BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Anchoring Bias, and Confirmation Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 16.6% saturation with 80 hits. Analysis detected 545 faulty-reasoning hits from 483 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 36.9% and a BS Rank of 37% (18,233 of 28,788 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 63.30% of the article peer group.

The Trump administration pledged to define itself largely by a hard-line approach to immigration. 
In keeping with that promise, it is pursuing what the government calls the "largest denaturalization effort ever." 
Denaturalization isn't new, but it has been used sparingly in modern history, in part because it is extremely costly and time-consuming amid finite resources. 
An immigrant may be denaturalized for a few reasons, including misrepresenting themselves to the government in a way that helped them obtain citizenship and committing certain crimes prior to naturalization occurring. 
This week, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that it had pinpointed 25 naturalized immigrants whose citizenship it would seek to revoke. 
"Today's filings represent the largest coordinated denaturalization effort in Department history, but they are only the beginning," Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a statement on Monday. 
"The Justice Department will continue to use every tool available to protect the integrity of the naturalization process and the safety of the American people." 
The move comes shortly after the administration's July announcement that it would seek "to revoke U.S. citizenship from 10 naturalized criminals including child molesters, scammers, and drug dealers." 
The cases appear to be largely in line with the ones previous administrations pursued. 
The departure is mostly that it is now a priority as opposed to an outlier. 
From 1990 to 2017, the DOJ filed 305 denaturalization cases. 
Trump's second administration, meanwhile, has filed 123 cases in a little over a year and a half, the government said. 
In April of this year, it was revealed that the Justice Department had 384 people in its sights for denaturalization; the administration has set a quota for denaturalization referrals from the Department of Homeland Security. 
It is generally difficult to strip someone of citizenship after it has been conferred. 
The government must meet a high burden of proof, and the subjects of such cases are entitled to a much more robust process than non-naturalized potential deportees. 
The diversion of limited resources, The New York Times notes, may affect how the DOJ is able to approach priorities like "health-care fraud, procurement fraud, enforcement of civil rights laws, and asset forfeiture cases." 
(I will admit that the government focusing less on seizing assets from people who are potentially innocent, in favor of deporting offenders found guilty of crimes, does not necessarily seem scandalous to me. 
But I digress.) 
As with the administration's earlier push to expel various students from the U.S., making denaturalization a priority will not do much to inflate the White House's raw deportation numbers. 
Though President Donald Trump came to office promising the largest mass deportation campaign in history, his administration has generally deported people at similar rates as previous presidents, to the dismay of some conservatives. 
But the rejiggering of priorities is a reminder that the bigger change here is one of public relations. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.8%Billy Binion: 2.9%Reason.com: 4.2%Confirmation Bias6.8%This article: 7.2%Billy Binion: 0.8%Reason.com: 0.6%Anchoring Bias7.2%This article: 0.0%Billy Binion: 2.9%Reason.com: 2.1%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 2.9%Billy Binion: 1.3%Reason.com: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic2.9%This article: 6.0%Billy Binion: 1.2%Reason.com: 0.6%Hindsight Bias6.0%This article: 0.0%Billy Binion: 0.9%Reason.com: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 5.4%Billy Binion: 10.0%Reason.com: 5.4%Framing Effect5.4%This article: 0.0%Billy Binion: 0.9%Reason.com: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 3.1%Billy Binion: 1.1%Reason.com: 0.5%Status Quo Bias3.1%This article: 0.0%Billy Binion: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Billy Binion: 0.7%Reason.com: 1.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 6.8%Billy Binion: 1.0%Reason.com: 1.5%Pessimism Bias6.8%This article: 16.6%Billy Binion: 7.1%Reason.com: 7.2%Negativity Bias16.6%This article: 0.0%Billy Binion: 0.8%Reason.com: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 3.7%Billy Binion: 0.6%Reason.com: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error3.7%This article: 0.0%Billy Binion: 0.1%Reason.com: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Billy Binion: 0.7%Reason.com: 0.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Billy Binion: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Billy Binion: 0.5%Reason.com: 0.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Billy Binion: 0.3%Reason.com: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Billy Binion: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.8%Billy Binion: 1.0%Reason.com: 0.9%Recency Bias5.8%This article: 0.0%Billy Binion: 0.2%Reason.com: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Billy Binion: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Billy Binion: 0.6%Reason.com: 1.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Billy Binion: 0.2%Reason.com: 0.9%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Billy Binion: 3.0%Reason.com: 3.7%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 3.7%Billy Binion: 1.5%Reason.com: 1.7%False Dilemma3.7%This article: 0.0%Billy Binion: 0.2%Reason.com: 1.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Billy Binion: 0.1%Reason.com: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Billy Binion: 4.5%Reason.com: 5.3%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Billy Binion: 0.1%Reason.com: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 6.8%Billy Binion: 0.5%Reason.com: 0.3%Bandwagon6.8%This article: 0.0%Billy Binion: 5.5%Reason.com: 3.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Billy Binion: 0.4%Reason.com: 1.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 6.0%Billy Binion: 1.0%Reason.com: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.0%This article: 0.0%Billy Binion: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 5.6%Billy Binion: 0.4%Reason.com: 0.8%Burden of Proof5.6%This article: 0.0%Billy Binion: 0.1%Reason.com: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Billy Binion: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Billy Binion: 2.1%Reason.com: 1.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Billy Binion: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.9%Billy Binion: 1.0%Reason.com: 1.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.9%This article: 0.0%Billy Binion: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Billy Binion: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 6.8%Billy Binion: 0.3%Reason.com: 0.1%Personal Incredulity6.8%This article: 0.0%Billy Binion: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Billy Binion: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Billy Binion: 1.5%Reason.com: 1.6%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Billy Binion: 1.8%Reason.com: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 16.6%Billy Binion: 7.8%Reason.com: 8.1%Biased Writer Voice16.6%This article: 0.0%Billy Binion: 1.0%Reason.com: 1.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Billy Binion: 0.8%Reason.com: 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Billy Binion: 0.1%Reason.com: 1.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Billy Binion: 0.3%Reason.com: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

483 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker11%attributed speech430writer words
Selected voice

Todd Blanche

53%flagged-word coverage
53 attributed words100% of attributed speech71% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Biased Writer Voice-18.6 ptsWriter: 18.6%Todd Blanche: 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.