VCE Stuff > AN’s Language Analysis Club

2018 AA Club - Week 12

(1/3) > >>

scout:

--- Quote --- Background: Shokoofeh Azar, an Iranian refugee and ex-Christmas Island retainee, was recently shortlisted for the Stella Prize. This has reignited the debate about the importance of immigration in Australia.
--- End quote ---

How wonderful to read Harold Mitchell's article ("How a 91-year-old can teach us about our terrific migrants", The Age, 9/3) affirming the huge contribution immigrants have made to Australia's development, well-being and character. We have indeed created a significant multicultural society.

My husband Giovanni arrived in the early '50s, with no English. He learnt. He worked hard, worked for himself and his brothers and, with his political involvement made a substantial contribution to society. He was the first Italian elected to Parliament in Victoria.

In the same issue, The Age also published an article about an Iranian author and refugee, Shokoofeh Azar, who has been short-listed for the Stella Prize.

How disturbing, then, to realise that Peter Dutton's failed attempt to restrict access to citizenship has been resurrected by Pauline Hanson. The aim is to make it harder for migrants and asylum seekers to qualify – unreasonably long waiting periods, English language tests of university standard. My husband would never have passed nor, I suspect, would many Anglo-Australians, probably including several politicians.

Newcomers have much to offer. We would not be who we are without their contributions. Let's recognise that reality, treat people with greater respect, and welcome them to make a life here.

Anne Sgro, Coburg North

***

What is the limit on our capacity?

One sentence in Harold Mitchell's piece stands out: "Without immigration we would not have been able to exploit our natural resources."

Indeed, immigrants came to this uniquely ancient fragile and beautiful land, so carefully managed for thousands of years by its original inhabitants, and trampled all over it. Tim Flannery has estimated that Australia's maximum carrying capacity (before we crash) is between 20 and 30 million, our optimum carrying capacity (sustainable) is between 6 and 12 million. At almost 25 million we are heading towards a crash. Is that what we want?

I was not born and raised in this country but I can proudly say that from day one of my arrival I have treated carefully and light-footedly on its soil.

Margit Alm, Eltham

Anonymous:
Ahh whats the contention of the second piece? I don't want to write a whole paragraph with the wrong contention  :-\
Is the contention that the careless behaviour of immigrants can cause detrimental impacts, especially since we are approaching our maximum carrying capacity? 

clarke54321:

--- Quote from: Anonymous on March 26, 2018, 08:44:47 pm ---Ahh whats the contention of the second piece? I don't want to write a whole paragraph with the wrong contention  :-\
Is the contention that the careless behaviour of immigrants can cause detrimental impacts, especially since we are approaching our maximum carrying capacity? 

--- End quote ---

You are on the right track! Give the piece a go, and I'm sure it will be just fine  :)

MissSmiley:
Nice to practice some argument analysis again!!  ;D ;D
Had too much text response for English going on!  :D
Thanks so much guys!! :)

Inspired by an Iranian refugee and ex-Christmas Island detainee being shortlisted for the Stella Prize, Anne Sgro writes a letter to the editor and through her disappointed but optimistic tone she condemns the Australian Government’s immigration and citizenship test policies as they are preventing migrants – who have great potential – to make the nation flourish. In stark contrast to Sgro, Margit Alm in her reply to Harold Mitchell’s article employs a logical and nostalgic tone to convey that allowing migrants to come to Australia was only feasible in the past, but today an influx of immigrants means a deficit of Australian resources and a lack of tranquility. Both Sgro’s and Alm’s audience is the Australian Government’s immigration and visa department and other Australians who may be interested in humanitarian issues.

To display immigration in a positive light, Sgro opens her piece by using a tri-colon of how migrants have contributed to “Australia’s development, well-being and character.” The positive connotations of this phrase fueled with the personification of the nation into a human who must develop, practice a healthy wellbeing and have a good character, Sgro aims to invoke a sense that the nation is now complete and mature – all due to the efforts of migrants. Through this, our nation’s immigration ministers are encouraged to welcome migration – this is essentially Sgro’s argument. The writer also seeks to sound credible through her personal anecdote of her “husband…[who] arrived in the early 50s with no English...” and juxtaposing this weakness of her husband with his huge achievement for being the “first elected to Parliament in Victoria,” Sgro aims to convey the power of immigrants to the extent that they are willing to change the nation’s status quo – something that is often welcomed in politics.

In stark contrast to Sgro, Alm contends that an increase in population due to encouraging immigration is detrimental in “exploiting our natural resources” – the inclusive language in “our” emphasising that this problem would be a national crisis and hence evoking fear in the minds of environmentalists in the government who would then be more likely to fight for a ban of immigration. Unlike Sgro who presents Australia to be a nation that “would not be who we are without [newcomers’] contributions” and hence seeks to accentuate her point about the “substantial contribution to society” that immigrants bring, Alm pursues to portray Australia as an already “ancient fragile and beautiful land so carefully managed…by its original inhabitants.” The adjectives, which depict connotations of peace and tranquility, are likely to appeal to the government who would want to preserve national security. Disastrous and damaging connotations of immigrants “trampled all over [beautiful land] seek to illicit fear in the nation’s immigration sector of the government and seeks to warn members in this sector the dangers that immigrants can bring to Australia, hence aiming to persuade them to indeed carry out with their “English language tests of university standard” that Sgro criticises. In contrast to the tricolon of imperative sentences that Sgro uses to postulate her point about the need to “recognise that reality (how migrants have made Australia a better place), “treat people with greater respect and welcome them to make a life here,” Alm uses alliteration in “carrying capacity…crash” to liken the harsh sounds of the ‘c’ sound to the dire consequences resulting from a surplus of migrant population which is likely to shatter a “sustainable” capacity.

Although both Sgro and Alm end on a political note about whether Australia should welcome immigration or not, the writers take different sides. Sgro intends to attack and belittle the original inhabitants and politicians like Pauline Hanson and Peter Dutton who restrict migration. She does this by making a generalisation that “many Anglo-Australians, probably including several politicians” would not have been able to pass the very hard citizenship language test that they created for selecting migrants. Receiving this blow to their reputation would likely force these politicians to abolish the tough citizenship tests or either accept migrants, so that they will not be censured by people of the nation like Sgro. Contrary to Sgro’s demeanor, Alm emphasises on the difference between migrant generations. Migrants back in the day like herself “treated [Australian] carefully” and lived “light-footedly on its soil” – meaning that they were considerate and didn’t exploit the facilities or resources that Australia provided them. However, today, if Australia doesn’t restrict immigration and citizenship, we are likely to “head towards a crash.” This leaves the Australian government with a cause and consequence relationship – a highly fearful one- which would make some in the immigration sector restrict immigration to protect Australia’s assets.

Anonymous:

--- Quote from: scout on March 19, 2018, 08:24:02 pm ---Indeed, immigrants came to this uniquely ancient fragile and beautiful land, so carefully managed for thousands of years by its original inhabitants, and trampled all over it... I was not born and raised in this country but I can proudly say that from day one of my arrival I have treated carefully and light-footedly on its soil.

--- End quote ---

I'm very confused by these two sentences as they seem contradictory, and I have no idea as to how the second sentence wouldn't detract from the author's contention.

According to my rationale, I'm assuming that "original inhabitants" are the aborigines, while everyone else, including the British who 'colonised' Australia, are immigrants. Thus, through her reasoning, almost everyone would be defiling Australia. However, she then excludes herself from those contributing to this trampling, despite being an immigrant herself and having grouped all immigrants as having a detrimental effect on Australian society. How does making the exception for herself, which would thereby make it seem as though immigrants weren't so bad, aid in her argument that immigration should be restricted if not outright banned?

I feel like my logic is somewhat sound but am I missing something? I'm so confused.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page