Is Trumps Boarder Wall Antithetical To Jedi Doctrine?

The answer to your question would be a resounding YES.
This is clear.
Any answer otherwise would be contradictory to our doctrine.

I always find obvious answers are the hardest to explain.

Why is a border wall, by it's very nature, in opposition to TotJO doctrine? (no fear of offending me, I don't vote in either of the countries involved, but you might want to temper any response knowing that it will be read by Jedi of a variety of walks of life)

(I have, with an intent to see your side - looked through the doctrine. I can not see that a wall between two lawfully governed nations is any more against our doctrine than the colorbond fence that keeps my dogs in the yard....)

JamesSand wrote:

The answer to your question would be a resounding YES.
This is clear.
Any answer otherwise would be contradictory to our doctrine.

I always find obvious answers are the hardest to explain.

Why is a border wall, by it's very nature, in opposition to TotJO doctrine? (no fear of offending me, I don't vote in either of the countries involved, but you might want to temper any response knowing that it will be read by Jedi of a variety of walks of life)

(I have, with an intent to see your side - looked through the doctrine. I can not see that a wall between two lawfully governed nations is any more against our doctrine than the colorbond fence that keeps my dogs in the yard....)

Well, obviously a WALL isn't against the doctrine.
If you don't live in the US, there are a lot of underlying elements that you probably aren't aware of.

It isn't JUST the wall, there is a lot of bigotry and racial tension behind the whole idea.
That's what it is about more than anything.
Not to mention our current Administration's habit of forcibly separating children from their parents and putting these kids in internment camps with inhumane living conditions.
Seriously.
This whole wall thing is an expression of power and bigotry, it has no real practical purpose.

That's why it is contradictory to our doctrine because it is literally all about discrimination, fear, prejudice, and it all stems from ignorance and a lack of compassion.

(and "lawfully governed" is a bit of a stretch, both nations have corrupt governments)

Well, obviously a WALL isn't against the doctrine.
If you don't live in the US, there are a lot of underlying elements that you probably aren't aware of.

It isn't JUST the wall, there is a lot of bigotry and racial tension behind the whole idea.
That's what it is about more than anything.
Not to mention our current Administration's habit of forcibly separating children from their parents and putting these kids in internment camps with inhumane living conditions.
Seriously.
This whole wall thing is an expression of power and bigotry, it has no real practical purpose.

That's why it is contradictory to our doctrine because it is literally all about discrimination, fear, prejudice, and it all stems from ignorance and a lack of compassion.

So if the answer is "Yes"
is the question "is USA's immigration policy antithetical to Jedi doctrine?"

Yes, the "wall" is a part of our immigration policy.

Yes, the "wall" is a part of our immigration policy.

I may just be getting lost in the semantics (it's another 30 minutes until my banana bread is ready, and you have not replied to my non-debate resurrection of practical leadership thread ) - but is it possible that a physical wall could work as part of more generous overall policy?

Even if the USA has the friendliest, most generous immigration and refugee support programme in the history of mankind, there could still be an argument for strict control and management of ingress and egress from the region in which that programme applies, and therefore, argument for a wall.

JamesSand wrote:

Yes, the "wall" is a part of our immigration policy.

I may just be getting lost in the semantics (it's another 30 minutes until my banana bread is ready, and you have not replied to my non-debate resurrection of practical leadership thread ) - but is it possible that a physical wall could work as part of more generous overall policy?

Even if the USA has the friendliest, most generous immigration and refugee support programme in the history of mankind, there could still be an argument for strict control and management of ingress and egress from the region in which that programme applies, and therefore, argument for a wall.

I fricking love banana bread.

I don't disagree with the wall, I disagree with the intentions behind it.
Supporters of the idea act like it's going to fix everything, but it is our immigration policies and systems themselves that need to be heavily reformed.
The wall isn't going to do anything about the over-lying issues, it is just a political move by our Prez.
Once we get our shit together, then yeah, let's build that damn wall!

The wall isn't going to do anything about the over-lying issues, it is just a political move by our Prez.

I'm sure there's more than one political commentator out there who might suggest that many of the actions taken by a government are done simply to distract the population (supporters or opponents) from other, related or unrelated matters.

of course, that would be off topic from the question, which is a border wall in contradiction to TotJO Doctrine.

I suppose without clarification if the question is assumed to include a certain amount of rhetoric about what the wall represents, or is supposed to achieve, we have gone as far as we can go.

JamesSand wrote:

The wall isn't going to do anything about the over-lying issues, it is just a political move by our Prez.

I'm sure there's more than one political commentator out there who might suggest that many of the actions taken by a government are done simply to distract the population (supporters or opponents) from other, related or unrelated matters.

of course, that would be off topic from the question, which is a border wall in contradiction to TotJO Doctrine.

I suppose without clarification if the question is assumed to include a certain amount of rhetoric about what the wall represents, or is supposed to achieve, we have gone as far as we can go.

That is the thing though, if we were just talking about a border wall in general, that'd be completely different because we would be discussing the practicality of the thing in of itself.

But this is about "Trump's Border Wall", which isn't just a thing, but an idea that intrinsically has a lot of ideological baggage, mainly of a politically motivated and racial/bigoted nature.

A "border wall" wouldn't be contradictory.
But "Trump's Wall", is a whole different beast.

But this is about "Trump's Border Wall", which isn't just a thing, but an idea that intrinsically has a lot of ideological baggage, mainly of a politically motivated and racial/bigoted nature.

Apparently (I don't have data to back this up) a lot more people search the internet for "how do I stop mexicans stealing my job, wife, and freedom" (I'm paraphrasing, I'm sure) than report as racist in surveys.

Which is weird, why be ashamed of being racist?

Any opinion I have on Mr Trump's presidency would be unfairly and poorly informed by what I can readily access on the "popular" internet. I acknowledge that, and refrain from offering too much wisdom on the subject - I can really only offer generalities and concepts on the management of a nation without any specific reference to how the USA has, does, and should undertake such a thing.

Americans who are racist almost always try to disguise their bigotry as practicality, because it is something to be ashamed of.
Racism has a clear negative connotation, most people will not admit to being racist, even if they really are (unless they are some kind of edgelord).

I'm from the Midwest, and I live in the Midwest (from Kansas, currently reside in Missouri), so I have seen this all firsthand.
The Midwest in America is one of the most conservative parts of the country.
(for some reason, racial prejudice seems to coincide with political conservatism).

And yes, while your perspective on this subject may be limited, this subject can still be broken down to its base principles.

Which would be that of an action motivated by bigotry, disguised as practicality, and used purely to gain political momentum.
At the core of this whole issue is the simple fact that Trump's supporters like the Wall idea, so he will use that to get more votes.
That is all this comes down to really.