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.

Recent discussions about trust in the voting system are stirring American fears—particularly around illegal immigrants voting. This issue sparks concerns over election integrity, immigration policy, and national identity. Discussions about the potential for various kinds of election interference permeate mainstream political discourse and online debates. Most American voters express anxiety about what they see as a potential erosion of democracy.

Why Do People Fear Illegal Immigrant Voting?

Since 2020, fears of election interference and cheating have weighed on voters across the political spectrum. Many believe lax border policies and a lack of stringent voter ID laws could allow non-citizens to vote. This, they believe, would undermine the legitimacy of election outcomes.

The perception is heightened by claims that allowing illegal immigrants to vote certainly skew the results in favor of candidates lenient on immigration policy—often, but not exclusively, Democrats. Many on the right also assert this is an intentional but unspoken strategy by Democrats to gain votes.

The passionate tone of conversations is palpable. Many voters see illegal immigrants voting as not just a policy issue, but a direct threat to the integrity of the voting process. Words like "betrayal," "treasonous," and "national security" frequently surface in these exchanges, illustrating the intensity of public sentiment.

The Fear is Growing

MIG Reports analysis of online conversations shows:

Nationally

• 52% of express a belief that illegal immigrants will vote.
• 75%, regardless of whether they believe illegal immigrants will vote, express concern about the issue.
• 59% vocally disapprove of the idea of illegal immigrants voting.
• 16% express approval or are neutral about the issue of illegals voting.

Swing states

Belief in the threat of illegal immigrants voting:

• 45% believe illegal immigrants will vote in the election.
• 31% dismiss the idea as a false narrative or conspiracy theory.
• 24% are neutral or unsure.

Sentiment about illegal immigrant voting:

• 51% disapprove of the idea of illegal immigrants voting in the election.
• 21% express approval or support for allowing illegal immigrants to vote.
• 28% of comments are neutral or unsure.

Though a majority nationally disapprove and express concern, swing state voters are more divided. Voters in critical states still express concern more often than indifference or support, but not as strongly as in national samples.

Reasons Voters Are Concerned

Voter fears are driven by election integrity, national sovereignty, and the perceived manipulation of democratic processes. Many fear allowing illegal immigrants to vote is unfair and threatens national interests. They say giving undue voting rights to groups who often do not pay taxes and are not part of the national social contract, weakens the voice of citizens. They say it erodes the sanctity of the voting process.

Many Americans are also express broader frustrations about immigration policy. They consider unchecked migration as a larger threat to national identity, the economy, and safety as well as election integrity.

Progressives and Democrats are more likely to be proponents of allowing illegal immigrants to vote. This minority argues migrants contribute to the U.S. economy and deserve representation in the democratic process. They claim the number of illegal immigrants voting is minuscule, dismissing fears of meaningful impact on the election.

The SAVE Act

Central to the debate is the SAVE Act, a bill proposed to tighten voter eligibility rules and ensure that only U.S. citizens can cast ballots in federal elections. The legislation would require states to verify the citizenship of voters and impose stricter penalties for voter fraud.

Supporters of the SAVE Act argue the bill is a necessary safeguard to prevent illegal immigrants from voting and protect election integrity. Many of those concerned about illegal voting cite the SAVE Act as the only effective way to address this perceived vulnerability in the system. For them, this legislation represents a proactive solution to what they see as a looming threat to democratic legitimacy.

Critics, however, argue the SAVE Act is a thinly veiled attempt to suppress minority votes, saying it would make it more difficult for naturalized citizens and lower-income communities to vote. They claim widespread voter fraud, including voting by illegal immigrants, is largely a myth and only happens “rarely.”

How Could This Impact the 2024 Election?

If illegal immigrants are allowed to vote, or if perceptions persist that they are voting illegally, the impact on the 2024 election could be profound. Based on current voter sentiment, likely outcomes include:

Erosion of Trust

Beliefs that illegal immigrants are voting—especially if proven true—deepen distrust in election results. Already, more than half of voters are concerned about this issue, and these concerns could further polarize the electorate. Lingering disagreements about the 2020 election and various voter fraud allegations will likely heighten the emotional response if voters believe illegal immigrants are voting in great numbers.

Boost to the SAVE Act and Similar Legislation

If concerns about illegal immigrant voting persist, we may see a surge in support for the SAVE Act or similar bills aimed at requiring voter ID and other integrity measures. Politicians who align themselves with this movement could gain momentum, particularly in conservative-leaning districts.

Political Ramifications

Should illegal immigrants vote in noticeable numbers—whether allowed by legal loopholes or through fraud—most believe the results would favor the Harris-Walz ticket. Any suspicion or evidence of illegal voting could lead to a backlash, causing continued disagreements about election results.

Legal Challenges and Protests

An uptick in allegations of illegal voting could result in a wave of legal challenges, further delaying election results and heightening tensions. Protests from both sides of the issue could erupt, making the post-election environment volatile and unpredictable.

Donald Trump's recent debate statement linking immigration to economic issues resonates with voters who also view these issues as linked. According to Trump, immigration and economic stability are inherently intertwined—a reality many segments of the electorate overserve on their own. However, many voters also reject this view or express neutral feelings. While immigration and economic issues remain high priority for all voters, how Americans think about them is starkly varied. 

The Border Impacts the Economy

Trump's supporters overwhelmingly view immigration as a key driver of economic challenges. These voters argue unchecked immigration, particularly illegal immigration, strains public resources. Many, like residents in Ohio struggling with an influx of immigrants, say migrant needs inflate housing and healthcare costs. They also say mass migration threatens job security.

Particularly on the right, agree that the economy is impacted by illegal immigration. However, mentions of this link vary depending on the origins of the discussion. Despite the variables, Trump’s assertion remains a point of agreement for most Americans.

What Voters Say

• MIG Reports data shows approximately 46.4% of voters believe stronger immigration controls would directly lead to improved economic conditions. They often mention reducing competition for jobs and lower inflation rates.
• 28.6% of voters align with Harris’s perspective, which suggests Trump is dramatizing the severity of both economic struggles and border security.
• 20% of voters voice neutral or mixed views, reflecting a more nuanced or indifferent stance on the issue.

Economy Conversations

In discussions about the economy:

• 57.2% support Trump's view that the economy is linked to immigration.
• 23.5% disagree with linking the issues.
• 19.3% remain neutral or indifferent to the connection.

Border Security Conversations

In discussions about the border and immigration:

• 35.6% support Trump's stance.
• 33.7% disagree, expressing concerns about oversimplification or sensationalism.
• 20.7% are neutral or hold mixed views, calling for more nuanced discussions.

Open Border Voters Disagree

Americans who disagree that immigration is tied to the economy say Trump oversimplifies complex issues. They say the economy's problems are rooted in broader systemic challenges like inflation, corporate policies, and global economic trends. Many of these voters claim Trump’s statements are nothing more than fearmongering.

Opponents also say Trump sensationalizes border and economy discussions by making false claims about immigrants increasing U.S. crime. This group believes immigrants contribute positively to the economy, filling critical labor shortages and fostering cultural diversity, which they believe outweighs the economic risks Trump outlines.

The Kinda-Sorta-I-Don’t-Know Vote

Mixed sentiment voters mostly express two perspectives. Some criticize both Trump and Kamala Harris’s views on the economy and immigration, while others opt to prioritize issues they view as more important. These viewpoints reflect a broader frustration with political rhetoric and a desire for more balanced dialogue.

Sentiment Analysis

Voters may feel more inclined to support Trump's stance on immigration when the issue is framed as economic. Many American workers feel personal impacts from job competition, inflation, and rising costs in their daily lives. Linking immigration to these concerns resonates more directly than speaking about it as a standalone issue.

When conversations focus primarily on border security or immigration issues, viewpoints tend to become more abstract. Voters may feel less directly impacted unless they live in a border or sanctuary state, leading to more mixed or neutral views.

Additionally, social conditioning may play a role if voters avoid expressing strong opinions on immigration to avoid being seen as racist or xenophobic. This common framing of border issues on the political left often aims severe criticism at border security concerns. When voters view immigration through the lens of economic impact, Americans are more able to justify a desire for stricter policies without touching on sensitive racial dynamics.

During the presidential debate, voters reacted strongly to Donald Trump’s comments about allegations that Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio, are eating pets and local park fowl. The story, which had already been circulating online and generating a wealth of memes, became a central point of discussion.

Protect our ducks and kittens in Ohio! pic.twitter.com/YnTZStPnsg

— House Judiciary GOP 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 (@JudiciaryGOP) September 9, 2024

This report analyzes voter reactions, concerns about immigration, media bias, and impact on support for Trump and Harris.

Migrants Eating Pets in Ohio

The pet-eating allegations in Springfield, Ohio, began with a photo of a man carrying a dead goose and videos of residents alleging various pet and wildlife hunting among Haitian migrants.

Springfield is a small town in Ohio.

4 years ago, they had 60k residents.

Under Harris and Biden, 20,000 Haitian immigrants were shipped to the town.

Now ducks and pets are disappearing. pic.twitter.com/OOFq3ZdTiA

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) September 6, 2024

NEW: Springfield, Ohio man says Haitian illegals are decap*tating ducks from parks & eating them, accuses commission members of getting paid off for allowing it.

“They're in the park grabbing up ducks by their neck and cutting their head off and walking off with 'em and eating… pic.twitter.com/uE3wI3CXl3

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) September 8, 2024

As the story gained traction online, particularly in conservative circles concerned about immigration, memes surged. People also began debating the veracity of claims and the details of the stories. Many Democrats adopted a sense of outrage and disbelief—including Rep. Eric Swalwell, who criticized the viral memes in Congress.

How do we know we are winning?

Democrats are losing their minds over memes in the halls of Congress

pic.twitter.com/OoqK02bNvN

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) September 10, 2024

Trump's mention of these allegations during the debate further inflamed discussions and more memes. Many people also reacted to ABC’s debate moderator David Muir attempting to fact-check Trump’s claims.

THEY'RE EATING THE DOGS pic.twitter.com/lQqMW5l8pT

— Tarquin 🇺🇦 (@Tarquin_Helmet) September 11, 2024

National and Ohio Reactions

Voter reactions to the allegations are divided both nationally and among Ohio residents. MIG Reports analysis shows trends among voter comments on memes and reactions to the debate.

National Sentiment

• 51% of voters nationally believe the pet-eating allegations, tying them to broader immigration issues.
• 26% outright dismiss the story, seeing it as an example of exaggerated rhetoric.
• 22% remain neutral or have not directly engaged with the rumors.

Ohio Sentiment

• In Ohio, 52% of voters express a belief that migrants are eating pets, viewing this as symbolic of greater societal collapse and resource strain.
• 28% reject the story, calling it political fearmongering.
• 20% focus on the broader immigration debate without weighing in on the pet story.

Stories like this seem to stir up debate, confirming recurring reports that immigration and community safety are a top voter issue in 2024. The fact that national and Ohio-specific sentiments align closely—with 51% and 52% respectively believing the rumor—suggests the Haitian migrant story taps into broader national anxieties about immigration.

Memes Driving Voter Conversation

Memes have played a critical role in amplifying discussion around these topics. Analysis of meme-centric conversations shows 70% of commenters in the MIG Reports data set express strong support for Trump. They often use humor and AI-generated imagery to emphasize points about immigration and perceived Democratic denial.

Meme culture, especially among right-leaning voters, often rallies supporters around an issue while also criticizing the opposition. While many claim meme culture is relegated to “chronically online” circles, politicians and public figures more frequently engage with memes—as in the case of Swalwell and House Republicans.

On the flip side, Harris supporters largely dismiss the claims as absurd. Roughly 25% of national voters see these memes and stories as racist or misleading. Some accuse Trump’s camp of fearmongering with embellished stories which are not really happening.

Media Bias Exacerbates Voter Ire

The role of the media, particularly how these allegations were handled during the debate, also shapes voter sentiment. During the debate, ABC’s David Muir claimed to fact-check Trump’s claims in real-time, casting doubt on the veracity of the story. This, along with multiple fact-checks against Trump and none against Harris, fueled accusations of media bias.

Donald Trump gets fact-checked again during the presidential debate after accusing immigrants in Ohio of eating pets:

“The Springfield city manager says there's no evidence of that.” pic.twitter.com/wiLNLgFU6B

— Pop Crave (@PopCrave) September 11, 2024

MIG Reports analysis shows:

• 55% of Ohio voters criticize the debate moderators for openly favoring Harris. Many argued that Harris was given leeway in addressing the pet-eating allegations, while Trump faced sharper scrutiny.
• Nationally, 40% of critique Muir and the media’s portrayal of the story, with many asserting media outlets are deliberately downplaying immigration issues.

This skepticism has strengthened Trump's position among voters, who often view the mainstream media as an arm of the Democratic establishment. The media’s perceived bias adds another layer to the debate, turning the pet-eating allegations into a broader discussion about the trustworthiness of political discourse.

Implications for Trump’s Campaign

Reactions to this multi-faceted story reflect a broader struggle between partisan viewpoints on the media and immigration. Data suggests voter frustrations are pushing support toward Trump—including in a swing state like Ohio.

Voter impact from this story shows:

• Support for Trump remains high: 70% of immigration discussions express positive sentiment toward Trump and 42% of all discussions mentioning him express support.
• Media Distrust: The perceived media bias, especially around fact-checking, has bolstered Trump's credibility among supporters.
• Harris's Challenge: While her base largely dismisses the narrative as absurd, the broader immigration debate remains a vulnerability. Voters unhappy about immigration view Harris as part of the establishment that is failing to address real concerns.

MIG Reports analysis of online discussions surrounding DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and migrant deportations reveals deep public concerns. As debates unfold among voters, frustration, fear, and occasional defense of current policies pervade. The narrative in voter conversations is charged with tension, reflecting Americans’ growing anxiety over national security, economic impact, and community safety.

Discussions predominantly focus on the effectiveness of immigration policies, the handling of illegal and legal immigrants. People also discuss the broader implications for the upcoming election.

We are providing this humanitarian relief to Haitians already present in the United States given the conditions that existed in their home country as of June 3, 2024. In doing so, we are realizing the core objective of the TPS law and our obligation to fulfill it. https://t.co/yBwOPk7eWJ

— Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas (@SecMayorkas) June 28, 2024

There is a collective sentiment that Biden-Harris administration officials, particularly Secretary Mayorkas, has failed to adequately address border security. This feeling of dissatisfaction manifests in discussions of border security and immigration policies.

Sentiment leans heavily negative, with voters blaming current policies for harming U.S. interests. From fears about the economy to concerns about public safety, Americans express a belief that immigration policies favor undocumented individuals at the expense of citizens.

Border Security

Dominating much of the election dialogue, voters criticize perceived failures at the border. They emphasize increased crime, economic instability, and cultural threats posed by illegal immigrants. Americans use strong, often alarmist language to describe an "invasion" at the border.

Concerns for security blend with demands for stronger enforcement and mass deportations, positioning border control as a key issue in the election. There is clear urgency in conversations, with deep frustration over what voters see as weak enforcement and a lack of accountability.

Immigration

Immigration policies overlap with concerns about border security, shifting the conversation slightly toward critiques of policy and Mayorkas’s leadership. In both election and American-daily-life contexts, public frustration intensifies. Many question the allocation of taxpayer resources and the strain illegal immigrants place on local communities.

The debate is framed around national integrity, with participants calling for stricter deportation policies to preserve jobs, safety, and public welfare. Anger about recent news stories involving crimes committed by illegal immigrants spurs critiques of policy inefficacy, portraying Mayorkas as a central figure in the ongoing crisis.

Mass deportation is now popular.

A majority of registered voters favor “a new national program to deport all undocumented immigrants currently living in the U.S. illegally,” 62-38%.

👀 A MAJORITY OF HISPANICS favor mass deportation, 53-47%.

Per @CBSNews / @YouGovAmerica poll: pic.twitter.com/EsUaEsE4im

— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) June 16, 2024

Language Patterns

The language Americans use highlights the nature of this polarized discourse. Third-person language dominates among those criticizing government officials and the impacts of immigration policies. This focus on accountability creates a tone of detachment and objectivity, with commenters often pointing fingers at Mayorkas and the Biden administration for perceived failings.

First-person narratives also surface, particularly in election-related contexts, where voters share personal stories of community impacts or emotional responses to the ongoing immigration debates. This first-person language serves to amplify the urgency and personal stakes tied to immigration policies, emphasizing how deeply these issues resonate with affected individuals.

Viral stories of Haitian migrants in Springfield, OH, over the weekend shed light on several alarming issues including claims that illegal immigrants are killing and eating local geese in park ponds. Voter conversations online illustrate a climate of fear, frustration, and political division. Sentiment about immigration is predominantly negative, with concerns about crime, resource allocation, and national security. The Biden-Harris administration is a primary target of blame, with many linking the perceived immigration crisis to larger systemic failures.

Haitian migrant wanders around the streets of Springfield, Ohio carrying a dead goose after killing it at a local park. pic.twitter.com/9JUy7qTSsp

— Oli London (@OliLondonTV) September 9, 2024

MIG Reports analysis of more than 4,500 posts shows 70-80% of voters voicing dissatisfaction with current immigration policies. Anger and fear dominate, particularly concerning increased crime rates and the strain on public resources attributed to the influx of undocumented immigrants.

A smaller segment, between10-20%, calls for empathy and a more structured, legal approach to immigration. The divide exists, but voters overwhelmingly demand stricter controls and enforcement. Voters, including Independents in critical swing states express negativity about the consequences of illegal immigration.

Ruining Our Society

Language in election-related discussions on immigration and border issues tends to be highly politicized and accusatory. Voters frequently connect immigration to broader political concerns like election fraud, illegal voting, and the erosion of democratic integrity.

The Biden-Harris administration gets blame for enabling illegal immigration. Americans are frustrated over the failure of the government to protect citizens. These discussions emphasize the economic burden placed on taxpayers and highlight the belief that undocumented immigrants are receiving preferential treatment over American citizens, especially veterans.

Immigration-focused conversations focus on crime, safety, and resource allocation within local communities. People voice concerns about public safety, with many associating immigrants—particularly Haitians—with rising crime rates, including violent offenses. The call for mass deportations and a return to stricter immigration policies underscores a strong desire for action. The language here, while still politically charged, is more rooted in fear for personal safety and the welfare of local communities.

Ruining Our Lives

One of the most prominent themes across both election and migration-focused discussions is the perceived competition for resources. Americans frequently express resentment that public housing, healthcare, and other social services are being diverted away from American citizens in favor of illegal immigrants. Sentiment is often framed as a betrayal by the government. Voters believe leaders prioritize illegal migrant needs over those of vulnerable citizen populations, such as veterans and low-income households.

Nevertheless, They Persist

Despite the overwhelming negativity, a small group advocates for a more humane approach to immigration. These voices, though often drowned out by the dominant narrative of fear and frustration, call for legal pathways to citizenship and fair treatment for immigrants seeking better lives. They claim immigration policy should balance national security concerns with compassion and respect for human rights, reflecting a broader debate on how the country should manage its borders.

Independent and undecided voters are discussing Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign, with indications toward their voting preferences. Conversations largely focus on key topics like border security, economic issues, and Harris’s leadership qualities. These all shape the electorate's opinion as voters weigh their options in the upcoming election. This analysis synthesizes thematic sentiments, identifying critical voter concerns and their potential impact on Harris's campaign.

Border and Economy Still Reign

Voters prioritize border security and economic issues, with an overwhelmingly negative sentiment toward Harris’s policies and performance. Independents and undecided voters express significant dissatisfaction with her approach to immigration, border policies, and the economy.

Sentiments about Harris’s leadership, integrity, and ability to address national concerns are also negative. Most voters focus on her failures and lack anything to say about potential successes.

Border Security

Border security issues generate frustration toward Harris and her policies. Voters characterize her as ineffective in curbing illegal immigration and protecting national security. Phrases like “open borders,” “illegal immigrants,” and “crime wave” appear frequently, highlighting fears of lawlessness and inadequate government action. Voters in border states often use first-person accounts, reflecting the personal impact of illegal immigration, amplifying a collective sense of vulnerability.

Many frame Harris as prioritizing the needs of migrants over American citizens. People use terms like "failed leadership" and "incompetent" to describe her role as the administration's "border czar." These critiques are not just political—they often carry emotional weight. Voters feel their security concerns are dismissed by Harris, increasing their ire. Nearly 85% of the conversation is negative, presenting a serious problem for Harris in winning undecided voters.

Economic Issues

Economic concerns, particularly inflation, are also a focal point in discussions about Harris’s campaign. Voters express fears about rising living costs saying inflation is crushing Americans and destroying the middle class. Many directly attribute inflation and high taxes to Harris’s policies, expressing frustration at her mismanagement. Harris's proposed tax hikes and government spending policies are especially contentious, with criticisms of “empty promises” or “insane government spending.”

Voter sentiment is negative, with 75% of the discussions expressing dissatisfaction. The focus often shifts between personal economic struggles—illustrated through first-person narratives—and broader critiques of Harris’s fiscal leadership. These concerns about economic instability make it clear that Harris faces an uphill battle in convincing critical voters that she can deliver economic improvements.

Ideology and Leadership

Ideology discussions often intersect with broader societal concerns. Many voters question Harris's political stance and policies. They suggests her policies are communist, socialist, or radical. This ideological framing suggests key voter groups fear her policies abandon traditional American values, contributing to voter distrust.

In terms of leadership, many criticize Harris as being part of the political establishment. They view her policies as a continuation of the Biden administration’s unpopular initiatives. Some voters compare her with Donald Trump, often seeing his leadership as a preferable alternative. Sentiment toward Harris’s leadership is largely negative, with many expressing disappointment and frustration with her governance.

National Security

National security and foreign policy—especially regarding the Israel-Hamas situation—post another problem for Harris. Voters express concern over what they perceive as Harris’s failure to prioritize U.S. interests abroad. They frequently refer to the Biden-Harris administration’s foreign policy as weak and ineffective.

The withdrawal from Afghanistan and perceived leniency toward terrorist groups further fuel these critiques. People say Democrats have failed strategies, often calling them a national embarrassment.

First-person narratives dominate discussions of national security as voters share their feelings of betrayal and disappointment. This personal connection to the issue highlights its emotional resonance, particularly among those who view Harris as compromising American safety.

Housing and Economic Stability

Housing affordability is also a cause for discontent. Independents and undecided voters are frustrated over rising property prices and housing shortages. They blame Harris for failing to address these concerns adequately, often tying the housing crisis to broader economic challenges like inflation and government spending. Around 80% of the housing discussion is negative with disappointment in Harris’s economic policies.

There is also a significant focus on illegal immigration’s impact on housing affordability. Many say Harris’s policies prioritize migrants over middle-class citizens. First-person stories of economic hardship and housing struggles provide powerful critiques of her leadership, indicating that these issues resonate deeply with the electorate.

Rep. Tony Gonzalez (R-TX) recently posted a segment of his appearance on CBS Face the Nation with the caption, “Illegal Immigration = BAD, Legal Immigration = GOOD.” After Gonzalez, the Republican incumbent, was squarely ratioed, MIG Reports analysis shows public sentiment voices strong opposition to all immigration.

Illegal immigration = BAD
Legal immigration = GOOD

If 🇺🇸 is to win the Space Race, lower the deficit, and grow our economy we need LEGAL, vetted, non-voting, non-citizen, workers! pic.twitter.com/dUAZRsGLmF

— Rep. Tony Gonzales (@RepTonyGonzales) September 1, 2024

Opposition manifests in heated debates where legal immigration frequently intersects with concerns about illegal immigration, national security, and economic stability. Analyzing these discussions provides insight into the prevailing attitudes and anxieties that shape public opinion as the nation heads toward critical electoral decisions.

Opposition to Current Policies

A significant majority of Americans voice dissatisfaction with the Biden-Harris approach to immigration, including legal immigration. Approximately 75% of the conversation expresses disapproval of Biden-Harris policies. These negative sentiments are based on current policies failing to protect national borders and imposing undue economic burdens on American taxpayers.

Conversations often conflate legal and illegal immigration, suggesting a widespread belief that current policies are too lenient and encourage illegal entry into the country. This leniency fuels calls for stricter immigration controls, including reductions or even moratoriums on new legal immigrants entering the United States.

Focus on National Security and Economic Impact

National security and economic concerns dominate discourse on legal immigration. Voters discuss border security, economic burdens associated with immigration, illegal aliens, and job security. For many voters, these issues are connected and at the forefront of public concern. Approximately 70% advocate for reduced immigration levels—legal or illegal.

These sentiments are driven by the belief that ongoing immigration could strain public resources, increase crime rates, and threaten job opportunities for American citizens. Voters are consistently negative, with many arguing current immigration policies fail to prioritize the safety and economic stability of the nation.

• In conversations, “moratorium is often brought up, with 78% of discussion advocating for reduced immigration.
• “National security” is another significant topic with 80% expressing a desire to reduce immigration.

Comparison of Harris and Trump Policies

Public discourse often contrasts the immigration policies of Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, with Harris's policies receiving substantial criticism. Around 65% of the discussion links Harris to lenient immigration policies, which many believe exacerbates existing problems.

Discussions about Trump are more favorable, particularly among conservative voters who view his approach to border security as more effective. These comparisons reveal an electorate which supports a return to the stricter policies of the Trump era.

Immigration as a Political Tool

Many view immigration, particularly illegal immigration, as a political tool which Harris uses to influence demographic voting patterns. This belief surfaces in about 60% of the discussion, reflecting broader concerns about the socio-political impacts of immigration.

Americans frequently voice concerns that immigrants, especially those who enter illegally, as burdens on public resources. They also discuss immigration as a threat to societal norms. Many suspect that Democrats use immigration, manipulating voters and metrics for political gain at the expense of national security and social cohesion.

Emotional and Linguistic Patterns

The language used in these discussions is notably emotional and personal. Voters frequently use first-person narratives, such as "I believe" and "we need," to express their personal stakes in the immigration debate. This use of first-person language creates a sense of urgency and personal investment in the outcome of immigration policies.

In contrast, third-person language is often employed to discuss political figures, particularly in a critical or accusatory manner. This linguistic pattern reflects a collective disillusionment with current leadership and a deep concern for the future of the nation in the face of perceived immigration challenges.

The recent surge in criminal activities by the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua in Aurora, Colorado has ignited a wave of public outrage. People express concern over unchecked illegal immigration, crime, and governance.

A "gang takeover" of apartment complexes in Aurora is at the center of discussion, causing local and national concern. There are reports of armed gang members controlling properties, engaging in criminal activities, and causing a surge in violence. Law enforcement has been forced to form special task forces to address the issue.

UPDATE: The city and Aurora Police Department, as previously stated, established a special task force in collaboration with other local, state and federal partners to specifically address concerns about Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua (TdA) and other criminal activity affecting… pic.twitter.com/ytAhIcBxy0

— Aurora Police Dept (@AuroraPD) August 28, 2024

Migrant gang criminal activities include intimidation, drug dealing, and potentially sex trafficking. The increase of this organized crime is sparking debate about immigration policies, local law enforcement's response, and the pressing issue of community safety.

As migrant gangs establish footholds in suburban American communities, residents feel fear, frustration, and political disillusionment. MIG Reports analysis shows rampant fear about safety, the border crisis, and government complicity.

Immigration

Concerns over illegal immigration and border security weigh Americans down. Many blame Biden-Harris policies for the rise of gangs like Tren de Aragua. The conversation frequently links the gang's presence in Aurora to what residents perceive as an open border, leading to a deterioration in community safety.

Sentiment is negative, with approximately 75% of the discussion expressing fear and frustration. The public narrative suggests the influx of illegal immigrants, facilitated by "open border" policies, is a direct threat to local safety and stability.

Crime

Gang activities in Aurora contribute strongly to widespread fear and concern over migrant crime overall. Americans highlight the gang's involvement in violent criminal activities, including human and drug trafficking, which has led to a surge in local crime rates.

Residents are angry and frustrated at what they see as a failure of law enforcement and local governance. Sentiment in conversations is overwhelmingly negative, with most of the discourse focused on stronger law enforcement and more effective community protections against gang violence.

NGOs

The current national political climate also shapes perceptions of local communities toward Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). The negative sentiment toward NGOs often stems from broader ideological conflicts, particularly the belief that their practices align with liberal or progressive agendas. Critics argue NGO actions exacerbate illegal immigration, allowing violent offenders into their communities.

NGOs are perceived as extensions of the Biden-Harris administration, driving current immigration policies. Voters view them as tools used to implement and sustain open border policies.

Criticism of NGOs is not isolated to local conversations but widespread nationally, fomenting dissatisfaction with political leadership. Disapproval is heightened among those who feel NGOs prioritize ideological goals over community safety and social order.

This is a Major Problem

The overarching narrative on migrant crime and gang activity is one of fear and frustration. Residents in communities like Aurora express deep concerns about the threats posed by gangs like Tren de Aragua.

Border issues, which many believe are limited to border states, are becoming a national problem. Americans perceive government failure is causing the crisis to spread across all communities.

Voters distrust political leadership and believe Harris’s current and proposed immigration and law enforcement policies will be inadequate. People want more robust border security, stricter immigration enforcement, and decisive action from local and national leaders to ensure community safety.