Who would stop for an unmarked car? ICE needs better tactics. | Opinion ⁠74%

By Letters to the Editor⁠69%

7/25/2026, 4:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Appeal to Emotion, and Hasty Generalization, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 43.5% saturation with 251 hits. Analysis detected 1,292 faulty-reasoning hits from 577 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 59.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠74% (7,283 of 27,739 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 73.70% of the article peer group.

Rolling back Regarding “Fatal ICE encounters, reversal over vehicle stops are first major test for DHS Secretary Mullin,” (July 15): I was unhappy to read that Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullins was backing down from his decision to suspend vehicle stops when President Donald Trump contradicted that idea. 
Even if everything the U.S. 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement said is true about the killings this past week, it is obvious that the agents need more training for vehicle stops at the very least. 
Who would stop for unmarked vehicles when it looks like a carjacking? 
Why are there quotas when supposedly they are targeting only the worst of the worst? 
Former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem sent prisoners to El Salvador when it is likely unconstitutional, through the Constitution, which states that "no person" can be deprived of their liberty without due process. 
Now the department under Mullin is continuing some of the awful practices started under Noem. 
Congress needs to pass — and has needed to for a long time — guest worker authorizations, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals bills, etc. and end this blatant cruelty from the Trump administration, led by a president with no concept of the law or compassion. 
Julia Wangler, Houston Citizenship Regarding “I’m from the East End. 
Lorenzo Salgado reminds me of the best parts of Houston. 
| Opinion” (July 15): It seems to me that just closing our borders is not enough. 
We must make the process of becoming a citizen more achievable. 
I do not understand how a person who entered our country illegally or undocumented can live, attend years of school or even college, and hold down a decent job for years and yet never become a citizen. 
I know it costs money and knowledge of U.S. history to become a citizen — and other concerns — but to allow this situation to continue is insane. 
As they enjoy the benefits of living in the U.S., shouldn't they want to become a legal part and live without fear? 
We must create a better and practical alternative to help them achieve citizenship. 
Carol Wiener, Houston Identity Regarding “How ICE operates in Texas faces new scrutiny after fatal shooting,” (July 10): ICE agents present themselves like outlaws and appear to assume this identity. 
Dressed in plain clothes, wearing masks and brandishing guns, they resemble actors who, in countless westerns, rob trains and banks. 
Their excuse is that they need to protect their identities. 
Why? 
They don't live in the communities like our police do. 
Our police, who might be neighbors of ours, go about their work with transparency, wearing uniforms and body cameras. 
They do traffic stops, knock on doors and we know they represent the law. 
If ICE agents did likewise, perhaps their behavior would improve, and we could look on them as being professionals instead of thugs. 
That is, if they didn't have quotas that fuel their hunt for prey. 
Maybe Salgado did try to escape. 
Why would he not be afraid? 
Elizabeth Harrison, Houston Why is it that we never hear about ICE ever arresting any real criminals? 
They say that they know where all of them are located. 
We have cameras everywhere, facial recognition systems, license plate tracking. 
ICE knows how to find addresses. 
I guess ICE is too scared to circle these areas and pick criminals up in mass. 
Greg Layton, Houston 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Letters to the Editor: 2.0%Houston Chronicle: 2.5%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Letters to the Editor: 0.1%Houston Chronicle: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.0%Letters to the Editor: 3.2%Houston Chronicle: 2.2%Availability Heuristic4.0%This article: 0.0%Letters to the Editor: 0.5%Houston Chronicle: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Letters to the Editor: 0.4%Houston Chronicle: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 1.0%Letters to the Editor: 1.0%Houston Chronicle: 1.0%Overconfidence Bias1.0%This article: 2.8%Letters to the Editor: 3.5%Houston Chronicle: 3.5%Framing Effect2.8%This article: 0.0%Letters to the Editor: 0.6%Houston Chronicle: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Letters to the Editor: 0.4%Houston Chronicle: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Letters to the Editor: 0.1%Houston Chronicle: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 9.5%Letters to the Editor: 1.5%Houston Chronicle: 1.6%Optimism Bias9.5%This article: 7.5%Letters to the Editor: 1.3%Houston Chronicle: 1.0%Pessimism Bias7.5%This article: 43.5%Letters to the Editor: 4.8%Houston Chronicle: 4.7%Negativity Bias43.5%This article: 0.0%Letters to the Editor: 0.7%Houston Chronicle: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 4.0%Letters to the Editor: 1.2%Houston Chronicle: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error4.0%This article: 0.0%Letters to the Editor: 0.2%Houston Chronicle: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 3.3%Letters to the Editor: 1.1%Houston Chronicle: 0.9%In-Group Bias3.3%This article: 0.0%Letters to the Editor: 0.4%Houston Chronicle: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 3.3%Letters to the Editor: 1.7%Houston Chronicle: 1.8%Halo Effect3.3%This article: 0.0%Letters to the Editor: 0.2%Houston Chronicle: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Letters to the Editor: 0.1%Houston Chronicle: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.6%Letters to the Editor: 0.6%Houston Chronicle: 0.8%Recency Bias2.6%This article: 0.0%Letters to the Editor: 0.3%Houston Chronicle: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Letters to the Editor: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 14.0%Letters to the Editor: 2.4%Houston Chronicle: 0.3%Ad Hominem14.0%This article: 0.0%Letters to the Editor: 0.7%Houston Chronicle: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.7%Letters to the Editor: 3.3%Houston Chronicle: 2.6%Appeal to Authority5.7%This article: 13.2%Letters to the Editor: 2.9%Houston Chronicle: 0.6%False Dilemma13.2%This article: 2.6%Letters to the Editor: 1.5%Houston Chronicle: 0.3%Slippery Slope2.6%This article: 0.0%Letters to the Editor: 0.1%Houston Chronicle: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 18.4%Letters to the Editor: 6.2%Houston Chronicle: 2.8%Hasty Generalization18.4%This article: 0.0%Letters to the Editor: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Letters to the Editor: 1.2%Houston Chronicle: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 19.8%Letters to the Editor: 9.2%Houston Chronicle: 3.9%Appeal to Emotion19.8%This article: 10.2%Letters to the Editor: 1.1%Houston Chronicle: 0.5%Begging the Question10.2%This article: 3.8%Letters to the Editor: 1.2%Houston Chronicle: 1.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.8%This article: 0.0%Letters to the Editor: 0.2%Houston Chronicle: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 1.0%Letters to the Editor: 0.2%Houston Chronicle: 0.5%Burden of Proof1.0%This article: 0.0%Letters to the Editor: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Letters to the Editor: 0.3%Houston Chronicle: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 6.4%Letters to the Editor: 4.8%Houston Chronicle: 1.8%Anecdotal6.4%This article: 0.0%Letters to the Editor: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.1%Letters to the Editor: 0.4%Houston Chronicle: 0.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.1%This article: 0.0%Letters to the Editor: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Letters to the Editor: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 6.4%Letters to the Editor: 0.4%Houston Chronicle: 0.1%Personal Incredulity6.4%This article: 0.0%Letters to the Editor: 0.1%Houston Chronicle: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Letters to the Editor: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.9%Letters to the Editor: 2.3%Houston Chronicle: 0.8%Unattributed Quote1.9%This article: 0.0%Letters to the Editor: 0.2%Houston Chronicle: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 22.4%Letters to the Editor: 4.7%Houston Chronicle: 1.9%Biased Writer Voice22.4%This article: 12.0%Letters to the Editor: 5.0%Houston Chronicle: 1.1%Indoctrination12.0%This article: 2.6%Letters to the Editor: 3.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias2.6%This article: 0.0%Letters to the Editor: 0.1%Houston Chronicle: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Letters to the Editor: 1.6%Houston Chronicle: 1.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

577 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers10%attributed speech517writer words
Selected voice

Carol Wiener

0%flagged-word coverage
30 attributed words50% of attributed speech93% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Biased Writer Voice-25.0 ptsWriter: 25.0%Carol Wiener: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-13.3 ptsWriter: 13.3%Carol Wiener: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-2.9 ptsWriter: 2.9%Carol Wiener: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-2.1 ptsWriter: 2.1%Carol Wiener: 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.