The emergence of asylum seekers has been around for over 30 years and it has put significant pressure on the Australian government to solve the issue. The first piece is a news article, “Risking kids worth it”, directed towards an audience of Australians who are voting citizens, and have knowledge on the issue. In addition to voting citizens, the audience also includes government representatives as the government policy comes under serious questioning. The writer’s contention is that the Gillard’s Government change in policy of freeing women and children from detention has caused an influx in asylum seekers, especially children. Unlike the first piece, the second piece is a letter to the editor, “Free ride not wanted”, directed towards a broader audience of not only voting Australian citizens, but also the nonvoting younger citizens, who have interests in the issue and will one day be voting. The writer’s contention is that Australia’s response to asylum seekers in need of help has been dealt in an improper manner and the situation needs to be looked at.
The news article “Risking kids worth it” has two parts to its whole meaning, “risking kids” and “worth it”. The former shows that putting kids in danger or jeopardy and the latter shows that is there a benefit or value. The whole title together displays the subject matter being that of placing kids in a hazardous or perilous environment make of any importance or worthiness. The letter to the editor “Free ride not wanted” also has two parts to its whole meaning, “free ride” and “not wanted”. The former shows a liberated journey while the latter shows something not required or not needed. The title put together displays that journey full of freedom is not in demand.
The news article presents a tone that is mostly the same throughout, but it also features a couple of changes in tone. The article starts off with an outraged tone shown by “explosion”, thus creating the audience to realise the significance of the issue. The use of stats in the following paragraphs throughout the article then gives it a calm and reasoned tone which allows the audience to understand the stature of the concern. In the last paragraph we see an attack on the Gillard Government where there is a saddened tone, with words used such as “perished”, “death” and “tragedy”. This tone causes the readers to understand the consequences of the situation and as a result can also cause to question the policy laid by the Gillard Government. The letter to the editor demonstrates a tone that changes variably. The piece starts off with a furious and confrontational tone as words like “hardline” and “disingenuous” are used. Readers feel that there is difficulty in solving the problem of asylum seekers, causing them to worry. The tone in the next sentence is similar to that of the first when words like “rebuff” and “coherent”, showing the writer’s tone to be of anger and disapproval in that no logical reason has been made for how asylum in seekers are dealt with. This allows readers to their opinions on the issue. There is a saddened and weighed down tone in the second paragraph when phrases like “killed before their eyes” and “death is all but inevitable” are used. This allows the readers to feel the tough and brutal reality faced by many asylum seekers. The tone in the third paragraph goes back to a confrontational tone when it illustrates that Australia has reason to be shamed. The writer is stating to her readers that Australia as a society have dealt with those who are in need in a poor manner. Readers should feel some sympathy and understand why Australia should be disgraced.
There are two similar persuasive devices when comparing the two pieces. The first one is emotive language which is shown in the first paragraph of both pieces. The emotive languages shown in both the pieces are very similar in how they make their readers feel. The news article has “dangerous” and “exploded” to make readers feel that the Government’s policy to free women and children from detention centres has done further harm to other asylum seekers, therefore it raises anger and disputes. The letter to the editor has “hardline” and “disingenuous” to make readers feel the Government’s approach is not appropriate towards the situation, creating controversy and outrage. The other similar persuasive device is appeal to a sense of justice which is shown in the paragraph that states “Now you have people in detention for more than one year.” This makes readers feel that the Government’s policy is unfair to those that have not claimed asylum to those that already have claimed asylum. Readers can see that the Government has not treated all asylum seekers fairly. In comparison to the letter to the editor, the appeal to a sense of justice is when the writer states that “and the response from a vast proportion of the population is to rebuff them for no coherent reason shows that no logical reason is provided for Australia’s response to reject asylum seekers to the country. Readers feel unsure as they wonder why Australia approach to asylum seekers is so tough.
There are also many persuasive techniques that contrast between the two pieces. The news article has two types of evidence, with plenty of stats of the number of asylum seeker arrivals and deaths from the Christmas Island tragedy and expert opinions from Immigration Minister Chris Bowen and asylum seeker advocate Jamal Daoud. Evidence provided may influence the opinions of readers. An anecdote is also used in the news article by the asylum seeker advocate Jamal Daoud when he talks about how traditionally a male asylum seeker would come to Australia first by boat and later he would reunite with his family under a family reunion program. Another persuasive technique is the “attack” on the government, “more children being placed in rickety vessels to come to Australia by sea because of delays caused by the Government’s decision this year to freeze new asylum claims”. Readers feel that the writer is denigrating the Government because their policy is unreasonable and unfair. The letter to the editor contrasts with the news article in that it has two different persuasive techniques. The first one is appeal to family values where the writer states “many have seen families killed before their eyes”; this displays the harsh reality faced by many asylum seekers. This causes readers to feel compassion for these asylum seekers. The other persuasive technique is appeal to patriotism where the writer states “if you judge our society by the manner in which we treat those who are most in need”, describes whether Australian’s are loyal to people wanting help.
In a nutshell, asylum seekers coming to Australia has been a hot topic and the issue stated by the news article and the letter to the editor clearly exposes the significance of the matter. Both pieces make the point of the government policy on asylum seekers and how it has impacted not only asylum seekers, but also Australia’s lack of input as a society. In short, the main point being brought up is that Australia as a country along with the Australian Government needs to look into the issue further to ease the difficulty of the situation by changing its policy.