The New York Post
Of adult immigrants who said they came to America in the past two years, 41% had at least a bachelor's degree, down from 55% of new arrivals as recently as 2018.
The share of newcomers with no more than a high-school education increased from 29% in 2018 to 44% in 2024.
Decades of research show education level is a key determinant of one's occupation, income, tax payments and propensity to use welfare... The arrival of so many relatively unskilled immigrants also means a great deal more job competition for less-educated Americans who are already the poorest workers.
The author claims that the influx of illegal immigrants with lower education levels poses challenges for assimilation, job competition, and fiscal burdens, while also suggesting that enforcing immigration laws and prioritizing skills could mitigate these issues; however, the argument relies on some fear-mongering and a slippery slope.
1. loaded language • There is some loaded language in the article title (which may or may not have come from the author himself):
Education gap lurks as ticking time bomb in ongoing US border crisis
The choice of words such as "lurks" and "ticking time bomb" is emotionally charged, designed to evoke strong reactions rather than provide a neutral or balanced perspective.
2. slippery slope • The argument suggests that high levels of immigration will inevitably lead to a host of issues, including an overwhelmed assimilation process, without providing evidence for this inevitable decline.
The current scale of immigration (legal and illegal) into the United States is creating significant challenges across a host of issue areas, from housing and schools to the workplace and health care.
It also has the potential to overwhelm the assimilation process.
All of these presumed causal effects are without substantiation in the essay. Also, the use of a word like "overwhelm," without an explanation as to what it means, could be seen as another instance of loaded language.
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?'
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