Daily Kos85%

DHS plans ‘all-out war’ on immigration scammers as fraud complaints double 50%

By ProPublica26%

7/18/2026, 9:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Availability Heuristic, and Anecdotal, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 41.6% saturation with 316 hits. Analysis detected 1,683 faulty-reasoning hits from 760 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 50% and a BS Rank of 50% (10,759 of 21,198 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 50.80% 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. 
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. 
Related | Fear and opportunity: Immigration scams surged as Trump’s sweeps lured desperate people to eager defrauders 
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. 
Related | Fake ICE agents are terrorizing immigrants 
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: 4.3%ProPublica: 3.3%Daily Kos: 5.7%Confirmation Bias4.3%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.1%Daily Kos: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 18.8%ProPublica: 2.9%Daily Kos: 3.3%Availability Heuristic18.8%This article: 12.0%ProPublica: 0.8%Daily Kos: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic12.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.3%Daily Kos: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 1.0%Daily Kos: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 5.5%ProPublica: 7.3%Daily Kos: 9.0%Framing Effect5.5%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.3%Daily Kos: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.5%Daily Kos: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.1%Daily Kos: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 1.0%Daily Kos: 1.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 2.1%ProPublica: 1.3%Daily Kos: 2.0%Pessimism Bias2.1%This article: 41.6%ProPublica: 9.8%Daily Kos: 15.5%Negativity Bias41.6%This article: 5.1%ProPublica: 2.4%Daily Kos: 1.0%Self-Serving Bias5.1%This article: 10.3%ProPublica: 1.1%Daily Kos: 2.6%Fundamental Attribution Error10.3%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.1%Daily Kos: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.6%Daily Kos: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.2%Daily Kos: 1.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 6.2%ProPublica: 1.1%Daily Kos: 1.8%Halo Effect6.2%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.2%ProPublica: 0.9%Daily Kos: 1.5%Recency Bias4.2%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.5%Daily Kos: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.9%Daily Kos: 5.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.2%Daily Kos: 1.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 33.9%ProPublica: 4.5%Daily Kos: 3.1%Appeal to Authority33.9%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 1.0%Daily Kos: 2.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.8%Daily Kos: 1.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 14.5%ProPublica: 4.2%Daily Kos: 9.7%Hasty Generalization14.5%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.1%Daily Kos: 0.5%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.2%Daily Kos: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 7.2%ProPublica: 5.5%Daily Kos: 7.3%Appeal to Emotion7.2%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.4%Daily Kos: 1.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 14.2%ProPublica: 2.7%Daily Kos: 4.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)14.2%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.4%Daily Kos: 0.5%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 1.0%Daily Kos: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.4%Daily Kos: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.1%Daily Kos: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 17.4%ProPublica: 2.7%Daily Kos: 2.1%Anecdotal17.4%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 6.1%ProPublica: 2.0%Daily Kos: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.1%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.1%Daily Kos: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.1%Daily Kos: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 2.9%ProPublica: 0.2%Daily Kos: 0.2%Special Pleading2.9%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.3%Daily Kos: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 2.3%Daily Kos: 2.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 1.4%ProPublica: 0.8%Daily Kos: 1.9%Quote-first Misdirection1.4%This article: 8.7%ProPublica: 2.7%Daily Kos: 23.2%Biased Writer Voice8.7%This article: 5.0%ProPublica: 0.2%Daily Kos: 2.1%Indoctrination5.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.4%Daily Kos: 10.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.1%Daily Kos: 0.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.8%Daily Kos: 2.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

760 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers26%attributed speech560writer 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 • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageDepartment of Homeland Security • 14 words • 0.0% coverageDepartment of Homeland Security • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageProPublica • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageAmerican Bar Association • 18 words • 0.0% coverageAngel Leal • 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 • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageDepartment of Homeland Security • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageProPublica • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageKevin Brennan • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageCharity Anastasio • 20 words • 0.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
59 attributed words30% of attributed speech97% writer coverage
0%20.0%40.0%Indoctrination+34.4 ptsWriter: 2.9%Department of Homeland Security: 37.3%37.3%Biased Writer Voice-11.8 ptsWriter: 11.8%Department of Homeland Security: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-2.0 ptsWriter: 2.0%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…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.