How America Works

We need to keep birthright citizenship. It is a constitutional right to make sure that children who were born with foreign parents stand a chance to become citizens. If we repeal the 14th amendment, we would have more “illegal aliens”. The reason is that a lot of natural born parents don’t really know how to obtain citizenship for their child if they are not natural born. The schools fail to teach children how people who are not natural born obtain citizenship. Most of the “illegal immigrants” are legally trying to get asylum. If we get rid of birthright citizenship it could hurt the child and the family in the long run. The chances of that newborn child getting citizenship would be lower because the parents are probably not literate in English enough. Even if the parents are not citizens the newborn did not choose their fate, so it would not be fair in the long run for the kid. The thing that can really hurt children with American parents is that if they were born outside of US terri

This article was written by Tammy Bruce . It appeared on Fox online but, was originally from Washington Post. The argument was that Senator Elizabeth Warren had a false DNA test result.  To attract the intended audience which is, far right conservatives, they made sure to point out that she was a democrat and had words against the democratic party. This could make a fraction of people a little doubtful about this article because it has the potential to come across as more of a rant. The basic argument is that Senator Warren DNA results are false. The writer is assuming that the Democrats are just craving attention. They imply that they want court orders for her to say that this whole ordeal is a lie. The important terms such as the DNA test are not well defined. They do not tell us what type of DNA test she took.  The type of evidence that this article uses is not clear enough for it to be good evidence. The reason is because they are vague about where their information came from. The

The person who wrote this article is  Andrew O'Reilly and, the main argument was that the accusation of Brett Kavanaugh was a hoax.  Brett Kavanaugh is a DC Circuit Court Judge being nominated for supreme court justice and, he is accused of is sexually assaulting a Dr. Blasey Ford when he was a senior in high school. He says that the accusation is false and has another politician to back him up. For example, in paragraph six the quote, 'this is the most unethical sham since I've been in politics' from Graham. This shows based on who the writer quotes what he stands for. To attract a more conservative audience they gave Kavanaugh's and Graham's perspective more. This affects the contents because It becomes more one-sided. He relies mainly on what Graham says and goes forward with that.  This is not supported with facts or evidence because he heavily relies on what this one person says.  There is not any solid document that is not biased that he shows that prove