Last night I was thinking about what if everyone was the same if there was no borders and wars. How would our lives be and how the world would be different. I bet Donald Trump would have nothing to say for sure. There would not be the topic about how people are coming to a country to have babies and get their citizenship, how their would not be a necessity of applying to be able to work, go to school and have privileges other have just because they have a paper that says they were born in the country and you will not be so discriminated or manipulated now. Any women could have children and people would not be able to say is because of the race or religion. People would not have to fight for their futures and their families by saying …show more content…
He presented his audience with graphs and charts about the different generations of immigrants and how the second generation might not be able to have a very stable job because they are discriminated against and speak more spanish in their jobs meaning they are paid less and also there is a small percentage that go to college because of the lack of opportunities given to them. The children from immigrants are publicly critiqued and questioned their citizenship. Society has created many names for the children of immigrants the most knowed and mention in the media right now is anchor babies because the media is using topic to manipulate the children and their parents. Chavez mention in his book that years before anchor baby was used in a positive way but now is negative. The 14 amendment protects all the laws that want to be made so children from immigrants can’t be citizens. The media is giving a false perspective of how they can change the laws so many citizens can be undocumented like the parents because the government thinks the Mexican want to conquer their old land back. The word nation is derived from the latin word nacere ”to be born” and that allows anyone to become part of the community by birth. Society has the wrong idea of why the Mexican and all immigrants come to this country. In 2008 according to the Pew Hispanic Center’s research there was 1.5 million
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
Cesar Chavez addresses a speech that marks history known as the “Wrath of the Grapes Boycott, 1986” in which he expresses his feelings towards farmwork and the worth of humanity. Cesar Chavez main argument was to regulate the use of pesticides in the agricultural industry. The pesticides that were being used in the farms were detrimental to the health of many of the laborers. They polluted the air, water, earth and the health of the people. In no way was this beneficial to anyone 's health. Chavez objective was to boycott the grapes and show the agricultural industry that they deserved to be treated better. Chavez speech was meaningful because he was one of the first mexican american leader who fought for equality amongst farm laborers.
When Chavez states an argument, he then addresses the reader’s emotions to resolve any uplifting self conflict. He states, “Nonviolence has exactly the opposite effect.” Then in the next paragraph he states, “But if we are committed to nonviolence only as a strategy or tactic, then if it fails the only alternative is to turn to violence.” He does this for the people that do not completely agree with his point, to show that he acknowledges both sides, which strengthens his argument. He later uses, “Examine history. Who gets killed in the case of violent revolution?” He does this to make the reader remember the past of violent protest and how many people sacrificed their lives for a cause, which makes the reader more passionate towards supporting his argument.
Chavez does not wait long to dive into his argument, instead, within the first few paragraphs he makes a very clear and comprehensive claim with the very strategic use of parallel structure when he says, “Nonviolence is more powerful than violence. Nonviolence supports you if you have a just and moral cause. Nonviolence provides the opportunity to stay on the offensive, and that is of crucial importance to win any contest” (Chavez 3). It can be seen here that this use of parallel structure plays a very crucial role in conveying Chavez’s message as it repeats over and over the main idea of the article. In doing so, the main idea becomes really emphasized and in a way drills the focus of the article into the minds of his audience. This provides a very easy and understandable
The author presents a strong argument, claiming that he has the qualities of a citizen; “hard work, self-reliance, love of my country” (Vargas). All of those qualities are hard to argue with. The fact that he pays his taxes illegally proves just how much he loves this country. Despite his monetary contributions to the country, his legal status remains unchanged. He hoped
Cesar Chavez was a civil rights leader and a labor union organizer who delivered a carefully crafted speech by acknowledging the perspective of his audience in order to vouch for the use of nonviolence over violence. While Chavez is arguing against the use of violence, he refrains from blaming anyone who had ever used violence. He manages to gain the trust of the audience by presenting himself as an understanding and compassionate individual, which allows them to be more receptive to his message.
By doing this, he reinforces the messages that Martin Luther King Jr. passed down with the civil rights movement. King’s and Chavez’s effects on their respective movements still ring true today, with protests from oppressed minority groups actually creating change in the topics that they are protesting against. An example of this is the Black Lives Matter movement, where people of all races protest the disproportionate killings of African-Americans by police officers. These two figureheads are truly the most influential people involved in the civil rights
Even more frequently, his use of “undocumented” immigrants rather than “illegal” immigrants. Simply by calling himself and others “undocumented,” it provides a positive impression for the reader. This is a stark contrast to news and society, both of which refer to them as “illegal” immigrants. Referring to
This relates to the human rights issue of immigrants due to enrique’s mom heading for the states to better her life. She was a maid , so therefore she didn’t really make that much money. She hoped for a better life and she thought she would be able to do this by moving to the states. In her eyes the only way to do this was heading for america.
Cesar Chavez once explained the horrors of society when he said, “When the man who feeds the world by toiling in the fields is himself deprived of the basic rights of feeding, sheltering and caring for is family, the whole community of man is sick.” (ufw.org) That means that the whole of humanity is sick and cruel when the man who works the fields all day long to feed the all of the citizens of the entire world can’t even provide for himself. It was not a small amount of people it affected, it was millions, and millions of citizens across the world. Chavez was a large factor in beginning to abolish racism, or also called the Civil Rights Movement.
Overall, the chapter, which focuses on “Hispanicity”, impacted me because I began to formulate ideas which opposed those that had been hammered into my mind all my life. For so long I had heard that minorities were victims to oppression by whites and for that reason minorities should strive to do more than what is expected from them. In reading Rodriguez’s claim, questions that had never been explored in my development arose in my mind such as “Are Hispanics really the victims?”, “Do Hispanics truly strive to their fullest to accomplish things that have never been done?”, and lastly, “Are Hispanics committing acts of hypocrisy?”. If a Hispanic
1. In the “Latino Threat Narrative”, Chavez believes that the international terrorism of 911 acts as a trigger and strikes which raised the alarm of the national identity crisis of the United States in 2011, meanwhile, it also further threatens the survival and image of Latino unlimitedly. When the American witnessed the tragedy and the danger of their country in 911, their patriotism leads them to perceive the foreigners, specially the Latino and Mexican as a threat, heresy or even enemy who threaten the stability and security of the national identity. Due to the rapid growth of the Latino population in the United State, the Latino not only constitutes as a threat on the national security, but also labeled as an illegally radicalized ethnics groups or even “illegal Aliens” who rejects to assimilate into the mainstream of American culture and their alienation even make the United State further loss its cohesion. As a result, the American is facing the danger of disintegration.
Chavez uses the “Latino Threat Narrative” to compare the Hispanics to the “German language threat, the Catholic threat, the Chinese and Japanese language threat, and the southern and eastern European threats.” He suggests that “each was pervasive and defined “truths” about the threat posed by immigrants that, in hindsight, were unjustified or never materialized in the long run of history.” Chavez was trying to explain that the Hispanic would pattern these other threats by upsetting the America people. He states that “… the Latino Threat Narrative is part of a grand tradition of alarmist discourse about immigrants and their perceived negative impacts on society.”
The article "The 'Trump Effect' Alienating Conservative Latino", explained that recent comments and political views of Donald Trump have impacted the support of Latino voters for the conservative party. This has made conservative Latino voters feel as though their views are not being represented well. Trump describes Mexican immigrants that are in the U.S. illegally as "criminals, rapists, and drug traffickers" (Kalid, 2015). He also advocates taking away the 14th amendment, which grants citizenship to those born in the U.S. This has led to other candidates to chime into their own views and opposition of immigration.
The third thing that we talked about was the usage of labor unions in Mexico in association with American labor unions. He said there is no way that they could do that in Mexico because there are to many people and not enough jobs and he also said that "Mexico is not