Reflecting on arguments and sources

My English research paper was powerful in the sense that it had logic and proof behind the logic, as to why illegal immigration wasn’t a threat to American society. One of the major weaknesses I thought of it though is the way I searched for sources, because instead of looking deeply into the sources that argued against my view, I was looking for the source that would back me up. Of course, this can also tie into another weakness that I was questioning, the presentation of the issue. Instead of it being from a mediator point, I definitely took a strong side in favor of illegal immigration. One thing that I could have done better is to make that seem less obvious, and be more objective, because there is most likely bias in the paper. Instead of having the sources make the argument for me, I sort of relied too much on my personal information. For some of the logic, which can be assumed, I should have instead put numerical proof, for example if I were to say most undocumented aliens are young, I should have provided an age range, why this applies to that age range, and most importantly the actual proof of that statement. Another thing I could have done better was the arrangement of the argument, I feel like I jump around subjects, and transitioning could have been improved. For example instead of going from taxes to health care, I could have attributed a paragraph to each, and transitioned with some sort of connection like health care is one of the benefits that undocumented aliens mostly miss out on, although they would pay taxes for it if they used fraudulent identities. That arrives to my last point which is that I didn’t consider the fraudulent identities for what they were, still a bad thing, and that could be argued against me.