Analysis of Pro Immigration Luis Urrea's Arguments

Luis Urrea is a writer and an activist who has a string argumentative pro-immigration position.  Immigration has been a vital component of the United States since the beginning. Our country was and continues to be founded on immigration and, to this day, supports a constitution based on these beliefs. However, in this day and age, it seems as though our country has went astray from those long-established principles and is instead more concerned with how to protect what is “ours”. Luis Alberto Urrea is an American-Mexican writer and poet who has strongly expressed his beliefs on today’s immigration issues. Urrea stands on the pro-immigration side of the spectrum and has written several works on the matter. Even though his opinions may at first seem one-sided, Urrea backs up his argument using two of his famous works. His fictional book, “Mr. Mendoza’s Paintbrush”, and presentation, “The Answer and then the Question” both describe real-life situations and circumstances where allowing immigration may hold many more benefits than possible downsides. These two primary sources, as well as a couple secondary sources will serve only as guidelines to how and where immigration could or should take place. In the end, it is up to you as an individual concerning immigration, “Which side are you on?”

Summarizing Primary Sources

Luis Alberto Urrea published two very important works that both positively influenced immigration. “Mr. Mendoza’s Paintbrush” and “The Answer and then the Question” tell of two very different perspectives that together make for a truly educational opportunity.. Both works establish a clear objective concerning immigration and the social injustices involved. In “Mr. Mendoza’s Paintbrush”, Urrea uses fictional characters to set the scene of a Mexican community who has the power to judge individuals with a single paintbrush. “Mr. Mendoza” is the man behind the paintbrush and uses graffiti to express his opinions throughout the city. These opinions involve encounters between children and other members of the community who find themselves “up to their neck” in deviant acts. In close comparison, Luis Urrea presents devian situations in “The Answer and then the Question” where immigration seems to be the only ethical option for some immigrants. Urrea states how a young girl was subject to child trafficking and had only one feasible option available to her. That option was to immigrate to the United States in hopes of escaping her captors.

Comparing Primary Sources

While the two sources offer a few differences, the most obvious similarity has to come directly from the author. Urrea uses both works to convey a strong central message concerning the increasing amount of deviance and anti-immigration negatively impacting this country. Both works also incorporate real-life scenarios where people are left to decide for themselves which path they would rather take. Urrea does not make the decision for his audience. He simply relays a detailed story in one and presents factual information in the other in an effort to sway your opinion. Each account represents striving for a greater purpose which in this case centers entirely around immigration and what’s the best way to go about it.

Contrasting Primary Sources

There are a few differences in the two works Urrea uses to convey his thoughts on pro-immigration. The first is how he actually presents those thoughts. “Mr. Mendoza’s Paintbrush” is a fictional short story whose plot involves children fighting the urge to commit deviant offenses and are thus subject to Mr. Mendoza’s backlash. In the story, Mr. Mendoza is basically a critic who evaluates the deeds done by members of the community. He then analyzes and draws conclusions based on what he witnesses, helping to formulate the plot. On the flip side, “The Answers and then the Questions” presentation seems to me most like a live documentary where Luis Urrea lays out factual information backed up by strong opinions on current matters affecting his audience. Despite the noticeable differences such as: fiction, nonfiction, short story, and presentation, Luis Urrea successfully “manufactures” two very different ways of conveying the same central message. Social injustice and zero tolerance immigration are unacceptable, and we should instead keep an open mind in discussing them!

Luis Urrea’s Stance on Immigration

The argument Luis Urrea presents is very obvious in both of the above works. There is no mistaking it, Luis Alberto Urrea is pro-immigration. He feels as though immigration should be a normal, and encouraged part of our culture. As the United States of America, Urrea believes we should embrace those same core values that were established hundreds of years ago. This makes excellent since, being as though our U.S. Constitution was created with these ideas in mind! Furthermore, Urrea believes that immigration has received the “short end of the stick” in recent years. It seems as though any talk consisting of the word immigration is always followed by negative principles. There may be more truth to that statement than we tend to want to believe, but why is this the case? Luis Urrea backs his opinions up by facts, and here are a few that support his reasoning.

Backing the Argument: Labor and Medical Impact

Immigration has a tremendous amount of upside that supports Urrea’s argument. Labor and the medical field are two of the first places that have experienced positive influences enhanced through immigration. In one report, studies showed that immigrants arriving in the United States between 1990 and 2004 actually led to an increase in wages for native american workers. This number rose to as high as 4% increase and is set to continue to rise for the foreseeable future. In addition to positively influencing wages, immigration has seen an uptick in the medical field as well. Presently, about 25% of all doctors in the United States are foreign born. This number also is expected to rise in the the coming years, and one thing is blatantly evident. Immigrants continue to have a positive impact in our lives and have worked very hard to earn the right to do so.

Backing the Argument: Financial and Legal Impact

The positive influence of immigration has also trickled down to financial and legal situations. On the financial side, immigration reform has the ability to reduce the national deficit. The immigration bill that passed through the senate back in 2014, had the opportunity to slash our national deficit by $197 billion. Other benefits include total overall investments rising by nearly 2% and increasing employment numbers by close to 3.5%, all by the year 2023. Quite possibly the largest and most important perk to supporting immigration is the decline in crime rates. Whether you realize it or not, immigrants are less-likely to commit crime as opposed to native-born Americans. Countries that have instituted a policy concerning the fourth amendment as well as cooperation of immigration enforcement has seen a significant decrease in overall crime rates.

Conclusion

To sum up pro immigration argumentative essay, both of the above sources have displayed main points brought up in Luis Urrea’s argument for pro-immigration. Urrea wholeheartedly believes there are more possible upsides rather than downfalls in allowing immigration, and I have to say, I do see where he is coming from. After all, Urrea stated in his presentation that this country was founded on immigration and would not have grown into what it has become without it. The challenge is to find a way to incorporate immigration in a ethical and logical way that suits everyone’s values. This is truly the ultimate goal, and Luis Urrea is an excellent ambassador in the struggle to make this dream a reality. Still the question remains, “which side are you on?”