i have here linked what they are asking for & how & the document that i will be choosing for the paper
Dr Ward--Fall 2022 NOVA--Alexandria English 111 Editorial Paper Due 10/21/22 On October 21, your second major paper, the Editorial Paper, will be due at 11:00 pm. It must be at least 750 words, word processed and double-spaced, with your name and the accurate page number on every page (including the outline) saved as a Microsoft Word document, and submitted via Canvas by 11:00 pm on the due date. You must turn in a formal outline with the final paper or lose 5 points off the grade of the paper. Grammar, spelling, and overall neatness will certainly affect your final grade on the paper, so be sure to write carefully and allow yourself time to proofread and correct your paper before turning it in to me. I have posted to Canvas three editorials: “Pressing the Pause Button on Electric Scooters” by the Albuquerque Journal editorial board, “When This School Banned Cell Phones, It Saw Remarkable Changes” by Cynthia Allen, “Historic Smoke Free Ordinance Will Protect Nashville Workers from Secondhand Smoke” by Denis Gilmore, and “California State IDs for Illegals Set a Dangerous Precedent” by the Washington Times editorial board. Please read them all carefully and see how you react to them. Which of them can you argue with? Which of them seems inaccurate? Which of them seems incomplete? Which of them fails to persuade you? Find at least one flaw in the editorial that you can attack. Perhaps the thesis is correct but lacks reliable and objective evidence to support it. Perhaps the evidence is strong but outdated. Perhaps the thesis and evidence are both fine, but the editorial has a weak conclusion. Perhaps most of the evidence is fine, but one source is biased or weak. You don’t have to disagree with everything in the editorial—but you need to find a way to criticize it. Then write a paper in which you explain your opinion on the subject matter and why it is superior to editorial writer’s opinion. Your thesis should arise naturally from how you feel about the editorial writer’s argument and the evidence used to support that argument in the editorial. Do not attack the writer personally. Do not resort to name-calling or any other childish strategy. Prove that the author is wrong in some way. Marshall evidence to demonstrate that he or she is wrong. Find that evidence by locating an additional source on the subject matter, from which you will support your counter-argument. I recommend using Opposing Viewpoints, a database in NOVA’s library to find sources to support your Editorial Paper. Your audience for this paper, aside from me, will be a group of intelligent people who have not yet made up their minds on the subject. Educate them as to why your position is the right one, and the editorial writer’s opinion is wrong. You will have to refer to and document your sources (the published editorial and one additional research source that you will locate, read carefully, and cite as evidence to support your thesis) according to the Modern Language Association system. Cite from the editorial between 1-3 times; cite from the research source between 2-4 times. You must turn in a formal outline, and a Works Cited page with two entries, along with the Editorial Paper. Do not use any quotations that are more than three consecutive lines long. Editorial Paper: Introduction--1st paragraph—State that you read an editorial (name and title). Summary of the editorial: fair & complete--3/4 sentences. Body— 1st paragraph—include the first point you will criticize. Refer specifically to the error, misunderstanding, absence of the editorial argument. Explain why it’s wrong. Supply correct information from your outside source. 2nd paragraph—include the second point you will criticize 3rd paragraph-- include the third point you will criticize 4th paragraph-- include the fourth point you will criticize Conclusion—Summarize you own argument & include a forward-looking reference to the issue. California State IDs for Illegals Set a Dangerous Precedent by the Editorial Board of the Washington Times Last week, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a state law into effect allowing illegal immigrants to obtain state-issued IDs. The bill was met with stern resistance from state’s few Republican State Assembly members and senators, but their votes were not enough to stop the legislation from reaching Mr. Newsom’s desk. The Democratic governor, who has repeatedly tried to insert himself into the national limelight this year in competition with GOP governors Greg Abbott of Texas and John DeSantis of Florida, enthusiastically justified the law’s passage. “We’re a state of refuge, a majority-minority state, where 27 percent of us are immigrants,” Mr. Newsom said after signing the bill. “That’s why I’m proud to announce the signing of today’s bills to further support our immigrant community, which makes our state stronger every single day.” The new law, AB 1766, known as “California IDs for All,” is a step further from the Golden State’s previous 2013 landmark legislation, which allowed illegal immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses. Since then, several other states have followed suit. The new ID bill was introduced in February by four Democratic assembly members who framed the California identification cards as “passports to economic and societal participation,” making it easier for illegal immigrants to work, utilize banks and apply for government benefits. “Lack of identification is one of the largest barriers to success into the community because IDs are essential to securing employment, housing, and social services,” said one of the bill’s sponsors, Mark Stone. “AB 1766 is an essential gateway to social inclusion and should be a basic necessity that every resident has access to.” “This bill brings equity to those who have been unable to access basic life essentials because they have no legally recognized identification,” said Assemblyman Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer. “What many of us take for granted — having an ID — will have life-changing ramifications for many in the immigrant and disabled communities.” We do not disagree with the observations of Messrs. Stone or Jones-Sawyer in that lack of state or federal identification creates barriers to securing employment, housing and social services. But that’s precisely the reason issuing such identification cards to illegal immigrants sets a dangerous precedent and creates an incentive for more migrants to cross the border illegally. Issuing state identification cards is a form of recognizing one’s legitimacy, which means the state of California is either effectively disregarding or potentially even preempting the federal naturalization system. It also sends the wrong message south of the border. If foreign citizens think they can come to California and get a job, find housing and apply for social services, they have more incentive to risk their lives trying to reach and illegally cross the border. But California isn’t the only lower jurisdiction in the country to effectively dismiss the federal naturalization system. In December, the City Council of New York passed a law that would have allowed 800,000 permanent legal residents and people with authorization to work in the U.S. the right to vote in municipal elections. Among the many dangers in enacting such a law would be arming noncitizens with the power to elect their fellow residents as City Council members and mayor, giving new city candidates a credible starting point to later run for state and federal office. Had the New York City law passed constitutional muster, there was no limit to how far a city politician could go in the state or congressional system, despite building their career on votes from noncitizens. A lawsuit filed by the Republican National Committee also raised concerns about whether implementation of the law would also result in noncitizens ending up on voter registration rolls for state and local elections. As a result, the New York Supreme Court struck down the city law, saying it violated the state constitution. “The City of New York cannot ‘obviate’ the restrictions imposed by the Constitution,” the court wrote. Simply put, the city could not disregard state law — just as the state of California should not disregard or try to preempt the federal naturalization system. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States makes clear in that only Congress has the power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization … throughout the United States.” It is our position that such power is plenary, and there is only one naturalization system, and that is the federal system. It should not be disregarded manipulated, preempted or tampered with by local city or state governments in any capacity. Works Cited Entry: “California State IDs for Illegals Set a Dangerous Precedent.” Washington Times, 27 Sept. 2022, https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/sep/27/editorial-california-state-ids-for-illegals-set-a-/.