Scrolling through the news today, I came across this gem from the Daily Dot.  The title, "The Proposal to Build a Wall Between the US and Mexico has a Drone Problem" intrigued me, because I couldn't see how drones and illegal immigration were possibly related.  After reading the article, it is clear that they are only related in the mind of the seventh grader that authored it.  Today's lesson is on logical fallacies.

For the sake of time, I will only consider the first four points made by the author.  I think that will be enough for you to get the idea.  With each point I will summarize the author's argument, make the logical counterpoint to his argument, and then explain (in blue) the type of logical fallacy that was demonstrated in the article.  

Ready for some fun?  Let's go!

Point 1: Aerial drones make walls for stopping immigration obsolete.

The article begins with a report of 6 pounds of Methamphetamine being recovered from a drone that flew across from Mexico.  The second paragraph states that Trump wants to build a wall to stop illegal immigration, but that with new technology (the aforementioned drones), a wall would be useless.

Counterpoint: A drone capable of carrying six pounds of meth is not going to significantly increase illegal immigration across the border.

Unless immigrants are planning on smuggling themselves over one limb at a time.  The wall, which is intended to stop humans, would still be useful at stopping people because drones can't carry people (at least, not fully grown ones).

This is an example of a "straw man" fallacy, which is when you attack a weaker argument in order to prove a different argument false.  The author cites the difficulty of stopping drones carrying drugs in order to attack the idea that a wall can stop humans.  

Point 2: There are no rapists crossing the border from Mexico.

The second paragraph begins with the quote 

...Trump’s comments alleging that Mexicans are “rapists”...

I am immediately suspicious that something is out of context whenever I see an outrageous statement with only a single word in quotation marks. So I clicked on the link to the quote and it took me to an article with this quote:

Trump also had some thoughts on Mexicans, who, he literally said aloud, were probably rapists.
“They're rapists," he told the crowd, "and some, I assume, are good people."

Hmmm...That's a little bit better.  But that quote doesn't have any reference whatsoever.  So I did the journalists' job for them and found this transcript of Trump's speech, where we can find the entire quote in context:

When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

It's coming from more than Mexico. It's coming from all over South and Latin America, and it's coming probably -- probably -- from the Middle East. But we don't know. Because we have no protection and we have no competence, we don't know what's happening. And it's got to stop and it's got to stop fast.

Trump is clearly not calling all Mexicans rapists.  He is stating that rapists (of many nationalities) are coming across the border from Mexico. The author calls this a "false claim."

Counterpoint: A quick google search of 'illegal immigrant rape' brings up articles like this, this, and this. 

It only takes one counter-example to prove the author wrong.  Google found three in 0.40 seconds. Trump was stating a truthful fact when he said that rapists were crossing the border from Mexico.

This is an example of 'circular reasoning.' The statement, 

     "While Trump’s comments alleging that Mexicans are “rapists” drew widespread criticism from Latinos and communities of color, those weren’t the only false claims..."

uses the fact that it said it is false to prove that it is false.  It offers no proof but itself.

Point 3: Trump stated that illegal immigrants were "bringing drugs" to the U.S. The author said this was false.  (Then he said it was "hardly true.")  

The author gives three statements to back this up.

A) He says "Fewer undocumented immigrants are entering the U.S."

     That's irrelevant. Unless 'fewer' means 'zero.'

B) He says "data from the Congressional Research Service shows that the majority of undocumented immigrants have no ties to drug trafficking whatsoever." 

     I read the report, and it doesn't say that anywhere. (If you find it in there, feel free to point it out)

C) He writes, "four out of five drug smuggling arrests in this country actually involved U.S. citizens."

Counterpoint: One out of five drug smuggling arrests involved non-citizens.

If 80% of drug smuggling is done by citizens, then 20% is done by aliens.  The aforementioned report from the Congressional Research Service shows that about 7% of the U.S. population is non-citizen.  That means that a 20% smuggling rate is almost three times higher than the representative population.  Trump's statement isn't 'hardly true,' it is 285% true.

Not only that, but many known drug traffickers are not charged as smugglers.  I interviewed a Border Patrol agent who explained that if they start chasing a smuggler, the first thing the smuggler does is drop the dope and run.  If the agents lose sight of the smuggler for even a couple seconds in the desert, they can't prove that it was the same person who was carrying the drugs.  Even though everyone involved knows who the smugglers are, rather than fight expensive court battles, they arrest the smuggler as illegal immigrants and charge them with undocumented entry.  That means the actual rate of drug smuggling for non-citizens is much higher than conviction rates show.

This has several logical fallacies.  'A' is a non-sequitur (Latin: it doesn't follow) fallacy.  The conclusion (illegal immigrants are not smuggling drugs) does not follow the premise (fewer immigrants are entering the U.S.).  'B' is an argument from authority fallacy.  The author hopes that by appealing to the authoritative nature of the congressional research report, the reader will accept the assertion.  'C' is...just wrong.  I'm not sure what to call this logical fallacy.  If anyone knows, please tell me.

Point 4: Trump stated that illegal immigrants were bringing "crime" to the U.S. The author said this was false.

The author writes, "the percentage of non-citizens make up a comparatively small percentage of America’s prison population."  

This leads me to ask, "Compared to what?"  And admitting that they make up any part of the prison population is admitting that Trump is right.

Counterpoint: Seriously, you don't think there are any criminals crossing the border?  Do I really need to argue this?

Fine.  Going back to that Congressional Research Service report, about 7% of all people in jail in the U.S. are non-citizens.  About 7% of the people in our country are non-citizens.  This means that the incarceration rate among non-citizens is exactly the same as for citizens.  How is that 'comparatively small'?

True, it doesn't appear to be the flood of criminals that Trump is hinting at.  But it is willfully ignorant to say Trump is wrong that criminals are crossing the border.

This is not technically a logical fallacy, because the problem is in the premise, not the reasoning.  The premise that no criminals are coming across the border is blatantly false.  You can't logically argue a false premise.