EDITORIAL: Colorado’s tuition sanctuary draws federal fire ⁠68%

By The Gazette Editorial Board⁠89%

8/3/2026, 4:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Authority, and In-Group Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 16.3% saturation with 94 hits. Analysis detected 695 faulty-reasoning hits from 575 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 53.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠68% (9,305 of 28,846 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 67.70% of the article peer group.

The U.S. 
Department of Justice sued Colorado late last month to end a program that provides in-state college tuition to illegal immigrants. 
The lawsuit underscores how a policy framed as compassion collided with federal law — creating unequal treatment while backfiring on those it purports to help. 
As The Gazette reported, state lawmakers in 2013 — led by then-state Sen. 
Mike Johnston, now Denver’s mayor — passed Senate Bill 33, dubbed the “ASSET” Act. 
That law granted in-state tuition rates to illegal immigrants who attended a Colorado high school for at least three years before graduating. 
It was a well-intended effort to expand access to college. 
But the legal risk was foreseeable from day one. 
In 1996, Congress barred states from granting residency-based tuition benefits to illegal immigrants unless the same benefit is available to every U.S. citizen regardless of their home state. 
Last year, the Trump administration started filing lawsuits against states that offer in-state tuition to illegal immigrants. 
Colorado’s case is just the latest. 
Among the 13 other states taken to court, Texas, Kentucky, Oklahoma and Nebraska have already been prohibited from continuing their programs. 
In Oklahoma, the legislature quickly changed the law following a settlement. 
Colorado lawmakers should have seen this coming. 
Johnston, though, has called the lawsuit “a slap in the face to countless Colorado children.” 
Perhaps he should have considered that when he sponsored legislation conflicting with a federal law that was already on the books for 17 years. 
There’s a stronger case that ASSET is “a slap in the face” to immigrants who came to the United States legally, doing it the right way before establishing Colorado residency, along with American citizens from other states who don’t receive the same tuition benefit. 
To be clear, the DOJ’s lawsuit doesn’t challenge whether illegal immigrants may attend college. 
It challenges whether Colorado may grant them a financial benefit that isn’t available to U.S. citizens from other states. 
Therein lies the genuine fairness issue. 
ASSET gives preferential treatment to students who are here unlawfully while out-of-state American students pay more. 
Such policies send the message that entering the country unlawfully may be rewarded. 
In that sense, ASSET was an early step toward Colorado’s status as a sanctuary state. 
Extending state benefits and protections to people here unlawfully boosted the political incentive to limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities. 
And that’s exactly what’s happened. 
State laws since 2019 have effectively barred law enforcement from proactively working with federal immigration authorities. 
It’s hard not to sympathize with those young adults caught in the middle here, most of whom were children when their parents chose to cross the border with them. 
But a difficult personal situation doesn’t justify an inherently inequitable policy. 
That’s the thrust of the DOJ’s case, which cites the court decision in United States v. 
State of Nebraska. 
The judge in that case applied the federal law as written, forbidding states from allowing “aliens unlawfully present in the United States to qualify as ‘residents’” for tuition purposes while charging more to similarly situated citizens from other states. 
At its core, ASSET has always been a flawed policy that disregards federal law and undermines border security. 
Ending it would restore fairness for American citizens and bring Colorado back into compliance with federal law. 
Repealing the policy also would be a good first step away from the sanctuary for illegal immigration that Colorado’s ruling class has created. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.7%The Gazette Editorial Board: 4.6%Denver Gazette: 2.3%Confirmation Bias5.7%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.6%Denver Gazette: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.9%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.6%Denver Gazette: 1.6%Availability Heuristic5.9%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.0%Denver Gazette: 0.5%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 2.8%The Gazette Editorial Board: 1.4%Denver Gazette: 0.7%Hindsight Bias2.8%This article: 3.1%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.4%Denver Gazette: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias3.1%This article: 6.6%The Gazette Editorial Board: 16.8%Denver Gazette: 4.9%Framing Effect6.6%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 3.2%Denver Gazette: 1.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 6.6%The Gazette Editorial Board: 2.5%Denver Gazette: 0.9%Status Quo Bias6.6%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.0%Denver Gazette: 0.4%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.3%Denver Gazette: 2.7%Optimism Bias3.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 2.8%Denver Gazette: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 13.4%The Gazette Editorial Board: 7.3%Denver Gazette: 3.2%Negativity Bias13.4%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.7%Denver Gazette: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 4.2%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.4%Denver Gazette: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error4.2%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.0%Denver Gazette: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 7.7%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.7%Denver Gazette: 0.5%In-Group Bias7.7%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.3%Denver Gazette: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.7%Denver Gazette: 1.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.0%Denver Gazette: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.0%Denver Gazette: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.6%Denver Gazette: 0.7%Recency Bias3.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.4%Denver Gazette: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.0%Denver Gazette: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 4.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 4.5%Denver Gazette: 0.9%Ad Hominem4.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.0%Denver Gazette: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 9.9%The Gazette Editorial Board: 6.7%Denver Gazette: 1.8%Appeal to Authority9.9%This article: 5.7%The Gazette Editorial Board: 2.1%Denver Gazette: 1.2%False Dilemma5.7%This article: 2.6%The Gazette Editorial Board: 3.3%Denver Gazette: 0.7%Slippery Slope2.6%This article: 0.9%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.3%Denver Gazette: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.9%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 3.9%Denver Gazette: 3.7%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.0%Denver Gazette: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 1.0%Denver Gazette: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 5.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 6.3%Denver Gazette: 2.3%Appeal to Emotion5.0%This article: 1.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 2.0%Denver Gazette: 0.5%Begging the Question1.0%This article: 5.7%The Gazette Editorial Board: 1.8%Denver Gazette: 1.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.7%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.3%Denver Gazette: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.0%Denver Gazette: 0.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.0%Denver Gazette: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.7%Denver Gazette: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.0%Denver Gazette: 1.5%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.4%Denver Gazette: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.0%Denver Gazette: 0.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.0%Denver Gazette: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.0%Denver Gazette: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.0%Denver Gazette: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.0%Denver Gazette: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.3%Denver Gazette: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.6%The Gazette Editorial Board: 2.0%Denver Gazette: 1.2%Unattributed Quote2.6%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.2%Denver Gazette: 0.2%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 16.3%The Gazette Editorial Board: 21.8%Denver Gazette: 5.0%Biased Writer Voice16.3%This article: 1.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 4.8%Denver Gazette: 1.8%Indoctrination1.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.0%Denver Gazette: 0.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 8.6%Denver Gazette: 1.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias4.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.5%Denver Gazette: 0.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

575 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers13%attributed speech501writer words
100%flagged-word coverage
39 attributed words53% of attributed speech65% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Biased Writer Voice-18.8 ptsWriter: 18.8%United States v. State of Nebraska: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -4.6 ptsWriter: 4.6%United States v. State of Nebraska: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-1.2 ptsWriter: 1.2%United States v. State of Nebraska: 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.