Is Trumps Boarder Wall Antithetical To Jedi Doctrine?
=_= Malicious (+_+)
: “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 *see photo* that lead away from suffering and towards wellbeing (comparatively anyway) are the paths you oppose as shown by the following statement.
No, because the soul is also a part of the function of choice. You're looking at this way too one-dimensionally.
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.
Alright, then I'll put it another way since you cannot come up with another thing that would parallel. The above is exactly equal to someone being dumb enough to jump out of a plane at the height of Mount Everest without a parachute because they thought they were superman. I can respect their decision to be a complete idiot, but they've dug their grave by doing so. The difference is, they didn't put their life in the hands of another person by doing that. They put it in their own hands. When it comes to CRIMINAL behavior, however, they are putting their life in the hands of another. Say, I don't know, the person who's home they are breaking into. Just because the analogy exists to illustrate a point, doesn't mean you have to directly link it to another situation. I wasn't linking the criminality of an illegal immigrant's behavior, I was linking the ability to make a decision to put their life in the hands of others to the situation.
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.
It's not because I'm an idealist, it's because I'm a REALIST- and this was my college project; I spent WEEKS researching the topic of whether or not Trump's Border Wall would even work (surprise! it doesn't). The most successful campaign to curb illegal immigration was one that sent out brochures describing the dangers of trying to get into the United States and then further explaining to them that the likelihood of them getting deported or even becoming a citizen was pretty low.
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.
You clearly didn't read anyone's point about how this is a false statement, did you? A wall does not kill people. Just above I talked about the campaign. Do you know why people die before they hit the border? It's not because a wall exists, it's because they are trekking through portions of Mexico that are inhospitable. The campaign I mentioned above actually saved lives because it meant that instead of people crossing the terrain with Coyotes and through Cartel territory, they were -STAYING AT HOME-. So yup, it's not the wall that's the issue. IN FACT, we have been recording Migrant deaths along the border since *gasp* 1985! The first border wall wasn't even started until *gasp again!* 1990, it was 14 miles of fence that was completed in 1993. It's not the wall.
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“
You really aren't paying attention to anything that is being said, are you? Read over what I said again- the lack of resources at the border to accommodate people is not the fault of the government. At no point did I say that our immigration policy is not a problem. In fact, I actually made it quite clear at some point that the immigration policy IS in desperate need of work. And you can blame -those- issues on the government, namely Congress who is suppose to be in charge of all that.
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 Wall is an inanimate object. It cannot be cruel or unusual punishment. POLICY, however, can be. So what you heard was: The wall is no more cruel or unusual than the nearest street light, Immigration Policy arguably is.
Many who have been deported after being denied as asylum seekers have returned home to be killed.
The Death Penalty is a very specific sentence executed inside and by the state in a state run facility. When it's not done by the state specifically and carried out by vigilantes, extremists or crazy people out to get their next killing fix, it's called MURDER. NOT the DEATH PENALTY. Now, do we oppose murder as Jedi, ABSOLUTELY. But we cannot police the world. Laws are created to respond to problems, they do not stop them. They hopefully deter crime, but they do not stop them. Human decency and value for the purpose behind those laws stops the majority of people from violating them. So, I say it again- the Death Penalty plays no role in this discussion because deportation is not the same thing as the legal definition of Death Penalty that is intended by the "Jedi Believe" section.
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.
I'm not joking though. Because, unlike you, I know that there are even people caught at the US-Mexico border who are NOT from South America.
INDIAN (as in India) CITIZEN
(numbers provided by WOLA)
So no, it is not about their nationality. We are on good terms with India and Romania. And China is a HUGE contributor to our economy, even if Trump doesn't like that fact. Three of the above years aren't even Trump years, they are under Obama. Our immigration policies have been a problem for years. Alas, though, I reiterate, the problem at the border is not about what nationality is coming through, it's about how they are coming through.
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.
Again and Again, you miss the opportunity to recognize the rights of the people who are citizens of their own country. Make no mistake, I'd argue the same way if we were talking about Israel, Mexico, Germany or any other nation around the world. The Citizens of a nation have the right to make decisions that they believe will protect them.
You and I don't have to agree with them, but we certainly cannot force our way of thinking upon them before they are ready to take those steps. What you have missed is the wealth of history that speaks out against your ideals. Largely because people within a set of borders have been known to drive migrants to criminal networks. By forcing the American people to accept everyone before they are ready to do so, is a condemnation. When they are not accepted, they have a higher rate of running to gangs that do accept them. When they are not accepted, they have a higher rate of being taken advantage of economically. When they are not accepted, they have a higher risk of becoming victims of human trafficking or feeling a need to turn to prostitution because there is nothing else for them.
The idealist here, is YOU, KerouacsGhost. Because you have mistakenly come to the conclusion that America is currently leagues better for migrants than the country they are running from. In truth, you and I live pretty cushy in comparison- and I know that I'm teetering on the edge of a tricky situation financially. I lose my vehicle, and our family is easily on the streets within a month if we don't get lucky.
So let's recap- Immigration-wise, the WALL is an inanimate object and cannot kill someone 1+ miles away from it. POLICY cannot kill anyone on the Mexican side of the border, but it can certainly prevent someone from remaining in America. POLICY can place people in precarious situations, but is not by definition issuing a DEATH PENALTY. POLICY, which is NOT A PHYSICAL WALL, is the number one reason that we have so many people classified as "illegal immigrants".
BUT, since you seem to have missed this point as well, the Wall presents OTHER problems that have NOTHING to do with Immigration.
So, in case you didn't see the answer- You and I AGREE that the Wall is Antithetical to the Jedi Path. But you and I DISAGREE on why.
You and I AGREE that the problem of what is going on at the border (problems that would exist WITHOUT a wall present, as made apparent by my 1985 evidence provided above) is bad. But we DISAGREE on why. And here's why I disagree with you-
You think it is the wall. You are trying to cram as many statements of what the Jedi Believe section says into your point to prove that you are right. And in this, you have failed to recognize the value of each statement. You're trying to make them all say what you want them to say, ignoring completely what they are saying. I don't see the wall as the reason the border is a problem, I see it as the policy, and I see the policy as Antithetical based on only one part of the Jedi Doctrine:
In a society governed by laws grounded in reason and compassion, not in fear or prejudice.
Unlike you, I don't need the whole of the Jedi Believe section to support my position here. You do not need "more", and when you use "more" than is necessary you lose the argument.
Stop trying to fit everything into your narrative so you can win an argument and take the time to consider what people have actually said rather than what you want to read them as saying. And if you don't think you need to, consider this: You, a person that has not taken the time to really understand the doctrine, outright attacked a person that was instrumental in crafting the "Jedi Believe" section in another area of this forum. Attempting to tell HIM that he didn't know what HIS own words meant. Not that he'd ever mention it to anyone (and he didn't, I just take those kinds of notes).
the '98 FARRA precludes removing a person to a foreign country when they suffer substantial risk of persecution. i.e. a refugee can't be sent back to their country unless we have some kind of assurance that they will be safe.
One could conclude from Katko v Briney (I forget the spelling but the "spring gun" case) that one's illegal presence on property (private in the fact pattern) doesn't render them unable to have an expectation to not be injured by negligent and disproportionate actions. In the case of illegal immigrants, the clear corollary is that someone committing solely an immigration crime doesn't mean the US could be justified in setting a minefield up. Thus crossing the border illegally isn't skydiving without a parachute. While they would be assuming the risks of illegally travelling (i.e. dehydration, injuring themselves in other reasonably circumstances, etc.), the fact that they illegally crossed the border doesn't mean they have no legal rights.
I'm not going to address the "crime comes from over the border" because you have to consider the elements individually.
Also, I think assuming the US should care for the human rights of citizens in other countries sounds an awful lot like you'd be theoretically in favor of military action for any sort of breach of human rights. The US can extend it's protections reasonably over its own territory, anything beyond requires extraordinary action. My views on this are narrow, and shouldn't be construed otherwise.
Also Hernández v Mesa is an ongoing case that's been remanded to lower courts, but has held a government agent doesn't have qualified immunity to shoot a Mexican national for crossing a border illegally into Mexico. So check that out since the answer to part of this is currently being fleshed out
IP Team Lead
TM: Carlos Martinez
ὁ δὲ ἀμυχηδόν νεξέταστος βίος γίγνομαι βιωτὸς ἀνθρώπῳ
KerouacsGhost wrote: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.
Malicious wrote: I have no problem with anyone's race . To me I don't see someone's race but how they are as a person .....
This is something most well meaning white people seem to get wrong. I understand what they're trying to say but, speaking for millions of people of color, I can tell you with a very high degree of certainty, that people of color want you to see their color. Our color is a part of us. And yes, to an extent, it is somewhat defining. Trying not to see someone's color is like saying there's something wrong with it; something that they should be ashamed of. If there's nothing wrong with it then there's no reason to try not to see it, and yes, trying not to see it, can be taken as offensive by those who don't understand the well meaning sentiment.
What you mean is that, color shouldn't matter in how you treat that person. We can agree with that. Say that. However, color shouldn't be minimized to non-existence. Color should be seen as a positive attribute like the redness of a rose or the golden color of honey or the multitude of colors in a sunset. A person's color should be appreciated just as their other qualities are. If someone has a pimple between their eyes or an extra wide gap between their front teeth... I definitely see that... but I act like I don't notice so as to not hurt that person's feelings. I don't want to be treated like that because of the color of my skin. It's not wrong, bad, or ugly. We all came from people of color.
I'm only responding to this for the simple fact that this is something that many white people say; including whites who have mixed children. So I'm not singling anyone out. You're not alone. But consider not saying this anymore. Instead, say "I see and appreciate all colors and treat everyone equally." It says what you mean, but in a way that doesn't diminish a person's color. People of color will respond better to you and you will enjoy a greater level of understanding and friendship. Cool?
How are your "rights" infringed upon by illegal immigrants?
Yes, hiding xenophobic fears of criminal invaders behind a wall/fence of environmentalism is a completely different topic.
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.
First you say that, then you say this
Stop trying to fit everything into your narrative so you can win an argument and take the time to consider what people have actually said rather than what you want to read them as saying.
so, which is it? I should state my opinions or i shouldn't? As for considering what you "actually said" in contrast to what I "read them as saying," I literally have no ability to read meaning into your words other than the meaning they appear to have when i read them. No one does. Including you. How, exactly, do you propose that i think your thoughts exactly as you think them? Maybe that skill is gained at higher levels of the temple? I can only make my best guess to what your meanings are. Trust me., it took 5 days for me to response for a reason. I was considering the various opinions made by you and others before responding. At first I was confused, but then i realized you're just a xenophobe.
And if you don't think you need to, consider this: You, a person that has not taken the time to really understand the doctrine, outright attacked a person that was instrumental in crafting the "Jedi Believe" section in another area of this forum.
I'm not 100% sure what you mean here but I do know that I don't intend to attack you Althena Thompson, but the ideas you've presented. Your person hood I respect, its only your ideas I have an issue with. I believe that these exchanges, especially the hard ones, challenge our beliefs in a way that creates growth. I suppose that I have been assuming that you, being as fond of this country as you are, would have a respect for the process of exchanging ideas. Its almost exactly opposite of your views on migrants in how you attack them equally as "outsiders" rather than giving them each merit according to the content of their character rather than the circumstances of their birth all the while claiming their individual ideas deserve a degree of respect which doesn't extend beyond the intellectual into the material.
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.
: Oh well, I’m glad you cleared this up so succinctly. Again you conflate immigration and criminality. Never mind that the Gang capital of the world is a city in the united states. Never mind that the history of the largest gang is directly connected to this American city and lets conveniently forget about the effects of NAFTA, the IMF and Imperialism during the Cold War that brought about the economic turmoil, gangs death squads and civil wars which send civilians fleeing for sanctuary to begin with.
So they can bring their sense of identity with them as they flee from violence but only “within reason” or they can go home to the violence? What if they don’t want to forget who they are and don’t want to be anything like you? Their being accepted by you is dependent on their ability to assimilate and become as much like you as possible with the threat of eviction being the motivating force?
Are you really so fearful of others that you are against multiculturalism?
Remember the scene in episode four when Luke and Oibwan are looking to hire a driver from Mos Eisley to go save Lea from certain doom? Just before our heros meet Han and Chewbak did you notice all the different species sat the bar?
Talz and Bith at the same table! EWE GROSS!!!
At least they had the good sense not to serve the droid.
COULD YOU IMAGINE!?!!!!
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.
: I love how you first admit you should have the right to associate with immigrants just before tossing their right to freely associate with you, or anybody else, out the window. You are literally saying you believe yourself to be the rightful recipient of freedoms and privilege that immigrants shouldn’t have including the right of free association. This is reflective of your us vs them view of civility. You think those inside your gated community deserve freedom and those outside don’t. Or, to quote you directly " ...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..."
The obvious thing to point out here is the implied lack of concern for those outside. This combined with the fears you routinely express are the definition of xenophobia.
But wait, I just realized, one could actually make the argument that xenophobia is not antithetical to the Jedi Path because its built from a place of compassion towards the persons already within the country.
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.
Like the myth of the criminal immigrant and the rapfugee?
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.
Again your multi culti fears are showing
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.
^^^Fears of cultural mixing^^^
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:
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....
Hmmm... I'm sure you have taken much more time to consider what Althea said than I have. However, I wonder if we are misreading each other.
what I read from Althea was more like an argument, not against illegal immigrants (because they're not illegal until after they illegally cross) but rather trying to deter them from making a trip which could kill them. As she said, the border wall is an inanimate object and cannot harm anyone. All that's true. But what I would suggest you focus your argument is that it is easy for those of us already comfortably in the US to have no memory of life in other countries and how people often flee hostile in inhospitable conditions in those countries. So even if one thinks those people should stay where they are, thinking that it may simply be that the "Grass is greener" on this side, it could be argued that immigrants are smart enough to weigh the dangers of traversing that dangerous journey, hiring a coyote, and getting through the wall, and doing so illegally (which is not the worst of the dangers they face), against the immediate and present dangers of staying. They're not idiots or morons. We should therefore presume that they are coming here in spite of these dangers because of the danger at home. Compare this to Christians long ago, coming to the US to flee persecution by their own parent church.
We are supposed to help based on the fact that people are in need. Some of us are making a "technicality" argument. "Oh it WOULD BE okay, if they came in the right way." What is the right way to someone in desperate need? The offense, actual offense, is a misdeamer crime. There is no reason to treat that any different than us driving over the speed limit which I don't know anyone who doesn't. We simply try not to get caught.
So we need to separate and distinguish illegal immigrants in need from those who we imagine are smuggling drugs or other black market goods and services. The problem with Trump's MAGA agenda is that it merges all of these people together and treats them the same. And then we end up talking about it, tripping over ourselves, because one person is thinking about the person in need while another person is thinking about the drug mule. The truth is that both of these people exist and no we don't want the cartels and the drug mules because the end result is often the death of US citizens.
So you DO need a border to block out the criminal element. And you can't act like it doesn't exist. This is why Republicans accuse democrats of wanting "open borders" and wanting to let everyone in. NO... we're simply thinking about the people who are in need. They're thinking about the people who are exploiting US citizens for money. And yes, there is confusion as to who and how because people like Stephen Miller want to treat everyone like rapists and murderers because he IS xenophobic.
This is the problem with the MAGA camp. People join it for different reasons. Some honestly just want law and order. They see the effects of how we're losing the war on drugs and they know that most of the drugs aint coming from Canada. So it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that crime crosses that border and that criminals can exploit the same holes in the border that people who need help are being smuggled through.
Think of it this way. You're body has skin as a border to the outside world and its germs and other contaminants. If you have an open wound you have to clean it and repair that border asap, covering it with an artificial border if you have to. Why? Because you don't want to lose a limb from those harmful elements getting in, causing damage, and reproducing. You could actually die and people have died, just from open wounds. But we all have a mouth where both food and germs can coming in as long as our mouths are open. We also all have nostrils. We need these "ports of entry" to taken in air and food.
So the argument, is that, people need to enter in through these ports of entry and seek asylum through the legal process. If they sneak in through "an open wound" then we don't know if they're good or bad. All we do know is that wound is being exploited.
So why not then suggest a solution that limits the fear of bad "germs" getting in. #1, Create more "mouths" and "nostrils". #2 strengthen border security to stop crime. I would suggest a #3, create stations in Mexico and large embassies in South America that include housing as well as food and water. Allow people to come to these places to for a "pre-clearance", and allow them to file for sanctuary and asylum. If they qualify, then support the local economy by paying locals to build infrastructure and charter boats and things to help get those people to the US so they do not have a dangerous journey. And before anyone says "but that's expensive"... NO... housing them once they're here, for months, and sending them back on planes, is expensive.
If we can establish that they're not criminals before they cross the border than a lot of our citizens will be satisfied. Cartels WILL try to scam the embassies but at least they wont be able to get drugs and people with criminal background in their country transported through these legal channels. And have 2 lines. One for people who know someone in the US; someone who can vouche for them and house them. Have another line for those who don't have a support in the US and are just trying to escape danger. Give them other options, like Canada. We also have towns in the US with extremely low populations. And based on where they choose to go, they go into another line for that location. When that location is full, a new line to a new location is created. Otherwise, if everyone crosses illegally they're just goinog to flood border states that may strain or stress those populations.
If we can separate immigrants seeking help from people crossing the border for nefarious purposes then that's less border patrol agents that would be needed and they could focus on stopping smugglers. Personally, I would strengthen the border with thousands, maybe even millions of small autonomous drones. But its vital that you track less people trying to get in. Otherwise you're misusing your resources and/or using them for a purpose to which they were not designed/intended.
Trump is not a scalpel. He's a sledge hammer. People want the sledge hammer because they're tired of all the drugs and the deaths and robberies they cause. And TV shows like Power dramatically illustrate the power of these cartels and how willing they are to kill anyone who gets in their way. And they basically pay our own citizens to help them exploit our fellow citizens and even kill them if they too, get in their way. Obama deported a lot of people but people want to stop them from getting in in the first place. So they voted for the sledge hammer. And to some extent... I can't blame them. The problem is that the hammer isn't delicate like a lightsaber. It is simple (sometimes like the person who wields it) and simply smashes anyone in its way. This is how we ended up with kids in cages. That's what happens when you use a sledge hammer and blindly swing at a problem.
That doesn't mean there isn't a problem. And that's what we all have to face... together. And we need solutions that both fit in with our conscience, and which will be effective against the real bad guys who are out there. But to be effective you have to separate these people and recognize that they're all human beings first and foremost. Once you recognize their humanity then you can decipher and prosecute criminality. Otherwise, there becomes no difference than the criminal and the enforcement of the law.
“To be impeccable means to put your life on the line in order to back up your decisions, and then to do quite a lot more than your best to realize those decisions.”
Do not look for happiness outside yourself. The awakened seek happiness inside.