The letter by John Messina (Feb. 15) could serve as Exhibit A in a case for significantly enhancing critical thinking training and reasoned argument skills in our education system. In the letter, Messina claims, with no evidence, that undocumented immigrants (a group he denigrated with the derogatory label “illegals”) contribute to the murder rate.
Let’s begin with the facts, information very easily obtained in the modern era using Internet search tools.
Statistics published by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, has shown that undocumented immigrants commit far fewer murders than native-born citizens, and fewer crimes overall.
Numerous other state-level analyses have supported the findings from the Cato Institute report. This cuts down the central premise of his argument since if we accept his position we should be most concerned with those born in this country.
But the real lesson is in how Messina crafts his argument, in which he violates at least three rules of reasoned argument.
First, he argues his position by assuming its central premise is true, an argument that could be restated as “illegal immigrants commit murders.”
This is called “begging the question,” and it is a known error in reasoning because the truth of the conclusion is assumed and stated by the arguer rather than assembled through evidence. This error in reasoning is also known as circular reasoning.
Second, Messina presents a non sequitur, which is defined by assuming that this (illegal immigration) causes that (increased murder rate). This fallacy makes plain that the arguer is seeking to support a claim without evidence.
Third, in making his points about the dangers undocumented immigrants pose in our communities, Messina points out that they number between 20 and 30 million residents of the country.
This follows with the leading question of “how many Americans will be killed in the future by some of them?”
The inference arising from this rhetorical device is illustrative of the ad ignoratum error, the premise of which is that because we don’t know how many undocumented immigrants might commit a crime, it must be true a real and significant danger. Problematic for Messina’s argument is that the same claim could just as easily be stated about native-born citizens and with more force, which as the data cited here show, pose a far greater risk to the public than undocumented immigrants.
To be clear, the intent in this letter is not to attack Messina, lest I myself fall into the trap of an ad hominem, another violation of standards for arguing a position.
However, the argument presented by Messina represents a common problem in the position of those seeking to restrict immigration or expunge the country of undocumented immigrants.
Our country’s chief executive, Donald Trump, has stated without fact several of the points raised in Messina’s letter. And this raises my broader point: as of this writing, on Feb. 17, according to the public poll aggregator 538.com, approximately 41.8 percent of the public approves of Trump.
If the public was better educated in the basic tenets of reasonable argument, not to mention the ability to ferret out falsehoods, then a man like Trump could not possibly have approval levels at this level nor stood even a modest chance of being nominated let alone occupy the highest office in the land.
The best medicine to combat the falsehoods spouted daily from the White House is a robust education system where our citizens learn how to appraise information, engage in properly reasoned arguments, and then participate in citizen activism where our leaders reflect a similar value in reasonable discourse, regardless of party affiliation.
The importance of this cannot be overstated, for the falsehoods and lack of reason from our elected officials has a significant impact on policies implemented that affect us all. Until the public is armed with better tools for reasoned discourse, we will be faced with persistent forcefully stated, yet manifestly incorrect, positions that in turn can be terribly damaging to the republic.
For, in the end, referring to the aforementioned data from the Cato Institute, the group that commits the fewest crimes are… legal immigrants. This suggests that one potent remedy to Messina’s concerns, and the concerns of others like him, is to provide a clear and straightforward path to citizenship.
Dean McKay
Port Washington
