Dream_Act

Rhetorical Analysis of “DREAM Act Gives Hope to Undocumented Students” Michelle Wiebach, writer at the Daily Titan, published her outlook on the DREAM Act in her September 22, 2010 piece, “DREAM Act Gives Hope to Undocumented Students.” Wiebach writes of the common struggles for student immigrants in her supportive commentary of the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act (DREAM Act), a policy founded on the basis of providing legal residency for immigrants after they either attend college or serve for two years in the military. Although the DREAM Act has been in debate for over a decade, it has once again failed to meet the required votes at Senate. In addition to the issues’ already controversial substance, the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, regarding the appearance of homosexuals in the military, was attached the bill. Throughout her commentary, Wiebach writes of the struggles of illegal students, creating an emotional connection with her readers. She opens the article with the anecdote of Saul, a high school graduate anxious to attend college. Although he attempted to apply for financial aid, Saul was shut down and felt as if college was not an option. Propelled by his will to attend college, Saul then began to work and save his money. Eventually, he was able to attend college. At this point, Wiebach’s argument loses its emotional effect and unfortunately, the attempt to make Saul into a struggling student does not work as effectively as she planned. Since illegal immigrants are not qualified for financial aid, Saul was forced to work for his education. However, there are masses of students that are legal citizens forced to fight the same battle as Saul. Being denied financial aid and working for an education is a reality that thousands of legal and illegal students must face; furthermore, Saul is no different than his legal counterpart. Following the educational story of Saul, Wiebach introduces William Perez, a professor at Claremont Graduate University and author on the topic of illegal immigrants. Perez argues not against the bill, but what the bill is attached to. He believes that if the DREAM Act was not attached to the Defense bill and the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, the votes from Senate would have surfaced differently. Perez even goes as far as stating that the Senator of Utah supported the DREAM Act but not the Defense bill. By introducing Perez’s argument of the bill and its components, Wiebach strengthens her argument. Now she accounts for the possible reasons why the bill did not pass and provokes her readers to question the integrity of the bill. Perez continues his argument by showing his support for the bill and supplying hope to his followers. He states, “The fact that it [ the bill ] was not moved to a floor vote does not represent that there was lack of support for the act. There is support.” By reassuring proponents of the DREAM Act that there is support, Perez once again insinuates that the problem lies not in the DREAM Act, but in the components of the bill. In addition, Wiebach’s claim becomes more compelling with the logical and credible input of Perez. To finalize her argument, Wiebach once again reverts to an emotional story. She presents Diego Gutierrez, an undocumented student and advocate for the DREAM Act. Gutierrez states that he has been living as an illegal citizen in the United States since he was eight years old and fears going home because he cannot relate to the people. He wants to be recognized as a citizen because he has lived in the United States almost his entire life. Gutierrez then proceeds by stating, “I think people are missing the point (of the DREAM Act). Many of these people are more patriotic than the average citizen.” By including this somewhat controversial quote, Wiebach once again weakens her argument. Gutierrez’s comment provides an unnecessary comparison that appears to be an attack on the average citizen. In supplying this quote, the issue of Wiebach’s audience is discovered. If Wiebach’s audience were strictly illegal immigrants and struggling students in favor of the DREAM Act, she would benefit from using emotional tales of undocumented students. However, she includes a lot of logistics proving that her audience may also be geared toward citizens interested in learning more about the DREAM Act, some of which may find Gutierrez’s quote offensive. Wiebach’s account of the DREAM Act in “DREAM Act Gives Hope to Undocumented Students,” is a controversial topic in itself. While her use of language is average, her content does not appeal to what appears to be a recognizable audience. Wiebach’s use of anecdotes weakens her argument and only attracts readers who are in similar situations, such as undocumented students. Although she is able to strengthen her argument by providing logistics and the credible words of William Perez, Wiebach’s overall persuasiveness deteriorates through her attempt to create an emotional appeal.