You are on page 1of 4

Mullins 1

Braden Mullins
Professor Scott
1:00 MW Comp I
30 September 2015
The Immigration Debate
Should someone who enters our country illegally be allowed to stay? Over the past
couple years there has been debate over what to do with the millions of illegal immigrants in the
United States. November 20, 2014 President Obama made an executive order that would make
millions of illegal immigrants eligible to become legal citizens. As expected not everyone agrees
with this plan. Some states are making the argument that the illegal immigrants, if they were to
become citizens, would cost the states millions of dollars. Bob Ferguson, attorney general of
Washington, wrote an article called Why Pro-Immigration States Are Fighting Back. In his
article Ferguson argues how granting citizenship to illegal immigrants would benefit the
economy. I disagree with Bob Fergusons points because of bias estimates, lack of evidence, and
deceptive arguments.
The meat of Bob Fergusons argument comes from estimates from The Center for
American Progress, a bias organization. The problem with this is that the bases of his entire
argument comes from estimates. Not only does he have estimates instead of statistics, these
estimates come from one source, and the one source that his estimates come from is bias. When
Ferguson starts to bring in statistics about the amount of tax revenue that would be produced by
immigrants he writes According to estimates by the Center for American Progress
(Ferguson. par 5). The Center for American Progress receives much of its funding from
democratic leaders. Not only that, but it is founded by a man named John David Podesta, a top
adviser to President Obama (Baker par. 1). The organization has all sorts of liberal ties, making
the objectiveness of the numbers questionable. This makes all of the estimates given by Ferguson

Mullins 2

bias and therefor unreliable. When you take away those statistics Ferguson then has nothing to
show how granting citizenship would benefit the economy. To make a strong argument he should
have pulled numbers from an objective source. The only estimated revenue that Ferguson has is
from an organization founded by a top adviser to the president who made the executive order in
the first place. For Ferguson bias information is better than no information at all.
When it comes to evidence Fergusons article falls short. His two main pieces of evidence
are his only two. The first one has already been proven to be bias, and his second piece of
evidence is not cited, Ferguson says On health care, the data show that allowing immigrants to
work legally makes it significantly more likely that they will obtain health care through an
employer (Ferguson par. 7). What data? And where is it from? This has no context around it
that would hint at where this data is coming from. He gives an uncited prediction from who
knows where. His article is missing the cold hard facts that make a solid argument. Not only does
Fergusons article lack evidence, but the evidence he does have is useless.
In the next part of Fergusons argument he is off topic and uses deceptive argument
tactics. Ferguson states contrary to the alarm of the states that filed suit, there is no evidence
that deferred immigration action will increase state spending in health care or public safety
(Ferguson. par 6). He argues how health care would not increase spending using the made up
data, but when he gets to the cost of public safety he turns the attention to how safe the public
would be instead of explaining how it would not increase spending. He makes a solid argument,
but for the wrong subject. Ferguson shifts the argument ever so slightly, so it seems like he has
evidence when in reality it does not match up with the original point.
Bob Ferguson makes a weak argument in his main points because of bias evidence, lack
of evidence, and deceptive arguments. He tries to pull in evidence from a completely bias

Mullins 3

organization. When he has unbiased information it comes from an uncited source. When all else
fails he comes up with good arguments, but for the wrong topics. I think that there is an
argument to be made for the integration of illegal immigrants into American society, but that
argument is not found in this article.

Mullins 4

Works Cited
Ferguson, Bob. "Why Pro-Immigration States Are Fighting Back." The Washington Post 12 Mar.
2015. Washington Post. Web. 28 Sept. 2015. <>.
Baker, Peter. "For Hillary Clinton, John Podesta Is a Right Hand With a Punch." The New York
Times 15 Feb. 2015.