Immigration criticism and rationality

On the topic of the current discussion in and around my blog on immigration, I want to take a moment to register my exasperation at one particular aspect of these debates.

As a rule, a political position does not follow logically from facts. If a certain statistic says something, for instance, we can all agree 100% on the existence of that statistic, but disagree on what the proper political response to it is. If, say, deaths from traffic accidents are rising, there are innumerable different policies people can advocate in response to it.

What truly exasperates me in any discussion one has in Finland about immigration and refugees is that almost invariably, the so-called "immigration-critical" people insist that only their point of view is rational. In this discussion as well, I have been criticized by several people for not being rational, not advancing rational arguments and adhering to a "faith", presumably because I don't agree with their "immigration-critical" policies. These are the same people who bemoan a lack of "rational" discussion on immigration.

Based on my experience, which is far greater than I'd like, the great majority of Finnish "immigration-critical" people only accept as rational those arguments that they agree with. If you disagree, you are immediately vilified as someone who "does not admit the truth", or accused of being a "multiculturalist" who has a religious belief in immigration and is impervious to logical arguments.

The fundamental precondition for any sensible discussion on politics has to be an acceptance that the person you are arguing against is also rational, and holds a rational point of view. Here on my blog and in response to Vera Izrailit's posts, I've been trying to frame a rational criticism of an immigration policy based solely on limiting refugee numbers. In response, I have been vilified as irrational, making no sense, and an intellectual whore, among other things.

This is not an isolated phenomenon; far from it. So far, every time I've been involved in some kind of discussion about immigration and refugees in Finland, people who disagree with me have been seemingly enraged by the fact that I don't accept that they're correct. Practically every discussion so far had led, in short order, to personal attacks and total dismissals of all of my arguments as either dishonest or willingly false.

The fact that these same people then complain about a lack of rational discussion is, quite simply, the height of hypocrisy. I would offer this as a general guideline:

If you really think that your personal opinion on a political question is the only rational one, and that everyone who disagrees with you must therefore be doing so for either dishonest or religious reasons, you are in need of psychiatric attention or a careful rethink of your philosophy. Or at the very least a tin foil hat.