Help us report on third-country deportations of immigrants in Missouri and Kansas 56%

By Steph Conquest-Ware36%

6/12/2026, 10:00:20 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, Appeal to Emotion, and Framing Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 41.1% saturation with 99 hits. Analysis detected 622 faulty-reasoning hits from 241 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 53.3% and a BS Rank of 56% (9,743 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 55.50% of the article peer group.

The Trump administration is sending immigrants and refugees to countries they have no connection to through a third-country deportation policy. 
The Department of Homeland Security <u>says the efforts</u> allow the swift removal of people “who are so uniquely barbaric that their own countries won’t take them back.” 
The Midwest Newsroom has identified at least 25 people in ICE custody that DHS tried to remove or successfully removed to third countries. 
Some were taken into immigration custody as soon as they entered the country. 
Others have been in the country for decades and have family here. 
Few have been convicted of a violent crime. 
The complete cost of expansion of third-country deportations is unknown, <u>according to a Senate Foreign Relations Committee Minority report</u> released earlier this year. 
But it could be nearly $40 million, funded by taxpayers. 
And more than 80% of people deported to third countries have already been sent back to their home country. 
As part of a project about third-country deportations in the Midwest, we’re asking people if they or someone they know has been at risk of deportation to a country they have no connection to. 
If you’d like to share your story, please complete this short survey. 
We won’t use any information you give us without your permission, and we won’t ever sell it. 
If you have questions, please email reporter Steph Conquest-Ware at <u>scware@iowapublicradio.org</u>. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 3.3%Steph Conquest-Ware: 1.3%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Confirmation Bias3.3%This article: 0.0%Steph Conquest-Ware: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.5%Steph Conquest-Ware: 3.3%Columbia Missourian: 2.7%Availability Heuristic9.5%This article: 0.0%Steph Conquest-Ware: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Steph Conquest-Ware: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steph Conquest-Ware: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 27.4%Steph Conquest-Ware: 4.2%Columbia Missourian: 5.5%Framing Effect27.4%This article: 5.0%Steph Conquest-Ware: 1.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.0%Loss Aversion5.0%This article: 0.0%Steph Conquest-Ware: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steph Conquest-Ware: 1.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 7.1%Steph Conquest-Ware: 2.2%Columbia Missourian: 4.5%Optimism Bias7.1%This article: 4.1%Steph Conquest-Ware: 1.1%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%Pessimism Bias4.1%This article: 41.1%Steph Conquest-Ware: 4.8%Columbia Missourian: 5.4%Negativity Bias41.1%This article: 0.0%Steph Conquest-Ware: 1.1%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steph Conquest-Ware: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Steph Conquest-Ware: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steph Conquest-Ware: 0.6%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 11.2%Steph Conquest-Ware: 0.5%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias11.2%This article: 0.0%Steph Conquest-Ware: 1.0%Columbia Missourian: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Steph Conquest-Ware: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Steph Conquest-Ware: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Steph Conquest-Ware: 0.7%Columbia Missourian: 0.9%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steph Conquest-Ware: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Steph Conquest-Ware: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steph Conquest-Ware: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Steph Conquest-Ware: 1.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 9.5%Steph Conquest-Ware: 4.7%Columbia Missourian: 2.9%Appeal to Authority9.5%This article: 0.0%Steph Conquest-Ware: 0.8%Columbia Missourian: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Steph Conquest-Ware: 1.4%Columbia Missourian: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Steph Conquest-Ware: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 16.2%Steph Conquest-Ware: 3.3%Columbia Missourian: 3.6%Hasty Generalization16.2%This article: 0.0%Steph Conquest-Ware: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Steph Conquest-Ware: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 28.6%Steph Conquest-Ware: 13.4%Columbia Missourian: 5.2%Appeal to Emotion28.6%This article: 0.0%Steph Conquest-Ware: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Steph Conquest-Ware: 1.1%Columbia Missourian: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Steph Conquest-Ware: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Steph Conquest-Ware: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Steph Conquest-Ware: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Steph Conquest-Ware: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 5.4%Steph Conquest-Ware: 2.2%Columbia Missourian: 2.6%Anecdotal5.4%This article: 0.0%Steph Conquest-Ware: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 11.2%Steph Conquest-Ware: 0.6%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)11.2%This article: 0.0%Steph Conquest-Ware: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Steph Conquest-Ware: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Steph Conquest-Ware: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 7.1%Steph Conquest-Ware: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Special Pleading7.1%This article: 0.0%Steph Conquest-Ware: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 11.2%Steph Conquest-Ware: 0.5%Columbia Missourian: 0.8%Unattributed Quote11.2%This article: 11.2%Steph Conquest-Ware: 1.6%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection11.2%This article: 8.3%Steph Conquest-Ware: 1.8%Columbia Missourian: 2.9%Biased Writer Voice8.3%This article: 5.0%Steph Conquest-Ware: 1.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Indoctrination5.0%This article: 0.0%Steph Conquest-Ware: 1.8%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steph Conquest-Ware: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 35.7%Steph Conquest-Ware: 0.7%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…35.7%

241 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers35%attributed speech157writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageDepartment of Homeland Security • 27 words • 100.0% coverageMidwest Newsroom • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageSenate Foreign Relations Committee Minority report • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageSteph Conquest-Ware • 11 words • 100.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
27 attributed words32% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Department of Homeland Security: 100.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Department of Homeland Security: 100.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -47.8 ptsWriter: 47.8%Department of Homeland Security: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-12.7 ptsWriter: 12.7%Department of Homeland Security: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-7.6 ptsWriter: 7.6%Department of Homeland Security: 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.