A “Know-Nothing”, as defined in David Cole’s argument, is an immigrant who sees himself as a “Native American” but blames society’s scourges upon recent groups of immigrants. If you are a Know-Nothing then David Cole has just knocked you down for the count. In his essay, “Five Myths about Immigration,” David argues a very convincing point of view against immigrant discrimination. He uses good sources and a well organized argument to get his point across. Let us take a look at David Cole’s point of view and how it is argued quite well.
David starts out by telling us about the general attitude of a Know-Nothing, stating that they have “no sympathy”(125) for the immigrants. After this he tells how the politicians jumped on the opportunity to “exploit”(125) and use the immigrants as an excuse for all of societies problems. Using this Pathos argument, which certainly would unhinge any reader with thoughts of the Holocaust and Hitler’s attitude towards the Jews, he hits home for most of us. Despite having nearly destroyed any sympathy for the Know-Nothings by comparing their attitudes to that f the Nazis, David still goes on with the rest of his argument.
David has a strong thesis. It states that since the early 1800’s our society has not changed in the slightest. We still discriminate against the immigrants that are entering our nation today just as we did then. He attributes this to ignorance and misinformation and uses these two faults as a basis for his argument. He combines these two terms and calls them a myth. It is the myths that are letting know-nothingism thrive in todays cultures. With this in mind he sets out to disprove the so called “Five Myths about Immigration.
The first “myth” that David addresses is the idea that the country is being overpopulated by immigrants. He proceeds with a deductive Logos argument for most of the essay from this point on. He addresses his opposition by saying this opinion is somewhat true, however diffuses overpopulation point of view by addressing the fact that this has been true since Columbus sailed the seas. The only people who didn’t immigrate to America were the real Native Americans or in other words the cultures that were present when Europeans first traveled over. He argues that in sense we are all immigrants, even the Know-Nothings.
He also states that the immigrant population percentage in America is not growing. He uses good statistics to support his point of view. His claim that only “8 percent”(126) of the U. S. population is from immigrants is good but he doesn’t cite an authority on it. David does, however, have good credentials (those can be seen on page 125) and this ads some validity to his statement, but it would be more convincing still to have a source. David does make a good argument in this part of his essay and it looks as though e has discredited the belief that the amount of immigrants in the country are not a problem.
After all, how much damage could eight percent do. Once David has argued that the actual immigration of the foreigners into the country is not a problem, he moves on to the concern that immigrants are a problem within the country. He starts by addressing the popular belief that immigrants are taking the countries jobs from it’s citizens. He begins with saying that “There is virtually no evidence to support this view… ”(126). This is a good way to start. He has looked at the opposing view and basically has told us that it is just a paranoia and has no actual basis.
Not only does he convince us that the opposition is wrong, he also uses great statistics. David also now cites some very creditable sources like the Governor of New York and A. C. L. U.. This adds a great deal of validity to his argument. Perhaps the most convincing stat is the one taken from a A. C. L. U. study stating that immigrants actually create more jobs for the country(126). This is because many immigrants open businesses both other immigrants and citizens of the U. S.. With this added strength to his argument David moves confidently to the next topic.
The next myth that David addresses is that immigrants put a strain on society’s resources. David almost doesn’t even need to look at this topic because in his previous paragraph he states so well that the immigrants actually stimulate the economy by creating jobs. David now moves on to the idea some Know-Nothings have that immigrants should not receive the social benefits that citizens do. In looking at this topic he states that immigrants do not actually receive any social enefits except for those that are most basic.
David proceeds on to say that it would be “… inhumanly callous… ”(127) to deny any human these rights to health and nutritional assistance. Once again he exposes the Know-Nothings non-sympathetic views for even thinking of depriving the immigrants of these basic needs. Again he uses good sources and stats to strengthen his argument which is another success in disproving his opposition. David now goes on to address another believed problem with immigrants, the conception that they will not adjust to our culture and “assimilate”(127).
In this part of the argument he refers back to the point that we are all in a way immigrants and that our culture is the sum of many foreign cultures. It is unfortunate that this argument even had to be made. Not one of us would be too happy if we had to change our way of life simply because we choose a different place to live. David more or less appeals to logic at this point. If an immigrant moves to a country where freedom supposedly prevails, it is reasonable that he/she should be able to keep his/her way of life. Didn’t our ancestors move here for this same purpose?
David does not use stats in this portion of his argument but rather tries to appeal to an American citizens belief in freedom, and this is what leads to his next argument. David now looks at the belief that noncitizen immigrants should not be entitled to the constitutional rights. More than an argument, this portion of David’s essay talks simply of what is actually happening in the States. He uses a case he is currently handling as his basis. In this case the government argues that resident aliens should not be allowed rights beyond that which are given to aliens applying from abroad.
What that basically means is that they would get no rights at all. David uses this evidence of discrimination in an attempt to hit home with the American citizen that believes in equal rights. David doesn’t say much about why immigrants should not be discriminated against, but rather, assumes that the reader will find this act of discrimination appalling. While this may be true, it does weaken his argument slightly, when perhaps some form of reason against these actions would have strengthened it. Over-all he uses good appeal to the emotions in this section and that will suit his purposes.
Once again I must reiterate, if you are a Know-Nothing you would need a strong counter argument to defeat David Cole’s “Five Myths about Immigration”. He uses great examples and keeps the reader interested in his topic. He addresses the opposition quite well which adds a large amount of strength to his argument. David also has outstanding credentials which add a substantial amount of credibility to the writings, including those with no sources. An over-all look shows us that his is a great argument with good structure and balance. David Cole did what he needed to do to get the job done and that is what makes a good argument.
