Rhetorical Analysis Of George W. Bush’S Speech On Immigration
My topic for this class is illegal immigration. For this rhetorical analysis I chose President Bush’s speech on immigration. It took President Bush a couple of years until he addressed this major issue. I will be rhetorically analyzing this speech on immigration. Rhetoric is separated into three parts, Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. Ethos is defined as the creditability of the speaker or writer, saying who he is, why he is giving the speech, and what makes him qualified to speak. Pathos is the emotional insight into any speech or writing, does the paper connect with you emotionally, do you feel any emotion when listening. Logos is the statistics or facts of any speech or writing. Logos is meant for the few that are weak at heart, and don’t fall for sympathy.
My opinion on illegal immigration is that i am against it.
Illegal immigration refers to the migration of people into a country in violation of the immigration laws of that country, or the continued residence of people without the legal right to live in that country.
Ethos is the credibility of the writer or speaker. In this case it is our former president, Bush. President Bush was born on July 6 1946, and he was the 43rd president of the United States. Although he was not very loved by the American public, he had a sturdy cabinet running the country. He was a republican president, and is known best for his response to the worst terrorist attack in history. President Bush was the governor of Texas from 1995-2000. He graduated from Yale in 1968. He was a well qualified president, besides his minor encounters with the law while he was young.
Pathos is any form of emotion in a speech or writing left for the reader to see and feel sympathetic. He mentions in his speech about the illegal immigrants who walk across the desert risking their lives he states, “They walk across miles of desert in the summer heat, or hide in the back of 18-wheelers to reach our country.” This part of the speech was meant for the people who have encountered crossing immigrants, who have seen the pain, and anguish they encounter while the hot summer sun blisters and sores they’re neck and unprotected skin. This may have been used for the families who have lost family members through the midst of that fiery Inferno. Personally he reached out to me when he said “Our objective is straightforward: The border should be open to trade and lawful immigration, and shut to illegal immigrants, as well as criminals, drug dealers, and terrorists.” That statement was vague, and could not be promised. We as a nation will never reach that goal, but we can become close to that. We can possibly become a stable union with strong borders.
The logos of a speech or article are the statistics of it, or the facts. Some people will not budge to emotion and need numbers. For example he states that “By the end of 2008, we will increase the number of Border Patrol officers by an additional 6,000.” Something he actually did and slowed the illegal immigration drastically. Along with the fence that we people from El Paso see nearly every day. Any speech needs facts or else it ends up becoming an opinion, and with the use of Logos it clarifies the fact that this speech is informative. He had mentioned of sending 6.000 National Guard men to help patrol the southern border he states “One way to help during this transition is to use the National Guard. So in coordination with governors, up to 6,000 Guard members will be deployed to our southern border.” I believe that in those two parts of the speech it convinced even toughest nails to crack.
This speech captures all three different areas of a text book rhetorical writing style. He covers pathos by speaking about the lost lives in the desert. He captures Logos by mentioning the increase in border patrol. He captures the hearts of all Americans with the pathos, Logos, and ethos in his speech. This speech was a well rounded speech, for our immigration problems, for that’s why I chose it. Americans in 20 years will look back and think what an extraordinary speech that was, by an ordinary man.
