Supporting Family Values by Linda Chavez Main Idea

"Supporting Family Values"

past Linda Chavez

Topic: assimilation of immigrants to the USA.

Author: For this topic, what is of import almost Chavez'south background? What is her political identity, and why is that surprising here?

From her Wikipedia entry:

Linda Chavez (born June 17, 1947 in Albuquerque, New Mexico) is an American author, commentator, and radio talk testify host. She is besides a Play a joke on News analyst, Chairman of the Middle for Equal Opportunity, has a syndicated column that appears in newspapers nationwide each calendar week, and sits on the Lath of Directors of two Fortune g companies: Pilgrims Pride and ABM Industries Inc. Chavez was the highest-ranking adult female in President Ronald Reagan'southward White House, and was the starting time Latina always nominated to the United states of america Chiffonier.

Audience: written in 2009 for townhall.com, a conservative news and information website. What is a conservative, and what is the typical (even stereotypical) bourgeois view about immigration?

Unusually, Chavez is using conservative ideals (family unit values) to debate for liberal policy (amnesty for illegal immigrants). By doing so, Chavez makes it difficult for either point to exist successfully refuted! No matter which side you are on, y'all take little selection but to accept PART of the opposition'due south position.

Context: How do you feel virtually immigration/illegal clearing? Are they criminals? Are they innocent victims? What about their American-built-in children? Are they something in between? Should nosotros permit them all in? None in? Some in? Which ones?

Thesis: Chavez starts with the common assumption that illegal immigrants are ofttimes considered lazy, uneducated or criminal, yet she argues this is wrong. Chavez points out that illegal immigrants often have meliorate values than established Americans, and thus..... (can you complete her thesis?)

---

Chavez begins with a striking statistic (what is the source?):

Almost half of illegal immigrants population of the Usa made up increasingly of intact (= married) families and their American-born children (73% of them born in the USA, thus making them American citizens.)

Some hard-line anti-immigrationists volition observe that disturbing, Chavez believes, only she believes it is a good trend!

Why? As Chavez reports, families are "breaking downward" in the USA, only not among the immigrants.

proof:

21% of "native" households are 2 parents + kids (just see below)
35% of legal immigrants = ii parents + kids
but 47% of illegal immigrants = 2 parents + kids.

What affects the numbers? Chavez lists the reasons:

1) Age--illegals are younger, while the "native" population number includes older couples whose kid accept left dwelling, and thus skew the results..
2) Out-of-marriage births and divorce are much more common amidst "natives" than illegal immigrants.

Chavez debate the greater concern is Non the numbers of children.

Instead, she argues it is...what?

i) the newcomers will ____________
two) they will remain ______________
three) and they volition transform ______________

She points out these are non new fears:

"natives" (meaning merely people who had arrived earlier) believed this about High german, Irish, Italian, Jewish, etc immigrants in their time:

Americans feared that the newer immigrants would be more difficult to assimilate than the earlier immigrants; a common theory was that while the Irish and the Germans were used to democratic regimes, the Russian Jews and the Italians had never experienced republic. They viewed immigrant communities every bit "ghettoized" colonies that were detrimental to assimilation. Thus, during the late nineteenth century, programs targeted at Americanization of immigrants were introduced in public schools. --Immigration in New York City, by Priam Saywack

Some established Americans feared that these inferior Italians would exist unable to assimilate into American society and, would ultimately, lead to the collapse of American civilization. Established Americans had similar fears about all immigrant groups; they feared the contamination of their lineages with second-class blood and the destruction of America. Although fears about the Irish and Germans had subsided, the Jews and the Italians were even so regarded with apprehension. Nonetheless, immigrants are what made New York Metropolis a world city. --Immigration in New York City, past Priam Saywack

Chavez argues these views are not rational or based on actual evidence--not and so, not now.

She admits at that place is some truth to the idea that Hispanic immigrants today take a while to "catch up" with native born Americans--why does she admit this?

Notwithstanding, she points out some suprising statistics that show us that these immigrants are doing fine:

1) Virtually half of illegal immigrants who graduate from high school nourish higher. --is this "doing fine?"
2) 25% of illegal immigrants have at least some college, with 18% having completed college. --is this "doing fine?"

Earnings are lower than natives or legal immigrants, Chavez admits, but they are withal ok:

2007 median household income for illegals: $36,000, compared to $fifty,000 for native built-in.
Illegal immigrant males labor rates: 94%, compared to 83% native born.

Is that bad? good? is that fair? Is this a social justice problem which requires government intervention?

Observe that the only significant divergence between the families (native vs. illegal) is legal condition. In near illegal families, made upward of a mixture of legal and illegals, this distinction becomes meaningless. Why does this matter?

The full number of immigrants has actually DROPPED, Chavez argues, opposite to popular opinion. Why does she tell united states of america this?
So, the number is however managable.

Thus, since it isn't the flood which fear-mongers scream it is, what shall we do with them?

We shouldn't round them up and conduct them--why not, argues Chavez?

Chavez' ameliorate arroyo is _____________ (what?)

This approach is supporting ________________ rather than merely ________________.

Why does Chavez wait until the end to offer her thesis to her audience? (Hint--recollect who her audition is and what their preconceived notions near illegal immigrants are likely to be.)

Is Chavez offering mass immunity to all illegal immigrants?
Practise you see how Chavez maintains a clear, reasonable and appealing tone? What tin can you learn from her example?

dumontthencein.blogspot.com

Source: http://djole.altervista.org/djole/SchoolPage/TCC/101/ReadNotes/SupportFamilyValues.htm

Share this post