Trumpism vs. Globalism Rough Draft

Trey Nicholas

Dr. Gill

ENG 2105

10 November 2020

Trey Nicholas/Research Question: What is Stephen Miller's second term agenda for immigrants under a second Trump Nationalism vs Globalism presidency?

“The best writing is rewriting:” Rough Draft 2 Draft(s); 1 Tutorial(s) WC Tyler Walker; 1 Teacher conference(s)

(Provocative Title) Anti-Immigration: Fuel for White Nationalism

(Hook) In response to anti-immigration policies, Jonathan Blitzer, associate of The New Yorker and author of “Get Out,” argues, “[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). (Bridge) Blitzer suggests Miller’s overbearing immigration policies diminish the globalist approach in society by taking a renewed white nationalist approach: Trumpism. (Divided Stasis/Thesis Sentence) (Opponent’s Claim Informed by Three Scholarly Sources) Although proponents of Trumpism claim Miller’s immigration agenda will offer greater national security and economic gains, (Rhetor’s Main Claim Informed by Nine Scholarly Sources) Miller’s immigration agenda destroys US society's international notoriety as a democracy because Miller’s plan (Reason/Support 1) separates immigrant families entering US society, (Reason/Support 2) stagnates US society’s economy, and (Reason/Support 3) manipulates US society by subtracting democratic reason in immigration legislation.

(Narration) On February 2, 2018, Donald Trump, president of the United States of America, threatened to cut off US monetary aid to El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, and Mexico in response to the illegal flow of drugs entering US society. Alarmed by Trump’s threat influenced by Miller, Henry Richardson, professor of philosophy at Georgetown University and author of “Noncognitivist Trumpism: Partisanship and Political Reasoning,” essentially claims, “[Trump’s] threat… with an avoidance condition that is impossible to satisfy, cannot serve such a constructive role” in democratic reasoning (1). Additionally, Miller’s flawed approach to policy implementation frustrates collective reasoning, thereby “[leaving] reasoning wholly behind, giving us lots of speech, but remarkably few assertions and, a fortiori, almost no arguments” (Richardson 1). To this date, Miller continues advocating unrelenting immigration policies and coerces a diminutive amount of space for democratic refutation. Opponents of Miller’s immigration agenda believe separating immigrant families entering US society is an unethical approach in fortifying US society’s national security. Opponents also believe Miller’s strict immigration policies allude the implicit white nationalist approach apparent in Trumpism. As Blitzer contends, “...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). Contrastively, proponents of Miller’s immigration agenda believe Miller’s approach will secure US society as well as promote the economy for low-class legal American workers. What critical proponents do not understand is the fallacious nature of Miller’s immigration agenda marginally affects US society’s economy and renders democratic reasoning obsolete.

(Confirmation) Miller’s anti-democratic immigration agenda provokes US society’s white nationalist appeals, and his agenda invokes deceptive democratic reasoning by implementing catastrophic consequences for both US society and immigrants entering US society. Throughout Miller’s term as White House senior policy adviser for Trump, Mehdi Hasan, New Statesman contributing editor and author of “Stephen Miller Is ‘Trump’s Brain’ and, Like His Boss, He Is Obsessed with Muslims and Mexicans,” contends, “...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). We need to rise up and educate ourselves to have competent democratic reasoning when posed with transparently erroneous anti-immigration policies. Just as Blitzer suggests Miller’s anti-immigration policies perpetuate Trumpism, US society requires its citizens to inquire when posed with unethical anti-immigration legislation to maintain competent democratic reasoning.

(Concession/Refutation) It is, indeed, true that many US citizens claim Miller’s anti-immigration policies will offer greater national security and economic gains. (Scholarly Source 1) Proponents of Miller’s agenda, 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). Miroff and Dawsey assert Miller’s agenda is negatively misconceived because many US citizens believe the immigration debate concerns the plight of illegal immigrants. Instead, Miller protects US society’s economic and national security interests through his agenda according to Miroff and Dawsey. (Scholarly Source 2) Another proponent of Miller’s agenda, Joshua Green, associate of Bloomberg Businessweek and author of “One. Hundred. Percent.”, claims, “...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 Miller’s anti-immigration policies will positively impact marginalized, legal US workers economically since illegal immigrant workers are stealing from the US labor force. (Scholarly Source 3) In response to Miller’s Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment (RAISE) Act, another proponent of Miller’s agenda, Noah Smith, associate of Bloomberg View, 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). Smith articulates high-skilled immigrants will raise US society’s economy and help pay for native-born US citizens to have a comfortable retirement. Additionally, Smith asserts making the distinction between low- and high-skilled immigrants is essential because accepting low-skilled immigrants will hinder government finances and the labor force in US society. (Conclusion) In sum, proponents of Miller’s agenda suggest anti-immigration policies will reinforce US society’s national security and economy. (Refutation 1: Rhetor’s Main Claim) But, Miller’s agenda advocates unethical means to achieve national security and economic growth because he demands immigrant families to be separated. (Toulmin Warrant) Isolating immigrant families, legal or illegal, degrades US society’s democratic system as it denies the fundamental rights citizens on US soil possess: The right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. (Scholarly Source 1: Reason/Support 1) An opponent of Miller’s agenda, Michelle Cottle, associate of New York Times and author of “Stephen Miller Can't Act Alone,” contends, “Stephen Miller is a man whose anti-immigration zeal remains unfettered by concern for the law, international norms or basic humanity” (1). With Miller snatching immigrant children from their families, Cottle asserts Miller facilitates the white nationalist trait apparent in Trumpism by separating immigrants from their families and dehumanizing them. (Scholarly Source 2: Reason/Support 1) Another opponent of Miller’s 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). Haberman asserts with many immigrants simply searching for hope and opportunity from the oppression they are facing in their native country, they continue to be oppressed by US society, a country that embraces freedom. (Scholarly Source 3: Reason/Support 1) As aforementioned, staunch opponent of Miller’s agenda, Jonathan Blitzer, associate of The New Yorker and author of “Get Out,” claims, “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… [Miller] took it up again. ‘He was obsessed with the idea of consequences’” (1). Although the White House dismissed the inhumane proposal, Blitzer asserts Miller’s unfaltering determination to separate immigrant families is overreaching and exceeds the threshold of white nationalism. (Conclusion) Clearly, Miller’s immigration agenda fosters Trumpism’s white nationalist tendencies by ostracizing and oppressing immigrant families entering US society.

(Refutation 2: Rhetor’s Main Claim) Adopting Miller’s anti-immigration policies further exacerbate US society’s economy as there is insufficient evidence proving immigration and US economics are negatively correlated. (Toulmin Warrant) Economic anxiety stipulated from the misconception of immigrants’ influence on US society’s economy induces prejudice and distrust among all inhabitants in US society. (Scholarly Source 1: Reason/Support 2) As aforementioned, Opponent of Miller’s agenda, Mehdi Hasan, New Statesman contributing editor, 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.” (1). The unnecessary economic anxiety Miller thrusts onto US citizens in response to immigration is promoting white nationalist ideals apparent in Trumpism rather than promoting economic gains according to Hasan. (Scholarly Source 2: Reason/Support 2) Additional opponents of Miller’s agenda, 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, claim that 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” (1). Komlos and Schubert assert Trump’s tax cuts grant Miller the political means to have a greater influence on US society in advocating for such brutal laws against immigration because he is predisposed with higher economic power. (Scholarly Source 3: Reason/Support 2) More opponents of Miller’s agenda, 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). Shear and Davis assert Miller facilitated the aggressive strategy of trying to reverse the demographic changes underway in America, preventing immigrants in US society from achieving economic stability. Additionally, Shear and Davis claim, “Miller… 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. (Conclusion) Ultimately, the economic gains Miller anticipates from his immigration agenda will not be effective; rather, his agenda will only continue to oppress hopeless immigrants entering US society.

(Refutation 3: Rhetor’s Main Claim) Miller’s agenda manipulates US society by subtracting reason from immigration legislation. (Toulmin Warrant) Without reason between individuals and their government, US citizens are incapable of ruling democratically. (Scholarly Source 1: Reason/Support 3) As aforementioned, an opponent of Miller’s agenda, Henry Richardson, professor of philosophy at Georgetown University, responds to Trump’s monetary threat against El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, and Mexico facilitated by Miller claiming the threat was absent of a “justifiable place in the negotiations that must be part of democratic reasoning” (1). Without inviting a potentially reasoned process of reaching a compromise, Miller serves as an erroneous role model and representative of US society by constructing unfair terms, thereby inciting the partisanship present in Trumpism according to Richardson. (Scholarly Source 2: Reason/Support 3) Another opponent of Miller’s 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” (54). With Miller relentlessly garnering political power, he is able to advance the economy for the wealthy at the cost of US immigrants’ benefits and services, thereby demoting young US citizens’ futures, sanity, and lives according to González. (Scholarly Source 3: Reason/Support 3) Another opponent of Miller’s agenda, Edwin 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...’” (17-8). With Miller exploiting the economic anxieties of White America with his excessive anti-immigration policies, he is able to convince many US citizens of the false dangers and destruction associated with immigration, thereby supporting the white nationalist partisanship present in Trumpism. (Conclusion) Clearly, the mass power Miller possesses deceives US citizens into fearing immigrants when the true threat is Miller himself by ingraining the prejudice derived from Trumpism into the weak-minded US citizens.

(Summation: Argue that your stance on the issue is best for US society) Declining Miller’s regressive anti-immigration policies is best for US society because his legislation prompts brutal consequences for immigrant families, diminishes US society’s economy, and fosters apathy in US citizens by stripping them of their democratic reasoning. Continuing Miller’s agenda will indefinitely direct US society in a white-nationalist path as depicted by Trumpism. We now see the unjustified means Miller’s agenda imposes on US society by him manipulating a proper globalist approach into the deceptive Trumpist approach. US citizens must remain keen on the lies and prejudice Trumpism exudes to preserve the democratic thinking that characterizes US society’s greatness and vitality. Much like young Latino American leader, Emma González, US citizens must recognize political abusers and take action against blatantly inhumane anti-immigration legislation to progress US society forward with all individuals standing together.

Works Cited

Blitzer, Jonathan. “Get Out.” EBSCOhost, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Editing Log:

Assignment: Aristotelian Classical Argumentative Rhetoric on Trumpism vs. Globalism in Response to Stephen Miller’s Immigration Agenda

Principle: Introduction Bridge sentence “diminishes” is wrong verb tense (T)

Original: “Blitzer suggests Miller’s overbearing immigration policies diminishes the globalist approach…”

Revision: “Blitzer suggests Miller’s overbearing immigration policies diminish the globalist approach…”

Principle: Refutation 1: Scholarly Source 1 sentence uses wrong word choice (W)

Original: “With Miller snatching migrant children from their families…”

Revision: “With Miller snatching immigrant children from their families…”

Principle: Refutation 3: Scholarly Source 3 is missing a preposition connecting Miller to US citizens (awk)

Original: “Miller is able to convince many US citizens the false dangers and destruction associated with immigration…”

Revision: “Miller is able to convince many US citizens of the false dangers and destruction associated with immigration…”

Principle: Last sentence of summation can be restructured to flow smoother (awk)

Original: “US citizens must recognize political abusers and take action against blatantly inhumane legislation against immigrants, much like young Latino American leader, Emma González, and allow US society to progress with all individuals standing together.”

Revision: “Much like young Latino American leader, Emma González,US citizens must recognize political abusers and take action against blatantly inhumane anti-immigration legislation and allow US society to progress with all individuals standing together.”

Principle: Last sentence of Summation can further be condensed (Wordy)

Original: “Much like young Latino American leader, Emma González,US citizens must recognize political abusers and take action against blatantly inhumane anti-immigration legislation and allow US society to progress with all individuals standing together.”

Revision: “Much like young Latino American leader, Emma González, US citizens must recognize political abusers and take action against blatantly inhumane anti-immigration legislation to progress US society forward with all individuals standing together.”

Principle: Last sentence of Confirmation is too wordy and needs to be condensed (Wordy)

Original: “Just as Blitzer suggests Miller’s anti-immigration policies being unified through campaigning and governing on the issue, the path to a democratic US society requires its citizens to inquire when posed with unethical anti-immigration legislation fueling the white nationalist tendencies apparent in Trumpism.”

Revision: “Just as Blitzer suggests Miller’s anti-immigration policies perpetuates Trumpism, US society requires its citizens to inquire when posed with unethical anti-immigration legislation to maintain democratic reasoning.”

Principle: Last sentence of Scholarly Source 1 Concession can be condensed and needs more development on your point; vague (Wordy) (dev)

Original: “Instead, Miller focuses on providing the best interests for US society through his agenda according to Miroff and Dawsey.”

Revision: “Instead, Miller protects US society’s economic and national security interests through his agenda according to Miroff and Dawsey.”

Principle: Last sentence in Scholarly Source 2 Concession can be condensed (Wordy)

Original: “Green asserts Miller’s approach with anti-immigration policies will positively impact marginalized…”

Revision: “Green asserts Miller’s anti-immigration policies will positively impact marginalized…”

Trey Nicholas

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

Prewriting:

Step 1: Who is my audience?

My audience is those who praise Stephen Miller’s anti-immigration policies in United States (US) society, or are unsure what to believe about his policies. Those who share my perspective that Miller’s anti-immigration policies should be challenged can also be my audience, but this paper is not designed to reinforce confirmation biases; rather it is designed to reinforce formerly held beliefs.

Step 2: What is my purpose?

My purpose is to convince those who think differently that I am correct in believing Miller’s anti-immigration policies are overreaching and are not beneficial for US society.

Step 3: What is my premise?

My premise is Miller’s immigration agenda destroys US society's international reputation as a democracy for several reasons, including separation of immigrant families, stagnation of US society’s economy, and manipulation of democratic reasoning. First, separating immigrant families entering US society contradicts US society’s claim as a post-racial nation. Second, there is insufficient evidence linking any negative economic effects to immigration. Third, Miller’s immigration agenda threatens US society’s renowned democratic structure.

Step 4: What is my chosen quotation?

My quotation is, “[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).