Mass-immigration cheerleader arguments
This is a country of immigrants
I am an American.
I am not an immigrant.
Therefore this country is not a country of immigrants.
If you are discussing immigration with a friend, you are likely to hear him reflexively blurt out the above gem. When he does, simply point out to him that ninety percent of the residents of the United States were born here.
How could that preponderance of home-grown Americans justify us being called a "nation of immigrants"?
Certainly we are descendants of immigrants (as is everyone in the world except those living in the Garden of Eden), but that is not the same thing as being an immigrant.
Sloppy use of language does not help the discussion.
If your friend has been drinking and insists on repeating this meaningless phrase -- "we are a nation of immigrants" -- over and over like a mantra, explain to him that if he is, for some inexplicable reason, including ancestry in his argument, then all nations are nations of immigrants and we should simply open the borders.
If he has been drinking a lot and this sounds like a good idea to him, take his keys away and suggest he go live for a while in a Third World country, asking himself why everyone there is coming here.
If he is one of those really obstinate drunks who cannot be swayed by sober argument, then say to him, "We should open the borders? Fine. Since this is a democracy, let's put it to a vote."
We will win that vote.
Every sovereign nation has the right and obligation to protect itself. That is to say: defend its borders.
To advocate open borders is to say we are not a country, which is to say: there is no law.
The inference that "We are a nation of immigrants and, therefore, we must not limit immigration" is a classic example of CIRCULAR ARGUMENT.
What it says is this: Because we are a nation of immigrants, we have to allow for massive immigration which, in turn, makes us a nation of immigrants. Hence its circularity.
Circular arguments are invalid in the logical sense by virtue of HOW they are structured and not WHAT do they mean. They lead to a faulty (and, therefore, useless) reasoning in which the thesis (the very thing which is to be proved) is used as a premise in its proof.
Courtesy of ProjectUSA