Border Control And False Altruism Analysis

1286 Words6 Pages
Julie Mathis UCCA 102.05 Textual Analysis 27 April 2008 Drawing the Line between Border Control and False Altruism America is “The land of the free.” However, the context of what is “free” in the United States is being manipulated into a tumult of chaos. Illegal immigration is the root of a problem far exceeding what is ethical. It is inwardly disrupting a country founded upon a legal justice system and one not subservient to crime. The cost of cheap labor does not outweigh the incumbent abuse legal American citizens have to pay for something that any other country would never have tolerated. How can an illegal epidemic pose such differing viewpoints on the matter? The answer is shown through an editorial, “Border Insecurity,” which demonstrates…show more content…
The editor then calls President Bush, “the master of botched federal initiative,” for simply trying to enforce a solution to stop illegal immigration (1). This ghastly remark by the editor of “Border Insecurity” is exposed for its faulty political derivatives in an editorial published by the Dallas Morning News, “Democrats Don’t Impress: Debate Reveals Weakness on Immigration”. Recently, former Senator John Edwards and Senator Barack Obama, chastised President Bush’s immigration reform for, “dividing the nation along racial lines and promoting an anti-immigrant sentiment” (1). This is the best answer the political party who claims to be so altruistic for the poor, the environment, and the country as a whole has to give. Genuinely, a political party who offers no real solutions to a significant issue of concern cannot be deemed as altruistic. And by, “alienating the opposing party with an ‘anti-Hispanic’ innuendo,” there is nothing productive or helpful for America that results (2). Furthermore, the article discusses how President Bush has “championed the immigrant cause” (1). At least, he is not making false accusations about the other party, is actually addressing the problem, and is trying to help foster effective solutions. It is most certainly more than the other party is doing. Is the President not supposed to be an enforcer and supporter of laws to uphold what is legal? The New York Times…show more content…
The “Border Insecurity” editorial claims that due to the mountainous landscape of Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, “pouring billions into building a real fence-is viewed as simply insane” (1). However, an editorial from the Dallas Morning News entitled, “The Fence Must Go Up,” furthered my adamant belief that the border is, and will be an effective solution with continual help from Washington. If Texans, who are most affected by the fence, believe the reform to be, as the editorial clearly states, “a saner immigration system,” the New York Times is devoid of any valid concrete evidence to call the system “insane” (1). Both of the editorials discuss a primary flaw some may see with the whole idea of a fence. The “Border Insecurity” editorial displays uncertainty about the fence because, “In Texas, the fence is a dotted line, blocking some places but not others” (2). Conversely, “The Fence Must Go Up” destroys this possible flaw mentioned in the “Border Insecurity” editorial. “The Fence Must Go Up” affirms, “In some places, the fence may need a new path” (2). However, it provides an excellent solution by acknowledging through, “Showing flexibility in redesigning some routes will show good will on Washington’s part” (2). Clearly, those living in the pathway of this fence know the terrain better than someone who

More about Border Control And False Altruism Analysis

Open Document