Rhetorical Discourse Strategies Used Against Immigrants
A critical discourse analysis of an American conservative magazine National Review

1. Introduction
As direct racist expressions have become socially unacceptable in the modern world,alternative strategies to criticize minorities were developed. In other words, the overt “oldfashioned racism” was replaced by a more covert form, which was referred to by Barker(1981) as the “new racism.” Thus starting from the 1980’s, a number of researches werecarried out in order to explain how and why those discourse strategies were manipulated.
According to Augoustinos and Every (2007: 123), the “denial of prejudice” is currently oneof the most pervasive forms of the strategies, and it is manipulated to justify the opinion
and to protect the addresser from criticisms for being racist and prejudiced.
This paper presents a critical discourse analysis on articles of an American conservative
magazine National Review, in which new forms of strategies to attack minorities are used.
However, the analysis shows that the “denial of prejudice” is not pervasive, and thatdifferent types of strategies are used for different objections in this case. Withoutcontaining the “denial of prejudice,” the strategies of National Review appear to be more
direct and blatant, thus contradicting from the research of Augoustinos and Every whichargued that:

Negative representations and evaluations of minorities are commonly preceded byubiquitous disclaimers such as “I’m not racist but…” or “I have nothing against
migrants but…” Contemporary race talk, therefore, is strategically organized to denyracism. (Augoustinos and Every 2007: 125-126)1

The reason why National Review does not contain such disclaimers is arguably becausethe readers are mostly limited to conservative people, making the editors more confident in
expressing their opinions. Also, since editors often do not have political status to protect
and can communicate anonymously or by using pseudonyms, they have less eagerness toprotect themselves. For these reasons, they put more effort into other objections (such asconvincing the readers) than in protecting themselves from possible criticism for being
racist and prejudiced.
Instead of the “denial of prejudice,” the discourse of National Review contains
strategies such as: (1) the use of an exceptional example, (2) the irrationalization of theopposing viewpoint, and (3) the identification of interests through social categorization.
This paper analyzes each of these strategies, by quoting some extracts from the articles of
National Review. Although the analysis of this study is primarily qualitative, a brief
quantitative overview is shown also. (See Table 1.)
Before presenting the analysis, however, it must be clearly stated that this study does
not intend to judge whether the discourse of the magazine are racist. Instead, it regards
every discourse which expresses negative sentiments on immigrants as empirical evidenceof the production and reproduction of social inequity. This idea of the connection between
journalism and social inequity is discussed in the next “Methodology” section.

2. Methodology

2This research shares the same perspective on the function of journalism with
Richardson (2007: 7) which stated that “journalism exists to enable citizens to better
understand their lives and their position(s) in the world.” Indeed magazines andnewspapers are read because readers assume that those journalisms reflect at least some
aspects of their society. Reading magazines with such assumption more or less affects thereaders’ view of society. This process was explained by Richardson (2007: 10-14) as the“(re)production of social reality.” Therefore, the process of magazines being published andread is at the same time the process of the production and reproduction of social reality
such as social status, identity and power relationship.
Given this idea of journalism and society, it is logical to assume that negative opinions
on immigrants expressed in National Review are contributing to the production andreproduction of social inequity between immigrants and American citizens, or between
illegal and legal immigrants.
In order to examine the empirical evidence of this process, the rhetorical strategies ofNational Review is analyzed through critical discourse analysis (CDA), because the method
is most suitable for this study for the following reasons: First, the aim of CDA is “to link
linguistic analysis to social analysis” (Woods and Kroger 2000: 206). Second, CDA “seeks
to have an effect on social practice and social relationships,” (Titscher et al. 2000: 147)
particularly on “relationships of disempowerment, dominance, prejudice and/ordiscrimination” (Richardson 2007: 26).
Thus CDA enables us to focus not only on the linguistic structure of discourse but also
the social backgrounds, relationships, and objections hidden under it. This feature of CDA

3makes it possible for this study to accurately analyze how and why the rhetorical strategies
to express negative opinions about immigrants are manipulated in National Review.
This analytical research is carried out, because if we could understand how and whyrhetorical strategies are used in journalism that (re)produces social reality, we could betterbe able to judge whether the journalism is fulfilling its raison d’être “to enable citizens tobetter understand their lives and their position(s) in the world.” (Richardson 2007: 7)

3. Data and quantitative overview
3.1 Data
For the research, 61 articles related to the immigrant issue in the magazine National
Review, from 1991 to 2008 were analyzed. The 61 articles are mostly editorials which
include the words “immigrant,” “immigrants” or “immigration” and were observed throughan online database named GALE CENGAGE Learning (2008).
The data was chosen for the following reasons: First, magazines include more of theauthor’s subjective opinions than newspapers, enabling us to find more genuine samples.
Second, National Review describes itself to be “America's most widely read and influential
magazine and web site for Republican/conservative news, commentary, and opinion.”(ScottBudd 2008) on its official web site; it had to be a conservative magazine so that moreopinions which negatively position immigrants could be found.

3.2 Quantitative overview

4Table 1. demonstrates that other rhetorical strategies are more pervasively used thanthe “denial of prejudice” in the articles of National Review.

Table 1. Number of articles including each strategy (61 articles total)
denial of prejudice4
use of an exceptional example
12
irrationalization of the opposing viewpoint
25
identification of interests
18
none of the above
25

Note: The sum exceeds the total number of articles, since some articles contain more than
one strategy.

Although the quantitative overview of each strategy is introduced in Table 1., it must beemphasized that this study focuses on the qualitative aspects of discourse than on thequantitative aspects. In other words, this study analyses the social characteristics ofrhetorical strategies that cannot be understood through observing the frequency of theoccurrence of those strategies.
In addition, there are difficulties in focusing on the quantitative aspect of rhetoricalstrategies. For example, sentences such as “I’m not racist, but I think it is unfair that illegal
immigrants are offered housings” can easily be found and judged as a “denial of prejudice,”while sentences such as “the liberals do not hesitate to criticize the immigration control
enthusiasts as racist” can be interpreted in several ways. One way to interpret the latter
sentence is; “the liberals call us racist, but they are wrong. We are not racist and havenothing against immigrants.” According to this interpretation, the sentence is a “denial ofprejudice.” Another interpretation is; “the liberals call us racist, but we must not be afraid5

of the criticism. We must continue to support lower immigration.” According to thisinterpretation, the sentence appears to be bolder against criticism, far from having any
intention to protect the addresser. (Table 1. includes the numbers of articles which areinterpretable to be manipulating a rhetorical strategy, such as the latter sentence, as well as
the obvious ones.)
According to Richardson (2007), in order to narrow down the interpretations and makethe judgment clearer, detailed criteria to record “exactly ‘how’ words, phrases, concepts
and arguments are employed in texts” must be established. Then at some point, the criteria“will be so complex that they become unworkable” (Richardson 2007: 18-19).
Therefore, applying a quantitative analysis into the study of rhetorical strategy is adifficult task, and Table 1. should only be regarded as a general quantitative overview ofthis analysis.

4. Qualitative Analysis of the rhetorical strategies
4.1 Use of an exceptional example
One of the most prominent strategies employed was the use of an exceptional example.
Using this strategy, the author attempts to convince the readers into thinking as if theexample written in the article represents all other immigrants. This following extract comesfrom an article titled “New York is a "sanctuary city,"” in the issue of April 21, 2008.

(Extract 1)
New York is a "sanctuary city." Mayor Michael Bloomberg's Executive Order 41
forbids city employees from reporting an illegal immigrant to federal Immigration and6

Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents unless the immigrant has committed other crimes.
So Palestinian Waheed Saleh, an illegal immigrant, has filed a complaint against a
New York City police officer for reporting him to the feds. Mr. Saleh, who drives anunlicensed cab, seems to have a short fuse: Police have broken up at least two fights hegot into. In retaliation, he filed complaints against the police. He then found himself inthe custody of ICE, and claims that city police retaliated for his complaints byreporting his immigration status, in violation of the mayoral order. Our latest news isthat he is out on bail, whereabouts unknown. Should you encounter him, do not alert
ICE, unless you want to find yourself at the receiving end of another lawsuit. (“NewYork is a "sanctuary city"”, April 21, 2008. National Review)

The purpose of this article to impose negative sentiments about all other immigrants
upon the readers is obvious, regardless to whether the use of an exceptional example ismorally correct or not.
Referring to terrorism in order to support immigration control can be categorized into
this strategy also. The title of the article “Welcoming the Enemy” (December 9, 2002.
National Review) in the special issue named “Invasion: How America Still Welcomes
Terrorists, Criminals, and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores” well displays the use.

4.2 Irrationalization of the opposing viewpoint
As Augoustinos and Every (2007: 123) suggested, one of the primary goals in using
rhetorical strategies in contemporary race discourse is to present the addressers as rationaland reasonable, in order to defend themselves from possible charges. On the contrary,
National Review puts more effort in convincing the readers than in protecting themselvesfrom possible charges. However, the aim to rationalize themselves is shared in both cases,
and the magazine achieves this aim by irrationalizing the supporters of the opposing view.

7

It is evident in the next extract from an article in the edition of October 13th 1997, titled“More to come.”(Extract 2)
Although NR and the immigration reformers have won the intellectual argument, wehave clearly lost the political argument for now. We know this because the Wall Street
Journal’s Paul Gigot has told us so. In an August 22 column, he blamed us foralienating the Hispanic immigrants he sees as otherwise clamoring to cut the capitalgains tax and vote Republican. Was Mr. Gigot taking the day off? Not only did
Hispanics vote overwhelmingly Democratic long before immigration became an issue,
but they are also now (thanks to that paradoxical selection system) a poverty
population with a direct interest in transfer programs.
“The debate should be over,” Mr. Gigot instructs us. What debate? The Wall Street
Journal editorial page has not run an article opposing its open-borders zealotry in years,
while NR has repeatedly published immigration enthusiasts like Ron Unz and Julian
Simon. The Journal has yet even to report the existence of the NAS report or the Rand
study. Surely Mr. Gigot does not want to be classed with the multicultural censors at,say, the San Jose Mercury, which in its editorial on the NAS report said, amazingly,that “there is some news in this report that becomes alarming in the wrong hands.”(“More to Come”, October 13, 1997. National Review)

In extract 2, NR (National Review) claims its rationality by criticizing Wall Street
Journal for being unreasonable. This “irrationalization of the opposing viewpoint” is one of
the strategies which enables the magazine to present itself to be rational, without containing
the “denial of prejudice.”This following extract from the article “Economics as she is spoke” (January 29, 1996)
also irrationalizes the opponent in order to present the magazine to be logical.

Being an immigration enthusiast means never having to say you're sorry, or deal withfacts or logic. (“Economics as she is spoke”, January 29, 1996. National Review)84.3 Identification of interests through social categorization
In his analysis of political discourse on refugees, van Dijk (1997: 31-64) suggested thatthe idea of “bogus refugees” is a key political strategy. Speakers such as politicians who
promote restriction on refugees use this idea to create the social categorization of “real” and“bogus” refugees, saying that “real refugees are to be pitied and saved, but not the bogus
ones.” By doing so, the speakers avoid criticisms, while at the same time appearing“reasonable” and sympathetic toward refugees (Augoustinos and Every 2007: 129-132).
Augoustinos and Every (2007: 132) also argued that the “deployment of very specific andparticular social categorization is a powerful way of justifying oppressive practices--by
defining the boundaries of a group, a speaker defines the entitlements of that group.”
Therefore, the employment of the idea of “bogus refugees” is an effective strategy inpresenting negative opinions on refugees.
National Review utilizes a similar strategy in the following two extracts: it creates the“social categorization” such as existing/future immigrants and skilled/unskilled immigrants.
However, the feature of this magazine which does not primarily seek to avoid criticisms
causes its strategy to be peculiar: creating those social categorizations, National Review
claims that the interest of the magazine coincides with that of already existing and/orskilled immigrants.

(Extract 3)
Majorities of immigrants, Hispanics, and Hispanic immigrants all support lowerimmigration. (“America or Utopia?”, March 25, 1996. National Review)

9(Extract 4)
The common-sense conclusion to draw from these studies is that we should reduce
total immigrant numbers (to discourage the rise of linguistic enclaves), ensure thatwithin the reduced total more immigrants have high skills and speak English, andreform our assimilative mechanisms to produce Americans rather than anti-Americans.
None of this is currently being considered. Indeed, the current Republican approach isto purchase an increase in skilled immigration by promising ethnic pressure groups anincrease in other categories too, thereby adding disproportionately to the social costs ofimmigration. Our children -- and the children of immigrants already here -- will pay
the price. And so, in lost elections, will the GOP. (“Give me your Democrats”, April 20,1998. National Review)

In extracts 3 and 4, the magazine manages to construct social categorizations within
immigrants. Then in extract 3, National Review claims to share the same opinion, which is
to lower immigration, with the already-existing immigrants. The strategy is more clearly
used in extract 4, since it elaborately places the “skilled” immigrants against unskilled ones,
and at the same time positions the “immigrants already here” as shouldering the sameburden (“the price”) with the conservatives.
What must be emphasized in analyzing this strategy is that the “interest” of theconservative magazine directly refers to the “interests” of the conservative readers. That iswhy such expression as “our children,” which simultaneously refers to the children of thewriter and the readers is possible. By employing this strategy, the magazine is identifying
the interests of the readers with those of existing/skilled immigrants. Thus the strategy
empowers the magazine to become more appealing and convincing, making the readersable to relate themselves to the opinion.

5Conclusion

10This qualitative study has shown that the strategies used in National Review havedifferent characteristics from those discussed by Augoustinos & Every (2007). This isbecause the society in which each discourse takes place inevitably affects the discourse,
while the discourse influences the society as well. For example, since National Review isaware of the fact that most of its readers are conservative, it does not put emphasis on
avoiding possible criticism for being racist and prejudiced. Rather, the magazine intends toinfluence the readers by manipulating strategies such as the “identification of interests
through social categorization” which is most effective in circumstances where the politicalinterests of the addresser and the addressee are identical.
Therefore, this study suggests that we be more aware and critical of the rhetoricalstrategies used in journalism. By critically analyzing the strategies, readers will be able todisclose the social backgrounds, relationships, and objections hidden under the discourse.

References
Augoustinos, Martha, and Danielle Every. (2007) The language of "Race" and Prejudice: A
discourse of denial, reason, and liberal-practical politics. Journal of language andsocial psychology: 123-141.
Barker, M. (1981) The new racism. London: Junction Books.
Budd, Scott. (2008) Advertise on National Review Online. National Review Online.
http://www.nationalreview.com/mediakit/ (last accessed November 4, 2008).
Richardson, John E. (2007) Analysing newspapers: an approach from critical discourse
analysis. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
National Review. (1991-2008) observed through GALE CENGAGE Learning.
http://www.gale.cengage.com/ (last accessed November 7, 2008)11

Titscher, S., Meyer, M., Wodak, R. and Vetter, E. (2000) Methods of Text and Discourse
Analysis, pp. 147. London: Sage.
van Dijk, T. A. (1997) Political discourse and racism: Discribing others in Westernparliaments. In S.H. Riggins (Ed.), The language and politics of exclusion: Others indiscourse: 31-64.
Woods, L.A. and Kroger, R. O. (2000) Doing Discourse Analysis: Methods for Studying
Action in Talk and Text, pp. 206. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

12