There were various things that I found interesting when looking into Gary Johnson & his immigration rhetoric. The first being the way that Johnson attempted to frame himself in order to appear more relatable to immigrants and minorities. He elaborated on living a huge portion of his life in New Mexico, a boarder state, which he claimed made him more qualified to understand immigrants & the mutual dependence that America has on immigrants and visa versa. Johnson also did a great job on playing on the emotions of immigrants and people who perceive immigration to be either harmless or helpful to The U.S. by reiterating that immigrants, “take the jobs that Americans don’t want” and also, “create jobs by being here” on numerous occasions. However, out of all of his immigration rhetoric, Johnson’s take on immigration reform was one of the most interesting things I came across. His attempt to dissociate himself from the rest of politicians when speaking about immigration was especially unique when he stated, “If we are going to deport people because they are costing America jobs how about we start with the politicians causing the problem?!” in a major campaign video on his website. These tactics are ‘okay’, these tactics are solid, these tactics appeal primarily to minority votes- but they can get Johnson SOMEWHERE, right?!?!

Well… Right, kinda. These particular tactics were not ineffective; in fact, Johnson pulled the same number of votes from Latinos (16%) that Donald Trump did. Which leads me to the question: WHY didn’t the votes from Latinos for Johnson put Trump’s 6 feet under? Well, unfortunately for Johnson, he has really “gaffed” up numerous times throughout his campaign and is appearing to be less and less qualified AND educated, two major presidential characteristics.

After considering his “Aleppo” gaffe, his inability to name a foreign leader when asked to, or the time that he willingly admitted that his lack of knowledge on foreign leaders made him a better candidate than Clinton, I began to wonder… Which gaffe, which off-the-wall statement, at what moment did Gary Johnson lose a huge chunk of the minority vote? Then, I had an ah-ha! moment. Johnson, a man who viciously objects to using the term ‘illegal immigrant,’ was asked in an interview why he was so strongly opposed to the term. His response, “It just is. Just so that you know. Just so that you know and you don’t have to use that term. They came into this country because they couldn’t get in legally and the jobs existed and you or I would have done the same thing,” was effortless & was accounted for as a “Gary Johnson moment”. While many Johnson supporters are proud that he even had a response after lack there of on a few occasions, his response was in no way beneficial to immigrants, it did not give a convincing argument as to why the term “illegal immigrant” was offensive or should be avoided and it did NOT exemplify a sophisticated and well-informed presidential response. While Johnson has executed some decent immigration rhetoric and has opted for a palatable alternative for immigration reform in contrast to the other presidential candidates, his gaffes and blank moments have convinced voters that he is literally h i g h. While everyone enjoys a good stoner, not many are willing to have vote one as our president. For these reasons, Johnson is far, FAR behind both DT and HRC, leaving him with no chance in winning this election. As the election day approaches, Johnson’s poll numbers have depleted and I believe that his polls will continue to do so as more people are exposed to his “Johnsonisms” through the media. 

The Flip

 

After the third and final presidential debate in Arizona last Wednesday, Trump, as expected, managed to lose many of his Latino/Hispanic voters due to his harsh comments on his immigration policy.  The debate did, in fact, revolve around immigration policy, so naturally this speech was critical for him to win new voters and keep old ones.  The main issue was that Trump began unleashing harsh law enforcements on all immigrants regardless of whether or not they were truly criminals or just ordinary people who had come to the U.S. to raise their families.  It was expected that as Trump’s last time to speak about the topic that he would choose to soften his policies slightly enough to gain lost voters, but he managed to do the opposite.  Many Latinos were so outraged at his harshness that they have stopped supporting Trump.  One man, Massey Villarreal, stated that, “As a compassionate conservative, I am very disappointed with the immigration speech.  I’m going to flip, but not flop.  I am no longer supporting Trump, but cannot with any conscience support Hillary Clinton.”  Trump’s mistake was failing to use the rhetorical strategy that sometimes it is necessary to lie to persuade voters’ opinion.  Dr. Panetta mentioned in class that one of the most critical aspects in a president is knowing when it is time to lie and being convincing about it.  In this scenario, even if Trump hasn’t changed his views on immigration, he should have softened the blow just a little to gain the last bit of voters that he needed.  Instead, he lashed out at the immigrants again and wasted his opportunity for persuasion.

 

 

The Flop – Will votes move in Hillary’s Direction?

 

The rising question is where will these “lost voters” go?  Though voters such as Villarreal claim that they will not vote for Hillary, is it possible that they be swayed in her direction as time moves on?  Hillary used the simple yet critical rhetorical strategy of being the most likeable candidate in the room, which allowed her to win the debate very easily.  Even if you don’t agree with someone’s policies, it is easier to vote for someone who is likeable than someone who trash talks a large portion of the people in the country.  Additionally, Trump lost out rhetorically when attempting to meet campaign expectations, which is an essential aspect to the General Election Stage.  He even lost some of his non-Latino conservative voters!  The point of this stage in the campaign is to reassure his voters, not to have them changing their minds now!  Jacob Monty who advises Trump on immigration said he believes that Trump only listens to whoever spoke to him last.  When Trump returned from his trip to Mexico that boosted his campaign with the Latinos, he was applying softer policies.  However, after speaking to FAIR and Numbers USA who advocate harsh immigrant enforcement, he went back to his ruthless policies.  Trump rhetorically lacks consistency in what he says each time we hear him speak.  It does appear that he is strongly influenced by his most recent activity before the debate or speech. For those voters who have sided against Trump, where will they go if they can’t support Hillary but still want to vote?  Will Trump’s self-destruction be in her favor or will it only cause many voters to be stuck in the middle voting for a random third party or not voting at all?

We are down to nearly two weeks until the general election and Donald Trump is at his wits’ ends trying to grab votes before Hillary becomes our next President. By looking at Trump’s first advertisement of the general election, voters can see how his immigration rhetoric made inferences to Clinton, and created subcultural myths, which may take votes away from him.

 

Courtesy of NY Times

Trump v. Clinton

Without a doubt, illegal immigration has surrounded Trump’s campaign, so using this issue within his first ad was a strategic move. It plays right into Trump’s “vision for America” as it overlooks his entire immigration plan of deporting illegal aliens, securing the border, and keeping the country safe. Trump also hits Clinton right away in this ad by making inferences about her positions on illegal immigration. His advertisement team included clips of criminals and open borders while speaking of “Clinton’s America,” suggesting that he is the hero and she is the villain. Voters can fill in this gap from watching the ad, and in turn, may pay more attention to Trump if they are concerned about illegal immigration and security.

Myths in the making

Trump, however, also incorporates subcultural myths tied to race and culture in this advertisement. He shows a clip of a border patrol agent arresting/deporting an illegal immigrant as the words “Terrorists Kept Out” flash across the screen. This rhetoric could be seen as offensive to illegal immigrants and others who believe Trump is generalizing that all illegal aliens are terrorists. Trump also includes clips of immigrants at the Mexican border, suggesting that these people pose a threat to our security. While criminals do indeed cross our borders, not all illegal immigrants fall into that category; many of them come to find a better life. Trump should have been more careful about generalizing and creating this subcultural myth.

Audience and rhetoric

Overall, Trump’s ad catered primarily to his alt-right supporters — those who stand firmly with him on building a wall and deporting illegal aliens. His immigration rhetoric in this ad doesn’t veer from his original attacks of illegal immigrants “bringing drugs, bringing crime.” He doubled down on this rhetoric and included images and clips to make it come to life. The ad embraces Trump’s harsh immigration rhetoric to create subcultural myths and implications of Hillary’s Clinton plan for immigration.

 

Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are using emotion in attempts to sway voters on the issue of immigration. Emotion in politics is a very powerful thing. According to Weston, people are driven by wishes, fears, and values more so than rational thought and emotion is the foundation to rational thought. The candidates are going about their use of emotion in different ways; Trump is using fear and Clinton is using values. The question that may help decide the election is who does a better job at hitting the right emotions.

Trump is using fear to scare the American people. He wants them to see foreign-born immigrants (mainly Hispanics and Muslims) as bad people that we must keep out of the country. As I said in my previous blog, Trump has labeled Mexican immigrants as “rapists”, “criminals”, and “drug dealers”. All three of these labels are things people fear. Trump is attempting to create a connection between immigrants and these labels to incite fear amongst voters.

Clinton is trying to use a more value based emotional appeal. She tells stories of children of illegal immigrants being separated from their parents. In the most recent debate she spoke about a girl from Nevada who feared her parents would be deported and she would ripped apart from her family. She went on to say “I don’t want to rip families apart. I don’t want to be sending parents away from children. I don’t want to see the deportation force that Donald has talked about in action in our country.” She is playing at the moral value that a person would not want to see their family, or anyone’s, family torn apart and because that is what deportation will do you shouldn’t support it.

I believe Clinton has a better approach to this competition on emotion. Her strategy applies more broadly because anyone with a family or that has belonged to a family can emphasize with what she is saying. Many people believe Trump’s name calling to be bigoted. His fear mongering is not as effective as Hillary’s emotional play on moral values.

While Donald Trump has done everything in his power to make sure that the nation is aware of the things that Hilary Clinton has done wrong, in addition to the media’s contribution to the matter, it is no surprise that both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have landed themselves amongst the lowest approval ratings in history.

However, as Trump makes his shift on immigration reform and pursues a softer approach to his former harsh immigration policies, one can only begin to wonder if Hillary Clinton’s quiet rhetoric on immigration was a tactful strategy to make herself heard?

Inclusivity, diversity, acceptance, pathway to citizenship, keep families together: these are the terms that we have consistently heard throughout Clinton’s campaign when she spoke about immigration. These terms are not randomly selected, they have been carefully and intentionally chosen to act as a motive appeal. While Trump initially tailored his rhetoric towards the conservative, white men of the country, HRC has articulated her rhetoric to be especially compelling to a particular audience, too. According to a recent analysis of changes in the nations eligible voting population, nearly 31 percent of eligible voters will be Hispanic, black, Asian, or another racial or ethnic minority. This will be recorded as the most racially and ethnically diverse U.S. Electorate in history & fortunately for HRC, these “minorities” that are now representing a majority have heard her loud and clear.

So, what does that say about Clinton and her immigration rhetoric? It says that amidst all of Trumps insensitive statements about Mexican immigrants being rapists and murders or select religion bans across the country, Clinton appeared to be the perfect antithesis for the minorities within The U.S. It says that, now, as Trump attempts to dissociate himself from his early campaign rhetoric to gain some votes from the minorities that he previously insulted, those same minorities are remembering who defended them since the beginning of the campaign. Clinton may have done A LOT of wrong things in her life, however, her immigration rhetoric (in terms of effectiveness) is not one of them.

I believe that the votes that Trump now needs in order to become president rest firmly in Hillary Clinton’s hands. I believe that majority of the minority voters within The U.S. will not be swayed by Trump’s new rhetoric, but rather will stay loyal and devoted to supporting Hillary Clinton, and I believe that Clinton’s immigration rhetoric can be widely attributed to that.

Since the beginning of his race for the Presidency, Donald Trump has consistently used his particular brand of immigration rhetoric to bolster his image as a hard-hitting challenger candidate that has come to save America from ultimate disaster. Although his views have become undeniably less radical after becoming the Republican nominee, his immigration narrative is the unmistakable foundation of “no-mercy” campaign. Trump’s audience knows how he feels about immigrants. But, some aren’t receiving the message so clearly, mostly because Mr. Trump doesn’t consider a large portion of people when creating his message in the first place.

Latinos in the media feel like Trump has failed to address his immigration policies in the recent Presidential debates, although his stance on immigration “has been a centerpiece of Donald Trump’s campaign for over a year.”

 

So, why is it that Trump’s immigration policies seem nearly as rampant in the media and present in his discourse as his sexual assault allegations? (Which are undeniably rampant.)

The answer can be found in every instance that Trump uses his stance on immigration as a crutch – as a defense strategy to avoid addressing the more immediate topic at hand.

In the most recent debate, when asked by Anderson Cooper if Trump has assaulted the women that claimed he had, Trump replied by saying:

“And I will tell you: No, I have not. And I will tell you that I’m going to make our country safe. We’re going to have borders in our country, which we don’t have now. People are pouring into our country, and they’re coming in from the Middle East and other places.”
Instead of fully addressing the allegations, Trump remained in his immigration safe zone and retreated into a rhetorical area that he’s become the most comfortable in. Although this message is somewhat successful at distracting the particular audience it was designed for, it leaves the audiences he didn’t consider – like the Latino journalists mentioned above – more confused and dissatisfied with his discourse as ever.

A Change of Views

 

Isn’t it interesting how as election day gets nearer, policies regarding immigration slowly begin to shift closer and closer to the voters wants rather than what the candidate truly wants?  And, how before someone becomes a candidate for president they have an entirely different view on a subject than they do when they are running for the presidency?   Not surprisingly, both Trump and Clinton held entirely different views on immigration prior to running for president according to Sarlin of NBC News.  Sarlin states that in 2007, Clinton opposed the issuing of driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants, and in 2012, Trump claimed that Romney’s views on self-deportation were too harsh.  Trump also claimed that Romney’s policies were crazy and that if he was president he would allow undocumented immigrants to stay in the country.  Both of these views are entirely opposite of the views they hold now, which represents the rhetorical strategy of modifying the candidate image and tailoring it to the voter’s wants.  Yes, Trump wants to build a wall, but the reason he has become so adamant towards going through with his plan instead of a calmer and less “crazy” plan as he suggested with Romney, is because he wants to appease his voters.  Most of his voters are extreme right wing who want to build the wall too, so he must chase this viewpoint instead of being more in the middle.  Clinton’s voters, on the other hand are against the wall, so in order to appeal to them she must completely go against the wall in every way.  This means that she has to go against what she said previously about restricting driver’s licenses.  She has to be completely on the left if Trump is going to be completely on the right.  Here, the two are using the rhetorical strategy of “sharpening up the pointless”, a strategy suggested by Kenneth Burke.  While it appears that prior to the campaign the candidates both held more of a middle ground towards immigration, they now have both sharpened the edges of their views and are having to hold harsher positions on the issue of immigration in order to sway voters.

 

 

The “Trump Effect”

 

Now that policies have been sharpened throughout the campaign, the focus is to win the voters onto either side of the candidate by playing on the emotions of the voters, sometimes achieving this by putting the opposite candidate in a very bad light.  Clinton is playing on strong emotions regarding children to get voters on her side regarding immigration.  Clinton says the so called “Trump Effect” is frightening immigrants and children.  Children tend to be where people place most of their emotion. For instance, when an advertisement shows a child in need, more people are likely to donate to the cause.  So, by Clinton saying that children are frightened, she tugs on the heartstrings of Trump voters, challenging them to reconsider their views for the sake of the little ones.  She is effective doing this by using another incredibly effective rhetorical strategy: telling a story.  She has been telling stories of young children who have been adopted asking if Trump will send them back to their home countries if he is elected and claiming that they are frightened of losing their new families.  That breaks the hearts of many, and is a very effective strategy in its use.  As Westen says in his book The Political Brain, “The political brain is an emotional brain.  It is not a dispassionate calculating machine, objectively searching for the right facts, figures, and policies to make a reasoned decision.”  If this is true, then Trump will be in trouble if Clinton’s story gets out to too many of his voters and effects their feelings.  He will lose voters because of her effective rhetorical use of stories against him.  Even the furthest right wing voters who agree with his policies will begin to struggle with him because logic will go out the window and sympathy towards the children will begin to set in and cause people to consider Clinton.

 

Sources:

 

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/10/09/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-effect-deportation-immigration-debate

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-are-universes-apart-immigration-n641686

 

 

Hillary Clinton’s WikiLeaks just keep coming. Conservative website Breitbart.com has obtained a leaked transcript of Clinton speaking to Goldman Sachs about immigration, in which she calls those in favor of limiting immigration “fundamentally un-American.”  Two explanations for this story can be given: either the Democrats are becoming more liberal, or Breitbart is looking for its own angle to make it real news.

Center-left to extreme left

There’s no doubt that both major parties have veered to extremes this election cycle. In fact, this is one of the areas
that Dr. Adams wanted us to watch. In her speech, Clinton noted that “obstructionists…have such a narrow view of America,” and their views on immigration “have to be rejected because they are fundamentally un-American” (Hahn). In using this type of rhetoric, Clinton could have been trying to attract the extreme left voters — those who supported Bernie Sanders’ positions of open borders and citizenship for illegal immigrants. She also could have been making this statement to lead into more inclusive and progressive policies of the Democratic party on illegal immigration.

 

Conservative news media

Perhaps, Breitbart News is spinning this story in a way to make it real news, and to discourage voters from electing Hillary Clinton. The outlet gathered data from Pew Research Center, saying that “83% of the American electorate would like to see immigration levels frozen or reduced” (Hahn). In this case, Breitbart could be stating that Clinton called 83% of Americans “un-American.” This rhetorical strategy is aimed at the voters with an underlying message of “don’t vote for Clinton” because of her comments regarding immigration. While Clinton’s immigration rhetoric is meant to be inclusive, Breitbart is trying to make the rhetoric backfire on her.

Clinton’s immigration rhetoric

Compared to Trump’s immigration policy rhetoric, Clinton’s has not gained nearly as much attention. However, with a conservative media outlet like Breitbart obtaining this leak to create a story, her immigration rhetoric could be viewed as generalized and even offensive. On the other hand, this leak could just be revealing Clinton’s attempt to play to the radical left with this type of rhetoric. As we know, the evaluation of political communication is an interpretive act, and Clinton’s immigration rhetoric means different things to different people. Conservatives may take offense, while liberals may applaud and agree with her.

Work Cited

Hahn, Julia. “Wikileaks Reveals — Hillary Clinton to Goldman Sachs: Americans Who Want to Limit Immigration are ‘Fundamentally UnAmerican’.” breitbart.com. Breitbart, 15 Oct. 2016. Web. 16 Oct. 2016.

Donald Trump is no ordinary candidate. While Trump, like most traditional candidates, is fact checked based on what he says in speeches and debates, what separates him from the rest is that he believes being caught as untruthful and inaccurate does not harm him or his campaign anywhere close to as much it would a more traditional candidate such as Clinton. He believes he has transcended the need for facts and relies an incredible amount on emotion. Trump leans on emotion to elicit certain emotional reactions, mainly fear, in attempt to garner support and persuade voters on the issue of immigration. I believe this is a dangerous strategy. While yes, this will give him a concrete base of voters supporting street immigration, it will hurt him when it comes to the moderates he needs to win the election.

It is widely known that Trump referred to Mexican immigrants as “criminals” , “drug dealers” and “rapists”, while assuming that just some are “good people”. His rhetorical goal by saying this was to go after people’s emotions and make them fear Hispanic immigrants. He wants to create an emotional link of fear with Hispanic immigrants. His statements were not backed up with fact and were actually proven to be blatantly wrong. According to the Washington Post, “a range of studies show there is no evidence immigrants commit more crimes than native-born Americans. In fact, first-generation immigrants are predisposed to lower crime rates than native-born Americans.” Trump’s immigration policy  is much more restrictive than Clinton’s. Because voters are driven by wishes, fears, and values, if he is able to create this link it will be of great benefit to him even though his statements have been proven as false. Those that he is able to successfully persuade to believe this will be in agreement with him.

The danger in this approach is that I do not believe enough voters will be persuaded by this fear-mongering, emotional tactic. Trump needs to go after the median voter in order to have a chance at the White House, and while emotion is a great strategy in getting support on the issue of immigration, having no facts at all to back up claims can make him seem uninformed and foolish to many voters he needs to win over. His strategy of emotion with lies will not be as effective as he believes.