Marianne Williamson

Rank 21 of 47

Score 57

@GiantKiller_JB 1 and 2 can be accomplished legally and respectfully. Number 3 is erroneous: they are a BOON to the tax pool. But no matter what, inhumane treatment of innocent people is NEVER worth it.

6/8/2025, 4:19:07 PM

In reply to:

GiantKiller

@GiantKiller_JB

28d

@marwilliamson Set examples to deter future illegal crossings. Respect for America and citizens. Less burden on tax pool. All WORTH it.

Marianne Williamson

@marwilliamson

29d

To any Trump voters out there, I ask this sincerely so please don't answer rudely:

1) Do you really think these ICE raids are going to make this country safer? Clearly they're not just taking "the bad guys," the criminals.

2) Do you really think it's going to save Amerian

The statement engages in public discourse by addressing the societal issue of immigration enforcement and its implications on safety, economics, and human rights. It challenges the notion that harsh immigration policies are justified by economic benefits, emphasizing the importance of humane treatment.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement upholds the principle of doing no harm by advocating against inhumane treatment of people, emphasizing that such actions are never justified. [+2]
Principle 3:
I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
The statement promotes understanding and empathy by highlighting the importance of humane treatment and challenging the economic justification for harsh policies. [+2]
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 engages in constructive criticism by respectfully disagreeing with the previous comment and providing a counter-argument without resorting to personal attacks. [+2]