ICE must not be shielded from accountability | Letter 46%

By Deb Sayer91%

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 46% (14,241 of 26,004 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 54.80% 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 
Confirmation Bias
15.2%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
15.2%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
8%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
10.4%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
6.8%
Negativity Bias
2.8%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
6%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
0%
Primacy Effect
3.6%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
37.2%
False Dilemma
3.6%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
0%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
2.8%
Begging the Question
9.2%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
0%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
0%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
0%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
11.2%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
0%
Quote-first Misdirection
0%
Biased Writer Voice
8%
Indoctrination
7.2%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
20%

250 words analyzed.

Analysis

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