Like Button

Friday, July 09, 2010

Analogy

Things are heating up. Last month two men called 911 reporting that they were being shot at near the border. They were found dead. Last March a Douglas, AZ, resident and his dog were killed by a suspected illegal alien. Ironically, the victim was known to aid illegal border crossers. Reports are coming out that snipers for drug cartels are sitting on the border targeting Border Patrol officers.

In late June, Mexico filed suit against Arizona to prevent us from carrying out the immigration enforcement law signed in April (ignoring the fact that they have the very same law on their books). On Tuesday, the Obama administration filed suit against Arizona to prevent us from carrying out the immigration enforcement law signed in April. The suit from the Justice Department says that it's unconstitutional for states to enforce federal law ... at least in terms of immigration. It's a "foreign affairs" issue, you see.

Every weekday I walk by a protest sign against Arizona and her stand against illegal immigration. "It's anti-family," they assure me. When the suggestion is made that illegal immigrants have violated the law, they respond, "It's not a crime!" The logic here is hard to follow. It would seem that any violation of the law that results in separation of families is "anti-family". A bank robber with kids at home shouldn't be arrested, I suppose, because "It's anti-family." Wouldn't CPS be anti-family because they separate families? Seems like nonsense to me. In this atmosphere (as in so many others), emotions run high, so when I sought to come up with an analogy to illustrate the problem, I had to be careful. This one will not be in reference to a crime ...

Meet Mr. Jones. He has a young son that he adores. Little Bobby desperately wants to see the latest animated feature, and Mr. Jones really wants to give his son all he can. But money is tight. So he comes up with a plan. He uses what little money he has to buy a child's ticket for Bobby. His son is instructed to go inside and open the side door for Mr. Jones. They go and take the last two seats to the movie.

An observant assistant manager saw Bobby come in and thought it odd that he was alone. He saw Bobby later with an adult and thought that was odd as well. But when an irate customer complains, "I bought a ticket and there are no seats," he goes to investigate. He calls Mr. Jones out of the theater and asks to see his ticket.

Mr. Jones is outraged. "My ticket? What's the matter with you? Are you a fashist?"

"Fascist?"

"Yeah, you're opposed to anyone who is not fashionably dressed. Just because I'm wearing clothes that aren't up to your standards, you want to get rid of me!"

"No, sir. I just asked to see your ticket."

"What's the matter with you? Why don't you want people in your theater to see your movies?"

"Sir, we thrive on people in our theater. I'm just asking to see your ticket."

"Why are you picking on me??!! When did it become a crime to be poorly dressed?"

"Sir, this has nothing to do with how you're dressed. I'm just asking to see your ticket."

The assistant manager persists and finally Mr. Jones admits he has no ticket.

"I'm sorry, sir, but you'll have to leave."

"But my son has a ticket. He's here legally."

"Yes, sir. He can stay if you wish, but you have to leave. You're taking the seat of a paying customer."

"What kind of anti-family operation is this?! You're splitting up my family!!!"

"Sir, you're splitting up your family if you choose to leave him behind. We're not. If you'll just buy a ticket ..."

8 comments:

starflyer said...

I love analogies and this is a good one! It'd enrage all the protestors if they could only read it. Might tick off some of your own commenters too. Great job!

Stan said...

Yeah, I'm not expecting the protesters to comment, "Gee, thanks! Never thought of it that way before!"

Sherry said...

Ah, tis a very good analogy!

This ought to be submitted to your local newspaper, Stan. Of course that's easy to say when not living right there in the middle of it all.

Stan said...

Actually, while the loudest voices here are opposed to it, the more silent majority is in favor. This, of course, doesn't prove the point, but it wouldn't get me shot if I submitted it to the local paper.

Naum said...

Easy for you to pontificate from your cushy, white-bread world.

Walk a mile in somebody else's shoes, it might change your perspective.

Stan said...

No, you're absolutely right, Naum. I've never known prejudice. I've never lacked money. I've never been sick. I've ... wait ... none of that is true. What's up with that? I don't even like white bread.

When your primary argument is "You don't know what you're talking about", you've lost the argument. You didn't address any errors in the analogy. You didn't explain why it didn't correlate. You didn't suggest anything but ignorance on my part ... and that without proof. (Am I to assume that you are actually an illegal immigrant who came to this country to provide a better life for your family? I ask because you are apparently claiming that you have walked a mile in someone else's shoes while I can't possibly understand.)

Since any perceived failure to "walk a mile in someone elses's shoes" does not invalidate the analogy (or the entire concept), your argument truly is invalid.

I've asked Dan to stop commenting (again) because it was too contentious without any apparent value. It seems as if you have no interest in being anything but contentious without any value. And that is not "friendly", the requirement I have for people who comment. If you can't dialog and you can't discuss and you can't provide a reasonable conversation without simply being intentionally insulting, I don't need to include your comments in this blog. Your choice.

Marshal Art said...

You can try my blog, Naum. Then Dan won't be the only one who looks foolish.

The analogy is perfect. And since when does one need to walk in another's shoes to justify breaking the law. It IS merely justification, it's not really an argument with merit. And the reality is that there are few who haven't felt some degree of prejudice, even if it is merely being left out for not being cool enough (OK. I'VE never experienced it, but I don't need to in order to be sympathetic to those who do. It's obviously hurtful to another human being. Too bad for Naum's position that prejudice has nothing to do with it.) Poverty does not excuse bad behavior. It's not like there's no food to steal in Mexico or wherever their home country is. Why come here to do it? It's not just feeding the family I'm afraid. (Why do they have children if they can't afford them in the first place? It's not like they have to have intercourse.)

I'll cease the ramble and get to it. The separating families line is what we call, "crapola". Who in their right minds would leave their kids behind? Does INS say, YOU have to leave, but the kids have to stay? I don't think so. IF the illegals know no legals who'll take care of the kids, I guess taking your kids with you is what parents ought to do? OR is that too crazy and obvious a notion?

starflyer said...

Naum is an angry man who puts himself up on the pedestal of God, thinking he knows that "if" God exists, then He would think this way or do that.

That's scary. Naum, you need to repent...and I'm saying that with concern, not to tick you off.