The major failure by Dan Nowicki in the article “Arizona Immigration Law Debate Triggers National Shockwaves,” is to address all of the complexities involved in Comprehensive Immigration Reform, and the article instead focuses solely on failing Bipartisanship as the major block to legislation (Nowicki). By contrast, other articles that have addressed this issue before and after the publications of Nowicki’s article provide a more balanced perspective on the debate (Bennett), (Ratnam), (Archibold).
Throughout the article, Mr. Nowicki attempts to paint a picture of diametrically opposed factions. However, he buries any mention of any middle ground that may exist for moderate ideas or compromise. This undermines the integrity of the piece to the reader. The author begins by telling the audience that the main polarity is within the public, between those that are anti-immigration and the Hispanic community (Nowicki). However, the author does not discuss more centrist ideas or non-Hispanic subsets that are pro-immigration. Therefore, unless the reader belongs to one of the groups addressed, they stand to feel unrepresented or unwillingly forced into one of these groups. By beginning the article in a manner that creates such a string dichotomy, it then seems reasonable to conclude, as the article continues, that Congress too is equally polarized (Nowicki).
While the motives of the author are unknown, it is likely that proposing the debate as so contentious will cause the audience to be more enticed to read and more engaged in the material. When ideas are positioned in such a way as to exacerbate conflict, human intrigue is directed to the clash. However, the credibility of the author suffers when certain readers may not find their ideas represented in the work. In the alternative, it may cause readers to adopt the polarized opinions of the represented groups, and abandon their own more moderate views, thus exacerbating the difficulty of the situation. This could occur more strongly in specific groups, such as with Hispanic readers. While some Hispanic readers may have a more moderate view on immigration reform, they may be marginalized by the author’s inherent argument that if you are Hispanic, you must have a radical view of immigration reform that mirrors radical anti-immigration activists (Nowicki).
However, recent Congressional activity has shown that there are more moderate voices and compromise is possible (Bennett), (Ratnam). Last month, Congress proposed a Bill that could create solutions to some of the most debated issues in immigration, including conditional amnesty (Bennett). While the Dream Act is not Comprehensive Immigration Reform, the actions of both parties to make concessions to take steps to begin the process is in direct contradiction to Nowicki’s claim that “[s]uch a hostile landscape won’t make it easy to launch bipartisan negotiations on the touchy topic” (Nowicki).
Even more recently, Congress has shown a willingness, albeit reluctant, to reach across the aisle. Earlier this month, when President Obama asked Democrats to concede to a temporary extension of the Bush Era tax cuts in exchange for continuations of unemployment benefits, the parties again showed willingness to compromise (Ratnam). Some would argue that lawmakers are merely positioning for the next cycle of elections, rarely is “I compromised” a campaign slogan. It seems instead that party leaders are taking heed that the public desires more socially reflective and centrist government actions. Ideas that were not addressed in the August article (Nowicki).
In contrast, an earlier New York Times article addresses the signing of the Arizona Bill and all of the animosity that was associated with that act, without making it seem as though the extremes were the only opinions (Archibald). Rather, the article merely discusses the varying opinions of major actors and more factually addresses the conflicts.
After the author spends a majority of the article avoiding discussion of any bipartisan efforts, near the close he does addresses the proposals by Arizona’s own Senators McCain and Kyl (Nowicki). The brief discussion of the pushes for increased border security while creating a guest worker program are the exact views that the author states do not exists earlier in the piece. In fact if the concept of bipartisan reforms that are short of the extreme views are prevalent enough for the Senators from Arizona to propose, the logical conclusion would be that these ideas are held by a great many citizens of Arizona. That possibly the main purpose of the Arizona Bill and court case is not to showcase the extreme views of a few, but to reach the middle faster.
In conclusion, the article by Nowicki does nothing more than confuse a complicated issue and misdirect attention away from the true subject for the purpose of sensationalizing. While there are individuals with strong views on immigration, the article fails to address the broad spectrum of ideas. Further, the article fails to qualify and quantify the polarizing statements that provide the underlying assumptions of the story (Nowicki). In contract, the New York Times article is more effective in delivering the factual information on the extreme views of the debate, but at the same time gives character to the opinions to avoid sensationalizing the piece (Rutnam).
Bibliography
Archibold, Randal C. “Arizona Enacts Stringent Law on Immigration.”The New York Times, Politics. 2010. Web.
Bennett, Brian and Lisa Mascaro. “Immigration Reform – White House Sees Opportunity for Immigration Reform in Lame-duck Congress – Los Angeles Times.” Featured Articles From The Los Angeles Times. 2010. Web.
Nowicki, Dan. “Arizona Immigration Law Debate Triggers National Shockwaves.” Arizona Local News – Phoenix Arizona News – Phoenix Breaking News – Azcentral.com. 2010. Web.
Ratnam, Gopal, and Meera Louis. “Axelrod Predicts Democrats Will Back Obama’s Tax-Cut Compromise BusinessWeek.” BusinessWeek – Business News, Stock Market & Financial Advice. 2010. Web.