We may not back into the conclusion that immigration policy is a relevant reason for all unfortunate events that involve illegal aliens….Let’s get back to rational interchange and the art of valid argumentation. In biblical terms, let’s strive to obey the Ninth Commandment by thinking well.

Four Amish men were killed in a head-on collision with a semi-truck on State Route 67 in Indiana on February 3, 2026. The driver of the semi-truck, Bekzhan Beishekeev, a national of Kyrgyzstan, was reportedly an illegal alien at the time of the crash. 

Many have exploited this unfortunate providence by blaming Biden’s immigration policy for the fatalities. Others have reasoned equally badly but without political motivation.

The Logic:

p1. If Biden had stricter policies, then the accident would not have occurred and four people would not have died.

For argument sake I readily grant the counterfactual. Given a more sensible immigration policy, the accident would not have occurred. Although one is justified in believing the premise, it is no less a trivial observation as it relates to the information surrounding the accident. One way to show the irrelevance of the premise is by considering a different scenario given the same Biden policies.

Imagine the same illegal alien being granted the same commercial driver’s license but instead of driving head-on into a van, he chased down a kidnapper who he saw abduct a child. In the end, the child was returned to her parents and the kidnapper was brought to justice. With that scenario in place, we can consider another counterfactual that incorporates the same antecedent but a different outcome.

p2. If Biden had stricter policies, then the child would have been a victim of human trafficking.

Any reasonable person would not use p2 to defend Biden’s immigration policies. It’d be like congratulating the rooster for the sunrise. Notwithstanding, given the scenario and the counterfactual (p2), we can justifiably claim that Biden’s policies would have been necessary and sufficient for preventing an evil. (To disagree is to reject conditional logic.*) So, if we’re to be intellectually honest with the facts as stated, in both cases it would be reckless to map the reason for either outcome to immigration policies. In short, policy is no sooner a reason that an illegal stops a kidnapping than it is a reason that one would have a head on collision.

The Pervasive Sin of Uncritical Analysis:

Announcing p1 over and over again is tedious. And it certainly does not become a valid argument by virtue of repetition. Unfortunately, that’s the sort of logic we find in the news media, which has inculcated social media and households across America. Sadly, even Christian households.

Read More