Abortion continues to be a central issue for the Harris campaign and voters are reacting. Following the KamalaHQ X account posting commentary on the tragic death of Amber Thurman, a Georgia woman who died after complications from an abortion pill, Americans are divided.

The Harris campaign used this incident to reinforce her stance on reproductive rights, positioning herself as a defender of women's healthcare. However, this has sparked fierce debate across party lines, with Republicans challenging the accuracy and sincerity of her message.

Statement from Vice President Harris on new report of a 28-year-old Georgia woman dying after not receiving urgent care needed for an infection under Georgia’s extreme abortion ban https://t.co/sf1yJp3foG pic.twitter.com/kM0pq3qG3K

— Kamala HQ (@KamalaHQ) September 17, 2024

In the statement Harris said:

“Abortion bans have fatal consequences. Amber Thurman should still be alive today. This is not just about Roe. This is about women’s lives.”

This frames the abortion debate as deserving sympathy in the wake of a tragic loss of life, blaming abortion restrictions for Thurman's death. But Republicans are pushing back hard, challenging Harris on the facts of the story.

Republicans Fact Check the Amber Thurman Case

As many on the right point out, the tragic death of Amber Thurman has been used to highlight the dangers of restrictive abortion laws, particularly by the Harris campaign. However, the facts tell a more complicated story. Amber Thurman died after a botched medical procedure following complications from an abortion pill. The problem wasn't an abortion ban—it was the abortion pill itself, combined with medical malpractice.

.@michaeljknowles weighs in on this massive lie. https://t.co/lSjWm2tVYk pic.twitter.com/ZK2rBAdfyl

— The Michael Knowles Show (@MKnowlesShow) September 19, 2024

Georgia’s abortion laws, while stringent, still allow medical procedures like D&Cs (dilation and curettage)—a procedure for surgically removing sections of the lining of the uterus. This includes procedures following abortions or miscarriages. No state, Georgia included, prevents doctors from performing life-saving procedures to protect a woman’s health, a point conveniently omitted from Harris’s narrative.

For Republicans, this case exemplifies the broader issue: Democrats like Harris are using selective facts to maintain support on one of the top issues for their voter base. Meanwhile, they ignore the reckless prescription practices and FDA oversight failures which contributed to Thurman's death.

Kamala Harris is a LIAR!

Amber Nicole Thurman didn’t die because of lack of an abortion.

The abortion is what killed her! Abortion pills lead to her death.

Even Newsweek is reporting the truth: https://t.co/F8EjAFOgiQ https://t.co/CmCMFoVaHc pic.twitter.com/hMlIseuSmK

— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸 (@RepMTG) September 19, 2024

MIG Reports data shows:

• Harris, who typically leads Trump in voter sentiment regarding abortion, dipped to 41% approval, below Trump’s 43% on the day she released the misleading statement.
• In the last few days, both Trump and Harris have surged in sentiment for their respective abortion platforms.

How Americans View this Issue

American voter reactions to this incident and Harris’s campaign framing have been deeply polarized. According to MIG Reports data samples:

Democrats

• 72% believe Harris’s commentary on the abortion pill incident was accurate and support her position.
• 62% are more likely to vote for Harris because of her abortion views.

Republicans

• 62% view Harris's remarks as misleading, saying her campaign politicized the tragedy for electoral gain.
• 45% of Republicans say they are less likely to support Harris because of her abortion platform.

The partisan divide on this issue is not surprising. For Democrats, reproductive rights are a non-negotiable issue and many express intentions to vote with abortion as the main driver. They see Harris as a strong advocate for women’s health and view abortion bans as dangerous.

Pro-life Republicans see Harris’s approach as exploitative and misinformed. They shift focus to the ethical concerns around abortion pills and late-term abortions. Many within the party believe abortion should be restricted, and 25% even argue the abortion pill itself is too dangerous for unrestricted access—using the Thurman case as an example.

Abortion is Likely Crucial for Harris’s Election

Abortion has always been a divisive issue, but in the 2024 election, it has become a flashpoint. Especially in battleground states where voter sentiments can tip the balance of electoral votes. In states like Georgia, where Amber Thurman perished, local laws play a significant role in shaping voter views. Laws like Georgia’s Heartbeat Bill, which restrict abortions after six weeks, are a major point of contention.

MIG Reports data shows how abortion may influence voters this cycle:

• 62% of overall voters express anger or outrage over abortion bans, with many calling for restrictive laws to be repealed.
• 31% defend abortion bans, viewing them as necessary to protect the unborn.
• 7% favor the state-specific approach to abortion laws, part of Donald Trump’s platform.

Demographic trends also highlight the influence of abortion on voter behavior:

• 71% of women oppose abortion bans, particularly women under 30, with 65% of this demographic opposing these restrictions.
• 45% of men support abortion bans, showing a more divided perspective along gender lines.

The broader implications for the election are significant. In swing states, where independent voters often determine the outcome, abortion could be a deciding factor. Independents are split, with 45% believing the issue is being politicized and 31% advocating for greater access to reproductive healthcare. These voters are likely the ones Harris needs to sway if she hopes to secure victory in key battlegrounds.

The Importance of Abortion for Democrats

For Kamala Harris, abortion is not just an issue—it’s central to her 2024 platform. Her emphasis on reproductive rights resonates strongly with her base, especially women and younger voters. By focusing on the dangers of abortion restrictions, Harris is attempting to galvanize support from pro-choice advocates and position herself as a protector of women’s health.

However, the risks for Harris are clear. By overplaying the tragedy of Amber Thurman and misrepresenting the facts, she risks alienating moderate voters who might view her rhetoric as too extreme or politically motivated. The focus on reproductive rights could also backfire in swing states, where voters are more likely to support moderate or state-specific approaches to abortion laws.

MIG Reports analysis reveals several topics about which some on the right are asking, "why is nobody talking about this?" There is a sense of urgency in these conversations, indicating feelings of disillusionment among voters with accusations of media dismissal.

Topics vary by volume, discussion intensity, and the demographic focus of those expressing concern. The largest discussions are around border security, the economy, national security, media bias, and the most recent assassination attempt.

Summary of Findings

• 40% of conversation is focused on border security and its impact on communities.
• 30% of discussions are focused on the economy, with widespread frustration over inflation, taxation, and government spending.
• 15% of discussions are on Ukraine and Russia, reflecting fears about national security and foreign policy.
• 10% focuses on media bias, driven by frustrations over censorship and selective reporting.
• 5% of the conversation is on the assassination attempt, highlighting concerns about political violence and media silence.

Border Security

Border security is the highest volume discussion, capturing 40% of conversations. Americans are frustrated about the lack of government action and media scrutiny on the border. These critiques often accompany talk of the consequences of illegal immigration on citizen communities. The debate intensifies around specific cases, like the situation in Springfield, Ohio, where an influx of 20,000 Haitian migrants significantly increases the town's population.

Voters are concerned about the strain on local resources, with 63% of likely voters blaming Kamala Harris for the surge in illegal immigration. This sentiment spreads broadly among conservative and Republican-leaning voters who view the government's response as inadequate.

Discourse frequently highlights the economic burden of illegal immigration and the increased threats to national security. The prominence of this topic reflects its great importance to voters in 2024.

The Economy

The second most prominent topic, composing 30% in the conversation, is the economy. Voters are frustrated over rising inflation, taxation, and government spending. They often compare current economic policies to those under the Trump administration.

In one data set, 75% of conversations mention economic topics, while 60% specifically address inflation. The rising cost of living—like a 40% increase in food prices—amplifies concerns among middle-class individuals.

Discussions also extend to taxes, with debates over how government spending and national debt impact future generations. This focus on economic issues shows American anxiety about financial stability and a belief that Kamala Harris is not addressing these matters effectively.

Ukraine-Russia Conflict

Global security concerns, particularly related to the Ukraine-Russia conflict, account for 15% of discussions. There is great alarm over the potential for escalating tensions and the risk of a wider conflict. Around 75% of voters voicing concerns are conservatives who criticize the Biden-Harris administration's foreign policy. They fear Democratic policies increase the risk of global conflict and nuclear war.

There is a growing sense of urgency that the dangers of war are not adequately addressed in political discourse or media coverage. Fears of global conflict and anxiety about national security cause many to point out a lack of media attention to Biden-Harris policies.

Media Bias

Around 10% of the conversation is focused on media bias. Discussions reveal frustrations with perceived media censorship, selective reporting, and the marginalization of conservative voices. For instance, one data set indicates 71% of voters are upset by mainstream media bias. They often specifically mention bias against Donald Trump and other conservative figures.

Discussions frequently touch on concerns about the media shaping public opinion and suppressing critical viewpoints. Many feel this bias leads to the lack of discourse on key issues like border security and the economy. The relatively lower weight of this topic compared to others suggests that while media bias is a significant concern, it often acts as a framing device for broader discussions rather than being the central focus itself.

Assassination Attempts on Trump

Already a smaller discussion topic compared to other issues, the assassination attempts on Trump carry significant emotional weight among conservative and Republican voters. Around 65% of conservatives are expressing grace concern about these attempts, highlighting the double standard in media coverage. They often compare lack of media coverage for the assassination attempts to similar events involving Democratic politicians.

Voters express anxiety over political violence and a belief that the issue is being downplayed or ignored, contributing to a broader narrative of media bias. While it garners focused attention, the narrower scope of this topic limits its overall prominence in the discourse.

Recently, the Teamsters Union released the results of internal straw poll, electronic poll, and telephone poll shows significant favor toward Donald Trump over Kamala Harris. This is a shift from polling showing a Democratic lead prior to Biden dropping from the presidential race.

MIG Reports analysis of discourse shows union sentiment moving against Harris and why union workers are gravitating toward Trump.

TEAMSTERS RELEASE PRESIDENTIAL ENDORSEMENT POLLING DATA

“For the past year, the Teamsters Union has pledged to conduct the most inclusive, democratic, and transparent Presidential endorsement process in the history of our 121-year-old organization—and today we are delivering on… pic.twitter.com/CnFNN9uosx

— Teamsters (@Teamsters) September 18, 2024

Trump's Lead Among Union Workers

Donald Trump has a significant lead among union workers, a critical working and voting group of Americans. Between 58% and 60% support Trump according to recent Teamsters polling. MIG Reports data reflects similar sentiments in voter discussions. Union workers, particularly those in industries like manufacturing and construction, are shifting toward Trump. They say his policies align better with their economic interests and job security.

• MIG Reports data shows enthusiasm for Trump among 65.2% of union workers compared to 34.8% for Harris.

Enthusiasm for Trump

The enthusiasm for Trump among union workers is notable and strong, potentially signaling a significant voting bloc shift. Many union members admire Trump’s populist approach and his willingness to challenge the establishment. His "America First" policies, particularly on trade and immigration, resonate deeply with workers who feel threatened by outsourcing and illegal immigration.

Trump’s tough stance on these issues has created a sense of loyalty among union workers. They believe he is the only candidate willing to fight for their jobs and livelihoods. This enthusiasm is reflected in online discussions, where workers express admiration for Trump’s leadership and economic policies.

Reasons for Support

The top issues union workers cite with their support are Trump’s stances on:

• Trade
• Immigration
• Job creation

His trade policies, which focus on protecting American industries and reducing outsourcing, appeal directly to workers who fear losing jobs to foreign competition. His tough rhetoric on immigration, which many view as a threat to job security and wage growth, further solidifies his support.

Meanwhile, Kamala Harris faces significant challenges with gaining union worker support. While she has attempted to court their support through endorsements from labor unions and promises of progressive policies, her association with the Democratic establishment and perceived focus on social justice issues over economic concerns alienates many. Union members skeptical of her record on trade and labor rights often see Harris as out of touch with their immediate needs, particularly regarding job security and economic growth.

Harris's Struggles

While Harris’s platform includes policies aimed at workers’ rights, raising the minimum wage, and addressing income inequality, these issues do not seem to resonate as strongly as Trump’s focus on job security and trade protection. Harris is perceived as more aligned with corporate interests and global trade practices, which many view as harmful to their industries. This disconnect has led to a lack of enthusiasm for her candidacy, as many union members remain unconvinced, she can effectively represent their interests.

In discussing mass deportations, Vice President Kamala Harris recently asked, “How’s that going to happen?” This comment, along with the U.S. government not knowing exactly how many illegal immigrants are in the country stirs impassioned reactions from Americans.

Kamala appears to be campaigning for Trump: "They have pledged to carry out the largest deportation, a mass deportation, in American history. Imagine what that would look like and what that would be." pic.twitter.com/l6CVbvZUwA

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) September 18, 2024

How Americans View Kamala

The public sentiment is predominantly critical toward Harris’s stance on immigration. Around 70% of Americans disapprove of her immigration policies and her views on open borders. MIG Reports analysis shows 55% support mass deportations, citing concerns over national security, crime, and the economic burden of illegal immigration. This figure aligns with a recent Scripps News/Ipsos survey showing 54% of Americans support mass deportation.

Americans Are Angry

The conversation around immigration is heated, with many Americans expressing frustration and anger towards Biden-Harris policies. Some common complaints include:

• Government failure to enforce existing immigration laws
• Large influxes of illegal immigrants
• Migrants receiving preferential treatment over American citizens

Around 60% of Americans say the Biden-Harris administration's open border policies are responsible for overwhelming surges in migration. This, they say, includes the subsequent problems associated with it—like issues Ohio residents are facing. Many express concerns over safety and security in their communities, citing crime, violence, and exploitation by illegal immigrants.

Only 25% argue mass deportations are inhumane and unjust. This group says a more comprehensive and inclusive approach to immigration reform is needed. They argue immigrants, regardless of their status, contribute to the economy and enrich American society.

The Border is an Election Issue

MIG Reports analysis of other conversations regarding the border crisis show several supporting narratives.

In election discussions:

• 53% of Americans believe Trump would handle immigration well
• 45% believe Harris would handle it well
• 50% of black Americans believe immigration is negatively impacting their economic opportunities and communities

In swing state discussions:

• 71% of Americans are concerned about the economic impact of illegal immigration
• 55% believe Harris's open-border approach is harming the country

These patterns mirror the national perspective that immigration is deeply intertwined with concerns about national security, jobs, and the economy.

An ongoing public debate between Elon Musk and Gavin Newsom, fueled by social media exchanges, reveals American backlash against the CA Governor. In reaction to a parody ad for Kamala Harris using AI to simulate her voice, Newsom proposed legislation to prosecute those sharing “misleading” or “deceptive” content—including memes.

Kamala Harris Campaign Ad PARODY pic.twitter.com/5lBxvyTZ3o

— Mr Reagan 🇺🇸 (@MrReaganUSA) July 26, 2024

Musk argues this bill infringes on free speech—a view most Americans share. MIG Reports analysis shows discussion themes around free speech, government overreach, misinformation, and public trust.

I checked with renowned world authority, Professor Suggon Deeznutz, and he said parody is legal in America 🤷‍♂️ https://t.co/OCBewC3XYD

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 29, 2024

Free Speech vs. Censorship

The issue of free speech dominates the conversation, with 76.67% of the public siding with Elon Musk. The overwhelming support for Musk stems from a strong belief that Newsom’s proposed law threatens the First Amendment. Many express concerns that government involvement in regulating parody or memes sets a dangerous precedent for future censorship.

Phrases like "tyrant," "communist," and "totalitarian" are frequently directed at Newsom, highlighting the hardline stance on this issue. For most Americans, free speech is an essential American value that must be protected at all costs—regardless of the risks posed by allegations of misinformation.

Government Overreach and Political Polarization

This debate between Musk and Newsom over memes has become a flashpoint for broader concerns about government overreach. Voters frame Newsom’s bill as an unconstitutional attempt to silence critics, positioning him as an authoritarian figure seeking to impose his will on the public.

Conservatives and Independents are particularly strong in their disapproval. Only 15.5% of the MIG Reports sample express support for Newsom. This group says the bill is a necessary tool to protect elections and prevent false information from corrupting democratic processes. However, even within this group, some express unease over the potential for government abuse.

The Role of Misinformation

The minority position emphasizes curbing “misinformation” to protect public trust in elections. Supporters say, though parody and memes are included in free expression, they can also undermine democratic integrity by pedaling deceptive narratives. This group believes the bill strikes a balance between free speech and public safety. They acknowledge that unchecked falsehoods have the potential to cause real harm. Despite this perspective, they struggle to gain traction in a conversation dominated by opposition to government censorship.

Public Distrust in Government

The conversation surfaces recurring American feelings of distrust toward government institutions. Musk’s framing of the debate—portraying Newsom as attacking free speech—resonates with those already skeptical of governmental power.

Many see the bill as part of a broader pattern of government interference in individual rights. They say censorship laws places public discourse in the hands of those in power, allowing them to determine what is considered “misinformation” or “deceptive.” This perception of government power grabs strengthens Musk's position as a defender of the people’s rights against an overbearing state.

Especially on X, voters view Musk as a champion of free speech. Their distrust fuels the debate and amplifies feelings of anger against government censorship and speech crackdowns akin to those seen in Europe.

Neutral and Undecided Voices

While the conversation is highly polarized, around 9.5% remain neutral or nuanced. This group either expresses uncertainty about the implications of Newsom's bill or attempt to frame the debate in more measured terms.

Some believe that while the bill has flaws, its intention may have merit. These voices suggest there is still room for debate and constructive discourse, though they are largely overshadowed by the more extreme rhetoric from both sides.

The arrest of Sean "P Diddy" Combs on charges of sex trafficking and racketeering has sparked widespread discussions. Americas voice many reactions from disgust, outrage, to disillusionment.

Many view the allegations against Diddy as a turning point in holding powerful figures accountable. Others express cynicism regarding the outcome. The discussions both include opinions on Diddy and views of broader issues tied to the justice system, media coverage, and human trafficking.

BREAKING: @Diddy is now spending his days in New York’s most notorious jail, known for its “barbaric conditions.” 300+ grand jury subpoenas later, Diddy can’t wiggle his out of this one. And he’s not the only one… pic.twitter.com/M64EDxQUbh

— Jesse Watters (@JesseBWatters) September 19, 2024

What Americans are Saying

• 40%: Shock, outrage, and disgust
• 25%: Validation of long-held suspicions
• 20%: Media and justice system criticism
• 10%: Skepticism and division
• 5%: Tying Diddy’s arrest to other topics like border security

Shock, Outrage, and Disgust

The majority of online conversations focus on shock and outrage. People react strongly to the charges, expressing disgust at the alleged actions of a celebrity like Diddy. Many condemn his behavior, viewing his arrest as a critical moment for justice.

These reactions reflect a collective demand for accountability, particularly in relation to the heinous nature of sex trafficking. Voters demand justice, some calling for a harsh sentence, seeing this case as representing broader issues of exploitation in powerful circles.

Validation of Long-Held Suspicions

Many Americans express a sense of validation. They say they have long suspected Diddy of inappropriate behavior, adopting an, “I told you so" attitude. For this group, Diddy's arrest confirms rumors and accusations that have circulated for years.

This group views Diddy’s downfall as inevitable, reinforcing preconceptions about corruption and abuse of power in the music industry. These suspicions, now appearing substantiated, fuel arguments about systemic wrongdoing among celebrities and elites.

Criticism of Media and Justice System

There is also widespread frustration and distrust toward the media and justice system. Observers claim both institutions often protect wealthy, powerful individuals from facing serious consequences. Some view the media as complicit, either ignoring damaging stories or failing to investigate them thoroughly.

Many doubt whether Diddy will truly be held accountable, fearing his influence and wealth may shield him from the full weight of the law. This cynicism is common in conversations connecting Diddy’s case to overarching failures of justice for victims of trafficking.

Skepticism and Division

Although less common, some conversations reveal skepticism about the allegations. This group questions the legitimacy of the charges and the motivations behind the accusations. This contributes to a sense of division, as people debate whether Diddy is being targeted unfairly or whether the allegations are true. As with most topics, not everyone immediately accepts the narrative presented by prosecutors or the media.

Tying to Broader Topics

A smaller subset of conversations shifts the focus away from Diddy specifically, tying the story to broader political or social issues. One common connection is trafficking across the border and government immigration failures. These links point to larger concerns about human trafficking, using Diddy’s alleged actions as an example of how political decisions and systemic failures allow exploitation to flourish. Though not a dominant theme, this attachment reveals how some people frame high-profile cases like Diddy’s within wider political debates.

The recent pager and beeper explosions targeting Hezbollah members across Lebanon and Syria have ignited widespread reactions among Americans. As Israel’s operation unfolds, Americans and international observers engage in heated debates. Pro-Israel voices express admiration for the operation's precision while pro-Palestine advocates condemn the attack. Voter discourse shows:

• 45% of Americans speak out against the attacks
• 35% support the operation
• 30% are neutral

Supporting the Operation

Israel supporters praise the ingenuity and boldness of the beeper operation. They marvel at Israel’s ability to infiltrate Hezbollah’s communication network and conduct simultaneous detonations across multiple locations. Many describe the operation as a masterstroke, calling it "audacious" and comparing it to scenes from a spy thriller.

Some believe this is a game-changing blow to Hezbollah’s infrastructure, framing the operation as a significant victory for Israeli intelligence. The use of technology to exploit Hezbollah's vulnerabilities resonates with those who see the attack as a critical move to disrupt terrorist activities and protect regional security.

Supporters say targeting Hezbollah operatives with precision, while avoiding large-scale collateral damage, demonstrates Israel's military capability and strategic advantage in modern warfare.

Against the Operation

Those condemning the attack, typically pro-Paletine Democrats, express outrage over its indiscriminate nature and the resulting civilian casualties. Critics label the operation a "war crime" and accuse Israel of terrorism, pointing out the explosions not only targeted Hezbollah members but also injured and killed innocent civilians, including children and medical workers.

The ethical implications of using such technology raise alarm for this group. They argue remote detonation of devices blur the line between targeted strikes and indiscriminate violence. Some see the operation as a disproportionate response, reflecting a broader pattern of aggressive military tactics by Israel.

This group also draws attention to what they perceive as a double standard in how international media and governments react to such incidents. They say if a similar attack had been carried out by Hezbollah, it would have been universally condemned as terrorism.

Neutral Perspectives

Neutral observers take an analytical approach, focusing on the broader implications of the operation and the Israel-Hamas conflict overall. These discussions explore the strategic use of technology in modern warfare, noting the ability to detonate devices remotely represents a significant evolution in combat tactics.

Some express concern about the precedent this sets for future conflicts, questioning whether such tactics could be used against civilians or exploited in other theaters of war. Others analyze the potential geopolitical consequences, speculating on how Hezbollah or other groups may retaliate and what the long-term effects could be for Israel. Americans allyship with Israel sparks debates about the potential for escalating tensions.

Days prior to Fed Chair Jerome Powell’s announcement of a 0.5% rate cut, many reports speculated about the impending announcement. Americans just before the announcement, Americans were expressing outright skepticism and frustration at the idea.

Today, the national mood reflects widespread dismissal, with many questioning the government’s motives and doubting the effectiveness of Fed interventions. While there is scant support for the rate cut—though not wholesale support for the Fed—it is overshadowed by concerns interventions are politically motivated. Many say government actions primarily serves corporate and political interests rather than struggling Americans.

The Federal Reserve cut interest rates massively, just 48 days ahead of the election. Thank god for the independence of the Fed! 😅

Funny how some of us last year predicted exactly this would happen.

— Vivek Ramaswamy (@VivekGRamaswamy) September 18, 2024

Americans Not Buying It

Skepticism is the dominant theme across both housing and economic conversations. MIG Reports analysis shows 66.7% of voters view the rate cuts as a political maneuver designed to boost the economy ahead of upcoming elections.

In housing-specific discussions, skepticism focuses on the belief that rate cuts will benefit corporations more than ordinary families. Across multiple data sets, concerns about affordability, rising housing costs, and inflation surface repeatedly. This fuels feelings that the government is out of touch with the everyday challenges facing Americans.

Supportive-ish Tones

Though skepticism is dominant, there is a smaller but notable group—around 21% to 31%—who view the rate cuts positively. These voters say interest rate cuts are a necessary step to stimulate economic growth and help families.

However, even within this more optimistic group, concerns about broader economic issues and banking turmoil remain. This suggests fragile public trust in government initiatives.

Day Late, Dollar Short

The conversations also consistently highlight inflation, economic inequality, and housing affordability. Americans across various online discussions express frustration at the rising cost of living. They voice frustration about everything from groceries to healthcare rising in costs and becoming unaffordable.

Many argue government and Fed intervention, including rate cuts and housing assistance proposals, fail to address the root causes of these problems. Some say these supposed “fixes” often worsen problems by benefiting corporations and government more than average citizens. This sense of economic insecurity reinforces a narrative of distrust, where political decisions are perceived as disconnected from the needs of ordinary people.

The relationship between non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and their relationship with Mexican cartels and other transnational criminal organizations is complex. MIG Reports analysis shows significant American concerns about these issues, particularly human trafficking and government complicity in crime activity.

There is a noticeable focus on the perceived failures of both NGOs and the Biden-Harris administration in addressing cartels furthering human trafficking and illegal immigration. This analysis highlights discussion trends, dominate concerns, and public sentiment about border security and the role of NGOs.

How Americans Feel

Voter discussions across thousands of comments is overwhelmingly negative:

• 39.4% of the conversation focuses on human trafficking
• 50.1% conveys belief in illegal activities by cartels and NGOs
• 27.8% focuses on criticizing the Biden-Harris administration
• 28% links cartels to fentanyl trafficking, emphasizing the connection between the opioid crisis and border security concerns.

The conversations reflect deep skepticism toward the government’s ability to protect citizens and frustration with the perceived complicity of NGOs in facilitating illegal activities through funding channels and logistical coordination.

Government Criticism and Accountability

Many Americans mention the Biden-Harris administration negatively in conversations about illegal cartel activity and border issues. They blame the administration’s border policies for enabling human trafficking and fentanyl smuggling. Voters argue the government’s refusal to secure the border has led to a rise in both trafficking and opioid-related deaths.

Americans are particularly vocal about their frustration with Democratic inaction. There is sharp criticism and concern that Biden-Harris policies prioritize the needs of immigrants over the safety of American citizens. This harsh critique reveals a widespread sentiment that government leadership is not concerned about protecting vulnerable Americans or addressing pressing border control problems.

NGOs and Their Role in Immigration and Trafficking

NGOs come under heavy fire in these discussions, with 50% linking them to illegal immigration and human trafficking. Americans believe NGOs, often funded by taxpayer money, facilitate illegal activities either through direct involvement or by offering support that allows traffickers and cartels to operate freely.

Many express outrage over NGOs profiting from the very problems they claim to solve. The conversation also highlights concerns that NGOs are enabling child exploitation by allowing traffickers to use legal loopholes to smuggle children across borders. This widespread criticism of NGOs reflects a deep sense of betrayal, as users perceive these ostensibly humanitarian organizations as working against national interests and using public funds.

Human Trafficking and Fentanyl Crisis

Human and drug trafficking is another deeply negative conversation. Nearly 40% of the discussion focuses on illegal trafficking. Americans are angry and worried about the exploitation of vulnerable populations, especially children. Many view child trafficking as a growing crisis which the government does nothing to solve.

Voters say government negligence, coupled with the actions of NGOs, is exacerbating the problem. Conversations are deeply emotional, often sharing personal stories or using vivid imagery to convey the severity of the safety issues for kids.

Drug trafficking, specifically fentanyl smuggling, is also linked to cartel activity and border security. Americans view Biden-Harris policies as directly contributing to the fentanyl crisis ravaging communities and families across the country. The connection between human trafficking and drug trafficking is a recurring theme, reinforcing the idea that these are intertwined issues which government has failed to address adequately.