Fallacy?
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
In regards to illegal immigration, I saw a sign that reads "No one Is illegal on stolen land".
Answers
4As the US expanded west into North America, it was pretty common for Indigenous tribes who were already living in those areas to fight wars against the US government. In order to end or avoid these conflicts, the tribes would agree to treaties with the government where they were allowed to keep some portion of it, while giving up another portion. However, the government frequently violated the treaties it had signed, and took the land that it had previously agreed to allow to remain under Indigenous control. That, in a nutshell, is what they mean by stolen land.
So, the phrase "No one is illegal on stolen land" could simply be pointing out the hypocrisy of the US government in making laws making it illegal for certain people to exist on land which the government itself acquired illegally, which might make it an ad hominem (tu quoque) . Or, alternatively, it could mean that since the land should not be under the control of the US government, that the government has no jurisdiction to make such a law, which would be moralistic fallacy .
I think it's non sequitur . No matter how someone establishes their state on some land, from the point that there is no other official entity to challenge their state, they can decide what is legal. That may not be fair (because the land was stolen) but it is legal.
What would be fair is that only the previous owners, from whom the land was stolen, should decide who is illegal and who's not - not the ones who stole it. And even then, it doesn't mean that no one would be illegal. Actually, in that case, everyone else would be illegal except for the (previous) rightful owners and those that the owners would grant legal entrance.
1. **Appeal to History Fallacy (Genetic Fallacy):** The argument suggests that because the land was historically taken or "stolen," the current legal designations, such as being an "illegal" immigrant, are invalid. This is an appeal to the origin of the land's control to invalidate current laws. The fallacy lies in assuming that past injustices automatically negate present laws or statuses without addressing the legal frameworks and social contracts currently in place.
2. **Equivocation:** The phrase "illegal" is being used in different senses. Legally, "illegal" refers to someone who has entered or resides in a country without permission from the government. The argument uses "illegal" in a moral or ethical sense to assert that the concept itself becomes irrelevant due to the land's history. This conflates legal and moral considerations without a specific argument for why legal definitions should be overridden by ethical ones.
3. **Red Herring:** The statement diverts attention from the contemporary issue of how a government manages its borders and immigration policies by focusing on historical events. While those historical events are important and deserve their own discussion, they do not directly resolve the question of how current immigration should be managed.
4. **Strawman Argument:** This argument might imply that advocating for immigration laws naturally supports historical injustices, without necessarily being the view held by proponents of immigration control. It oversimplifies opposing arguments without accurately representing their complexity.
In conclusion, while the sign raises important questions about historical context and moral considerations, the reasoning may fall short in terms of addressing the current legal realities and the complexity of immigration policy. It's crucial to separately consider ethical, legal, and historical perspectives when evaluating such claims.
You are dealing with a legal concept here. Learn how the legal concept of "ownership" began and developed in refinements such as possession and custody. Check the history of the meaning of "possession is nine-tenths of the law."
This question is similar to asking, can stolen property be stolen from the possessor? The issue is a legal question, not a logical one --- and it is a well-settled answer going back hundreds of years.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course