Amy (Chua) is not only a lawyer and an educator but also a qualified writer who has always debated efficiently on the matter of ethnic conflict. She has written two well-informed and knowledgeable books on ethnic conflict called “World on Fire” (2003) and “Day of Empire” (2007). Chua, herself being an immigrant to Illinois, fits perfectly as the author of the paper “The Right Road To America” published in the December 16, 2007, issue of one of the reputable journals of Washington Post, where she transforms her personal history of ethnic discord into a delicate disquisition of the immigration debate. She sententiously uses two rhetorical appeals, logos and ethos, to persuade her audience how the avalanche of immigrants could undermine the national identity of America slowly and gradually and how the inhabitants of the country can work together to prevent this from happening.
Amy Chua, in her article “The Right Road to America”, eloquently apprises her audience about the probability that the national identity of America could fade away as a result of repercussions of the increasing immigrant population in its states. She backs up her statement by stating facts about various counties such as France, Slovakia, Czechoslovakia, Amsterdam, Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, and ancient Rome, who lost their national identities by snowing under immigrants. There are two states of mind regarding the potentiality of national identity evanesce, one who thinks that even thinking about such potentiality is purely racist, while on the other hand, it is considered as a threat to “America’s complexion.” The majority of Americans value the culturally diverse nature of their nation but there are crucial times when such diversity is questioned as not all of immigrants makeup as good citizens.
The author agrees with the point of view of Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington who fears of crumbling into a slackened confederacy as a result of overwhelming immigrants in the country. In the same instance, the author reminds her audience of the time when poor immigrated Americans played a huge role in stabilizing and elevating the agricultural economy of the country and helped it in achieving the milestone of the atomic bomb and the “Digital Revolution”.
Chua suggests a few remedies and preventive measures that can be taken in order to prevent the declining situation of national homogeneity. The precedence of immigration policy should be enhanced in a way that people with skills, talent and expertise in relevant fields should be preferred while awarding U.S. citizenship as opposed to people sponsoring their extended families in vain. This will increase not only the workforce but also the economy of the country. She supports her argument by stating facts and figures related to the number of immigrants that were sponsored on the basis of their blood relations instead of any skills or talent. A strong persuasion should be made on normalizing English as the national language of the country and tough its criteria out for people filing for immigration. People migrating to America should be educated on accepting and practising its national virtues. People only think about their own tribes and families, and when needed, they tend to fight for them only. They need to see the bigger picture at hand and realize that fighting for the country has much higher rewards as compared to just fighting for their own kind. The immigrant community should ponder upon ways on how to give back to their new country by contributing as a wholesome commune. The author provides the example of Muslim Americans in LA, who have set up free clinical booths for the entire poor neighbourhood despite their colour, caste, creed or ethnic background. Banning illegal immigration and administrating strict laws on that matter is also essential. This would create impartial opportunities for all nationals applying for American immigration and hence make the country ethnically nonpartisan.
Chua in her article convincingly sheds light on both ends of the spectrum by using facts and figures and triggering her audience through her credibility and trustworthiness, even though it seems that occasionally her paradigm shifts more toward the anti-immigration agenda. I think the rhetorical styles that Chua has chosen for this article are cause and effect and narration. She presented the cause of the increasing immigrant population and its effect being the probable national identity crisis. It is applauding for her to speak on such a hot topic unbiasedly, but she should have considered the tough emotional situation that immigrants face when presented with foreign opportunities. The information in this article is reminiscent; the immigrated Americans are indeed facing a crucible situation, as traditionally, it is becoming difficult for them to differentiate between their own and America’s culture. The measures that she mentioned can be taken to halt the national disparateness, which will not only conserve the national heritage but also maintain the diverse nature of the country. By stating, “immigrants who turn their back on American values don’t deserve to be here. But those of us who turn our backs on immigrants misunderstand the secret of America’s success and what it means to be American”( Chua, Amy); she is of the view that welcoming immigrants should not be cut off completely. Rather, the immigration process should be compendious and embracive enough to preserve America’s culture, virtues and custom of being the “land of opportunities”( Chua, Amy). In the end, I think it would be fair enough to consider the immigrants’ situation in this context as well, because they are a minority, and people think, why bother?