Héctor leave the American people. I think

Héctor Tobar is the sender of this text and known for
being a well-respected journalist, and a fiction writer. The fact that Tobar has
earned such a positive repute both on the literary field and the media gives him
a lot of credibility in front of potential readers getting his messages. In his
journalistic career Tobar has won multiple prizes including the Pulitzer Prize,
which is one of the most prestige-worthy awards you can receive as a writer,
which also helped him increase his popularity.


Additionally, he has a lot of
experience in journalistic, and has also been working for more than thirty
years in the media. As for his ethnicity, he is the son of an immigrating couple,
which says something about his understanding of immigrant children, and the feelings they might
have in relation to Trump.

Best services for writing your paper according to Trustpilot

Premium Partner
From $18.00 per page
4,8 / 5
Writers Experience
Recommended Service
From $13.90 per page
4,6 / 5
Writers Experience
From $20.00 per page
4,5 / 5
Writers Experience
* All Partners were chosen among 50+ writing services by our Customer Satisfaction Team


The receiver of the text is the
American people and especially people reading The New York Times, since the
article was published there. Even though Tobar mainly addresses the Latino
immigrants and their children in his article, his message is meant to be
received not only by them but also the people in the US in general. He is trying
to show the readers the effects of Donald Trump’s campaign against immigrants.


In the article, the writer use
hidden argumentation, this means that his critique and arguments are being
presented indirectly, “”He wants to kick out the
Mexican people from America and just leave the American people. I think that’s
pretty much rude. Everyone should be fair, and we should all be treated the
right way.”” (l. 46-48). Tobar is trying to
criticize Trump’s campaign which
involves anti-immigrant feelings, by presenting and covering the Latino
children’s (living in America)
opinions. However, instead of criticizing Trump directly, he is letting the
interviewed immigrant children speak for him, which makes it indirectly.


Additionally, he is using irony when
comparing Trump to a boogieman taking on children’s perspective, to draw
attention to the electoral campaign Donald Trump created against immigrants,
which not only affect the children but the whole Latino community, “He’s a villain in a flaccid pompadour, spewing threats and insults that
have filtered down into the bosom of many a Latino family, to be heard by
children gathered by the television set or at the dinner table.” (ll. 9-12)


Even though the attack is pretty obvious and direct on
Trump, the allusions and figurative language are both ironic and comic, and
rather than being straightforward it is more suggestive, “But in the end, fear
not, niños. Monsters are really just myth. And
you can always make one into a piñata, and beat it
until its paper shell breaks and candy falls out.” (ll. 82-83). This quote, is
intended to make the Latino community and the American people realize they,
themselves have the power to destroy Trump, metaphorically – mostly by not electing


Another argument that is indirect, yet pretty obvious
is the allusion to Adolf Hitler, “Like certain politicians in the Weimar
Republic, he’s found a largely defenseless group to pick on — who also happen
to be reviled by a bankable minority of the electorate.” (ll. 41-43). This portray Donald Trump as someone with tyrannical
and discriminatory nature.

As for the language in this
article, it is written in a very simple language even though some Spanish words
are used, words for beasts and monsters from bedtime stories. Tobar is still
explaining the meaning of the Spanish words and what the monsters are, since
the target group is not only supposed to be the Latino community, “There is “La Llorona,” who is said to moan for her dead children. And more
recently, the Chupacabra, which sucks the blood from farm animals and
maybe a boy or a girl if he or she doesn’t behave.”
(ll. 2-4)

The reason for the choice of a simple language
is primarily because the whole article is based on interviews with small
immigrant children in America, and most of the things they say are quoted
directly, Hugo boiled The Donald’s message down to three words:
“Mexicans are ugly.”” (ll. 17-18)

Furthermore, Tabor uses imagery
when he is writing illustrative words to give us visual images so that we can
imagine how people act or how certain things look like. Since it is an article,
it limits the imagery so it is created in a minimal way, for example when the
local mall is described, “…a Lynwood mall that celebrates
Mexican identity with replicas of Olmec sculptures, a statue of Pancho Villa
and the facade of a colonial church.” (ll. 50-51), or when Donald
Trump is described, “A 10-year-old like Damaris watches The Donald descending an escalator in Trump
Tower. Or standing at the border in Texas in a white hat…” (ll. 75-76)


The main linguistic and
argumentative features which helps Tobar deliver his message is the use of
irony, satire and humour all together with his resort to feelings or pathos made
by keeping the focus on immigrant children’s point of views on Donald Trump.
When the children see Trump as a monster, it underlines the notion of fear. Also,
by not interviewing parents but instead children is a way of using pathos as it
makes it easier for the writer to make the American people sympathize with the
immigrant children and refuse to accept Trump’s negative
view on immigration.



Pathos is created through the use
of the perspective of children, which creates figurative associations between
Donald Trump and a boogeyman: “…Donald J. Trump has become a
figure of dread and comic-book meanness to the Latino community. He’s a villain
in a flaccid pompadour, spewing threats and insults…” (ll. 8-10)


Then, pathos is also created by
presenting the way the children feel about this politician; they are made sad
by his words, but their responses are emotional but mild, making a sharp
contrast to Trump’s strong language: “It made young Hugo
‘sad’ to hear someone call his parents ugly, he said. And if he could meet Mr.
Trump, he’d tell him, “Bad luck for you.”” (ll. 19-20)


The author’s intention was to criticize and ridicule
Trump and show the aberrant, exaggerated nature of his campaign against Latino
immigrants. He managed to do this by presenting him from the children’s perspective, as a bedtime story boogeyman.

His implicit messages are that
the politician himself is much like a caricature, which should not be taken
seriously as a presidential candidate, but also that such discriminatory
attitudes affect the Latino community in many negative ways, from children to

To decide whether the author was,
in fact successful, in delivering his message is merely a question of asking
yourself if you felt convinced by the arguments and if you think others
will too.

I feel like it is smart by the author
not to directly criticize trump, but instead using children to cover up for his
own standpoints and perspectives about the situation.



I'm Isaac!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out