ICE must not be shielded from accountability | Letter 50%

By Deb Sayer95%

8/2/2026, 1:54:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, Confirmation Bias, and Availability Heuristic, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 37.2% saturation with 93 hits. Analysis detected 418 faulty-reasoning hits from 250 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 42.3% and a BS Rank of 50% (15,306 of 30,190 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 50.70% of the article peer group.

A letter to the editor by Duane Dumont of Leeds raises some real concerns (“I blame the Democrats and the media for ICE killing,” July 24) , but pointing fingers at the media or local officials skips over something pretty basic: law enforcement still has to follow its own rules. 
Agencies like ICE and local police have strict guidelines for pursuits and use of force. 
Asking whether those were followed in a dangerous situation isn’t “disrespecting authority.” 
It’s just making sure everyone stays safe. 
Respect doesn’t disappear when we ask questions. 
And we should stick to what’s actually true about national policy. 
Saying Vice President Harris “let millions” through the border doesn’t line up with how the system works. 
Her role was focused on diplomacy and the root causes of migration in Central America. 
Border operations fall under the Department of Homeland Security, and it continued enforcing federal law throughout that period. 
Same thing with the fencing vote back in 2006. 
Supporting targeted fencing isn’t the same as backing a 2,000‑mile wall. 
Security experts have said for years that technology and focused enforcement do a better job than a giant physical barrier. 
Our Founders built checks and balances for a reason. 
They didn’t want any part of government  law enforcement included  to operate without oversight. 
Following the law isn’t just something the public has to do. 
It’s something the people enforcing it have to do too. 
Donald Cailler 
Gardiner 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 15.2%Deb Sayer: 10.7%The Portland Press Herald: 2.0%Confirmation Bias15.2%This article: 0.0%Deb Sayer: 2.2%The Portland Press Herald: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 15.2%Deb Sayer: 2.8%The Portland Press Herald: 2.2%Availability Heuristic15.2%This article: 0.0%Deb Sayer: 0.8%The Portland Press Herald: 0.6%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Deb Sayer: 0.0%The Portland Press Herald: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Deb Sayer: 1.9%The Portland Press Herald: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 8.0%Deb Sayer: 12.8%The Portland Press Herald: 3.1%Framing Effect8.0%This article: 0.0%Deb Sayer: 0.7%The Portland Press Herald: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 10.4%Deb Sayer: 1.9%The Portland Press Herald: 0.4%Status Quo Bias10.4%This article: 0.0%Deb Sayer: 0.0%The Portland Press Herald: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Deb Sayer: 1.2%The Portland Press Herald: 3.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 6.8%Deb Sayer: 1.8%The Portland Press Herald: 0.7%Pessimism Bias6.8%This article: 2.8%Deb Sayer: 11.1%The Portland Press Herald: 2.3%Negativity Bias2.8%This article: 0.0%Deb Sayer: 0.0%The Portland Press Herald: 1.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Deb Sayer: 2.1%The Portland Press Herald: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Deb Sayer: 0.0%The Portland Press Herald: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Deb Sayer: 2.2%The Portland Press Herald: 1.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 6.0%Deb Sayer: 1.3%The Portland Press Herald: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias6.0%This article: 0.0%Deb Sayer: 0.5%The Portland Press Herald: 2.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Deb Sayer: 1.5%The Portland Press Herald: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Deb Sayer: 0.0%The Portland Press Herald: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Deb Sayer: 1.0%The Portland Press Herald: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 3.6%Deb Sayer: 2.1%The Portland Press Herald: 0.3%Primacy Effect3.6%This article: 0.0%Deb Sayer: 0.0%The Portland Press Herald: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Deb Sayer: 4.3%The Portland Press Herald: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Deb Sayer: 2.5%The Portland Press Herald: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 37.2%Deb Sayer: 6.9%The Portland Press Herald: 2.6%Appeal to Authority37.2%This article: 3.6%Deb Sayer: 4.8%The Portland Press Herald: 1.1%False Dilemma3.6%This article: 0.0%Deb Sayer: 0.0%The Portland Press Herald: 0.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Deb Sayer: 0.0%The Portland Press Herald: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Deb Sayer: 9.5%The Portland Press Herald: 2.0%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Deb Sayer: 0.3%The Portland Press Herald: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Deb Sayer: 0.8%The Portland Press Herald: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 2.8%Deb Sayer: 7.4%The Portland Press Herald: 2.9%Appeal to Emotion2.8%This article: 9.2%Deb Sayer: 3.4%The Portland Press Herald: 0.7%Begging the Question9.2%This article: 0.0%Deb Sayer: 1.2%The Portland Press Herald: 1.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Deb Sayer: 0.0%The Portland Press Herald: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Deb Sayer: 2.1%The Portland Press Herald: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Deb Sayer: 0.3%The Portland Press Herald: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Deb Sayer: 0.2%The Portland Press Herald: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Deb Sayer: 3.0%The Portland Press Herald: 2.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Deb Sayer: 0.0%The Portland Press Herald: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 11.2%Deb Sayer: 2.3%The Portland Press Herald: 0.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)11.2%This article: 0.0%Deb Sayer: 0.0%The Portland Press Herald: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Deb Sayer: 0.0%The Portland Press Herald: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Deb Sayer: 0.0%The Portland Press Herald: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Deb Sayer: 0.3%The Portland Press Herald: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Deb Sayer: 0.0%The Portland Press Herald: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Deb Sayer: 0.0%The Portland Press Herald: 0.6%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Deb Sayer: 1.3%The Portland Press Herald: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 8.0%Deb Sayer: 17.2%The Portland Press Herald: 3.5%Biased Writer Voice8.0%This article: 7.2%Deb Sayer: 10.0%The Portland Press Herald: 1.4%Indoctrination7.2%This article: 0.0%Deb Sayer: 13.6%The Portland Press Herald: 1.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Deb Sayer: 4.0%The Portland Press Herald: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 20.0%Deb Sayer: 1.6%The Portland Press Herald: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…20.0%

250 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker7.2%attributed speech232writer words
100%flagged-word coverage
18 attributed words100% of attributed speech94% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -21.6 ptsWriter: 21.6%organization name: Department of Homeland Security: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-8.6 ptsWriter: 8.6%organization name: Department of Homeland Security: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-7.8 ptsWriter: 7.8%organization name: 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.