Yesterday’s flight from Chicago to Ft. Lauderdale was uneventful once I got through the extra-diligent security check. But it got me thinking. My experience could be compared to the current questions regarding allowing Syrian refugees, or any other refugees, into the country.
Pretend for a moment that the TSA represents the checkpoints of our borders and that the passengers represent refugees trying to get in. Most will pass through with little fanfare (although, I might add, the process is markedly more protracted than that to board an airplane). Some, like myself, will be temporarily inconvenienced for the sake of security, while others will be detained permanently as truly dangerous. In between these two categories are those who actually are dangerous and get through anyway and those who aren’t but for some reason are turned away.
The thing is no system is one hundred percent foolproof; but each usually has back-ups. In the airline world, additional checks are done randomly at the gate; flight personnel can refuse to board a passenger under certain circumstances; and travelers are regularly encouraged over the loudspeaker to report any unusual behavior. Luggage left unattended is whisked away.
As a nation we’ve become used to these procedures if we want to travel from Point A to Point B. Maybe we complain about it, but most of us are still glad the TSA is in place. And for the most part the system works well. What I don’t understand is why we can’t use this analogy to work toward resolution of the refugee issue.
Leave a Reply