RHETORICAL ANALYSIS - Essay Example

public to constantly keep hearing the same chorus ‘Secure the perimeter first, then discuss about migration reform.’ The indication appeals to civic sentiment and appears like a modest demand. However, it is not clear what pundits and politicians mean when they publicize their idea. Most of them suggest that a border is protect only when no person crosses illegitimately and on cases when illegal imports slips through. However, anyone with minimal information or appreciation about the approximately 2,000-mile band of land amid Mexico and the U.S. realizes that needing a secure border launches an incredible standard.

Hence, the question that most politicians have been ignoring is the amount permeability acceptable through the border. In April 2010, the state of Arizona legislators passed two regulations addressing migration, SB 1070 as well as HB 2162. These regulations added new government requirements, wrongdoings, and penalties connected to enforcement of migration laws. They were to become active on July, the year 2010. Before the rules could go into influence, the American Justice Department filed a complaint asking for an order against these rules disagreeing that they are unlawful.

The aim of this rhetorical analysis is to shade more light on the Arizona immigration laws that dispute the direct analogy or ideology held by politicians on how the border should be secured. The article will be centered on the SB 1070 as well as HB 2162 immigration act. The major audience of the paper are the legislators in the aim to give a proper comprehension of their voice in securing the border and their law placed in Arizona. On the 19th of April 2010 the SB 1070, “Maintain Our Law Implementation and Safe Neighbourhoods Act” was accepted by the Arizona Legislature, and subsequently four days later, it was retained into ruling by Governor Brewer.

SB 1070 comprises of provisions that add state drawbacks relating to migration law enforcement comprising trespassing,