authors argue that the ban will not even meetthe intended purpose. Instead of reducing crime, this approach willincrease it as evident in the article.
DavidFitzGerald & Cook Martín (2017). Retrieved 28 March 2017, fromhttps://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2017-01-30/donald-trumps-immigration-order-is-bad-foreign-policy