We read and discussed "No Human Being is Illegal" from the textbook today. Ngai's article is part of a much larger, ongoing conversation about immigration. Because of this, she assumes that the reader has a certain understanding of the issue. What does she assume readers already know? If she were to publish this article for a more general audience, what might she have to better explain? Are there terms she would have to define?
Answer the following question in 1-2 paragraphs. Remember, this blog post is due by 5 pm on Friday.
The author of this essay uses a lot of terminology and information that is supposed to be known. But me as a reader didn't know it. That was a big part of why I did not like the essay. I often found myself confused in it which untimatly turned me off as a reader. I think that if this was published, the author should explain some tf the terms that were used. Especially with a lot of the stuff on page 503. It was a lot of information that I did not really understand. The author also uses a lot of information about our country as a whole in this essay which I did not fully follow. I did not believe all the things that she said. Some things sounded like she was being hypocritical about Americans. If she was to publish this, then it would be needed to really explain where she was coming from and where she got all of the information.
ReplyDeleteThe author assumes that his reader is already familar with the issue of immigration and presumes we as readers already know the terms writen in the essay, like "the commerce clause" on page 503 paragraph 2. I think that if the author were to get this essay published she would need to define terms that are not known by all people. I think a lot of the words the author would need to define are those law terms. Not many people know of the laws that exisist for immigration and i think she as an author needs to make them clear.
ReplyDeleteNgai assumed that readers already know details about immigration issues. She uses language that is hard to follow when she talks about the Supreme Court. Ngai should have went into more detail about the example for those that are not already familiar with the issue. Her vocabulary was great, but as a reader, I did not like it very much, because my vocabulary is not very broad. I started to get very bored with words like "mongering" (505) because I did not know what that meant.
ReplyDeleteI think that in the essay Ngai had assumed that the readers would know the details about the immigration issues. In the essay she uses language that is very difficult to follow. She should have bent into more detail about the issue, and made it easier to understand to people that don't know much about the issue. There were many words in the essay that I didn't understand like "mongering"(505).
ReplyDeleteNagi felt that everyone reading the essay already knew about the immigration issues. The language that she uses is hard to understand especially when she talks about the Supreme Court. She should have also went into more detail about the issue at hand. Overall her vocabulary was greatbut when I was reading it I did not like it because it was so specific. I didn't want to finish reading it becasue of the long words that not very many proplr have heard, because i did not know what they meant.
ReplyDeleteNgai assumes that her readers are already experts on the immigration issue and and policies involved with that. To publish this essay for a broader audience she would have to go into more depth regarding the history of immigration as well as the polices being discussed or enacted in present day society. As well, it would make this essay a lot more easy to read if some of her vocabulary was defined better for the reader. On page 502 she uses “xenophilia” and “xenophobia” in the first paragraph which threw me off when I had to stop and look up exactly what that meant. If Ngai explained the issue of immigration for a more general audience and defined some of her terms this essay would be much easier to read and comprehend for someone who does not know much about the subject.
ReplyDeleteThe author assumes the reader already knows about the issue of immigration. She uses court cases to make her point. However, many people are not familiar with all court cases such as when “the U.S. Supreme Court invoke(d) the soverign principle as the basis for immigration policy” (503). She also uses words that need to be defined in context because they are not common words such as “xenophilia”, “xenophobia”, and “meek” (502). These words would help the reader better understand the point the author was coming from if they were more defined.
ReplyDeleteThe author Ngai assumes that the readers know all about the background information of immigration. She assumes that we know all the laws and regulations. She also references some things that most people may not know such as the commerce clause (503). If she were to publish the article for a more general audience I think she should write a little more about the background information on immigration. She should also go into a little more detail on the examples she uses so the reader knows what they are. I think there are some words she would have to define so the reader can have a better understanding of the article.
ReplyDeleteThe author assumes that readers already know many things. Some of the include where a large portion of immigrants are coming from and why, how they get into the country and what the difference is between an immigrant that is here legally and one that is illegal in the country. She also assumes that readers know what some of the consequences of immigration, both positive and negative, have been in the United States. It would probably be helpful, if she were writing for a more general audience, to focus more on the background information of the subject.
ReplyDeleteThe author assumes that reader already knows about immigration because its a hot topic in the United States. If she had a bigger audience she would have to explain why people migrate to America. Also the concept of being legal and not legal. In America there are certain laws many people outside the country dont know about. Some termanolgy in her essay I have never heard before so it got confusing. Even bashing on America makes the reader question what she is trying to protray. She would have to explain migration in general and start from the basics for a general audience.
ReplyDeleteThe author of this essay assumes that the reader already knows about immigration issues about some of the different terms that are used within the text. They also assume that the reader knows the laws and regulations regarding immigration. To publish this essay to a broader audience, I think she would have to explain more of the history of illegal immigration, along with why people would illegally come to the United States. Also, if she explained what some of the terms she used were, like xenophilia and xenophobia, the reader would get a better understanding of what she was talking about.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading this article most people must have known the laws and restrictions of immigration. Also when writing this article, Ngai must have assumed that the audience already knew the problems of immigration. If this essay was written for a more general audience then she would have to better explain the problem of immigration. She mainly just gives a quite overview of the big problems, but she had to explain what illegal immigration is, the laws and rules dealing with immigration and other important facts dealing with it.
ReplyDeleteNgai assumes that readers already know about the immigration issues happening now a days. She had good vocabulary however, she did not explain the big words so it lost a lot of readers. Words like xenophilia and xenophobia on pg. 502 and on pg. 503 what is a commerce clause? If Ngai were to publish this essay she would first, need to inform the readers on a background of the immigration laws, and secondly, explain some of her big words and terms that aren't common.
ReplyDeleteThe author assumes that the reader already knows about the immigration issues happening today. The author also assumes that the vocab used in this essay is known by everyone. In ordder for this essay to be published to a broader audience she would have to give more background information on the history and regulations of immigration. Also she would need to explain words such as xenophilia and xenophobia to the readers so they don't get confused.
ReplyDeleteKevin Dawson
ReplyDeleteThe author assumes that the reader is already informed about illegal immigration. She should probably provide more backround information about what immigration is in general, or provide examples of immigration and relate that to her story. In addition, she uses vocabulary that is hard to understand. If she wants to capture more people, then she needs to provide definitions for her words.
The author assumes that the reader knows about immigration and the issues that are going on about illegal immigration. It would have been more helpful to me if she would have provided more background information about immigration and the difference between illegal immigration and immigration. Knowing the process of how to immigrate from another country and have it be legal would have helped her points and her essay. It was difficult to know and understand all that she pointed out in her essay because I am not very informed on this issue therefore I do not understand some of the terminology she uses. Before publishing this to a more general audience, she should explain some of the vocab she uses as well as adding more background knowledge on this issue.
ReplyDeleteThe author of this writing assumes that the reader is knowledgeable about the subject of immigration as a whole. She expects the reader to know the stance of certain political parties on this issue, as well as legislation and Supreme Court cases regarding immigration. Perhaps the most important thing missing is the absence of a definition of what illegal immigration is and what legal immigration is. If this article were published for a more general audience, more in depth information would be required. This is because people will most likely stop reading if detailed information used in the story isn’t properly explained. For example, on page 503 Nagi mentions the commerce clause. Words like “xenophilia” and “xenophobia” are used without the proper explanation of what they really mean.
ReplyDeleteIn this essay Ngai talks about immigration in America and to me I felt that the essay was a bit hard to read and understand because there was not much explanation of what she was talking about, she just assumed that the reader knew it all already. Through out the essay she used many terms that I personally did not know already which made it hard to understand. If she was to publish this article for a more general audience, I think that she would need to change the terms that she uses and if not change them, just explain them better. Also I felt that she only show the reader one side of the topic, so I think that she will need to show more about the opposing views.
ReplyDeleteIn the essay “No Human Being is Illegal” the author assumes that the audience already knows about the issue of immigration going on in the world today. She uses a lot of terms in her essay that are not defined such as “mongering” (page 505). I think if the author were to publish this to a more general audience she would have to explain the issue more. There are many things that she could expand that she did not do in this particular essay. There were a lot of misunderstandings when reading this essay, it could be greatly improved with a little more explanation on the issue.
ReplyDeleteIn Nagai's essay, "No Human being is illegal," she assumes her audience already knows that immigrants are not treated fairly. If she were to publish this article for a more general audience she would have to explain her points on how they benefit America better. She would need to use data to prove this, not just saying they do. When she said,"they do not hurt the economy,they expand it; they are more law abiding than the native born population; they want to learn English and their children all do." she did not provide evidence of this (Ngai 501). Also, she would have to take a less hostile tone for a general audience. She would have to define certain terms such as, "citizensfaith-liberal capitalism, and,"mongering terrorism." These terms seem arbitrary, and would need to be cleered-up to understand their context.
ReplyDeleteThis blog is closed.
ReplyDelete