An AAA, or Triple A, stands for Analyzing Author's Argument. In order to complete this assignment you had to find the thesis statement and then have a point of argument and evidence to why that is the thesis. After you have that completed you need to asses the argument on whether or not it's strong or weak.
In my opinion, Triple A's weren't that hard and helped me have an understanding of the author's point of view. I think that now because of these, I will read more carefully to find the argument/theme so I can understand the story better than I would without.
AAA #1
Paramount - more important than anything; supreme Xenophobic - intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries Marginalization - to put or keep someone in a powerless or unimportant position within a society or group Muncipal - of or relating to a city or town or its governing body Garnered - gather or collect(something, especially information or approval) Allocate - distribute(resources or duties) for a particular purpose Entrepreneurial - characterized by the taking of financial risks in the hope of profit Municipalities - a city or town that has corporate status and local government Boroughs - a town or district that is an administrative unit, in particular
“As the mayors of three great global cities - New York, Paris and London - we urge the world leaders assembling at the United Nations to take decisive action to provide relief and safe haven to refugees fleeing conflict and migrants fleeing economic hardship, and to support those who are already doing this work.”(35-42)
I believe that the authors’ argument was that we should let immigrants and refugees come into our country because they could be beneficial, as stated in the text, “Investing in the integration of refugees and immigrants is not only the right thing to do, it is also the smart thing to do. Refugees and other foreign-born residents bring needed skills and enhance the vitality and growth of local economies, and their presence has long benefited our three cities.”(82-89). Another argument that I found is that the authors thought that it was wrong to assume that all people coming in were here to do bad things, as mentioned in the text, “But it is wrong to characterize immigrant and refugee communities as radical and dangerous; in our experience, militant violence is vanishingly rare.”(23-27). The last argument that I felt the authors were conveying was that we shouldn’t be afraid to let refugees or immigrants into our country if they’re coming for the right reasons, as referred to in the text, “...We urge the world leaders assembling at the United Nations to take decisive action to provide relief and safe haven to refugees fleeing conflict and migrants fleeing economic hardship, and to support those who are already doing this work.”(7-13). Overall I think that the whole argument is that we shouldn’t be afraid to let refugees and immigrants into our country, because they are not here to wreak havoc, they are here to live a better life, and you never know how useful the the country they could be.
In my opinion this argument is somewhere between strong and weak. I think this because they don’t really have any concrete evidence to back it up, it is mostly based off of opinions. And if they weren’t mayors of big cities I would have said that the argument was weak, but they have experience which makes their opinions slightly more credible, which in turn creates a stronger argument. I know that this isn’t the strongest argument but I agree with it because I do believe that people should be able to enter a country if they are coming for the right reasons. People shouldn’t be denied entrance to a country when they are only coming to meet up with their family or to escape tragedy. But that said, I do think that everyone should have a background check to get over the border. We still need to keep everyone here safe, but without alienating those who have a right to be here.
From this I learned that I actually have more opinions on this issue than I thought and how big of an issue it actually is. I knew that it was an issue, but I didn’t know that it was this big. Also from this and a combination of the other things we've done I have formulated new opinions. I believe that we should be kinder to refugees and immigrants and let in the people who deserve to be.
AAA #2
Cartel - an association of manufacturers or suppliers with the purpose of maintaining prices at a high level and restricting competition. Nets - acquire or obtain as if with a net. Pictorial - of or expressed in pictures; illustrated. Counterterrorism - political or military activities designed to prevent or thwart terrorism. Propagandists - a person who promotes or publicizes a particular organization or cause.
“...According to our platform, “We affirm the integrity of the international borders of the United States and the Constitutional authority and duty of the federal government to guard and to protect those borders”. (36-37) I think that the author’s argument is that there should be stronger borders in place to keep out the terrorists and that the system now with the borders is not working. As stated in the text, “ISIS doesn’t have a navy, they don’t have an air force. The only way that ISIS is going to harm Americans is by coming through the southern border - which they already have. They aren’t flying B-1 bombers, bombing American cities, but they are going to be bombing American cities coming across from Mexico...All you have to do is ask the border patrol.”(25-28) I think that the author uses this text in order to convey that the borders now aren’t strong and that it needs to be fixed. The author also states that, “Sealing off the border is the promise of many politicians, but their delivery has gone from bad to worse.”(29) I think that the author put this in the text to show just how hard stronger borders is to achieve. Overall the author’s argument in my opinion is that we as America should work harder to make the borders stronger so that no terrorists can get through and cause us harm.
In this piece of text, I think that the argument is bias. Although the argument is bias the author has a lot of supporting evidence and that helps it make it stronger. I personally agree with the author. I believe that yes we should make the borders stronger. From this text for me it wasn’t clear of the author wanted to stop all immigrants from coming through the border or whether it was just terrorist they wanted to stop. If they wanted just to stop terrorists I’m not sure how that would happen. You can’t stop a terrorist from coming into our country with a single background check. For the most part I do agree with the author that we should strengthen our border to lessen terrorist coming through, but if the author wants to stop immigration all together I do not agree one bit. People should have the right to escape their country if needed and leave if they want to. From this text and AAA I learned different facts about terrorism and learned someone new’s opinion on this subject where I feel strongly. This argument did not sway me in anyway from my belief, but it did open my eyes to a lot of things. For example, how bad terrorism is, not just physically but on the internet as well.