Public sentiment on cartel-related issues in the United States is negative. As Americans grapple with the rising impact of cartel activities, including drug and human trafficking and gang activity, there is increasing tension between those advocating for a strong executive approach and those who still value traditional governance with checks and balances.
This analysis explores American sentiments regarding which form of leadership people see as most effective in addressing the perceived threats. Analysis also looks at how language—particularly the contrast between first-person and third-person usage—reflects the depth of personal investment in the problem and the expectation for leadership to deliver solutions.
MIG Reports data shows:
70% of Americans want a strong executive approach
25% want traditional governance to put protections in place
5% are ambivalent or resistant to addressing cartels
Strong Executive Approach
The 70% who want strong executive action express frustration with current government policies. They want strong, unilateral executive action similar to Donald Trump’s policies. These voters view the threats posed by cartels and immigration as immediate and urgent, requiring decisive leadership.
Traditional Governance
The 25% who favor a more traditional approach emphasize the need for bipartisan solutions. They seek full-scale immigration reform rather than over-reliance on executive power. This group would rather see it done procedurally than imminently.
Ambivalent or Resistant Sentiment
The minority who voice skepticism toward both executive overreach and traditional governance was genuine reform without partisan bias.
Issues Shaping Sentiment
Cartel Activities
Drug trafficking, violent crime, and human trafficking—including child trafficking—are recurring themes fueling public concern. The discourse often links cartel activities directly to the border crisis, which intensifies calls for stronger leadership and enforcement.
Fear and Urgency
Many Americans fear the consequences of Biden-Harris immigration policies, particularly rising crimes committed by illegal immigrants and the fentanyl epidemic. These fears drive the call for immediate and decisive executive action.
Perceived Government Failure
Public frustration largely stems from a belief that Biden and Harris prioritize political agendas over public safety and security. The perceived failure of traditional bipartisan methods, as well as policies like "Catch and Release," contribute to the urgency for stronger governance.
Language Analysis
First-Person Language: Problem Focus
When discussing the impact of cartel activities and border security, many Americans use first-person language. This reveals their personal investment in the issue. Statements like “We know this visit is just a political sham” and “I don’t feel safe,” suggest many are directly affected by the rise in crime, drug trafficking, and immigration failures.
The use of first-person language highlights the personal and emotional connection Americans feel regarding immigration. Many perceive cartel activities as a direct threat to their safety, families, and communities.
Urgency and Fear
First-person language amplifies the urgency of the problem, with emotional tones of fear, anger, and frustration dominating discussions. These emotions are particularly linked to alarming statistics such as fentanyl overdoses and crimes attributed to illegal immigrants.
Third-Person Language
Conversely, when Americans discuss solutions, they shift to third-person language, placing the responsibility on political leaders and government officials to act.
Detachment and Delegation
By using third-person language, voters place responsibility on political figures. Statements like “Kamala Harris is responsible for the illegal alien invasion” or “The government needs to step up” illustrate a belief that politicians are the ones who should resolve the crisis, since it’s their job.
Accountability and Criticism
This shift in language is often accompanied by criticism of current leadership. Public disappointment with figures like Kamala Harris and Joe Biden reflects a widespread sense that they have failed to address the border and immigration issues adequately. The use of third-person language to express frustration shows how the public holds these leaders accountable for the ongoing crisis.
Legal immigration has become a proxy war over economic control, political sovereignty, and cultural continuity. Americans debate it as a mechanism to be either fortified or dismantled. Online discourse shows a fundamental fracture in how Americans define the role of immigration—a transactional necessity or a structural threat.
Swaying on the Framing
Across social media, sentiments shift depending on framing. In general discussions, a 65/35 split favors restricting immigration, but when Trump is introduced, the split moves to a 45/45 deadlock with rising neutrality. The presence of Trump also alters tone—sarcasm, humor, and hyperbole replace policy-driven discourse, signaling a shift from rigid rejection to strategic control or avoiding confrontation.
When left in a general discourse, 65% of Americans favor reducing immigration
When President Trump mentioned, reducing immigration becomes less popular at only 45% support
When President Trump is a staple of these conversations, there is an increase in humor, sarcasm, and more uses of hyperbole as opposed to policy and effect.
Conversation Drivers
Economic concerns drive the debate, appearing in more than 50% of the discourse.
Proponents emphasize historical precedent and growth, but they are a minority at only 15%.
Critics frame immigration as corporate exploitation at labor’s expense.
Sovereignty arguments make up 30%, often merging legal pathways with critiques of elite mismanagement.
65% of discussions adopt an aggressive, defensive posture, casting immigration as incursion.
Even among immigration supporters, expansion is framed in utilitarian terms, stripped of idealism, reduced to workforce calculations.
Silicon Valley is an apartheid state exploiting H1B visas to hire indentured servants over American citizens. We need a 6-month immigration moratorium to reform these corrupt systems. America first means putting American citizens first. pic.twitter.com/F45bjugEH3
Ellis Island nostalgia no longer holds sway. 80% reject historical parallels, arguing modern immigration operates under fundamentally different constraints. The prevailing sentiment treats legal immigration as a bureaucratic function, not a national project—something to be tightened, controlled, or discarded as necessary. The debate is about the limits of what the system should allow.
Three first-generation Chinese American U.S. army soldiers have been indicted for allegedly selling highly classified U.S. military secrets to buyers in China.
This is the natural outcome of several decades of lax immigration policies, where citizenship is cheaply sold and… pic.twitter.com/jlJjCBSDex
Gen Z adults in France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Japan, South Korea are more opposed to mass immigration and to multiculturalism than older adults: pic.twitter.com/7gDzBsN7pO
The right’s immigration stance is hardening, but not in a uniform direction.
Boomers once framed immigration in economic and Cold War terms—useful, competitive, a managed asset. That paradigm is dead. The younger nationalist right, more radical than their predecessors at the same age, sees immigration as an existential challenge, a demographic mechanism engineered for national erosion. The issue is about survival.
In Trump-centric spaces, the urgency fades and hardline edges blur. Immigration restriction remains a priority, but they're contingent, conditional, and a matter of who wields power rather than whether the system should exist at all. This appears to not be shared by America’s younger right-leaning population. The President’s authority isn’t enough, they want the architecture itself dismantled. Younger voters are done negotiating.
Trump, for now, holds the coalition together. But the trajectory is likely moving past economic arguments toward an unapologetic framework of national preservation. The base is still Trumpian, but the future is something else.
A U.S. Supreme Court case, United States v. Skrmetti, involving transgender surgeries for minors has sparked widespread public debate. The case examines the constitutionality of Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, with oral arguments on Dec. 4. American discussions span ethical, medical, and political dimensions, amplified by ideological divisions and emotional investments.
Justice Alito asking if trans status is immutable is one of the greatest legal questions I've ever seen.
Civil Rights exist solely based upon immutable human traits.
The trans issue is extremely divisive, though most people in online discussions oppose to transgender surgeries for minors. Critics raise concerns about the potential for irreversible harm and question whether children can provide informed consent. This opposition is driven by the urge to protect children and safeguard parental authority.
A substantial minority advocating for what they call “gender-affirming care,” frames it as supporting children’s mental well-being and reducing risks such as self-harm. This group insists on respecting the autonomy of minors, particularly in familial decision-making on medical issues.
Universal Distrust
Public trust in the institutions involved—judicial and medical—is notably strained.
Americans are skeptical of the Supreme Court’s role, with many questioning its ability to navigate complex medical issues objectively.
Reports like the Cass report, a study on gender identity services for children, are met with suspicion as critics call them politically motivated.
The concept of harm minimization is a focal point of contention. Opponents of surgeries have a clear message of disdain for "gender affirming” medical practices. They say the risk of “too much, too soon,” looms large and their ire increases as liberals counter with minimizing the effect.
There is harsh pushback against arguments that equate the need for gender-affirming care to unrelated things like interracial marriage or the accessibility of medications.
Ketanji Brown-Jackson compares banning sex changes for children to banning interracial marriages.
Republican Senators that confirmed Brown-Jackson to SCOTUS:
Personal stories and anecdotes are a prominent feature in online discussion. These narratives provide emotional weight, as individuals share experiences of gender identity struggles, medical decisions, and their consequences.
Individual accounts attempt to humanize broader debates, shaping perceptions on emotion across ideological lines. However, some call this form of discussion “trauma bonding,” saying it serves only to perpetuate the negatives of the issue.
Media Propaganda
Most Americans express frustration with biased media narratives and the dissemination of incomplete or incorrect information. They want more balanced and transparent reporting on both sides, though “balanced” means different things across the aisle.
Holistic Perspectives
Some of the discourse advocates for a balanced approach that integrates medical ethics, parental rights, and child welfare. These voices highlight the need for nuanced solutions that address the complexities of the issue while avoiding oversimplification or politicization.
Trump’s FBI Director nominee Kash Patel is causing a stir, like many of his other appointments. Patel is a former federal prosecutor and served as a senior aide to Congressman Devin Nunes, where he was instrumental in challenging the FBI's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Patel was also appointed Chief of Staff to the Acting Secretary of Defense during the Trump administration.
Voter reactions are more than a response to one individual—they are a window into widespread institutional distrust. This erosion of trust in government is heightened by partisan divides and historical controversies around federal agencies.
The nominations of @Kash_Patel & @PamBondi clearly shows President @realDonaldTrump’s commitment to putting the blindfold back on Lady Justice by ending the weaponization, and restoring public trust in the justice system. pic.twitter.com/CN7gFu19tg
Public trust in federal institutions, particularly the FBI, remains fragile. Supporters view Patel’s nomination as an opportunity to dismantle systemic corruption and restore accountability. Advocates say his leadership could root out entrenched biases plaguing the agency. They hope he’ll be a reformer capable of driving meaningful change.
Skepticism dominates the opposition. Critics view Patel as a partisan figure whose close association with Donald Trump raises questions about impartiality. Many fear his leadership will deepen divisions and allow the FBI to be politicized for the right. This dynamic suggests distrust of governance on both sides.
A Historically Politicized FBI
Discussion is flavored by the FBI’s contentious history. Past leadership scandals and allegations of political interference loom large for both parties. For advocates, Patel offers a chance to address past grievances and reform the agency. They frame his nomination as a corrective measure to the perceived injustices of previous administrations.
Critics say Patel’s ties to the Trump administration make him a continuation of the very problems he claims to address. They cite past instances of perceived cronyism and systemic partisanship as evidence. These comparisons spur polarized reactions, highlighting how collective memory shapes public perceptions of leadership.
These 26 minutes of absolute brute force by Kash Patel are worth listening to.
He has a clear plan on how to dismantle the Deep State. If his nomination goes through, American way of doing things could change forever! pic.twitter.com/anNJ0ITJto
Patel’s nomination epitomizes the partisan divide in how Americans view justice. To his supporters, Patel is a symbol of “law and order,” someone who can counteract what they see as Democratic overreach and politicization of federal agencies. They hope he'll prioritize transparency and accountability.
Critics view Patel as a troubling manifestation of Trump’s enduring influence. They say he will turn the FBI into a tool of right-wing retribution, undermining the agency’s mission to serve all Americans impartially. This partisan framing reveals how both sides of the political aisle accuse the other of weaponizing power.
Patel nomination is an affront to professionals at the FBI, who won’t forget it even if Patel goes down. It’s also a challenge to the Senate to see if it will just roll over. A total a-hole move by Trump.
A few voices discuss the nuances of Patel’s nomination. Typically more ambivalent, they discuss the complexities of leadership in a deeply divided society. Some express cautious optimism, acknowledging Patel’s potential to reform the FBI but questioning whether he can navigate partisanship to rebuild trust in the agency. Others highlight the ethical challenges of appointing someone with overt political affiliations.
These nuanced discussions suggest public reactions to Patel’s nomination are not simply binary. While the majority align firmly with support or opposition, a meaningful minority wrestles with the broader implications of this decision, reflecting a desire for meaningful reform balanced against concerns about its feasibility.
Less than 30 days from the election, Democratic voters have mixed emotions about the Harris-Walz ticket. Analysis of social media discussions shows that, while a foundation of confidence exists, there are significant concerns about leadership, policy effectiveness, and party unity.
Democratic voter sentiment contains optimism, skepticism, disenfranchisement, and frustration. Left-leaning media like news interviews and Saturday Night Live have begun to make some criticisms of Harris and Walz, suggesting the media firewall may be cracking with increasing voter pressure.
BREAKING: SNL just went savage on Tim Walz's disastrous VP debate performance.
DOUG EMHOFF: “Tim will be fine. It's not like he's gonna say something crazy.”
Democratic voters express dual sentiments about Kamala Harris and Tim Walz.
Most express confidence in the ticket’s ability to win, driven by key issues like abortion, gun violence, and economic stability.
However, confidence is counterweighted by skepticism and pessimism, rooted in leadership concerns, disenfranchisement, and disconnect from voters.
Themes of unity and frustration emerge as voters struggle over supporting candidates they feel have not addressed their concerns.
Confidence in the Ticket Winning
Many Democrats express confidence in Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, citing their track record on the economy, gun violence, and abortion as reasons for optimism. There is a clear belief that Harris and Walz have the potential to win. Voters talk about mobilization and turnout efforts.
Discussions include commitment to vote and collective determination. This sentiment is buoyed by a narrative of continuity and leadership, as voters want to continue the current trajectory and emphasize Democratic values.
However, much of the optimism is muted as people acknowledge the challenges of maintaining hope for a victory. These discussions reveal a tempered belief in success, where phrases like, “We need a deal maker,” are coupled with critiques of the broader political landscape. These Democrats feel it’s possible to win, but not guaranteed. They recognize the rhetorical limitations of Harris and Walz and sinking popularity.
A growing number of Democrats are expressing doubt or pessimism regarding Harris’s chances. These discussions assert that Harris and Walz are disconnected from the realities of working-class voters and have failed to address critical issues. Phrases like, “How can we win like this?” reflect a sense of disillusionment with leadership. This growing doubt exists in all groups of Democrats from average voters to pundits and political leaders.
Persistent Worries and Disenfranchisement
The most striking trend among Democrats is a sense of disenfranchisement and persistent worry. Many feel let down by party leadership, with comments frequently pointing to Harris-Walz failures in addressing pressing concerns.
People mention things like inflation, immigration, and the response to Hurricane Helene. There is frustration in phrases like, “They left thousands of people to die,” calling out the lack of accountability and responsiveness from Democratic leaders.
There is also concern among some key demographics, particularly minority communities. They feel neglected and lied to, further amplifying feelings of disenfranchisement.
Similar Arguments and Themes
Democrats also criticize Harris and Walz’s leadership, voice concerns about party unity, and a call for a new direction. Voters are frustrated with inaction by Harris and Walz who fail to take meaningful action on the economy, crime, and immigration. Many suggest Harris and Walz have not done enough to earn voter trust.
Party unity also emerges as a key concern, with some calling for a more concerted effort to consolidate Democratic support ahead of the election. While many are frustrated with the leadership, there are also voices urging the party to rally behind Harris and Walz to avoid a fractured base. Phrases like, “We need to strengthen our efforts,” reflect a recognition that internal divisions could hinder the party’s chances of success.
Finally, many want a new direction within the Democratic Party. Voters call for candidates who are more connected to grassroots movements and less beholden to traditional party politics. Comments such as, “Let’s stop voting for the party and start voting for the people,” capture the sentiment that the current leadership is not fully aligned with the needs and values of the Democratic base. This suggests a more authentic, people-centered approach—like that of RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard—may appeal more to moderate Democrats.
Americans are split on the legitimacy of climate change and the trustworthiness of governmental and international actors who claim to address it. Patterns of skepticism, belief, and moral indignation manifest in linguistic style, political orientation, and the logic undergirding each camp’s narrative.
Get a load of this. . .
Tens of thousands of acres of protected Amazon rainforest in Brazil are being felled for the construction of a new four-lane highway to alleviate the anticipated traffic congestion during the annual UN climate conference, COP30, which will take place in… pic.twitter.com/7Nn6zviBa4
When conversations are explicitly filtered for climate-specific content, American discourse shows ideological stratification. Around 65% of the discussion approaches climate change as a vehicle for elite exploitation. Mostly populist and MAGA-aligned voices, they use highly confrontational language, derision, conspiracy framing, and appeals to personal liberty. They often dismiss climate policies as scams designed to enrich corporate interests and subjugate the middle class through taxation and regulation.
Roughly 35% of Americans in this space advocate for robust international and domestic responses. Their tone is firm but sober, leaning on scientific consensus and ecological urgency. This group frames climate efforts as a moral and practical necessity for future generations, invoking themes of stewardship, collective action, and systemic reform. They interpret contradictions in their rhetoric as human failings within a righteous cause, not as invalidations of climate policy itself.
Bill Gates: "[Covid-19] came from bats, so it's going to keep happening, particularly with climate change, where we're invading a lot of habitats." 🤡 pic.twitter.com/OFeh96GyP1
In general conversations not initiated by climate topics, but where climate discourse emerges organically, there is an almost symmetrical split. 40-45% endorse proactive climate measures, espousing pragmatism and a belief in regulation. They appeal to shared benefit, global coordination, and economic sustainability.
Another 40-45% focus on perceived double standards like international delegates flying globally to discuss carbon reduction. Sarcasm and rhetorical questioning dominate this lane, with users invoking cultural and class resentment. They view climate hypocrisy as emblematic of elite detachment from national priorities and working-class realities.
This group’s discourse aligns with a colloquial, populist tone, while the pro-policy side leans technocratic and earnest. A smaller 10-15% use climate conversation with election-related themes, creating hybrid narratives of dysfunction, partisanship, and disillusionment. Overall, trust in institutions is eroded, regardless of environmental views.
Ambient Critique in General Political Conversations
Within the general discourse, climate change is peripheral but symbolically potent. Around 10% of discussions reference climate-related hypocrisy as part of their grievances against government spending and globalism. These critiques mention climate summits as proof of elite waste and misaligned priorities. Many use climate references as rhetorical ammunition in debates over entitlement reform, inflation, and political character.
The dominant tones in this setting are sarcastic, distrustful, and emotionally charged. Although not centrally preoccupied with environmental policy, many Americans use climate hypocrisy as a stand-in for government detachment and ideological overreach. Only a minority engage with climate as an urgent threat.
I finally figured out who is responsible for climate change. It’s the big round hot thing up in the sky. pic.twitter.com/pVQB5XsfEg
While a sizable segment of Americans supports coordinated action to remedy climate threats, their voices are increasingly drowned out by those who view climate politics as elitist theater—another stage on which the American people feel misrepresented, overruled, and economically exposed.
Chuck Schumer backed the Republican-led Continuing Resolution (CR) to prevent a government shutdown, causing a political firestorm in his own party. Normally a routine funding measure, the CR exposes fractures in Democratic ranks, raises questions about Schumer’s leadership, and gives Republicans a strategic victory.
MIG Reports data shows 80% of Democrats disapprove of Schumer’s CR vote and only 20% support it. Republicans are also divided, with 65% approving of Schumer’s move but 35% questioning his motives as Schumer’s overall image deteriorates.
In overall discussions of Schumer’s recent actions 95% of Republican comments express a negative view and 70% of Democratic comments express negativity. Now, Democratic politicians are openly calling for Schumer’s resignation, progressives are discussing a 2028 primary challenge, and moderates worry Schumer will cost Democrats control in the 2026 primaries.
CR Vote and Republican Leverage
The Republican-led CR funds the government until September 30, 2025, but delivers key conservative wins:
$13 billion in non-defense spending cuts
$6 billion in defense spending increases
No detailed directives—giving Trump’s administration discretion over allocations
Schumer defended his decision as a pragmatic move to prevent an economic crisis. He says rejecting the CR would have led to a shutdown controlled by Republicans, handing Trump the power to dictate spending priorities.
But the backlash was swift. Democrats saw the vote as a capitulation to Trump and Musk, with zero meaningful concessions for their own priorities. Worse, Republicans are swiftly framing it as a strategic win.
Understand why the Democrats vehemently oppose DOGE now? They believe they're entitled to your money that you worked hard for.
The biggest fallout from Schumer’s decision is withing his own party.
Bernie Sanders, AOC, and activist groups are now leading the progressive revolt against Schumer.
Glenn Ivey (D-MD) has publicly called for Schumer’s removal—the first formal push from within the party.
Elizabeth Warren and Hakeem Jeffries distanced themselves, signaling unease with Schumer’s leadership.
Progressives are already floating a 2028 primary challenge, arguing Schumer represents corporate donors over the Democratic base. Democratic donors and activists are also discussing withholding support to pressure leadership change.
Moderates are conflicted as some recognize that Schumer had few options, but they remain frustrated that he failed to extract any meaningful Democratic wins.
Republicans Capitalize on Schumer’s Weakness
Republicans waste no time using Schumer’s failure to their advantage.
“Even in opposition, the GOP controls the budget.” This talking point is gaining traction among swing voters and featured in GOP ads targeting vulnerable Senate Democrats.
Trump claimed a narrative victory, publicly praising Schumer and reinforcing the idea that the GOP is driving its legislative agenda.
GOP-aligned strategists now push for deeper spending cuts, knowing Schumer lacks the leverage to push back.
The worst-case scenario for Democrats is that Republicans will demand more concessions next time, knowing Schumer will cave.
Corruption Allegations and USAID
Schumer’s problems are snowballing as negativity increases.
Accusations claim he misused USAID funds for financial and political gain.
Critics say he laundered money through NGOs, benefiting donors and political allies.
The accusations, initially from right-wing voices, are now spreading into progressive activist circles.
Schumer canceled a book tour event citing “security issues,” but many online question if the real reason is due to the recent severe backlash.
His handling of Social Security and Medicare has drawn Republican attacks and frustration from the Democratic base.
Schumer’s position as Senate Minority Leader is no longer secure.
Republicans are taking the opportunity to discuss long-standing establishment corruption narratives around Schumer and other Democratic leaders. Meanwhile, some progressives see this as yet another reason to push him out in 2028.
Columbia University recently canceled its commencement ceremony in response to ongoing anti-Israel protests on campus. These protests, part of a broader wave of political demonstrations at U.S. colleges, have intensified, leading to significant disruptions and even police intervention. While reactions to the protests generally vary according to political leanings, Columbia’s canceled graduation seems to upset parents across the board.
Many supporters of the protests express concerns about security measures and the involvement of law enforcement. Discussions frequently mention the use of police force during raids at Columbia’s Hamilton Hall, where protesters were staying. Those who advocate for pro-Palestine action tend to condemn what they see as excessive force and police brutality, claiming the protests are peaceful.
The decision to cancel graduation has sparked debate over its impact on graduating students. Many argue the protests have unfairly deprived these students of a pivotal life experience. Protest supporters believe the cancelation underscores the seriousness of the Israel-Hamas conflict. Still others blame university administrators for allowing the protests to impact normal proceedings on campus.
National sentiment towards universities and protests dipped below 40% at the beginning of May, as protests reached fever pitch.
Sentiment seems to be slowly recovering as national attention turns to other events and discussion volume drops.
Approval of President Biden on Israel and Palestine remains in the low 40% range as both right and left leaning voters seem unhappy with his handling of the conflict.
Reactions to Canceling Graduation
Protest supporters are more likely to focus on the reasons behind the cancellation, in their reactions. They point out public health or student safety concerns, and generally support measures that prioritize community welfare.
Pro-Israel and more conservative voters tend to view the cancellation as an overreaction and infringement on important milestones and traditions. They seem to view the decision as a capitulation to protesters by the administration.
Parents of university students, particularly those of graduating seniors, are being significantly impacted by the cancellation. They express disappointment, frustration, and unhappiness at the loss of an important ceremony for graduating students.
Reactions among parents are predominantly negative. Sentiments focus on the emotional and financial ramifications:
Disappointment and frustration: Many parents express disappointment that their children will miss out on the ceremonial acknowledgment of their academic achievements.
Financial concerns: There is frequent mention of financial losses relating to travel and accommodation bookings, as many families prepare for commencement months in advance.
Request for Alternatives: A common request among parents is for the university to consider alternative forms of celebration, such as virtual events or smaller, department-specific ceremonies.
Critique of University Administrators
Many critics of the decision to cancel graduation are also critical of how university administrators have handled the protests in general. They say the administration is overly lenient or biased in favor of what they consider "left-wing" protesters. This sentiment is especially carried over among conservative voters who views their values as under attack by academia.
There is a frequent call for stricter actions against protesters who obstruct the functioning of educational institutions or who promote anti-American or violent rhetoric. Conservatives frequently cite:
University failure to protect Jewish students and curb antisemitic rhetoric.
A belief that administrators allow "political correctness" to stifle truly free speech and normal campus functions.
The notion that universities are becoming safe havens for extremist views under the guise of academic freedom.
Liberal voters are more likely to support the administrators' decisions in handling protests, emphasizing the importance of free speech and peaceful protest. However, this group is not monolithic. Some progressives believe that university leaders are failing to adequately support minority and marginalized groups during protests. They argue administrators are not doing enough to meet the demands of protesters. Progressives often cite:
Administrators not being proactive in defending free speech rights for all groups, especially minorities.
Concerns over the potential suppression of academic freedom under external political pressures.
The balance between maintaining campus order and respecting protesters' rights.
A recent Gallup poll of American approval regarding immigration levels from 1965 through the present determined:
55% of Americans today want immigration reduced
25% want immigration levels to stay the same
16% want an increase in immigration numbers.
MIG Reports analysis of voter conversations online not only confirm polling data but reveal why Americans hold their current perspectives on immigration
Weighted Analysis
MIG Reports analysis weighs total discussion volume and approval percentages of immigration preferences by calculating the influence of each group's preference—decreased, maintained, or increased immigration—across multiple data sets.
By considering both the percentage of preferences within each data set and the total discussion volume of each set, the analysis determined the overall weighted preference.
MIG Reports analysis shows:
56.50% of voters nationally favor decreased immigration
26.22% favor maintaining current levels
17.29% favor increased immigration
Additionally, in swing states, around 70% of conversations favor reducing immigration.
In national conversations about the presidential election, 60% favor reducing immigration.
Why a Majority Wants Reduced Immigration
The predominant preference in voters discussions favors decreased immigration. This is driven by a variety of concerns revolving around national security, economic stability, and public safety.
Many Americans voice deep apprehension about illegal immigration as a major threat to the country’s security and economic well-being. Voters talk about reducing or stopping illegal immigration because they believe:
Illegal immigrants contribute to rising crime rates: Discussions mention gang activity and violent crimes linked to immigrant groups, particularly in urban areas.
An open order exacerbates economic challenges: People discuss job scarcity and inflation, arguing the influx of illegal migrants strains public resources like social services, healthcare, and housing.
There is widespread frustration and distrust toward Biden-Harris immigration policies, which voters view as too lenient. People direct their anger toward Democrats who they believe have failed to secure the border. Discussions emphasize a sense of urgency and alarm, with many advocating for stricter controls and even mass deportation policies.
Reasons for Maintaining Immigration Levels
Around 25% of voters in MIG Reports data advocate for maintaining current levels of immigration. They emphasize the need for a balanced and structured approach to the border. These voters typically argue that, while reforms may be necessary, a drastic reduction in immigration is not the solution.
Immigration advocates point out the importance of legal immigration pathways, highlighting the contributions of immigrants to the economy and society. They focus on the value of diversity and the critical role immigrant workers play in the economy. Here, they mention industries that rely heavily on labor from immigrant populations.
There is also a strong humanitarian element in these discussions. Voters want asylum seekers to have human rights protections. They argue a well-regulated immigration system can benefit the country by bringing in individuals who contribute positively to communities and the economy. Sentiments in this group are generally more optimistic and focused on the potential for policy reforms that balance security concerns with the need for inclusivity and economic growth.
A Minority Want Increased Immigration
The smallest segment of Americans supports increasing immigration levels. This view is driven primarily by humanitarian concerns and the belief in the positive impact of diversity. Often progressives and libertarians, this group focuses on America's moral and ethical responsibility to provide refuge to those fleeing persecution and violence.
Increased immigration proponents say the United States, as a nation built on immigration, has a duty to welcome those seeking better lives and to support their integration into society. They also emphasize the economic benefits of immigration, particularly the need for a growing workforce to sustain economic growth and address labor shortages in certain industries.
Advocates point out immigrants bring a wealth of skills, perspectives, and cultural richness which contributes to the vitality of the nation. Discussions include calls for comprehensive immigration reform that expands opportunities for legal immigration and strengthens support systems for newcomers. The tone in this group is often one of compassion and a belief in the long-term benefits of a more open and inclusive immigration policy.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png){kind=spacer}
.png){kind=spacer}
.png){kind=spacer}
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)