Immigration Reform Stirring Up More Drama

Recently, columnist writer Ricardo Pimento posted an editorial discussing the new drama and debate regarding immigration laws in Texas and in our nation. San Antonio Express News' How much border security is needed? looks deeply into the spending and repercussions of immigration specifically in Texas. Right away, a heavy liberal opinion takes over. This editorial takes a shot at republicans for being too hard on immigrants and the laws following the border. Although Ricardo obviously leans more left than right, he attempts to make his editorial appealing to any type of audience. Instantly, he tries to enhance his argument by saying the people in these states that are greatly affected by immigration in their day to day lives don't have a real problem with these illegals and green card immigrants. In our day to day lives, we act like "all bipartisan BFFS and stuff". As the discussion went on, in some statements I found myself agreeing with him, but overall his editorial and the credibility to his argument lacked a lot of substance.

Ricardo's only argument was that every day people are close to these immigrants and that should make our government more lenient laws against them. In my eyes, that isn't strong enough to fully get his point across and accurately prove it to his audience and readers. From what I saw throughout the newspaper site, he is just a columnist with not much of a political background to be stirring up this argument in the first place. His credibility is very weak which honestly loses my interest in the debate. I don't feel that you can get a audience interested and convinced when you might have the same amount of knowledge as the people you are trying to "inform".

On top of his credibility, his argument was also very weak as well. His main argument was that we are spending too much money on an area of our budget that is entirely unnecessary. He backs up this argument by stating there is already too much border security as it is and it isn't right to continue to waste money on furthering the control. This argument stirs up much debate but Ricardo doesn't really go into depth on the situation. He gives us the main debate and basic facts and tries to make his point that way. He doesn't line up a list of recent facts for nor against the idea at all. With that being said, I don't believe he impressed or caught the attention of his audience by this weak editorial.

While I agree that some of our spending is becoming somewhat unnecessary and too strong, Ricardo and his editorial also didn't try to sway me completely nor provide me enough information to believe his argument in the first place .