The article I chose to analyze is called Immigration: Learn Before you legislate. The argument this article is trying to make is that legislation was brought talk about immigration reform in the US for many of years. The author explains how previous reform and control acts have failed but legislation spends millions of dollars in effort to reform immigration laws. The author argues that before Americans agree for more “tough legislation”, our lawmakers should try to understand why our previous efforts have failed. The author uses many forms of persuasive writing such as emotional, logical, and credibility arguments. A logical argument that the author makes in the article is since passage of the 1996 legislation and creation of the Department of Homeland Security, most indicators of change have been in decline, even though the size of the Homeland Security budget has increased from $584 million in more than $59 billion in 2010. During the same period, full-time equivalent staffing increased from approximately 30,000 to more than 230,000 today. I agree with this point that the author made because the government shouldn’t be spending this amount of money trying to reform something. I think legislators should work on figuring out the problem and then pursue it. The author also says “So, before we are asked to accept more “get tough” legislation, our lawmakers should try to understand why their previous efforts failed”, which is more of a credibility based argument. The author