Argument: The autonomy of any country is based on the strength of its borders; if the number of illegal immigrants entering a country cannot be checked, both its economy and national identity are endangered. Because illegal immigrants pose such threats, every effort must be made to return them to their country of origin

Analysis:

The argument claims that the automony of a Nation depends on the strength of its borders and hence, illegal immigrants must be checked to enter its borders. Stated this way, the argument relies heavily on unverified assumptions to substatiate an extreme conclusion.

First, the argument states that the automony of a nation is based on the strength of its borders. Though the strength of the borders is one of the factor that has an effect on the autonomy of the nation, it is not the deciding factor. According to me the autonomy of the nation is decided from within , rather than from outside. In recent times, Civil wars that take place within a country has impacted the autonomy of nations much more than a threat in the borders has. For example, Srilanka, which has no threat on its borders, fights for its autonomy due to the internal civil war but , other the other hand, India which faces a major threat in its borders is strongly autonomous.

Second, the argument claims that the illegal immigrants pose a major threat on a nation's identity and economy. This is highly unsubstatiated. The real world situation suggests otherwise. Countries, such as France and India, are not affected by allowing the illegal immigrants to stay. Infact the illegal immigrants help in developing a multicultural identity to a nation and contribute to the nation's economy.

Morever, the author concludes that the illegal immigrants should not be allowed in the borders based on the reasons mentioned earlier. Apart from basing the argument on the unsupported evidences, the author also forgets to consider the difficulty involved in packing them back to their own countries. Sending the illegal immigrants back will not only have a significant ecnomic impact but also it will take a toll on the countries image as it will be looked upon as an inhuman behaviour.

In conclusion, the argument is highly flawed because the evidences on which it is based are highly debatable and the conclusion is too extreme to be acceptable. The author could have strengthened his argument by substatiating his evidences with some solid proof.