San Diego County is making news and stirring online discussion about national and state immigration policies. The San Diego County Board of Supervisors voted to pursue “super” sanctuary city status by protecting them from deportation. Subsequently, the County Sheriff vowed not to comply with new super sanctuary rules. This tug-of-war between voters, Trump’s anticipated border security and immigration policies, county governors, and county law enforcement is a microcosm of America’s battle over the border.

BREAKING: The San Diego County Board of Supervisors just voted 3-1 to turn the county into a "super" sanctuary county by shielding illegals from deportation and preventing police from notifying ICE about dangerous illegals in custody.pic.twitter.com/ApINL5CtRy

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) December 11, 2024

What Voters are Saying

MIG Reports data shows:

• 68% of voters nationally oppose sanctuary city status.
• 58% of Californians are skeptical of super sanctuary status, but not vocally opposed.
• 45% approve of the sheriff’s decision not to enforce, viewing it as necessary for community safety.
• 55% criticize local law enforcement, arguing county police are undermining humanitarian commitments.

Despite significant negativity both nationally and among Californians on super sanctuary status, a slight majority also oppose the sheriff’s actions. This suggests Americans are torn between protecting the border and the turmoil caused by community leaders working against each other.

The Sanctuary City Proposal

San Diego’s sanctuary designation aligns with California's progressive stance on immigration, aiming to protect illegal immigrants from Trump’s incoming federal enforcement, including promises of mass deportations.

Supporters view protecting migrants as a moral imperative, reflecting American ideals of compassion and inclusivity. Critics say San Diego is prioritizing illegals and criminals over residents, enabling crime and straining public resources.

In California, the state’s historic support for sanctuary policies contrasts with growing frustrations among moderates and conservatives. The right sees these policies as emblematic of a state out of touch with local safety concerns. In addition, more Californians are expressing objections, with 58% skeptical or critical of the Board of Supervisors’ decision.

Law Versus Compassion

San Diego County Sheriff Kelly Martinez’s refusal to comply with super sanctuary rules has ignited intense debate. Many conservatives praise her as a defender of public safety, with 70% in this group approving her stance. Critics, however, view the refusal as an abdication of responsibility to protect immigrant communities. Among overall voters, 55% disapprove of the sheriff’s decision.

Many voters say that, while law enforcement prioritizes crime prevention, disregarding policies undermines trust between the community and local authorities. Despite sharp divisions in policy stances and ideology, Americans want leaders, politicians, and law enforcement to work together.

NEW: San Diego County Sheriff Kelly Martinez announces she will not adhere to the "super sanctuary" policy approved by the San Diego County Board of Supervisors today, pointing out that she is an independently elected official, the Board does not set policy for her office, and… pic.twitter.com/NigwuElztR

— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) December 11, 2024

Broader National Implications

San Diego County’s situation mirrors the national struggle between federal immigration mandates and local governance. The Biden administration’s policies, viewed by many conservatives as lax, have intensified calls for stricter enforcement at the state and local levels. Voters express frustration with a lack of coherent strategy, linking the influx of migrants to increased crime and economic strain.

The sheriff’s refusal to follow sanctuary policies represents a growing anti-establishment sentiment, particularly among Trump voters who view local leaders as out of step with the American people. Nationally, sanctuary city policies remain a wedge issue.

Key Themes in the Discussion

Crime and Public Safety

• Many fear sanctuary policies will attract more migrants with criminal backgrounds.
• Progressives highlight improving trust between law enforcement and immigrants already in the country.

Resource Allocation

• Critics say sanctuary cities strain local budgets, diverting resources from citizens.
• Supporters say immigrants contribute positively to communities and economies.

Federal-State Conflicts

• The tension between federal immigration enforcement and local discretion is highly contentious.
• Conservative voters increasingly advocate for local resistance to perceived federal overreach.
• Progressives decry noncompliance with sanctuary policies by law-and-order advocates.

Projections for 2025

With the incoming Trump 2.0 administration, immigration debates like San Diego’s will intensify. Sanctuary city policies will likely become a friction point between a progressive minority in Congress and energize conservative voters who want strong action from Trump.

In battleground states where safety and sovereignty resonate deeply, discussions will likely escalate. In border states like California with notoriously progressive policies, legal battles may be on the horizon—as Gavin Newsom has promised.

The role of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in U.S. immigration has become a contentious issue as the country prepares for Donald Trump’s second administration. Allegations of corruption, demands for accountability, and broader ideological clashes over immigration and national security fill discussions. MIG Reports analysis shows Americans view NGOs as either:

• Indispensable humanitarian actors
• Complicit in undermining American sovereignty and safety

Ep. 30 What's happening at the southern border isn’t just an invasion, but a crime. The politicians and NGOs responsible for it are criminals, who should be punished accordingly. pic.twitter.com/cbkTSUyogC

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) October 12, 2023

Unaccountable and Corrupt

Many Americans are extremely critical and skeptical about the operations of NGOs, often viewing them as self-serving entities exacerbating societal challenges. Criticism frequently centers on their involvement in immigration, drug trafficking, and human trafficking.

Critics say NGOs operate with little or no oversight, perpetuating crises to secure continuous federal funding. Phrases like “human trafficking” and “money laundering” are common in these discussions, reflecting a belief that NGOs have shifted away from their original missions toward political or financial agendas.

These accusations align with frustrations over government complicity, with many calling for investigations to ensure transparency and accountability.

This area in the canal zone of Panama City used to be a U.S. Govt owned military base.

Currently, some offices belonging to the UN, OIM, UNICEF, and the Clinton Foundation (among other NGOs) operate here…funding trafficking…while using U.S. taxpayer dollars. 🔊 pic.twitter.com/TicsNCXAkO

— Susan Goss (@ornery_owls) April 16, 2024

Emotional vs. Intellectual Engagement

The tone of the debate is emotional, with anger and frustration dominating 70% of the discourse. There are sweeping generalizations and hyperbolic language, emphasizing accusations over evidence. NGO discussions often adopt a binary worldview, pitting “good Americans” against “bad organizations.”

Around 30% of conversations take an analytical tone, exploring the complexities of immigration policy, NGO operations, and systemic challenges. This chasm highlights tension between emotionally driven reactions and thoughtful critique, with the former shaping much of the public narrative.

NGOs and Immigration

NGOs are often depicted as enabling illegal immigration and partners in cartel-driven activities, amplifying fears about national security. Critics argue these organizations facilitate border crossings under the guise of humanitarian aid, exacerbating issues like human trafficking and drug smuggling.

Critical perspectives are intertwined with broader political narratives that prioritize national sovereignty and border control. These discussions also extend to critiques of political figures like Joe Biden and Barack Obama. Many Americans blame them for fostering an environment in which NGOs are allowed to operate unchecked.

Calls for Reform and Policy Action

The demand for stricter oversight and reform is a recurring theme. Many Americans want policies that hold NGOs accountable while also addressing the root causes of illegal immigration and trafficking. Some propose using tariffs or other economic tools to pressure foreign governments into taking more responsibility for these issues.

Calls for reform resonate with nationalist perspectives, often clashing with concerns over the humanitarian impact of harsh immigration policies. There is a smaller but significant group discussing these aspects of the issue. This tension illustrates the ideological divide over how best to balance security and compassion.

Remember-

FEMA isn’t out of money just because they’re funding illegal immigration.

They’re out of money because they’re funding the largest human trafficking network the world has ever seen in cooperation with international drug cartels and a vast network of “NGOs”

This is…

— Ian Carroll (@IanCarrollShow) October 4, 2024

Media Influence and Ideological Drivers

Public sentiment on NGOs is shaped significantly by media coverage, with sensationalist narratives often fueling distrust and emotional reactions. The political and cultural divide—characterized by competing “America First” nationalism and globalism—further sharpens these discussions.

Viewing NGOs as either corrupt political actors or vital support systems, Americans reaffirm their division over the nation’s priorities and values, particularly in the context of Trump’s impending administration.

California Governor Gavin Newsom recently announced his plans to assemble a legal defense using taxpayer funds to fight the incoming Trump administration’s immigration policies. This is igniting fierce debate in California.

As Democratic leaders prepare to push back against Trump’s populist policies in court, California residents are sharply divided. Public sentiment leans heavily against Newsom’s actions, with many arguing this is a misuse of taxpayer dollars and a violation of the voter directive to secure the border.

BREAKING: Gavin Newsom has convened an emergency session of the California Legislature to approve a "Trump-proof" legal defense fund that will cost taxpayers $25 million.

Newsom plans to file lawsuits to block every policy President Trump enacts.

"We know what happened the last… pic.twitter.com/cQcG5CZN04

— George (@BehizyTweets) December 2, 2024

Grassroots Support for Stricter Immigration

The national context of voter sentiment around immigration and border policies sheds light on the mood in California—a sanctuary state. Nationally, public opinion on immigration has dramatically shifted in the last four years, culminating in Trump’s decisive win.

A recent CBS News poll from November shows 57% of Americans approve of a plan to deport all illegal immigrants, while only 43% oppose the proposal. This includes a significant portion of the electorate who views mass deportation as a necessary step toward securing the nation's borders.

Even within the Hispanic community 48% approve and 52% disapprove of such drastic measures. This split reflects the larger debate on immigration nationally, shaping how states like California respond to national sentiments.

Support for mass deportations remains high, weeks before President-elect Trump takes office.

Our @CBSNews poll finds a majority of Americans (57% v 43%) approve of a plan to deport all immigrants living in the U.S. illegally.

Hispanics are divided: 48% approve v 52% disapprove. pic.twitter.com/iTHBYVbl1O

— Camilo Montoya-Galvez (@camiloreports) November 24, 2024

Most Americans support stricter immigration enforcement, saying deportations should be a central part of U.S. immigration policy. This suggests a substantial mood shift toward hardline policies, causing backlash against Newsom in California.

Corresponding with polling, MIG Reports analysis of Californian reactions to Gavin Newsom’s recent comments intensify the national debate.

• 67% of discussion about Newsom’s plan is negative, criticizing his misuse of taxpayer resources and refusal to align with voter demands for border security.
• Only 22% express support for Newsom’s actions, focusing on the moral obligation to protect migrants from what they see as a harmful federal policy.
• 11% voice neutral or ambiguous sentiments, showing some degree of indecision but no outright endorsement of the plan.

These numbers suggest negative sentiment in California—a border state and sanctuary state with a deep blue electorate—is even more pronounced than national trends. Californians are more concerned about the fiscal implications and the impact on local communities than the national discourse reflects. Many see Newsom's stance as an unnecessary political maneuver that detracts from more pressing state-level needs.

Fiscal Responsibility and Public Safety

The economic implications of Newsom’s decision are a primary concern for many Californians. California is facing a state debt of $70 billion, and residents are increasingly frustrated with how state funds are used. At a time when many are struggling with high housing costs, rising gas prices, and worsening homelessness, Newsom prioritizing immigrants over addressing state issues draws ire.

Fiscal irresponsibility dominates as the main concern in discussions. Critics argue Newsom is focusing on national political theater in an effort to boost his profile for larger Democratic aspirations in 2028 and beyond.

The state has already spent $24 billion on homelessness initiatives with little visible impact. This leads residents to ask why Newsom is prioritizing immigration policy battles over state necessities like housing, public safety, and jobs.

Many argue sanctuary policies put their communities at risk by enabling criminals and cartel activity. Around 30% express worries that California's sanctuary policies embolden illegal criminals and drug traffickers, degrading public safety and rule of law.

Newsom’s National Ambitions

Californians are increasingly skeptical of Newsom’s political motivations, with 50% criticizing him for political posturing. They accuse him of focusing on building a national profile to prepare for a future presidential run. Critics say he wants to position himself as a progressive leader to gain greater power, while ignoring his constituents.

California’s single-party political landscape fuels voter disillusionment. Many feel partisan politics takes priority over citizens’ needs. The growing exodus of businesses and residents due to high taxes, burdensome regulations, and rising costs only intensifies frustrations with Newsom’s governance.

Immigration and the Economy

While Newsom frames his immigration stance as a defense of human rights, many tie the state’s financial woes to the burden of illegal immigration. Nationally, the cost of illegal immigration to taxpayers is estimated to be $150 billion annually. Critics say this burden is disproportionately felt by states like California, which has one of the largest migrant populations.

Californians are raising concerns that the state’s already stretched resources are being drained by the need to provide services to migrants who do not contribute to the economy. State funding for illegals creates tensions among Californians who believe these funds should be used to address infrastructure, public safety, and economic growth.

New York Mayor Eric Adams is collaborating with Trump’s new Border Czar Tom Homan, triggering sharp reactions. In a press conference, Adams said, "Cancel me because I'm going to protect the people of this city," referring to rising crime caused by illegal immigration.

While Republicans largely praise Adams for taking a tough-on-crime stance, Democrats are dismayed, accusing him of betrayal and opportunism. Online discourse focuses on public safety and immigration policies as contentious topics.

HOLY SH*T!

NYC Mayor Eric Adams just dared the left to "cancel" him over working with Border Czar Tom Homan and Trump.

"Cancel me because I'm going to protect the people of this city."

He says illegals are "committing crimes, robberies, sh*oting at police, r*ping innocent… pic.twitter.com/ByIw0FZuut

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) December 3, 2024

Republican Reactions

Republicans view Adams’s statement as a strategic move to prioritize public safety, though not without some critique.

• 65% of Republicans commend Adam for aligning with Homan, calling it a step toward restoring order.
• Many highlight his willingness to risk backlash in order to protect NYC.
• 20% of Republicans call supporters hypocritical for softening to a Democrat previously critical of GOP immigration policies.
• Ohers emphasize that linking immigration to violent crime drives Republican messaging.

Democrat Reactions

Democrats frame Adams as acting contrary to party values, while some call for balanced discussions.

• 35% of Democrats feel Adams betrayed the party’s commitment to immigrant rights.
• 25% want to separate crime from immigration to avoid harmful generalizations.
• 10% accuse Adams of leveraging crime rhetoric for political gain.

General Reactions

• 35% of overall reactions support Adams for focusing on safety in NYC.
• 50% view his actions as politically motivated.
• 15% remain neutral, favoring practical reform over divisive rhetoric.

In discussions about border security, 60% link illegal immigration to crime, while 30% emphasize immigrant contributions to society and community. Critics advocate for addressing root causes of immigration like poverty and law enforcement inefficiencies.

Key Anomalies and Opposites

• Republican support for a Democrat marks an unusual break from typical partisan lines, suggesting lines are being redrawn between the people and the establishment.
• Those who support Adams view illegal immigrants as threats to safety, while critics focus on their societal contributions.
• Adams is seen as courageous by Republicans but opportunistic by Democrats.

America reactions to Adams pledging to work with Homan encapsulates America’s polarized stance on immigration and crime. Law-and-order advocates clash with immigration defenders amid calls for systemic reform.

Some nuanced discussions and rare bipartisan support reflect an evolving debate shaped by political calculations and societal pressures. Mayor Adams also recently defended Daniel Penny, possibly signifying a cultural and political shift within NYC politics.

NYC Mayor Eric Adams defends Daniel Penny

"You have someone on that subway who was responding, doing what we should have done." pic.twitter.com/3SsClh2VL9

— National Conservative (@NatCon2022) December 3, 2024

Discussion of the border has reignited in the aftermath of Laken Riley’s murderer being convicted on all counts. Riley’s death is widely viewed as emblematic of the Biden administration’s failure to protect the border and the American people.

For many, Riley’s story exemplifies the threat of an “open border” approach. Americans are frustrated with the administration’s unwillingness to stop the border crisis and, in the case of Riley’s murderer, even providing free resources to illegals. Her tragic death has become a rallying cry for stricter immigration enforcement, with voters demanding:

• Harsher penalties for illegal migrants who commit crimes.
• Policies that prioritize public safety over migrant sympathy.

Migrant Caravans Try to Cross

Recent reports of migrant caravans approaching the U.S. border hoping to cross before Trump takes office elicit various reactions. Many say it’s confirmation of Biden’s negligent policies, saying migrants know they have a better chance to get in while he’s in office.

Public Sentiment

• Many Americans are anxious about the strain on resources and law enforcement if large migrant caravans try to cross. The perception of a "border invasion" spurs calls for immediately shutting down the border.
• Progressives emphasize the dire conditions prompting these migrations, advocating for compassionate responses. They feel the U.S. has a responsibility to help address root causes.
• Prominent figures like Trump highlight the caravans to underscore the need for robust border security measures. He says this is a cause for mass deportations when he retakes office.
• In areas directly threatened by caravans, local leaders voice concerns about the impact on their communities. For instance, Newport Beach Mayor Will O’Neill criticized California Governor Gavin Newsom’s sanctuary policies following the arrival of migrant boats.

Outrage at Democratic Leadership

The Biden administration faces intense scrutiny over border security, particularly the issue of unaccompanied migrant children. Reports of 400,000 missing migrant children reveal the accountability crisis in federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

🚨BREAKING: HHS Secretary is NOT ABLE to account for the over 400,000 missing children! pic.twitter.com/wa4e68Zj7P

— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) November 20, 2024

Adding to voter frustration are local officials like Denver Mayor Mike Johnston, who pledged to obstruct federal deportation efforts by deploying the Denver police. This angers voters nationally as well as Denver residents who are tired of leaders who refuse to protect their own people from invasion, crime, and economic burden.

What the ACTUAL FUCK IS WRONG with our Denver fucking "mayor"?

Denverites will NOT be stopping them. If anything we will be on the side of the feds on this one.

Fuck Mike Johnston. WE THE PEOPLE will
peacefully SPEAK OUT against our "government" on this. https://t.co/sOX6TdYdWe

— Dr. Vinnie Boombatz, America 1st Patriot 🇺🇸 (@flyboy0255) November 21, 2024

Voters express:

• Anger at local officials pledging to defy federal authority regarding deportations.
• Belief that Democratic leaders are undermining national sovereignty.

Crime, Gangs, and Public Safety

Illegal immigration as a cause of rising crime rate is a dominant theme in border discussions. High-profile cases like Laken Riley’s murder and growing concerns about gang activity permeate conversations. The Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang, now operating in 16 U.S. states, has become a focal point of anger about:

• Dangerous criminals being allowed and helped into American communities.
• The inability and unwillingness of current politicians to prevent such threats.

Moderates echo these concerns but also highlight the complexities of balancing crime prevention with the economic benefits of migrant labor.

• The Tren de Aragua (TdA), a violent Venezuelan gang, has expanded its operations into multiple states, infamously taking over apartment complexes in Aurora, CO.
• The gang is involved in gun smuggling, robbery, assault, and sex and human trafficking, with specific crimes reported in places like Queens, New York, where gang members dominate areas such as Roosevelt Avenue.
• Jose Ibarra, Laken Riley’s murderer, is a member of this gang, bringing the issue of their presence to national attention.

Economic Strains on the Border Debate

While public safety dominates the conversation, economic implications are also high on Americans’ priority list. Around 45% of U.S. farm workers are illegal migrants and the agricultural sector faces potential labor shortages if deportations escalate.

• 55% of Americans worry about disruptions in food production and rising costs.
• Farmers fear operational collapses if there are mass deportations.

However, many conservatives criticize these concerns among liberals and high-income Americans. They say this group is happy to treat migrants like near-slave laborers to maintain low-wage food and service industry workers.

Conservatives say safety is a higher priority than low-wage labor. They say it’s equally racist, if not more, for liberals to decry removing migrant laborers who are willing to work for low wages, as those who want to protect American sovereignty.

Kind of wild that every lib argument for illegal immigration inevitably advocates for quasi-slavery so they can have cheaper vegetables. https://t.co/NOd83MX2Sf

— Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) November 21, 2024

Expectations for Trump

Donald Trump’s impending return to the White House heightens voter expectations for rectifying the border and tightening immigration policies. Supporters demand this administration restore “law and order” by:

• Enforcing mass deportation policies.
• Securing the border with a wall and preventing continued illegal crossings.

While conservatives express optimism, progressives fear severe actions could worsen humanitarian crises. Moderates are cautious, torn between supporting stronger enforcement and avoiding economic fallout.

Audio released of Laken Riley’s 18-minute fight for survival and her tragic murder have become a national rallying cry against illegal immigration. The trial ended with Jose Ibarra—an illegal immigrant from Venezuela—being convicted on all counts in Athens, Georgia. Riley’s story transcends personal tragedy, becoming a symbol for widespread societal frustrations over preventable crimes caused by an open border.

Laken Riley fought for her life for 18 minutes. 18 excruciating minutes.

Don't you dare tell me I didn't vote to protect women. pic.twitter.com/gby26DwceW

— Riley Gaines (@Riley_Gaines_) November 16, 2024

Gut-Wrenching Sorrow and Empathy

Laken Riley’s persistence and fight in the face of her attacker deeply resonates with Americans, particularly women and parents who feel her family’s sorrow. Riley’s story generates admiration but also enrages observers who feel her death was unspeakably horrific and fully preventable.

BREAKING: The illegal who k*IIed Laken Riley is found guilty on all charges pic.twitter.com/IylC1gA5eE

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) November 20, 2024

• Many view Riley as a symbol of resilience, sparking advocacy for better protections for women and victims of violence.
• Her case has become a rallying cry against illegal immigration, with voters demanding stronger borders and zero-tolerance crime policies.

In the courtroom, Riley’s mother sobbed upon seeing evidence of her daughter’s desperate fight—scratches on the accused’s arm believed to be inflicted during her final moments. This emotional testimony highlights the raw human cost of governance failures which allowed such a crime to occur.

Many also point out new testimony alleging the Biden administration’s assistance programs for illegal immigrants provided Riley’s killer a free plane ticket to Athens, GA. Amid growing rage at public funds spent to accommodate illegal migrants, Americans are further infuriated that so-called assistance set the stage for Riley’s murderer.

The roommate of Laken Riley's killer just testified during his trial that they went to the Roosevelt Hotel together in September 2023 and received a taxpayer funded flight to Georgia.

Your government flew an illegal gang member to Georgia with your money -- where he then… pic.twitter.com/7plVTnJhy6

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) November 18, 2024

Recent Case Updates

Accused murderer Jose Ibarra’s trial has provides new details which intensify public outrage:

• Ibarra has waived his right to a jury trial, with Judge H. Patrick Haggard presiding over the bench trial.
• Heart rate data from Riley’s smartwatch shows her heart stopped around 9:28 a.m. on the day of her murder. Surveillance footage and witness testimony establish Ibarra’s presence at the scene.
• Ibarra’s attorney has argued the evidence is insufficient for a conviction, despite the graphic nature of the prosecution’s case.
• Public reactions are seething and hostile toward Ibarra, with anger fueled by his status as an illegal and the federal policies which enabled the crime.

Rising Violent Crime

Americans voice widespread anxiety and anger over violent crime perpetrated by illegal immigrants, with Riley’s case serving as a flashpoint for criticism.

• 62% of commenters express concerns about rising violent crime.
• 70% of those worried about crime link it to immigration issues.
• 30% criticize law enforcement for leniency, demanding harsher penalties for violent offenders.

The prosecution’s case highlights the brutality of Riley’s murder, presenting evidence of Ibarra’s relaxed demeanor following the crime—a detail that further provokes rage over crime and illegal immigration.

Outcry Against Open Borders

The fact that Riley’s alleged murderer is an illegal migrant from Venezuela pushes sentiments about the Biden-Harris administration’s negligent immigration policies to the fore. Americans overwhelmingly tie Riley’s tragic death to Democrats’ unwillingness to secure the border.

• 60% of voters say illegal immigration is contributing to violent crime.
• 45% specifically call for stricter border controls and immediate deportation for anyone with a criminal record.

Incoming border czar Tom Homan has amplified these sentiments, saying Biden and Harris "have blood on their hands," framing Riley’s death as due to their policies.

Systemic Justice Under Fire

Criticism of the justice system looms large in discussions of Riley’s case. Many are dissatisfied with judicial processes, citing failures to enforce immigration laws and leniency toward offenders. Critics see district attorneys in blue areas and progressive policies as enabling crime, blaming lenient sentencing and release practices for rising violence.

This is the DA who refused to seek the death penalty for Laken Riley’s murderer https://t.co/Gg5fHCvMER

— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) November 20, 2024

Reactions are also intertwined with ongoing political narratives in America, particularly concerning women's rights and public safety. Women relate Riley’s ordeal to wider conversations about alleged threats to reproductive rights and gender equality, contrasting these issues with very real physical threats by violent criminals.

These discussions indicate a shift in public discourse where personal experiences are linked to political viewpoints. Trials involving violence against women draw attention to the need for comprehensive policy change—especially when violent illegal immigrants are involved. Americans want to return to an environment where individuals, especially women, can feel safe and empowered.

Cultural and Political Implications

The tragedy of Laken Riley’s murder exposes policy failures and galvanizes political debate. Many voters already view crime and immigration as pivotal and connected issues, but deeply emotional and resonant stories like Riley’s illustrate American sentiment in a vivid way.

• Riley’s case has sharpened frustrations with Democratic leadership, particularly President Biden, whose immigration policies are often seen as traitorous.
• Conservatives overwhelmingly view her death as a direct result of border mismanagement, demanding action from Republican leaders to prioritize border security and public safety.
• Many on the right also accuse Democrats of not being willing to acknowledge stories like Riley’s, avoiding any discussion that might place blame at their feet.
• People compare Democratic silence on stories like Riley’s to their loud overtures about racial politics in America, as in the case of George Floyd, pointing out the hypocrisy of undue attention on the one hand, and aversions on the other.

Remember when Nancy Pelosi and her Democratic colleagues knelt for 8 minutes and 46 seconds to honor George Floyd?

I wonder how many of them will kneel for 18 minutes to honor Laken Riley... pic.twitter.com/HD32XwpdpI

— Riley Gaines (@Riley_Gaines_) November 16, 2024

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.