In the midst of a period marked by mass migration, Miriam Jordan’s piece for The New York Times throws light on an important aspect of the immigration debate: the rise in asylum-seeking as a mechanism for migrants to remain in the United States. The rhetoric offered in this article is both educational and thought-provoking, with an examination of the message, purpose, audience, medium, and reliability of the material.
Miriam Jordan’s piece examines the evolution of migratory patterns, focusing on the shift from single young males mostly from Mexico to a diversified worldwide flood caused by issues such as violence, climate change, poverty, and political persecution. The key thesis is that, given the shortcomings of the underfunded immigration system, seeking asylum has become the dominating option for migrants seeking a place in the United States.
The story clearly conveys the impression that a defective immigration system, exacerbated by a lack of judges, asylum officers, and resources, has made filing for asylum the most reliable route for migrants to remain in the United States. The goal of the article appears to be to shine light on the systemic difficulties that contribute to the backlog in asylum claims, thereby influencing public opinion and policy deliberations.
The intended audience consists of the general public, policymakers, and individuals interested in immigration issues. By demonstrating the effects of the current immigration system, the article encourages readers to explore the larger ramifications and alternative remedies. The piece was published in The New York Times, a renowned and widely read newspaper, and it uses a traditional yet influential medium to reach a diverse audience. The use of multimedia elements, such as photos of migrant encampments, lends a multimodal layer to the story. Miriam Jordan, is a veteran writer with over a decade of expertise covering migrants, the border, and the United States immigration system, adds to the article’s credibility. The addition of quotes from migrants, lawyers, and specialists adds personal perspective and expert insight, increasing the credibility of the material presented.
The rhetoric in this piece is aimed at informing readers about the complexity of the immigration system and its impact on migrants. It convincingly argues that focusing solely on border enforcement is insufficient, and advocates for a fundamental revamping of the immigration system. While not blatantly manipulative or dishonest, the article does illustrate the unintended consequences of migrants filing weak asylum applications to gain a foothold in the United States.
In summary, Miriam Jordan’s article provides a compelling study of the asylum-seeking phenomenon in the context of mass immigration. By carefully deconstructing the vocabulary used, the piece encourages readers to think about the broader consequences of an underfunded immigration system and the need for complete change.
