Is Trumps Boarder Wall Antithetical To Jedi Doctrine?

The usual points against "open borders" I see around are:

- Illegal immigrants are taking American jobs.
- Illegal immigrants are receiving benefits only available to citizens.
- Among the illegal immigrants there may be purposeful infiltration of criminals and/or terrorists.
- Illegal immigration through land borders may make it easier for drug and human traffickers to move "merchandise" around.

For the first two, the easy solution is to do as every other country in the world and make it mandatory for people to carry a government issued ID to do all things that are important (open a bank account, get a driver's license, go to school, get a job, use a library, collect unemployment, etc.). Additionally, make it mandatory for businesses to pay through bank transfer only (no cash or check), and levy heavy fines on business owners who hire illegal immigrants.

For the other "dangerous" people getting in, money could be funneled to better controls, rather than an overly expensive wall.

The wall is antithetical to a Jedi, simply because it is a stupid alternative. But that's just my opinion.

CaesarEJW wrote: bigotry, disguised as practicality, and used purely to gain political momentum.

How do you tell the difference of that from practicality labelled as bigotry, and used purely to gain political momentum?

At least someone is using the Doctrine to justify their answers- but Kerouacs I think you could have made a much better argument rather than just posting the Jedi Believe section and leaving it there.

The way I've come to understand "inherent worth of all life" is that we value a person's ability to make their own decisions and forge their own paths. There is a line that shouldn't be crossed though- I may respect your ability to make choices, and even that you have made a choice- but I don't have to respect the choice. A person that decides to break into a home has made the choice (whether or consciously or unconsciously) to put their life in danger of the occupants taking action against them (not meant to be a sweeping statement about Illegal Immigrants, I'm referring to the people in my town, nearly all crime here comes from White Meth Addicts). So as it concerns someone who is coming from the Mexican border, my belief in their worth is as a thinking human being. They don't deserve to be treated any less or more than anyone else. They are to be respected.

The wall in and of itself is not cruel or unusual. What could be considered such, however, is what happens after they get detained and placed into camps while they are processed. Much of the reason this is an issue is because of the droves of people that run from south of the Mexican border. If less people crossed the border, we could afford to give them better conditions. That's not the fault of the any particular government, I'm afraid. Many of the governments do what they can, but breaking a particular kind of spirit amongst the populace (fear of cartels and other similar criminal activities) is hard. It won't be until that is broken that we will see less people trying to jump the border, and then we can afford to give better accommodations. So cruel and unusual is a difficult thing to overcome until the Federal Offices finally decide to reform Immigration.

The Death Penalty is a sentence issued after someone is convicted of serious crimes. It doesn't apply to this question, since the sentence issued to someone who is found here illegally and does not gain asylum is to be deported.

Is Deportation, however, a law grounded in reason and compassion? NOW we're getting to a good question. The individual isn't discriminated against because they are from another nation, but rather because they are here under the criminal act of illegal immigration- so we can toss the discrimination piece out of the discussion. The Ethic of Reciprocity is about exchange between groups and doesn't fit into this discussion because that's not what Immigration is- it's a person choosing to switch affiliations- they can bring in their culture within reason (Cartel Culture is incompatible with the US Population, for example- but cuisine is very compatible...as long as it's FDA approved), so this is also tossed from the discussion. Self-Determination within Political and other Structures would be more like "I can choose to support Mexican Policy, even though I'm an American Citizen; or I can stand against Israel, side with Palestine, and be an American; or Democrat vs. Republican; so we believe it's important that people have the ability to make their own choices- goes back to my respect of all life point), Freedom of Association doesn't have anything to do with crossing the border either. Freedom of Association is more like "I, a natural born American, have the right to associate with Illegal Immigrants and help them if I want!", so this one is also tossed out the window.
That leaves us with one point to discuss as it pertains to the Border Wall (from what you've suggested, I'll get to another issue soon enough though): Does the law of Illegal Immigration stand in anti-thesis to the Jedi Path? The reason it hinges on the answer to this, is because if Illegal Immigration is against Jediism, then we would oppose any form of wall (be it electronic or physical).

Every law sparks from some sort of fear. Murder is a real thing that happens in the world, so we create laws to address the fear of murder. Therefore, we should look at this line as meaning "Unjustified Fear". An example of unjustified fear is what is going on now with the Corona Virus. People are seeing Chinese persons, and blocking them out because they are looking at the problem without any reason attached. To make laws that turn Chinese persons on American soil some sort of pariah would be a law that is based on Unjustified Fear.

Immigration Laws are based on multiple factors from historical evidence of introducing diametrically different values into the system (before anyone jumps onto me, I'm not making sweeping statements about anyone- I recognize gang members represent a relatively small percentage of the population) to economical problems that are faced by those people when them come into the country without the proper documentation.

Manu's statement "well you can fix this problem by making it law to require documentation..." Those are in the laws though. And people get around them. We have very corrupt employers. Down the road, there is a gas station that hires people on, pays less than minimum wage, and doesn't send records to the IRS. How they get away with it? The people they are hiring don't feel like they have any other options, and the employer makes it sound like they are doing the employee a favor. People get paid under the table all the time. And some people can get fake identification. Furthermore, these days you can pick up a gift card at Walmart and reload it whenever, so this gives another method for employers to simplify the process. It's hard for the IRS to run a background on EVERYONE to figure out what is really going on.

With the complexity of immigration being everything from potentially damaging cultural differences (again, Cartel Culture is my prime example here) to economic problems an illegal immigrant faces, one could actually make the argument that Immigration Laws are not antithetical to the Jedi Path because they are built from a place of compassion towards the persons already within the country, and even are intended to have legal immigrants best interests at heart. That, however, doesn't mean that America's aren't in desperate need of reformation. They are. So a border wall isn't, with regards to this particular understanding, antithetical to the Jedi Path.

But a complete Physical Border Wall at the Mexican Border is. That is, one that is 100% along the border. Not because it should or shouldn't be about immigration, but because of the Environmental Factor. This isn't theoretical, the below document outlines actual environmental problems that have already occurred as a result of a Physical wall at the border:

https://content.sierraclub.org/grassrootsnetwork/sites/content.sierraclub.org.activistnetwork/files/teams/documents/DAMAGE_CAUSED_BY_BORDER_WALL_FACTSHEET.pdf

Having some sort of distinguishing barrier wouldn't be a problem, something like a low-lying fence that distinguishes where one country ends or another begins, because it doesn't create the above issues. Trump's proposal, however, isn't a low-lying fence, it's a more concrete line that he hopes will prevent people from crossing over. The Electronic System that Arizona is setting up, however, doesn't carry these problems. It also gives a lot more flexibility to Border Patrol. Combine that with reforms in Immigration Law and more support for the countries south of us to stabilize (though, if I'm being honest our government would probably mess that up too x.x), things could start looking up finally. But that's a whole different tangent....

Ever had an idea? Ever seen some one else with the same idea? Personally when I see that , it used to frustrate me. Even more was when that idea was what I thought not being done right. I can’t ever speak for any one else - not my cup of tea- what is my cup of tea is when people use their freedoms. I’ve had restaurants and businesses and have even been in charge of a few Army things -( Lol) and it’s a joy a relief and benefit -to watch people work. Not from a crack a whip and haaaa! Work mule * cracking whip-
But to see people have their freedoms being used and watch how people figure things and HOW - THEY- do it. How they figured it out for them self’s. I’m no micromanager - never- I’m meticulous- but today I would rather let people “stay their lanes” any day- a phrase here Which means I’m not gunna tell some one what to do or how to do it - I’ll do what I can but I ain’t gunna be in your face and every moment questioning motifs and things and whys ... not my cup of tea to do any ones job for them and it ain’t my cup of tea to count spoons. In my own life I count spoons - forks - tiles - I’m a bit of a nut but ——- I choose to do that for me and my family - I can’t for every one in the entire world. 7.5 billion - fatigue sets in for me after holidays with my own family - I can’t stress over people I’ll never meet. Presidents important - this is the first president I can wake up and see what he did last night and directly have contact with him - kinna - but things are changing - doctrine often isn’t the contradiction we find but the Interpretation.

When the incarnation of Avalokiteshvara first came to New York America, something interesting is worth noting, defiantly worth repeating and sharing to me. Smiley face.
St. Patrick’s Cathedral there were Rabbis, Catholic Clergy - Eastern patriarchs - and everyone else present. The Dalai Lama said “ All of your ways are valid ways to expansion of consciousness and illumination.”
Almost instantly Cardinal Cook stood up and said “No, we are different. Our religion is not to be confused with these other ways.”
https://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/Clergy/115769-the-block?start=360#344165

“...doctrine often isn’t the contradiction we find but the Interpretation.” -Carlos

All the more reason to discuss “the how you arrived” to your interpretation of the doctrine when these questions arise.

CaesarEJW wrote:
Americans who are racist almost always try to disguise their bigotry as practicality, because it is something to be ashamed of.

You dont get to dismiss a practical point on the basis of your personal assumption of some elses racism. That person who you claim is a racist can just as easily dismiss your views by calling you a bird-brained SJW who weeps liberal tears on behalf of the rights of criminals. If Adolf Hitler declares that three times three is nine then his declaration is correct, despite his moral character.

We have to use facts to battle facts and practical arguments to battle practical propositions, not appeals to emotion such as charges of racism. The reason for this is simple; facts and practical arguments at least have the potential to result in logical conclusions whereas accusations of moral and intellectual failure create an unending and unproductive cycle of mutual contempt. At best this cycle builds resentment and hostility in single individuals - at its worst it produces violence an bloodshed on a massive scale.

OB1Shinobi wrote: You dont get to dismiss a practical point on the basis of your personal assumption of some elses racism. That person who you claim is a racist can just as easily dismiss your views by calling you a bird-brained SJW who weeps liberal tears on behalf of the rights of criminals. If Adolf Hitler declares that three times three is nine then his declaration is correct, despite his moral character.

We have to use facts to battle facts and practical arguments to battle practical propositions, not appeals to emotion such as charges of racism. The reason for this is simple; facts and practical arguments at least have the potential to result in logical conclusions whereas accusations of moral and intellectual failure create an unending and unproductive cycle of mutual contempt. At best this cycle builds resentment and hostility in single individuals - at its worst it produces violence an bloodshed on a massive scale.

(insert word poop here)

CaesarEJW wrote:

OB1Shinobi wrote:
You have falsely accused me of appealing to emotion and making an ad hominem argument.

You assume that I am basing my judgments on generalized accusations of moral or intellectual failure.
While you are making assumptions about someone you only know through a brief written response online.

Incorrect. Read my post again but first, take the sand out of your lady parts.

I am stating facts coming from firsthand observations of real people, people that I actually know, including friends and family, unfortunately.
(I live in rural Missouri, in a very "Red" area, I hear all sorts of racist crap, and whenever I point this out, these same people try to disguise something that is blatantly based in prejudice with "practical" reasons.)

As for being "liberal" or an "SJW", I consider this the highest of insults.
I am actually quite conservative. I'm just very principled. I believe in honor, morality, and compassion.
I do not think the way I do because of a "bleeding heart", or because I care about hurting other's "feelings". I could give a damn.
Rather, I firmly believe that there are undeniable ethical truths in life.
(like forcibly separating children from their parents and then putting these children in internment camps with inhumane conditions is wrong, but a lot of people I know don't care because these children don't have the same skin color or ethnic/national origins)

And that is all. This is my last reply to this topic. I have stated my view on the subject and that is final. Reply if you will, I am sure you have a scathing refute for each of my propositions, but I simply do not care. You clearly have your mind made up, as have I. Good day sir.

Interesting strategy youve got there - you yourself have a tendency to be hostile and contemptuous in your posts towards others but when someone treats you this way, you dart off. Im glad that my post made you butt-hurt, the more you experience butt-hurt the more likely youll learn how to deal with it, personally, and also how it affects other people.

Alright fine, maybe I am a little in the wrong here. I apologize if I was rude.
I was a little butthurt. Thank you for the aggravation.
Flame tempers the steels, as they say.

Sorry for the delayed response here. I fully intend on reading all the points and perspectives made after i finish this post. However, i think it is significant to note that during a difficult conversation with a senior member of the clergy, my account was made temporarily inaccessible due to a change in password which I did NOT initiate.

I was accused of "spamming" after posting the temple doctrine as a response to questions and comments exchanged between member Br. John and I. Immediately thereafter i could not access my account.

It was only today, after resetting my password that i was able to log in again to ask this question.

Is Br. John correct in stating that posting the temple doctrine on the forum is a form of spamming? If so, is altering a new members password to prevent them from engaging in dialogue, without even a warning or notification, typically how this church responds to conflicting points of view?

I am posting this message in hopes of being educated on my conduct and how to better myself for the sake of the church as well as for personal growth and development. Thank you for your time and consideration.

If you leave the dog outside in your car or even you yard without food or water in sweltering heat this is typically seen as animal abuse.

Sorry for the repeat post. Still new to this forum

JamesSand wrote:

(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....)

If you leave the dog outside in your car or even you yard without food or water in sweltering heat this is typically seen as animal abuse.

You have a duty if care as its owner.... but the US or any nation does not have the capacity nor assigned duty of care over all humans on the planet! It quite literally what a nation is, the boundary between citizens and non citizens. A nation has responsibilities to its citizens far far in excess of those to non-citizens. Your beef might better be with the Mexican government (if I read your meaning correctly).

CaesarEJW wrote:

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)

***CONTENT WARNING***:Below is posted word for word excerpts of the Jedi Doctrine. If you are sensitive to such views and perspectives as those promoted by this church, please avert your eyes while scrolling down to the next post***


I agree with everything stated above. The point which specifically stands out as running counter to Jedi doctrine is

Jedi Believe
" ...In the sanctity of the human person. We oppose the use of torture and cruel or unusual punishment, including the death penalty....
In a society that does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or circumstances of birth such as gender, ethnicity and national origin...
In the importance of freedom of conscience and self-determination within religious, political and other structures..."

It seems uncontroversial to state that the point of building a physical barrier to prevent travelers from Mexico, Central and South America from entering North America is, by definition, preventing them from the freedom of self determination on the basis of national origin and ethnicity.

Another point which is perhaps not know to many who casually consider this subject from the callus detached technical perspective which attempts to view the wall purely as a piece of technology which either does or does not succeed in its intended purpose of preventing unlawful immigration, is the morality rate of those who attempt to cross.

here is an excerpt from the infallible all knowing Wikipedia

" The group Border Angels estimates that since 1994, about 10,000 people have died in their attempt to cross border.[3] According to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 7,216 people have died crossing the U.S–Mexico border between 1998 and 2017.[4] In 2005, more than 500 died across the entire U.S.–Mexico border.[5] The number of yearly border crossing deaths doubled from 1995 to 2005, before declining.[6] The statistics reflect only known deaths and do not include those who have never been found. "

People are dying in the desert from this wall and policy. It is a form of cruel and unusual punishment causing death as a result of national origin.

Whatever the real numbers are, one thing remains true; these deaths were an avoidable and direct consequence of boarder policy. To construct technology which causes death from dehydration, hypothermia and drowning seems to be, again, directly in conflict with aspects of the doctrine.

Adder wrote: You have a duty if care as its owner.... but the US or any nation does not have the capacity nor assigned duty of care over all humans on the planet! It quite literally what a nation is, the boundary between citizens and non citizens. A nation has responsibilities to its citizens far far in excess of those to non-citizens. Your beef might better be with the Mexican government (if I read your meaning correctly).

An astute point indeed Adder. The unstated premise here is that the U.S has little or no responsibilities to ensure the well-being of non-citizens while they remain outside its boarders. However, does it then follow that once detected or caught those who attempt to exist within the boarders of the nation illegally are to be subject to any form of abuse and cruelty which the "host" nation would not subject its own citizens to?

In other words, is a nation which claims to have values similar to the Jedi doctrine of nondiscrimination and protection from cruel and unusual punishment suddenly removed from their moral obligations when interacting with non citizens? If a Jedi claims to live according to the doctrines values still in line with those values if they only express them only towards fellow members but not towards people of other religious practices? Of course not.

If you do something your not meant to do, then why would someone else be responsible for making sure you don't get hurt trying to do it! If anyone is it's the Mexican government... until they cross the border. The wall could be argued as a measure to dissuade people from trying and therefore the most effective way to stop them failing! Given they shouldn't be doing it to begin with the fact it also makes it harder for those who do try just adds more reasons for it. It seems to only really come down to cost - unless the argument is for an open border.

Once crossing the border of course they have a duty of care... but its proportional to the circumstance and not equivilant to a citizen, in that the duty is to citizens first and as such the broader immigration policy serves the national interests.

In terms of illegal immigrants dying in the desert due to the wall, you’re applying too much “cause and effect”.

One of the more successful campaigns to deter people from crossing the border was an awareness Campaign launched by a previous administration (I can’t remember if it was under Bush or Obama) that explained the dangers of traveling with Coyotes and through Cartel territory. It went on further to explain that getting into the US didn’t guarantee citizenship. Ever since that campaign took off, we’ve seen a decrease in people trying to jump the border (barring unusual situations like the huge march of refugees from below the Mexican border).

You can’t blame the wall for things that occur long before the persons get to it.

As for their self-determination:

If we’re talking about international law, then perhaps it’s pertinent to give a working understanding of what that means:

“The UN Charter clarifies two meanings of the term self-determination. First, a state is said to have the right of self-determination in the sense of having the right to choose freely its political, economic, social, and cultural systems. Second, the right to self-determination is defined as the right of a people to constitute itself in a state or otherwise freely determine the form of its association with an existing state.” (Britannica)

^ “The People” isn’t doesn’t account for a singular individual, it’s a collective. In this instance, the citizens of the US collectively elect officials that they want to run the country. If the collective chooses a candidate that is pro-wall then the collective has self-determined they want a wall. Thus, a Jedi can absolutely be pro-borders and pro-self-determination.

If we’re talking about an individual level of self-determination, they can freely choose to support or not support what they want- it doesn’t mean that they can impose those things upon others whom equally have individual self-determination.

Whether we want to admit it or not, humans are historically a territorial species. We got together in tribes and do not like it when people encroach upon our territory without permission. Wars got started over it. To make a sweeping statement that someone is stripping away a person’s self-determination because a country denies them entry is ignoring the equal right of that country’s people to their own self-determination.

You can argue that there is a distinct lack of compassion written into immigration laws, but the self-determination argument falls flat on its face.

CaesarEJW wrote: 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.

Love this post! It's so true. Sadly, not only do they not want to admit it (I live in the midwest too) but they keep pretending that nobody can tell it's going on and so whenever someone gets exposed they act shocked in public but then go back to making racist jokes when attention dies down. Sadly, children are absorbing it and making assumptions based on race only because of things they hear their parents saying.

EVEN THOUGH you are right and this is true... the reason the disguise works is because there is a real fear of America not being "white" anymore, BECAUSE they actually DO see an advantage to being white that they don't want to lose, and because they understand that many of them aren't educated and will have to compete for blue collar jobs. How much depends on how much legal status is given but the reality is that a lot of white people sub contract to Mexicans to do construction jobs rather than hiring other, more expensive, whites. Even though there is an advantage its definitely a golden ticket and people will choose profits first. So in a sense they are afraid of capitalism forcing them into socio-economic extinction.

These fears do need to be addressed as they give oxygen to the racist agenda. We even have people among us who support the agenda, attempting to distance themselves from the racist motives of those who also (clearly) support the same agenda for racist reasons. So for those who support Trump but honestly can say they're not at all racist, I'd like to reason how we can advocate for your interests in a way that doesn't hurt minority groups who are just fighting for survival.

I have to say...

I have met a number of Caucasians recently, who I believe have been truly honest about the subject of race and ethnicity. I've met a number of white women who have brown and black children and I do feel like society is on the right track. We're not there yet, but there's hope.

When you look into the innocent eyes of a child, especially one who is in your circle of family or close friends... its hard to argue against the race of that child. And racists are now having to look into the eyes of black and brown grand children. And once they get over themselves they realize that they can fall in love with that baby.

And with that love comes care and concern. Suddenly, the obstacles in that baby's way need to either be removed or we need to help that baby get over them. Eventually, every family will have diversity in it and every family will have beautiful big-eyed wee baby yoda like children of different colors and at that moment we'll all look back and think how stupid it was that we ever thought people with different skin colors were any different from us.

I will say something that most far left don't want anyone to hear . I'm a Trump supporter , and I'm Hispanic . My grandmother came here legally . I have no problem with anyone's race . To me I don't see someone's race but how they are as a person . I don't buy into stereotypes , nor do I support the spreading of them . So if you are here legally then we are all good . If I break a law I go to jail , so why not someone who is breaking the law by being here illegally ? They broke the law and they should due the time . Now the children that's a different problem , we need to make suitable foster homes for them . While the parents are in "jail" they need to apply for asylum or temporary/ full citizenship . If they are denied then they need to go home or find other countries , plenty of safe countries in South and middle America . I wonder why they would want to come here ? To exploit our country and tax dollars so they can get things for free . As well as get higher paying jobs . It doesn't matter what race you are a bum is a bum . If they genuinely need protecting then they would come here legally . So then they are either doing something illegal and other illegal activities or don't want anyone to know they are here because they are afraid . If they are doing illegal activities then it needs to stop . The government can be secretive so the latter won't be much of a problem just come legally . This is not a plot to only keep white people in power but to protect our citizens . We don't need or want people doing illegal things here that's why we have laws . Laws to keep us safe , dum tho they may be but still there . I don't want to see people suffer regardless of anything but if they came here legally it wouldn't happen . We need something to put in there brains to tell them to come here legally and to have them legally responsible for there actions if it's a wall so be it . If no one knows who you are then you can get away with anything . REGARDLESS of who the president is they are our president and we need to respect that . I Will go on and continue to respect and support any one who becomes president .

That being said political views a side and what I stated . The people is at fault for injuring or worse case killing themselves not the government , not the wall , and certainly not you or I . So is the wall antithetical to the Jedi doctrine no , nor is anyone who supports/ hates it .

I like this quote .
" In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
- Theodore Roosevelt