Not having to deal with the consequences of what you want, when you don't have it - logical fallacy

[repoman]

What is this called on a technical level?

For example, taking immigration in the USA. Currently it is fairly high, especially on a rolling decadal basis. But if in the past 30 years it (all of it) had been clamped downed a to mere trickle that would have had major ramifications for almost all aspects of life here.

But it did not happen that way and low immigration advocates have not had to deal with the effects, good and bad, of this.

One thing that I think is in the mix is that all of the new work fodder has made it so that multi generational Americans have done less crappy jobs than a low immigration rate USA would have. So, class consciousness is less likely to happen if it is an immigrant and not your kid doing low pay body breaking work.

But even the above is still an untestable assertion. So maybe these assertions - if we do A (which ain't gonna happen) then B will happen - are the logical fallacies.

 

[prideandfall]

the issue with your question is an underlying assumption that if they got what they 'wanted' and had to face the consequences (and those consequences were dire) that it would then change what they want, or make them think about their position, or make them acknowledge that any consequences have taken place at all.

this is a demonstrably false assumption, as the same types of people who are rabidly anti-immigration are the same people who push for negating taxes in general, negating MORE taxes on the rich, and then stripping government services and claiming that the inability of government to do anything (due to lack of funding) means government is incapable of doing anything.
and this has been shown to be an utter disaster, from kansas and louisiana to basically the entire reagan presidency, and yet they consider all these things as unqualified successes.

this isn't a situation where rational observation of cause > effect is in operation, and even in the rare instances that it is, the outcomes these people seek are completely opposite to what any thinking consciousness would consider a logical goal.

 

[zorq]

I propose that this fallacy be called the "UNeducated estimate fallacy."

Really, I see it as sort of a combination of argument from ignorance and wishful thinking fallacies.

 

[Patooka]

What is this called on a technical level?

I can help you out. Most people call your argument bullshit.

 

[Gun Nut]

It's not a fallacy because the argument is internally consistent. It is logically valid. The premise (based on the presumed conclusion) is flawed. It would be called a false premise, but the argument is not a fallacy.