Somehow I agree with both Hanson's and your arguments =)

How could this possibly be the case...

Well, firstly I think I agree with what Hanson is getting at--even if there are fallacies in his argument--which is that the immigration laws need to be reformed in a way that recognizes immigration as valid and doesn't victimize those who happen to have done it illegally. Even if they didn't "have to" immigrate illegally, arguably this country is predicated on basically open borders and citizenship, as long as everyone has the same rights and responsibilities.

At the same time, I agree with you that laws are not really the basis of civil society; I forget who it was that said this (maybe Cato himself) but it goes something like "laws are useless because good men follow them willingly and bad men will flout them." Instead laws are more like a guideline or communication tool for the marginal population in between the "good men" and "bad men" (or perhaps, even the good men need laws to understand what they should do in society). So I agree with you too; it is not the laws-in-question themselves that are the problem--they couldn't be, maybe by definition.

I think in fact the whole basis of this immigration "debate" is a huge stinking pile of red herrings. Immigration is not the problem and illegal immigration is merely a symptom of a number of other problems. One is that the whole idea of "limiting" immigration is flawed interventionist strategy and harm-inducing. But even deeper is the issue of why "natives" really dislike illegal immigration: which is that it is damaging the lot of natives in a way that goes beyond competition on a level social playing field.

By and large, the true problems are basically (1) free-riding of public services by illegals and (2) labor market distortion that harms the low-end legitimate labor market. The former really needs to be fixed by replacing more public services with free market services, and the latter needs to be fixed by largely eliminating the income tax (the evasion of which provides a huge benefit to illegals). When this is recognized, it becomes obvious that sending people "back to mexico," granting them amnesty, "policing the borders," marginally-liberalizing the immigration bureaucracy, or a number of other hairbrained suggestions actually do NOT solve the problem and do more good than harm.

I discuss all of this more here.

As a side note, I do think "appeal to legality" is a valid kind of fallacy you have pointed out. I have also thought of a couple that I think are new (or at least, specializations of known fallacies), though I can't remember most of them off hand. Maybe we should start our own list, and have it be one of the "features" of this site =)

Here's one I can think of that really gets my goat and we see a lot these days:

Fallacy of Party

A kind of "shadow" ad hominem: convince the observer that the opponent is in some party or group that is presumably "bad," so that the observer dismisses the opponent's arguments out-of-hand.

A successful fallacy of party generally involves (1) questionable ascribing of the opponent to a party, as well as (2) a questionable implicit assertion that said party is "bad," and often (3) "foils" taking the form of other fallacies substituted for legitimate arguments against the opponent.

However, if one only attacks these foils in the process of unconvering the overall fallacious argument, one may not win the sympathies of the observer, who is subconsciously sympathetic to the illegitimate group label ascribed to the opponent/target, above all else.

E.g., no amount of saying Ann Coulter is making this-or-that fallacious argument will convince her sympathizers that she's a fraud, since they, like her, just hate "liberals".

Here are some more ideas for fallacies (collected from the dusty mental basement as I was biking to work today):

Fallacy of Bullying

This is a kind of proto-fallacy ad miseracordium (fallacy of pity), whereby arguments or remarks of one party are taken to insinuate an attack on some other group, usually disadvantaged, and possibly that of the counter-party. This hence demonizes the first party, and turns the audience against them.

For example, arguments of opponents of allowing or forgiving illegal immigration are often suggested to be anti-Mexican, or anti- any non-white racial group, either implicitly or explicitly.

Related: fallacy of treason, fallacy ad hominem.

Fallacy of Organized Solution

This fallacy underlies many arguments against laissez-faire policies. It presumes that an organized (typically, state or centralized) solution is (a) possible, and (b) better than the results of laissez faire (or no standardized solution). Of course, a cost-benefit analysis is never presented and (b) is simply assumed.

Underlying this fallacy is a strong general sympathy towards "appearing to do something," perhaps out of conspicuous charitable impulse. This phenomenon makes the fallacy quite unique.

Related: fallacy of bullying, fallacy ad miseracordium

Fallacy of Treason

The suggestion or insinuation that an argumentor's claims or viewpoints are treasonous, and therefore should be dismissed out-of-hand. This can be used within an ideological group as well as national group.

Related: fallacy of party.

Fallacy of Historical Outrage

The suggestion or insinuation that the other party's claims are similar to the ideologies or ideologically-driven actions of some historically-outrageous party, and therefore should be dismissed out-of-hand.

This is often used with the historically-outrageous party as the Nazis, the Soviet Union, or the U.S. government for its treatment of the Indians.

Fallacy of Taboo

An implicit fallacy whereby an arguer mentioning something that is considered taboo is dismissed out of hand. Often they are demonized, but no direct argument need be made that they are advocating what was mentioned.

For example, Bill Bennett's remarks that "aborting every black baby" would lower the nation's crime rate, but would be morally outrageous, is a factual and neutral statement. However the point that there are widespread social problems underlying this dynamic was lost, and Bennett was demonized for even uttering such a thing.

Related: fallacy of bullying, fallacy ad miseracordium, fallacy ad hominem.

Fallacy of Juxtaposition

The implicit fallacy that to juxtapose something widely perceived as bad or evil with the point or party being attacked automatically produces rhetorical victory over that party. This may often be done in propaganda with multimedia, as opposed to prose.

For example, Michael Moore is a master of this technique. The core of his film, "Fahrenheit 9/11", was based on juxtaposing the Bush family with the bin Laden family, in order to suggest that George W. Bush was automatically culpable for 9/11 (or at least complicit with it). While the film capitalized on popular distain for Bush, it provided little actual evidence against him beyond the fact that he continued to read "My Pet Goat" to kindergarteners for eight minutes after being told of the 9/11 attacks.

Related: fallacy of party, fallacy of historical outrage, fallacy of taboo, fallacy of juxtaposition, fallacy ad hominem.

Fallacy of Relationship

Related to fallacy of juxtaposition, but where the relationships are more explicit.

Some of the Michael Moore work also follows this pattern (e.g., his point of George Bush Senior's Carlysle group involvement which is cozy with the Saudis, or investment by the bin Laden's in a wildcat oil company run by Bush Jr.) As another, analysis of corporate board membership overlap is sometimes taken implicitly as proof of cospiratorial relationships between the corporations, but is merely circumstantial and does not constitute a proof in itself.

Related: fallacy of juxtaposition.

1% Fallacy

The probabilistic fallacy that if there is even a small chance of something bad happening, it should be met with policy and resources assuming it is nearly-certain to occur.

(This fallacy is obviously inspired by the claims of Dick Cheney and the policies of the entire Bush administration.)

Related: fallacy of organized solution, fallacy of fear

Fallacy of Fear

The implicit fallacy whereby the audience is frightened into agreeing with the rhetoritician by the insinuation that they are in jeopardy (typically from a third party) if they do not.

Related: 1% fallacy, fallacy of party, fallacy of treason, fallacy of taboo

I figure that VDH is right.

If legal immigrants, with selected skills, are good for the country, illegal immigrants with no kind of skills are bad for the country, because they crowd out the people we want.

My historical context is as follows:
As a young man, I worked as a bellhop, drove a cab, picked vegetables, worked as a waiter. All these jobs didn't pay well, but they paid. I eventually got through college, and got into a field that paid better, and had benefits. After 3 college degrees, and 20 years in my field, I am well paid. These experiences have colored my life, taught me discipline, and taught me respect and appreciation for working people.

I had a secretary who grew up picking cotton. A southern white woman.

Have you ever noted that the US is the only country where a waiter is called "Sir.". In France, the term is "garcon" which means "boy".

My children are unlikely to have this experience.
They will be competing with illegal aliens for jobs as vegetable pickers, bellhops, waiters. They will not work alongside honest people, rather, they will associate menial task with people who cross the borders illegally, cheat on their taxes, and seek their amusement in small enclaves away from others not of their type. My children will think that such people don't deserve decent housing, but rather can be relegated to clown houses, with 30 illegals each. They will expect that such people routinely drive without insurance, without driver's licenses, and that such people will leave their car behind and run away if they get into an accident (a new meaning to the term "Hit and Run!"). They will also see the advantage to hiring an illegal, and then having a fake "raid" on the job site just before they are to be paid.

I don't see how our republic can survive when we have a illegal underclass to perform menial tasks. Kids are smart, and they will see all these things and they will become their "normal".

...they will associate menial task with people who cross the borders illegally, cheat on their taxes...

Only illegal immigrants cheat on their taxes?

I'm going to site Aaron's essay on this one: Illegal immigrants is largely caused by yet another government distortion. The govt is going to protect us from yet another boogeyman it created. How do we get protection from our own government? Maybe it's in the Bill of Rights or something...

You are guilty of an "appeal to non-existant fallacies." These occur when people pretend to spot logical fallacies (or openly admit to having made them up) in an attempt to be clever.

Bob,

In response to my post, Victor Davis Hanson on Immigration: An Appeal to Legality, you said:

You are guilty of an "appeal to non-existant fallacies." These occur when people pretend to spot logical fallacies (or openly admit to having made them up) in an attempt to be clever.

I'm not sure what to make of this comment.

It would seem that you believe Hanson's argument from legality is acceptable simply because I conclude my argument against Hanson by categorizing his fallacy within a new type of logical error, the appeal to legality. Or perhaps you are arguing that I'm only pretending to point out the glaring flaw in Hanson's argument. However, the thing that has me most perplexed by your comment is that you are effectively doing the very thing you call me guilty of, namely, pretending to spot a logical fallacy and then creating a new type of logical fallacy, an "appeal to non-existant fallacies", in what appears to be an attempt to be clever. Was your logical error intentional?

I can't seem to find an appropriate canonized common example of logical error that would aptly describe your error. Therefore, as I'm wont to do, I deem it the "Splinter in the eye" fallacy.

Quoth Neal:

"Because it is self-regulating. The perpetuation of one's own existence demands productivity and peaceful trade as destructive behaviors are self-defeating. As such, no government-ordained law is necessary."

Can you back that up? The entirety of human history is littered with war, killing, etc.; not only on the level of organized tribes and states, but in simple robbery, rape and murder. One of the earliest stories of our culture is about a guy who kills his brother.

It might be more accurate, though equally specualtive, to state that peaceful interactions within one's own social organization are necessary; as long as you and I get along, perhaps we can afford to kill Victor and steal his crops, by way of example.

Continuing with the biblical reference, we might note that it was frowned upon for Cain to kill Abel, his brother, but quite another thing entirely for the Israelites to war with their various enemies.

I think, then, that while the system surely is self-regulating, it may not be self-regulating to a degree which ensures maximum harmony among a maximum number of people. The self-regulating state of nature may simply be the subjugation of lesser peoples to larger, wealthier, more powerful tribes, etc. What some might call social Darwinism or survival of the fittest.