Fallacies in The Immigration Topic

The opposing views between liberals and conservatives is a never ending debate in itself. One side supports positive things to say on the topic while the opposing has mainly negative and constructive points. Depending on which part of the spectrum one falls they will use a fallacy in analyzing other opinions, and their own on immigration. Left wing lean more open minded on the topic of immigration and its policies while left wing tend to be more conservative and prideful in the pre existing immigration system. There are misconceptions on both sides of the spectrum as shown in the immigration related situations.

Hasty generalization is used commonly among the public when forming an opinion on a certain topic of discussion. This kind of fallacy is when one forms an assumption without credible evidence and jumps to conclusions and opinions without doing the research. Whether it is about someone, something, or a situation, the opposing viewpoints is not considered or seen. It is assumed without any prior knowledge by many commoner that foreigners come here to take but do not give back into the system in return. President Trump comes under fire for the use of hasty generalization targeting specifically followers of Islam and those alike whom in the past at large have been a threat to the country safety. President Trump has generalized the entirety of Muslim Americans by being vocal in his belief of, “If Muslim extremists have done some of the terror in this country, we should ban all Muslims from entering.” This quote cited by Bruno in her article pointing out all the times Trump has used fallacies is a perfect example of hasty generalization because it puts the use of the fallacy into a real situation. Trump is as defined previously targeting one certain ethnicity and making assumptions without using logic. Using this kind of fallacy against someone or something in a speech or conversation or just expressing one's opinions can come off as racist and commonly misunderstood. Immigration is one of the topics where people jump to conclusions without doing research and having enough reliable evidence to support their opinions so to compensate for this, the public tends to generalize. This theme relates to my next topic of being hasty and ignorant when assessing or meeting immigrants for the first time.

Foreigners will take away jobs, the most common misconception in regards to Immigration. Another example of a Hasty is generalization. This is wrong to assume without knowing the group of people who are the subject of this conversation. Not all migrant families and skilled workers come here to take jobs some actually create them. This assumption is also another example of a Hasty Generalization because it is formed upon no credible research and jumps to ignorant conclusions. As a matter of fact, Williams, whose work is published by Gale a Cengage company states 'while some may come to this land to get away from danger, others seek the purpose of doing business, and have a better chance of obtaining a higher paying job than elsewhere. Many of the migrants are here purely to work either it be in rich fertile land or technologically advanced positions including computer related technology jobs”. Williams supports the opinion that not all immigrants are here to take jobs but can bring some along in the process by improving the ones that already exist. Making a Hasty generalization like immigration affecting job availability is like speaking a subject on which one is ignorant about and or is sheltered and kept away from exposure to its details. Immigration negatively affecting job availability is proven wrong when William states, “Immigrants equaled a significant 17.1 percent of the total US working adults”. This disapproves the Hasty Generalization of foreigners taking jobs because it gives a numerical value of American immigrants who fill in the gap of our working class. They do the jobs no one else wants to do in the beginning and work their way to the top to become CEOs in larger companies. This statement of Ignorance brings us to the next fallacy of Slippery Slope used by many to justify their opinions towards such a sensitive topic to many going through immigration or have relatives.

Slippery slope can be ruled out when judging new immigrants and making assumptions on how they will later assimilate. Slippery slope is when one assumes a certain event will occur based on the theory of chain linked events in the timeline usually negatively looked upon. Slippery Slopes do not always exist in Immigration discussions as based on what Benjamin Powell states in the book, “The Economics of Immigration”, “Immigration is based on family categories and the chance of one’s relative receiving a visa is based on your family background without taking into consideration the set merit system of the application process”. This can not be considered a slippery slope because simplifying it to simple terms it does not have enough to say about immigration being an issue. This being said, what Powell is stating about immigration being a merit system is true. This kind of system priorities family ties over skill set and or what the migrant can offer upon moving to their new country. Slippery slope can be considered if the immigrants’ families are providing money for the application to go through so the foreigner gets their visas in a timely manner or before others without the extra help. The switching of main topics is called Red Herring to distract the follower from the story on hand.

Red Herring is when the topic of discussion is diverted or changed to distract the follower of the main issue at hand. As stated by Matt Albence, the acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in an interview about border security and detention centers, “to say fewer domestic violence victims are contacting police because their abusers have threatened to have them deported. The National Network to End Domestic Violence, among other groups, has alleged that is occurring, and pointed to examples…” has claimed this as a red herring to distract from the safety on the border. He does not believe this statistics as true and viable because detainees are being deported and will not be able to contact police in any way even if they were free to do so. This claim diverts the mission of ICE from arresting illegal immigrant to detaining domestic violence victims as supported by Albence. The mission of ICE is to deport illegal immigrant and not to get involved with domestic abuse arrests.

Immigration includes many fallacies like hasty generalizations, slippery slope, and red herring to say the least. Claims are made such as migrants are all take not giving back, they take away jobs, and most that most do not assimilate. A group’s opinions and beliefs towards Immigration will differ throughout time depending on who is asked and why they believe it. Whether one is pro immigration or against it entirely, to each their own. One cannot forcefully spread their beliefs on another but can point out the mess ups along the way of forming bias free opinions. There are many more examples of how this topic is inevitable to bias before a well thought out opinion. The Immigration topic of discussion is flawed for having fallacies and not being able to get rid of prior bias to form personal opinions so do your research and have credibility or trusting sources to back up the claims.