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.

When Americans are aware of migrant crimes against children, particularly those involving trafficking and abuse, they are furious. Voter conversations show widespread concern and anger over child safety.

People’s reactions are shaped by their awareness of these crimes and their perceptions of the underlying problems. This analysis explores prevailing sentiments, focusing on how awareness impacts public emotions and beliefs about the impact of unchecked immigration on American children.

Awareness and Emotional Impact

People are increasingly aware of the crimes committed by migrants, especially those involving children. This awareness triggers intense emotional responses, predominantly fear and outrage. Approximately 75-85% express negative sentiments, with voters expressing alarm over child trafficking and abuse linked to illegal immigration.

Americans view these crimes as an imminent threat to the safety their children, heightening a sense of urgency and desperation. Fears are compounded by frequent mentions of specific incidents involving children, which serve to personalize and amplify emotional impact.

The public’s awareness of these issues does not merely evoke concern but generates discussion of societal vulnerability and government failure. When the media reports crimes against children, Americans express outrage, often blaming Biden-Harris policies as facilitating increased dangers.

BREAKING: Illegal aliens tried to hijack 2 buses full of kids in San Diego

Border Czar Harris owns this mess pic.twitter.com/KovIECZgLc

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) August 29, 2024

Perceived Problems and Their Origins

Voters discussing these issues regularly insist the root of the problem is the Biden-Harris border. People view these policies as too lenient, allowing criminals to exploit vulnerable populations, particularly children.

MIG Reports analysis shows 70-80% of discussions emphasize the belief that open borders and ineffective enforcement contribute directly to the rise in migrant crime. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris receive the blame as voters assert their immigration policy is a major failure.

National sentiment is that leaders have both failed to protect citizens and created a situation where migrants can commit these crimes with impunity. There are widespread calls for stricter immigration controls and harsher penalties crimes—especially against children.

There is also a growing distrust of government institutions, with around 60% suggesting government agencies and nonprofits are either complicit in or negligent toward the border crisis.

Role of NGOs at the Border

Many Americans accuse Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) of facilitating illegal immigration. They regularly implicate these organizations in the crimes committed by migrants, particularly those involving children.

The means sentiment is predominantly negative as people express outrage and betrayal, believing NGOs enable human trafficking and other criminal activities. This distrust is further exacerbated by the perception that NGOs prioritize the welfare of migrants over the safety of citizens. Many people call for stricter regulation and oversight of these organizations.

Some of the reasons Americans give for blaming NGOs include:

• Operational Practices: Some say NGOs providing aid like shelter and legal advice to migrants facilitate illegal immigration by making the journey more viable.
• Collaboration with Smugglers: There's suspicion that some NGOs inadvertently or directly aid smugglers with logistical support or information.
• Political and Ideological Motives: Some view NGOs, especially those with international affiliations, as pushing for U.S. open borders or demographic change.
• Financial Incentives: Critics say NGOs, often funded by governments or international bodies, encourage migration because their financial benefits are tied to the scale of the crisis they manage.
• Misuse of Resources: People say NGOs divert resources meant for legal residents to illegal migrants.
• Lack of Accountability: Lack of oversight at the U.S. border causes accusations of activities beyond humanitarian aid, potentially including trafficking.

Anger at Cartels

Voters also cite cartels as a root cause of violence and trafficking across the U.S. border. Public sentiment strongly links the activities of Mexican cartels to the broader issue of border security and safety for American communities.

Discussion reflects a widespread belief that lax border policies allow cartels to thrive, facilitating and even encouraging drug trafficking and child trafficking. This fuels public demand for more aggressive measures to combat cartel influence.

Additional Themes

Beyond the complicity of government and NGOs with cartels, Americans also discuss broader societal issues like the erosion of American cultural and moral values through immigration.

Citizens express concern that the influx of migrants, coupled with the government's inaction, is leading to a decline in societal standards. Many argue that migrants who increasingly do not assimilate, deepen national cultural fractures and erode Americans values.

MIG Reports analysis of California and Oregon, two very blue areas, potentially granting home loans to illegal immigrants shows voter reactions. Conversations reveal tensions around progressive housing policy, immigration, and broader societal implications. Americans talk about fairness, the impact on local citizens, and the underlying values of national identity.

Outrage

A predominant theme often centers around unfairness. Many Americans express outrage at the possibility of providing financial benefits, such as home loans, to illegal aliens. They assert giving tax dollars to non-citizens undermines the sacrifices made by lawful citizens and would exacerbate existing housing crises.

Most comments call this proposed policy detrimental, highlighting concerns that it would contribute to rising real estate prices and lead to increased taxation burdens on American homeowners. This sentiment includes fears about economic survival and stability for established residents who already feel stretched by high living costs.

Inclusion Versus Replacement Theory

More progressive Americans frame the discussion around compassion and inclusivity. They argue the changing demographic landscape necessitates a re-evaluation of who deserves access to resources.

Advocates say illegal immigrants contribute to the economy and society and deserve opportunities for home ownership—a key piece of the American dream. This group says inclusive housing policies foster community cohesion and economic growth, especially amid labor shortages in crucial sectors.

There is also contrast in national versus local identity, with many discussions touching on the broader ramifications of such policies. Critics worry aiding illegal immigrants could attract more foreign nationals seeking similar benefits, straining local resources.

But supporters contend neighbors who support immigrants inherently enrich local culture and community bonds. This clash between a nationalistic viewpoint and a cosmopolitan approach reveals deeper societal debates about America’s values. This brings into question ideas of opportunity, assimilation, and fairness.

Without Representation

Fear and anger emerge as strong emotional responses, with many Americans saying home loans for illegal migrants would be a legal and moral failure.

The emotions hint at a broader anxiety about political representation and government neglect of American citizens. Comments often voice frustration at government actions that Americans feel compromise their rights and economic welfare.

MIG Reports analysis shows:

• 40% express concern over unfairness and economic burden
• 30% advocate for compassion and inclusivity in policy
• 20% voice anxieties about national identity and local resources
• 10% articulate mixed feelings, revealing a desire for balanced discussion

Voter views of home loans for illegal immigrants are deeply entwined with larger partisan debates about immigration reform, societal values, and economic impacts. Each side of the discussion grapples with fundamental principles of justice and opportunity.

MIG Reports analysis of voter discussions shows two consistently pressing and connected topics for Americans in the 2024 election—the economy, and immigration.

Their interrelation often focuses on:

• How immigration impacts economic discussions
• How the economy impacts immigration discussions

The intent of this study is to determine trending themes, parallels, or anomalies from conversations and how they impact each other based on framing. Some key findings include:

• Sentiment is generally negative on the economy and the border.
• The total volume of discussions is greater regarding the economy than immigration.
• Discussions are often intertwined but the economy features more frequently in immigration discussions.
• Positive views of immigration are only present in conversations exclusively focused on the border.

Disparity in Volume and Focus

Analysis of two data sets includes conversations about the economy which mention immigration and conversations about immigration which mention the economy. Generally, economic concerns are discussed in larger volume than immigration issues. While there is similarity across swing state and national conversations, the economy is more often discussed within immigration conversations than immigration is discussed within economic conversations.

When discussion is focused on the economy, immigration is sometimes brought up as a negative pressure on economic problems—exacerbating inflation and taxation. When general discussion is on immigration, voters again emphasize negative economic impacts. But they often mention things like job competition, strain on social services, and crime. The discussions have less breadth and depth, however, compared to economic-centric discussions.

Consistency in Themes but Different Emphases

The same themes of inflation, job competition, taxation, and government spending recur in both sets of analyses. This suggests consistent voter concern about the economic implications of immigration. However, the emphasis differs in each type of discussion.

In the economic-centric discussions, these themes are explored in greater detail and connected to broader economic policy critiques. In immigration-centric discussions themes concentrate on how immigration exacerbates these economic issues. There is often a focus on the immediate and tangible impacts of unchecked immigration like job availability and social service burdens.

Within immigration-focused discussions there is a stronger narrative around security and crime. This is especially pronounced in data sets from swing states and presidential election conversations. Crime and safety, while present in economic discussions, is pronounced when immigration is the primary topic. This suggests deeper public anxieties about safety that Americans directly associate with increased immigration.

Mostly Negative Sentiment, Some Positive Support

Across both sets of analyses, sentiment remains largely negative toward current economic and immigration policies. However, there is relatively more support or positive framing in the immigration-centric discussions compared to the economic-centric ones.

While the immigration-focused discussions still emphasize concerns about job competition, strain on social services, and crime, there is a noticeable viewpoint which recognizes potential economic benefits of immigration.

Immigration supporters argue immigrants fill labor gaps, contribute to economic growth, and increase tax revenues. While these supportive views are sometimes expressed in immigration-centric discussions, they are still overshadowed by the dominant negative sentiment.

In economy-centric conversations, views of immigration are uniformly critical, with almost no mention of positive impacts. Here, immigration is more frequently viewed as a significant contributing factor to economic problems.

Polarization and Political Divide

Political polarization present in economic discussions is also evident in immigration discussions, though with sharper contrasts. When immigration is the focal point, the divide between supporters of stricter immigration policies and advocates for reform is more pronounced.

This contentious dialogue emerges regarding immigration, while the economy is less divisive—though still mostly negative. In the data set comprised of election-related topics, immigration discussions are often framed within a broader political narrative. These conversations emphasize past and present immigration policies, directly comparing Donald Trump and Kamala Harris.

Economy Nested Within Immigration

The immigration-focused analysis shows voter conversations narrow down on specific economic impacts like job competition and welfare costs. They delve less frequently into broader economic trends such as long-term fiscal responsibility or overall economic growth. This indicates the economy is such an overarching concern for Americans that it often figures into their discussions about immigration.

On Aug. 19, DHS OIG published a management alert regarding the inability of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to effectively monitor unaccompanied migrant children (UCs) released from the custody of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The report raises significant concerns about children's safety and the risk of trafficking for the 290,000 missing children.

MIG Reports analysis shows significant public concern in reaction to the report. Discussion particularly focuses on issues of human trafficking, border security, and immigration policies.

Key insights from American voter conversations include:

• Trafficking Concerns: The highest level of concern comes from discussions directly linking the Biden administration to the trafficking crisis. 75% of voters blame the current leadership and 75% express a strong desire for new leadership.
• Border Security Issues: Across multiple subtopics, about 70% of discussions express frustration with current border security policies, blaming them for exacerbating trafficking issues and missing children. This sentiment is consistent across different demographics, with a strong call for stricter immigration policies.
• Swing States and Political Impact: In swing states, 65% of discussions link trafficking with missing children, and 55% express a preference for a leadership shift. This suggests concerns may significantly influence electoral outcomes, with clear advocacy for returning to Trump-era immigration policies.

290,000 children are missing due to the open border policies of Biden, Harris & Gallego.

My heart breaks for these poor babies. https://t.co/SPzsvAZywn

— Kari Lake (@KariLake) August 21, 2024

Strong Discontent with Current Leadership

About 75% of people discussing trafficking issues directly blame the Biden-Harris administration for exacerbating the crisis. They refer to human trafficking, missing children, and cartel activity in conversations.

Dissatisfaction is not confined to one area; it spans across various aspects of border policy, with 70% of discussions in border-related topics also reflecting anger and frustration towards the administration. Around 70% are calling for stricter border controls and a change in leadership.

Many also criticize VP Harris for calling out Trump’s DHS for losing track of 545 children when, on her watch, nearly 300,000 have gone missing.

UPDATED: In 2020, Kamala Harris said DHS not being able to find the parents of 545 children was "outrageous and a stain on our national character."

Now under Border Czar Kamala Harris's leadership, DHS has lost nearly 300,000 illegal migrant children.

That's a 54,945.9%… pic.twitter.com/Q84WeB9hSc

— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) August 20, 2024

Calls for Political Change and Stricter Policies

In addition to the general discontent, there is a strong push for political change. Roughly 65% of voters advocate for a return to Trump-era immigration policies, including measures like "Remain in Mexico" and increased deportations.

Around 60% link the missing children directly to human trafficking. This trend continues in broader conversations about border security, where 70% hold the administration responsible for the ongoing crisis and express a desire for a political shift.

Swing States and Electoral Impact

The sentiment in swing states mirrors national discussion, with a significant focus on the connection between missing children and trafficking. About 65% of voters in swing states link these issues and 55% want new political leadership.

While there is some skepticism—around 30% attributing the problem to broader social or economic factors rather than directly linking it to trafficking—the majority sentiment is one of urgency and a desire for accountability.

When considering the electoral impact, approximately 70% of believe the current administration's policies have failed to secure the border, which they see as contributing to the trafficking crisis. About 65% of discussions support Trump as the candidate best suited to restore order and security.

The overall mood is overwhelmingly negative, with 80% of conversations expressing anger and frustration.

Urgent Policy & Personnel Change Required

The overarching theme is deep dissatisfaction with the current administration's handling of border security and immigration. MIG Reports weighted analysis reveals approximately 66.9% of voters desire political change. Many advocate for a return to stricter border controls. There is a clear demand for leadership that prioritizes the safety and security of vulnerable populations, particularly children, who are seen as being at the greatest risk.

The chart shows that when more people are unhappy or frustrated with how things are being handled—especially regarding issues like trafficking and border security—they are more likely to want new leaders or changes in policies. Each point on the plot represents a different topic, and the closer a point is to the top right corner, the stronger the link between dissatisfaction (negative sentiment) and the push for political change.

The scatter plot's points, representing high levels of negative sentiment and advocacy for change, are closely tied to discussions involving these keywords. The frequent appearance of terms like "human trafficking," "missing children," "open borders," and criticism of Kamala Harris in connection with these issues indicates the more these topics are discussed, the stronger the call for political change becomes. This trend is consistently reflected across the topics analyzed.

MIG Reports analysis shows the political landscape in Nevada emphasizes economic stability, housing affordability, and immigration policies. As the state grapples with rising inflation and the increasing cost of living, residents express dissatisfaction with the Biden-Harris administration. Discussions reveal a strong focus on the impact of government policies on everyday life. Voters seek leadership at the national and state level that can address their concerns and provide tangible solutions to pressing problems.

Border Security

The border is a high priority and highly charged conversation in Nevada. Approximately 70% of the discussion is negative toward the state of illegal immigration under Biden-Harris. The predominant concern is that "open borders" are increasing crime rates, economic strain, and a diversion of resources away from American citizens to support illegal immigrants.

Around 60% of Nevadans in the conversation express frustration with misallocation of taxpayer dollars. They believe tax funds should prioritize veterans and the homeless over illegal immigrants. Additionally, 65% of the conversations explicitly link illegal immigration to rising crime rates, further fueling the demand for stricter border controls.

Political Ideologies

Around 75% of comments show negative sentiment toward Democratic policies, often labeling them as socialist or communist. These discussions emphasize a fear that the Democratic Party has strayed too far from traditional American values. Roughly 65% of the discourse focuses on the idea that supporting Democratic candidates equates to endorsing socialism or communism.

On the other hand, Republican ideals, particularly those associated with Trump, receive a more favorable reception in Nevada. About 60% of the discussion supports Trump, expressing appreciation for his policies and the desire to return to traditional conservative values.

Economy

Housing

Housing is a critical issue in Nevada, with about 55% of the conversations expressing frustration over the lack of affordable housing. Rising costs, stagnant wages, and inflation are frequently mentioned, with 30% of discussions focusing on affordability concerns. Around 25% in Nevada are critical of current government policies, particularly those under Democratic leadership, which are seen as ineffective in addressing the housing crisis.

Economic Issues

The economic discourse in Nevada is dominated by concerns over inflation and government spending. Approximately 75% convey frustration with the Biden administration's economic policies. Nevadans blame Democrats for rising costs and wage stagnation. Inflation is the most frequently mentioned issue, appearing in about 40% of the discussion. Many participants criticize the Inflation Reduction Act, arguing it has worsened, rather than improved inflation.

Fiscal Policy

The sentiment toward fiscal policy is predominantly negative, with 72% expressing dissatisfaction with government spending and its impact on inflation. The perception that Democratic policies, particularly those under the Biden-Harris administration, have led to economic hardship is a recurring theme. Many participants advocate for a shift in leadership, with 10% of the comments emphasizing a desire to return to Trump-era policies that are perceived to have been more economically beneficial.

Inflation

Inflation is a major concern for Nevada voters, with 60% of the discussions linking rising prices directly to the policies of the Biden administration. There is a strong sense of discontent, with 45% of the conversations focusing specifically on food inflation, associating it with broader economic mismanagement. Proposed solutions, such as price controls suggested by Harris, receive substantial criticism, with 40% of the discourse arguing these measures would exacerbate the problem rather than solve it.

Nomination

Kamala Harris’s nomination also generates controversy in Nevada, with criticism of the Democratic Party's handling of primaries. About 62% of the comments express displeasure with how Kamala Harris secured the nomination. Voters say the lack of a primary undermines democratic principles.

Negative sentiment is also present regarding the Democratic National Convention, where 55% of the comments criticize the process as undemocratic and disconnected from voter interests. In contrast, around 40% of the commentary in Nevada expresses positive sentiment toward Republican candidates, framing them as more aligned with voter engagement and traditional political values.

All Entities

Across the board, discussions involving key political figures like Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are highly polarized. Housing and economic challenges are the most frequently mentioned issues, with approximately 30% of the conversations focusing on inflation and the cost of living. Election integrity is also a significant concern, with 20% of the discourse centered on skepticism about the legitimacy of past and future elections. The overall sentiment towards Democratic figures, particularly Harris, is predominantly negative, with 15% of the discussions highlighting perceived failures in leadership.

The discussion around border security and immigration remains deeply polarized among American voters. Conversations about the border, particularly focusing on presidential candidates Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, dominate overall public discourse, indicating it’s a top concern. MIG Reports analysis highlights significant differences in public perception and sentiment towards the Republican and Democratic nominees.

An analysis of public sentiment reveals stark differences in support for Kamala Harris and Donald Trump on border security:

• Voter sentiment against open borders is strong, averaging 66%.
• Harris's support averages around 34%, with only 20% support in broader discussions and up to 67% among Democrats.
• Trump enjoys consistent support, averaging 69% across various groups.
• He has particularly strong backing from his base—85% support him on border security.
  

Kamala Harris

Kamala Harris faces a complex and often critical landscape as voters react to her stance on border security. MIG Reports analysis indicates that across national conversations, a large portion of Americans criticize Harris's approach to immigration. Only a minority of supports express agreement or positivity.

Voter sentiment is consistent across broader analyses from Democrat-leaning conversations. This group prioritizes compassion and humane treatment for immigrants, leading to approval for her open border policies.

However, many conversations among Democrats suggest dissatisfaction with the outcomes of her policies, particularly in managing border programs effectively. There is a divide within the Democratic base, where support for Harris’s lenient approach to immigration is mixed. Many feel her policies do not adequately address the complexities of border security.

Most Americans want effective immigration management with accountability and tangible results. Harris's role as a leader and as "border czar" positions her as a figure of both hope and frustration within her party. Responding to criticisms of her administration on border security will likely pose a hurdle for her campaign.

Many Republicans criticize Harris and Democrats’ hypocrisy, pointing out the DNC has strong security and even physical walls. They say Democrats want anyone to enter the country without limitation but protect themselves behind walls and fences.

Watch as Steve tries to help illegal migrant enter the DNC convention, you can image how it went. pic.twitter.com/RdrI0jIZvW

— @amuse (@amuse) August 21, 2024

Donald Trump

Donald Trump remains a dominant figure in border security conversations, particularly among Republicans. MIG Reports analysis shows overwhelming support for Trump’s hardline stance against open borders and his advocacy for stringent immigration controls.

Trump’s policies, such as the "Remain in Mexico" program, receive strong approval from his base. They view strong measures as essential to protecting national security and upholding the integrity of the immigration system.

Republican voters are strongly aligned with Trump's approach of prioritizing enforcement and deterrence. Theu believe strong border security is synonymous with protecting American jobs and maintaining public safety.

Within party, Trump has overwhelming support. This contrasts with waning support among Democrats for their own leadership. Analysis suggests some Independents and disaffected Democrats are bolstering Trump’s broader support. His consistent message of strict border control and opposition to open borders resonates deeply with Americans who want safety and sovereignty.

This support is not only a reflection of Trump’s influence but an indication of voter priorities as border security remains a top concern. These discussions illustrate the extent to which Trump’s stance on immigration continues to shape and mobilize his base, making him a central figure in the ongoing national debate on border security.

A recent Gallup poll of American approval regarding immigration levels from 1965 through the present determined:

• 55% of Americans today want immigration reduced
• 25% want immigration levels to stay the same
• 16% want an increase in immigration numbers.

MIG Reports analysis of voter conversations online not only confirm polling data but reveal why Americans hold their current perspectives on immigration

Weighted Analysis

MIG Reports analysis weighs total discussion volume and approval percentages of immigration preferences by calculating the influence of each group's preference—decreased, maintained, or increased immigration—across multiple data sets.

By considering both the percentage of preferences within each data set and the total discussion volume of each set, the analysis determined the overall weighted preference.

MIG Reports analysis shows:

• 56.50% of voters nationally favor decreased immigration
• 26.22% favor maintaining current levels
• 17.29% favor increased immigration
• Additionally, in swing states, around 70% of conversations favor reducing immigration.
• In national conversations about the presidential election, 60% favor reducing immigration.
  

Why a Majority Wants Reduced Immigration

The predominant preference in voters discussions favors decreased immigration. This is driven by a variety of concerns revolving around national security, economic stability, and public safety.

Many Americans voice deep apprehension about illegal immigration as a major threat to the country’s security and economic well-being. Voters talk about reducing or stopping illegal immigration because they believe:

• Illegal immigrants contribute to rising crime rates: Discussions mention gang activity and violent crimes linked to immigrant groups, particularly in urban areas.
• An open order exacerbates economic challenges: People discuss job scarcity and inflation, arguing the influx of illegal migrants strains public resources like social services, healthcare, and housing.

There is widespread frustration and distrust toward Biden-Harris immigration policies, which voters view as too lenient. People direct their anger toward Democrats who they believe have failed to secure the border. Discussions emphasize a sense of urgency and alarm, with many advocating for stricter controls and even mass deportation policies.

Reasons for Maintaining Immigration Levels

Around 25% of voters in MIG Reports data advocate for maintaining current levels of immigration. They emphasize the need for a balanced and structured approach to the border. These voters typically argue that, while reforms may be necessary, a drastic reduction in immigration is not the solution.

Immigration advocates point out the importance of legal immigration pathways, highlighting the contributions of immigrants to the economy and society. They focus on the value of diversity and the critical role immigrant workers play in the economy. Here, they mention industries that rely heavily on labor from immigrant populations.

There is also a strong humanitarian element in these discussions. Voters want asylum seekers to have human rights protections. They argue a well-regulated immigration system can benefit the country by bringing in individuals who contribute positively to communities and the economy. Sentiments in this group are generally more optimistic and focused on the potential for policy reforms that balance security concerns with the need for inclusivity and economic growth.

A Minority Want Increased Immigration

The smallest segment of Americans supports increasing immigration levels. This view is driven primarily by humanitarian concerns and the belief in the positive impact of diversity. Often progressives and libertarians, this group focuses on America's moral and ethical responsibility to provide refuge to those fleeing persecution and violence.

Increased immigration proponents say the United States, as a nation built on immigration, has a duty to welcome those seeking better lives and to support their integration into society. They also emphasize the economic benefits of immigration, particularly the need for a growing workforce to sustain economic growth and address labor shortages in certain industries.

Advocates point out immigrants bring a wealth of skills, perspectives, and cultural richness which contributes to the vitality of the nation. Discussions include calls for comprehensive immigration reform that expands opportunities for legal immigration and strengthens support systems for newcomers. The tone in this group is often one of compassion and a belief in the long-term benefits of a more open and inclusive immigration policy.