Illegal aliens took to the streets to demand that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) be abolished, and Americans on social media expressed vehement opposition.
The dominant sentiment is one of concern about uncontrolled illegal immigration, with many people highlighting issues such as human trafficking and drug cartels.
The protest showed signs of careful organization, with professionally made signs and protesters marching in unison and singing on command.
Our Methodology
Demographics
All Voters
Sample Size
5,000
Geographical Breakdown
National
Time Period
1 Day
MIG Reports leverages EyesOver technology, employing Advanced AI for precise analysis. This ensures unparalleled precision, setting a new standard. Find out more about the unique data pull for this article.
On the 80th Anniversary of D-Day, illegal aliens organized a protest in New York City, blocked traffic and demanded Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) be abolished. MIG Reports analysis of American reactions shows unified disapproval.
The dominant sentiment Americans express is one of concern about uncontrolled illegal immigration. There are many comments highlighting issues of human trafficking and drug cartels. There is criticism of both Republican and Democrat politicians. Voters blame various representatives for damaging immigration policies, whether through inaction or misguided action.
The online conversation often includes derogatory and offensive remarks towards some politicians, demonstrating a high level of emotional intensity and strong political polarization on the border.
For instance, comments directed at politicians like Lauren Boebert and Ilhan Omar ranged from personal attacks to demands for expulsion or deportation. This hostility signals a high degree of controversy and animosity on the U.S. border crisis.
There is also a lot of mocking in online conversations as voters accuse certain representatives of hypocrisy or lack of effectiveness. The sentiment towards open borders is highly negative, with many expressing concerns about national security and maintaining the rule of law.
It seems most unhappy rhetoric comes from conservative-leaning individuals. They consistently express negative sentiment toward the border as a political issue, mentioning crime, border security, and national sovereignty. However, most Americans seem to have some anger or mockery and generally don't support the current border situation. This suggest that additional demographic groups share overall disapproval on border issues, but with different perspectives and emphasis than conservatives.
Stay Informed
Share:
More Like This
Public discourse about immigration and border security encompasses self-deportation programs to calls for mass removal without judicial review. Americans are adamant about rejecting leniency for uncompromising enforcement. Sentiment doubles down on the mandate to restore sovereignty, order, and fiscal sanity to a system many see as deliberately broken.
MIG Reports data shows, among American voters:
70-80% support mass deportation and strict border control
10-20% voice concern for due process and civil liberties
10% remain neutral or inject irony, often deriding both extremes
The dominant consensus is that the U.S. should enforcement first, due process later—if at all.
I’m pretty pro-Trump but tbh I can’t believe they’re deporting this guy just for being an illegal alien with an existing deportation order and several violent convictions including an arrest for rape https://t.co/F07vZj8SIQ
Trump's rollout of a self-deportation program, including flights and cash incentives, draws significant engagement. Many celebrate it as a clever policy trap to get illegals to leave before force is applied. Detractors call it humiliating but supporters say it’s brilliant. For both groups, self-deportation re-centers the debate and forces the opposition into a rhetorical corner.
Deporting Citizens
Liberals are discussing claims that Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee advanced a bill that would allow for the legal deportation of U.S. citizens. Most who support the administration do not take this claim seriously, accusing the media and Democrats of twisting facts. Critics say this is a dangerous trampling of citizens’ rights.
This is horrifying. Republicans voted to allow the fascist authoritarian Trump regime to deport US citizens. 2025 Trump America is 1934 Nazi Germany. There is no divergence. 😳👇 pic.twitter.com/NPXieoDLZQ
Several viral posts reference federal ICE officers being obstructed by local officials and activists. Calls for arrests of mayors, judges, and members of Congress are growing in online threads, with the public increasingly siding with field agents over activists.
BREAKING: Faith Ministers are BLOCKING the entrance to the ICE Detention Center, Delaney Hall in New Jersey where Newark Mayor Ras Baraka was arrested last week. pic.twitter.com/T5tzTewO3D
— Oliya Scootercaster 🛴 (@ScooterCasterNY) May 12, 2025
Racialized Amnesty Rejections
The administration fast-tracking white Afrikaners—while other refugee programs remain suspended—also dominates debate. To supporters, it’s a correction of past bias. To critics, it’s racism in policy form. This discussion has angered moderate voices on both sides and injected an ethnic dimension into an already volatile issue.
Turns out refugees can come to America waving American flags, not storm the border waving flags of their home countries.
Trump supporters passionately support his self-deportation program, calling it a “bombshell.” It’s a policy that resonates deeply with voters who believe the rule of law must be applied without exception and without apology.
Opposition to due process for illegal immigrants is growing. Many argue those who cross unlawfully forfeit constitutional protections, citing precedents from the Clinton and Obama years—where 75-90% of deportees received no hearings. Many say the legal system is being weaponized to delay justice and block Trump’s agenda.
Voters increasingly frame due process for illegal aliens as an open invitation to game the system. The rhetoric is uncompromising: “Deport every single one,” “No hearings,” “They don’t belong here.” These are becoming mainstream expressions of policy preference.
Refugee Politics and Racial Perception
One issue igniting online backlash is the administration’s decision to fast-track refugee status for a small number of white South Africans. While legal on paper, many see this as a racial double standard. The contrast is especially stark when compared to the treatment of Afghan, Central American, and Muslim migrants, who often face bureaucratic limbo or mass rejection.
This selective approach has triggered accusations of demographic engineering. Posts invoke the “Great Replacement” theory—not always by name, but often in spirit—arguing that immigration policy is being wielded to reshape the electorate.
Key Figures in the Administration
Tom Homan
Tom Homan generates near-universal praise on the right. He is viewed as the blueprint for serious enforcement: aggressive, unfiltered, and results driven. Supporters credit him with delivering a 98% drop in illegal crossings. His message resonates because it lacks euphemism. Homan represents decisive action in an age of executive excuses. More voters invoke his name as a symbol of national will.
TOM HOMAN ON MORNING JOE -- Not one person was vetted coming into America, now Democrats want to vet everyone we deport.pic.twitter.com/IC7IGiRGs8
Stephen Miller remains the ideological center of the enforcement-first doctrine. Supporters praise him for keeping immigration rooted in sovereignty, security, and identity. They credit him with initiatives like self-deportation and suspending habeas corpus in deportation proceedings.
While critics invoke fascism and use Nazi analogies to attack him, these denunciations have the unintended effect of solidifying his credibility with a populist-right audience that sees those attacks as badges of honor.
Pam Bondi
Pam Bondi is creating controversy between the media and voters. Media reports repeat allegations surrounding her past as a foreign lobbyist for Qatar, including earning more than $100,000 per month. They say her legal justification for Trump accepting a $400 million private jet from Qatar is suspect.
Bondi’s critics accuse her of helping legitimize constitutionally dubious behavior and turning a blind eye to institutional failures in border enforcement. Critics see her perceived coziness with foreign influence and her legal maneuvers around congressional oversight as clever but corrupt.
Donald Trump’s recent announcement of a sweeping executive order on prescription drug pricing ignites a fierce and fractured debate on the right. This exacerbates ongoing discussions about whether Casey Means is a good pick for Surgeon General.
While the MAHA movement (Make America Healthy Again) has strong grassroots momentum, it also creates internal tensions between populist reformers and institutional conservatives. Public discussion around these recent events is intense, polarized, and illustrative of how the new right is approaching certain issues like healthcare in ways that used to be reserved for populist Democrats.
BREAKING: President Donald Trump announces he will sign an Executive Order that will reduce Prescription Drug and Pharmaceutical prices. pic.twitter.com/gc83P0K9x1
MIG Reports data shows sharp ideological divisions:
Pro-MAHA voices say Trump’s moves are bold strikes against corrupt institutions, especially Big Pharma and the regulatory class.
Critics, including many on the right, warn of medical populism, unvetted leadership, and performative politics.
Discontent is growing among MAGA loyalists who are uneasy with MAHA’s rapid ascent and its perceived deviation from Trump’s original mandate.
MAHA Movement Discourse
MAHA is becoming a proxy for growing tensions among conservatives who find themselves under MAGA’s new, larger tent. Many say MAGA, known for challenging entrenched bureaucracies, should not let economic nationalism be replaced with medical populism.
Online discussions often use campaign-style slogans and frame Trump's drug price initiative as an anti-establishment health realignment. Still, a vocal contingent questions its coherence.
Critics say MAHA lacks operational maturity and relies too heavily on personality politics. Key factions are openly divided, with loyalists viewing MAHA as a necessary evolution and critics dismissing it as unserious or conspiratorial.
Trump’s Executive Order on Drug Pricing
Trump’s recent EO pegs U.S. pharmaceutical prices to those paid by foreign governments. Supporters say this is a long-overdue correction—including some on the left who have supported Democrats like Bernie Sanders. Many praise Trump for going after pharma profits directly, bypassing congressional inaction.
MAHA voices say the executive order is evidence that Trump is finally wielding federal power to protect working-class Americans from exploitative pricing schemes. Critics, however, see the order as symbolic and risky.
Some raise concerns about stifling R&D. Others point out the contradiction that costs may decrease in one area (pharmaceuticals) while rising elsewhere due to Trump’s high tariffs. Others say recent price claims are incoherent, citing one example of supposed 89% savings from tariffs, which actually resulted in a 30% cost increase.
RFK Jr. just exposed why everyone in DC is panicking about President Trump's executive order lowering drug prices.
"There's at least one pharmaceutical lobbyist for every congressman, every senator on Capitol Hill, and every member of the Supreme Court... The industry itself… pic.twitter.com/lywGOCSZ1z
Nominating Casey Means as Surgeon General amplifies divisions. Supporters say she represents a necessary outsider perspective willing to take on entrenched interests. They say ties to RFK Jr. and the broader MAHA movement show ideological coherence and reformist intent.
Yet many conservatives are deeply skeptical. Questions over her qualifications, ties to alternative health circles, and lack of mainstream medical credentials dominate much of the backlash. Critics say her nomination risks politicizing public health further and undermining the credibility of Trump’s administration at a critical juncture.
These concerns extend to institutional sabotage. One major flashpoint is the disappearance of the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink, which many claim sabotages MAHA-aligned studies. Posts demand criminal accountability for former CDC leaders, accusing them of obstructing reform through data suppression.
Cultural and Political Underpinnings
MAHA’s rise reflects a shift in conservative identity. The policy disputes are laced with cultural symbolism, including memes, ridicule, and factional trolling. MAHA supporters accuse establishment conservatives of protecting pharma interests. Detractors dismiss MAHA activists as unserious or delusional.
Posts reveal a shared frustration with elite governance but no shared plan for replacing it. The conflict is growing into a power struggle between MAGA traditionalists and MAHA newcomers, with Trump caught in the middle—seeking to reassert control while keeping both factions engaged.
The selection of Pope Leo XIV, the first American-born pontiff has been big news worldwide. For Americans, already divided by ideology, identity, and institutional distrust, the papacy has become yet another proxy battlefield.
For millions of Americans, religious discussions spill over into talk of power, nationalism, and whether faith will be used to restore order or reinforce globalist decline. Various voter group lines blur regarding issues like papal authority, which do not directly correlate with political divisions.
Seeing a lot of hot takes of people trying to figure out if the pope is conservative or not because he's pro-life but he's also pro-immigration and care for the poor. Idk, guys. Call me crazy, but I think the pope might be Catholic.
The reaction among political conservatives is sharply split. About 50% support Pope Leo XIV’s emphasis on tradition and moral clarity, while the other half distrust his public criticism of Trump-era policies.
Many MAGA voters see the pope’s humanitarian rhetoric—especially around immigration—as thinly veiled progressive messaging. For them, his social commentary on due process and border enforcement feels like a rebuke of the nationalist resurgence they support.
Among liberals, reactions are more unified—though in disapproval. 70-85% of liberal voters criticize the pope for failing to embrace modern progressive dogmas. To them, his message of mercy sounds hollow without support for identity politics, gender ideology, or radical wealth redistribution. The papacy, once a darling of social justice warriors under Francis, is now seen as compromised—too religious to be woke, too American to be trusted.
Independents and centrists express a more cynical mix of disengagement and frustration. For many, the pope is just the latest symbol of institutional figureheads they believe are co-opted by politics or ideology.
American Religious Reactions
Catholic voters are cautiously supportive. 60-65% approve of the new pope’s humanitarian tone and focus on compassion. However, about 35% voice skepticism, citing concerns over nationalism, resurfaced abuse cover-up allegations, and potential politicization of the Vatican.
Evangelicals are more decisive in their rejection. 70% disapprove of Pope Leo XIV’s messaging, with only 30% expressing any support. Many accuse him of diluting biblical authority or positioning himself between Christ and believers—which is their consistent critique of Catholicism in general.
Among non-Catholic Christians overall, the split is closer, with 55% in support and 45% disapproving, largely hinging on their views of how closely religious institutions should align with American sovereignty and moral clarity.
Cultural Symbolism and National Identity
Online, the pope has become a cultural meme as well as a religious leader. MAGA-aligned posters often sarcastically declare, “Tariffs are working! Even the Pope is made in America.” These messages reflect a deeper symbolic point about American identity rebounding in 2025. To some, this is a cause for celebration. To others, it represents cultural overreach and the blurring of church and state lines.
There’s also a practical narrative emerging that Trump’s “America First” movement is reshaping expectations of leadership—even in Rome. While Pope Leo XIV may not align with MAGA ideologically, many view the fact that he’s American as an indication that nationalist momentum has cultural staying power.
Corruption, Allegations, and Weaponized Faith
Reactions to past allegations against the pope, particularly from his time in Peru and Chicago, are sharply divided. The core accusation is that during he failed to hold abusive clergy accountable. Among Catholics, 55% disapprove of his elevation on these grounds, while 45% view the criticism as politically motivated.
For conservatives already skeptical of the Vatican’s institutional integrity, these allegations reinforce a broader narrative of elite corruption—where accountability never applies at the top, even in the Church.
Among liberal Christians, 80% disapprove of the pope’s record and tone, citing concerns over transparency, abuse cover-ups, and doctrinal rigidity. Here, the discontent is rooted in the idea that the Church, like the state, has failed to modernize or fully reckon with its past.
For both sides, “corruption” is the rallying word—applied broadly to both religious and political institutions. Americans are critical of institutional corruption wherever it exists, including in the church.
Border Politics and the Immigration Flashpoint
One of the most polarized aspects of public reaction concerns immigration. Roughly 85% of conservatives reject the pope’s stance on the U.S. border, especially his alleged critiques of Trump’s policies and his perceived endorsement of immigration leniency.
This backlash is political more than religious. For the American right, border sovereignty is non-negotiable. The pope’s language around mercy and due process is seen as enabling an already broken system.
In contrast, about 80% of liberals celebrate the pope’s approach to migrant care, viewing it as a counterbalance to inhumane border enforcement. Among Catholics and Christians overall, the split is close—around 45% approval and 50% disapproval—reflecting a broader tension between Christian compassion and the reality of national security.
Many interpret the pope’s immigration comments as political dog whistles which affirm open borders and undermine Trump’s hardline immigration policies. The pope’s position makes him a symbolic figure in the battle over American identity and the rule of law.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)