In the week following Donald Trump’s reelection, social media discourse has continued to prioritize illegal immigration and other issues related to the border crisis. MIG Reports analysis shows heightened fears about cartel influence at the border, causing crisis and conflict.

Voters are deeply concerned that cartels don't just commit crimes but wield power across the border, exploiting lax policies for trafficking, violence, and economic gain. For many, the border is a front line where national security and American sovereignty are at stake.

Texas remains ready for any potential surge at the border by reinforcing vulnerable areas along the border with @TxDPS & @TXMilitary forces, resulting in deterrence & prevention by reducing illegal border crossings. Those efforts have led to an 86% decrease in unlawful border… https://t.co/WLiq0XAFsY pic.twitter.com/OkRGRpR7Ad

— Chris Olivarez (@LtChrisOlivarez) November 13, 2024

This Is War

The language around child trafficking, cartel power, and border chaos evokes a crisis narrative and feelings of institutional distrust. As with recent discussions of Trump’s role in restoring order, people now look to stringent immigration policies as a form of defense.

For many, the issue of cartels has become the flagship border issue, tying cultural preservation, national security, and moral order together. Voters want more stringent policy measures and a statement of strength against adversarial forces undermining the American way of life.

There’s a Lot to do... Like NOW

There is urgency among voters and a feeling that current immigration policies have failed to protect the public. This exacerbates fears of cultural erosion and national vulnerability. Many align this fear with historical moments when immigration was similarly framed as an existential threat. They recall earlier periods where immigration protection intensified in response to economic uncertainty or perceived loss of control.

The sense of an “invasion” is strongly resonant, increasing populist sentiments of “us vs. Them.” Americans view cartels as a symbol of the corruption and lawlessness that have weakened the nation. While there is a feeling of 1980s Reaganism—a resurging America—there is also fear of amnesty and other immigration failures from the 1986 immigration bill.

President-elect Trump is already changing sentiment tides on the border, just a week after being elected. For most of 2024, polling showed upwards of 75% of voters viewed the border as either a serious threat or a crisis.

CBS POLL: 75% of Americans "see the situation at the U.S./Mexico border as either a 'crisis' or a 'very serious situation'" — a "notable increase" from previous surveys pic.twitter.com/uumUM0gCQs

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) January 7, 2024

Following Trump’s win, sentiment immediately improved—particularly with news of new leadership and promises of deportation. Americans on the left and the right demand secure borders and national sovereignty, though some leftist Democrats still object to Republican border plans.

• Since November 5, border and immigration sentiment has increased, reaching the high 40% range.
• MIG Reports data also shows sentiment toward Biden’s DHS secretary Alejandro Mayorkas on a consistent decline to 41% in the days after the election.
• A slight bump in Mayorkas’s sentiment over the weekend is due to celebrations over his imminent departure from DHS.

The Immediate Trump Effect

A distinct mood change has been evident in the first few days since Trump’s victory. Voters, especially Republicans, express confidence that a Trump 2.0 administration will address longstanding border issues.

Voters regularly say things like, “More has been accomplished in 72 hours than in the previous 3 1/2 years.” Trump’s pick of former acting ICE director Tom Homan as Border Czar fuels excitement and optimism. Border Patrol and ICE agents who were constrained for years, now feel empowered to enforce policies effectively.

Rapid Mood Change

• Border Patrol and ICE agents report a “total 180” shift in morale, with many expressing renewed hope in their ability to fulfill their duties.
• The morale boost comes from Trump’s victory, and Homan’s leadership, which are both seen as positive for immigration enforcement.

Republicans Versus Democrats

• Around 80% of Republicans voice support for Trump’s immigration plans, emphasizing mass deportations and border wall completion.
• Democrats are less vocal as only 20% are commenting. Those who are engaging in the discussion express concern about the humanitarian impact of stricter policies.

Immediate public perception shifts show the early impacts of Trump’s win are already evident. Voters are eager to improve border enforcement for several key reasons.

Key Issues Voters Want Addressed

Migrant Caravans being discouraged and even disbanded are a positive for voters. Many view reports that caravans are dissolving as a concrete result of Trump’s tough image. Voters see stopping caravans as symbolic of regained control of the U.S. border.

Mass Deportation is still high on the list of things voters want. Enthusiasm for mass deportations is high, particularly among those who link illegal immigration to crime and economic strain. Voters hope deportation will be a cornerstone of Trump’s immigration agenda, especially for illegals who commit crimes once inside the U.S.

Prioritizing Public Resources is a common refrain among Republicans. They say taxpayer funds should prioritize American citizens over illegal immigrants. Many advocate reallocating resources to benefit veterans and citizens in need, instead of providing aid to people who should not be here.

Job Market Benefits are another expectation for securing the border. Many say a reduced strain on social services and less job competitions will create more opportunities for American workers. People point out that most of the job growth under Biden-Harris benefitted foreign-born workers.

Sanctuary City Policies remain a focal point for Trump supporters. They view migrant sanctuaries as a roadblock to federal enforcement. With the new administration, voters expect stricter immigration policy alignment nationwide, overriding local policies that protect illegal immigrants and enforcing federal policies.

New Leadership in Tom Homan and speculations about North Dakota Governor Kristi Noem replacing Alejandro Mayorkas as DHS secretary spark discussion. Voters want strong leaders who will take decisive action to shore up the border and combat Democratic influence.

Mood Shift and Enthusiasm

Empowered Law Enforcement for Border Patrol and ICE agents under Trump 2.0 generates excitement and energy. Many agents, previously constrained by restrictive policies, are reportedly “ecstatic to go to work,” ready to act without Biden-Harris limitations tying their hands.

Killing "Woke" Policies drives hope for shifting away from progressive open border policies. Americans want a return to past norms where national sovereignty and citizen protection take priority over globalist and progressive immigration ideals.

Law and Order emphasis under Trump brings relief to voters who see current Democratic policies as detrimental to American communities. Voters believe Trump can stop increased crime among illegal immigrants and restore the rule of law.

Crime and Trafficking connected to illegal immigration also motivates voters. An open border is often synonymous with increased violent crime, drug trafficking, and gang activity. Voters point to problems like those in Aurora, Colorado, as exemplifying the need for anti-gang and anti-cartel border enforcement.

Partisan Divides cause friction between Republicans who are celebrating renewed border security and Democrats who fear mass deportations could lead to human rights abuses. Despite an overwhelming majority of Americans supporting strict borders, Democrats continue to oppose Trump’s policies—many of which were standard under Obama.

NEW: @ScottJenningsKY takes CNN panel to school by dropping some simple facts about deportations:

“It’s overwhelmingly popular. Everybody is trying to make this controversial. This is not controversial. Presidents always deport people."

"Barack Obama deported 3 million people.… pic.twitter.com/ZXOjWpJdlp

— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) November 12, 2024

Prior to Sean “P Diddy” Combs’s arrest, "Nice try, Diddy" began as a humorous meme used to mock him for his relentless self-promotion and involvement in multiple projects. People spammed the phrase in the comments of unrelated posts and ads as a way to sarcastically suggest he was behind everything.

However, after Diddy is facing serious allegations, including sex trafficking, the phrase took on a darker, more critical tone. It now reflects public skepticism and disdain, particularly toward his attempts to maintain a positive public image. Now, people use the phrase to imply a sarcastic disbelief in his sincerity.

MIG Reports analysis shows the phrase “Nice try Diddy” has evolved as a focal point in cultural and political commentary. It symbolizes the public’s sharpened skepticism toward high-profile figures for nefarious, behind-the-curtain acts.

This seemingly lighthearted meme conveys a barbed critique of Diddy’s alleged crimes, contradictions, or hypocrisy. The phrase signals shifting cultural patterns around authenticity, the complex role of celebrity activism, and polarized views among average Americans.

Omg. The woman who was standing by and watching Diddy blackmail and sexually assault men, women and children is now weeping begging you to vote for Kamala Harris. pic.twitter.com/FZYhpjOEJr

— Green Lives Matter (@Ultrafrog17) November 1, 2024

Cynicism and Skepticism

Posts using “Nice try Diddy” convey a powerful skepticism toward establishment and elite figures. It questions their intentions, especially when actions do not match their professed beliefs.

For instance, when celebrities who advocate for social change simultaneously flaunt luxurious lifestyles or engage in contentious politics, audiences often respond with this phrase as a callout of perceived hypocrisy.

This pattern speaks to a cultural climate in which authenticity is increasingly prized. After Diddy’s recent arrest, skepticism toward his actions and potential crimes transform the phrase into a more serious critique, conveying deep distrust and disgust.

Contradictions in Celebrity Activism

"Nice try, Diddy” also reveals the contradictions in celebrity activism, where persona and identity is synonymous with wealth and luxury. When public personalities delve into political or social commentary, especially on issues like inequality or social justice, “Nice try Diddy” becomes a pointed response to hypocrisy.

Diddy's arrest, combined with the ongoing historical lack of transparency on Jeffrey Epstein's client list, the dissonance resonates more deeply. Many Americans question the chances of justice for elites involved in heinous crimes as none seem to face proportional consequences.

Distrust of Political Elites

Discourse around “Nice try Diddy” extends beyond celebrity culture into political polarization, especially regarding figures like Kamala Harris. Supporters and detractors alike use similar expressions to bolster their narratives, framing opposing viewpoints as out-of-touch or disingenuous.

This polarization reinforces political identities, creating a landscape where opposing ideas often seem trivialized, further widening divides. The added layer of Diddy’s recent controversies amplifies the meme’s resonance in polarized circles. The phrase indicates skepticism is growing toward political and cultural elites.

Indicative Cultural and Political Forces

“Nice try Diddy” echoes cultural critiques around the role of celebrities in politics, amplifying widespread frustration with disingenuous narratives from establishment elites.

This discontent fuels a demand for authentic leadership, causing people to rally around candidates and influencers they see as more relatable or “real.” People call for congruence between rhetoric and action, amplified by high-profile figures facing legal and moral scrutiny.

This reinforces the anti-establishment sentiments sweeping through contemporary discourse, which is often manifested in memes and ironic online endeavors.

“Nice try, Diddy” echoes older memes like “Epstein didn’t kill himself,” resonating with public skepticism toward elites protecting themselves. While Diddy is certainly a cultural force, his association with the political class also erodes any significant grasp as a cultural influence.

Overall, “Nice try Diddy” reflects a growing political groundswell where authenticity is non-negotiable, and public accountability extends beyond elected officials to include influential cultural figures.

With his recent allegations casting a long shadow, this phrase underscores a societal shift toward decentralizing authority and demanding accountability and transparency from establishment elites.

On Oct 30, former Mayor of University Park, MD, was arrested for owning copious amounts of child porn—including child sexual abuse material known as CSAM. MIG Reports data shows social media reactions to this event are outraged but ultimately apathetic.

Discussions have sporadically emerged across social media due to this high-profile case and a general climate of social unease regarding children’s safety. However, discussion remains relatively low compared to other topics.

While some voices rally for significant reform, most conversations reveal a public wary of sustained engagement on such dark issues. Within the existing dialogue, there is deeply negative sentiment and an undercurrent of apathy. This suggests, while Americans are concerned, they are reluctant to face these tragic and sensitive issues head-on.

This despicable “man” and former mayor of University Park, Maryland, was arrested with more than 45,000 files related to child pornography and charged with 28 felonies.

Joel Biermann (D) is a huge Kamala supporter and detractor of Trump. We need to protect our kids. pic.twitter.com/85kiWWRzKD

— Jessica O’Donnell 🏈 (@heckyessica) October 30, 2024

Discussions are Low

Although child exploitation and safety represent pressing concerns, general discussion levels on these topics are notably low.

MIG Reports data shows conversations directly addressing issues like CSAM, child trafficking, and systemic child protection flaws only constitute 2-15% of overall discourse.

The sparse nature of these discussions, especially considering the severity of the topic, suggests people are uncomfortable discussing it. When instances of exploitation surface, there are brief moments of public outcry, but discussions quickly lose momentum. Sadly, most are overshadowed by other trending topics or national political events.

Overwhelmingly Negative Sentiment

When child protection issues do garner attention, the reactions are profoundly negative. Public reactions often reflect feelings of frustration, anger, and betrayal, with people expressing disillusionment in both government and societal responses.

Sentiment analysis indicates a score as low as -0.6 on a scale from -1 to 1, revealing the depth of negativity. Americans are unhappy with how institutions address, or fail to address, child exploitation issues.

The negative tone is consistent, highlighting a strong belief that current systems and officials are falling short in their duty to protect the vulnerable. Comments frequently call out inaction, corruption, and a lack of accountability. They urgently want reform, which many feel is either ignored or deflected by those in power.

Apathy and Superficial Concern

Perhaps the most telling aspect of the discourse is a pervasive sense of apathy, paired with what many describe as a superficial or surface-level concern for children’s safety. While some voices advocate passionately for change, the majority of responses suggest a resigned, almost cynical view of societal priorities.

Many people appear skeptical that the heightened emotions surrounding cases of child exploitation will lead to lasting change. This sentiment points to a belief that public outcry has become performative—high in rhetoric but lacking depth and action.

This "surface-level" engagement reflects a societal malaise, where the public is increasingly resigned to viewing these issues as intractable, with little hope for meaningful improvement.

The perception of safety, drugs, and trafficking, related to the border, has become a central point of discourse—even in Midwestern states like Michigan and Wisconsin.

Four years of open borders and sanctuary policies have brought criminal drug networks, human trafficking, and an epidemic of sexual assault. https://t.co/WVbcGK3LKh via Steven Malanga

— City Journal (@CityJournal) October 21, 2024

Immigration is a divisive issue, and views are often influenced by political beliefs, age, and socioeconomic status. Fear and distrust are common threads throughout conversations. MIG Reports analysis shows, even in non-border states like Michigan and Wisconsin, attitudes mirror national perspectives which are largely critical of the border situation.

Sentiment Trends

National

Across the country, there is a stark divide about safety, drugs, and immigration.

• 65% of comments are negative, framing immigration as directly contributing to crime and cartel trafficking.
• Anger is connected to dissatisfaction with border policies, which many see as exacerbating public safety concerns.
• 20% assert a conciliatory perspective, advocating for compassion and humanitarian treatment for asylum seekers.
• 15% are ambivalent, expressing concerns about the economic implications of immigration while avoiding political leanings.

Wisconsin

Discourse in Wisconsin echoes the negative national tone.

• 70% of commenters worry about crime and drug trafficking.
• There is a particular emphasis on opioid and methamphetamine addiction and the impact these drugs have on community safety.
• Wisconsinites fear for public safety, with many linking the drug crisis to trafficking operations facilitated by weak border policies.
• 20% are solution-oriented, advocating for rehabilitation and policy reform to address the drug crisis.
• Only 10% express optimistic or positive sentiment about the effectiveness of current interventions.

Michigan

In Michigan, discussions are similarly dominated by fear and frustration.

• 70% are concerned about the safety risks posed by illegal immigration.
• Many voters draw direct connections between migrants and the spread of drugs, particularly fentanyl.
• They say human trafficking, especially of women and children, has risen due to lax immigration policies.
• 20% support legal immigration while still expressing fears about uncontrolled illegal immigration.
• 10% express compassion for asylum seekers, emphasizing the humanitarian aspect of the crisis.

Linguistic Analysis

Fear and Dehumanization

Fear is the most prominent emotional driver in the language about the border. Terms like “murderers,” “drug traffickers,” and “rapists” evoke a sense of urgency and danger. These discussions emphasize the threat to public safety in unsecured borders. Some feel this rhetoric strips migrants of their humanity as “criminal aliens” or “illegals.”

Distrust and Political Blame

Nationally, there is strong disapproval of political and media institutions. In Michigan, voters sometimes accuse media outlets and politicians of hiding the truth about illegal immigration and trafficking. They liken the media to cartels in their control of information, reflecting a belief that systemic corruption is to blame for the crisis.

Many also blame political figures, particularly those who support lenient immigration policies. Voters nationwide point to specific policies, saying open borders and failed enforcement are directly responsible for the crime and drug crises.

Calls for Community Solutions

Despite the overwhelming negativity, there are glimpses of hope in some community-oriented discussions. In Wisconsin, a small but vocal group emphasizes the importance of local interventions. They suggest drug rehabilitation programs and community outreach efforts. These comments use progressive and inclusive language, suggesting the solution to the crisis lies not just in government action but in grassroots initiatives.

The FBI quietly revised its crime statistics, revealing a 4.5% increase in violent crime under the Biden administration. This directly contradicts a widely reported 2.1% decrease touted by the media and Democrats for weeks.

There it is: FBI "revised" violent crime data, now reporting that instead of a 2.1% drop in violent crime in 2022, it was actually a 4.5% increase. https://t.co/Bvbg0wKy1A pic.twitter.com/h6nfjRRlUb

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) October 16, 2024

Americans are outraged, confirming their beliefs that crime is on the rise, supported by their own observations in the face of media narratives. Analysis identifies why Americans perceive the FBI's revision as politically motivated and their anxieties about governance and law enforcement in the United States.

What Americans are Saying

Voters are extremely frustrated an angry with the Biden-Harris administration, particularly directing their ire at VP Harris. Dissatisfaction stems from perceptions that the government is failing to manage crime, immigration, and economic issues.

Many express a sense of betrayal, arguing promises made by the administration have not been fulfilled. There are also many critiques of the government's approach to public safety and economic recovery, with some tying rising crime rates to policy failures.

Anger about crime statistics dovetails with growing distrust in institutions. Skepticism toward the FBI, mainstream media, and other government entities is rampant. Voters are doubtful about the integrity of official statistics and narratives.

People believe traditional sources of authority are no longer reliable, especially when it comes to reporting on politically charged issues like crime. Discussions also show stark partisan division, with Trump supporters contrasting his presidency with Biden’s, emphasizing the perception of greater safety and stability under Trump's leadership.

Perceptions of the FBI Revision

Voters believe the FBI's revision of crime statistics serves a political purpose. Many speculate the incorrect initial numbers were not mistaken, but politically calculated to protect the Biden administration from scrutiny.

Many view disparate reports not as honest corrections but attempts to manipulate public perception. They say reports attempt to paint a more favorable image of crime under Biden's leadership.

The notion that the FBI is involved in political maneuvering connects with wider themes of distrust in government institutions. Increasingly, voters view various federal agencies as operating in service of political elites rather than in the public interest.

People use terms like "gaslighting," saying they feel the government is trying to deceive them about the reality of rising crime. Those on the right also point out media bias—particularly David Muir fact checking Trump during the presidential debate, saying the FBI reports show crime is down.

Reasons Americans Think Crime is Up

Many voters say government policy—specifically immigration—contributes to increased violent crime. They say lenient immigration policies allow criminals into the United States, increasing violent crime. This belief reflects broader concerns about border security and the failure of the Biden administration to maintain law and order.

People also mention economic instability, saying inflation, unemployment, and stagnating wages lead to desperation and more criminal behavior. There is a sense that economic hardship under Biden’s administration has created conditions conducive to crime, further exacerbating public safety concerns.

Voters are also disillusioned with law enforcement. Some argue Democrats demoralize police forces, weakening their ability to effectively prevent and respond to crime. People say law enforcement has been neutered under Democrat rule allowing criminals to proceed without fear of serious consequences.

Deeper Underlying Sentiments

Voters voice specific grievances about crime and policy as well as more thematic anxieties about the state of the country. People fear rising crime is a symptom of more serious societal decline.

Americans are concerned about the future, suggesting the country is headed toward chaos and instability. These fears are often linked to nostalgia for stronger leadership, particularly under Donald Trump. Many view his presidency as a period of greater safety and prosperity.

In general, there is little middle ground in these discussions. Voters typically fervently support Trump or Democrats—though a sense of doom if the opposition gains political power crosses into both camps. The stark divide reflects partisan tension in American society, where crime and public safety have become deeply politicized issues.

The Biden-Harris administration’s border is a focal point of the election. Between Oct. 10-17, thousands of voters voiced their strong opinions on the impact of Democratic policies. They link immigration to crime, economic hardship, and political manipulation.

General Sentiment on Immigration

A frequent criticism of the administration is that Biden and Harris allow “open border” policies. Voters particularly point out rising criminal activity and increased human trafficking. They are angry about rising violent crime rates, directly blaming Harris.

Some also scorched Harris’s comments on Fox News, in which she failed to take responsibility for immigration failures during her administration. Those on the right share and discuss a response from the mother of Jocelyn Nungaray—a victim of illegal immigrant crime. She criticized Harris saying, “She is completely full of it. She is not a sincere woman at all. She has no sympathy, no empathy to her."

JUST IN: The mother of 12-year-old Jocelyn Nungaray unleashes on Kamala Harris, blames Harris for her daughter's r*pe and de*th.

Alexis Nungaray got emotional as she ripped Harris for her half-apology during the Bret Baier interview.

"[Kamala] is completely full of it. She is… pic.twitter.com/RJ61ww0pLy

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) October 18, 2024

Voter conversations often focus on high-profile incidents, such as gang violence perpetrated by criminal groups like the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang. These and other violent crimes are frequently mentioned as examples of the dangers of Harris’s policies.

Beyond the outrage over criminal violence, discussions reveal a growing fear that unchecked immigration is overwhelming social services. Americans fear towns and cities in places like Indiana and Pennsylvania are becoming strained by immigration, just as border states have been for many years.

Major Discussion Themes

Illegal Immigration

Illegal immigration dominates the discussions with frustration and fear over its consequences. Americans say illegal immigrants are breaking U.S. laws, taking jobs, resources, and opportunities from citizens.

Voters blame the Biden-Harris administration for prioritizing illegal immigrants over Americans. There are also calls for more aggressive enforcement measures, including stricter deportations and policies like E-Verify to curb illegal hiring practices.

Border Security

Americans want a secure border. They view the failures of the current administration as directly responsible for violent crime, drug trafficking, cartel activity, and economic instability. For many, the election is a critical opportunity to correct these failures by ousting Harris, preventing her from further devastating the country with a border crisis.

Cartels and Criminal Activity

People also believe the administration turns a blind eye to cartels which exploit the porous border. They say Democrats tacitly approve of the influx of drugs and dangerous individuals by their inaction. Discussions focus on the human costs of these policies like rising drug-related deaths and violence by gangs in places like Aurora.

Economic and Social Strain

There are concerns that illegal immigration puts undue pressure on local resources, particularly in areas already struggling economically. Schools, healthcare systems, and social services are often overburdened by the influx of migrants. There are more and more communities struggling to maintain public safety and provide for their residents.

Political Manipulation and Distrust in Leadership

Many say Democrats use immigration as a tool to shift the electoral balance by allowing illegal immigrants to vote—either illegally or by with amnesty. Those on the right are especially suspicious that Democrats are undermining national security for political gain. This sentiment fuels much of the criticism directed at both Biden and Harris. This narrative positions immigration a broader ideological and electoral battleground.

7-Eleven announced it is closing hundreds of stores in Chicago and around the country, sparking debate about the reasons why. The convenience chain cites “lower store traffic, lower cigarette sales, and a shift in what consumers are looking for” as the reasons for closing.

7-11 stores are closing all over the Chicago area, this one on State & Grand , EMPTY CHICAGO STOREFRONT PROJECT: Im posting daily empty storefronts as businesses leave at a high rate. I blame massive property taxes, 10.25% sales tax, high state income tax, poor schools, high… pic.twitter.com/z01Z06lKkE

— Mark Weyermuller (@publicpolicyman) October 14, 2024

Voters online view these closures as a signal of various dysfunctions in cities like Chicago and growing problems for residents. There are concerns over rising crime rates, economic instability, and political mismanagement. Americans discuss fear, frustration, and political polarization, all of which impact the sentiment of Illinois voters prior to the election.

The Symbolism of 7-Eleven Closures

For many Illinoisans, 7-Eleven shuttering stores is more than a corporate business decision. They view it as emblematic of a community under siege, where public safety has deteriorated to the point that businesses no longer feel secure operating and employing workers in these areas.

Rampant business closures, often in urban centers already grappling with crime, generate widespread public outrage and impassioned online discussions. Residents see the closures as a direct result of failing leadership, inadequate law enforcement, and misguided policies that allow crime to spiral out of control.

Americans fear businesses are fleeing areas with unchecked violence, creating a cascading economic effect. Losing businesses exacerbates feelings of insecurity among residents who rely on these local stores for convenience and community engagement.

Crime and Public Sentiment

Crime has become a politically charged topic in Chicago. The dominant narrative blames Democratic leadership, particularly figures like Vice President Kamala Harris and President Joe Biden.

Angry residents say Democrats, foster an environment allowing crime to thrive. Many voters attribute rising crime with leniency on immigration and law enforcement policies. Voters often say violent incidents increase with open-border policies and leadership’s failure to protect local citizens.

Voters want action when they hear stories of increasing business closures. Conservatives dominate the conversation, urging voters to back candidates who promise tougher stances on crime and stricter immigration controls.

The urgency in voter discussions is high, framing the upcoming election as critical to the survival of various struggling communities. Stories of economic and rule-of-law erosion become a rallying point for galvanizing support for candidates who promise to be tough on crime.

Impact on Voter Behavior

The 7-Eleven closings are not a localized issue, as more retailers and businesses are closing locations around the country for revenue and safety reasons. Residents feel disconnected from political elites, whom they perceive as out of touch with crime and economic hardship on the ground.

Voters express a desire for leaders who will address public safety as a primary issue, rather than focusing on national or international policies that feel distant from the day-to-day struggles of average Americans.

Voters express fear and betrayal, framing their political choices as an opportunity to protect their families’ futures. This fear-driven narrative suggests that crime will be a central issue driving voters to the polls. Recent FBI revisions showing rising national violent crime rates solidify perceptions that leadership is failing to maintain public safety.

Demographic Patterns

Younger voters are more critical of established leadership, questioning the competence of older political figures and expressing concern over public safety. These younger voices show a degree of skepticism toward both major political parties but seem more inclined to demand structural changes to address rising crime and economic insecurity.

The tragic death of Sydney Wilson once again reveals growing ideological divides in America. With contradicting media interpretations and public discourse, MIG Reports analysis shows the contrast between left and right viewpoints.

After public outcry about Wilson’s death, Virginia police released the bodycam footage showing her aggressive attack, wielding a knife against a police officer. This revelation caused many on the right to point out the hypocrisy of BLM activists saying she was shot because of her race. Meanwhile, the left continues to use the incident as evidence of the need for police reforms, even as body cam footage shows her stabbing a police officer in the head.

The 6 feet 5 inches tall attacker was identified as Sydney Wilson, who was a former NAACP activist. The Asian-American Fairfax County officer was repeatedly slashed in the face in the surprise attack in Reston, Va. https://t.co/e5CIJpvwBk

— Asian Dawn (@AsianDawn4) October 15, 2024

While facts like bodycam footage provide clearer context, both sides of the political spectrum continue to construct different narratives of the same event. This drastic contrast in interpretation speaks to how media coverage shapes narratives, alternative reporting and grassroots discussions on X, and national political polarization.

Conservatives Decry Racial Bias

For conservatives, Sydney Wilson’s death is emblematic of ongoing disagreements about race, policing, and crime. They say truthful documentation or bodycam footage prevents stories like Wilson’s from becoming an ideological icon of leftist narratives like George Floyd in 2020.

Community Notes stopping a BLM hoax before it takes off pic.twitter.com/4ttjTq6WDi

— The Rabbit Hole (@TheRabbitHole84) October 16, 2024

Approximately 60% of conservatives focus on how the footage provided indisputable evidence of justified police action. They say facts cut through sensationalized media coverage which could have turned Wilson into a martyr for Black Lives Matter (BLM).

The right emphasizes law and order and the need to combat mainstream media’s tendency to push racially charged narratives. They also discuss Wilson’s case as an example of how free information on platforms like X help expose false leftist narratives, sometimes exonerating police or others accused of racism.

MIG Reports data shows among conservatives:

• 60% support police, saying bodycam footage negates accusations of racism.
• 30% are skeptical of BLM’s narratives and criticize its activism methods.
• 10% are frustrated by the media and the left politically and racially exploiting incidents like this.

Many on the right say the bodycam footage was crucial in preventing Wilson from becoming a rallying point for racial justice activists. Instead, they promote combatting mainstream media bias in reporting stories like this.

Some also make the point that leftist activists initially pushed for bodycams on all police officers to expose acts of racial policing. Those on the right point out the irony of how bodycams, in this instance, worked against that leftist narrative. Conservatives say alternative sources like X will soon outpace traditional news outlets when it comes to breaking news.

Liberals Demand Systemic Change

On the left, 62% of liberals and progressives view Wilson’s death as yet another example of systemic injustice. For them, the bodycam footage, while helpful, does not negate the broader context of racial inequality they say plagues law enforcement.

Liberals say Wilson’s case is emblematic of a much deeper, systemic racism which incremental reforms like bodycams are not enough to address. They call for radical reform in policing, making activist appeals for major changes to law enforcement practices.

MIG Reports data shows among liberals:

• 62% frame Wilson's death as systemic racism, calling for radical reform.
• 35% defend BLM and advocate for its continued role in pushing for justice.

While liberals acknowledge the factual evidence, they dismiss its meaning to focus is on structural racism. They say, even when police actions are legally justified, they often still point to a larger problem within law enforcement. These problems, they say, should be addressed through policy change, training, and accountability measures.

Georgetown Women's Basketball Ignores Circumstance

A point of contention in the two narrative interpretations grew out of a statement from the Georgetown Women’s Basketball team. After her death, the team made a post memorializing Wilson, calling it a “tragic loss” and adding, “Forever a Hoya.” But after the bodycam footage release, the university has since failed to acknowledge the circumstances of Wilson’s death, drawing a community note on X and many replies condemning the one-sided sympathy.

Georgetown women's basketball mourns the tragic loss of Sydney Wilson (C'13). Forever a Hoya.#HoyaSaxa pic.twitter.com/vqwD8M6x4t

— Georgetown WBB (@GeorgetownWBB) September 20, 2024

Again, in diverging narratives, Conservatives point out politicization in sports, with many criticizing the team honoring Wilson as if her passing had not become a national conversation about race and police. Many point to instances like George Floyd, where harmful or illegal actions are glossed over in the name of racial equality.

The liberal narrative praises the team for using their platform to raise awareness about racial justice. For them, sports figures have a responsibility to engage in social issues, and Georgetown’s message exemplifies how institutions can contribute to the broader movement for reform.

However, replies to Georgetown’s post were flooded with screenshots from the footage of Wilson angrily slashing a knife at crisis intervention officer Peter Liu, who is also seen in the video with a bloodied face.

Sydney Wilson was conducting a mostly peaceful stabbing of police officer Peter Liu when, clearly envious of her Black Excellence, Officer Liu unjustifiably shot Wilson before she could complete her act of cultural enrichment upon him.

Despite Officer Lui's Asianness, we must… pic.twitter.com/VNa57RdGDe

— Daniel Concannon (@TooWhiteToTweet) October 15, 2024

Two Americas, Two Narratives

The stark contrast between conservative and liberal interpretations of Sydney Wilson’s death is emblematic of the divide in American society. Whether through social media, footage of controversial events, or mainstream media, each continues to construct their own narratives.

Incidents like this lead many to question how it’s possible for unity or cohesive national identity when perspectives of the same event differ so drastically. Discussions about race, police, and violent crime continue, but sentiment will likely remain radically split.