Devine knocks Biden's efforts on the border crisis
Analyzing the article
The New York Post
Our Analysis: 3 Fallacies
After flinging open the border and inviting in 8 million-plus illegal aliens, Joe Biden belatedly has woken up to the electoral kryptonite and admitted the border crisis.
...
Biden is playing a sly political game, trying to blame Republicans for the border chaos he created.
But 1 it doesn't take money or bipartisan amnesty deals to halt the border invasion.
It takes an executive order reinstating Trump's border protections that Biden dismantled on Day One.
...
The 2 chutzpah is breathtaking.
But it's not going to fly.
Every rational person knows that Trump drove illegal migration to record lows, and Biden drove it to record highs.
...
Customs Enforcement Director Tom Homan testified to Congress last week.
"They said our policy was inhumane [but] under President Trump illegal migration went to a 40, 45-year low, an 83% decline . . .
When 83% less people are coming, how many migrants didn't die crossing the border?
How many people on the terror screening database didn't try to come to the country? . . .
3 How many women and children didn't get sex-trafficked?" he asked.
"Under President Biden they call this humane: over 1,700 migrants have died on US soil . . .
112,000 American dying from fentanyl, almost 100,000 missing kids . . .
440,000 unaccompanied children entered the country at the service of the cartels.
Someone needs to tell me how that is humane."
1. Causal oversimplification • The statement "it doesn't take money or bipartisan amnesty deals to halt the border invasion. It takes an executive order reinstating Trump's border protections" suggests a form of causal oversimplification or the single cause fallacy. This type of fallacy occurs when a complex issue is attributed to a single cause, neglecting the influence of other factors that may contribute to the situation.
In this case, the statement implies that the only necessary action to address the border situation is the issuance of an executive order reinstating specific border protections implemented during the Trump administration. It oversimplifies a multifaceted issue by suggesting that a single action is sufficient to resolve it, without acknowledging the potential role of other factors, policies, or external circumstances that could contribute to the complexity of the border situation. Such factors include other countries' economic conditions, internal violence, political instability, humanitarian crises, and geopolitical conflicts.
2. Ad Hominem • The author's text includes personal attacks on Biden, accusing him of playing a "sly political game" and using terms like "chutzpah." These attacks do not address the substance of the arguments but instead focus on discrediting the person.
3. Appeal to Emotion • The author's text employs emotional language to convey a negative perception of Biden's actions, such as using terms like "electoral kryptonite," "border invasion," and highlighting specific incidents (e.g., a Middle Eastern man with a 9/11 tattoo) to evoke emotional reactions. It also discusses migrants dying, drug deaths, sex trafficking etc. to portray Biden's policies as inhumane and cruel, appealing to readers' emotions rather than logically showing how the policies caused those outcomes. If the author had explained how Biden's policies (allegedly) caused these things to happen, it would have been more germane to the argument, but to merely list all of them without establishing any causal connections means that their main argumentative function is just an appeal to emotion.
References
- Miranda Devine (2024, Jan 21). Biden admits the border crisis he created is real -- but won't accept any blame.
https://nypost.com/2024/01/21/opinion/biden-admits-the-border-crisis-he-created-is-real-but-wont-accept-any-blame/
Disclaimer
Note that there being one or more apparent fallacies in the arguments presented in this article does not mean that every argument the arguer made was fallacious, nor does it mean there are not other arguments in existence for the same or similar position that are logically valid. Also note that checking for fallacies is not the same as verification of the premises the arguer starts from, such as facts that the arguer asserts or principles that the arguer assumes as the foundation for constructing arguments. For more about this, see our 'What is Fallacy Checking?'
NO AI TRAINING
Without in any way limiting the author’s [and publisher’s] exclusive rights under copyright, any use of this publication to “train” generative artificial intelligence (AI) technologies to generate text is expressly prohibited. The author reserves all rights to license uses of this work for generative AI training and development of machine learning language models.
Comments