The creation of a powerful and properly evidenced argument is not an easy thing. There are a number of issues to be taken into consideration and certain opinions to be evaluated. However, when the nation undergoes certain legal changes, many people are ready to share their personal opinions and ideas about the steps taken. The question of illegal immigration and its role in the development of Arizona society plays an important role for a long period of time.
Usually, people want to be in safe and feel protection of their government; still, they are not always ready to accept the legal changes offered. One of the latest reforms taken by the government and critically accepted by society was Arizona S.B. 1070. In fact, this legislative Act is considered to be one of the strictest anti-illegal immigration issues in the state of Arizona as well as in the history of the United States of America.
In this paper, the ideas of two different authors will be thoroughly analyzed: Roger Mahony, a famous American cardinal, whose thoughts and activities are supported by millions of people, and Kris Kobach, one of the principle drafters of the Act under consideration. Mahony’s “Thank You, Arizona!” is an attempt to describe the measure taken as a “mean-spirited and useless” measure that deprives people of a chance to be free and to be equal in society (Mahony 17).
And though Kobach’s “Defending Arizona” introduces absolutely another point of view, this article should not be regarded as an opposition to Mahony’s work. The two authors share their opinions about the reform taken and try to persuade the reader. Mahony makes use of religion as a powerful weapon to achieve the required justice and protect immigrants from unfair judgments.
And Kobach helps to analyze the worth of Arizona S.B. 1070 admitting that many people’s “charges are completely false” and lead to “a vastly disproportionate response” (Kobach 31) . Kobach and Mahony are the writers, those words may be interpreted in a variety of ways; they are not only helpful and influential in the world of politics and religion, but they established the key points according to which governmental activities may be properly evaluated.
To understand those ideas may play more crucial role in understanding of the worth of Arizona S.B. 1070, it is necessary to analyze each article and the approaches preferred by the authors. Kris Kobach is the drafter of the Act, so, his opinion and explanations of this governmental change should be thoughtful and properly organized.
At the beginning of his article, the author admits that many political leaders “from President Obama on down” jumped into criticizing the law without its thorough analysis. The point is that some opponents, such as Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano, say that they have not read the whole text of the law, still, they are ready to argue the importance of the reform.
The question is if it is reasonable and normal to create some judgments without clear arguments. Personal opinion should not be the main claim to rely on while arguing the activities of the state Governor. “Defending Arizona” is Kobach’s chance to explain why so many misunderstandings take place around the law offered. He identifies three charges which are wrong and give clarifications. The point is that the law does not introduce as many influential changes as people actually think.
The main claim of the article is not to make fast decisions and find more time and analyze the law from a variety of perspectives to understand that Arizona officers are provided with appropriate instructions to follow during the contact with illegal immigrants, racial profiling does not become a crucial point, and certain order of immigrants’ documentation is important.
Kobach’s supportive facts are powerful indeed: he takes some extras from the law to prove that people’s judgments do not have any grounds, he remembers real-life examples such as “Gonzales v. City of Peoria” case, and he clearly explains the role of documentation provisions in this particular reform.
The tone chosen in this article is persuasive, not hostile. It helps to explain the reader that the author is not satisfied with the conclusions made by some people and is ready to point out the mistakes and give informative explanations. His evidence is his personal experience and desire to create appropriate living conditions for the citizens of Arizona.
Still, the creation of appropriate living conditions may be interpreted in a variety of ways, and one of them is introduced in the article by Roger Mahony. A crucial aspect of this work is the attention to religion. The main claim of the article makes many readers realize that Arizona S.B. 1070 is a successful decision for the citizens of Arizona as it is defined by Kobach.
What he suggests is to comprehend the importance to consider immigrants “no longer as strangers or statistics, but to see and hear them as real, flesh-and-blood human beings – neighbors, family members, whose lives are adversely affected every day that our leaders fail to enact just and fair immigration reform” (Mahony 18).
On the one hand, this claim has clear humanistic evidence where God’s role and impact play an important role. People should be kind to each other and do not use the idea of citizenship as the main criteria for human separation. Attention to the Bible and the necessity to hear the stranger may be regarded as an influential factor.
Still, it is necessary to admit that not all people are ready to live in accordance with the rules identified in the Bible. So, on the other hand, people’s attitude to the role of the Bible and the ideas supported by a particular religion should not influence the political sphere of life. It is wrong to combine religious and political aspects to create one comprehensive law.
What Mahony offers is to consider the Catholic community as one of the main issues to human justice. The point is that the immigrant experience is familiar to the vast majority of people: we are immigrants in society, religion, education, etc. And a properly organized opinion about immigration reform should be “a matter of justice” as well as “a part of our identity, of what we are as a church” (Mahony 19).
Mahony uses rather convincing tone in the article. He does not want to provide people with any other choice but the one he supports. And his thoughts and devotion to religion are the main factors of his argument.
Though the question of illegal immigration did not touch me personally, I cannot neglect the impact of this reform on human lives. The articles chosen for the analysis in this paper help to comprehend how it is easy to create inappropriate judgments and follow them in life. I found the both articles rather interesting and educative for many people. Kobach and Mahony make a decision to consider the same issue from absolutely different perspectives.
If Kobach rely on his personal experience as the drafter of the Act and analyze thoroughly misunderstandings which take place around the issue taking into account different aspects of the, Mahony fails to consider various opinions but choose his religion as the only correct point. It is hard for people, who are far from some religious beliefs, to understand Mahony’s desire to unite politics and religion.
This is why I want to say that I have more common grounds with the author of the article “Defending Arizona”, Kris Kobach. First, this writer does not rely a lot on his personal understanding of the reform but uses the facts. Second, he analyzes what has been already said and explains why the conclusions made should be regarded as false.
And, finally, he does not want to convince the reader to accept one particular side but be able to evaluate all ideas discussed in the Act. Certain information in the article turns out to be new. For example, it is interesting to know that some leaders are ready to make conclusion without having clear grounds and reading the law itself. Such attitude to the case can explain why some people are not able to comprehend true essence of the reform offered.
This is why the preferred article by Kobach makes me think about many things and understand that each law and reform offered should not be judged superficially. I like the way Kobach introduces facts in his work. Though I cannot say that I dislike the way chosen by Mahony, still, I would like to admit that his approach is less understandable for me and does not correspond to my ideas to rely on clear facts.
Kobach, Kris, W. “Defending Arizona.” National Review 62.10 (2010): 31-33.
Mahony, Roger. “Thank You, Arizona!” America 202.19 (2010): 17-19.