Writing Sample: Rhetorical Analysis

For my Contemporary Rhetoric class, in the Communication Studies department,

we were asked to use a rhetorical theory to analyze an artifact of our choosing. Due to my
interest in transnational issues and migration/border studies, I decided to use a personal
interaction with a Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) Agent and analyze it using Michel
Foucaults theories on power, knowledge, and archaeology. By doing this analysis, I was able to
pay close attention to the way interactions with agents are commonly structured and it allowed
me to be more critical of these every day interactions. This analysis motivated me to analyze the
way rhetoric is used in different situations, specifically regarding immigration, to alter power
dynamics.
This writing sample demonstrates my ability to conduct secondary research and my
ability to apply rhetorical theories to certain artifacts in order to analyze and understand them.
 The Ideal Citizen
Abstract
As a student living in the Ciudad Juarez and El Paso border, I have had close encounters
with the Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) agents when commuting across countries to attend
school. One of these encounters led to an interrogation about private information with the use of
isolation and intimidation techniques. Using Michel Foucaults theories on archaeology,
discursive formation and knowledge, and power it is possible to analyze and understand this
rhetorical event. By using these techniques one can understand how CBP agents are able to
create the language and knowledge used when discussing immigration and how they are using
their power to create ideal citizens.
Introduction
The United States Mexico Border spans around 1,989 miles all the way from California
to Texas, and along these miles of land you can find unique interconnected cities that happen to
lie in different countries. These unique communities offer opportunities for different situations
and circumstances to occur such as the daily commute of thousands of people across country
borders. The interactions between residents, more specifically Mexican nationals, and United
States Border Agents vary from person to person but most are centered on the reasons regarding
the commute.
In the border cities of Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua and El Paso, Texas there are many
students who travel to school across country lines every morning, giving room for interactions
with Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) Agents to happen. I have been a commuter student for
the past fifteen years, and in the multiple exchanges I have had with CBP agents I have
experienced a particularly concerning interrogation about detailed personal information. Having
been isolated in a room with a CBP agent, he proceeded to ask me questions about private
information, some that I knew is not on record, in what felt like a manner of attack and
intimidation. Though I experienced this event first hand, this type of questioning is very common
amongst people who live in these types of communities. These interrogation procedures are
important rhetorical events because they use language and discourse as a tool for asserting
knowledge and power over individuals.
To best analyze this rhetorical event, Michel Foucaults theories about knowledge,
power, and archaeology can be used. Michel Foucault wrote about the way that knowledge is
established: what can be considered knowledge, who is allowed to create it, and how knowledge
can be discussed. Foucaults rhetorical theory also focuses on the idea of power, and how it does
not need to be oppressive, but rather how it is considered productive. In order to be able to better
interpret data and understand it, Michel Foucault decided to work with different analytical
techniques. The technique of archaeology helps make visible how knowledge and power have
been used in a situation. By further discussing these topics in Michel Foucaults work, it is made
clear how his theories can be applied to analyze an event.
Using the archaeological method to analyze my interaction with a CBP agent, I will look
closely at how the questions were said and how some things were not said This will allow me to
discover how the governing rules set by the group in power, the CBP, affected the discursive
formations that were discussed and what knowledge was created. This will also help bring to
light how the CBP agents use power as a productive force with immigrants crossing country
borders into the United States.
Theory
 Michel Foucault (1969) explained that the study of the history of different topics had
focused on the idea of finding continuity to form connections and find patterns to understand
how events transpired. The study of history had to transform to a more intrinsic description of
the actual monument or artifact being studied, and this was referred to as the study of
archaeology (Foucault, 1969). By using this type of study one can analyze the different meanings
that individuals grant to the different symbols that surround them.
Foucault (1969) refers to his study of existing beliefs, meanings, and opinions as
archaeology, or the description of an archive. He moves away from the idea that archaeology is
the physical geological search for evidence, but instead it is making sense of the past
(Descombes, 2016; Foucault, 1969). Changing from the impression of archaeology as the
physical excavation we then formally define archaeology as an analysis of the production of
discourse in terms of the conditions of possibility that allow discourse to appear and that govern
the system of knowledge and order (Foss, Foss, Trapp, 2014). It is the way that written or
spoken communication can be analyzed by taking into consideration how things were said, what
was said, and the group of people that are allowed to participate in the communication. Through
the use of archaeology, the main goal is to analyze the relationships in order to make these
components visible.
According to Foucault, knowledge is created through the act of discourse, the
communication between two individuals in which signs and symbols are assigned to create
knowledge (Foss et al., 2014). In the world around us, things already exist in a certain way, but
individuals are not completely aware of all the knowledge that is out there. It is only through the
act of discourse that people actively participate in assigning definitions to knowledge and
meanings. Through interactions with other people, individuals begin to create a specific language
for the different things that they experience. These are called discursive formations, a collection
of statements that show patterns.
There are different rules of formation that act as the conditions of existence (but also of
coexistence, maintenance, modification, and disappearance) in a given discursive division
(Foucault, 1969). These rules of formation can be divided into three main categories. The first
category defines what can be talked about, if something cannot be discussed then technically it
does not exist because it is not considered a discursive formation. Next, there are rules
concerning who is allowed to speak and create the discursive formations. Not everyone is going
to be heard, and those who are heard must take into consideration, how they look, how they
speak, and where they speak. The last category deals with the style and form of the discourse in
order for it to be considered knowledge. The correct language needs to be used in order for it to
be accepted as correct and true or invalid and false (Foss et al., 2014). These three governing
rules affect the way that certain discursive formations are accepted as knowledge.
Next, Foucault realized that there was no way to discuss discursive formation and
knowledge without power. The idea of power referring to an individual or institution making
other individuals subjects or something that can be owned is not correct (Foss et al., 2014;
Foucault, 1982). Foucault (1982) believes that there is no battle between power and freedom
because they are mutually exclusive, there needs to be freedom in order for power to be able to
exist. Instead, he sees power as a productive force because it is the drive that moves people to do
certain things. Foucault explains that power exists only when it is put into action, (Foucault,
1982). Foss et al. explain that it only exists as a creative force that helps to create and facilitate
discursive formations and knowledge. The use of power will help create subjected and practiced
bodies, docile bodies (Foucault, 1979). Therefore, the notion of power as ownership should be
left behind to take on the idea that power helps produce a specific discursive formation and
ultimately to create knowledge.
Foucaults ideas about the creation of discursive formations and knowledge closely
related to power as a productive source have been used to analyze issues of immigration in the
United States. Oded Lowenheim and Orid Gazi (2009) explain that power is not already fixed by
one group, institution or person:
Rather, it is an ongoing relationship that is embodied, produced, and reproduced in
various practices and regimes of truth, and these operate within a structure that includes
agents who seek to control and construct individuals and populations, as well as those
who are controlled and constructed (pg. 147).
This is an effective way to analyze the way that states and governments seek to hold
power over specific groups of people with tools like citizenship exams, which help establish
them as experts and authorities on the subject. The government uses an exam to exert power over
a group of individuals they have already classified as alien or foreign by giving them a test
about the ideal way to be a citizen (Lowenheim et al., 2009). The tests discuss the discursive
formation that the power group has decided is considered knowledge, and by testing individuals
over this knowledge, they are making sure others think the same way. Through the use of the
examination practice, the United States government is exerting power to produce what they
perceive to be ideal and correct citizens.
Another artifact that the government has used to establish power is the use of a border
wall between the United States and Mexico. Thomas Nail (2013), explains that this wall has been
built and rebuilt several times, and while it is not completely effective, it is still used as a
discursive formation to antagonize immigrants and exert power. By building a wall you are
creating the distinction between one group and the other, the US government then uses its power
to produce a wall that will serve as a division. In this case, the government is actively producing
a structure as a symbol of protection and sovereignty as well as a physical reminder of the
divide between them and us (Nail, 2013). The symbol of the wall that helps reinforce the
discursive formation about immigrants has a direct impact on the immigration of individuals into
the country. With the emphasis of the divide of the two groups of individuals, them and us, there
is a necessity to have stringent immigration laws so that only those who look more like us can
come into the country.
Michel Foucaults theory can also be used to analyze the way that race plays a role in the
way that the immigration discourse is conducted in the United States. The groups in power are
the ones who get to decide what information can be discussed and eventually considered to be
knowledge. The dominance of white individuals has allowed them to dictate the discursive
formation about immigration eventually leading up to the idea that everyone who is not a citizen
of the United States can ultimately become a threat. This is then reflected in the immigration
system that has been set up by the government to maintain the norm, whiteness. Natalie Okeson
(2009) explains that the desire of those in power to organize and maintain their population
because it is the base of their power can become extremely dangerous when it develops into
ethnic cleansing or genocide. Therefore, the practices conducted by the government to produce
ideal citizens from immigrants can be considered dangerous. There needs to be a revaluation of
the discursive formation that is accepted by the group in power.
Michel Foucaults ideas about archaeology, knowledge, and power serve as a basis for
understanding how concepts and meanings are created and accepted among a group of
individuals. Understanding power structures as productive forces that create knowledge helps us
understand how discursive formations are created and used. Through an archaeological method
of looking back at an archive, or a rhetorical event, we can begin to see the different ways that
power groups use the three governing rules to create knowledge.
Artifact
Living in the Border cities of Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua and El Paso, Texas creates a
unique set of circumstances for residents. One of these situations is the fact that there are many
students who commute across country borders to reach their destination daily. I am one of the
students who resides in one country, and attends school in the other. Living in Ciudad Juarez all
my life, I have attended school in El Paso since elementary school. This means I have been
crossing the border at least five days of the week for the past fifteen years. Crossing daily creates
many opportunities for interactions with different Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) agents that
range from one minute non-eventful encounters to several hours long terrifying ones. One
encounter with an agent about license plates resulted in a full-on interrogation about every aspect
of my life leaving me feeling hopeless and scared.
Since I was enrolled in school in the United States and I was expected to commute across
the border daily, my family decided to enroll in the Dedicated Commuter Lane (DCL) Program.
This program offers a select amount of people the chance to cross the border in a more exclusive
and faster way, helping to avoid the long and slow lines where everyone else crosses. To be
considered for this program, there are an extensive amount of background checks done to see if
people qualify. These background checks require people to turn in a lot of paperwork and other
personal information. People with criminal backgrounds or other issues with the law or the CBP
are not able to qualify and are therefore denied their SENTRI cards. By agreeing with the
stipulations of the program, you give the government permission to keep closer tabs on your
information and whereabouts. You are also agreeing to have all your personal paperwork as well
as any vehicle documentation up to date.
With every new year, the Mexican government issues new license plates, but citizens are
allowed a period of three months to pay the registration fee and get new license plates. In the
DCL, there was an expectation that everyone had to pay the registration fee by the first week in
January to make sure that all the paperwork was up to date. Because the Mexican government
was not holding its citizens accountable for the fee until March, many people in the DCL
program did not pay the fee by the first week of January. The fee did not become an issue with
the CBP until the first week of school, when more people began to cross.
When I reached the CBP agent, she made sure my documents were correct and looked at
my license plates. She came back to my window and informed me I had to go to secondary
inspection. After waiting fifteen minutes to get an agent to go up to my car, she asked me if I was
there because of my license plates, and when I told her yes, she asked for my SENTRI card. She
then told me that that counted as my first formal warning, and that if I had two more warnings
within the same year, my SENTRI card would be cancelled. She then told me that I was not to
cross through the DCL for the next 4 days or I would get another warning. I was to go to the
DCL headquarters in the Zaragoza Bridge in those four days to present my new license plate
registration.
That next Friday, I crossed the Americas Bridge because I was not allowed to use the
DCL line yet, and I was forced to skip class to go to my appointment. I got to the Zaragoza
bridge on the American side, and I had to form a line and wait for the receptionist to call me up
to her window. I explained to her the purpose of my visit and she told me that the officer who
handled the license plate issues was busy at the moment and I had to sit and wait until he could
receive me. I began to get nervous while I was waiting because I did not know what to expect.
After waiting for two hours and fifty minutes, a CBP agent came out. He called out my name and
told me to follow him. I went into the room with him, and I was met with a familiar layout. I had
been in this main room a few times before when I had gone to appointments for the DCL
Program. I believed that the agent who had called me was going to sit in one of the booths to talk
to me, but instead he led me towards the back of the main room.
He opened a small door in the back, and told me to go inside and closed it behind him.
This small back room was an office with one desk with a computer monitor on it, and one chair
facing the desk. He motioned for me to sit down as he sat down on his desk. He did not speak to
me as he turned to his computer and just extended his hand towards me. I assumed he wanted me
to give him my registration documents so that he could update them on the computer. He saw
what I had given him and he just turned back to the computer, as he was doing this I began to
feel more nervous because he had a very annoyed expression on his face. After ten minutes of
him just looking at his computer and my paper he finally turned to look at me. He asked me, So
why didnt you pay your registration fee on time? I began to explain that the Mexican
government gave people until March to pay, but he cut me off right away by saying No. He
then began to ask me if I had my insurance papers with me, I told him they were in the car and
he said he was going to look for them in the system. Then his expression turned from annoyed to
livid, and I got completely scared. He said, Theres no insurance under your name in the
system, you know this could get us to take away your documents.
I explained to him that the car had an insurance that stated that it would cover anyone
who was driving the vehicle that was over the age of eighteen. As I was saying this, he was
shaking his head no looking impatient like he wanted to interrupt me as I spoke. No, absolutely
not! he screamed at me. He began to explain that these type of insurance papers were not
allowed in the DCL program because the program was very exclusive, and only people with the
SENTRI card could cross. He continued saying that because not everyone has the card, the
insurance would not work because it included the people who did not have a SENTRI card. By
that point, I had been crossing through the DCL for over ten years, and one had ever mentioned
that this was an issue, not even when my family had first applied for the program. By then, I was
sure that he was just trying to find any little detail he could to give me another warning. I was
terrified, but I was trying to remain calm so I told him that I could get that fixed by putting the
names of everyone who had the SENTRI card on the insurance paperwork. He looked me
straight in the eye with a furious look in his eyes and said, You better get that changed within
the next two days, or I will make sure you get another warning and get your SENTRI taken
away. I could not speak because I was petrified and just nodded.
By this time, he could tell that I was scared and he took advantage of the situation. He
gave me a look and said, Well now that I have your information open, why dont I quiz you on
it to see if youre lying on anything. He then began to ask me questions right after the other
about my personal life, even some things I knew for sure he did not have information on. He
began to ask me how many sisters I had, if my parents were divorced, where I lived, who I lived
with, how many floors my house had, how many rooms were in my house, and lastly what my
phone number was. My mom had registered a phone number in my name when we had barely
registered for the program, so I was not sure which phone number was written under my name. I
was scared that if I gave a wrong answer he would give me a warning or take away my SENTRI,
so I told him I did not have a phone anymore. He looked away from his computer and looked at
me, and you could tell that he did not believe me. He asked Why dont you have a phone? I
told him it was because I could not afford it anymore, and he kept looking at me for a few
minutes. When he finally believed my answer, he looked at the computer and said You are free
to go, but make sure you fix the insurance paperwork or I will be sure to grant you your second
and third warnings. After he was done speaking he just made a motion with his hand for me to
leave, but he never looked at me again.
This event that occurred to me was way more intense and long than all my other
encounters with CBP agents. The fact that I am part of the DCL program, gives me more leeway
with these agents when crossing the bridge and it reduced the long encounters that I have with
them. Since they have more information about me, they ask less questions and search me even
less than others. There is a great amount of people who do not share this privilege, and they
endure these types of encounters a lot more often. Many of them probably have endured worse
scenarios and there is nothing they can do about them.
Synthesis
With the use of Foucaults theories on archaeology, knowledge, and power I can look
back at the rhetorical event to analyze what happened and why it happened the way it did. This
will allow me to go back to the description of the event to break apart the elements behind it to
find the way knowledge and power were used during the interrogation. By considering the way
knowledge and power were used, one can understand the way that CBP agents use rhetoric
regarding immigration with a specific goal to create an ideal citizen.
Michel Foucaults analytical technique of archaeology focuses on looking back at
descriptions of events to make sense of what happened during the specific event (Foss et al.,
2014). For this specific event, it is important to look at the how, what, and who of the
interrogation, this will allow for the visibility of knowledge and power within the rhetorical
event. First, there needs to be an analysis of how discourse was said during the interrogation. The
CBP agent immediately used isolation and intimidation for communicating his message. He
achieved this by taking me to a secluded area apart from the rest of the people in the office. This
made me feel vulnerable because I was completely alone, scared of having done something
wrong, and guilty because I did not comply with the rules. Next, the CBP agent used yelling and
verbal threats to make sure that I understood what he was saying was correct and to avert me
from doing something that he did not deem valid. Next, what was being said were a series of
questions and threats meant to check that I was complying to the rules that I had originally
agreed to follow as part of the program as well as new rules he thought were important. The
questions involved information that Homeland Security has about me, this would be the
questions about the names of my parents and siblings, where I live, and my phone number. The
other half of the questions involved information that was not on the record, this were the
questions regarding how many floors my house has, how many rooms, and which room I stay in.
At times when my answers would not be what the CBP agent wanted to hear, he would use
verbal threats to inform me that I was wrong and he was correct. Lastly, the person who was
creating the conversation and guiding it was the CBP agent. I was allowed to participate in the
conversation, but only when the agent asked for my participation and only to answer questions in
the way that he wanted them to be answered. When I was incorrect he would be quick to cut me
off or correct me.
Having used an archaeological approach to look more in depth into the event to find the
different components regarding the discourse, one can see the involvement of knowledge and
power that exists and how they were implemented throughout the conversation. According to
Foucault, knowledge is created through discourse because this is how we assign meanings to
signs and symbols (Foss et al., 2014). There are three categories of rules for creating discursive
formations, one of them being who is allowed to speak and create the language that we use to
discuss certain topics. In this case, CBP agents are the ones who create the discursive formations
which we use to talk about immigration. There are different ways that the CBP agents create the
discursive formations. The first is by housing immigration under the department of Homeland
Security, this immediately creates the idea of immigrants as a threat to the country. They begin to
classify certain groups of people as alien and foreign essentially creating a taxonomy, or a
classification of individuals according to nationality and level of threat (Lowenheim et al.,
2009). Using certain artifacts like the wall, there is a perpetuation of the idea of alien and
foreign individuals and the need of protection from them (Nail, 2013). The CBP agents take
into consideration how and where they get to speak so that they will be heard and taken as the
authority on the subject, for example using an authoritative tone, wearing a uniform, and in
highly guarded points of entry or small isolated rooms.
Once there is a group who is creating the discursive formations, they get to decide what
they want to accept as valid subjects to discuss. This means that the department of Homeland
Security, and essentially CBP agents, are the ones who decide what is knowledge and what is
not. This is expressed through things like citizen tests, where individuals are tested on whether
they know the information Homeland Security deems important and correct (Lowenheim et al.,
2009). Another way this is put into practice is through interrogations, like the one I went
through. The CBP agent was the one who decided what discursive formations were valid and
which ones were not. The agent would constantly interrupt me and say no when I was saying
something that was not correct according to him. When I told him that the Mexican government
had different rules about license plate registration, he cut me off and said it did not matter. Even
though the information I told him was correct, it was not part of his discursive formation and
therefore it was incorrect or nonexistent. Another example was when he explained that the type
of insurance I had did not work for the SENTRI program, he was saying that only the knowledge
that he had was valid for the program, anything else was not acceptable and therefore not a
discursive formation regarding the program.
Not only does Homeland Security get to decide what is a discursive formation, they get to
decide what type of language needs to be used during the act of discourse. This again is reflected
in the citizenship exams and the interrogations. The CBP agent expected me to answer in a
certain way, if I did not or tried to challenge him he would raise his voice and use threats. This
shows that you need to use submissive language when addressing an agent, if it is not then the
discourse will be considered incorrect or invalid. The CBP agent was constantly assessing my
responses in order to prove whether or not I was a threat. The agent payed close attention to
whether or not I knew my personal information by asking questions both on and off the record.
Through the discursive formations created by Homeland Security, he was able to assess whether
what I said was correct according to their standards. He was also assessing the way I was
speaking, did my voice crack, was I sweating, did I make eye contact, along with other body
language to check whether or not I was acting in a normal way or not. By making sure that I
answered correctly and in the correct form, the CBP agent was proving that I was not a threat. If
I answered incorrectly then he would have had a reason to say that I did not fit into the mold and
would be considered alien and therefore a potential threat.
Homeland Security and CBP agents control the type of discursive formations used to
discuss knowledge about immigration, and this is because they have power. Michel Foucaults
use of power as a productive force rather than an oppressive one translates to these institutions
and their use of rhetoric (Foss et al., 2014; Foucault, 1982). This means that groups that are in
high positions of power get to use this force to make others do something, they want to produce
something. Homeland Security and CBP agents ultimately use their power to produce ideal
citizens, these are people that fit into the category that was created during the process of creating
a taxonomy. Just as individuals outside of the country were put into different categories and
made foreign or alien, there is a category for what is considered a good American, or a good
citizen. Race plays a factor in the creation of this taxonomy this is seen with the dominance of
white individuals who get to create the discursive formations and knowledge we use to talk about
immigration (Okeson, 2009). From there, CBP agents begin to judge people as good candidates
and threats. People who end up being good candidates are then trained with a series of rhetorical
events and artifacts like interrogations, citizenship exams, and the wall. They begin to ask you
questions about the information they deem important and correct you, or even threaten you,
when you are wrong so that in the future you will answer their answers correctly. By doing this
continuously, they procure your full collaboration and even assimilation into their discursive
formations and knowledge. There begins to be a separation of the other, or people who do not fit
into the mold of the ideal citizen. People who are seen as threats may not even be trained to
become ideal citizens, they keep getting portrayed as foreign and alien and therefore people
we need protection from.
Conclusion
Michel Foucault changed the way that the study of archaeology is used to analyze
rhetorical events. Foucault focused on the detailed accounts of past events to discover what was
said, how things where said, and who said them. This allows for the discovery of the way that
knowledge and power were used during the discourse. According to Foucault, knowledge is
created through rhetoric by following different rules regarding who creates knowledge, what can
be said, and the type of language that is used. The traditional definition of power then changed to
portray power as a productive force that is used to create discursive formations and knowledge
that we use during our everyday lives. Foucaults theories can be used to discuss the way that the
government, the group in power, has created the discursive formations and knowledge we use to
discuss immigration.
Being a Mexican citizen living in the Ciudad Juarez and El Paso border has allowed me
to become one of the thousands of students who commute daily across country borders.
Encounters with CBP agents are unavoidable and they often vary depending on the agent and the
circumstances of your commute. I am part of a special program that allows for quicker and easier
commute in exchange for more extensive background checks and constant vigilance. Due to
differences in the laws between the two countries I found myself in the position of having to
answer to one power over the other. This led me to a meeting with a CBP agent that quickly
became a terrifying and extensive interrogation about personal information that was both on and
off record. These types of interrogations are far too common amongst people that frequently
commute across country borders and the interrogations differ in the length and severity.
Using Foucaults theory to analyze the interrogation I went through using the
archaeological approach allows for the analysis of the on and off record questions asked with the
CBP agent in charge of setting the tone of the conversation. Next, Homeland Security and CBP
agents have created the discursive formation and therefore the knowledge that we use about
immigration. They achieve this by creating a distinction between what is considered normal and
an ideal citizen, and the other who becomes a threat or alien. The CBP agent used the
interrogation to assess what category I would fit in to. Lastly, using power as a productive force,
Homeland Security and CBP agents transform immigrants to ideal citizens by training them on
what information they need to know and how to answer certain questions correctly.
There are several limitations that are found in the analysis of this specific artifact. Having
used my personal experience as a rhetorical artifact served as a limitation to this analysis because
it meant that it lacked objectivity. Firsthand experiences are always filled with personal feelings,
opinions, and biases and it is often hard to be objective when discussing them. Another reason it
served as a limitation is the fact that it is not guaranteed that all the details are remembered
correctly, therefore key aspects of the interrogation may have not been taken into consideration.
The analysis was also based on just one interrogation and as mentioned before, interrogations
differ from person to person. One can not use my personal experience as a norm to judge the way
that knowledge and power are used by CBP agents on all immigrants. This can be taken more as
a case study, not as a standard and therefore there is missing knowledge regarding interviews and
interrogations of immigrants by CBP agents.
To help fix these limitations, further research needs to focus on gathering more accounts
of interrogations by CBP agents from different people who commute across country borders.
This would help increase objectivity by analyzing other peoples interrogations instead of ones
own, though it would be important to take into consideration the bias that exists because of the
closeness I have with the issue itself. Analyzing more than one interrogation would also help to
fill in the missing gaps in any of the accounts because people tend to remember different details,
this would give a more complete understanding of the proceedings in an interrogation. Lastly,
one would be able to see the differences between the interrogations and it would help create a
better understanding of the way Homeland Security and CBP agents create discursive formations
and knowledge about immigrants and ideal citizens.

References
Descombes, V. (2016). The order of things: An archaeology of what? History and Theory, 54,
66-81. doi: 10.1111/hith.10829
Foss, S. K., Foss, K. A., & Trapp, R. (2014). Contemporary perspectives on rhetoric 30th
anniversary edition. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.
Foucault, M. (1969). Archaeology of Knowledge (A. M. Sheridan Smith, Trans.). New York,
NY: Routledge Classics.
Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. Critical Inquiry, 8(4), 777-795.
Lowenheim, O. & Gazit, O. (2009). Power and examination: A critique of citizenship tests.
Security Dialogue, 40(2), 145-167. doi: 10.1177/0967010609103074
Nail, T. (2013). The crossroads of power: Michel Foucault and the US/Mexico border wall.
Foucault Studies, 15, 110-128.
Okerson, N. (2009). Exploring the American anti-immigration discourse in scholarship, politics,
and activism through Michel Foucault and Edward Said (masters thesis).