On March 8, U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman declared a federal statute barring undocumented immigrants possessing firearms to be unconstitutional. She contended that the law contravened the Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, which emphasized the necessity for gun control measures to align with historical precedent. This court ruling allows illegal immigrants in America to take advantage of Second Amendment rights by purchasing firearms and ammunition. This policy has shocked many American citizens, generating concern and incredulity.

The legal dispute arose when Heriberto Carbajal-Flores, an illegal alien, faced charges for unlawful firearm possession. However, Judge Coleman contended that because Carbajal-Flores' criminal history lacks instances of weapon misuse or violence during his apprehension, he doesn't present a threat to public safety. Consequently, she argued that he should not be stripped of his Second Amendment entitlement to bear arms for self-defense.

MIG Reports analysis reveals a diverse range of opinions on the recent ruling, stirring emotional debate. The primary discussion revolves around the interpretation of the Second Amendment, the consequences of allowing non-citizens to own firearms, and the potential implications on gun violence.

Supporters of the ruling, who appear to be from various political affiliations, argue that the Constitution, including the Second Amendment, applies to everyone within the United States. They believe the right to bear arms should not be infringed, regardless of citizenship status.

Some even argue that gun violence has been on a downward trend and that expanding constitutional carry will lead to a further decrease.

• Gun control sentiment has increased slightly in the last several days, suggesting Americans are concerned about this issue.

Critics of the ruling, also from various political backgrounds, express concern that this decision could exacerbate gun violence. They worry about the potential inability of illegal aliens to undergo thorough background checks or mental health assessments. Many voters argue the Second Amendment was intended only for U.S. citizens. They say extending it to illegal aliens could have severe consequences. Some critics also see this ruling as a strategy to increase gun violence, which could then be used as a justification for stricter gun control measures.

Many are expressing frustration with what they perceive as lax border control policies and the implications for national security and public safety. These gun allowances for increasing numbers of illegal immigrants, many believe, threatens an increase in crime and danger for citizens.

Some concerns highlight the potential implications on the feasibility of thorough background and mental health checks. These concerns do not appear to be strictly partisan but are shared by voters across political affiliations.

Critics of the ruling point out that illegal immigrants have already violated immigration laws. They also worry about mental health patterns, citing studies that indicate 14% of undocumented immigrants meeting the criteria for depression, and 7% for anxiety. Substance abuse among illegal immigrants is at a similar level as among the citizen population.

Overall, the ruling has become another contentious issue in the ongoing national debate about gun violence and gun rights, and now possibly incorporating citizenship, public safety, and illegal immigration.

Reactions to Judge McAfee’s ruling not to disqualify Fani Willis from prosecuting Trump are generally negative online. Although, there are polarized sentiments that fall along political lines. Much of the vocal discussion seems to be from conservative, particularly pro-Trump, individuals or outlets, with a noticeable amount of negative commentary directed towards Willis.

Many voters both nationally and in Fulton County, Georgia express outrage at Willis and her team, accusing them of being corrupt and unfit for office. There are repeated calls for investigations into Willis' use of federal and county funds, with allegations that she misused these resources.

While much of the discussion is partisan, those who support Willis most often voice relief over her ability to continue prosecuting Trump – rather than defending her against corruption allegations. This suggests Democrats feel more passionate about successfully convicting Trump than correcting any perception of corruption in Georgia courts.

Judge McAfee is being largely criticized for his rulings, with some users accusing him of being corrupt or untrustworthy. Many voters believe he should have removed Willis and Wade from the Trump case, and some believe McAfee is acting to ensure his election.

Some say Willis' actions are highly suspicious and potentially illegal, calling for her to be investigated under federal RICO charges, herself.

Partisan Democrats Want to “Get Trump”

Liberal-leaning voters mostly see the decision to keep Willis on the Trump case as a win for their side. They seem to view the situation as a chance for justice to be served against Trump, and express anticipation at the prospect of Willis continuing to prosecute the case.

Instead of defending Willis and Wade as ethical and unjustly maligned, these commenters are more likely to emphasize the importance of justice against Trump. However, these positive sentiments appear to be less common than the negative ones.

Supporters of Willis at the national level celebrate the judge's decision and express hope that she will be able to successfully prosecute Trump. They often frame this as a victory against Trump and his supporters.

Some Georgia voters see Willis as a powerful figure who is unafraid to challenge the status quo. They see her as a potential role model for other women and appreciate her determination in pursuing the case against Donald Trump. These voters also believe that personal scandals are being used as distractions from the real issues at hand.

Many among this group believe the case can proceed fairly without Wade's involvement. Nathan Wade's resignation is viewed by some as a necessary step for the case to move forward, while others see it as an indication of corruption and bias.

• Overall, Fani Willis support has remained strong in the high 40% range, despite severe negativity.
• It’s not totally clear whether support is directed at Fani Willis herself or, rather, her prosecution against Trump.

Georgia Voters Fear for the Integrity of Fulton County Courts

Georgia voters, while also showing a division in opinion, seem to be more focused on the potential impact of Willis's actions on the state's political landscape. Many in Fulton County express frustration over what they see as a lack of justice in the case proceedings.

Local reactions often include more specific references to Georgia politics. Critics accuse corruption and call for investigations into Willis's use of federal and county funds. They also respond to McAfee’s ruling with calls for Governor Brian Kemp to act against the perceived state corruption.

Some Georgia voters feel the corruption in Fulton County is some of the worst in the nation. They have called on the Georgia Ethics board to investigate both Willis and Nathan Wade. Georgians disapprove of allegations that Willis overpaid Wade using taxpayer money. Some voters are calling for the resignation or recusal of Willis from the Trump election case.

Many Georgia voters view Willis as a corrupt figure who has abused her power for personal gain. They accuse her of taking advantage of her position to live a luxurious lifestyle while her constituents live in poverty. This criticism seems to be based on perceptions of Willis's character rather than her professional conduct.

Sentiment in Fulton County seems to indicate a general frustration with political corruption, ineffective government, and inadequate action against perceived injustices.

• Donald Trump’s overall approval in Georgia is moderately strong in the mid 40% range.
• Trump’s approval, specifically on legal allegations in Georgia, has risen above his overall approval, suggesting Georgians are sympathetic to his defense.

During the State of the Union, President Biden referred to the perpetrator of Laken Riley's murder as an "illegal immigrant." Numerous liberals promptly voiced their disapproval of Biden's choice of the term "illegal," contending that it is dehumanizing and reinforces detrimental stereotypes about immigrants.

This led the administration to initiate efforts to retract the use of the term, but it appears to have caused more harm than good.

The decision to backtrack on using the term "illegal" when referring to illegal immigrants has ignited a passionate and divided public response. The reactions on social media platforms showcase a polarization deeply rooted in political beliefs, with many expressing a sense of betrayal and disappointment. This has significantly contributed the the border security conversation over the last few days.

The conversation erupted after Biden's State of the Union on March 7th.

In response to Biden's backtracking, many Americans have expressed concerns.

Most dominantly, users accuse Biden of prioritizing the feelings of undocumented immigrants over the rights and safety of American citizens. The refusal to use the term "illegal alien" is viewed by this group as a form of disrespect towards victims of crimes committed by unauthorized immigrants.

A significant portion of social media users criticize Biden for not using the term "illegal aliens," emphasizing its legal and factual accuracy. This group contends that individuals who have violated U.S. immigration laws should be referred to as such, framing the issue as a matter of adherence to the rule of law.

Critics connect Biden's language choice to broader immigration policies, arguing that the administration's approach has led to increased unauthorized border crossings and crime. The use of softer language is seen by some as an attempt to divert attention from the challenges associated with immigration.

Many respondents express genuine concerns about safety, particularly regarding crimes committed by unauthorized immigrants. Specific cases, such as the tragic murder of Laken Riley, are cited as evidence of the dangers associated with illegal immigration, further fueling the negative sentiment.

A prevailing belief among critics is that Biden's language change is politically motivated, with accusations of the Democratic Party pandering to unauthorized immigrants for political gain. The decision to include unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. Census is cited as an example, adding to the perception of political maneuvering.

Another common thread in the responses is the criticism of what users perceive as an open border policy under the Biden administration. Critics argue that this policy contributes to an alleged increase in crime and other issues related to immigration.

The overwhelming sentiment on social media is one of frustration and disappointment. Biden’s misstep seems to have upset voters across the board with left-leaning voices decrying his use of “illegal” to begin with and right-leaning voters angered by his retraction. The negative backlash reflects a deep division on issues of immigration policy and national identity, with many demanding stronger borders and a more assertive approach from Biden to address the problems associated with illegal immigration.

Online discussions have roiled American voters after allegations that President Biden is secretly flying immigrants into the U.S. This controversy appears to have originated from a report by Ben Bergquam which suggests the U.S. is funding processing centers in South America and transporting immigrants to America before they reach the border.

Reactions to the accusation that President Biden has flown more than 300,000 illegal immigrants directly into American airports reveals intense anger. Most of the discussion is among those who despise Biden's immigration policies and view such actions as a direct threat to the safety and welfare of American citizens.

Many Americans express a deep sense of frustration and anger, accusing Biden of prioritizing the needs of illegal immigrants over the safety and welfare of American citizens.

This news comes right before Biden’s 2024 State of the Union address, and as dissatisfaction remains high on immigration and the economy, which are the top two issues in voters’ minds.

Americans Feel Betrayed by the Biden Administration

Many voters involved in the discussion call for Biden's impeachment, with some alleging that he has committed acts of treason. These critics argue that Biden has betrayed the American people by secretly smuggling hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants into the country. They say this project was hidden from the public because the administration knows Americans would be enraged if they knew about it. Some critics even go as far as claiming that Biden "cheated" his way into office and has "sold America out."

A lot of people also voice concerns over potential security risks, claiming that such actions enable criminals to enter the country. There are some who still defend Biden and criticize impeachment attempts as political stunts. While support for the administration is largely partisan, there is more and more bipartisan anger over the border.

There is also a lot of discussion and frustration over a case involving a Guatemalan man named Juan Jose-Sebastian, who was arrested in Florida but is wanted in Oregon for multiple counts of rape and sexual abuse. Many people are upset that, despite his charges, Oregon won't extradite him, and ICE won't pick him up, leading to his release. People are also offended when the mainstream media dismisses their concerns, refusing to cover what voters view as important immigration news.

Calls for Impeachment

The comments calling for President Joe Biden's impeachment and accusing him of treason stem from a variety of issues. The number one reason is border security and, specifically in the last day, the scandal over flying in illegal immigrants. There are some other issues voters cite as reasons to impeach the president.

Border Security

Voters accuse Biden of compromising national security and destroying the economy with illegal immigration. Many accuse him of funding processing centers in South America.

Foreign Policy

A segment of progressive Democrat voters want Biden impeached for failing to impose a ceasefire in Gaza and funding conflicts abroad.

Bribery and Corruption Allegations

Many point to Biden family corruption, with allegations centered on his brother James Biden. They claim James confirmed during an impeachment inquiry testimony that a $40,000 check made out to Joe Biden in 2017 used funds he received from a Chinese government-linked company.

Treason

Some critics accuse Biden of treason for aiding the country's enemies or betraying the nation. The reasons vary, with some tying it to allegations of corruption, foreign policy, or border security.

A recent viral story about a retiring couple who are buried in a legal dispute with a squatter who took possession of their recently purchased dream retirement home in New York has sparked discussion about housing policies in blue cities. Many people are shocked and horrified at the extent of squatter's rights in New York and other Democrat-run cities.

On social media, New Yorkers express their concerns about squatters in their city, arguing they exploit loopholes in housing laws and exacerbate housing shortages. Many find it unfair and unsustainable that hardworking, taxpaying citizens must shoulder the burden of supporting individuals who, they argue, are not contributing to society in a meaningful way.

Many people have moved away or are threatening to move away from blue cities, citing frustration with policies that cater to squatters and illegal immigrants at the expense of law-abiding citizens.

Most Americans agree that there is a shortage of affordable housing across the country. But they tend to disagree on the causes and solutions.

In large, urban cities, where Democrats are often in power, there is a strong emphasis on tenants’ rights and protecting vulnerable populations. These places often have robust tenants' rights laws and policies aimed at preventing homelessness. However, these policies often face criticism from property owners who argue they unfairly infringe upon their rights and prohibit business, investments, and even the ability to occupy one’s own home.

Homeowners Frustrated with Squatter’s Rights

Many people – especially homeowners and landlords – see squatters as taking advantage of the system and property owners. They argue that property rights should be respected and that it's unfair for property owners to bear the burden of housing people without compensation. They often call for stricter laws and enforcement to protect the rights of property owners.

Those who can afford to own real estate express concerns about rent control policies, eviction moratoriums, and other tenant protections they see as too strict or lenient, leading to preferential treatment in favor of tenants.

Many property owners in places like New York argue that tenant-focused policies infringe the rights of landlords and homeowners. They believe they should have the right to control their own properties, including setting their own rental prices and choosing their own tenants.

Economic conservatives and property owners express frustration with overbearing regulations that make owning or renting property in blue cities nearly impossible.

Property Owners Vote with Their Feet

In many blue states and cities, there is a sentiment that tenant rights need to be protected. Mostly Democrats, voters and policymakers say landlords and homeowners should bear certain responsibilities. This includes maintaining safe and habitable living conditions, not discriminating against tenants, and not exploiting tenants with excessively high rents.

However, despite voting for politicians who enact tenant-focused policies, homeowners and landlords have been leaving blue cities in droves. Since COVID, many people have commented on the number of people moving from states like California and New York to places like Texas and Florida.

Many of the top reasons people say they left blue cities are economic. They mention high cost of living, food, real estate, and healthcare as reasons for leaving. A lot of inter-state migrants say they moved to avoid high taxes, progressive policies, or high crime rates.

Squatter and Tenant Defenders

There are advocates who argue tenant protections are necessary to prevent exploitation and displacement, particularly in cities with high living costs. They often point to instances of landlords using loopholes and aggressive tactics to evict long-term tenants and raise rents.

Some express concerns that affordable housing and systemic issues are one of the main issues facing middle- and lower-class Americans. They argue that squatters are often people who have fallen through the cracks of the system and are forced to resort to occupying vacant properties just to survive. They see the issue as a symptom of larger social and economic problems that need to be addressed.

Fewer Americans Can Afford to Own Real Estate

While the debate over housing policies in blue cities is often driven by partisan divides, Americans do seem to agree that housing is becoming too expensive across the country. Most people feel it’s prohibitively expensive for Americans to afford to own real estate. More are beginning to feel that, even if they could afford to own property, it may not be worth it.

For some, particularly younger generations, the importance of homeownership is decreasing. The flexibility of renting, coupled with an increasing emphasis on experiences over possessions, is challenging traditional notions of homeownership as a benchmark of success. However, this shift is not universal, and many Americans still aspire to own their own homes.

• Voters consistently say the economy, including the difficulties of housing, is one of their top issues of concern.
• Discussion about the economy is consistently high online, implying it remains on people’s minds.

The phrase "say her name" has long been associated with the Black Lives Matter movement, symbolizing the call for recognition and justice for black victims of police violence. However, recent developments have seen a shift in the narrative. The hashtag is now being used to draw attention to the tragic case of Laken Riley, a college student whose death has become a focal point in the broader discussions surrounding immigration, crime, and border control in the United States.

Origins of "Say Her Name"

The "say her name" movement emerged in 2015 following the death of Sandra Bland, a black woman who died in police custody. The phrase aimed to bring attention to the perceived overlooked experiences of black women in cases of police brutality. Over the years, it has been used to shed light on other similar incidents, becoming synonymous with the Black Lives Matter movement.

Shifting Focus to Laken Riley

The evolution of this phrase is evident in the passionate tweets flooding the digital realm. No longer confined to discussions within the Black Lives Matter framework, the hashtag is now a vessel for those critical of U.S. open border policies. Laken Riley's name is invoked, not as a symbol of racial injustice, but as an emblem of the broader debate on immigration and its alleged connection to crime rates. Social media users, predominantly critical of U.S. open borders policies, use the hashtag to draw attention to specific cases like Riley's, framing them as direct consequences of lax immigration control.

Twitter users engaging in the "say her name" discussion often critique political figures like Joe Biden for what they perceive as failures in addressing the issues of immigration and crime. The critiques are passionate, with many expressing anger and making demands for stronger border controls. This discussion completely overrides previous associations with the “say her name” movement.

With the invocation of Laken Riley's name and using the "say her name" hashtag, right-wing immigration hawks have added a personal and emotional element to the discussion. The narrative emphasizes the human cost of open border policies, presenting Riley as a symbol of the potential dangers associated with illegal immigration. Many are demanding accountability and action, holding political figures responsible for ensuring the safety of American citizens.

Conclusion

The evolution of the "say her name" narrative, from its origins in the Black Lives Matter movement to its current use in discussions surrounding Laken Riley's case, highlights the complex intersection of race, immigration, and crime in the United States and the right’s ability to co-opt a leftist narrative.

The Supreme Court's decision to hear former President Donald Trump's claim of immunity from prosecution has stirred up a maelstrom of reactions across the political spectrum.

Many Democrats reacted with outrage, viewing the decision as an unwarranted delay in bringing Trump to justice. They argue that the Supreme Court, particularly those Justices appointed by Trump, are aiding and abetting him by providing a legal lifeline. They fear this decision could further delay the trial on election interference charges, possibly even past the 2024 election. This sentiment is shared by some independents, who also express disappointment in the Supreme Court's handling of the case.

However, many Republicans view the decision as a necessary step in the due process of law. They argue that the Supreme Court is doing its due diligence by considering Trump's unprecedented immunity claim rather than rushing to judgment. They also counter arguments about biased Justices by pointing out that Trump's appointments to the court were fully within his presidential powers. 

Demographic Differences Regarding the SCOTUS Case

On a broader demographic level, younger voters or progressives are more likely to express anger and frustration at the perceived delay in justice. Older or more conservative voters tend to value the deliberative process of the court. 

Other demographic breakdowns show a pattern of support or opposition largely along party lines. However, the issue of presidential immunity is a complex one and does not neatly fall along partisan lines. For instance, some Republicans who value the rule of law may be critical of Trump's immunity claim. And some liberals who are wary of the expansion of executive power may view it with sympathy.

For those who were already critical of Trump, the decision has only reinforced their negative views. For those who support Trump, the decision has been a source of frustration and has contributed to their perception of the judiciary as being biased against the former president.

While there are general partisan trends, there are pockets within each group who may hold differing views. For instance, some Republicans have expressed concern about potential long-term damage to the party's reputation. And some Democrats recognize the importance of the court's decision in establishing a legal precedent for future presidents.

Discussion is heating up about the amount of taxpayer dollars being used to fund services and benefits for illegal immigrants. Headlines are emerging suggesting cities like Denver are cutting back on city employees to free up funds for immigrants. Federal funds are being diverted to support illegal immigrants with shelter, food, and cash.

These headlines are stirring up ire among American citizens who are already concerned about their own finances and the larger economy. Many people online express dissatisfaction with plans like the proposal to give $10,000 debit cards to illegals. More people are becoming vocal about their feelings that these initiatives are a misuse of tax dollars.

There are differing viewpoints which align with political affiliations, however, the issue is starting to supersede partisan lines. Generally, Republicans lean towards stricter immigration policies and criticize using tax dollars for illegal immigrants. Democrats tend to favor more lenient immigration policies and the provision of public services for migrants.

But as the Biden administration is forced to address the issue, there is growing bipartisan awareness of the impact on all Americans.

Public Opinion Is Shifting in Favor of Strong Borders

As the border issue reaches a fever pitch, public opinion grows more complex. It cannot be accurately summarized by party affiliation alone. Many variables, including personal experiences, geographic location, and demographic factors seem to be influencing voter perspectives on illegal immigration.

Overall, MIG data shows Americans’ desire to prioritize national interests, especially the safety and protection of citizens. Many argue that tax dollars should be used to care for American citizens before aiding illegal immigrants.

There is an increasing amount of support for building a wall along the southern border. Many people are mentioning a Monmouth University poll that indicated a majority of Americans now want a wall.

The border crisis continues to be the top issue for voters leading up to the election. MIG data suggests that public sentiment is shifting towards stricter border control.

Biggest Voter Issues

Governor Abbott’s Migrant Bussing

Many Texas voters approve of Governor Abbott's initiative to bus migrants to sanctuary cities. They view it as a way to lighten the burden on Texas and give sanctuary states what they asked for.

Texans are desperate to relieve the strain on resources and population overrun and believe that sanctuary cities should bear more responsibility. They also believe that this initiative is pushing the consequences of open-border policies into the spotlight, forcing a dialogue about immigration reform

Voters in all border states argue that the responsibility for immigration should be a national issue, rather than falling solely on border states like Texas.

Voters in Sanctuary Cities

Among Americans living in sanctuary cities, there are complaints that they are being targeted and burdened due to their policies. There is less discussion from residents of sanctuary cities, but those who voice public opinions tend to be critical of bussing migrants out of border states.

People in sanctuary cities raise concerns about the constitutionality of Abbott's actions. They question whether the Governor has the legal authority to dictate where immigrants can and cannot go.

They also worry about the economic implications of an influx of immigrants. They fear that it could lead to job losses for locals, wage suppression, and increased competition for limited resources.

There’s also talk of illegal immigrants overcrowding schools and healthcare systems and increasing crime rates. Some, however, are vocal in the opinion that sanctuary cities should welcome immigrants and provide them with the support they need to integrate into society.

Disapproval for Funding Illegal Immigrants

Most of the public commentary shows Americans are opposed to using tax dollars to fund services for illegal immigrants. They argue that it is unfair for tax-paying citizens to finance benefits for people not legally present in the country. This perspective often stems from a belief that illegal immigrants are taking advantage of the system, and the administration is encouraging it.

Americans say illegals are taking jobs from American workers, draining public resources, and contributing to crime rates. More voters also argue that tax dollars should be used to improve services for American citizens who are already struggling to get by.

There’s a growing sentiment that illegal immigrants should not be eligible for social services like healthcare and education, and some say they should not be allowed to work. There is frustration and anger around the perception that illegal immigrants are being favored over U.S. citizens.

Many express dissatisfaction with the current state of law enforcement, blaming Democrats for crime problems in their cities. They see this as an additional burden on taxpayers and businesses and call for a change in leadership. Many people also complain that Democrats have cut police budgets, exacerbating crime in places like San Francisco and New York.

A swell of news stories involving violent crimes by illegals is amplifying the frustration. Commenters refer to specific cases where illegal immigrants are accused or convicted of violent acts and, sometimes, repeatedly allowed back into the country. They express a sense of outrage and distress, accusing the government of wasting tax dollars on criminals.

The ire is often directed at Democratic politicians for supporting open border policies and Republicans for failing to act or oppose Democrats. And, while this can still be seen as a partisan issue, more Democrats and Independents are beginning to speak out about protecting America’s border.

Approval for Funding Illegal Immigrants

There is still a segment of voters – mostly Democrats – who support more funding for illegal immigrants. They see this crisis as a humanitarian issue. They point out that many illegal immigrants work in low-paying jobs and contribute to the economy through sales and income taxes. They also argue that denying services to illegal immigrants may lead to public health issues and increased poverty.

Some say religious organizations, particularly large ones, should pay taxes. Their reasoning is that this would increase revenue and reduce the burden on taxpayers. They argue that religious organizations should contribute the way businesses and individuals do.

This group also advocates for immigrants being allowed to work and pay taxes. They believe this would be more beneficial to the economy than the current situation.

Some Democrats argue that sanctuary cities provide a haven for undocumented immigrants. They believe migrants enhance the cultural diversity of the nation.

Those who approve of spending taxpayer money on illegals tend to view migrant bussing initiative as a form of political opportunism. They accuse Abbott of exacerbating a humanitarian crisis and hold him responsible for the distress and trauma experienced by both immigrants and first responders.

What Californians Are Saying About Newsom’s Governance

In light of recent efforts to initiate yet another recall vote, California governor Gavin Newsom is facing significant criticism. Backlash against Newsom’s policies is growing as California continues to hemorrhage residents.

Most of the negativity is centered around his handling of the economy, crime, and immigration. People also blame Newsom for various issues ranging from wildlife protection to the decline in the quality of life in California.

• In the last five days, Newsom’s support has decreased from 48%, reaching a low of 43%.
• This drop coincided with a large increase in discussion volume, suggesting as more people discuss him, he loses support.

How Californian’s Perceive Newsom’s Public Image

Critics of Newsom are often more right leaning, expressing frustration and dissatisfaction with his liberal policies. They frequently describe California as a "communist" state under his leadership. Republicans also say he aligns himself too closely with President Biden and Vice President Harris.

However, regardless of political affiliation, common perceptions of Newsom include:

• His attitude is smug and elitist.
• A tone-deaf leadership style leaves people feeling unheard.
• He is focused more on illegal immigrants than Californians.
• He prioritizes national political ambitions over Californians’ needs.
• Accusations that he treats constituents, particularly Latinos, as servants.

Criticism From Residents

Voters accuse him of having a failed agenda that is negatively impacting public safety and quality of life in the state. Many critics also express concern that Newsom might aspire to run for President, causing him to neglect California’s current needs.

Many Californians believe his policies have led to an increase in crime, homelessness, and drug addiction. These issues, people say, have significantly decreased quality of life. Critics believe his policies are causing the state to deteriorate as more people move away.

People mention specific projects like a train that doesn't go anywhere as examples of his failed agenda and wasteful spending. Some also highlight the fact that businesses are leaving California, which is increasing economic issues for the state.

Reasons People Leave California

Many reports highlight the fact that more than 700,000 people have moved away from California since 2020. This is bolstered by MIG analysis which reveals the most common reasons people say they moved.

1. Cost of Living
2. Taxes
3. Housing Crisis
4. Political Climate – oppressive leftism
5. Natural Disasters – wildfires, earthquakes, drought
6. COVID policies – mask and vaccine mandates
7. Business Regulations
8. Crime Rates
9. Changing Demographics
10. Few Job Opportunities – outside of major cities and industries

Losing Issues for Newsom

Economy

• Gavin Newsom’s current approval on the economy is 42%, with a 30-day average of 43%.
• His 30-day high was 50% and his low was 36%.

There is also significant criticism of Newsom's handling of the California economy. Many who signed the petition to recall Newsom cite his inability to address the state's economic situation effectively.

Many Californians also express dissatisfaction with the high taxes, pointing out that despite them, there is no perceivable improvement in public services or infrastructure. A very common complaint is Newsom’s wasting of tax dollars.

People say the high and rising cost of living, along with businesses being driven out of the state by regulations is crippling the economy.

Border Security

• Gavin Newsom’s current approval on the border is 46%, with a 30-day average of 45%.
• His 30-day high was 51% and his low was 37%.

Sentiment toward Newsom regarding the border and immigration is overwhelmingly negative. The main concerns revolve around a perception that California has an open border. Many people are discussing the real-world impact of illegal immigration on their daily lives.

Voters accuse Newsom of prioritizing the rights, money, and benefits of illegal immigrants over Californians. They also express frustration at Newsom's lack of action and seeming callousness about the immigration situation at the southern border. This is a special point of grievance for those who criticize California’s sanctuary state status.

Californians who are unhappy with the sanctuary laws in the state are saying that Newsom deserves to be recalled and they plan to vote for his removal. They also argue that too much money is being spent on illegal immigrants, which they view as both a border and economy issue

Public safety and immigration are also overlapping issues, with many people pointing to crimes committed by illegal aliens as unacceptable and far too frequent. Many reiterate Newsom’s prioritizing the rights of illegal immigrants and violent felons over the safety of Californians.

Crime

• Gavin Newsom’s current approval on crime is 46%, with a 30-day average of 43%.
• His 30-day high was 53% and his low was 27%.

Regarding crime as a whole, people highlight rising violent crime and retail theft. They discuss the increased and relentless instances of theft and car break-ins, especially in places like San Francisco. They also talk about the impact organized retail theft is having on both shopping and the overall economy.

There’s also a discussion about gun rights in the state and how they impact crime. Democrats call for stronger gun laws in hopes of reducing gun violence. More conservative voters are unhappy with the existing gun restrictions, arguing it makes protection of life and property more difficult amid rising criminal activity. This group also criticizes the cost of carry permits in the state, saying they're unconstitutional.

There is an emphasis on crimes committed by illegal aliens who, many say, would never have the chance to perpetrate crimes if they were not allowed in the country to begin with. Many also point out that technically, all illegal immigrants are criminals, breaking the law when they entered the country.

Winning Issues for Newsom

Climate Change

• Gavin Newsom’s current approval on crime is 48%, with a 30-day average of 45%.
• His 30-day high was 51% and his low was 25%.

Many Democrats and Independents praise Newsom’s commitment to climate action. They call for more robust and equitable climate initiatives like the ones he has promoted.

Supporters appreciate his stance on issues such as climate change and social equity. They express their intention to vote against a recall, suggesting that they believe he genuinely cares about the climate, despite disagreements over some of his policies. This same group also applauds his efforts to counter policies and rhetoric of Republicans.

Abortion

• Gavin Newsom’s current approval on crime is 52%, with a 30-day average of 47%.
• His 30-day high was 52% and his low was 38%.

A lot of people support Newsom's stance on abortion, viewing it as a necessary right for women. They disagree with the idea of a national abortion ban, and certainly don’t want to see one in California.

They argue that the right to an abortion is essential for women's health and autonomy and should be protected. This group praises Newsom for standing up for women's rights in the face of conservative opposition.

Newsom’s Possible Presidential Run

Rumors of a potential run for the presidency also factor into how Californians view their governor.

Democrat Support for Newsom

Some Democrats believe Newsom is doing a great job as governor. They appreciate his defense of President Biden and say they would support his policies on a national level. This group think Newsom demonstrates strong leadership, and they admire his advocacy for issues like homelessness and wildlife protection. It is likely supportive Democrats would view Newsom as a strong candidate and might support his potential presidential run.

Democrats’ approval for Newsom often includes healthcare, climate change, his leadership during COVID, and his handling of the wildfires. They also overwhelmingly support his progressive stance on abortion rights.

Democrat Disapproval for Newsom

There are some concerns about Newsom among a portion of Democrats. Especially in a potential presidential run. These Democrats tend to disagree with some of his policies and actions as governor – particularly regarding immigration and the homeless crisis.

More moderate Democrats view Newsom as too liberal or too tied to the problems of California to be a strong presidential candidate. There are also concerns about Newsom's failure on issues like child exploitation and prostitution, which some Democrats feel he has not addressed adequately.

Overall, voters including a segment of Democrats criticize Newsom on homelessness, cost of living, and crime. Many people see these issues as egregious failures and therefore might not support him for president.

There are also those who express skepticism about Newsom's support for President Biden, accusing him of ignoring Biden's clear cognitive decline and supporting a false narrative.