EXCLUSIVE: ICE Arrests Australian National Charged With Voting In Multiple Federal Elections 21%

By Ashley Brasfield0%

7/7/2026, 11:17:46 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 13 faulty reasoning types, including Self-Serving Bias, Negativity Bias, and Recency Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 12.3% saturation with 53 hits. Analysis detected 395 faulty-reasoning hits from 432 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 34.7% and a BS Rank of 21% (17,475 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 79.80% of the article peer group.

United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has arrested an Australian national who is now charged with voting in multiple federal elections. 
Denise Nataly Migliore, a lawful permanent resident (LPR) from Australia, is accused of knowingly making false claims of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in federal elections, according to information provided to the Daily Caller. 
Authorities allege Migliore then cast ballots in the 2022 and 2024 federal elections in Louisiana, according to a press release from the U.S. 
Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Louisiana. 
(RELATED: Judge Shuts Down Trump Admin Database Used To Remove Non-Citizens From Voter Rolls) 
A federal grand jury indicted Migliore on June 11 in the Eastern District of Louisiana on charges of illegal voting in a federal election and making false statements to register to vote. 
Agents with Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) New Orleans arrested Migliore at the federal courthouse in New Orleans on July 1 following an HSI investigation. 
After the arrest, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Acting Assistant Secretary Lauren Bis told the Caller, “This alien from Australia now faces federal charges for falsely claiming to be a U.S. citizen and illegally casting ballots in two elections.” 
Bis continued by crediting the “hard work” of ICE law enforcement for Migliore’s arrest and the charges against her. 
(RELATED: EXCLUSIVE: Ralph Norman Proposes ICE Database To Track ‘Worst Of The Worst’ Illegals) 
“Her arrest and charges are the result of the hard work of the men and women of ICE law enforcement and our federal partners. 
Our message to aliens who vote in American elections is clear: we will find you, arrest you, and you will face the consequences, including criminal charges and deportation. 
Only Americans should be electing American leaders,” Bis wrote. 
The case is being prosecuted by Special Assistant United States Attorney Rick Veters of the General Crimes Unit. 
HSI and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigated the case. 
Last Wednesday, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that authorities have arrested and charged a New Jersey man for allegedly voting in a federal election despite not being a U.S. citizen, which was covered exclusively by the Caller. 
(RELATED: EXCLUSIVE: DOJ Arrests Illegal Alien For Voting In Federal Election) 
Marian Charitun, a 62-year-old Slovakian national, was charged with illegally voting in a federal election and making false statements while applying for U.S. citizenship. 
Authorities allege Charitun falsely claimed to be a U.S. citizen when he registered to vote in New Jersey before casting a ballot in the 2022 midterm elections. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Ashley Brasfield: 4.8%The Daily Caller: 5.0%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashley Brasfield: 1.6%The Daily Caller: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashley Brasfield: 1.8%The Daily Caller: 2.7%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashley Brasfield: 1.0%The Daily Caller: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashley Brasfield: 1.0%The Daily Caller: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashley Brasfield: 1.7%The Daily Caller: 3.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 12.3%Ashley Brasfield: 12.9%The Daily Caller: 10.4%Framing Effect12.3%This article: 0.0%Ashley Brasfield: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashley Brasfield: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashley Brasfield: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashley Brasfield: 0.9%The Daily Caller: 2.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashley Brasfield: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 2.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 9.0%Ashley Brasfield: 6.2%The Daily Caller: 8.2%Negativity Bias9.0%This article: 10.0%Ashley Brasfield: 1.6%The Daily Caller: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias10.0%This article: 0.0%Ashley Brasfield: 0.1%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashley Brasfield: 0.1%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 5.3%Ashley Brasfield: 2.6%The Daily Caller: 1.8%In-Group Bias5.3%This article: 6.5%Ashley Brasfield: 1.2%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias6.5%This article: 4.4%Ashley Brasfield: 1.7%The Daily Caller: 1.6%Halo Effect4.4%This article: 0.0%Ashley Brasfield: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashley Brasfield: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 8.8%Ashley Brasfield: 1.2%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Recency Bias8.8%This article: 0.0%Ashley Brasfield: 0.4%The Daily Caller: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashley Brasfield: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashley Brasfield: 0.3%The Daily Caller: 1.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashley Brasfield: 0.9%The Daily Caller: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashley Brasfield: 7.2%The Daily Caller: 4.6%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashley Brasfield: 1.6%The Daily Caller: 2.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 6.5%Ashley Brasfield: 0.3%The Daily Caller: 2.4%Slippery Slope6.5%This article: 0.0%Ashley Brasfield: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashley Brasfield: 1.4%The Daily Caller: 6.3%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashley Brasfield: 0.5%The Daily Caller: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashley Brasfield: 0.9%The Daily Caller: 1.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 5.8%Ashley Brasfield: 4.0%The Daily Caller: 5.7%Appeal to Emotion5.8%This article: 2.1%Ashley Brasfield: 1.0%The Daily Caller: 2.1%Begging the Question2.1%This article: 5.6%Ashley Brasfield: 3.8%The Daily Caller: 3.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.6%This article: 0.0%Ashley Brasfield: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashley Brasfield: 0.3%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashley Brasfield: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashley Brasfield: 0.4%The Daily Caller: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashley Brasfield: 3.0%The Daily Caller: 1.5%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashley Brasfield: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashley Brasfield: 0.5%The Daily Caller: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashley Brasfield: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashley Brasfield: 0.3%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashley Brasfield: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashley Brasfield: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashley Brasfield: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashley Brasfield: 4.2%The Daily Caller: 2.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 8.8%Ashley Brasfield: 2.4%The Daily Caller: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection8.8%This article: 0.0%Ashley Brasfield: 3.9%The Daily Caller: 8.5%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 6.5%Ashley Brasfield: 2.6%The Daily Caller: 3.6%Indoctrination6.5%This article: 0.0%Ashley Brasfield: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashley Brasfield: 5.2%The Daily Caller: 5.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashley Brasfield: 0.6%The Daily Caller: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

432 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker28%attributed speech313writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageLauren Bis • 39 words • 0.0% coverageLauren Bis • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageLauren Bis • 24 words • 0.0% coverageLauren Bis • 28 words • 100.0% coverageLauren Bis • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Lauren Bis

100%flagged-word coverage
119 attributed words100% of attributed speech25% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Indoctrination+23.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Lauren Bis: 23.5%23.5%Quote-first Misdirection-12.1 ptsWriter: 12.1%Lauren Bis: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.