Online discussion analysis by MIG Reports finds widespread frustration and blame towards Democrats and specific politicians, such as Speaker Johnson, for the opioid crisis and fentanyl deaths. It appears much of the spirited discussion is among those who align with right-leaning ideologies.

Many voters link illegal immigration to crime, including violent crimes and especially drug-related offenses. There is a prevalent belief among this group that cartels and illegal immigrants pose a significant threat to American safety and security.

Overall, Americans link the opioid crisis to border control policies. Some suggest Republicans are responsible for not funding border control adequately, thereby enabling the smuggling of fentanyl and other opioids into the country. There's also criticism of the Democrats for the perception that they’re allowing and even encouraging illegal criminals and opioids to enter the country.

• Border security continues to be one of the top issues for most Americans, regardless of political leanings.
• Sentiment mostly remains below 50% with severe negativity directed towards the Biden administration
• Opioid discussion is lower than general border topics but is consistently linked to border security.

Most Blame Falls on Politicians and the Cartels

Most voters tend to blame politicians on the other side of the aisle – Democrats accusing Republicans and vice versa. Both political parties receive criticism for not taking enough action to curb the crisis, although the Biden administration gets most of the current criticism.

There's also significant blame placed on the cartels and illegal immigrants themselves. Many voters focus on the role of Mexico and China in contributing to the opioid crisis. They believe the Mexican government, especially President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, isn't doing enough to combat drug cartels that smuggle fentanyl into the U.S. China is also accused of being a source of fentanyl that gets moved across the U.S. border.

Multiple users link the opioid epidemic to human trafficking, implying the same cartels responsible for drug trafficking are likely involved in human trafficking. There are also allegations that NGOs at the southern border are facilitating illegal immigration, indirectly aiding drug trafficking.

Overall, most concerned voters argue the Biden administration's border policies enable drug cartels to have free reign.

Conservatives Are Highly Critical of the Border and Opioids

Right leaning voters often blame the Obama’s open borders policy and the perceived continuation of this policy under Biden. They attribute the opioid crisis and especially fentanyl deaths to uncontrolled cartel access. Many among this group believe if Donald Trump doesn't win in 2024, this will perpetuate and worsen the situation.

Conservatives and some moderates express anger over what they view as wasteful government spending, particularly on policies supporting immigrants. They blame the Democrats for prioritizing funding towards illegal immigrants over addressing the opioid crisis.

This group also blames open borders for many drug-related and, in their view, preventable deaths. They hold Democrats responsible for pushing open borders, and they demand stronger border control measures.

Certain voters blame Republican politicians like Speaker Johnson and Republicans in Congress for not taking decisive action against on the border and failing to support more immigration legislation and crackdowns. This, they believe, contributes to the influx of drugs into the country. There also appears to be a sentiment that the issue is being used as a “talking point” for political gain.

Liberal Voters Call for Funding and Healthcare Solutions

Some vocal liberals challenge the prevailing narrative that stricter border control is the primary solution to the opioid crisis. They argue most fentanyl enters the country through legal ports of entry and is brought in by American citizens. Some also criticize Republicans for blocking funding that could increase border staff and improve drug detection technology.

There is a sentiment that the healthcare system and doctors are contributing to the opioid crisis by refusing to prescribe opioids. There are criticisms of the healthcare system blaming it for penalizing doctors for prescribing painkillers and making opioids difficult to access for those in genuine need.

Some support new laws to curb the opioid crisis, and sometimes legalization of drugs, indicating a belief in legislative solutions to public health problems. There is also a call for bipartisan cooperation to address the crisis, framing it as a moral issue rather than a political one.

Online commentary concerning opioids is a large, varied topic which produces a lower sentiment than conversations pertaining to drug enforcement. 

Some of the common discussion include:

Fentanyl

There's a widespread concern about the proliferation of fentanyl in the illegal drug supply — a highly potent synthetic opioid. Many Americans express fear and confusion about reasons for its presence, given the drug's high lethality. They see fentanyl as counterproductive for drug dealers or the cartels. Some people believe the introduction of fentanyl is a deliberate act to harm or kill users, and there are theories that it is part of a broader conspiracy. Many also acknowledge the extreme danger posed by fentanyl, with some likening its use to playing Russian roulette. Others connect the presence of fentanyl in drugs to the need for changes in border policy.

Opioid Crisis

The opioid crisis is a significant point of discussion, with criticism aimed at politicians and pharmaceutical companies for their roles in the epidemic. Many feel these entities are profiting from the crisis and doing nothing to stop it. There's also a sense of frustration and anger over the perceived lack of action and accountability in addressing the issue, along with related border and crime issues.

Personal Responsibility

Some users emphasize the importance of personal responsibility in drug use, arguing that individuals must make the choice not to consume drugs. However, this viewpoint is not universally shared. Some point to external factors like the availability and potency of drugs and the difficulty of getting clean.

Drug Legislation

There's skepticism about the effectiveness of drug legislation in curbing the drug problem, with some viewing proposed initiatives like the END FENTANYL ACT with cynicism. There's a sense that previous legislation has only made the situation worse, and there's little faith that future legislation will be any different.

Drug Prohibition

Some users see drug prohibition as a significant factor in drug-related deaths, arguing that it forces people to use unregulated drugs and contributes to the prevalence of dangerous substances like fentanyl. There are calls for drugs to be regulated and sold in the same way as alcohol.

The Effect on Families and Communities

The impact of drug use and addiction on families and communities is a recurring theme. Users share personal stories of loss and devastation caused by drug addiction, particularly from fentanyl poisoning. There's also a sense that certain communities, like those with high opioid use, are stigmatized and overlooked.

Recent news of a Haitian migrant being charged with raping a 15-year-old girl has American voters outraged. The offender, a parolee from Haiti, came to the U.S. through President Biden’s “Humanitarian Parole Program.” According to Fox News, the controversial program allows 30,000 migrants a month to fly directly into the country.

Many say this unforgivable immigration plan both contributes to Biden’s “open borders” problem and gives credence to Trump’s claims that Democrats are bringing criminals into this country through unchecked immigration.

Stories like this and the recent murder of Laken Riley have many American citizens outraged and demanding action. MIG Reports analysis reveals that sentiment toward Biden's Humanitarian Parole Program is largely negative. The main concerns appear to center around border control, safety, and the rule of law.

Voters Believe Biden Supports Open Borders

Many voters express frustration with what they see as a Biden administration open borders policy. People are calling for the southern border to be sealed and for mass deportations – something Trump has promised to do.

Overall, right leaning and moderate voters believe the parole program is a conduit for illegal immigration and are demanding stricter border control.

American Communities in Danger

Fear about safety is a prominent source of objection to continued illegal immigration. There's a common perception in discussions that the parole program is enabling criminal activities. Many point out that flying convicted prisoners into the U.S. will obviously lead to an influx of active criminals, increasing violence in American streets.

Demands to Uphold the Rule of Law

Many Americans also indicate a strong belief that those entering the country illegally are committing a federal crime and should be treated as criminals, not as newcomers. This, they say, is especially true for those who are already convicted criminals in their own countries. There's a sense of outrage over perceived protection and rights given to these illegal immigrants.

Impact on Citizens with Biden to Blame

There's a strong sentiment that Biden’s policies are negatively affecting American citizens' lives. Especially those who fall victim to violent crimes – often young people and children. Users voice concerns about the potential impact on jobs, taxpayer money, and social service. They also express concern about the potential cultural and demographic changes that could result from large-scale immigration.

Many are vocal about the border crisis being the fault of the Democrat Party and Biden's policy. They laud figures like Donald Trump and Governor Abbott for their stances on immigration.

Biden Policy Supporters

Some Democrats and more progressive voters support Biden’s border policies, including the parole program. Typically leaning to the left, this group frames their arguments in terms of human rights, compassion, and global responsibility.

They argue that the U.S. has a moral and ethical obligation to help those in need, particularly those fleeing violence or persecution in their home countries. They also argue that the U.S, as a wealthy and powerful nation, has the capacity to absorb and integrate new immigrants.

These supporters often criticize the anyone who objects to such policies, accusing them of fearmongering, racism, and xenophobia. They argue that these critics are overstating the potential risks of the policy and are motivated by prejudice or intolerance.

Overall, this topic of the border continues to be a divisive and increasingly negative subject for President Biden. While his progressive voters continue to support him, border security is shaping up to be one of the most important issues in the 2024 presidential election.

On March 8, U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman declared a federal statute barring undocumented immigrants possessing firearms to be unconstitutional. She contended that the law contravened the Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, which emphasized the necessity for gun control measures to align with historical precedent. This court ruling allows illegal immigrants in America to take advantage of Second Amendment rights by purchasing firearms and ammunition. This policy has shocked many American citizens, generating concern and incredulity.

The legal dispute arose when Heriberto Carbajal-Flores, an illegal alien, faced charges for unlawful firearm possession. However, Judge Coleman contended that because Carbajal-Flores' criminal history lacks instances of weapon misuse or violence during his apprehension, he doesn't present a threat to public safety. Consequently, she argued that he should not be stripped of his Second Amendment entitlement to bear arms for self-defense.

MIG Reports analysis reveals a diverse range of opinions on the recent ruling, stirring emotional debate. The primary discussion revolves around the interpretation of the Second Amendment, the consequences of allowing non-citizens to own firearms, and the potential implications on gun violence.

Supporters of the ruling, who appear to be from various political affiliations, argue that the Constitution, including the Second Amendment, applies to everyone within the United States. They believe the right to bear arms should not be infringed, regardless of citizenship status.

Some even argue that gun violence has been on a downward trend and that expanding constitutional carry will lead to a further decrease.

• Gun control sentiment has increased slightly in the last several days, suggesting Americans are concerned about this issue.

Critics of the ruling, also from various political backgrounds, express concern that this decision could exacerbate gun violence. They worry about the potential inability of illegal aliens to undergo thorough background checks or mental health assessments. Many voters argue the Second Amendment was intended only for U.S. citizens. They say extending it to illegal aliens could have severe consequences. Some critics also see this ruling as a strategy to increase gun violence, which could then be used as a justification for stricter gun control measures.

Many are expressing frustration with what they perceive as lax border control policies and the implications for national security and public safety. These gun allowances for increasing numbers of illegal immigrants, many believe, threatens an increase in crime and danger for citizens.

Some concerns highlight the potential implications on the feasibility of thorough background and mental health checks. These concerns do not appear to be strictly partisan but are shared by voters across political affiliations.

Critics of the ruling point out that illegal immigrants have already violated immigration laws. They also worry about mental health patterns, citing studies that indicate 14% of undocumented immigrants meeting the criteria for depression, and 7% for anxiety. Substance abuse among illegal immigrants is at a similar level as among the citizen population.

Overall, the ruling has become another contentious issue in the ongoing national debate about gun violence and gun rights, and now possibly incorporating citizenship, public safety, and illegal immigration.

The public perception of Tyson Foods' hiring practices is becoming quite negative among many Americans. Discussions are particularly negative regarding news that Tyson Foods will shut down its Iowa pork factory, which broke alongside reports the company has hired 42,000 migrant workers and would like to hire that many more.

Some people are criticizing the company for prioritizing profits and open border policies over American employees. Many also accuse Tyson Foods of poor working conditions and unfair labor practices, including the alleged wrongful termination of workers.

Many Americans accuse Tyson Foods of being too liberal or woke, implying the company is overly concerned with diversity, equality, and inclusion (DEI) at the expense of other factors.

Some, however, support for Tyson Foods, acknowledging the company provides job opportunities in regions where employment opportunities may be scarce. These users argue that despite the criticisms, Tyson Foods plays a crucial role in the local economies where they operate – and especially for migrants looking for work.

Border and Jobs Sentiment Among Iowa Voters

In Iowa, voters seem dissatisfied with loss of American jobs while migrants seem to receive preferential treatment. Sentiment towards border security and jobs among Iowa voters has been particularly low in recent days.

• In the last 14 days, sentiment on jobs in Iowa sank to a low of 30% and reaching a high of 51%. Jobs sentiment averaged 40%.
• Sentiment about the border in Iowa sank as low as 29% in the last two weeks, with a high of 46%. Border sentiment averaged 38%.

• The border and the economy are among the top three issues Iowa voter are discussing, indicating their importance.

Some Iowans are criticizing Tyson Foods, alleging they will pay migrant workers less than minimum wage. They are calling for boycotts against Tyson Foods and advising others to buy local instead. Many voice concern about the impact on American workers and call for penalties for companies that hire illegal immigrants.

Others in Iowa question the legality and ethics of Tyson Foods’ practices, calling for stricter regulations and enforcement.

American Views of Corporate Hiring and Job Prospects

The discussion also touches on broader themes related to business ethics, freedom of speech, and the role of corporations in society. Many American workers express the belief that businesses should be held accountable for their actions and should not exploit their power or influence for profit.

More Americans seem disgruntled by news that more domestic jobs have been going to foreign-born workers than native citizens. Among other complaints about the economy, American voters express discontent at the Biden administration’s claims about increasing jobs. Many believe that employment numbers are skewed because of America’s open border.

Another point of contention involving Tyson Foods is the company's use of temporary or contract workers. Some argue this practice allows Tyson to avoid providing benefits and other protections to its employees. Others, however, feel it's a necessary business strategy in a highly competitive industry.

Another common theme, according to MIG Reports data, is the company's alleged lack of transparency. There is a sense of frustration with what workers perceive as Tyson's unwillingness to openly discuss its hiring and firing practices.

The hashtag #BidensBorderBloodbath has emerged as a focal point in the ongoing debate about the U.S.-Mexico border under President Joe Biden's administration. This online discourse reflects a broader national conversation on immigration and border security, and it doesn't look great for Biden.

Support for Biden on Immigration Issues, in particular, has dropped to a weekly low of 46%.

Republicans seized upon the hashtag to castigate President Biden's handling of the border crisis, attributing it to what they perceive as lax immigration policies and contrasting the media's narrative on Trump's "bloodbath" comments. They argue that the reversal of former President Trump's stringent measures has led to a surge in illegal crossings and subsequent violence, dubbing the situation a "bloodbath." Many Republicans assert that the Biden administration's actions have directly endangered American citizens and advocate for stricter border control measures to address the crisis.

The trend forced Democrats to address accusations of mishandling the border crisis, prompting them to clarify their stance on immigration and asylum policies. In large part, they defended President Biden's approach to immigration, emphasizing the humanitarian imperative behind it. They contend that migrants are fleeing dire circumstances in their home countries and seeking asylum in the U.S. as a refuge from violence and poverty.

Democrats criticize the use of #BidensBorderBloodbath as fearmongering tactics, arguing that it oversimplifies complex issues and demonizes immigrants. Instead, they call for comprehensive immigration reform that addresses root causes while maintaining America's commitment to human rights.

The online discourse surrounding #BidensBorderBloodbath reflects broader societal tensions and political polarization. It serves as a microcosm of the ongoing immigration debate, highlighting the stark differences in ideology and policy priorities between Republicans and Democrats.

During the State of the Union, President Biden referred to the perpetrator of Laken Riley's murder as an "illegal immigrant." Numerous liberals promptly voiced their disapproval of Biden's choice of the term "illegal," contending that it is dehumanizing and reinforces detrimental stereotypes about immigrants.

This led the administration to initiate efforts to retract the use of the term, but it appears to have caused more harm than good.

The decision to backtrack on using the term "illegal" when referring to illegal immigrants has ignited a passionate and divided public response. The reactions on social media platforms showcase a polarization deeply rooted in political beliefs, with many expressing a sense of betrayal and disappointment. This has significantly contributed the the border security conversation over the last few days.

The conversation erupted after Biden's State of the Union on March 7th.

In response to Biden's backtracking, many Americans have expressed concerns.

Most dominantly, users accuse Biden of prioritizing the feelings of undocumented immigrants over the rights and safety of American citizens. The refusal to use the term "illegal alien" is viewed by this group as a form of disrespect towards victims of crimes committed by unauthorized immigrants.

A significant portion of social media users criticize Biden for not using the term "illegal aliens," emphasizing its legal and factual accuracy. This group contends that individuals who have violated U.S. immigration laws should be referred to as such, framing the issue as a matter of adherence to the rule of law.

Critics connect Biden's language choice to broader immigration policies, arguing that the administration's approach has led to increased unauthorized border crossings and crime. The use of softer language is seen by some as an attempt to divert attention from the challenges associated with immigration.

Many respondents express genuine concerns about safety, particularly regarding crimes committed by unauthorized immigrants. Specific cases, such as the tragic murder of Laken Riley, are cited as evidence of the dangers associated with illegal immigration, further fueling the negative sentiment.

A prevailing belief among critics is that Biden's language change is politically motivated, with accusations of the Democratic Party pandering to unauthorized immigrants for political gain. The decision to include unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. Census is cited as an example, adding to the perception of political maneuvering.

Another common thread in the responses is the criticism of what users perceive as an open border policy under the Biden administration. Critics argue that this policy contributes to an alleged increase in crime and other issues related to immigration.

The overwhelming sentiment on social media is one of frustration and disappointment. Biden’s misstep seems to have upset voters across the board with left-leaning voices decrying his use of “illegal” to begin with and right-leaning voters angered by his retraction. The negative backlash reflects a deep division on issues of immigration policy and national identity, with many demanding stronger borders and a more assertive approach from Biden to address the problems associated with illegal immigration.

Online discussions have roiled American voters after allegations that President Biden is secretly flying immigrants into the U.S. This controversy appears to have originated from a report by Ben Bergquam which suggests the U.S. is funding processing centers in South America and transporting immigrants to America before they reach the border.

Reactions to the accusation that President Biden has flown more than 300,000 illegal immigrants directly into American airports reveals intense anger. Most of the discussion is among those who despise Biden's immigration policies and view such actions as a direct threat to the safety and welfare of American citizens.

Many Americans express a deep sense of frustration and anger, accusing Biden of prioritizing the needs of illegal immigrants over the safety and welfare of American citizens.

This news comes right before Biden’s 2024 State of the Union address, and as dissatisfaction remains high on immigration and the economy, which are the top two issues in voters’ minds.

Americans Feel Betrayed by the Biden Administration

Many voters involved in the discussion call for Biden's impeachment, with some alleging that he has committed acts of treason. These critics argue that Biden has betrayed the American people by secretly smuggling hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants into the country. They say this project was hidden from the public because the administration knows Americans would be enraged if they knew about it. Some critics even go as far as claiming that Biden "cheated" his way into office and has "sold America out."

A lot of people also voice concerns over potential security risks, claiming that such actions enable criminals to enter the country. There are some who still defend Biden and criticize impeachment attempts as political stunts. While support for the administration is largely partisan, there is more and more bipartisan anger over the border.

There is also a lot of discussion and frustration over a case involving a Guatemalan man named Juan Jose-Sebastian, who was arrested in Florida but is wanted in Oregon for multiple counts of rape and sexual abuse. Many people are upset that, despite his charges, Oregon won't extradite him, and ICE won't pick him up, leading to his release. People are also offended when the mainstream media dismisses their concerns, refusing to cover what voters view as important immigration news.

Calls for Impeachment

The comments calling for President Joe Biden's impeachment and accusing him of treason stem from a variety of issues. The number one reason is border security and, specifically in the last day, the scandal over flying in illegal immigrants. There are some other issues voters cite as reasons to impeach the president.

Border Security

Voters accuse Biden of compromising national security and destroying the economy with illegal immigration. Many accuse him of funding processing centers in South America.

Foreign Policy

A segment of progressive Democrat voters want Biden impeached for failing to impose a ceasefire in Gaza and funding conflicts abroad.

Bribery and Corruption Allegations

Many point to Biden family corruption, with allegations centered on his brother James Biden. They claim James confirmed during an impeachment inquiry testimony that a $40,000 check made out to Joe Biden in 2017 used funds he received from a Chinese government-linked company.

Treason

Some critics accuse Biden of treason for aiding the country's enemies or betraying the nation. The reasons vary, with some tying it to allegations of corruption, foreign policy, or border security.

The public response to President Joe Biden's State of the Union address appears to be polarized, as expected, reflecting the nation's political divide. His supporters see the speech as a passionate defense of his policies and a strong criticism of his predecessor, Donald Trump.

They perceive Biden's tone as fiery, strong, and presidential, and view the address as a successful articulation of his vision for a second term. Several supporters refer to it as one of the best State of the Union addresses they have seen, expressing feelings of pride and admiration for the president.

Democrats largely praised President Biden's State of the Union address. Key conversations among Democrats centered on Biden's forceful stance against former President Donald Trump, his focus on reproductive rights, freedom, and democracy, and his proposed policies for a second term. Many vocalized their perception of Biden's energy and vigor throughout the speech.

On the other hand, critics of the president see his address as overly partisan and politically motivated. Some described it as the most "nakedly political" State of the Union in history. They accuse Biden of focusing more on attacking Trump and dividing the nation than providing a constructive vision for the future. Some critics also accuse him of neglecting the border crisis and other key issues, and some call for his impeachment.

Republicans called the speech overly political and lacking in concrete solutions. They highlighted Issues such as the border crisis and perceived failures in addressing crime, inflation, and the cost of living. Some Republicans also questioned Biden's competence and insinuated that his speech was not his own, implying that he was being controlled by others.

Independents had mixed reactions. Some echoed the Democrat praises, lauding Biden's energy and his focus on democracy and individual rights. Others, however, aligned with the Republican criticisms, particularly regarding the border crisis and the perceived lack of real solutions.

Talking About - Joe Biden

Concerns Among Various Voter Groups

In terms of demographics, it appears that younger audiences were more concerned about a potential TikTok ban, with many arguing that it would limit their freedom of expression. Older audiences were more likely to focus on issues such as the “Stop WOKE Act” and perceived shifts in the political landscape. Overall, sentiment towards President Biden following the State of the Union address varied significantly based on political affiliation. Democrats generally expressed support for the President, although there were some criticisms of his handling of certain issues. Republicans were largely critical of the President and his policies, while Independents expressed a range of views.

Democrats

• Concerns about the expansion of the so-called “Stop WOKE Act” in Florida, with some criticizing it as a violation of First Amendment freedoms and a step towards censorship.
• Discussions about the potential TikTok ban, with some expressing concerns about freedom of speech and potential government overreach.
• Accusations that Republicans have moved away from their historical stance on social justice, with some referencing comments made by Republican Mark Robinson on women's suffrage.
• Criticism of conservatives for insisting biological sex exists, with some arguing that it infringes upon people’s preferred gender identity.

Republicans

• Strong support for the “Stop WOKE Act” in Florida, viewing it as a necessary step against perceived woke culture.
• Concerns about the potential TikTok ban, with some framing it as an issue of national security due to the app's connections with the Chinese Communist Party.
• Criticisms of President Biden's State of the Union address, with some arguing it lacked substance and did not adequately address key issues.
• Discussions around the evolving political landscape, with some arguing that Republicans have become the anti-establishment party.
• Accusations that Democrats are attempting to silence conservative voices, with some alleging that Democrats are pushing for censorship and restrictions on freedom of speech.

Independents

• Concerns about the potential TikTok ban, with some arguing that it infringes upon freedom of speech and sets a dangerous precedent.
• Discussions around the evolving political landscape, with some suggesting that both parties have strayed from their historical stances.
• Criticisms of perceived woke culture, with some arguing that it is detrimental to societal cohesion and unity.
• Debates about gender identity, with some suggesting that it is an individual's right to identify as they choose.
• Discussions about the need for more intellectual debate in politics, with some expressing frustration at the current level of discourse.

Economic Issues

Biden's address seemed to increase positive sentiment among Democrats regarding his tax proposals and focus on social issues. However, this issue decreased sentiment amongst Republicans and some Independents, who disagreed with his views on taxes, government spending, and foreign aid.

The top five economic issues that generated discussion were:

Taxes

• Republicans disagreed with Biden's claim that corporations and the wealthy need to pay their "fair share" of taxes. Some argued corporations do not pay taxes but pass the cost to consumers through higher prices and lower wages. Others stated that corporations already pay taxes by employing thousands of people who pay taxes.
• Democrats and Independents were split on this issue, with some supporting Biden's proposals and others expressing skepticism.

Government spending

• Many Republicans and some Independents criticized the government for overspending, with some calling for a reduction in the number of government employees.

• Democrats generally showed more support for government investment, although some expressed concerns about fiscal responsibility.

Social issues

• Democrats and Independents spoke about the need for better support for people with disabilities and lower-income individuals.
• Republicans, however, were more likely to attribute these issues to individual responsibility rather than government intervention.

Foreign aid

• Some Republicans and Independents criticized Biden for sending money to foreign countries. They argued that tax money should be spent on American people first.

Fact-checking

• There were conversations about the accuracy of Biden's statements, with some Republicans accusing him of lying about tax issues.

Border Security

One of the most dominant topics was immigration policy, specifically the Laken Riley Act. Economically, lower-income individuals expressed concerns about the potential impact of increased immigration on job security and wages. Meanwhile, higher-income individuals were more likely to focus on the moral and ethical implications of immigration policy.

Democrats focused on the perceived lack of compassion in the Laken Riley Act. Many questioned the morality of detaining and deporting immigrants without consideration for their circumstances.

Republicans primarily focused on the Laken Riley Act and its impact on national security. They pointed to the case of Laken Riley, a victim of a crime committed by an undocumented immigrant, as a reason to support stricter immigration policies. They criticized Democrats for their opposition to the bill.

Independents also discussed the Laken Riley Act. Like Republicans, many Independents expressed support for stricter immigration controls to protect American citizens. However, they also expressed concern over the potential for human rights abuses under such policies.