Skip to main content

Influence Tactics Analysis Results

37
Influence Tactics Score
out of 100
56% confidence
Moderate manipulation indicators. Some persuasion patterns present.
Optimized for English content.
Analyzed Content
X (Twitter)

Inez Stepman ⚪️🔴⚪️ on X

Most of the guys ICE is going out to get at home are people with other interactions with either state law enforcement or courts. Usually, those guys just call ice to come pick up the aliens in their custody. Because of sanctuary laws, that doesn’t happen and IcE has to go out and…

Posted by Inez Stepman ⚪️🔴⚪️
View original →

Analysis Factors

Confidence
False Dilemmas 3/5
Implies only two paths—notify ICE from custody or force risky home arrests—omitting other enforcement options.
Us vs. Them Dynamic 3/5
Divides into sanctuary policy supporters (implied obstructive) vs. implied pro-enforcement side, framing laws as causing community disruption.
Simplistic Narratives 4/5
Reduces complex enforcement to binary: sanctuary laws = home raids vs. cooperation = easy pickups, ignoring nuances.
Timing Coincidence 1/5
Organic timing amid Jan 2026 ICE raids in Minnesota/LA/NJ sanctuaries where home arrests spark complaints; directly counters protests by explaining raids result from local non-cooperation, no distraction from other news.
Historical Parallels 2/5
Minor similarity to recurring US immigration rhetoric on sanctuary 'dangers' and ICE myths, as in past Trump-era fact-checks, but no propaganda playbook match.
Financial/Political Gain 3/5
Advances GOP/Trump agenda against sanctuary policies, aligning with DHS calls for cooperation and states like Florida boasting smooth arrests; benefits ideological push without named financial actors.
Bandwagon Effect 1/5
No claims of widespread agreement or 'everyone knows'; presents as insider process explanation.
Rapid Behavior Shifts 3/5
Amid raid surge and Minnesota protests, narrative pressures view shift by blaming locals for 'forcing' street/home ops; trending with DHS criminal lists.
Phrase Repetition 4/5
Matches widespread conservative X talking point post-raids, e.g., 'sanctuary policies lead to ICE demanding papers in the streets'; near-verbatim in multiple posts.
Logical Fallacies 3/5
Post hoc: assumes sanctuary laws solely cause home raids without proving causation.
Authority Overload 1/5
No cited experts, officials, or sources; relies on unnamed 'usually' process.
Cherry-Picked Data 2/5
Focuses on criminals with 'other interactions' without quantifying or comparing to total arrests.
Framing Techniques 4/5
Uses 'aliens' (legal but charged term), 'guys ICE is going out to get' (casual criminalizes), blames 'sanctuary laws' loadedly.
Suppression of Dissent 1/5
No mention or labeling of critics.
Context Omission 4/5
Omits details on ICE raid procedures, warrant use, non-criminal targets, or sanctuary law legality; cuts off mid-sentence.
Novelty Overuse 1/5
No 'unprecedented' or 'shocking' claims; describes routine prior to sanctuary laws without hype.
Emotional Repetition 1/5
Single instance of implication without repeated emotional words like 'danger' or 'crisis.'
Manufactured Outrage 3/5
Blames sanctuary laws for ICE home visits without factual outrage anchor, potentially stoking frustration over policy but tied to described process.
Urgent Action Demands 1/5
No demands for immediate action, reader response, or sharing; purely explanatory about ICE processes.
Emotional Triggers 3/5
Mild us-vs-them framing pits 'sanctuary laws' against public safety by implying they force disruptive ICE actions, but lacks intense fear or outrage triggers like threats to readers.

Identified Techniques

Loaded Language Appeal to fear-prejudice Name Calling, Labeling Reductio ad hitlerum Straw Man

What to Watch For

This messaging appears coordinated. Look for independent sources with different framing.
This content frames an 'us vs. them' narrative. Consider perspectives from 'the other side'.
Key context may be missing. What questions does this content NOT answer?

This content shows some manipulation indicators. Consider the source and verify key claims.

Was this analysis helpful?
Share this analysis
Share on X Facebook LinkedIn
Analyze Something Else