1. 1 Study Document 1. (a) Identify two facts cited by the author of Document 1 that refute the picture of illegal immigrants as criminals. 1a. Any two of the following: incarceration rates of native-born men [is] five times higher than foreign-born men. crime rates have declined notably in cities with large numbers of undocumented immigrants There have been dozens of national studies examining immigration and crime, and they all come to the same conclusion: immigrants are more law-abiding than citizens. A 2007 study by the Immigration Policy Center (IPC) found that immigrants, whether legal or illegal, are substantially less likely to commit crimes or to be incarcerated than U.S. citizens. Data from the census and other sources show that for every ethnic group, incarceration rates among young men are lowest for immigrants, even those who are least educated and least acculturated. One of the most disturbing findings of the IPC study was that immigrant children and immigrants with many years in the country are more likely to become criminals than first-generation immigrants or those with less than 15 years in the country. In other words, the more acculturated immigrants are the more likely they are to become criminals—although still at lower rates than those for non-immigrants. (ANY STATISTICS THAT SUPPORT ANTI-IMMIGRATION ARE INCORRECT!)

2. 1 Study Document 1. (b) Identify two factors that the author of Document 1 blames for the fear and condemnation of illegal immigrants. [2] Any two of the following are acceptable: the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) that provides intellectual ammunition to anti-immigration forces sustained by the media, anecdotes, and popular myth Indignant anti-immigration voices dominate internet discussions with their vitriol and misinformation, and even point to false data to bolster their case. The anti-immigrant forces draw, for example, on the "2006 (First Quarter) INS [Immigration and Naturalization Service]/FBI Statistical Report on Undocumented Immigrants" with its array of alarming statistics about illegal immigrants and crime to make their case that undocumented immigrants not only break the law entering the country but also break the laws, with a proclivity to violent crimes, once they make their own homes here. Statistics from this study circulate on restrictionist websites and routinely appear in blogs and post-article comment sections across the web.

3. 2 Study Document 1. How convincing is the argument in Document 1 that illegal immigrants are not increasing the crime rate. In your answer, you should evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the argument. [12] Strengths: well-supported cites many studies from reliable sources includes counter-argument/claim variation of data (governmental, private) clear message focused expert stresses the word “fact” to support his argument sustains his idea throughout the piece that these myths are “impressions” Weaknesses: emotive language (e.g., ammunition/assault) some of the data are not as current one-sided; intolerant of the anti- immigration groups

4. 3 Study Documents 1 and 2. To what extent are the arguments in Document 2 more convincing than those in Document 1? [14] There are several others that could also apply; these are just a few! D2 > D1 D2 < D1 expertise use of data includes counter claim includes issues with their argument, which shows their ability to see too many assumptions (e.g., won’t take too long to cover the $50,000 fee) faulty reasoning (e.g., use of strawman in paragraph 7) mentions statistics (i.e., sescond paragraph) and doesn’t identify source slippery slope is evident D2 = D1 (We discourage you from doing this, but you might be able to use some of these in your response) Both have clear conclusions but from different perspectives Both arguments leave the reader in no doubt as to the stance that they are taking Both give an unbalanced perspective (they both deflate the opposing argument to make theirs look more valid). Both use statistics to support their claims

5. 3 Study Documents 1 and 2. To what extent are the arguments in Document 2 more convincing than those in Document 1? [14] Level 3 (10–14 marks) The judgement is sustained and reasoned. Alternative perspectives have sustained assessment. Critical evaluation is of key issues raised in the passages and has explicit reference. Explanation and reasoning is highly effective, accurate and clearly expressed. Communication is highly effective – clear evidence of a structured cogent argument with conclusions explicitly stated and directly linked to the assessment. Level 2 (5–9 marks) Judgement is reasoned. One perspective may be focused upon for assessment. Evaluation is present but may not relate to key issues. Explanation and reasoning is generally accurate. Communication is accurate – some evidence of a structured discussion although conclusions may not be explicitly stated, nor link directly to the assessment. Level 1 (1–4 marks) Judgement, if present, is unsupported or superficial. Alternative perspectives have little or no assessment. Evaluation, if any, is simplistic. Answers may describe a few points comparing the two documents. Relevant evidence or reasons may be identified. Communication is limited. Response may be cursory. Credit 0 marks where there is no creditable material.