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.