CT Mirror17%

It’s time to de-ICE Citizens Bank 73%

By Johnny Rivera0% Robin Gilmartin0%

7/16/2026, 4:02:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 33 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Appeal to Authority, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 39.5% saturation with 227 hits. Analysis detected 1,864 faulty-reasoning hits from 575 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 65.7% and a BS Rank of 73% (5,571 of 20,515 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 72.80% of the article peer group.

Protesters raise their hands as law enforcement officers surround them outside the Delaney Hall ICE detention center Sunday, May 31, 2026, in Newark, N.J. 
If you have no problem with masked ICE agents sweeping up immigrants off our streets, at least two-thirds with no criminal history , and putting them in detention camps, then Citizens Bank may be the bank for you. 
Otherwise, you may want to avoid doing business with them or, if you already have an account at Citizens, close it and find another bank. 
Why? 
Because Citizens Financial Group, Inc. 
(CFG), through its subsidiaries like Citizens Bank, is a principal lender to the two largest public corporations operating ICE detention facilities  GEO Group and Core Civic. 
While most banks have reportedly pulled out of financing these companies, Citizens has increased its ties. 
CFG has helped for-profit prison companies access over $2.6 billion in financing since 2012 through loans and lines of credit. 
Financing ICE detention is profitable; CFG reported first quarter 2026 net income of $517 million, an increase of 39% year over year. 
And what about conditions for detainees? 
While DHS claims these detention facilities are safe and humane, detainees have reported “punishing conditions, enforced isolation, neglect of people with disabilities, denial of access to counsel, and… inadequate medical care.” 
Both GEO Group and Core Civic facilities have been investigated for repeated sexual assaults of detainees by staff. 
These reports are corroborated by members of Congress who have managed to gain entry in spite of attempts to prevent access, a right mandated to members. 
According to Human Rights Watch , the death rate has surged in these facilities since Jan., 2025 to a rate of four times that previously. 
An ACLU analysis of 2025 mortality data found 95% of these deaths were preventable. 
All are financed in large part by Citizens. 
You might ask, “What’s the problem? 
Financing these private corporations is legal.” 
It’s lawful, that’s true. 
But so were slavery, gender-based discrimination and Jim Crow laws. 
What’s lawful can be awful. 
Information allows each of us to make choices about where we put our money. 
This applies to individuals, municipalities, businesses and our elected officials. 
Sen. 
Richard Blumenthal, known as a strong protector of immigrants’ rights, has $1.3 million in a Citizens Bank account as of March 31, according to the most recent Federal Election Commission filing . 
Is he aware of the darker side of Citizens Bank? 
Were you aware before reading this? 
Perhaps not until now. 
 De-ICE Citizens Bank  is a grassroots initiative created in response to the growing outrage over conditions in detention facilities. 
We are calling for Citizens Financial Group to stop financing these facilities (to “De-ICE”). 
Until they stop, we’re urging individuals, businesses, municipalities and elected officials to stop banking at Citizens. 
In response to abuses prompting a hunger strike at Delaney Hall (a GEO Group facility) in Newark, Jersey City recently pulled $265 million in city funds out of the bank. 
New Jersey’s public worker pension fund sold off related bonds. 
The Greater Boston Interfaith Organization (GBIO) and Greater Cleveland Congregations (GCC) have mobilized over $24 million in pledged withdrawals if Citizens fails to take steps to de-ICE. 
As we get the word out, Citizens’ customers in these 27 Connecticut cities and towns with bank branches are rethinking their choices and saying, “Not with our money!” 
Johnny Rivera and Robin Gilmartin live West Hartford . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 8.3%Johnny Rivera: 4.2%CT Mirror: 2.8%Confirmation Bias8.3%This article: 0.0%Johnny Rivera: 0.9%CT Mirror: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 17.4%Johnny Rivera: 5.9%CT Mirror: 3.1%Availability Heuristic17.4%This article: 6.4%Johnny Rivera: 1.6%CT Mirror: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic6.4%This article: 0.0%Johnny Rivera: 0.0%CT Mirror: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 12.0%Johnny Rivera: 3.0%CT Mirror: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias12.0%This article: 7.7%Johnny Rivera: 12.5%CT Mirror: 5.3%Framing Effect7.7%This article: 7.1%Johnny Rivera: 1.8%CT Mirror: 0.8%Loss Aversion7.1%This article: 1.7%Johnny Rivera: 1.5%CT Mirror: 0.6%Status Quo Bias1.7%This article: 0.0%Johnny Rivera: 0.0%CT Mirror: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.4%Johnny Rivera: 0.6%CT Mirror: 3.0%Optimism Bias2.4%This article: 0.9%Johnny Rivera: 0.4%CT Mirror: 1.8%Pessimism Bias0.9%This article: 33.4%Johnny Rivera: 15.7%CT Mirror: 7.1%Negativity Bias33.4%This article: 0.0%Johnny Rivera: 0.0%CT Mirror: 2.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Johnny Rivera: 1.0%CT Mirror: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Johnny Rivera: 0.0%CT Mirror: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Johnny Rivera: 0.6%CT Mirror: 1.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Johnny Rivera: 0.0%CT Mirror: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 5.6%Johnny Rivera: 1.4%CT Mirror: 1.4%Halo Effect5.6%This article: 0.0%Johnny Rivera: 0.0%CT Mirror: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Johnny Rivera: 0.0%CT Mirror: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.7%Johnny Rivera: 1.9%CT Mirror: 0.9%Recency Bias7.7%This article: 9.6%Johnny Rivera: 2.4%CT Mirror: 0.4%Primacy Effect9.6%This article: 1.7%Johnny Rivera: 0.4%CT Mirror: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias1.7%This article: 7.3%Johnny Rivera: 3.2%CT Mirror: 0.9%Ad Hominem7.3%This article: 0.0%Johnny Rivera: 1.7%CT Mirror: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 24.7%Johnny Rivera: 9.0%CT Mirror: 3.8%Appeal to Authority24.7%This article: 6.6%Johnny Rivera: 8.4%CT Mirror: 1.7%False Dilemma6.6%This article: 0.0%Johnny Rivera: 0.4%CT Mirror: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Johnny Rivera: 0.0%CT Mirror: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 1.4%Johnny Rivera: 2.6%CT Mirror: 4.0%Hasty Generalization1.4%This article: 0.9%Johnny Rivera: 0.2%CT Mirror: 0.2%Red Herring0.9%This article: 12.3%Johnny Rivera: 11.2%CT Mirror: 0.9%Bandwagon12.3%This article: 25.0%Johnny Rivera: 10.9%CT Mirror: 5.1%Appeal to Emotion25.0%This article: 1.7%Johnny Rivera: 0.4%CT Mirror: 0.8%Begging the Question1.7%This article: 9.0%Johnny Rivera: 4.9%CT Mirror: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.0%This article: 5.6%Johnny Rivera: 2.8%CT Mirror: 0.2%Tu Quoque5.6%This article: 0.0%Johnny Rivera: 0.0%CT Mirror: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Johnny Rivera: 0.0%CT Mirror: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 1.7%Johnny Rivera: 0.4%CT Mirror: 0.2%Composition/Division1.7%This article: 10.8%Johnny Rivera: 2.7%CT Mirror: 2.5%Anecdotal10.8%This article: 0.0%Johnny Rivera: 0.0%CT Mirror: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 39.5%Johnny Rivera: 9.9%CT Mirror: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)39.5%This article: 0.0%Johnny Rivera: 0.0%CT Mirror: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Johnny Rivera: 0.0%CT Mirror: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Johnny Rivera: 0.0%CT Mirror: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Johnny Rivera: 0.0%CT Mirror: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 1.7%Johnny Rivera: 0.4%CT Mirror: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy1.7%This article: 5.4%Johnny Rivera: 1.3%CT Mirror: 0.9%Unattributed Quote5.4%This article: 6.6%Johnny Rivera: 1.9%CT Mirror: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection6.6%This article: 16.9%Johnny Rivera: 9.5%CT Mirror: 2.9%Biased Writer Voice16.9%This article: 17.9%Johnny Rivera: 16.2%CT Mirror: 3.2%Indoctrination17.9%This article: 0.0%Johnny Rivera: 4.3%CT Mirror: 1.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Johnny Rivera: 0.0%CT Mirror: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 7.1%Johnny Rivera: 2.0%CT Mirror: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…7.1%

575 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers9.0%attributed speech523writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageHuman Rights Watch • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageGreater Boston Interfaith Organization (GBIO) • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Human Rights Watch

100%flagged-word coverage
25 attributed words48% of attributed speech97% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Indoctrination-19.7 ptsWriter: 19.7%Human Rights Watch: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-18.5 ptsWriter: 18.5%Human Rights Watch: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -7.8 ptsWriter: 7.8%Human Rights Watch: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-7.3 ptsWriter: 7.3%Human Rights Watch: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-5.9 ptsWriter: 5.9%Human Rights Watch: 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.