Stephen Miller Wants To Take A Hard Look At Banning Travelers Who Happen To Be Pregnant ⁠80%

By Anthony Orrico⁠0%

7/1/2026, 5:34:40 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Hasty Generalization, and Pessimism Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 32.5% saturation with 128 hits. Analysis detected 1,085 faulty-reasoning hits from 394 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 70.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠80% (4,570 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 79.10% of the article peer group.

In the wake of Tuesday’s Supreme Court decision on birthright citizenship, deputy White House chief of staff Stephen Miller rolled out MAGA’s newest talking point on the issue of children born to undocumented immigrants. 
Speaking with Fox News host Jesse Watters, Miller maligned the high court’s decision while suggesting that the United States will have to reform immigration policies to combat what he pejoratively called “birth tourism.” 
“But if you have birthright citizenship, it means if a person comes here nine months pregnant to go look around at some things, in a couple of weeks, that is the mother of a lifetime American citizen and a direct line into American cash and welfare for the rest of that child’s life,” Miller said. 
Watters asked if Miller was considering banning foreign pregnant women from entering the U.S., even temporarily. 
“Well, what I’m saying, Jesse, is that you have to think very carefully about who you let into your country, even on a temporary basis, because the possibility, as you said, for birth tourism, right, they do that. 
People come here just to have babies on American soil, and that baby gets to be a citizen for life,” Miller said. 
Miller added that he believes that babies born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants would be able to send welfare checks back home to “support a whole family in the third world.” 
“So, yes, you can’t have the kinds of immigration programs other countries have when you can just have a baby here, and now that child is an American citizen. 
So, there’s a lot of things we’re gonna have to take a hard look at, Jesse,” Miller said. 
Miller isn’t the only MAGA figure floating the idea of banning foreign-born pregnant women from entering the U.S. 
Rep. 
Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) on Tuesday introduced a bill he called the “Anchors Away Act” aimed at limiting or outright banning certain foreign-born pregnant women from entering the U.S. 
President Donald Trump also called on Congress to pass legislation to end birthright citizenship. 
In 2020, the Center for Immigration Studies, an organization that advocates low immigration, estimated the possible number of birth tourism cases at 20,000 to 26,000 per year, less than 1% of the 3.61 million births in the U.S. that year. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 14.2%Anthony Orrico: 3.1%AP: 3.2%Confirmation Bias14.2%This article: 0.0%Anthony Orrico: 0.0%AP: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 32.2%Anthony Orrico: 8.5%AP: 2.8%Availability Heuristic32.2%This article: 10.2%Anthony Orrico: 1.9%AP: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic10.2%This article: 0.0%Anthony Orrico: 0.0%AP: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 5.6%Anthony Orrico: 1.0%AP: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias5.6%This article: 32.5%Anthony Orrico: 20.0%AP: 9.9%Framing Effect32.5%This article: 0.0%Anthony Orrico: 1.0%AP: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Orrico: 0.0%AP: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Orrico: 0.0%AP: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Orrico: 0.0%AP: 1.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 22.1%Anthony Orrico: 4.1%AP: 2.4%Pessimism Bias22.1%This article: 8.4%Anthony Orrico: 12.4%AP: 13.5%Negativity Bias8.4%This article: 0.0%Anthony Orrico: 0.0%AP: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Orrico: 0.0%AP: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Orrico: 0.0%AP: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 10.2%Anthony Orrico: 1.9%AP: 2.2%In-Group Bias10.2%This article: 0.0%Anthony Orrico: 9.7%AP: 1.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Orrico: 0.0%AP: 1.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Orrico: 0.0%AP: 0.7%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Orrico: 0.0%AP: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Orrico: 3.6%AP: 1.5%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Orrico: 1.6%AP: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Orrico: 0.0%AP: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Orrico: 0.0%AP: 2.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Orrico: 0.0%AP: 1.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 3.6%Anthony Orrico: 0.7%AP: 2.6%Appeal to Authority3.6%This article: 7.4%Anthony Orrico: 4.1%AP: 1.9%False Dilemma7.4%This article: 0.0%Anthony Orrico: 8.3%AP: 2.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Orrico: 0.0%AP: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 29.2%Anthony Orrico: 21.4%AP: 6.5%Hasty Generalization29.2%This article: 0.0%Anthony Orrico: 0.0%AP: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 4.6%Anthony Orrico: 3.3%AP: 0.5%Bandwagon4.6%This article: 8.1%Anthony Orrico: 19.9%AP: 6.2%Appeal to Emotion8.1%This article: 9.6%Anthony Orrico: 1.8%AP: 1.3%Begging the Question9.6%This article: 22.1%Anthony Orrico: 5.6%AP: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)22.1%This article: 0.0%Anthony Orrico: 0.0%AP: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Orrico: 0.7%AP: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Orrico: 0.0%AP: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 7.4%Anthony Orrico: 1.4%AP: 0.1%Composition/Division7.4%This article: 0.0%Anthony Orrico: 1.6%AP: 1.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 5.6%Anthony Orrico: 1.0%AP: 0.2%No True Scotsman5.6%This article: 18.5%Anthony Orrico: 3.4%AP: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)18.5%This article: 0.0%Anthony Orrico: 0.0%AP: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Orrico: 0.0%AP: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Orrico: 0.0%AP: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Orrico: 0.0%AP: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Orrico: 0.0%AP: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 14.0%Anthony Orrico: 7.5%AP: 2.7%Unattributed Quote14.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Orrico: 3.3%AP: 2.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 10.2%Anthony Orrico: 18.6%AP: 12.7%Biased Writer Voice10.2%This article: 0.0%Anthony Orrico: 0.0%AP: 1.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Orrico: 16.6%AP: 4.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Orrico: 0.6%AP: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Orrico: 0.5%AP: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

394 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers82%attributed speech69writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageStephen Miller • 33 words • 0.0% coverageStephen Miller • 55 words • 100.0% coverageJesse Watters • 16 words • 0.0% coverageStephen Miller • 38 words • 0.0% coverageStephen Miller • 22 words • 0.0% coverageStephen Miller • 32 words • 0.0% coverageStephen Miller • 29 words • 0.0% coverageStephen Miller • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageAndy Ogles • 28 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 14 words • 0.0% coverageCenter for Immigration Studies • 40 words • 100.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
40 attributed words12% of attributed speech26% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Center for Immigration Studies: 100.0%100.0%

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.