2018 AA Club - Week 12

[scout]

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.

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]

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? 

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!! 
Had too much text response for English going on! 
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]

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.

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.

[MissSmiley]

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.

Your logic is extremely sound!!
I love what's going on here! It's always so nice to have different interpretations in English!
I thought of it as Alm saying that she has integrated so well in Australia from the time she came, that she now is willing to call herself proudly as an Australian. In this sense, she might be likening herself (very subtly) to the original inhabitants (like you mentioned), as she too has made sure that she treats Australia carefully and light-footedly.
This means that she's saying that today's immigrants are sorta like aliens (they are, for the fact that they are new in this country) and will remain alienated by us (even if they reside in Australia for a long time) just because they can't preserve our resources to the extent that immigrants like Alm could. (this idea may alude to a generational difference between immigrants in past and today's immigrants? sorry if this is right out there, but just wondering ---> this would link to her argument that immigration should be banned because immigrants today can't be trusted.

I might be completely wrong and this may sound totally absurd so please go ahead with your own interpretation! But just writing what I feel
Also, if you or anyone else could please please correct me, that'll be awesome!!
I need some clarification too now!

Thanks for bring this up though!!

[Anonymous]

Your logic is extremely sound!!
I love what's going on here! It's always so nice to have different interpretations in English!
I thought of it as Alm saying that she has integrated so well in Australia from the time she came, that she now is willing to call herself proudly as an Australian. In this sense, she might be likening herself (very subtly) to the original inhabitants (like you mentioned), as she too has made sure that she treats Australia carefully and light-footedly.
This means that she's saying that today's immigrants are sorta like aliens (they are, for the fact that they are new in this country) and will remain alienated by us (even if they reside in Australia for a long time) just because they can't preserve our resources to the extent that immigrants like Alm could. (this idea may alude to a generational difference between immigrants in past and today's immigrants? sorry if this is right out there, but just wondering ---> this would link to her argument that immigration should be banned because immigrants today can't be trusted.

I might be completely wrong and this may sound totally absurd so please go ahead with your own interpretation! But just writing what I feel
Also, if you or anyone else could please please correct me, that'll be awesome!!
I need some clarification too now!

Thanks for bring this up though!!

This was an extremely refreshing, eye-opening, subtle and deep (just regurgitating flowery words to show how in awe I am of you) perspective that I'm totally on board with. A generation gap makes much more sense than an "Alm vs the immigrants" situation that I'd previously gone with. it works, although it does kinda feel like you pulled it out from thin air.

Also kind of in awe how this text went from being political to philosophical to extraterrestrial-related.

[MissSmiley]

This was an extremely refreshing, eye-opening, subtle and deep (just regurgitating flowery words to show how in awe I am of you) perspective that I'm totally on board with. A generation gap makes much more sense than an "Alm vs the immigrants" situation that I'd previously gone with. it works, although it does kinda feel like you pulled it out from thin air.

Also kind of in awe how this text went from being political to philosophical to extraterrestrial-related.

I do agree that I have pulled it out from thin air.
It'll be great if someone else has a different take on this and wants to share it here!

[Anonymous]

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.

Both yourself and MissSmiley's interpretations of this piece are completely viable. Reconciling the two pieces of information is quite ambiguous, and for that reason, is going to produce a myriad of different outlooks.

From how I understood it, Alm recognises that she will be classed as complicit in this 'crash,' given her status as a fellow immigrant. And as you've pointed out, this leads to some double standards, which will invariably work to weaken her point (ie. her blatant hypocrisy will likely cause readers to discount her credibility). Yet, the fact that she consciously sought to understand and preserve the land seeks to win over these sceptical readers, who are urged to understand that, while Alm is unapologetically an immigrant, she has not trampled over the land. She has understood it and knows how it can be further cultivated (leading readers to find truth in her assertions). She is subtly manipulating readers (although not in the most plausible way, I must admit) by having this phrase at the very end of her commentary. Structurally, this intends to leave an impression of rationality.

[clarke54321]

  That was me. After all this time I still battle with the anonymity button!

[Anonymous]

Both yourself and MissSmiley's interpretations of this piece are completely viable. Reconciling the two pieces of information is quite ambiguous, and for that reason, is going to produce a myriad of different outlooks.

From how I understood it, Alm recognises that she will be classed as complicit in this 'crash,' given her status as a fellow immigrant. And as you've pointed out, this leads to some double standards, which will invariably work to weaken her point (ie. her blatant hypocrisy will likely cause readers to discount her credibility). Yet, the fact that she consciously sought to understand and preserve the land seeks to win over these sceptical readers, who are urged to understand that, while Alm is unapologetically an immigrant, she has not trampled over the land. She has understood it and knows how it can be further cultivated (leading readers to find truth in her assertions). She is subtly manipulating readers (although not in the most plausible way, I must admit) by having this phrase at the very end of her commentary. Structurally, this intends to leave an impression of rationality.

I'm that confused person who started this mini debate. Thanks to all for contributing so far (only I'm more confused now than ever). Everyone has made great points, but they just don't fully seem logical to me even though I desperately want them to (I'm weird that way). i think I'm too thick-headed to think that I'm wrong.

The sweeping generalisation that immigrants would trample over the land could've also applied to Alm as an immigrant (inserting my own assumptions here), but she was given the chance to prove otherwise. Yet now she's against giving immigrants the same opportunity that she was given to prove herself, and paints them with the same brush, despite having not been of the stereotypical mold herself. Therefore, through using herself as an example, the cultivation that clarke54321 speaks of can only be accomplished if immigrants are given the chance to make Australia a better place. (I feel like this argument is the same as my first one but from a slightly different angle - same rights instead of hypocrisy)

So I simply can't figure out Alm's motivations to insert that final sentence into her piece.

And if the phrase was a subtle (too subtle I think) way of manipulating her readers, I feel as if not many readers would be able to infer to the extent that you have done, which therefore would've been detrimental to her overall piece anyway, especially since it was her last sentence. This would leave a lasting impression, and she would've been more likely to be interpreted as a hypocrite. If she'd specifically tailored this piece to a target audience such as the government (as MissSmiley has interpreted) in the form of a letter or whatnot (a more formal form), maybe the message would've gotten through to them. Instead, her audience is simple the readers of the Age, of which there are few humanitarians who would've understood her intent to that depth. Also her language was somewhat colloquial/not sophisticated, which doesn't quite mesh well with the idea that she was very subtle and multi-layered in her rationale. I mean there is a possibility that Alm just wanted her message to be simple, but I'm discounting that option for the sake of my argument.

Sorry I've gone off on a tangent, and this rant will seem really stupid in a few hours for me, and I'll probably want to delete it, so I'll still post this as anonymous, so I can't do anything about it once it's posted.

[Anonymous]

Hi, thank you for posting these great practice pieces. I have given it a go and would love some feedback!:)


Harold Mitchell's article 'How a 91-year-old can teach about our terrific immigrants' in The Age (9/3) has sparked debate amongst Australian citizens. In response, Anne Sgro bemoans that refugees are an essential part of Australian Society, and should be welcomed with equal rights to Australian citizens. On the other hand, Margit Alm contends that an excess of immigrants will lead Australia to chaos and self-destruction in her comment.

Sgro praises that immigrants assist in creating 'a significant multicultural society' to influence the readers to proudly recognise immigrant's vitality in creating diversity in Australia's society. The word 'significant' invites the perception that immigrants are essential, as they aid in Australia's exceptionality and uniquely cultural society. This is because the word 'significant' implies that diversity in Australia's society is outstanding and important to compel those, particularly patriotic individuals to support increasing immigrant levels in the interest of maintaining Australia's superiorly diverse society. Contrastingly, Alm pessimistically questions 'the limit of our capacity' that Australia's society can accept immigrants effectively. In suggesting Australia's 'capacity' has a 'limit' Alm adopts a concerned and indignant tone to generate fear and panic within devoted Australian citizens. They positioned to quel over what consequences may occur if this boundary is broken. Also, this phrase's bold font implies that Alm's question is urgent and importance to draw the reader's attention to the issue and create a sense of alarm. Hence, this confronts nationalistic Australian citizens that immigrants can potentially harm Australia's supreme society.

By recounting how her 'husband Giovanni …. worked hard' Srgo employs a colloquial, yet fervent tone to project that immigrants are appreciative of their gained opportunities in Australia, thus a diligent influence within Australian society. This intends to create a connection with the audience to make them trust Sgro's belief that immigrants are beneficial for Australia, as they are trustworthy and honourable. The short, simple sentence ''He learnt.' Contrasts from the surrounding lengthy sentences, which works to clearly emphasis the word 'learnt'. This highlights Giovani and fellow Australian immigrants' capability to develop as humans within society, to raise awareness of immigrants persevering nature. This effectively communicates that immigrants should be recognised for their dedication to Australia, thus prompts fellow citizens to treat them equally within the community. Conversely, Alm antagonises immigrants by vehemently implying that they 'trampled' over Australia's 'ancient, fragile and beautiful land'. The word 'trampled' has strong negative connotations which urges the audience to view that increasing immigrant levels are a malign influence within society. This is because the word 'trampled' implies that something is destructive - in this case increasing immigrants within Australian society. Alm's positive illustration of Australia as 'ancient, fragile and beautiful' aims to portray to Australian citizens that their magnificent country should be carefully protected and preserved. The words 'ancient, fragile and beautiful' have strong positive connotations which allures the sense that Australia is a favourable and advantaged, yet vulnerable country. This is due to the fact the word 'ancient' insinuates something is precious, the verb 'fragile' suggests something is endangered and the word 'beautiful' intimates something is admirable, in this instance Australia's nation. In this sense, the author seeks to convey to the audience that they should feel obligated to cherish Australia's superior society and protect the country from immigrants potentially detrimental effects which inhibit the nation's success.

Alm proudly commends Australia's accepting nature by stating that she, as an immigrant has been 'treated carefully and light-footedly' within society, adopting an enlightened tone to engender a sense of fulfilment and satisfaction within Australian citizens. This targets patriotic Australians as it reassures and reinforces that Australis is triumphant in welcoming and treating immigrants with utter respect. Whereas, Sgro condemns 'Peter Dutton's failed attempt' at decreasing immigration citizenship levels, employing a disapproving tone to dismiss the opposition's opinion. The word 'failed' has negative connotations, as it implies in this instance, that Peter has been defeated and lack strength or power. This aims to engender audience members who originally supported Peter to contempt him, whilst reassures those who scorn Peter. Overall, this strengthens the authors portrayal of Australia's attitudes towards immigrants as spiteful to urge the readers to feel that Australia needs to be more inclusive and supportive towards immigrants. By commanding that the audience 'treat people with greater respect', Sgro implies that Australian's unacceptably denigrate immigrants. This is because the word 'greater' suggests that something isn't at a sufficient standard currently, hence needs improving, in this case Australian's respect towards immigrants. Overall, this conveys that the readers, as Australians are expected to be more gracious and kind towards immigrants, to uphold the countries reputation as a multi-cultural society who is inviting towards all individuals.

Sgro's nationalistic and emotive appeals to patriosm, pride and empathy are designed to persuade her readership that the Australian Government and society should be more supportive towards increasing immigrant levels for the sake of the country's international reputation. Ultimately, by portraying immigrant's contribution to society as the pinnacle of personal and nation triumph, Sgro seeks to bring about a change in the audience's beliefs, regarding augmenting immigrant numbers. Similarly, Alm employs nationalistic and emotive appeals to patroism, pride and empathy to contrastingly warn the readership of catastrophic outcomes if the Australian Government doesn't restrict immigration levels in the interest of the country's prosperity and international status.

[Anonymous]

Hi Anonymous, I'm just going to make a few comments so I don't deter others from having a try at analysing these two responses to Harold Mitchell.  I think parts of your analysis are quite good and I like the way you've tried to pursue the impact of individual words on the reader.  I also like your integration of comments about both authors in each of your paragraphs.  This is a good way to track the similarities and differences in each of the texts. The bad news is that some of your sentence structure is a bit tortured and could do with some careful editing and rephrasing.  I think you should also try to be more specific about the language devices used by Sgro and Alm - if you can name them, then do so (e.g. emotive language, personal anecdote, expert opinion).  Once you actually see these devices in play you can further develop your comments on the different approaches these authors take.  Sgro's use of the personal anecdote helps focus her argument on positive immigrant contributions to civic/public life.  Alm's view is focused on the consequences of increased population for the environment ("ancient and fragile ... land") and a generalised implication that migrants "trampled" it in the course of helping to exploit Australia's natural resources.  Alm's approach is more impersonal (she quotes statistics and the expert opinion of Tim Flanagan) and she only refers to her own experience as an immigrant in her final sentence.  Also, when you refer to the proposal to reintroduce English Language tests, you should refer to the Minister as Dutton (not Peter).