Are these good analogies?

Since you lock your doors at night to keep your family safe, why shouldn't our country lock its doors/protect our borders to keep our citizens safe?

If your child went trick o treating and brought home a bag full of candy with one poisonous one but you didn't know which one, would you throw the whole bag away or risk letting your child eat the poisonous piece? Is it a good idea for our government to treat illegal immigration the same way?

A "good" analogy can be seen as one where the two things being compared are in fact similar, and any differences found are insignificant. Analogies are generally more rhetorical tools then they are tools of logic, so the onus usually falls on the one objecting to the analogy to point out the differences. For example, if I were arguing against the first analogy, I might say:

"Because I don't have a 305 foot statue in my yard that reads 'Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free'"

or a bit more serious...

"This is a weak analogy because virtually all people who break in homes cause harm to the homeowner, whereas a minuscule percentage of people who come to this country cause harm to its citizens."

Begging the Question: Don't be a victim of this fallacy by accepting the claims inherent in the question. The claim is that (1) illegal immigrants are dangerous. Are they? Maybe or maybe not. The other claim is that (2) protecting our borders will keep us safe. Does it? Again, maybe... but realize these are questions that should be asked, not assumed.

Someone commented anonymously:

Locked Doors Analogy: I think you are incorrect on the latter. First, you need to distinguish between those entering the Country Illegally vs Legally. The structure of the analogy (locked doors) Completely omits Legal immigrants from the proposition, therefore we are left with only harm caused by illegal immigrants, which you assert to be “miniscule”. There’s a lot of statistical info that would suggest otherwise.

The question is about the strength of the analogy. It is not about comparing legal vs illegal immigrants; it is about comparing locking doors of the home vs "locking doors" of the country (or building a wall and making Mexico pay for it). Even with the "lots of statistical info" the numbers are very different, making it a weak analogy. According to http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/08/politics/immigrants-crime/ (no, I will not consider Breibart a valid source of data). There are 11.2 million undocumented (illegal) immigrants in the US, 177,960 of which were convicted criminals, or about 1.6%. This would be like saying only 1 out of every 62 home break-ins result in property damage or loss when we know that it is closer to 62 out of 62. This is what makes the OP a very weak analogy.

Friday, Feb 03, 2017 07:42 PM
Someone commented anonymously:

I lock my door to protect my assets. I pay taxes and give to charities to help others. We know taxes go toward benefits such as welfare. However, your saying not all illegals are bad. But they are breaking into my "house" and taking things that are meant for others.

I would ask that you substantiate the claim that they are "taking things that are meant for others." If you are referring to the myth that they don't pay taxes, this has been thoroughly debunked. But more to the fallaciousness of the original statement and less about the politics, let's grant you that illegals are "taking things that are meant for others." Even a conservative estimate might show that pennies of what you personally pay in taxes go these illegals. This is much more UNLIKE someone breaking into your home an causing your family harm or eating poisonous candy than it is LIKE. Again, demonstrating that this is a weak analogy, and therefore fallacious.

Thursday, Mar 23, 2017 06:33 AM
Someone commented anonymously:

Would the following be a better analogy? As a US citizen does having a legal right to a domicile give you the right to grant or deny access to said domicile? If so why?

Since you put it in question form, the strength of the analogy does not matter because the question diffuses the assumption that it is strong and should be accepted. If you phrased this as

Since we have a legal right to domicile, then we have the right to grant domicile to others.

Then it would be more problematic. You would be saying "If we have X, we can grant X to others" with the assumption of still maintaining X for ourselves. Most of should be able to list off many more examples of exceptions to that rule (a medical degree, a driver's license, etc.) than examples that follow it. Therefore, a weak analogy.

Monday, Jan 14, 2019 10:46 AM
Someone commented anonymously:

I say if you are against the border wall then you should leave your front door wide open and allow anyone who wants to come in and use the resources you paid for.

Then you are not a rational thinker. This is just as problematic as me saying that if you are for the border wall then you should board up all the windows and doors in your house and put a barbed wire fence around your house to deter people from using the resources you paid for. See the problem? A complex issue such as border security cannot be rationally understood by a FOX News (or MSNBC) talking point. There are costs and benefits to consider, statistics to understand, political implications, etc.

At first blush this seems a poor analogy, since while it should be presumed that anyone entering your home without explicit or tacit permission intends to do harm, either to you or your family, either directly or indirectly, the same cannot be said for someone crossing our boarders, even unlawfully, since they may be seeking to make a better life for themselves, without intention to overtly harm anyone.
However, when factoring in the realities of life, e.g., that such individuals may be convicted felons, drug dealers or simply seeking to exploit the lawful tax payer thru welfare or medical expenses, the probability decreases that their entry (en masse) will be benign, thus strengthening the force of this analogy.