Is Trumps Boarder Wall Antithetical To Jedi Doctrine?

Fyxe wrote: Hey just heard, Trump got acquitted! Is this like puxatony Phil? 4 more years of boarder wall!


Sorry, couldnt resist.

*Punxsutawney Phil

This is really "vexxing" me ....I figured the original just accidentally misspelled "Border" but the rest of you are all misspelling it too. Is this misspelling an on-going joke, or do you all really not know the difference between BoRder and BoARder?

Alethea Thompson wrote: This is really "vexxing" me ....I figured the original just accidentally misspelled "Border" but the rest of you are all misspelling it too. Is this misspelling an on-going joke, or do you all really not know the difference between BoRder and BoARder?

Once the line has been crossed immigrants have officially boarded spaceship USA.

And now, for a little on topic comedic relief I invite you all to get lost...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6OJEdPo6vI

The more come in, the broader it gets!

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Ok, so i just spent about an hour rereading all the previous posts and cutting/pasting them into a word document so i can, even though its super windy causing my wifi connection to cut in and out, work on responses to them offline.
I didn't realize how many different views and details i had overlooked that deserve response. It may take awhile but im intending on responding to them sooner or later. Leaning toward later seeing how just from the cut/paste ive now collected 7 full pages of complex ideas and perspectives to contemplate.

for the moment Id like to say thanks for the great debate/conversation so far and *spoiler alert* a couple of you totally blew my brains out with things I'd never thought of or encountered before. so thanks double to you.


Boarder

Alethea Thompson wrote: 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.
: “Their own paths” here seems to be a metaphor for “neural paths” as it is the act of thinking you seem most concerned with preserving. Physical paths like, idk, this one

Attachment bordercrossing1.jpg not found

that lead away from suffering and towards wellbeing (comparatively anyway) are the paths you oppose as shown by the following statement.
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

First of all claiming not to paint all immigrants as criminals while using an example of criminality describing the rights you feel immigrants are inalienably endowed with doesn’t somehow undo the statement. You are using the example of breaking and entering a house as a side by side comparison of immigrants crossing the boarder. They are not crossing and entering a private residence. They are crossing into public property, or open space inhabited by cattle. It is a victimless crime which is to say not a crime at all.

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.
Why does the inherent worth of travelers from south of the US Mexico boarder only extend into their freedom of thought “as a thinking human being” but not into the realm of their physical bodies as eating human beings water drinking human beings or houseless human beings?

Because you’re an idealist. Because you think the material reality of these people is a result of their thoughts not a result of their circumstances of birth. This is evidenced by your later statement pertaining to the “fear of cartels” rather than the cartels themselves (or better yet the systemic causes which brought the cartels into existence) needing to be the focus of aid to refugees as well as “education” to tell potential travelers why they shouldn’t come.


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.

This is plainly wrong. There are deaths occurring before and without contact with boarder patrol because the wall pushes travelers further away from life saving resources rather than towards them. The wall was put there in advance of their arrival in anticipation of their arrival with the express intent of being a barrier to access knowingly and purposely diminishing the safety of people they knew would come.
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.
So the consequences of the actions of the government isn’t the fault of the government. Abducting and shoving people into cages knowing they are a person and that the object your shoving them into is a cage becomes justifiable because…the government. You know “reasons“
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.
so then it is cruel? I mean when I read “cruel and unusual is a difficult thing to overcome” Im hearing that the wall and policy policing the boarder is cruel and unusual, but of course you’ll flip flop in the next section

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.
Many who have been deported after being denied as asylum seekers have returned home to be killed.
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.
Maybe I’m out of my mind but “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” seems an obvious contradiction. So let me get this right:
Immigrants aren’t discriminated against because they are from another nation, but our nation discriminates against them because they are immigrants? You are joking right? The only thing worse than for you to be joking like this would be if you weren’t joking so I’ll assume you’re joking.

Again and again you miss the opportunity to recognize the basic humanity of non-Americans fleeing poverty and violence and instead you decide to compartmentalize their humanity to the abstract notion they deserve the right to think freely while they are driven to remote and dangerous parts of the desert and then purposely dusted by helicopters, scattered, hunted, forcibly abducted and shoved into cages and processed into a consumable commodity by the detention centers.

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).

This post has had me thinking for days. You seem to be correct that a nation is, at least in part "the boundary between citizens and non citizens."
If adherence to what the Jedi Believe* does not conflict with building barriers and policing the boarders to prevent free passage between nations and does not require the rights of non citizens to be equal to those of citizens then our values are not universally applied but only pertain to legal citizens and are inherently discriminatory. North of the boarder you have legal rights and the Jedi think your life matters. South you don't. This is an inherently disrespectful contradiction to the belief "In the Force, and in the inherent worth of all life within it." ALL life within it means Everything. Everyone. Everywhere.
* (we believe) " In a society that does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or circumstances of birth such as gender, ethnicity and national origin" )

If you are correct that what defines a nation is the distinction of citizen and non citizens then the question seems to shift slightly and become focused on the nation state as a whole rather than just one of its parts along the southern boarder.

Does a nation require discrimination to exist?

Is the nation state itself in conflict with the inherent worth of all life if it requires discrimination on the basis of circumstances of birth, ethnicity and national origin to exist?

If such an organization is in contradiction to The force and the inherent worth of all life within it then how would a society function which both recognized the worth of all life while protecting all interests of all humans?

Build that wall? That is a ridiculous sentiment that is offensive to the very notion of humanity.

Malicious wrote: 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 .
A hispanic Trump supporter? That's preposterous. How do I know if that is true? Can you prove that is who you really are? Isn't that an obnoxious request of me to make of you?

I have no problem with anyone's race . To me I don't see someone's race but how they are as a person .....
To be colorblind or not to "see someones race" is a way of not seeing them at all. I'm sure they know what race they are or are assigned/assumed to be. You not seeing it is just another way of you not acknowledging their existence.

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
.if someone is trying to get a higher paying job how are they also a bum? I think you're thinking of a hobo.

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...
There are already laws and enforcement against drug possession and dealing. There are already laws against theft and burglary and assault and everything else. These laws can be enforced regardless of a persons legal status. Being pro immigrant isn't being pro crime. You can be an immigrant and not commit crime just as surely as you can be a criminal but not an immigrant
. 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 .
Why would you do that? I'm not saying you shouldn't but I certainly don't have a different set of morals that I'm willing to commit to if the opposition wins. A Democratic Republic does not require blind obedience to function it requires discourse.

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

If Roosevelt was an assimilationist then he was a racist. The terms are synonymous.