Bowden writes not only about a variety of walls that have existed, and still exist, discussing whether they were or were not effective. He writes to give insight to the ways almost all walls have a way around them and just end up creating more issues, he wants to get people to truly think about what walls do and how well they truly work by giving a number of examples of walls. The writer does not want the readers to take his side, but wants them to think about wants people to think more deeply about all that a wall does, and the effect it has on the people on each side of it.
In the essay, Bowden uses the appeal to logos through his numerous examples of walls. He causes the reader to think by sharing the fact that every wall have its limitations, someone can find a way around, under, or over it showing it is not a foolproof solution no matter how big the wall is. The story of the rabbits in Australia does not seem very relative, but it helps in his logical appeal calling the rabbits “immigrants” and they could not be stopped by a wall or outside devices, supporting his point that people will always find a way around things, and that is something people should think more deeply about rather than simply trying to come up with more solutions.
I agree with Bowden that a wall is not going to solve all problems especially in regards with immigrants. Walls often create more issues, and they have never truly worked in the past. Just like people have fences around their yards to keep their animals in and other critters out, many peoples dogs get out, and people often see anything from cat and possums, to raccoons and coyotes that find a way to get in their backyard. This small example shows that walls will not keep everything or everyone out, but there are other ways to solve the issues of immigration like rather than being stern and hateful, being welcoming but in a way that causes people to willing go through the legal process to come in rather than trying to flood in.
𝒉𝒂𝒍𝒆𝒚'𝒔 𝒃𝒍𝒐𝒈 