The main purpose of rhetoric is to persuade the audience by presenting the most appealing and strong claims behind the case. For this reason, the presidential election speeches often incorporate a variety of rhetorical strategies to maximize the effectiveness of their impact on listeners. The following essay aims at analyzing Donald Trump’s immigration speech in an attempt to identify the presence of rhetorical elements and determine their purpose and likely impact on the audience. The immigration speech was a part of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, and mostly covered his suggested strategy to deal with the issue of illegal immigrants. As Trump himself stated at the beginning of the speech, the intended format was not a rally speech. Instead, his intent was to “deliver a detailed policy address on one of the greatest challenges facing our country today” (“Transcript of Donald Trump’s Immigration Speech”). However, it is important to note that the actual delivery was different from the stated format. The audience consisted mostly of his electorate and, judging from the reaction of the crowd observed in the video, the majority of the listeners were sympathetic with the content as they reacted positively to the delivery strategies chosen by the speaker. The purpose of the speech was consistent with the common goal of the election campaign speeches – that is, to persuade more listeners to vote for a particular candidate. To be more specific, it was intended to appeal to those who believe that immigration has detrimental effects on the country’s well-being and seek ways to decrease its level. The speech, inconsistency with other public appearances by Trump, bears a distinct level of credibility often emphasized by him and used to persuade the listeners that he is qualified to speak authoritatively on the matter in question. Most often, the claims made by Trump are supported by his assertions of future success based on the fact that he was previously successful in his business endeavors, thus making use of ethos. While in his immigration speech, he did not explicitly make such claims, it is clear from the reaction of the audience that the assertions such as “Mexico will pay for the wall” are accepted without questioning and lauded (“Transcript of Donald Trump’s Immigration Speech”). This suggests that the audience already holds the speaker in high regard and is familiar with his “credentials.” The same can be said about the appeal to logos. While it is arguably present in the speech, it takes a distinct shape that does not fit the traditional definition of the strategy. For example, Trump often constructs his suggestions in a form that resembles the strategy backed by decent planning and supported with evidence, such as the intention to build the wall without using the American funds. Since this was a one-directional delivery, his assertion was not challenged by the critical analysis (which often occurs during debates and other forms of a dialog), but previous experience suggests that once it is put to the test, Trump backs it with vague yet emotionally charged claims which do not pose significant logical value. Therefore, logos is the weakest side of the speech, although this may not be apparent g