http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/opinion/03fri2.html

In "Legal Immigration? Anybody?" the author is arguing that it would be good for Congress to pass a visa-recapturing bill this year, yet acknowledging that they won't because despite the best efforts of certain Democrats, Republicans are "sabotaging" them with "ridiculously restrictive amendments." The target audience are people that oppose the idea of visa-recapturing bills because they believe that passing such a bill will result in an onslaught of new immigrants.

Much of the argument is made using pathos. The author chooses his words carefully to victimize the Democrats that toil tirelessly to gain rights for immigrants and make the Republicans appear as vicious immigrant haters. He attempts to invoke feelings of patriotism with line such as "The myth of Ellis Island becomes more mythical."

The more effective argument is made with logos. The author points out that many fear passing a visa-recapturing bill because it will bring in many more immigrants. However, this is not true, because it simply gives out visas to those that the Congress has already approved to people that have been waiting in the U.S. with temporary visas. That makes the bill more about keeping worker rather than gaining them.

The main question that is being asked is "What are the consequences of a visa-recapturing bill on the influx of new immigrant workers?" The claim being made is that a visa-recapturing bill will not bring in new immigrants as much as it will give new visas to highly skilled workers that are already here.

This argument is sufficient in the logic for its argument. It addresses the main questions that his audience may have and points out why it is not valid. The argument is also typical and follows a normal train of thought by looking at specific numbers and what would actually happen if the bill passed. The argument seems to be accurate, using names and numbers and facts. However, it does not cite any of its sources, so we cannot check on it. It is also very relevant, and concerns one of the main problems that is being addressed in the election debates today.

I do believe that the argument is effective. I myself am convinced that if the author has the correct facts that a visa-recapturing bill would be good. However, the author is so incredibly biased that it makes him seem less reliable. He is so clearly biased against Republicans that I can't believe anything he says about them. There is no objectivity in the editorial, which makes me wonder what the other side would say about it. I wonder if he is holding back on certain information that would ruin his logic.