When the current Minister of Immigration, John McCallum, announced Canada was opening its border even wider to immigrants while the rest of the world seemed to be closing theirs part of his reasoning was that Canada was continuing a tradition of immigration based on compassion. In doing so he committed two logical fallacies in one sentence. Logical fallacies are commonly employed by the pro-mass immigration crowd so I figure I might as well tackle the ones I’ve encountered over the years.
My feelings on logical fallacies are mixed because in debates about any topic the one who incessantly points out logical fallacies tends to be some pedantic twerp who cares more about pointing out the fallacies than actually discussing the issue. I think they believe doing so makes them look smart. It gets annoying, inviting your fist to their mouth as the only satisfactory retort to their nitpicking. However, it doesn’t mean they’re wrong and they do have a point.
Furthermore, I intended this to be a single post but in writing it I found it becoming quite lengthy so I decided to break it up into a series of posts addressing one fallacy at a time. I’ve found that there is nothing more off putting to the short attention span, tl;dr, internet age that we live in than a lengthy blog post, a crime I've committed many times before and appear to be in the act of committing right now. So let’s get started.
The Ad Hominem
Let’s get this one out of the way first because it’s one of the most common logical fallacies readily employed by mass immigration proponents too intellectually lazy or too intellectually ill equipped (by which I mean stupid) or just too cowardly to discuss the issue as mature adults.
The ad hominem fallacy is the name calling debate tactic. Its purpose is to discredit the message by discrediting the messenger. Hopefully it will derail or shut down the debate by forcing the messenger to defend his or her character to the satisfaction of the arbitrary criteria of the name caller instead of arguing their position.
When it comes to discussing immigration ad hominem attacks encompass accusations of being a racist, xenophobe, Islamophobe, bigot, redneck, right-wing extremist, nationalist, white nationalist, white supremacist, and so on. The fallacy of the ad hominem is that it seeks to conflate the merits of what is being said with who is saying it even though one is not dependent upon the other. The Big Bang Theory is not invalidated by the fact a devout Catholic Priest was the one who first proposed it giving way to early criticisms of it of being "creationism in disguise.” Likewise, valid criticisms of the immigration system are not invalidated if presented by the most unrepentant racist ever to walk the planet.
If you find yourself in a debate and your opponent can do nothing but hurl ad hominem mud then consider yourself the victor. It’s also best not to further engage this person because you’ll just be wasting your time. Just give them a lollipop and a colouring book and direct them to their safe space where their fragile world view cannot be challenged, where they’re always right, and where everyone gets to ride the rides for free except for you, of course, because you’re a f**king racist.