The statement presents a comparison of CBP apprehensions under two different administrations, implying a critique of current immigration policies. It suggests that the policies under the previous administration led to fewer apprehensions and safer communities, which is a substantive engagement with public issues related to immigration and public safety.
- The statement does not directly cause harm, but it could contribute to divisive rhetoric around immigration.Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement does not engage in cyberbullying or hate speech, but it could be seen as lacking respect for the dignity of migrants by reducing complex issues to simple statistics. [-1]Principle 2:I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
- The statement does not promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, as it focuses on numbers rather than the human aspect of immigration. [-1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement does not engage in constructive dialogue or criticism, as it presents a one-sided view without acknowledging the complexities of immigration policies. [-1]Principle 4:I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
- The statement uses influence to promote a particular viewpoint, but it does not necessarily contribute to the betterment of society by fostering divisive narratives. [-1]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
- The statement exercises free speech but could be more responsible by providing a balanced perspective. [-1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.