A Driving Analogy
Another item regarding the immigration topic that burns me is this completely deceptive ploy by the media trying to blend illegal immigration and immigration. When we call for enforcement of the border, we are told by liberals that we are a nation of immigrants so why are we now being anti-immigrant? Please.
A clear analogy would be if I were to decry the crime of drunk driving. I could talk about the danger, the deaths and costs every year that is caused by drunk driving. So my criticism would be of drunk drivers. The analogous response by liberals would be to tell me how critical I am because we are a nation of drivers. In fact we need driving to keep our economy going. I should be embracing all drivers. I think this analogy drives home the point that just as there is a critical difference between drivers and drunk drivers, there is a critical difference between immigrants and illegal immigrants.
A clear analogy would be if I were to decry the crime of drunk driving. I could talk about the danger, the deaths and costs every year that is caused by drunk driving. So my criticism would be of drunk drivers. The analogous response by liberals would be to tell me how critical I am because we are a nation of drivers. In fact we need driving to keep our economy going. I should be embracing all drivers. I think this analogy drives home the point that just as there is a critical difference between drivers and drunk drivers, there is a critical difference between immigrants and illegal immigrants.
posted by All_I_Can_Stands @ 9:33 PM
14 Comments:
At 12:48 AM,
Unknown said…
In 1980 my family emigrated to the states from southern Africa. I was all of three months old. It took my parents six years to get full citizenship. I am grateful to live in the U.S. as opposed to Australia or England, where many european africans moved with the general collapse of order in many African nations.
I'm no altruist. I don't believe in giving people things they don't deserve. However, human beings have the right to pursue happiness in what manner they wish, and not just Americans because it's in our constitution. I think our immigration policy should be much more open than it is - let the people come. With background criminal checks and other safety measures of course. Our country will handle what it can handle with regard to economic/social/cultural impacts, and will stabilize accordingly.
Also AICS, I feel like the two elements of your analogy are too dissimilar to compare. In my opinion you'd be better off using your logic attack on someone using the "nation of immigrants" line to defend an obvious illegal act. While you do that, I'll hope for a change in immigration laws that will allow many many more people into the country if they want to come.
At 8:39 AM,
All_I_Can_Stands said…
mark, I think the analogy is dead on. We are a nation of immigrants and we are a nation of drivers. The analogy shows that illegal immigration as different from immigration as drunk driving is from driving. Those who try to mix the legal and illegal by acrobatic symantics are my target.
I agree we could expand or accelerate the natural immigration process, but we must stop the flow of illegal immigration first.
At 9:47 AM,
Malott said…
Great post. Great analogy.
At 2:03 PM,
Anonymous said…
Mark is right, the analogy is flawed. AICS, your symantic acrobatics trying to demonize liberals have left you hanging on a highwire without a net.
To be a correct analogy of licensed versus unlicensed immigrants you would compare licensed and unlicensed drivers, not sober and drunk drivers.
At 3:54 PM,
All_I_Can_Stands said…
anonymous, you are the netless one here. My analogy was created to show that a subset is being branded as the whole.
Licensed vs. unlicensed also would show that the subset is branded as the whole.
Logically because your analogy also fits into what I was conveying, it does not mean that my analogy is flawed. You may chafe against it because the term "drunk driver" has a strong negative connotation, but you cannot say that my analogy does not convey the point I am making. In fact it conveys it very well.
To make the point further, the drunk driving analogy is better. As for driving, an unlicensed driver does no real harm to another if he at least has the skills to drive. A drunk driver has the strong potential to take something away from others: life, limb, property, etc. An illegal immigrant has the ability to take something away from legal residents and citizens:
life and limb: (no criminal background checks for illegals to prevent bringing in criminals)
property: either through crime or through taking advantage of tax provided services that the taxpayer must pay for.
The illegal immigrant also can take away from others who are willing to go through the legal process of coming to this country. aka, the linejumper.
nice try to both of you.
At 7:41 PM,
Unknown said…
AICS - I just thought analogies were used to come to an inductive conclusion about something, and that they had to be pretty similar in order to do so. For example, if there are four border agents in a certain part of Texas covering twenty miles of line, and forty illegals come across every night, then by analogy it is reasonable to assume that a twenty mile line in New Mexico covered by four agents should expect about forty illegals to come across every night.
You made your point for sure and i understand what you were doing. You said that your analogy shows that illegal immigration is different from legal just as drunk driving is from driving. I like your style, but I think you should just rant about the idiocy of comparing illegal immigration to legal as if they were one and the same...don't need logic to bust that one down...
At 9:58 PM,
HRM Deborah of Israel and the Messenger of Peace said…
I just have a simple question, wasn't not too far in the past that illegal immigrants in America was deported automatically when they were found?
I always thought people that legally came to America, was allowed to stay.
At 11:57 PM,
All_I_Can_Stands said…
housewife, you are correct. Before political correctness took over this country, the illegals hid in the shadows praying the INS would not find them. Today, they march in broad daylight and in front of TV cameras demanding their "rights".
I have stated many times, it is not the illegals I blame. Of course they want to come to this great country. It just is not possible to let ALL in and retain the American dream. Legal immigration should be as maximized, but this can only be so if illegal immigration is minimized.
At 12:11 PM,
Anonymous said…
Your symantic acrobatics continue AICS and now you're flailing wildly trying to pull even more emotion into your post, talking about possible threats to life and limb from illegal immigrants. It's not logical at all. It draws its sole strength from being emotional. You get points for your righteous insitence on your correctness but that doesn't make you right.
Sure, they are both examples of sets and subsets, but they are not logical analogies to one another no matter how much you want to insist on it.
Your analogy is flawed because it asks us to believe that sober people and drunk people are the same. Equating illegal immigrants with drunk drivers only pulls on everyone's emotions, associating illegals with visions of twisted wreckage and bloody shattered windshields, beligerent living drunks versus dead innocent families.
You easily list all the harmful things illegals might possibly do but leave off all the ways which you personally benefit from them. Lower grocery prices. Lower garment prices. The money they put into FICA that they'll never collect.
Illegal immigrants are only able to stay here because they are cheap labor for cheapskate employers who don't want to pay decent wages to legals and US citizens. I'm all for enforcing our borders and immigration laws, but I'm also for strictly enforcing laws that punish employers who are trafficking in this form of modern slavery and the ones who are truly the guilty ones in this whole mess. Enforce employer laws and the jobs for illegals will disappear, and then the illegals will stop coming. We need to stop making illegals the sole demons here. You're demonizing liberals in your post too, but that does nothing to solve the problem either.
The American Dream died long ago back when companies started going offshore to avoid paying taxes, downsizing Americans for fatter CEO packages, people couldn't rely on a lifelong career at a company anymore, and the middle class could only make it by going deeper and deeper in debt.
At 12:22 PM,
All_I_Can_Stands said…
Your symantic acrobatics continue AICS and now you're flailing wildly trying to pull even more emotion into your post, talking about possible threats to life and limb from illegal immigrants.
Maybe if you add just a little more drama to the points you are trying to make it will be more believeable.
Using words like flailing for the dramatic effect does nothing to score points of reason.
As for benefiting from illegal immigrants, according to your line of thinking if a drunk driver provided benefit in addition to the harm we should consider not enforcing drunk driving laws??
You keep sinking deeper and deeper as you try to justify non-enforcement of laws. It is ridiculous. If we are going to have immigration laws they should be enforced. If there is benefit to willy nilly allowing anyone to come over the border, then drop the immigration laws. I'm sure you are for that, but until you succeed at creating an open border in our laws, the current law should be enforced. It is a terrible precedent to have laws that are not enforced.
At 2:30 PM,
Anonymous said…
Maybe if you add just a little more drama to the points you are trying to make it will be more believeable.
This was my exact point to you and your post's tugging on emotional heartstrings rather than reason. So remove "flailing wildly" from my prior post and then attempt to respond to the points it makes.
You keep sinking deeper and deeper as you try to justify non-enforcement of laws.
I'll repost since you missed it:
I'm all for enforcing our borders and immigration laws, but I'm also for strictly enforcing laws that punish employers who are trafficking in this form of modern slavery and the ones who are truly the guilty ones in this whole mess.
Yes, that is ridiculous.
At 2:51 PM,
All_I_Can_Stands said…
I'm all for enforcing our borders and immigration laws, but I'm also for strictly enforcing laws that punish employers who are trafficking in this form of modern slavery and the ones who are truly the guilty ones in this whole mess.
Where do you get the impression I am not also for enforcing laws agains employers? Once again criticized for what I don't say.
At 3:18 PM,
Anonymous said…
Once again criticized for what I don't say.
You need to get your eyes or brain or both checked. My point was obvious. You were being criticized for this comment:
You keep sinking deeper and deeper as you try to justify non-enforcement of laws.
When plain as day I had posted this:
I'm all for enforcing our borders and immigration laws, but I'm also for strictly enforcing laws that punish employers who are trafficking in this form of modern slavery and the ones who are truly the guilty ones in this whole mess.
You were criticized for trying to pull a fast one. You say I'm "trying to justify non-enforcement of laws" when I clearly push a thorough pro-enforcement stance.
At 5:11 PM,
Unknown said…
I like reading this..
Here's an article I just read by Tim Cavanaugh at Reason mag and LA Times that makes quite a bit of sense to me, a proponent of extremely limited govt. I'd like to hear what you think if you get the time.
Post a Comment
<< Home