I see the incongruity easily. I think that MSNBC does too. However the incongruity is more nuanced that Kim states.
Once again, apples and oranges. Comparisons like this obscure the complexity of the argument and thus give us no new perceptive/insight. Bank robbers cannot be compared to illegal immigrants accept that they both break the law. A jay-walker and murderer both break the law as well, yet we do not endeavor to compare them. The notion of misdemeanor crime and felony crime help us understand the futility of this comparison.
Business from one end of our nation to the other employs the undocumented (including our military for heaven's sake!) with a wink and a nod and we ALL, for the most part, benefit and look the other way.
I understand that it is already a crime to be an illegal immigrant. It is a crime pervasively and appropriately ignored. If I witness a bank robbery, a murder, a hit-and-run accident, a violent crime, I call the police immediately (and have!). If I suspect or even know someone is illegal(and have expected and known), I absolutely do not call the police. The fact that you do call not proves that you do not see it as criminal to the level suggested.
MSNBC probably meant that now, NOW, AZ police officers are directed/furthered empowered to do something about such illegality (crime?) even though most of us do not see such illegality as criminal (otherwise we would call the police when we know/suspect!).
In this sense and in all practicality , it is NOW in Arizona a virtually new crime and warrants the MSNBC's headline (in reality underline).
Thus, this photo does not at all 'say it all' as the original post claims.
Doug makes some good points about distinctions and I must agree with him on those points. However, we humans often use generalizations of a large scale in illustrating the absurd on a small scale. I don't think it was Kim's intention to compare illegal aliens to bank robbers. Nevertheless, if such comparisons cannot be made, then there is no use for comparisons at all. If one looks for enough minutia, there will always be differences (i.e. apples and oranges). Comparisons are often inexact things, but they are used for illustrating larger ideas. In this case, MSNBC is simply glossing over the fact that illegal is illegal and such illegal aliens shouldn't be here.
Here we go again, Doug and his "apples to oranges" argument. Doug, I love you but like Alan said...you can't apple and orange every little thing. They are both fruits! If we were to compare two apples you would say we can't because one is a Granny Smith and one is a Red Delicious therefore even apple to apple comparisons are invalid.
On the second point...according to Title 8 Section 1325 of the US Code, being in the country illegally IS a felony. I quote, "Under Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, "Improper Entry by Alien," any citizen of any country other than the United States who:
Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or
Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or
Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact; has committed a FEDERAL crime and can be imprisoned for up to two years in some cases.
According to Webster's a felony is a crime for which the punishment in federal law may be death or imprisonment for more than one year.
So a bank robber and illegal aliens have both committed felonies and therefore we are comparing apples to apples be they Granny Smiths, Red Delicious, or any other breed of apple.
I did not say that being illegally in our country is not a felony.
My point is simple; comparisons in philosophy are dangerous because they mislead via oversimplification.
I yield: Brian is right. Both are felonies therefore Kim's comparison is valid. Let's enforce them accordingly. All illegal aliens into our jails for a minimum of two years!! And if you transport illegally over state lines, even more jail time!
You see, this is my point, we cannot use this comparison because it clouds the reality of the discourse. The reality of the discourse is that bank robbers and illegal aliens cannot practically be compared unless the comparison carries through to its logical end, and it does not. People's minds jump to conclusions: being a bank robber is just as bad as being an illegal in the United States! None of us believe that, why enter that faulty portal?
Perhaps Kim was just being facetious. I know that I must allow everyone that. But I saw the post and Kim's comment as just sniping and I wanted to respond to both.
I agree with Doug that the majority of Americans do not see being here illegaly is as a bad as being a bank robber. I must say that I am not one of them...I see them as one in the same.
The only difference is one may or may not have a gun and the other just robs from us in a more passive way through social programs and health care costs etc. Either way, money is taken that neither has a right to have.
So when I see illegals or those I believe to be illegals (crowds of latinos on the corners waiting for day labor) I must admit...I have a bit of angst that they are here.
Having married a foreign national, my complaint is not that foreign nationals are here, it is that they are here illegally. Yumi and I jumped through all the hoops to get her here legally, BEFORE we were married. When the INS said jump, we asked "how high?" Some of the requirements were absurd, but we fulfilled them. Many of these requirements were medical procedures that were completely unnecessary and invaded her privacy. Through hard work and patience, Yumi is here legally. So when illegals waltz in here and then protest about documentation, it makes my blood boil. We can't even ask them a simple question about their legality without being called racist. It's a question of fairness for me. Every other country requires documentation, so why shouldn't we require such? Yumi and I have our papers and they are in order.
9 comments:
Now they just need to pass a law that makes it illegal for a bank robber to rob a bank. That would give MSNBC something else to report on.
Yikes. You meanies! So what? Is MSNBC as hated by the right as FOX is hated by the left?
Absolutely.
In this case, though, the fact that MSNBC staffers, anchors, etc. cannot see the incongruity of this headline reveals a lot.
I will respond both to Kim and Alan.
I see the incongruity easily. I think that MSNBC does too. However the incongruity is more nuanced that Kim states.
Once again, apples and oranges. Comparisons like this obscure the complexity of the argument and thus give us no new perceptive/insight. Bank robbers cannot be compared to illegal immigrants accept that they both break the law. A jay-walker and murderer both break the law as well, yet we do not endeavor to compare them. The notion of misdemeanor crime and felony crime help us understand the futility of this comparison.
Business from one end of our nation to the other employs the undocumented (including our military for heaven's sake!) with a wink and a nod and we ALL, for the most part, benefit and look the other way.
I understand that it is already a crime to be an illegal immigrant. It is a crime pervasively and appropriately ignored.
If I witness a bank robbery, a murder, a hit-and-run accident, a violent crime, I call the police immediately (and have!). If I suspect or even know someone is illegal(and have expected and known), I absolutely do not call the police. The fact that you do call not proves that you do not see it as criminal to the level suggested.
MSNBC probably meant that now, NOW, AZ police officers are directed/furthered empowered to do something about such illegality (crime?) even though most of us do not see such illegality as criminal (otherwise we would call the police when we know/suspect!).
In this sense and in all practicality , it is NOW in Arizona a virtually new crime and warrants the MSNBC's headline (in reality underline).
Thus, this photo does not at all 'say it all' as the original post claims.
Doug makes some good points about distinctions and I must agree with him on those points. However, we humans often use generalizations of a large scale in illustrating the absurd on a small scale. I don't think it was Kim's intention to compare illegal aliens to bank robbers. Nevertheless, if such comparisons cannot be made, then there is no use for comparisons at all. If one looks for enough minutia, there will always be differences (i.e. apples and oranges). Comparisons are often inexact things, but they are used for illustrating larger ideas. In this case, MSNBC is simply glossing over the fact that illegal is illegal and such illegal aliens shouldn't be here.
Here we go again, Doug and his "apples to oranges" argument. Doug, I love you but like Alan said...you can't apple and orange every little thing. They are both fruits! If we were to compare two apples you would say we can't because one is a Granny Smith and one is a Red Delicious therefore even apple to apple comparisons are invalid.
On the second point...according to Title 8 Section 1325 of the US Code, being in the country illegally IS a felony. I quote, "Under Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, "Improper Entry by Alien," any citizen of any country other than the United States who:
Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or
Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or
Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact;
has committed a FEDERAL crime and can be imprisoned for up to two years in some cases.
According to Webster's a felony is a crime for which the punishment in federal law may be death or imprisonment for more than one year.
So a bank robber and illegal aliens have both committed felonies and therefore we are comparing apples to apples be they Granny Smiths, Red Delicious, or any other breed of apple.
I did not say that being illegally in our country is not a felony.
My point is simple; comparisons in philosophy are dangerous because they mislead via oversimplification.
I yield: Brian is right. Both are felonies therefore Kim's comparison is valid. Let's enforce them accordingly. All illegal aliens into our jails for a minimum of two years!! And if you transport illegally over state lines, even more jail time!
You see, this is my point, we cannot use this comparison because it clouds the reality of the discourse. The reality of the discourse is that bank robbers and illegal aliens cannot practically be compared unless the comparison carries through to its logical end, and it does not. People's minds jump to conclusions: being a bank robber is just as bad as being an illegal in the United States! None of us believe that, why enter that faulty portal?
Perhaps Kim was just being facetious. I know that I must allow everyone that. But I saw the post and Kim's comment as just sniping and I wanted to respond to both.
I agree with Doug that the majority of Americans do not see being here illegaly is as a bad as being a bank robber. I must say that I am not one of them...I see them as one in the same.
The only difference is one may or may not have a gun and the other just robs from us in a more passive way through social programs and health care costs etc. Either way, money is taken that neither has a right to have.
So when I see illegals or those I believe to be illegals (crowds of latinos on the corners waiting for day labor) I must admit...I have a bit of angst that they are here.
Having married a foreign national, my complaint is not that foreign nationals are here, it is that they are here illegally. Yumi and I jumped through all the hoops to get her here legally, BEFORE we were married. When the INS said jump, we asked "how high?" Some of the requirements were absurd, but we fulfilled them. Many of these requirements were medical procedures that were completely unnecessary and invaded her privacy. Through hard work and patience, Yumi is here legally. So when illegals waltz in here and then protest about documentation, it makes my blood boil. We can't even ask them a simple question about their legality without being called racist. It's a question of fairness for me. Every other country requires documentation, so why shouldn't we require such? Yumi and I have our papers and they are in order.
Post a Comment