CT Mirror19%

Fewer refugees are entering CT this year, and all are from S. Africa 73%

By Sasha Allen0%

7/17/2026, 2:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Negativity Bias, with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 24.3% saturation with 90 hits. Analysis detected 646 faulty-reasoning hits from 370 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 65.4% and a BS Rank of 73% (5,750 of 21,181 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 72.90% of the article peer group.

Connecticut is seeing low numbers of refugees entering the U.S. this fiscal year  and all of them are coming from South Africa. 
From November to June, 89 refugees arrived in Connecticut from South Africa. 
Nationally, 7,730 refugees entered the U.S. during the same time period: 7,727 from South Africa and three from Afghanistan. 
The country of origin and the number of refugees entering the country has changed since President Donald Trump took office. 
Connecticut used to welcome refugees from dozens of countries each year, with high numbers coming from Syria, Afghanistan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. 
Now, only South African refugees are entering the state. 
Trump suspended the U.S. 
Refugee Admissions Program in January 2025 , so from February to August of last year, zero refugees were admitted to the state. 
But in late 2025, Trump enacted policies giving preference to English speakers and white people, according to reporting from the New York Times . 
In Connecticut, this became evident when the first five South African refugees entered the state in September 2025, but nobody from any other country. 
Today, only South African refugees are entering the state  even though none settled in Connecticut from 2012 to 2024. 
Most years, there were no South African refugees entering any state nationwide. 
If current trend continues, the only country that Connecticut  and nearly every other state  will accept refugees from this fiscal year is South Africa. 
Integrated Refugee and Immigrant Services, or IRIS, a New Haven-based nonprofit, made the decision not to resettle refugees through the U.S. 
Refugee Admissions Program, according to reporting by the Hartford Courant. 
This is the first time in four decades IRIS has not worked to resettle refugees in the state. 
In 2024, the number of forcibly displaced people worldwide hit the highest number ever seen, according to the United Nations Refugee Agency . 
Former president Joe Biden, in consultation with congress, set a refugee admissions goal of 125,000 for the fiscal year. 
While there are still fewer refugees entering the country compared to past years, Trump raised the refugee cap in May to accommodate more white South Africans. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Sasha Allen: 5.2%CT Mirror: 2.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sasha Allen: 0.0%CT Mirror: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.7%Sasha Allen: 5.3%CT Mirror: 3.0%Availability Heuristic9.7%This article: 0.0%Sasha Allen: 0.0%CT Mirror: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sasha Allen: 0.0%CT Mirror: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sasha Allen: 2.3%CT Mirror: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sasha Allen: 1.2%CT Mirror: 5.3%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sasha Allen: 0.0%CT Mirror: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 5.4%Sasha Allen: 1.8%CT Mirror: 0.7%Status Quo Bias5.4%This article: 0.0%Sasha Allen: 0.0%CT Mirror: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sasha Allen: 0.0%CT Mirror: 3.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 7.0%Sasha Allen: 2.3%CT Mirror: 1.9%Pessimism Bias7.0%This article: 13.2%Sasha Allen: 9.2%CT Mirror: 7.0%Negativity Bias13.2%This article: 0.0%Sasha Allen: 0.0%CT Mirror: 2.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 7.0%Sasha Allen: 4.7%CT Mirror: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error7.0%This article: 0.0%Sasha Allen: 0.0%CT Mirror: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sasha Allen: 0.0%CT Mirror: 1.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sasha Allen: 0.0%CT Mirror: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sasha Allen: 0.0%CT Mirror: 1.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sasha Allen: 0.0%CT Mirror: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sasha Allen: 0.0%CT Mirror: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.8%Sasha Allen: 2.6%CT Mirror: 0.8%Recency Bias7.8%This article: 4.9%Sasha Allen: 5.6%CT Mirror: 0.4%Primacy Effect4.9%This article: 0.0%Sasha Allen: 0.0%CT Mirror: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sasha Allen: 0.0%CT Mirror: 1.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sasha Allen: 0.0%CT Mirror: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 23.2%Sasha Allen: 7.7%CT Mirror: 3.7%Appeal to Authority23.2%This article: 0.0%Sasha Allen: 0.0%CT Mirror: 1.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 7.0%Sasha Allen: 4.7%CT Mirror: 0.8%Slippery Slope7.0%This article: 0.0%Sasha Allen: 0.0%CT Mirror: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 24.3%Sasha Allen: 17.1%CT Mirror: 4.0%Hasty Generalization24.3%This article: 0.0%Sasha Allen: 0.0%CT Mirror: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Sasha Allen: 0.0%CT Mirror: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 7.0%Sasha Allen: 2.3%CT Mirror: 5.2%Appeal to Emotion7.0%This article: 0.0%Sasha Allen: 0.0%CT Mirror: 0.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 18.4%Sasha Allen: 16.2%CT Mirror: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)18.4%This article: 0.0%Sasha Allen: 0.0%CT Mirror: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Sasha Allen: 0.0%CT Mirror: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Sasha Allen: 0.0%CT Mirror: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 3.2%Sasha Allen: 1.1%CT Mirror: 0.2%Composition/Division3.2%This article: 6.5%Sasha Allen: 2.2%CT Mirror: 2.6%Anecdotal6.5%This article: 0.0%Sasha Allen: 0.0%CT Mirror: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 10.5%Sasha Allen: 3.5%CT Mirror: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)10.5%This article: 0.0%Sasha Allen: 0.0%CT Mirror: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sasha Allen: 0.0%CT Mirror: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sasha Allen: 0.0%CT Mirror: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sasha Allen: 0.0%CT Mirror: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sasha Allen: 0.0%CT Mirror: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 13.0%Sasha Allen: 4.3%CT Mirror: 0.9%Unattributed Quote13.0%This article: 0.0%Sasha Allen: 2.2%CT Mirror: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 6.2%Sasha Allen: 7.7%CT Mirror: 2.8%Biased Writer Voice6.2%This article: 0.0%Sasha Allen: 2.3%CT Mirror: 2.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Sasha Allen: 10.2%CT Mirror: 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sasha Allen: 0.0%CT Mirror: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sasha Allen: 0.0%CT Mirror: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

370 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers27%attributed speech269writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageNew York Times • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageHartford Courant • 21 words • 0.0% coverageHartford Courant • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageUnited Nations Refugee Agency • 23 words • 0.0% coverageJoe Biden • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
23 attributed words23% of attributed speech86% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Unattributed Quote-17.8 ptsWriter: 17.8%United Nations Refugee Agency: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-8.6 ptsWriter: 8.6%United Nations Refugee Agency: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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