- 10,081
- WFG9
While I consider myself to be liberal on most issues, the simple reality is is that some of the left is amazingly wrong on this issue, less so for their disagreement with how to resolve it, more so with their quite irratating strawman arguments, possibly disingenuous assessment of the potential risks, and resortment to immature psychoanalyses of their opponents.
The strawman is suggesting that deportation of illegals intended to be implemented regardless of their circumstances, contending such an act is at the minimum amoral since some of the persons deported might only be illegal because of documentation problems though they entered legally, and because some are legitimate asylum seekers. While that might occur, fair consideration and attentiveness knows that most of the calls for deportation are in reference to those that crossed illegally without legitimate claim to asylum.
The disingenous part is in assuming only an advantage to high levels of migration, legal or not, into a country with no consideration of the possible negative consequences thereto. This fallacious reasoning on its surface is merely the suggestion that change is good for its own sake, meaning no logical benefit needs to exist that is equal or greater than the soundness of the arguments against high levels of immigration, legal or not, for its own sake. Since any intellectually honest person knows the social and economic effects of high or low levels of immigration are theoretical, as are especially how a country can deal with the consequences of either, the claims that only good can come of high immigration levels and that doubt of this implies paranoia and racism/bigotry, appears disingenuous. If not that, then too much credit is to some persons as to their capacity to reason.
The immature psychoanalyses are basically obfuscations of the opponents' main contention that a danger is plausible. Their argument being that, due to supposedly low probabilty of the occurence of a threat, the actual reason for their opponents' concerns is racsim/bigotry. That is absurd. First, because probability does not mean implausibility; second, because, whatever the present statistics support about the US southern border, the main location referred to in most debates on the subject in question, a precedence of not having used that border is not proof of its absolute non use.
I suppose I could say more, but I'll digress for now.
For the record, this post was not in response to any person in this thread.
The strawman is suggesting that deportation of illegals intended to be implemented regardless of their circumstances, contending such an act is at the minimum amoral since some of the persons deported might only be illegal because of documentation problems though they entered legally, and because some are legitimate asylum seekers. While that might occur, fair consideration and attentiveness knows that most of the calls for deportation are in reference to those that crossed illegally without legitimate claim to asylum.
The disingenous part is in assuming only an advantage to high levels of migration, legal or not, into a country with no consideration of the possible negative consequences thereto. This fallacious reasoning on its surface is merely the suggestion that change is good for its own sake, meaning no logical benefit needs to exist that is equal or greater than the soundness of the arguments against high levels of immigration, legal or not, for its own sake. Since any intellectually honest person knows the social and economic effects of high or low levels of immigration are theoretical, as are especially how a country can deal with the consequences of either, the claims that only good can come of high immigration levels and that doubt of this implies paranoia and racism/bigotry, appears disingenuous. If not that, then too much credit is to some persons as to their capacity to reason.
The immature psychoanalyses are basically obfuscations of the opponents' main contention that a danger is plausible. Their argument being that, due to supposedly low probabilty of the occurence of a threat, the actual reason for their opponents' concerns is racsim/bigotry. That is absurd. First, because probability does not mean implausibility; second, because, whatever the present statistics support about the US southern border, the main location referred to in most debates on the subject in question, a precedence of not having used that border is not proof of its absolute non use.
I suppose I could say more, but I'll digress for now.
For the record, this post was not in response to any person in this thread.
