Solution or Addition to the Problem?

Immigration, especially illegal immigration, has been a debatable topic for not only campaigns in elections but amongst families and friends. This has been a tough subject for the United States to handle due to such extreme views about immigration. Due to Mexico bordering the United States, many of the immigrants that come into the nation originate from Mexico. As a result of this, there are many people who believe that an association between the United States and Mexico concerning immigration would benefit both nations. This has brought much controversy between the masses on whether this will, indeed, benefit the nations or will result in a parasitic relationship in which harms the nations. Thus, many articles and other forms of media have surfaced in which expresses an opinion on this topic. Sometimes readers of these articles are fooled into believing a conclusion as a result of fallacies. However, instead of believing these fallacies support an argument, on closer examination, these fallacies may instead show weakness in an argument. In the article “Revamp Immigration” by the editors of the Contra Costa Times, they argue for the implementation of a “guest-worker” program between the United States and Mexico in which immigrants will legally enter the United States to work without becoming a permanent resident. Nonetheless, the flaws and fallacies presented in this article cause the argument of “guest-workers” to be weak and unpersuasive in which does not give support the conclusion that this is the best course of action for the United States to take.

The use of the fallacy, appeal to pity, in this article tries to stir up empathy from the readers to consider the editors’ conclusion that there should be a “guest-worker” program; however, this appeal to pity in the information that the editors’ offer is not that relevant to their argument. In the article, the editors employ this tactic with lines such as, “19 illegal immigrants who suffocated while being transported in locked big rigs, puts an exclamation mark on the urgency for change in the United States’ immigration policy.” The writer uses this fallacy as an attempt for the reader to feel sorry for the immigrants who lost their lives trying to cross the border illegally and thus, accept their conclusion in which would end all the death and suffering experienced by these immigrants coming into America. The problem with this fallacy is that it tries to place blame on America for their tough immigration policy, however, it is not America’s fault that this occurrence took place. There are many risks that one must take into account when trying to illegally cross the border into the United States, yet many take those risks anyway for the thought of a better life. For the statement made by the editors, it is important to know that the immigrants made the conscious decision to try to sneak into the United States illegally for they knew what to expect and took the risk anyway. Even if there was an implementation of the “guest-worker” program, there may still be many people who will try to cross the border illegally. Also, this program typically will only support those who are willing or capable to work in the United States; thus, those who are unable - such as pregnant women, the elderly, or children - will not be able to partake in this program. Since there is no mention of families in this article, most families may feel that their only admission to the United States may then to be crossing the border illegally. Thus, because the article does not mention the important aspect of families, it does not account for families might who feel forced to assume the risk of crossing the border with their working relatives.

The use of the post hoc fallacy in this article causes the argument to be weakened by the assumption of a course of events that has no explanation of how it is true. The editors employ this fallacy in the lines, “If the big-rig victims had reached their destination safely, they would have found jobs in the United States in a variety of industries that depend on undocumented workers.” This fallacy has a cause and a effect that it is not proven that they have a relation to one another. The cause - if the immigrants had reached their destination safely - and the effect - that they would all be working hard - do not prove causation. The argument the editors give do not prove that one will cause the other nor do they give any evidence that the immigrants would have found employment upon their arrival. Instead, the editors do not know if these immigrants would be hard-working people in America and they have no evidence to prove it. Thus, they cannot assume this cause and effect relationship is valid in which weakens their argument and causes lowered support for their proposed solution.

When the editors utilize the fallacy of hasty generalization, it further weakens their argument due to their assumption that certain industries depend only on illegal immigrant labor. For example, the editors state that, “We see them every day and we benefit from their labor. They harvest our food, clean our offices at night, fix our hotel beds, and work in the kitchens of some of our fanciest restaurants.” This fallacy makes an assumption of where all undocumented immigrants work. However, this is just a stereotype that works to sway people into believing that is all they work for in jobs. The editors do not give any evidence to support this claim. In many instances, certain industries may use the labor of illegal immigrants because the employers can pay them less. However, it does not necessarily mean that these industries depend only on illegal immigrant labor and that illegal immigrants are the only ones working these jobs. Many illegal immigrants do not only do the jobs most Americans do not want to do but instead find jobs and education that can further their experience in the United States. Thus, this argument is is weakened by its hasty generalization of the stereotypical viewpoint of illegal immigrants.

Not all illegal immigrants are able to obtain employment upon their arrival in the United States. The use of the false dichotomy fallacy, the editors state that “with the increase emphasis on security, it is better to know who is crossing the border, on what day, and where they're working than to continue to force them to come in the dark of night in suffocating truck trailers.” For this fallacy, the editors have set up the situation so that people can only agree with setting up a “guest-worker” system or continue to watch as so many immigrants die trying to cross the border. However, these are not the only two options available to fix the situation for there are many other programs that have been thought about or are already implemented, such as visas. Nonetheless, the editors only list two options, one which is absurd and the other fitting into their solution, and withhold the other choices so the reader is pushed to agree with the editors’ solution. If the reader was informed of the other choices that were available, they would be able to logically assess which side they would be on, yet the omission of such information leads the reader on to consider the editors’ conclusion.

With the increase of security measures on immigration, it has become difficult for many people to follow the falsified dreams that the United States has created in coming to this country. However, the solution to

this problem may not be to implement the “guest-worker” program that the editors of the Contra Costa Times suggested due to their use of fallacious statements that prove to weaken their argument for this concept. Additionally, the editors relied on the empathy of their readers, assumptions, and a lack of evidence to create an unsupported contention. Overall, immigration may need a few adjustments to support a healthy relationship with immigrants and other countries who supply them. However, although places like Mexico are having problems with their economy and the welfare of their people, the United States should find a solution to their own issues before they come to the aid of others’.