Trey Nicholas

Dr. Gill

ENG 2105

3 November 2020

​

“The best writing is rewriting:” 2 Draft(s); 1 Tutorial(s) Peer Mentor Robert; 0 Teacher conference(s)

​

Con #1:

​

Richardson, Henry S. “Noncognitivist Trumpism: Partisanship and Political Reasoning.” Wiley Online Library, Journal of Social Philosophy, 12 Dec. 2019, https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.proxy.library.cpp.edu/doi/full/10.1111/josp.12312. 

​

Key Quote: “A commitment to promoting certain outcomes irrespectively of the reasons for and against them will, in strategic contexts such as electoral politics, rationally motivate people to fudge their expression of the reasons so as to promote the outcome they want” (1).

​

(Provocative Title) Manipulation Through Fear

​

       (Unity/Topic Sentence) In response to President Trump’s political agenda, Henry Richardson, professor of philosophy at Georgetown University and in “Noncognitivist Trumpism: Partisanship and Political Reasoning,” claims, “[a] commitment to promoting certain outcomes irrespectively of the reasons for and against them will, in strategic contexts such as electoral politics, rationally motivate people to fudge their expression of the reasons so as to promote the outcome they want” (1). (Adequate Development/Body) Further characterizing Trumpism, Richardson claims, “Trumpism involves what we might call a ‘shoutcome’ orientation: the establishment of a friend/enemy distinction combined with securing good ‘ratings’ among those one designates as friends” (1). Richardson asserts the destructive nature of shoutcome orientation will effectively destroy the possibility of all citizens reasoning together. To support his stance, Richardson relates to Stephen Miller, White House senior policy adviser, who “threatened to cut off the billions of dollars in aid that the United States provides to El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, and Mexico, unless, per impossibile, they stopped the flow of illegal drugs to the United States” back in February, 2018 (1). Richardson asserts Miller’s threat was absent of a justified negotiation vital to democratic reasoning. Additionally, without inviting a reasoned compromise, Richardson claims, “[Miller’s] threat… with an avoidance condition that is impossible to satisfy, cannot serve such a constructive role” for United States (US) society (1). Richardson asserts Miller’s flawed approach to policy implementation frustrates collective reasoning by offering no room for arguments. (Coherence/Conclusion) Clearly, Richardson suggests US citizens cannot rule democratically because policy advisers like Stephen Miller are manipulating people’s reasoning.

​

​

Trey Nicholas

​

“The best writing is rewriting:” 1 Draft(s); 1 Tutorial(s) Peer Mentor Robert; 0 Teacher conference(s)

​

Con #2: 

​

Blitzer, Jonathan. “Get Out.” EBSCOhost, The New Yorker, 2 Mar. 2020, https://web.b.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.cpp.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=34&sid=3da45d50-70cd-4585-b2db-91ca1933ab3d%40pdc-v-sessmgr05&bdata=JkF1dGhUeXBlPWlwLHVpZCZzaXRlPWVob3N0LWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=141855006. 

​

Key Quote: “Miller's obsession with restricting immigration and punishing immigrants has become the defining characteristic of the Trump White House, to the extent that campaigning and governing on the issue are no longer distinguishable” (1).

​

(Provocative Title) Eradicating Immigration

​

         (Unity/Topic Sentence) Alarmed by immigration policies in United States (US) society, Jonathan Blitzer, associate of The New Yorker and author of “Get Out,” claims, “[Stephen] Miller's obsession with restricting immigration and punishing immigrants has become the defining characteristic of the Trump White House, to the extent that campaigning and governing on the issue are no longer distinguishable” (1). (Adequate Development/Body) Throughout Donald Trump’s presidential term, Blitzer claims, “the Trump Administration has dismantled immigration policies and precedents that took shape in the course of decades, using current laws to intensify enforcement against illegal immigration and pursuing new ones to reduce legal immigration” (1). To support his stance, Blitzer refers to Miller “[slashing] the refugee program; virtually [ending] asylum at the southern border; and [writing] a rule denying green cards to families who might receive public benefits” in US society (1). Blitzer asserts Miller imposes such brutal immigration policies to inflict fear of separation among immigrant families. To support his claim, Blitzer refers to 2013, where “an official at ICE had suggested separating parents and children once they reached the border, in the hope of deterring other families from travelling north” (1). Although the White House dismissed the inhumane proposal, Blitzer claims Miller continued advocating for the brutal policy. Additionally, Blitzer claims, “Miller advocated ICE officers to pull children out of school” to drive the separating force in “[convincing] other [immigrant] parents to stop trying to come with [their] [children]” on US soil (1). (Coherence/Conclusion) In conclusion, Blitzer asserts Miller’s immigration policies contributing to Trumpism provoke an inhumane US society by separating and abandoning immigrant families. 

 

 

Trey Nicholas

​

“The best writing is rewriting:” 1 Draft(s); 0 Tutorial(s); 0 Teacher conference(s)

​

Con #3:

​

Haberman, Maggie. “Aide Who Whispered Immigration Agenda in Trump's Ear Is Still at It.” Gale in Context, The New York Times, 5 Nov. 2018, https://go-gale-com.proxy.library.cpp.edu/ps/retrieve.do?tabID=News. 

​

Key Quote: “The president has sought to sow fear of immigrants by focusing on a caravan of people fleeing violence and poverty in their Central American countries, deploying active-duty members of the military to the border with Mexico and extolling the beauty of barbed wire as a deterrent” (1).

​

(Provocative Title) Sowing Fear of Immigrants

​

       (Unity/Topic Sentence) In response to Stephen Miller’s political agenda, Maggie Haberman, associate of The New York Times and author of “Aide Who Whispered Immigration Agenda in Trump's Ear Is Still at It,” claims, “[t]he president has sought to sow fear of immigrants by focusing on a caravan of people fleeing violence and poverty in their Central American countries, deploying active-duty members of the military to the border with Mexico and extolling the beauty of barbed wire as a deterrent” (1). (Adequate Development/Body) According to Haberman, Stephen Miller, choreographer of United States (US) immigration policies, has “become known… for amassing frightening news articles and isolated statistics about immigration” (1). With Miller installing a group of like-minded aides at the Department of Homeland Security, the State Department, and the Justice Department, Haberman claims, “[they] have helped [Miller] pursue his agenda” in fueling Trumpism by implementing unbreakable immigration policies (1). Haberman concedes with Miller claiming, “unauthorized immigrants cost Americans jobs and [are] a drain on resources” (1). However, Haberman assert Miller’s agenda is overreaching because he “[advocates] curbing the flow not just of undocumented immigrants, but of legal ones as well, through measures like reducing refugee numbers. He… also pushed to change the rules by which immigrants who are legal residents can receive public benefits” (1). Additionally, Haberman claims Miller desires to “[eliminate] automatic citizenship for those born in the United States, [triple] the number of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and [defund] so-called sanctuary cities” (1). (Coherence/Conclusion) In conclusion, although Haberman suggests Miller’s methods in dividing immigrant families serve to fuel Trumpism with vivifying the US economy, Haberman asserts Miller’s inhumane propositions impose unnecessary fear on immigrant families entering US society. 

 

 

Trey Nicholas

​

“The best writing is rewriting:” 1 Draft(s); 0 Tutorial(s); 0 Teacher conference(s)

​

Con #4:

​

González, Emma. “Listen Up.” EBSCOhost, TIME Magazine, 3 Feb. 2020, https://web.b.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.cpp.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=24&sid=3da45d50-70cd-4585-b2db-91ca1933ab3d%40pdc-v-sessmgr05. 

​

Key Quote: “If you are in a position of power, you need to aim to make the world a better place for everyone living here, not just yourself and your donors. That means fewer guns, less plastic, more therapy, more education” (54).

​

(Provocative Title) The Path to a Brighter America: Listening to the Young

​

       (Unity/Topic Sentence) In response to Stephen Miller’s political agenda, Emma González, a young Latino American leader, claims, “[i]f you are in a position of power, you need to aim to make the world a better place for everyone living here, not just yourself and your donors. That means fewer guns, less plastic, more therapy, more education” (54). (Adequate Development/Body) With Miller facilitating the economy for the wealthy by restricting legal and illegal immigration in US society, González claims, “[w]e are losing our futures, our sanity and our lives, all because you want more money and more power” (54). Additionally, González offers solutions suggesting people of power in US society to “help people of color, women, LGBT+ people, young people, disabled and differently abled people, and immigrants obtain an education, food, clean water, safe housing, jobs, health care and political power” to achieve a stable and progressive US society (54). However, Miller’s facilitation of Trumpism in US society does not consider the well-being of immigrants and US citizens themselves according to González. (Coherence/Conclusion) In conclusion, González advocates for American political advisers like Stephen Miller to reconsider the values of US inhabitants and listen to the young generation to implement positive change for US society. 
 

​

Trey Nicholas

​

“The best writing is rewriting:” 1 Draft(s); 0 Tutorial(s); 0 Teacher conference(s)

​

Con #5:

​

Hasan, Mehdi. “Stephen Miller Is ‘Trump’s Brain’ and, Like His Boss, He Is Obsessed with Muslims and Mexicans.” EBSCOhost, New Statesman, 11 Aug. 2017, https://web.a.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.cpp.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=20&sid=3752caba-4df6-4bbe-8ba3-95026a78aabf%40sdc-v-sessmgr02. 

​

Key Quote: “...the Trump administration’s plans to cut legal immigration in half and prioritise the speaking of English by new applicants have nothing to do with economics or national security and everything to do with Making America White Again” (25). 

​

(Provocative Title) Making America White Again

​

         (Unity/Topic Sentence) In response to US immigration policies, Medhi Hasan, New Statesman contributing editor in Washington, DC and author of “Stephen Miller Is ‘Trump’s Brain’ and, Like His Boss, He Is Obsessed with Muslims and Mexicans,” claims, “...the Trump administration’s plans to cut legal immigration in half and prioritise the speaking of English by new applicants have nothing to do with economics or national security and everything to do with Making America White Again” (25). (Adequate Development/Body) To establish context, Hasan claims Stephen Miller, White House senior policy adviser, “wrote the president’s first speech to Congress, with its hyperbolic references to “lawless chaos” and “radical Islamic terrorism”. He was the co-architect, with Steve Bannon, of Executive Order 13679, better known as the “Muslim ban”, and went on cable news to denounce the federal judges who ruled against it, claiming: ‘The powers of the president to protect our country are very substantial and will not be questioned’” (25). Hasan articulates Stephen Miller’s hypocrisy in establishing immigration bills claiming, “the president’s grandfather Friedrich Trump arrived in the US from Germany in 1885, unable to speak English, while according to the 1910 census, Miller’s great-grandmother could speak only Yiddish” (25). With Miller’s ambitiously corruptive immigration policies guiding US society and facilitating Trumpism, Hasan claims, “[the] White House… indulges and panders to far-right bigots and nativists in both coded and not-so-coded language; a government of white nationalists, by white nationalists, for white nationalists” (25). (Coherence/Conclusion) In conclusion, the astonishing dysfunction of Miller’s immigration policies regresses US society to its white nationalists ideals according to Hasan. 

​

 

Trey Nicholas

​

“The best writing is rewriting:” 1 Draft(s); 0 Tutorial(s); 0 Teacher conference(s)

​

Con #6: 

​

Komlos, John, and Hermann Schubert. “Reaganomics – Pioneer of Trumpism.” Wirtschaftsdienst, Springer Link, Jan. 2020, www.wirtschaftsdienst.eu/inhalt/jahr/2020/heft/1/beitrag/reaganomics-wegbereiter-des-trumpismus-6072.html. 

​

Key Quote: “Instead of promoting balanced, inclusive growth, the tax cuts led to enormous budget deficits, the reduction in state social benefits and a sudden and permanent change in income distribution in favor of the super-rich. Meanwhile, the problems of the underprivileged and poorly educated US citizens fell from the focus of the subsequent governments” (1).

​

(Provocative Title) Favoring the Wealthy Over Equality

​

       (Unity/Topic Sentence) With President Trump’s Reaganomics aspirations, John Komlos, professor of economic history and economics at the Ludwig Maximilians University in Munich, and Hermann Schubert, professor of economics at the International School of Management in Stuttgart and authors of “Reaganomics – Pioneer of Trumpism,” claim, “Instead of promoting balanced, inclusive growth, the tax cuts led to…  the reduction in state social benefits and a sudden and permanent change in income distribution in favor of the super-rich. Meanwhile, the problems of the underprivileged and poorly educated US citizens fell from the focus of the subsequent governments” (1). (Adequate Development/Body) Komlos and Schubert assert Trumpism adopted Reaganomics’ “harmful influence on social and institutional development as well as income distribution and the education system” (1). According to Komlos and Schubert, the tax cuts Trump put in place inadvertently “increased the economic power of the rich immensely and enabled them to influence society, the economy and politics increasingly according to their own interests,” thereby allowing US policy advisers including Stephen Miller to implement brutal and uncanny laws against immigration in US society. With many immigrants being poor, Komlos and Schubert assert the great difficulty immigrants will have to be successful in a society guided by elite white nationalists. Additionally, Komlos and Schubert claim, “[t]he super-rich [forms] a distribution coalition with the world of large multinational corporations, which further [strengthens] their position of power in order to steer society in the right direction to their advantage” (1). (Coherence/Conclusion) In conclusion, Komlos and Schubert suggest Trump’s adoption of Reaganomics has uplifted politicians including Miller to have a greater influence on US society. 

​
 

Trey Nicholas

​

“The best writing is rewriting:” 1 Draft(s); 0 Tutorial(s); 0 Teacher conference(s)

​

Con #7:

​

Morris, Edwin Kent. “Inversion, Paradox, and Liberal Disintegration: Towards a Conceptual Framework of Trumpism.” EBSCOhost, New Political Science, 1 Mar. 2019, https://web.b.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.cpp.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=4&sid=35699318-7d2a-43e7-b0cf-d1ef8962155c%40pdc-v-sessmgr05. 

​

Key Quote: “...Trumpism leaves American government and foreign policy in a state of uncertainty, and, ultimately, puts all of us (in the US and globally) in a state of ‘precarity,’ which Judith Butler describes as a ‘politically induced condition in which certain populations suffer from failing social and economic networks of support and become differentially exposed to injury, violence, and death’” (17-8).

​

(Provocative Title) Reigniting White Nationalism

​

       (Unity/Topic Sentence) In response to Trumpism, Edwin Kent Morris, a Ph.D. in Social, Political, Ethical, and Cultural Thought from the ASPECT (Alliance for the Social, Political Ethical, and Cultural Thought) interdisciplinary doctoral program at Virginia Tech, claims, “...Trumpism leaves American government and foreign policy in a state of uncertainty, and, ultimately, puts all of us (in the US and globally) in a state of ‘precarity,’ which Judith Butler describes as a ‘politically induced condition in which certain populations suffer from failing social and economic networks of support and become differentially exposed to injury, violence, and death’” (17-8). (Adequate Development/Body) According to Morris, “President Trump’s lackadaisical efforts to distance himself away from the wide-range of neo-Nazi and white nationalist groups the Alt-Right movement signifies” confirm white nationalism’s transparency in Trumpism (21). Additionally, Morris claims, “Trumpism favors the needs of the wealthy few over the many in its inverted populist-nationalist appeals. These appeals are aimed at mobilizing white racial and economic insecurities through discourses built on themes of desperation, destruction, degradation, and dangers of the Other” (26). Specifically, Stephen Miller, White House senior policy adviser, advocates “exploiting the racial and economic anxieties of white America” with his excessive immigration policies according to Morris (28). Although Morris concedes with Miller claiming, “the approach of Trumpism’s economic nationalism… [revitalized] the American job force,” Morris refutes, claiming that it costed “environmental degradation… and globalism” (30). Furthermore, Morris claims that US society’s transactional politics guided by Trumpism “are a politics of dehumanization and precarity, leaving all [US inhabitants] exposed to the power and violence of state-sponsored male, white corporate oppression” (32). Morris asserts Miller advocates the dehumanizing politics in the form of his oppressing immigration policies. (Coherence/Conclusion) In conclusion, Morris asserts Trumpism reignites the white nationalist tendencies US society inherited in the past and is continuing to oppress non-White citizens globally. 

 

​

Trey Nicholas

​

“The best writing is rewriting:” 1 Draft(s); 0 Tutorial(s); 0 Teacher conference(s)

​

Con #8:

​

Cottle, Michelle. "Stephen Miller Can't Act Alone." New York Times, 10 Apr. 2019, p. A22(L). Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A581826945/OVIC?u=los53368&sid=OVIC&xid=4a0aa296. Accessed 5 Nov. 2020.

​

Key Quote: Stephen Miller is a man whose anti-immigration zeal remains unfettered by concern for the law, international norms or basic humanity. (1)

​

(Provocative Title) Stephen Miller’s Supreme Political Power

​

        (Unity/Topic Sentence) In response to Stephen Miller, Michelle Cottle, associate of New York Times and author of “Stephen Miller Can't Act Alone,” claims, “Stephen Miller is a man whose anti-immigration zeal remains unfettered by concern for the law, international norms or basic humanity” (1). (Adequate Development/Body) To establish context, Cottle lists Miller’s approach to immigration and border security claiming, “[h]e was a chief architect of the travel ban on citizens from Muslim-majority countries… He's agitating to end the 20-day limit on detaining migrant children. And he wants to reinstate the practice of snatching migrant children from their families -- though this time he'd like to give parents a ‘binary choice’ of having their kids taken from them or held with them in detention indefinitely” (1). As listed above, Cottle asserts Miller facilitates the white nationalism ideology apparent in Trumpism by targeting immigrant families and establishing severe consequences if they immigrate to America, specifically through separation. With Miller’s ruthless firings at the Department of Homeland Security, Cottle claims Miller is establishing a permanent influence to “remake the department in his image” and continue separating immigrant families to satisfy the needs of Trumpism (1). (Coherence/Conclusion) In conclusion, Cottle claims Miller’s rise in political power will catalyze US society’s dehumanization of immigrant families inhabiting US society, thereby regressing US society to it white nationalism ideology. 
 

​

Trey Nicholas

​

“The best writing is rewriting:” 1 Draft(s); 0 Tutorial(s); 0 Teacher conference(s)

​

Con #9:

​

Shear, Michael D, and Julie Hirschfeld Davis. “Out of Chaos, Trump Reshapes Immigration.” ProQuest, New York Times, 24 Dec. 2017, https://www-proquest-com.proxy.library.cpp.edu/docview/1979885283?accountid=10357. 

​

Key Quote: “Seizing on immigration as the cause of countless social and economic problems, Mr. Trump entered office with an agenda of symbolic but incompletely thought-out goals, the product not of rigorous policy debate but of emotionally charged personal interactions and an instinct for tapping into the nativist views of white working-class Americans” (1). 

​

(Provocative Title) Anti-Immigration: A False Response Economic Growth

​

       (Unity/Topic Sentence) In response to US society’s anti-immigration policies, Michael Shear and Julie Davis, associates of New York Times and authors of “Out of Chaos, Trump Reshapes Immigration,” claim, “[s]eizing on immigration as the cause of countless social and economic problems, Mr. Trump entered office with an agenda of symbolic but incompletely thought-out goals” (1). (Adequate Development/Body) With Trump’s advisor, Stephen Miller, choreographing US society’s immigration policies, Shear and Davis argue, “the president’s immigration agenda is motivated by racism” (1). Shear and Davis include an excerpt by Frank Sharry, the executive director of America’s Voice, a pro-immigration group, claiming, “[the president is] basically saying, ‘You people of color coming to America seeking the American dream are a threat to the white people,... [h]e's come into office with an aggressive strategy of trying to reverse the demographic changes underway in America,” preventing immigrants from achieving economic stability (1). Shear and Davis assert Miller frames the economical issues correlate with immigration claiming, “[immigrants are] bringing drugs; [immigrants are] bringing crime; [immigrants are] rapists” (1). Additionally, Shear and Davis claim, “Miller cited statistics from the restrictionist Center for Immigration Studies that indicated that resettling refugees in the United States was far costlier than helping them in their own region” (1). However, Shear and Davis assert State Department officials found refugees brought a net benefit to US society’s economy, but Miller prevented the study from reaching the White House, thereby facilitating Miller’s contribution to Trumpism and white nationalism. (Coherence/Conclusion) In conclusion, Shear and Davis articulate the influx of Miller’s biased research on anti-immigration indicates US society’s economy and immigration are not correlated.   

 

 

Trey Nicholas

​

“The best writing is rewriting:” 1 Draft(s); 0 Tutorial(s); 0 Teacher conference(s)

​

Pro #1:

​

Miroff, Nick, and Josh Dawsey. "How Stephen Miller Authors Trump's Immigration Policy." Washingtonpost.com, 17 Aug. 2019. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A596681589/OVIC?u=los53368&sid=OVIC&xid=dac0def1.

​

Key Quote: “‘Immigration is an issue that affects all others,’... It touches upon everything, but the goal is to create an immigration system that enhances the vibrancy, the unity, the togetherness and the strength of our society’” (1).

​

(Provocative Title) Strengthening US Society with Anti-Immigration

​

      (Unity/Topic Sentence) Moved by speculated US immigration policies, Nick Miroff and Josh Dawsey, associates of The Washington Post and authors of “How Stephen Miller Authors Trump’s Immigration Policy,” claim, “‘[i]mmigration is an issue that affects all others,’... It touches upon everything, but the goal is to create an immigration system that enhances the vibrancy, the unity, the togetherness and the strength of our society’” (1). (Adequate Development/Body) Miroff and Dawsey stresses the importance of Miller’s immigration policy in US society because “[i]mmigration affects our health-care system. Immigration affects our education system. Immigration affects our public safety, it affects our national security, it affects our economy and our financial system” (1). Additionally, Miroff and Dawsey assert Miller’s immigration agenda is negatively misconceived because “the immigration debate is less about the plight of illegal immigrants and more about what's in the best interests of the United States” (1). Furthermore, Miroff and Dawsey essentially claim, “Miller’s restrictionist immigration agenda has lent a degree of intellectual and ideological coherence” to President Trump’s “Make America Great Again” message (1). To support their claim, Miroff and Dawsey refer to Miller’s “zero tolerance” prosecution effort in 2018 authorizing border agents “[taking] children away from migrant parents and [sending] the adults to court for prosecution” to serve as a “migrant deterrent” (1). With nearly 2600 immigrant families separated in the span of six weeks with Miller’s policy, Miroff and Dawsey commend Miller’s “zero tolerance” prosecution effort because it secured US society’s public safety, economy, and education system. (Coherence/Conclusion) In conclusion, Miroff and Dawsey contend anti-immigration policies are the best solution in strengthening US society’s unity and security. 

 

Trey Nicholas

​

“The best writing is rewriting:” 1 Draft(s); 0 Tutorial(s); 0 Teacher conference(s)

​

Pro #2:

​

Green, Joshua. “One. Hundred. Percent.” EBSCOhost, Bloomberg Businessweek, 6 Mar. 2017, https://web.a.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.cpp.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=7&sid=3752caba-4df6-4bbe-8ba3-95026a78aabf%40sdc-v-sessmgr02.

​

Key Quote: “Economic nationalism… would seize the levers of government and the presidential bully pulpit to direct resources to helping marginalized U.S. workers” (55).

​

(Provocative Title) Immigration: The Rejection of US Values

​

       (Unity/Topic Sentence) In response to immigration, Joshua Green, associate of Bloomberg Businessweek and author of “One. Hundred. Percent.”, claims, “[e]conomic nationalism… would seize the levers of government and the presidential bully pulpit to direct resources to helping marginalized U.S. workers” (55). (Adequate Development/Body) Alarmed by the plethora of noncitizens in US society who are registered to vote, Green claims illegal immigration is a catalyst for “...[scandals]. [US society] should stop the presses” (52). Additionally, Green commends Stephen Miller, White House senior policy adviser, and his response to Obama’s executive order in November 2014 “shielding millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation” (54). Although Green concedes Obama’s order “[granted] five million illegal immigrants work permits, Social Security, Medicare, and free tax credits,” Green refutes claiming Obama’s order “[took] jobs and benefits directly from struggling American workers (54). Additionally, Green claims Miller viewed Obama’s order as a “deleterious [effect] on the economy” (54). Furthermore, Green claims that Miller “believes that the media is complicit with Democrats in hiding the negative aspects of both legal and illegal immigration—everything from the downward effect on wages caused by a surplus of workers to the danger posed by the 925,000 undocumented residents (170,000 with criminal convictions) whom U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials say were issued orders to leave the country but still remain” (54). Green asserts illegal immigrantion hinders economic nationalism in US society. Rather, to help marginalized US workers, Green claims that Miller’s approach in “tightening the labor market by restricting immigration and deporting those here illegally; reducing refugee admissions and reallocating funds to domestic initiatives; renegotiating trade deals; reforming the H-1B visa program;... stripping away business and environmental regulations to spur economic growth; and reducing corporate tax rates through a border-adjusted tax that would favor domestic production and discourage U.S. companies from moving their headquarters abroad” will greatly subsidize struggling, legal US citizen workers (55). (Coherence/Conclusion) In conclusion, Green asserts Miller’s plan in achieving economic nationalism requires US society to reject immigrants who do not support US society’s values or way of living. 

 

 

Trey Nicholas

​

“The best writing is rewriting:” 1 Draft(s); 0 Tutorial(s); 0 Teacher conference(s)

​

Pro #3:

​

Smith, Noah. “Trump's Immigration Plan Is Half-Right, Half-Wrong.” EBSCOhost, Bloomberg View, 3 Aug. 2017, https://web.a.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.cpp.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=25&sid=3752caba-4df6-4bbe-8ba3-95026a78aabf%40sdc-v-sessmgr02&bdata=JkF1dGhUeXBlPWlwLHVpZCZzaXRlPWVob3N0LWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN=140796721&db=buh. 

​

Key Quote: “The plan, known as the Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment (RAISE) Act, [introduces] a merit-based system that would admit immigrants according to their education level, language skills and professional qualifications… [which] is a very good idea” (1).

​

(Provocative Title) The Proper Response to Immigration

​

       (Unity/Topic Sentence) In response to the Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment (RAISE) Act, Noah Smith, associate of Bloomberg View and author of “Trump’s Immigration Plan is Half-Right, Half-Wrong,” claims, “...(RAISE) Act, [introduces] a merit-based system that would admit immigrants according to their education level, language skills and professional qualifications… [which] is a very good idea” (1). (Adequate Development/Body) With the RAISE Act developed by Stephen Miller, White House senior policy adviser, Smith contends the RAISE Act serves as a pivotal component in reforming United States (US) society’s immigration policy by “[introducing] a merit-based system that would admit immigrants according to their education level, language skills and professional qualifications, similar to what Canada and Australia use” (1). Smith claims “[h]igh-skilled immigrants… actually raise the wages of their high-skilled U.S. peers. This probably happens because knowledge industries rely crucially on new ideas -- the more smart people we have creating new ideas, the more other smart people can take those ideas and use them for other applications” (1). To refute those who claim immigrants of any skill should be accepted in America, Smith contends, “low-skilled immigrants -- manual laborers, blue-collar workers and the like -- create a small… amount of wage and job competition for native-born Americans” and do not “have much of an impact on government finances” (1). Additionally, Smith contends the RAISE Act will “create a strong positive fiscal boost” for US society and “pay for native-born Americans to have a comfortable retirement” by admitting high-skilled immigrants (1). Finally, Smith claims, “skilled immigrants are a bit quicker to integrate into American culture. That means they will enjoy rapid mobility, and won't become a permanent outsider class” unlike low-skilled immigrants entering US society (1). (Coherence/Conclusion) In conclusion, Smith articulates Miller’s RAISE Act is the proper compromise to US immigration policy as it still admits immigrants, but specifically immigrants who will promote the economic well-being in US society.