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

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 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.

A viral video from Texas poll worker training reignited concerns about election integrity. In the clip, a trainer says the Texas Secretary of State is directing poll workers to allow non-citizen IDs to be used as valid identification at polling places. He explained this by saying poll workers are to “assume” non-citizens have become naturalized but simply failed to update their ID.

🚨BREAKING: Texas Secretary of State directs poll workers to accept NON CITIZEN driver’s licenses as ID to vote.

WATCH Denton County Elections Administrator Frank Phillips telling poll worker trainees SOS elections director
advised non citizen ID ok to vote.

See receipts🕵🏻 pic.twitter.com/MDIuRy2vPD

— Joseph Trimmer (@JosephTrimmer_) October 9, 2024

This video is sparking debate in Texas and across the country about ongoing election integrity concerns. For those already worried about election integrity, emerging reports imply calculated efforts by state and local officials to muddy the waters on voting transparency.

Republicans Most Concerned about Voter Fraud

• Conservatives: 75% believe allowing non-citizen IDs invites fraud and undermines election integrity.
• Moderates: 50% are concerned over illegal immigrants voting, though they emphasize they do not want legitimate votes suppressed.
• Liberals: 60% dismiss concerns of non-citizen voting, saying all measures in question are limited to ensuring access for legitimate voters.

Many on the right increasingly raise alarm about illegal immigrants potentially voting in the election. They say accepting non-citizen IDs is a direct assault on election integrity. Republicans are the most vocal about widespread fraud in the election, with some agreement from moderates.

Concerned voters feel betrayed by corrupt establishment powers willing to take drastic steps to secure the election for Democrats. Moderates, while less passionate, still echo caution about transparency after 2020 confusion and accusations.

Those on the left downplay concerns about illegal immigrants voting. They say illegitimate votes are either so minimal or nonexistent as to be unimportant. Instead, they focus on implementing inclusion measures, accusing conservatives of fearmongering and trying to suppress legitimate votes.

• In the last 14 days, sentiment regarding election integrity averaged 43.5% among Democrats and 39.7% among Republicans.

Election Integrity in Swing States

• 84% of voters fear fraud in critical swing states could sway election results.
• Fraud fears focus on cities like Atlanta, Philadelphia, and Detroit.

Election fraud in important swing states especially worries those who believe the election process is under threat. Many cite Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Nevada as areas of high concern.

Battlegrounds where every vote is critical for securing a win put Americans are on high alert for fraud. A dramatic 84% of voters say they worry about improper voting practices, mentioning things like accepting non-citizen IDs or ballot harvesting.

Voters say they worry that even minimal fraud efforts in critical counties could sway state results and even the election. Cities like Atlanta, Philadelphia, and Detroit, where past allegations of fraud continue to sour trust, generate high levels of concern. Particularly on the right, many remain convinced that 2020 was rife with irregularities and attempts to exploit loopholes—both of which they say may happen again in 2024.

Disillusionment and Voter Turnout

• 45% of young voters (18-34) plan to vote in 2024.
• 62% of all voters believe media bias distorts election fraud realities.
• Many cite disillusionment with both major parties and the political system.

Many older voters are focused on election integrity, but younger voters say they feel disengaged and disillusioned. Less than half of the 18-34 demographic say they plan to vote in the 2024 election. Previous MIG Reports analysis also showed 45% of Christians say they do not plan to vote.

More than half of voters say mainstream media intentionally downplays legitimate concerns about voting irregularities. This fuels distrust in the press and voter confidence in government transparency. This distrust is strongest among Republicans who view the media as consistently running cover for Democrats.

Voter disillusionment is a growing issue for both parties, often stemming from distrust in institutions—including the election process. Young voters say Democrats and Republicans both fail to paint a compelling vision for the future. They often feel the entire political system is broken, voicing discouragement and apathy.

The risk for Trump is that growing disengagement could hurt turnout if voters do not believe the election process is secure. The GOP is making strides to implement election integrity measures, but whether that will assuage voter cynicism remains unclear.

Democrats Focus on Misinformation

• 78% of Democrats emphasize combating disinformation over voter fraud.
• Democrats worry about voter suppression and protecting access to voting.
• They dismiss worries about non-citizens voting, focusing instead on laws they see as restrictive—like voter ID laws.

Most Democrats dismiss concerns about election integrity, saying Republicans are stuck on 2020 narratives which have been proven untrue. This group is more worried about controlling disinformation on social media and right-leaning media outlets.

Combating voter suppression and preventing unfounded fraud allegations is a top priority for Democratic voters. They say election cheating narratives are politically motivated to suppress voter turnout, particularly in marginalized communities.

Republicans Tie Immigration to Election Fraud

• 72% of Republicans are skeptical about mail-in voting and illegals voting.
• 59% feel disillusioned about how GOP leadership is handling election integrity.

Skepticism and discouragement are high among Republicans. They say election integrity is critical, with 72% voicing worries about various voter fraud methods. Many Republicans believe Democrats plan to manipulate election results, with few precautions from GOP leaders.

A focal point of worry is on swing states, where control of the Senate and the White House could be at stake. Republicans often express feelings of betrayal by party leaders and say they lack confidence in a fair election.

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.

The resurgence of the native red squirrel in Great Britain, particularly in parts of Scotland and Northern England, has sparked significant discourse on social media. While at face value this might seem like a simple environmental success story, many are co-opting the story as symbolic of broader socio-political sentiments around immigration and national identity.

Online discussions in the U.K. and America show a mix of enthusiasm and societal anxieties around "remigration"—a concept tied to protecting native populations and prioritizing local interests over mass migration.

MIG Reports analysis shows American sentiments about protecting national identity and stopping mass migration remain strong, evidenced by symbolism like red squirrels.

Britain's native red squirrels beat out 'invading' greys in fight for survivalhttps://t.co/dUYmndmQQZ

— GB News (@GBNEWS) October 1, 2024

National Symbolism and Cultural Preservation

Across online discussions, the red squirrel has become a cultural and national metaphor. It symbolizes a return to traditional British values and a reclaiming of what is perceived as lost due to external influences and mass migration.

The grey squirrel, by contrast, is portrayed as an invasive species that threatens the integrity of the local ecosystem, much like the perception of large influxes of foreign nationals disrupting societal stability.

These metaphors resonate strongly with conservative narratives in Britain and America, depicting a desire to preserve Western culture and protect native populations from perceived external threats.

Pro-Red Squirrel Sentiment

More than half of the discussion involves positive reactions to the comeback of the red squirrels, framing it as a victory for native species over invasive forces. The resurgence of red squirrels is celebrated as a triumph of environmental conservation and a restoration of a species that symbolizes British wildlife.

Brits and Americans draw parallels between the red squirrel’s return and the idea of maintaining national identity in the face of cultural invasion. They celebrate the squirrels as an icon of the resilience of native populations. In these discussions, protecting the red squirrel becomes an expression of pride in “native” British heritage, echoing a broader sentiment of safeguarding what is inherently local.

Anti-Grey Squirrel Sentiment

Around 25-30% of the discussion expresses negativity toward grey squirrels, framing them as an invasive species that threatens the survival of the native red squirrel population. The metaphor paints grey squirrels as representing immigrants who are perceived to disrupt national stability and identity.

Citizens use this narrative to advocate for the protection of the "native" red squirrel against the "foreign" grey squirrels. They link wildlife conservation with anti-immigration rhetoric both jokingly and seriously. The fear of ecological disruption mirrors concerns about immigration diluting or displacing native populations.

Government Responsibility and Resource Allocation

Another prominent theme is the role of government in prioritizing local populations. Around 35% explicitly advocate for a governmental focus on protecting its people, arguing citizens should be protected as red squirrels are being protected, receiving governmental priority over foreigners.

These sentiments reflect frustration with perceived governmental neglect, with criticism for policies citizens believe support foreign aid or immigration at the expense of native citizens. The narrative around the red squirrel becomes a rallying cry for policies that prioritize local interests, reinforcing calls for greater resource allocation toward national issues rather than global ones.

Donald Trump’s recent proposal to “staple a green card to every diploma” for graduates caused discussion within his base. The policy, which aims to retain skilled international graduates in the U.S. workforce, clashes with ongoing debates about immigration, the economy, and job competition.

Sentiment trends, potential voter impact, and deeper implications of this policy vary across Trump’s core base, Independents, and crossover voters. Analysis of voter discussions reveals the potential impact of this proposal on the election.

Summary of Findings

• 65-80% of Trump’s base endorses the policy for its economic benefits.
• 40-58% of Independents express cautious support but remain skeptical about job competition.
• At least half of crossover voters criticize the policy as politically motivated and say they would be less likely to vote.
• 10-15% of the base say this policy would increase their likelihood to vote
• 5-15% of Independents say it could increase their likelihood to vote.

Trump’s Core Base

The MAGA base is largely enthusiastic about the green card proposal. The policy resonates with those who see it as an economically sound solution to fill gaps in the American workforce. They appreciate that the policy focuses on retaining skilled talent, particularly in tech and innovation sectors, aligning with the economic nationalism that Trump has emphasized throughout his campaigns.

Comments from Trump’s base reveal a clear endorsement of the policy as beneficial to American economic growth. Voters feel Trump is prioritizing the U.S. workforce and addressing real labor shortages. However, around 20-30% are concerned about potential job competition, worrying the policy could lead to higher competition for American workers—particularly in lower-skilled sectors.

Independents

Independents are divided, with around half cautiously supporting it. These voters appreciate the focus on retaining high-skilled graduates, seeing it as a practical move to bolster economic growth and innovation in the U.S. However, many independents remain wary of Trump’s broader immigration policies and question the long-term impact of such a proposal on job competition.

The skepticism of this group stems from concerns about how the policy may affect the job market for American workers. Some view the proposal as a necessary economic measure, while others express doubt about its implementation and potential unintended consequences.

Crossover Voters

Crossover voters, or moderates, are overwhelmingly negative about the green card proposal. This group, which traditionally leans Democratic, views the policy as politically motivated.

For many, the proposal feels like an electoral ploy rather than a genuine attempt at reform, leading them to further distrust Trump’s intentions. However, there is a possibility this dialogue stems from anti-Trump voters who are reacting to these discussions merely to oppose any Trump policy as they normally would.

The dominant concern among this demographic is that the proposal will exacerbate existing immigration issues without addressing deeper systemic problems. Many see it as another example of Trump’s divisive approach to politics, which alienates them further. This opposition is likely to drive turnout against Trump, with crossover voters potentially mobilizing to vote for an alternative candidate.

Turnout Implications

The overall voter turnout trends suggest Trump’s green card proposal may energize his base. Supporters feel empowered by the economic and nationalist rhetoric with all his economic policies and are likely to engage more deeply in local campaigns.

However, for Independents, the policy yields mixed results, potentially driving modest gains in turnout among those who prioritize economic growth but failing to inspire more skeptical individuals. Crossover voters, on the other hand, show strong opposition.