Assignment --------Over the past decade, reportedly more than 2,000 illegal immigrants have died trying to cross the border into the southwestern United States. Many deaths have resulted from dehydration in the desert heat and from freezing to death on cold winter nights. A San Diego-- based nonprofit humanitarian organization now leaves blankets, clothes, and water at stations throughout the desert and mountain regions for the immigrants. Should the organization do this? Its members say they are providing simple humanitarian aid, but critics accuse them of encouraging illegal activity. Feel free to take a stand on this issue, yes or no should we provide aid? Does providing aid encourage illegal activity or not?
Humanitarian Aid does it encourage illegal activity?
I need help with clarity and ideas in this essay and grammar issues for critical thinking Essay!
My claim-------I believe that San Diego non-profit is justify providing humanitarian aid to immigrants from Mexico.
I greatly appreciate any feedback thank you so much!
Terri,
There are a few areas I would change and grammatical errors to correct, but you have done the hard part of putting the words on paper. Please note I did not correct every grammatical error or spelling I noticed in the paper.
I would use the first paragraph to introduce my point of view and provide supporting evidence for it. You want there to be no question on what your stance is and why.
The assignment is asking a few things. Not only to provide feedback on whether the organizations' actions are justified but also about the legality of their actions. I would clarify your stance to whether their actions are legal or illegal and provide supporting evidence for either.
San Diego non-profit is justified in providing humanitarian aid to illegal immigrants from Mexico.
Critiques (Critics?) accuse organizations of encouraging illegal activity. Critiques (Critics?) believe that jobs are being taken from American citizens, because immigrants come over to take our jobs away. Some critique's Critics opinions are that they shouldn't do it as these are calculated risks these people are taking. Sure they are trying to leavingleave a terrible country in hopes of a better life but the amount of people that flee is staggering.what is your supporting evidence for this statement? Two thousand people have died but for every one of them how many successfully made it and are now living in the US. If they are not taking jobs from Americans they are collecting services paid for from the American worker. NOT from the illegal worker as they are illegal and not paying taxes. For every dollar that these people take in wages from legal Americans you have tax dollars not being paid and have to be compensated through the legal worker increasing taxes charged. The legal workers are then taking home less pay. Even if this is true I will still say saving lives out ways legalities of issues.
In addition, because poor government doesn't provide them with better jobs and services like vocational programs to improve immigrant's lives, immigrants will continue to suffer the consequences lack of support for their families. So giving immigrants a choice whether or not they want to live outside their country should be granted. Government should improve their legal document procedures and laws for immigrants who want to live outside Mexico. They are going to come over anyways.
I am not exactly sure of what you are trying to say in your second paragraph. Which government are you talking about? Are you talking about the U.S government or the government of the illegal immigrants? Also, the question doesn't provide enough information to say all the illegal immigrants are from Mexico. So in your paper, are you only speaking of illegal immigrants from Mexico or illegal immigrants in general?
Besides poor government management, humanitarian aid does not encourage illegal activity. Some families plan their itinerary finding routes to Humanitarian aid safe houses, while waiting for slow government documents that are held up like VISA's to be approved for leaving country. Taking their initiative to bypass any delays in government approvals, anxious immigrants pack up belongings with little money that support them for their long journey. Walking in long dry deserts without water, food and blankets to nearest humanitarian aid safe house, wild animals like wolves pack preying their every footstep. Hiking in mountains in the cold without shelter to next nearest humanitarian aid safe house will allow them to protect themselves from the coldness and wild animals like bears and tigers. Next camping site finding branches to burn from trees keeping warm and exploring rivers and streams that provide them water, unlike safe houses have blankets and water. Humanitarian aid will prevent immigrants from becoming ill or sick from their long incline hikes in mountains and long sandy walks in dry deserts.
This entire paragraph is confusing to me. Your introductory sentence combines two seemingly unrelated thoughts "Besides poor government management," and "humanitarian aid does not encourage illegal activity." I would clarify which government you are speaking of and how it relates to the legality of these organizations providing humanitarian aid.
The rest of paragraph appears to lack clarity. If you are stating that the organizations' action does not promote illegal activity, you need to provide supporting sentences for the statement. For example, The Declaration of Independence states "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." As our founders believed, so do I that the worth of human life far exceeds the laws of any nation and that any law passed in contradiction to this principle is invalid and unenforceable.
Furthermore immigrants who pose no security threat should be allowed to legally immigrate. Laws restricting immigration conflict with country's ideals, because providing aid will serve them the greater good. Security concerns should be the only limiting factor to immigration. Why give aid to immigrants who are running from the laws that they break, covering up their crimes. Immigrants that hide from the law unfaithfully will be also given aid to save their lives, who will know that they are convicts though. No immigrants will want to hide from the law if they are going to want to improve their own lives. Besides saving lives overrides issues of legality, giving humanitarian aid organization should monitor those legal immigrants who poses no threat to society.
The point of this paragraph is not clear. You begin by introducing three different thoughts and then provide evidence against your main point.
In the meantime, other critiques will support the idea for every dollar that these people take in wages from legal Americans you have tax dollars not being paid and have to be compensated for thru the legal worker increasing taxes charged. The legal workers are then taking home less pay. Some critiques believe if these humanitarians want to help people they should help the poor starving American people. Take blankets and water to the single mother that cannot get a job due to the illegal taking that job and is living on the street with her children. Give those poor starving children the blankets and the water. They would appreciate. Take care of your own before you take care of your neighbor. Some critiques fully believe that by leaving this stuff they are encouraging more to take the risk as they now know that they have less chance of dying and their odds have now increased.
This is another paragraph that you provide that counters your main point; furthermore, you do not address the critic's points.
Consequently government should improve their immigrations laws for undocumented immigrants who want a better life for providing their family support. If their government management team were not poor without vocational services and lack of Visa procedures, then illegal immigrants would not have to leave their own country. So organization's aid would not be needed if they had a strong government that was resourceful in providing better jobs and services. Because of lack of jobs and services, nonprofit humanitarian aid organization provides aid that are set up for immigrants to cross over entering the country illegally. Immigrants are going to come anyways, so why not save their own lives by providing aid leaving blankets, water and food.
Your conclusion paragraph should restate your main point and recap your arguments supporting your position. This paragraph introduces a new topic, improving immigration laws, which is not address anywhere in the paper. Also as I read your last sentence, I am left with the opinion that your closing statement is they are going to do it any way so why don't we just let them. I would choose another sentence to end with.
I pooled out what she wants but still I need to elaborate on the single sentences! I need ideas now, how I can work them?
A San Diego non-profit organization is justified in providing humanitarian aid to undocumented immigrants from Mexico.
Critics accuse the organizations of encouraging illegal activity when members leave water and blankets at stations in the desert for would-be immigrants who have crossed miles of desert to enter the United States across the border from Mexico. I assume that the critics of humanitarian aid for the immigrants believe that providing a drink of water to a person who is about to enter the United States illegally constitutes encouragement of law-breaking. Even if it does, and I am not sure that I am willing to grant that, it is better to err on the side of saving a life than on being right about legality.
Besides saving lives overrides issues of legality, giving humanitarian aid organization should monitor those illegal immigrants who poses no threat to society.
Good illegal immigrants are going to come over anyways. [Develop this into a full premise]
Before I answer my email I was working with the first sentence! Going basically with the first corrections that CJPHDhopeful mention, I thank you, greatly appreciate any constructive criticism.
a person who is about to enter has entered the United States illegally...
I changed it to has just entered, because it is a stronger argument this way. If you say "about to enter," your opponent will say, "if he is about to do it, no law has yet been broken!"
Besides, the task of saving lives overrides issues of legality; giving humanitarian aid is important at a level that is fundamental. organization should monitor those illegal immigrants who poses no threat to society. I scratched out this part that makes no sense.
You can argue that it would be inhumane to let them go hungry or sleep in the cold if they were criminals in prison, so it is obviously inhumane to deliberately choose to let them be hungry and cold during their trip into the country.
:-)
Here's my updated version for this essay! Please review any feedback is greatly appreciated. Thank you all!
Because poor Mexican government doesn't provide illegal immigrants with better jobs and services like vocational programs to improve immigrant's lives, immigrants will continue to suffer the consequences lack of support for their families. American's enjoy freedom and liberty but it came at a price. It wasn't free. Our forefather's fought for our freedom and the way of life we enjoy now. They didn't do it with the idea that people too cowardly or too lazy to fight for those same freedoms could sneak illegally into either of our countries and steal our way of life from us and drive their future children and grandchildren...
Critics accuse the organizations of
Is this the first sentence of the essay? I think a sentence needs to be added before this sentence to grab the reader's attention and introduce the organizations.
As I read your topic sentences, I get a clear idea about the essay. That means you have good topic sentences. In want to change this one, though:
The critics, also, would say that it is better take care of your own before you take care of your neighbor, but ______ (give the counterargument to refute this point). If you add a phrase to that topic sentence to refute the point, it will be clearer and support your argument better.
:-)
