One of the most common rhetorical tricks of a corrupt politician is to say that 'we' (meaning you) should not 'give in to fear', or that 'fear is a poor guide to the future.'
Any politician making such a statement should be subject to extreme skepticism. It is likely that they are engaging in a policy that people should fear - the statement is designed to quash debate, by removing specifics from the conversation and making the object the alleged neurotic fearfulness of the public rather than the specific policy.
The same goes with change. Beware the politician who defends a policy by saying that 'we must embrace change', or 'we must change', or 'we must not be afraid of change.' These are all blatantly dishonest statements. The real issue is WHAT change, exactly, and will it be good or bad?
So Angela Merkel has opened the european union to potentially unlimited third-world immigration, and her response is simply 'fear is a poor guide'. That's because she is out of ammunition. To say that we should not fear a horde of people who have already so overpopulated their own lands that they find it intolerable to live there, is not something that can be defended - so take out the specifics and make a direct attack on the morals of the skeptics.
And of course, because there is essentially no vetting of these refugees, many of them are doubtless drug gang members, murderers, rapists, government thugs and torturers, etc. Should we fear an influx of rapists and murderers and drug gang members? I should hope so!
Now suppose someone said that we should not fear these third-world refugees because most of them are decent and hardworking. It's wrong, but at least it is a rational argument. It's wrong because who cares if MOST are decent and hardworking - when playing Russian Roulette, MOST cylinders are empty. Still want to play? Most of the time when you drive a car you won't need a seat belt - still want to buckle up, right? And in any event the real threat of all these third-world refugees is their numbers. They will swallow up all jobs, all resources, and all capital, turn the place into another Bangladesh, and still be hungry for more. Just consider the hellish lands these people are escaping from, and realize who made those lands so hellish. Yes corrupt politicians caused a lot of the misery - but even more yes, people having more children than they could afford to support.
This begs the question: why don't people like Merkel say that we should not fear all these third-world refugees BECAUSE of something (however dishonest or wrong)? Why only say that we should not fear, period? Again, it is because this is a rhetorical trick, that attempts to throw the onus on the skeptic.
I suggest that whenever someone says that you should not fear anything in general, that you don't defend yourself but only declare it to be a cheap rhetorical trick and that the person in question is not arguing in good faith. Throw it back at them.
So when you hear a politician say that you should not give in to fear, or some variation on that theme, be afraid. Be very afraid.