BS Summary: This article contains 30 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Hasty Generalization, and Unattributed Quote, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 46.9% saturation with 473 hits. Analysis detected 3,105 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,009 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 64.1% and a BS Rank of 71% (5,999 of 20,445 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 70.70% of the article peer group.

President Donald Trump galvanized Americans in 2024 in part by promising “mass deportations.” 
It was a message that resonated with millions of Americans who were frustrated that the country had been overrun by tens of millions of illegal aliens thanks to then-President Joe Biden and the Democrats. 
In order to get the job done, voters also elected a Republican Congress and Senate. 
Yet, while the president has had to fight Democrats, activist judges, and violent agitators, members of his own party continue to work to undermine his efforts. 
Republicans will seemingly do anything for illegal aliens except deport them. 
They’ll vote to grant them work authorization, protect them from deportations, waive the consequences of breaking the law, and even create new statuses just so that illegals can find a reason to stay. 
They’ll go so far as to insist none of this is amnesty since they’ve avoided explicitly using that word. 
The latest example comes from 47 House Republicans supporting legislation that would allow some illegal aliens working in agriculture to obtain legal status. 
H.R. 9535, introduced by Republican Rep. 
Glenn Thompson, would overhaul the current H-2A temporary agricultural worker program by expanding the time frame so that it permits illegals to stay all year in three-year time increments and “waiv[es] some immigration violations like illegally obtaining an agriculture job,” as The Federalist's Breccan Thies explained. 
But Republicans’ eagerness to protect illegal aliens instead of doing what voters actually asked leaders to do didn’t begin with Thompson’s agricultural bill. 
DIGNIDAD Act 
Another recent fight over illegal immigration stems from Republicans’ efforts to pass a mass amnesty proposal known as the DIGNIDAD Act (or, if you’re American, the DIGNITY Act). 
According to a press release from Florida GOP Rep. 
Maria Elvira Salazar's office, the legislation “allows certain long-term undocumented immigrants to earn legal status, without amnesty or a path to citizenship” so that illegal aliens who broke the law can have an “opportunity.” 
The bill would create a “7-year earned legal status program allowing” illegal aliens “to live and work legally, with renewable status based on good conduct and restitution.” 
More than a dozen Republicans currently support the DIGNIDAD Act. 
American Dream and Promise Act 
A Democrat-controlled Congress first passed this legislation in March of 2021 with nine Republicans voting in favor, but it died at the end of that term. 
Democrat Rep. 
Sylvia Garcia of Texas reintroduced the legislation in February of 2025, though it has not moved through any processes. 
The legislation would provide amnesty for illegal aliens who claim to have been brought to the U.S. as children as well as certain Temporary Protected Status recipients. 
The legislation would protect these illegals and noncitizens from deportations and create a pathway to citizenship. 
DACA 
Former President Barack Obama illegally established the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program (despite admitting that he was “not king” and couldn’t “just bypass Congress and change the [immigration] law [himself]”). 
The program protects illegal aliens brought here as children from deportation. 
The legislation also gives them work authorization. 
Approximately 800,000 illegal aliens have benefitted from the legislation. 
Trump attempted to end it but was partially blocked by the courts. 
Over the years, numerous Republicans have signed onto legislation or proposals to protect DACA recipients. 
Temporary Protected Status 
Trump secured a legal victory in his quest to fulfill his campaign promise of mass deportations after the Supreme Court upheld his efforts to revoke Temporary Protected Status for foreigners in the country. 
Congress created the TPS designation in 1990 and billed it as short-term humanitarian relief legislation for nationals of foreign countries undergoing crisis. 
But TPS almost never ends in the short term, and hundreds of thousands of foreign nationals have remained in the country under this status long after the supposed emergencies that sent them here ended. 
Trump tried to end TPS for roughly 350,000 Haitians living in the country as well as thousands of Venezuelans but was met with Democrat lawfare. 
Yet as Trump was fighting to end the temporary program in the courts, six RINOs (Reps. 
Mike Lawler, Don Bacon, Brian Fitzpatrick, Maria Elvira Salazar, Carlos Gimenez, and Nicole Malliotakis) voted alongside Democrats to advance legislation that would extend TPS for Haitians. 
Malliotakis explained her vote by arguing America is merely an economic opportunity zone and that Haitians “are working, paying taxes and contributing to our economy and fulfilling a healthcare need.” 
She said stripping them of a temporary status would be “uncompassionate and misguided.” 
Tillis Partners With Dems for Amnesty 
Sen. 
Thom Tillis, working alongside Arizona Sen. 
Kyrsten Sinema, introduced an “immigration reform” proposal in 2022 that would provide mass amnesty to millions of illegals. 
The proposal would have created a “pathway to citizenship” for roughly 2 million illegal aliens who were brought to the United States as minors and are considered “DACA” recipients. 
Gang of Eight Bill 
In 2013 Democrat Sens. 
Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, Bob Menendez, and Michael Bennet joined forces with Republicans John McCain, Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, and Jeff Flake to introduce the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act. 
The proposal created a pathway to citizenship for roughly 11 million illegal aliens who had been in the U.S. prior to Dec. 
31, 2011. 
The legislation first provided protection from deportation and granted work authorization so long as the aliens paid a fine and provided proof of work and presence in the country. 
After 10 years, the bill would have made them eligible to apply for green cards and eventually citizenship. 
The House did not take the legislation up, so it ultimately failed. 
More than a decade later, the Republican Party is still doing the same thing: promising enforcement of the law, trying to provide legal status to illegal aliens, but then assuring Americans that this time will be the last time. 
Americans didn’t elect Republicans in 2024 to devise new ways to keep illegal aliens here. 
They elected Republicans to remove the illegal aliens here. 
Anything less is mass betrayal of voters and this country. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.5%Brianna Lyman: 12.5%The Federalist: 8.5%Confirmation Bias11.5%This article: 0.0%Brianna Lyman: 0.7%The Federalist: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.5%Brianna Lyman: 5.7%The Federalist: 3.4%Availability Heuristic9.5%This article: 0.0%Brianna Lyman: 0.6%The Federalist: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 1.2%Brianna Lyman: 1.1%The Federalist: 0.7%Hindsight Bias1.2%This article: 0.0%Brianna Lyman: 0.6%The Federalist: 2.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 13.4%Brianna Lyman: 17.5%The Federalist: 10.2%Framing Effect13.4%This article: 0.0%Brianna Lyman: 0.5%The Federalist: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 2.2%Brianna Lyman: 0.5%The Federalist: 0.6%Status Quo Bias2.2%This article: 3.9%Brianna Lyman: 0.2%The Federalist: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect3.9%This article: 0.0%Brianna Lyman: 0.9%The Federalist: 1.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 9.7%Brianna Lyman: 1.8%The Federalist: 1.7%Pessimism Bias9.7%This article: 46.9%Brianna Lyman: 14.3%The Federalist: 12.2%Negativity Bias46.9%This article: 0.0%Brianna Lyman: 0.8%The Federalist: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 3.3%Brianna Lyman: 1.6%The Federalist: 1.7%Fundamental Attribution Error3.3%This article: 3.8%Brianna Lyman: 0.3%The Federalist: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias3.8%This article: 2.5%Brianna Lyman: 3.4%The Federalist: 4.0%In-Group Bias2.5%This article: 0.0%Brianna Lyman: 2.8%The Federalist: 2.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brianna Lyman: 0.7%The Federalist: 2.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brianna Lyman: 0.3%The Federalist: 0.7%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brianna Lyman: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 11.7%Brianna Lyman: 2.9%The Federalist: 1.2%Recency Bias11.7%This article: 0.0%Brianna Lyman: 1.3%The Federalist: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brianna Lyman: 0.2%The Federalist: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 9.8%Brianna Lyman: 4.2%The Federalist: 5.2%Ad Hominem9.8%This article: 0.0%Brianna Lyman: 2.9%The Federalist: 2.8%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.1%Brianna Lyman: 6.9%The Federalist: 5.2%Appeal to Authority11.1%This article: 6.8%Brianna Lyman: 2.9%The Federalist: 2.8%False Dilemma6.8%This article: 3.3%Brianna Lyman: 1.7%The Federalist: 2.2%Slippery Slope3.3%This article: 3.9%Brianna Lyman: 0.6%The Federalist: 0.4%Circular Reasoning3.9%This article: 29.8%Brianna Lyman: 13.9%The Federalist: 11.4%Hasty Generalization29.8%This article: 0.0%Brianna Lyman: 0.4%The Federalist: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Brianna Lyman: 0.9%The Federalist: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 9.8%Brianna Lyman: 8.4%The Federalist: 8.2%Appeal to Emotion9.8%This article: 3.2%Brianna Lyman: 4.5%The Federalist: 3.2%Begging the Question3.2%This article: 7.8%Brianna Lyman: 2.4%The Federalist: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.8%This article: 0.0%Brianna Lyman: 0.7%The Federalist: 0.5%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 7.4%Brianna Lyman: 3.5%The Federalist: 1.1%Burden of Proof7.4%This article: 0.0%Brianna Lyman: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Brianna Lyman: 0.6%The Federalist: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Brianna Lyman: 6.0%The Federalist: 2.7%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 1.9%Brianna Lyman: 0.3%The Federalist: 0.3%No True Scotsman1.9%This article: 19.5%Brianna Lyman: 3.9%The Federalist: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)19.5%This article: 0.0%Brianna Lyman: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Brianna Lyman: 0.1%The Federalist: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Brianna Lyman: 0.6%The Federalist: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Brianna Lyman: 0.5%The Federalist: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Brianna Lyman: 0.3%The Federalist: 0.8%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 25.2%Brianna Lyman: 5.8%The Federalist: 3.1%Unattributed Quote25.2%This article: 3.2%Brianna Lyman: 4.1%The Federalist: 2.2%Quote-first Misdirection3.2%This article: 30.4%Brianna Lyman: 23.4%The Federalist: 19.9%Biased Writer Voice30.4%This article: 5.2%Brianna Lyman: 3.6%The Federalist: 5.4%Indoctrination5.2%This article: 3.2%Brianna Lyman: 0.5%The Federalist: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias3.2%This article: 6.8%Brianna Lyman: 18.5%The Federalist: 15.9%Politically Right Leaning Bias6.8%This article: 0.0%Brianna Lyman: 0.4%The Federalist: 1.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

1009 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers12%attributed speech886writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageGlenn Thompson • 46 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageMaria Elvira Salazar's office • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageNicole Malliotakis • 30 words • 100.0% coverageNicole Malliotakis • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
34 attributed words28% of attributed speech83% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+85.2 ptsWriter: 14.8%Maria Elvira Salazar's office: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-34.7 ptsWriter: 34.7%Maria Elvira Salazar's office: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -7.8 ptsWriter: 7.8%Maria Elvira Salazar's office: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-5.9 ptsWriter: 5.9%Maria Elvira Salazar's office: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-3.6 ptsWriter: 3.6%Maria Elvira Salazar's office: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-3.6 ptsWriter: 3.6%Maria Elvira Salazar's office: 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.