DHS Plans “All-Out War” on Immigration Scammers as Fraud Complaints Double 29%

By Naisha Roy0%

7/16/2026, 10:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Biased Writer Voice, and Availability Heuristic, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 34.4% saturation with 259 hits. Analysis detected 2,243 faulty-reasoning hits from 752 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 39.3% and a BS Rank of 29% (15,155 of 21,170 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 71.60% of the article peer group.

The Department of Homeland Security is investigating a sophisticated network of scammers who target people caught in immigration proceedings, bilking them of their savings and causing some to be deported, following a ProPublica report that complaints of such fraud doubled under the second administration of President Donald Trump. 
Homeland Security Investigations, the subagency known for tracking international crimes such as human trafficking, has asked about specific cases detailed in the story, including the tale of a woman who, fearful of Trump’s nationwide immigration sweeps, enlisted someone she thought would help her keep her legal status. 
After the scammers got her money and caused her to miss a court date, she was deported to Nicaragua. 
Fear and Opportunity: Immigration Scams Surged as Trump’s Sweeps Lured Desperate People to Eager Defrauders 
That was one of thousands of cases in which scammers lured their marks through social media posts and sent them through fake court hearings and other official-looking steps, charging large sums along the way. 
Now, the federal government is ramping up its efforts to track the scams, according to sources involved in the investigation. 
A DHS statement said the agency was “declaring an all-out war” on the scammers. 
“Immigration scammers contribute to a lawless environment, undermining our immigration system and posing risks to national security and public safety,” the statement said. 
DHS is looking for URLs, WhatsApp numbers and identifying information on the payment app Zelle that might trace back to scammers, said sources knowledgeable about the inquiry. 
The department’s investigation is ramping up as such scams skyrocket. 
ProPublica analyzed Federal Trade Commission data and found that victims and advocates reported at least $94.4 million was stolen over five years. 
The more than 6,200 complaints included everything from fake Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents demanding personal details and threatening deportation to fraudsters asking international students for money by exploiting their visa status. 
Scammers often pretend to be lawyers offering ways to avoid in-person court hearings, taking advantage of anxieties among even lawful residents after ICE officers began rounding up people during immigration proceedings. 
Experts say the scammers often advertise on places such as Facebook and TikTok before shifting the conversation to the encrypted messaging platform WhatsApp, asking for money in exchange for real-looking immigration filings. 
Sometimes known as “notario fraud,” these scams often rely on a mistranslation of the word “notary,” which implies legal credentials in many Latin American countries. 
In recent weeks, agencies including the New York Department of State , Florida Bar and local police departments issued warnings about these scams. 
The American Bar Association, which has also warned about impersonators , has recently been in contact with DHS investigators. 
In South Florida, immigration attorney Angel Leal encountered hundreds of AI-generated videos of his likeness offering aid on WhatsApp. 
His office had to hire an anti-piracy agency to remove the content and over 6,000 fake profiles, according to local news reports. 
The videos, hundreds across Instagram, are strikingly realistic. 
“Leal” sits on an office chair, his facial hair and expressions matching that of the real attorney. 
The AI-generated figure speaks fluent Spanish with enthusiastic hand gestures, a potted plant or mug in the foreground and a law degree behind him. 
Slight details betray the ruse: some mouth movements don’t match the words, gibberish text appears on documents and objects meld together. 
Advocates and law enforcement say people targeted should document all ads, text conversations and payment information. 
And DHS warns consumers to be wary of lawyers advertising directly on social media, operating on WhatsApp and taking payments over Zelle. 
In April, ProPublica spoke to several victims who attended fake court hearings via WhatsApp, recounting their stories to “agents” wearing phony government uniforms. 
Spanish speakers are the primary targets, experts say, and the scammers often pretend to be affiliated with prominent advocacy groups such as Catholic Charities USA, which has been inundated with reports of fraudsters using their brand to find potential marks. 
“Directly reaching out to people via an ad or via WhatsApp and asking for money over Zelle, that is not something Catholic Charities agencies would ever do,” said Kevin Brennan, vice president for media relations at Catholic Charities USA. 
Such groups have found it difficult to get imposter ads and accounts removed. 
Even when they do, it’s cheap and easy for scammers to create new websites and accounts. 
“It’s Whac-a-Mole,” said Charity Anastasio of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, another group whose staff and image have been impersonated. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.0%Naisha Roy: 2.6%ProPublica: 2.9%Confirmation Bias10.0%This article: 6.4%Naisha Roy: 2.3%ProPublica: 0.7%Anchoring Bias6.4%This article: 23.4%Naisha Roy: 10.4%ProPublica: 2.6%Availability Heuristic23.4%This article: 7.8%Naisha Roy: 4.2%ProPublica: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic7.8%This article: 0.0%Naisha Roy: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Naisha Roy: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 3.5%Naisha Roy: 8.7%ProPublica: 6.8%Framing Effect3.5%This article: 0.0%Naisha Roy: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 1.7%Naisha Roy: 0.7%ProPublica: 0.6%Status Quo Bias1.7%This article: 0.0%Naisha Roy: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.1%Naisha Roy: 0.5%ProPublica: 0.8%Optimism Bias4.1%This article: 2.7%Naisha Roy: 1.8%ProPublica: 0.9%Pessimism Bias2.7%This article: 34.4%Naisha Roy: 18.2%ProPublica: 8.2%Negativity Bias34.4%This article: 5.2%Naisha Roy: 0.7%ProPublica: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias5.2%This article: 4.1%Naisha Roy: 1.2%ProPublica: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error4.1%This article: 0.0%Naisha Roy: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 5.3%Naisha Roy: 1.4%ProPublica: 0.6%In-Group Bias5.3%This article: 0.0%Naisha Roy: 1.4%ProPublica: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 7.7%Naisha Roy: 1.7%ProPublica: 1.0%Halo Effect7.7%This article: 0.0%Naisha Roy: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Naisha Roy: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 13.3%Naisha Roy: 4.9%ProPublica: 0.8%Recency Bias13.3%This article: 0.0%Naisha Roy: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Naisha Roy: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Naisha Roy: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Naisha Roy: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 26.2%Naisha Roy: 9.8%ProPublica: 3.9%Appeal to Authority26.2%This article: 0.0%Naisha Roy: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 2.7%Naisha Roy: 0.3%ProPublica: 0.4%Slippery Slope2.7%This article: 0.0%Naisha Roy: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 19.1%Naisha Roy: 6.5%ProPublica: 2.8%Hasty Generalization19.1%This article: 0.0%Naisha Roy: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Naisha Roy: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 11.6%Naisha Roy: 6.3%ProPublica: 4.4%Appeal to Emotion11.6%This article: 0.0%Naisha Roy: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 13.0%Naisha Roy: 5.0%ProPublica: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)13.0%This article: 0.0%Naisha Roy: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Naisha Roy: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Naisha Roy: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 4.3%Naisha Roy: 0.5%ProPublica: 0.2%Composition/Division4.3%This article: 19.3%Naisha Roy: 8.3%ProPublica: 2.0%Anecdotal19.3%This article: 5.2%Naisha Roy: 1.4%ProPublica: 0.1%No True Scotsman5.2%This article: 10.4%Naisha Roy: 2.3%ProPublica: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)10.4%This article: 0.0%Naisha Roy: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Naisha Roy: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Naisha Roy: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Naisha Roy: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Naisha Roy: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 15.7%Naisha Roy: 5.9%ProPublica: 1.3%Unattributed Quote15.7%This article: 9.7%Naisha Roy: 2.2%ProPublica: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection9.7%This article: 24.6%Naisha Roy: 4.6%ProPublica: 2.6%Biased Writer Voice24.6%This article: 6.9%Naisha Roy: 1.9%ProPublica: 0.8%Indoctrination6.9%This article: 0.0%Naisha Roy: 0.3%ProPublica: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Naisha Roy: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Naisha Roy: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

752 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers18%attributed speech615writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 48 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 47 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageDepartment of Homeland Security • 14 words • 100.0% coverageDepartment of Homeland Security • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageAmerican Bar Association • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageDepartment of Homeland Security • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageKevin Brennan • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageCharity Anastasio • 20 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Kevin Brennan

100%flagged-word coverage
39 attributed words28% of attributed speech97% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+98.2 ptsWriter: 1.8%Kevin Brennan: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+87.2 ptsWriter: 12.8%Kevin Brennan: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-26.8 ptsWriter: 26.8%Kevin Brennan: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-2.6 ptsWriter: 2.6%Kevin Brennan: 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.