Pathos...sorta

Laws aren't themselves arguments, and so don't really need to use rhetoric. The argument, like a party, happened before the law even arrived. The law is just cleaning up the discarded Solo cups and wondering how the couch got unto a tree.

While proponents of the Chinese Exclusion act would like to claim logos as their source, that's not quite right. Granted, they could easily point to the scarcity of jobs as a reason immigration can't be supported, but if that's the case, why single out only one single country of origin?

The law's argument fundamentally preys on emotions. Feelings about not getting jobs combined a sense of xenophobia toward a culture utterly dissimilar to the familiar one makes something like this appealing to people worried about the future.

The law gives people a convenient enemy, one that doesn't have much power. It says. "Those people there are the cause of your problems, and we're going to protect you from them."