The article presents a range of claims regarding immigration enforcement under President Trump, including the deportation of individuals without criminal records and the detention of international students. These claims align with known policies, such as expanded expedited removal, but specific cases like those of Kilmar Abrego Garcia and Andry Hernandez Romero require further verification. The story's mention of public opinion shifts is supported by polling data, though the exact framing of questions in the AP-NORC survey is not detailed, which could affect interpretations of the data. Overall, the article is largely accurate but includes some unverifiable specifics and lacks direct evidence for certain dramatic claims.

The story attempts to provide a balanced view by including perspectives from both supporters and critics of Trump's immigration policies. It highlights Republican approval and Democratic opposition, citing specific individuals and their opinions. However, the article could benefit from more diverse viewpoints, particularly from neutral experts or those directly affected by the policies. The narrative tends to focus on the political implications rather than the humanitarian impact, which may skew the perception of balance.

The article is generally clear in its presentation of information, with a logical flow from one topic to the next. However, the inclusion of unrelated ad code snippets disrupts the reading experience and detracts from the clarity of the narrative. Additionally, some complex issues are oversimplified, which may lead to misunderstandings about the nuances of immigration policies and their effects.

The article references polling data from the AP-NORC Center and quotes from political figures, providing some level of credibility. However, it lacks detailed attribution for certain claims, such as the use of 'masked federal agents' and the specific cases of wrongful deportation. The reliance on unnamed sources or general statements without clear sourcing affects the overall reliability of the information presented.

While the article provides a broad overview of the situation, it lacks transparency in terms of methodology and sourcing for specific claims. The absence of detailed explanations for polling data and the lack of direct citations for certain statements hinder the reader's ability to fully understand the basis of the claims. More explicit disclosure of sources and methods would enhance transparency.