The story makes several claims about the financial and social impacts of the Biden administration's border policies, which require verification for accuracy. For instance, it states that New York City spends around $4 billion annually on migrant support and estimates a total cost of $12 billion by mid-2025. These figures need confirmation from credible sources to ensure precision. Similarly, the claim that the Trump administration reduced illegal entries by more than 90% lacks specific data or sources to support this assertion. Additionally, the story mentions that federal courts issued 79 nationwide injunctions against Trump, a claim that should be cross-referenced with legal records to confirm its validity. Overall, the article presents several specific figures and assertions that are not backed by direct evidence, reducing its factual accuracy.

The article predominantly presents a critical view of the Biden administration's immigration policies, with little to no representation of alternative perspectives. The narrative is heavily skewed towards highlighting the alleged negative consequences of these policies, such as increased crime and financial burden on cities like New York. There is a lack of balance in presenting the potential benefits or rationale behind the Biden administration's approach to immigration. Furthermore, the story does not include responses or statements from Biden administration officials or experts who might offer a different viewpoint, leading to a one-sided portrayal of the issue.

The article is written in a clear and straightforward manner, making it relatively easy to understand the main points and arguments. The language is direct, and the structure follows a logical progression, discussing various aspects of the alleged consequences of Biden's immigration policies. However, the tone is somewhat sensational and biased, which can affect the reader's perception of the information. While the article is clear in its presentation, the lack of neutrality and the use of emotionally charged language can detract from the overall clarity and objectivity of the piece.

The article does not provide specific sources or references to support its claims, which undermines the credibility and reliability of the information presented. While it mentions figures and statements, such as those attributed to former Attorney General Bill Barr, it lacks direct citations or links to original documents or reports. The absence of diverse and authoritative sources, such as government reports, expert analyses, or direct quotes from involved parties, further diminishes the quality of the reporting. The reliance on a single perspective without corroborating evidence from multiple sources raises concerns about the impartiality and thoroughness of the reporting.

The article lacks transparency in disclosing the basis for its claims and the methodology used to arrive at the figures and conclusions presented. There is no explanation of how the financial estimates, such as the $4 billion annual cost to New York City, were calculated or what data was used to support these numbers. Additionally, the article does not clarify any potential conflicts of interest or biases that may influence the narrative, such as the author's affiliations or the editorial stance of the platform. The lack of transparency in sourcing and methodology makes it difficult for readers to assess the validity of the information.