Vrftsjtryk

It is the False Dilemma or Bifurcation Fallacy.

If you don't like it, then move.

Let's say you have caused some problems by questioning the decisions, speech, and actions of someone who is actively seeking social, economic, and/or political power. And you're confident that you have every right -- or even duty -- to do so. Those in power who are profiting from the situation aren't willing to change anything, hence they feel threatened by any kind of criticism. So they choose to solve the problem by employing a logically twisted rhetorical tactic against you in order to get rid of you fast. They assume that you aren't intelligent or educated enough to catch the fallacy in their argument. It goes like this:

• 
  Either you agree with the way we're handling things, or you don't.


• 
  If you like it, you're no threat to us (you can stay).


• 
  But your dissent creates a dilemma for us (so you can't stay). "Move."

The point is, they offer no other options. Just two: agree and stay, or disagree and leave. They're not willing to discuss it with you, because they know they'll lose that argument, so they're going to insist that you go away. But since they don't want to argue with you, they want you to think it's your choice. Thus they create a false dilemma.

"It's too bad you don't like it, because that means you should leave."

Well, not really. It doesn't have to mean that you should leave, because there are other options your opponents refuse to acknowledge. You might prefer to remain in the land of your forefathers, the land that you love, and work diligently to improve the socio-political climate where you are, along with any other important problems you and your loved ones might be facing there.

Logical Fallacies explains it well:

The bifurcation fallacy is committed when a false dilemma is presented, i.e. when someone is asked to choose between two options when there is at least one other option available. Of course, arguments that restrict the options to more than two but less than there really are, are similarly fallacious.

Example:

• (1) Either a Creator brought the universe into existence, or the universe came into existence out of nothing.


• (2) The universe didn’t come into existence out of nothing (because nothing comes from nothing). Therefore:


• (3) A Creator brought the universe into existence.

The first premise of this argument presents a false dilemma; it might be thought that the universe neither was brought into existence by a Creator nor came into existence out of nothing, because it existed from eternity.

It may very well be a poor argument, but it's not a logical fallacy

People are too quick to jump on the "fallacy" bandwagon. There is no logical fallacy occurring here. It may very well be an argument that is not particularly convincing (In fact, I wouldn't use the argument), but there is nothing logically fallacious about it.

If a person asks

"If you don't like America, why don't you move somewhere else?"

Bread states that "there are other options your opponents refuse to acknowledge," however this seems somewhat of a stretch. This is clearly reading more into what was said, than what was actually being said (In fact, this appears to be a straw man argument, which is ironically a fallacy itself). From this phrasing there is nothing that says that moving is the only way to achieve change. It just raises moving as an option. Clearly, this is an option that many people take, because people migrate all the time to countries they prefer to live in. In some cases it may even be the preferred way to achieve the change that you wish in your life.

Let's take a similar example. Consider the following statement:

"If you want to earn more money, why don't you work more hours per week?"

Would anyone seriously think that this person is suggesting that working more hours per week is the only possible way to earn more money? I think that most people can see that they are simply raising one possible avenue of earning more money.

Instead, if someone said

"If you don't like America, your only option is to move somewhere else."

Then, sure, their statement would be logically fallacious.

On the other hand, Mark Andrews analyzes the statement as

“There is nothing seriously wrong with this society, so the problem must lie in your own attitudes.” That is the conclusion. When the proponent recommends that the other person leave the country, the validity of this conclusion is taken as a given. The question of the truth or falsehood of the conclusion (which has become the assumption) is sidestepped completely.

But again, there is nothing fallacious in thinking "I like the country as it is; I would prefer if you didn't change it; therefore I would prefer that you leave rather than changing the country." Again, I'm not telling you to be convinced by the argument. But there is really nothing logically fallacious going on. To the question "Why don't you move somewhere else?" You are completely free to respond "Because I would rather change [what I perceive to be] the flaws of this country rather than moving."

No fallacy - but a loaded assumption

There is no fallacy here, no logical error in argument as e.g. in affirming the consequent. This is so, not least because there is no argument here at all - only an expression of viewpoint. Fallacy presupposes argument. No argument, no fallacy : the concepts are tied.

But there is a loaded assumption, namely that if you don't like America, the onus is on you to stop criticising or otherwise complaining and move out. In other words the American status quo is fine, great or at least all right : so leave us alone and go.

A right to leave , but nowhere to go

Not a loaded assumption but 'If you don't like it, move' assumes that since a person has a right to emigrate, he has a right to go somewhere. With minimal exceptions, however, states do not allow free immigration but place restrictions on who can cross their borders and take up residence. So 'moving' is not the universally recognised right it would need to be for this viewpoint to be unqualifiedly reasonable.

The toll of moving

Suppose, though, that a person can 'go somewhere' - to another state - let's make a humdrum comparison to show that 'moving' state is exceptionally consequential. So : there's a great difference between (a) 'If you don't like this shop, go to another' and (b) 'If you don't like this country, move to another'.

(a) is often perfectly reasonable. There need be no cost or inconvenience in switching one's custom from one shop to another. But there is a complete lack of parallel between (a) and (b) - or is very likely to be.

I may not have the resources to move. (b) In moving I sever my cultural roots. (c) Another country may not accept me. (d) I may have dependants whose interests will be harmed if I move to another country.

In the shop example, switching to another shop standardly carries no 'costs' or toll to myself. Or the 'costs', of time for instance, may be negligible or worth paying in order to avoid an uncongenial venue. I can exercise my preference without prohibitive or significant disadvantage.

By contrast, moving to another country is likely to involve prohibitive or significant disadvantage. Exercising this preference, even if I have it, is far more seriously consequential.

The activist's response - 'stay and fight'

There's also the point that if I don't like my (or a) country, there is a strong prima facie case for staying in it in order to help change it. You seldom improve a situation by running away from it. Maybe the American status quo isn't fine, great or at least all right and the assumption that it is should be rebutted by argument and protest.

I suppose that there are a whole pile of fallacies behind such arguments. The one that first comes to mind is that the argument assumes what it sets out to prove.

“There is nothing seriously wrong with this society, so the problem must lie in your own attitudes.” That is the conclusion. When the proponent recommends that the other person leave the country, the validity of this conclusion is taken as a given. The question of the truth or falsehood of the conclusion (which has become the assumption) is sidestepped completely.

Simply on the basis of seeing this bumper sticker quite often throughout my life here in America I am also going to include the Bandwagon fallacy, ad populum. Just because it seems to be a popular and damaging argument used through advertisement.

I also agree with the bifurcation fallacy based on it assuming there is only ONE option in this situation of not liking where you are.

And I am also going to include, ad hominem fallacy, because I feel the insinuation may be directed toward immigrants or any minority in disagreement with current laws or traditions or sacrosanct arguments and can include such aspects as: culture, education level, religion, ethnic majority, eccentric behaviors, gender preference etc.

It is not a fallacy at all

First of all, this kind of criticism is usually aimed at people who are first of second generation immigrants. They came in US searching for better life conditions, which implies that their own old country had worse life conditions, and they were unable to improve them. If they could not improve country with lower living standard (lower goal post) there is a pretty reasonable chance they could not improve country with higher living standard (higher goal post). In fact, possible outcome could be worse living standard for US citizens.

Second, even when this critique is not aimed to immigrants, there is another problem. Person X could argue that he wants US to resemble some other country, let's say Sweden. Currently, large parts of US population abhor idea of US looking like Sweden. Therefore, person X has a long struggle ahead of him to convince or force others to accept his Swedish ideas. It would be more economical for him just to move to Sweden, instead of wasting energy and life on something that others do not want.