The Logical Fallacies of Zero Tolerance Immigration Supporters

I went to a Jesuit university, and God bless the Jesuits. They are smart and educated, and they broker no fools, even if the fools agree with them. No matter the issue, if you don’t have 6 sources from diverse opinions, and if you can’t clearly elucidate the opinions of those who oppose you, you get an F.

My first semester of college I had an 8AM logic class on Tuesdays and Thursdays that lasted 75 minutes. It was awful. The poor TA who taught it faced a room full of half-asleep freshmen who never participated because they never read the book, and then there was me. He and I pretty much had a semester-long one-on-one conversation about logic. I was barely conscious, but at least I raised my hand. I honestly don’t remember one thing I learned, except that it was vaguely mathematical. I think I got an A.

Straw man Fallacy: Misrepresenting someone’s argument to make it easier to attack.

Trumpeters love to say things like “You don’t like zero tolerance? Well, your love of open borders would create chaos!” But no one ever said they wanted open borders. Saying others want open borders allows Trumpeters to win an argument in their own little minds — “I successfully argued the open borders are bad — I win!” But sadly, no one argued that open borders were good, so you don’t win.

Personal incredulity
Because you found something difficult to understand, or are unaware of how it works, it’s probably not true.

“How can we possibly solve the immigration crisis? It is completely broken — how can we evaluate every single person who tries to come into the US?”

I know you don’t understand how immigration works. It’s complicated. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t work, it means you haven’t done the tough work to understand it yet. Spend 15 minutes online reading out it, you’ll feel a lot better.

Tu quoque
You avoided having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser — you answered criticism with criticism. Otherwise knows as “whataboutism.”

This is so very common — I see it again and again. When backed into a corner, Trumpters claim “What about Obama / Clinton separating families? Where was your outrage then?”

Close the door on the past and deal with what’s happening right now. Is it right? Is it wrong? That’s all that matters as we plot a course for the future.
The fact that Obama and Clinton never did this, and never passed laws the require it, is actually irrelevant (would you believe that “outright lie” is not a logical fallacy?). Just evaluate this policy in and of itself.

Moral Equivalence
This fallacy compares minor misdeeds with major atrocities, suggesting that both are equally immoral.

“If I murdered someone, I’d be separated from my children.” But they didn’t murder someone. That’s a violent felony. Crossing the border is a nonviolent misdemeanor. Like jaywalking. Do we rip children away from people who jaywalk and put everyone is separate jails? No.

Appeal to authority
You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.

Ahem. The Bible? Really? St. Paul said to obey the government because the government is ordained by God? And now we have to rip nursing babies away from their mothers? Try using actual reason to justify your actions. I suggest you focus on protecting our borders, displaying compassion towards the needy, and how to fund the solution.

Appeal to emotion
You attempted to manipulate an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument.

Note the phrase “in place of a valid…argument.” It’s ok to use emotion *in addition* to a valid argument, but not *in place* of it. I feel this is the basis of the entire Trumpeter point of view: nationalism, fear of brown people taking our jobs, fear of brown people raping children — these are all used in place of actual reasoning about immigration statistics and realistic laws, balancing the economic impact with the ideal situation — do we spend 100 million dollars in order to save jobs worth only $1 million to our economy? Do we rip kids away from their parents to prevent sex trafficking, even if the risk of sex trafficking from a certain family is zero? I’m not saying I have the answer or the right balance point for these issues, I’m just saying that stoking the fears of brown people is not a logical argument.

Burden of proof
You said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove.

“Trump didn’t make any changes, the law was passed under Clinton. Prove me wrong.” Um, no, sweetie, you prove yourself right. Ask yourself “Why did this just become an issues since April of 2018? What changed at that time?” You will find a wealth of information online about what Trump changed to make this an issue, if only you look for it.

I could go on and on. But, it’s not my job to prove you wrong, it’s your job to prove yourself right. Go ahead. I’ll wait.

Ambiguity
You used a double meaning or ambiguity of language to mislead

Most people don’t understand the difference between asylum-seekers, illegal immigrants, and legal immigrants. Trump took full advantage.

Composition/division
You assumed that one part of something has to be applied to all, or other, parts of it; or that the whole must apply to its parts.

“A Mexican immigrant was once a rapist. Therefore, Mexican immigrants are rapists. Therefore we need to rip children away from their parents lest they be raped.” Another word for this logical fallacy is “rampant blatant racism.” OK, that quote was just a quote of myself.

Genetic
You judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came.

“The Catholic church is saying this is an immoral way to treat children, by there was a huge sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church.” Yes, there was, but the Catholic Church is still right on this one. How does it feel to be a greater abuser of children, than the Church that sheltered and abetted child molesters?

Black-or-white
You presented two alternative states as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist.

If I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard “So you don’t want to separate children from their parents? Is open borders with no restrictions any better?” There are lots of other options.

Red Herring
This is a diversionary tactic that avoids the key issues, often by avoiding opposing arguments rather than addressing them.

I swear to God, it’s all a red herring. I can’t even think of an example, because it’s all a red herring. The only way you can justify ripping children away from their parents is by avoiding actual conversation. Don’t let Trumpeters do this. Just keep coming back to the question: Do you think it’s okay to separate children from parents? Ask it again and again, no matter how hard someone tried to change the topic of conversation.

That’s all I have for now, because I’m emotionally exhausted and can’t do any more work on this. If I make any additions, I’ll add them below.

Related posts:

Designer belts are considered to be a great accessory for men and women who love fashion. They give you that elegant look and make you feel special. With such a wide variety of different belts on the…

As Instrumental Finance works towards creating new cross-layer yield generation opportunities, it aligns itself with Composable Finance, the face of DeFi’s future. Composable is growing in its…

Waking up to comments from fellow writers are always welcome, and they remind me why I write each day. Most of the time, the comments would come from stories I wrote from the heart, of personal…