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."

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.

Texas State University, Department of Philosophy, under 'False Dilemma' (an informal fallacy), lists as the first example:

America: Love it or leave it.

There is no argument, therefore there can be no fallacy

There is no fallacy here, no logical error in argument as e.g. in affirming the consequent. This is so because there is no argument here at all - only an expression of viewpoint. Fallacy presupposes argument. No argument, no fallacy : the concepts are tied.

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.

It is not a fallacy at all

First of all, this kind of criticism is usually aimed at people who are first or 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 a country with a lower living standard (lower goal post), there is a pretty reasonable chance they could not improve a country with a 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.

EDIT: Based on comments bellow, I need to clarify that phrase "if you don't like it, move" should not be considered as an argument in a debate, or as a reason for rejection of certain proposal (idea, request for change). Those arguments and those reasons (rational, irrational , whatever ...) happened before. Person being persuaded is not going to change his mind on certain question, and is simply communicating his decision to person trying to persuade him. Phrase "if you don't like it, move" is just a figure of speech. We could debate do real reason for rejection contain some logical fallacy, but that should be done case by case, not generally.

This is an Informal Fallacy.

In contrast to a formal fallacy, an informal fallacy originates in a reasoning error other than a flaw in the logical form of the argument.

This is a recommended course of action, albeit it a recommendation born of frustration with the complaint.

To me, the problem is not with recommending that I move. And directed at some people, they could indeed move. the problem is that moving is not a valid solution to the problem that I perceive. "Moving" suggests that I am only capable of selfish interest, and do not care for anybody else in this country, that I do not care about social justice, or the negative effects of corruption, or whatever else my complaint might entail.

Say, for example, that my problem is rampant racism, or sexual harassment of women, or lack of employment rights for gays, or a denial of abortion rights. I don't have to be in any persecuted minority to be upset about any of those. Thus, the suggestion:

If you don't like it, move!

Doesn't address the problem I perceive, if I were living on the other side of the world, or on Mars, I could still be upset about what I perceive as the same injustices in my original home country.

This could also be true when I am in the harmed class to which my complaint applies. If I complain that my Home Owners Association Governors are throwing dinner parties for themselves with my fees, it does not solve the problem for me to move to another neighborhood; or would only address my selfish interest: Implicitly I am complaining about corruption and self-dealing, and the problem is bigger than my own fee, it is a moral position that what is happening is wrong for everybody. Moving out of the neighborhood would not stop the corruption and self-dealing.

A suggested solution that doesn't solve the problem at hand is an "informal fallacy," it is an error in reasoning that has failed to fully consider the nature of the complaint.

A good way of responding to a question, even one asked in bad faith, is to answer it in good faith.

If someone asks you, "Why don't you just move?" Consider the question, then answer them. Why don't you move? This shows you take them seriously and helps them understand you. It can also help you understand yourself better. It can also help deescalate an argument.

If the question is instead phrased like a command "If you don't like it, then move." You can still treat it as a question and explain your reasons for not moving, or put in conditions. "I would love to move, but the financial costs and the risks involved are to high. Or: my family, friends and job is here, I do not want to abandon them."

Just make sure your explanations are sincere and not just attempts to deflect the question. Example of an insincere answer would be claiming it is to expensive and asking them to finance the move, then if they would say yes you would change your mind.

While identifying fallacies can be fun, in this case I think it would be pointless. "Why don't you just move?" Isn't a logical argument, it is an emotional one. They are not really trying to put forth a logical argument, they are expressing frustration with the discussion. My answer would be to address that frustration instead of trying to catch them in a logical fallacy.

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.

This statement is not logical in form. It is an imperative i.e. Do something! although in this case it is qualified.

An apparently similar statement in logic is: If X (is true) then Y (is true).
However "If you don't like it, move!" is different. The "!" gives this away. It is of the form used in (imperative) programming languages and algorithms: If X (is true) then do Y. Since it is not logical it can't be fallacious.

The negative response to a direct imperative is simply not to accede, for example, civil disobedience. In the case where the "command" is qualified you can justify refusing by saying that the pre-condition is not met, e.g. "But I do like it".

Other responses are to challenge specifics and context of the particular "command" and the particular pre-condition. E.g. that the utterer does not have the right to tell the addressee to do whatever is suggested, or that the pre-condition has no relation to the suggested action etc etc.

I would claim that it's not so much a logical fallacy. It is more of presentation of one option which one of the parties would prefer. Then you could maybe wiggle it a bit and make it look like a binary choice fallacy. "You can stay or you can leave, your choice!". Only two options are given, trying to implicate that whatever you choose, how stuff works will always remain the same. That you have no chance of changing it.

But in practice there are of course many other combinations.

1. You can stay and try to strike some secret deal or


2. You can stay and try and change the rules or


3. You can stay and break the rules

But honestly for one person to try to change how stuff works, it just ain't worth it. It's way easier to try to move ourselves to find where we fit in than to change the whole world around us. And if enough people do that, then it could actually become an issue for whoever likes the current way of things.

I'd say it depends on the context whether and where I'd see the fallacy.

• 
  

  The question puts it into a political context, i.e. in a context where - as long as both sides stay within what is legal/according to constitution - differing/opposite positions are allowed, and therfore not fallacious.
  
  The rebuttal is rude - but whether it is unneccesary rude or the rudeness was earned by a similarly rudely expressed criticism we cannot judge from the question's scenario.
  @Eff brings up the point that it can actually be a genuine question (still in political context) - If you don't like it, why don't you move?
  
  I like this way of looking at the phrase as it opens the possibility to rescue the debate and get it back into a civil political debate: if I do consider moving I can explain that - and if not, it allows me to make clear that I don't think the (US) are bad overall: because x, y, z are too good to make moving away a serious consideration - IMHO just this particular point would be even better if done that new way. If I actually want to improve things (as opposed to: stir up things or "win" a debate), it's probably a far more convincing position to clearly acknowledge the points where I agree with my opponent and express my sincere appreciation for the country/society/community. And, of course, if the criticism did not express that there is in fact non-trivial agreement, the criticism can sound far more total than it is meant.

  
  
  

  While not being about the US, I know/knew people who being citizens of the same country which they critized a) some left (which was a crime), b) some stayed trying to change things - and in hindsight decided that was good even though they didn't move much, but a bit naive. Naive also because friends of them c) also decided to stay to try changing things - and were oppressed by their government to the point that they were thrown out of their country. I.e. if the critisism is a serious overall criticism with not just some important single point but comprises major parts of political and everyday life, then "why don't you move/leave?" is the question to ask. Seriously. And maybe moving is the thing to do.

  
  



• Different scenario, not political - criticism of something we/this society cannot change. If someone tells me: "Your winters are just shit: no sun, wet fog and sooo cold." I may answer "if you don't like it, move!" and honestly admit that also "natives" of my region consider moving to nicer climates: so it can be a sincere question or advise and as such it is again not a logical (or even informal) fallacy.




• Finally, if you don't like pi being 3, why don't you move to place where they use π = 4? Here we finally have constructed a fallacy: treating a mathematical fact as politically negotiable (category error).
  As needed, replace π = 3 or 4 by any scientific theory/finding that is either true or false and that is subject to politics.