Recently, The United States has been welcomed into a new era. A new president, new congress, and new senators brings about change. After all, what are we (as humans and as a planet) but part of ever - changing nature?
With said new president, there have come many sudden surprises and just as many arguments between the left and the right parties in control. One of these issues concerning immigration has been fervently dubbed the 'Muslim Ban'. From the left, the country hears a lot of what one could call fear mongering and appealing to mob mentality (a lot of the same ideals that the POTUS ran on, himself), pulling at the heartstrings of America.
According to Blake Hounshell's January 29th 2017 article 'President Trump's First Defeat', the contesting of the so called 'Muslim Ban' had 'revolts against the president's immigration order...already brewing, led by refugee rights groups, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Democrats and liberals and social media'. He then goes on to talk about how the order was hastily crafted, using specific words that seduce you with feeling, as if you were there the entire time.
He quotes Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer saying that there were 'tears running down the cheeks of the Statue of Liberty'.
Some powerful stuff. Imagery like this is made to convey feelings, to get the public on their side and think of what monsters the current administration are for having blocked out so many from entering the country simply because of where they are from, even if their country has never had anything to do with terrorist attacks.
Don't get me wrong, they are not the only ones who use such tactics and the right side of the argument is not innocent by far.
That being said, while left leaning individuals in The United States tend to be labeled as 'tolerant, bleeding hearts, and snowflakes', the right seems to approach this issue with the blame game.
In Thomas Lifson's January 29th article 'Stunning media malpractice on Trump suspension of entry' he cites similar actions from both President Obama and President Carter, who suspended Iraquis and Iranians during their respective times as presidents.
The difference between that, is that many right leaning narratives on social media use September 11, 2001 as an argument point to justify the ban, while many terrorists who executed were actually United States born citizens, and the ones who have made attacks have nationalities from the following countries (according to the New York Times): Nigeria, England, U.S, Pakistan, among others.
While yes, the Obama Administration had labeled the countries in danger of radical Islam - Iraq, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and Yemen (or, so it seems to be consistently listed in many articles, including one by The Atlantic, although Thomas Lifson denies that any other countries but Syria are listed in the executive order) - they had not blocked immigrants from said countries from coming into The United States so abruptly.
The process became more difficult and vetting took longer. This is clearly far different than keeping green-card holding residents on lock down at an airport simply because they happen to look a certain way, come from a certain country, speak a certain language, or worship a different religion than what is widely practiced (though The U.S has no official religion, of course).
In trying times like these, in a culture where effort is such a difficult thing to muster, Americans must keep their ears to the ground and look for reputable sources to check all of their facts before letting themselves be swayed by emotions, lest we get swept up in a clamor of our own, an eternal fight of 'us' vs. 'them'.
Sources
New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/25/us/us-muslim-extremists-terrorist-attacks.html?_r=0
The Atlantic
https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/01/trump-immigration-order-muslims/514844/
President Trump's First Defeat, Blake Hounshell, January 29, 2017
Stunning media malpractice on Trump suspension of entry, Thomas Lifson, January 29, 2017
Great work here - I appreciate your use of sources. Remember, however, that our role here is to become proficient as objective analysts of persuasive strategies, and so I might caution you regarding your general tendency to compare the relative merits of the conservative and liberal "positions" regarding this issue. Perspective is everything in persuasion; and so evaluating the validity of an argument from one v another perspective will always influence the result. Is this executive order to be evaluated as to whether targeting those specific countries is justified? Is this executive order to be evaluated as to whether states have the option of following? (remember how various governors tried to "resist" Obamacare?)
ReplyDeleteAlso, consider the basic motive of any pundit who would steer the public toward one v another interpretation of which "issues" are important in debating this executive order. Both the Atlantic and the NYTimes (which are outstanding publications) are demonstrably liberal in their respective editorial positions. In the case of immigration, it could be argued that both of these publications would remain consistent with the more progressive narrative. Each of these outlets would likely use appeals to iconic values ("Give me your poor, your tired...") to rouse emotion at the "unfairness" of such an order. Consider the visceral imagery of Sen. Schumer appropriating the Statue of Liberty herself to shame the president. Would such emotion be useful when arguing about whether states had the right to choose whether or not to enact an executive order from the White House? Consider that Obama's executive order regarding trans-students and bathroom access was accompanied by a coercive threat regarding federal education funding - was any such threat attached to Trump's executive order on immigration? Does that make the order more or less effective? More or less "fair"?
Yes, many public figures have argued that increased scrutiny on immigrants from particular countries is warranted; while others can show crime statistics that would appear to nullify that argument. Consider the emotional aspect of this line of argument.
I appreciate your perspective, but remember that our class is meant to provide an opportunity for you to sharpen your capacity to recognize strategy and tactics. It can be fun and constructive to argue over the relative merits of each side, but keep the focus on a more objective analysis of the persuasive techniques. What does it mean that the narrative emerging around this issue is so hot with emotion? Is that fair to the public?
Good stuff here! Let me know how I can help!
Please, allow me to clarify:
DeleteIt is not my belief that the ban is justified, but that does not matter. If one is to attempt to step back, another basis that the POTUS could have gone about signing this executive order, would be to focus on a singular country such as Syria much like how Obama focused on Iraq, making it more difficult for the citizens coming from that country to get into the US because there had been an active threat, an actual attack that had happened on U.S soil, if I’m correct. What I don’t think is justified, is to group people together under the singular ‘Muslim’ banner. We have to keep in mind that the refugees are fleeing ‘Muslims’ as well. The executive order should have been more specific there could be no risk causing a bandwagon feeling and using Muslims as scapegoats.
The executive order should absolutely give the states an option to fight back, just as they fought back during Obamacare. This country was founded on fighting back the powers that would, be it monarchy or democracy. In the end of the day, they have that freedom, and that is part of what being an American citizen entails, being able to protest, write to your governor and representatives, and tell them how you think the state should act. If enough people write, call, and pester then, solutions tend to happen.
In this situation, emotion would absolutely be useful for an argument. Emotion drives us to act irrationally, being led by our feelings and fears. That’s why propaganda can be so effective.
Is it fair to the public? No. A more pessimistic individual would argue that the public are sheep that believe what they are told and are led away by emotion, following their hearts down a precipice. That being said, those who find themselves intellectual or just willing to put in the effort will consider multiple sources, especially the executive order itself which is posted on the White House website (https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states) and look at it in detail. Observe the wording, try to not be misled by the emotion that is carrying everyone else to their pitchforks, and make an informed decision.
Mr. Trump’s executive order on immigration was not financially backed, but had it been it is my belief that it would have been more effective. In this country, it seems that it takes threatening the pocketbook of the rich and powerful to scare them into submission. It worked with President Obama’s order (for the most part), and would have worked here (to some degree).
Is it fair? No, I don’t think it is, either way. It’s a direct attack by the government and in theory the Constitution should limit the reach of the government and keep it from threatening the people, it sets the boundaries wherein it should be able to operate. This feels like it oversteps those boundaries.
Whether or not Mr. Trump's actions were justified or were oversteps of authority is a political question. How supporters and critics of his efforts have attempted to sway public opinion is meant to be the focus of your paper. Perhaps more than anyone else in the class, you would have legitimate perspective on how fears and stereotypes can cloud facts when it comes to public opinion - especially on issues like immigration.
ReplyDeleteIt is somewhat ironic that you suggest that readers should "try not to be misled by the emotion" when, in fact, your term paper ought to focus on the efforts to generate that type of influence. It's true that our nation is best served when people take the time to make an informed decision; it is also true, unfortunately, that political interest groups are rarely concerned about anything except to drive polling numbers - whether by information or by emotions like outrage or a sense of fairness. Let's face it: generating outrage moves the needle much faster than explaining the meaning of some legislative language.
I appreciate that you recognize the unfairness of this sort of public discourse. Our class is meant to help you hone your skills discerning those tactics. Keep working!