Close but no cigar.
The fallacy occurs when INSTEAD of talking about the results of open borders and race mixing, you want to avoid this conversation by switching the subject to the consequences of me being right, in this case needing to deport people
Your argument is, "well you're right about race mixing and demographic future but you cannot implement your policies because I don't like deportations."
This is not a valid critique because if I am right, than deportations are necessary,
Alright, let me explain the appeal to consequences fallacy using an example. I know this is probably beyond you but it may be helpful to others reading the thread:
I can say that achieving immortality by drinking rat poison is "necessary" because we're all going to die one day. I may be right that we're all going to die one day, but that doesn't make my solution any less wrong.
People who say drinking rat poison is a bad idea because it will kill you aren't using an appeal to consequences fallacy. That would only apply if they said that actually people aren't going to die one day because they don't like my solution of drinking rat poison.
In short, I'm not talking about the consequences of you "being right" dumbass. I'm talking about your retarded plan to handle deportations, IE- forcing countries across the world to take in millions of US citizens by threatening them, along with this half-assed "we'll worry about that later" for every difficult question you're too much of a lazy fuck to try and answer. Whether you're right or wrong is completely irrelevant to how countries across the world and people in the US are going to react to that. They'll react the same way whether you're right or wrong: with extreme hostility. Even if you've correctly identified the problem it doesn't matter because your solution is fucking retarded and would cause things to deteriorate faster than doing nothing would.
But you haven't correctly identified the problem anyway, since
the Hispanic population of the US is correlated more closely to whites than blacks when it comes to violent crime, with differences accounted for by differences in the poverty level, and
Nigerian immigrants similarly have much more positive statistics than the majority of black Americans, as has been discussed in the "Things that go against the BLM narrative" thread. And then of course there are the examples of Asians and Jews that other people have already brought up, who have higher economic success and lower rates of criminality than whites. So you're presenting a false dichotomy on the impact of non-whites on American society and what options are available to do something about it.
There's another
fallacy argument for you to look up the definition of, since you like to use it all the fucking time. Then you can accuse other people of doing it when you're too dumb or lazy to answer a question or criticism.
