Amid former president Trump’s visit to the Libertarian National Convention and Chase Oliver’s subsequent nomination, discussions about Libertarian Party immigration platforms emerge.

Libertarian policies, which emphasize open borders and free movement across countries, get mixed reception from both conservative and libertarian voters. Conservatives are quick to point out immigration as a point of deep disagreement between themselves and libertarians – typically overlapping ideologically on other issues.

Libertarian candidate Chase Oliver’s immigration platform.

- Mass amnesty for millions in the U.S. illegally
- Path to citizenship for DACA
- Ellis Island style mass processing
- Expansion of H-1B work visas

Not a word about border security. https://t.co/gYRZobK98E

— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) May 28, 2024

Many conservatives on X are pointing out that Oliver’s Libertarian platform aligns more closely with Biden’s open borders. This has also sparked discussions about how broadly aligned Republicans, and even Trump himself, are with Libertarians.

Libertarians and Immigration

Libertarians, true to their philosophical principles, usually advocate for less government intervention across the board. This includes freer migration policies influenced by a belief in the free market and individual rights – or more simply, open borders. They often view ideas like a border wall as an imprudent use of tax dollars. They say government intervention at the border is contrary to their overall philosophy.

This group also argues free labor movement is beneficial to the economy and individual liberty, rather than hurtful to American sovereignty. However, not all libertarians agree with this perspective. Some express skepticism about completely open borders, particularly in terms of security and preserving the nation's cultural and social fabric.

Many voters view Chase Oliver’s platform as advocating open borders based on freedom and prosperity. Some Libertarians envision a world where people are free to move and seek opportunities anywhere in the world. They often highlight the historic role immigrants played in fueling American innovation and economic growth. They assert fears of economic and cultural displacement are both misplaced and overstated.

Conservative Views of Libertarian Borders

Right leaning and conservative voters, especially under the current administration, widely disagree with Libertarian immigration policies. They tend to view border security and stopping migrant entries into the U.S. as extremely important.

Conservatives are more likely to support building a wall and deporting illegal immigrants. This view is underpinned by their emphasis on national security and protecting jobs and resources. This group also attributes illegal immigration as a major contributor to issues like crime and economic hardship.

Republicans and conservatives regularly cite border security, economic impact, rule of law, and national identity as top issues. They sometimes accuse the Libertarian Party of supporting lawlessness by advocating for open borders. They are also more likely to criticize Libertarians for having minimal support and political impact.

Some point to polling reports by outlets like Axios and Reuters/Ipsos identifying more than 50% of Americans – including Democrats – support mass deportations.

56% of US registered voters support deporting most or all immigrants living in the country illegally, Reuters/Ipsos poll has found.

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) May 29, 2024

Trump at the Libertarian National Convention

Donald Trump’s comments at the Libertarian National Convention also sparked discussion about the impact of the party. MAGA and conservatives who attended or viewed Trump’s remarks largely embraced what he said.

Trump supporters view his American-first immigration policies as safeguarding American values, jobs, and security. Despite the policy disagreements with Libertarians, they saw Trump's willingness to engage Libertarians as a true reflection of his assertive leadership style and an attempt to create unity on the right.

As for Trump himself, amid taunts and jeers from the crowd, he told Libertarians, "Maybe you don't want to win,” adding, “Keep getting your 3% every four years,” roasting the unruly audience.

Some argue Trump’s comments are accurate – especially with Libertarian policies like open borders becoming increasingly unpopular.

Trump just showed up to the Libertarian Party Convention, told libertarians "Maybe you don't want to win ... keep getting your 3 percent every four years,” then left.

Total Chad move.
pic.twitter.com/GxztfQ0V02

— BowTiedRanger (@BowTiedRanger) May 26, 2024

New York Rep. Elise Stefanik filed a complaint calling for a conflict-of-interest investigation of Judge Merchan. She cites potential bias in Merchan’s history as a Democrat donor and his daughter’s financial interests.

Many who agree with Stefanik argue the judge's conduct clearly favors the prosecution and he has shown the appearance of prejudging the case before all the evidence was heard. Legal experts from across the political spectrum allege biases which put the fairness of the trial in question.

🚨🚨🚨 I just filed an official misconduct complaint with the New York State Unified Court System related to the “random” assignment of Acting Manhattan Justice Juan Merchan, a Biden donor whose daughter is fundraising millions off his unprecedented work, to criminal cases… pic.twitter.com/OsBjFc3qeI

— Elise Stefanik (@EliseStefanik) May 28, 2024

Concerns Over Merchan’s Bias

Many observers, although conservatives are most vocal, express concern over payments made to Loren Merchan, Judge Merchan’s daughter. There are allegations she has received significant amounts of money from prominent Democrats.

Critics argue these monetary transactions indicate a potential bias on the part of Judge Merchan, suggesting he may not be capable of conducting a fair trial. Others argue Merchan’s daughter is likely to financially profit in the case of a Trump conviction. This, they say, is an issue – even if it’s only a perception of compromised incentives.

Democrats tend to argue that Merchan has maintained a neutral stance in the trial. They view him as fair, despite the politically charged nature of the case. They argue Merchan's conduct upholds the integrity of the judicial process and emphasizes that the law should be applied equally to all.

Legal experts on the left insist Judge Merchan's conduct is consistent with judicial norms and ethical standards. This view is starkly and vehemently opposed by experts who present the irregularities of Merchan’s rulings as highly alarming and outside of acceptable judicial practice.

Those who support Stefanik’s misconduct filing call for more complaints against the judge. They express frustration at what they perceive as inaction by Republicans to fight against lawfare by Democrats.

• Sentiment towards Donald Trump is similar overall to topics specifically mentioning his legal troubles. This may suggest most voters are not deeply swayed by the cases against him.

Liberal Hysterics Against Republicans

Mainstream opinions on Elise Stefanik's ethics complaint against Judge Juan Merchan appear to be overwhelmingly negative. This is especially true among liberal Democrats and mainstream media figures.

Liberals accuse Stefanik of prioritizing the interests of former President Trump over the needs of the American people. They view Stefanik's ethics complaint as an extension of her loyalty to Trump rather than as a duty to uphold law and order. Democrats who hope for a Trump conviction use phrases like “hypocrite” and “treacherous” against Stefanik and other Republicans.

There are reverse accusations that Stefanik and Republicans are the ones using lawfare to achieve their political ends. Some bring up Trump and others’ failure to comply with subpoenas as a broader disregard for the rule of law. They use this as an argument against the supposed “law and order” ethos of the Republican Party.

Democrats argue Stefanik is attempting to thwart the legal process, deflecting from accusations against Judge Merchan and other figures who are perceived to be politicized like Letitia James, Engoron, and Fani Willis.

• Despite widespread liberal criticism, Stefanik’s national approval has remained steady, even increasing by one point after filing her ethics complaint.

President Joe Biden's recurring public speaking and teleprompter gaffes have become a deep concern or even a meme for many Americans. These missteps, which include false statements, jumbled or wrong words, pauses, and sometimes confusion, fuel debates about his cognitive abilities. They also lead many to question his leadership capability and overall fitness for office.

Voter reactions to his continual public appearance incidents, which is influenced by social media and the mainstream media are mostly partisan. Biden’s speaking performance is frequently compared to former President Donald Trump’s more spontaneous style. While Trump’s rhetoric is often polarizing, his ability to ad-lib and engage crowds contrasts sharply with Biden’s reliance on prepared speeches and, as MIG Reports previously analyzed – prepared questions.

This dichotomy fuels narratives on both sides: conservatives highlight Biden’s fumbles as a sign of weakness, while liberals emphasize Trump’s unpredictability and controversial remarks as dangerous to democracy.

Social media platforms play a crucial role in amplifying Biden's gaffes. Clips of his verbal mistakes often go viral, reaching a broad audience and fueling discussions about his fitness for office.

Two of his most recent fumbles include:

• Calling January 6 protesters “erectionists” instead of what he presumably meant: “insurrectionists.”

• Reading from the teleprompter but including notes which aren’t meat to be spoken – in this case, “last name,” referring to his theology professor.

BIDEN: "Erectionists" 😬😬😬 pic.twitter.com/f1pS86zx7t

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) May 20, 2024

BIDEN's teleprompter troubles continue 🤦🏽‍♂️

"My theology professor at the Catholic school I went to was a guy named Riley [LAST NAME]..." pic.twitter.com/YkdwO44AVN

— Raj Aryal (@rajaryal07) May 8, 2024

Last week’s public mistakes are not the first of their kind. In April, Biden also read “pause” off the teleprompter instead of pausing his speech for audience participation. That incident also generated significant reactions from people online, criticizing Biden and his presumable handlers who allow these recurring embarrassing gaffes.

BIDEN, reading from his teleprompter: "Four more years? Pause?"

It's all completely staged. pic.twitter.com/vqkIt0SSTF

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) April 24, 2024

Voter Reactions Online

Some of the of the commentary online voices concern, but much of it also uses the president as a source of humor. Some of the jokes made at his expense include:

• "Biden’s teleprompter operator must have the hardest job in the world. They deserve a medal for bravery."
• “Biden just said 'America is a nation that can be defined in a single word: Asufutimaehaehfutbw.' I think he just invented a new language!"
• "Every time Biden speaks, it's like watching a toddler trying to explain quantum physics. Entertaining but confusing."
• "Biden: 'We have put together, I think, the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.' Did he just admit to something?"
• "Biden: 'I got hairy legs that turn blonde in the sun.' The man just gave us a free ticket to the weirdest carnival ride ever."
• "Biden’s latest gaffe: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident. All men and women created by the... you know, the thing.’ Clearly, he’s on a first-name basis with the Declaration of Independence."
• "Biden: 'I keep forgetting I'm president.' Well Joe, sometimes we do too. Thanks for the reminder!"

Although Democratic voters and political pundits who support the president are reluctant to talk about his clear cognitive limitations, it seems most Americans recognize he is not in top form. Approval ratings continue to slide and MIG Reports data shows that, even on good days, Biden cannot seem to break a neutral sentiment nationally, hovering in the low 40% range.

Leftist Comedians Subvert the Punchline

There is also a notable trend among some celebrities and public figures who dismiss concerns about Biden's gaffes and fitness for office as irrelevant or overblown. This dismissive attitude is alarming to many voters who cannot ignore his slip-ups.

Pro-Biden media personalities and celebrities actively work to reframe these gaffes, often deflecting punchlines or reframing the context to mitigate negative impact. For example, they often juxtapose Biden's gaffes with Trump's controversial statements and supporters imply Biden's mistakes are benign.

Regarding Biden’s “erectionists” comment, most of the left leaning comedians online tweeted similar jokes, shifting the punchline. Instead of roasting Biden for his error, most of them reframed their jokes as a critique of the January 6 protesters themselves.

• The Daily Show: "Biden said 'erectionists' instead of 'insurrectionists.' At least someone’s standing up for democracy."
• Seth Meyers: "Biden called them 'erectionists.' Well, I guess they did rise to the occasion."
• Sarah Silverman: "Biden called them 'erectionists.' Finally, a political scandal with some stiff competition."
• Stephen Colbert: "Biden called insurrectionists ‘erectionists.’ You know, it’s nice to see someone in politics with a sense of humor about their gaffes."
• Jimmy Fallon: "Biden’s 'erectionists' comment has people laughing. I guess he wanted to point out that they were really standing up for Trump."
• Trevor Noah: "Biden’s 'erectionists' slip is just another reminder: always proofread your speeches, folks. Or you might end up in a very awkward position."
• Conan O’Brien: "Biden called them 'erectionists.' Guess we know who’s really rising to the occasion of American politics."
• Samantha Bee: "Biden calling them 'erectionists' was a slip of the tongue, but let’s be honest, it’s probably the nicest thing anyone’s said about them."

Most People Are Critical of Biden’s Performance

Unlike the media and celebrities, average Americans often highlight Biden's gaffes as evidence of cognitive decline or incompetence. They argue his frequent mistakes indicate a lack of mental acuity necessary for the role of President. These fumbles often work to undermine his credibility and weaken his public image both domestically and on the international stage.

Critics argue Biden's frequent gaffes alone make him unfit for the presidency, regardless of their stance on his policies. Terms like "incompetent" and "the worst president in our history" are frequently used in these discussions.

There is a prevalent belief among more conservative voters that Biden is merely a puppet controlled by others in his administration. This perspective is often coupled with accusations that his regular confusion exposes the extent to which he is being manipulated.

Election Impact

For undecided or swing voters, repeated public appearance disasters may reinforce a perception of weakness or incapacity. This has the potential to sway their votes towards Trump if he is perceived as more robust and competent.

Media coverage and viral social media posts of gaffes could erode trust in Biden's ability to handle the responsibilities of the presidency. This could also lead to decreased voter confidence and turnout, even within his base.

Voters who prioritize policy or party outcomes over personal traits may overlook Biden's deteriorating state if it means they can avoid a second Trump term. In a head-to-head election, Biden's performance will likely be contrasted with Trump’s speaking abilities. If, in scheduled upcoming debates, Trump performs well, seeming articulate and mentally sharp, it could be a severe disadvantage for Biden.

Bronx Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a member of the progressive "Squad," recently tweeted about rain before a Trump rally in her district saying, “God is good,” in response to suggestions there would be a “muddy mess” for the rally. This received a predominantly critical response from voters, particularly those identifying with the MAGA movement.

God is Good 🙏🏽 https://t.co/YUUCPhZ4oJ

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) May 23, 2024

Many responses to AOC’s tweet emphasized the notion that the Bronx, traditionally a Democratic stronghold, has now turned into "MAGA country." This sentiment was frequently repeated and expressed with a sense of triumph, suggesting a belief in a growing support for Trump and a shift away from Democratic dominance in the area.

Accusations of Hypocrisy and Meltdown

Some accused Ocasio-Cortez of having a "liberal meltdown" and being unable to accept that the Bronx could support Trump. These comments often included a tone of ridicule and mockery, suggesting her reaction was indicative of broader liberal discontent and denial.

Religious Undertones

Others took issue with Ocasio-Cortez invoking God, arguing as a self-identified socialist or communist, she should not be using religious references. Some comments directly accused her of using God’s name in vain or being insincere about her beliefs.

Criticism of Democratic Policies

Several responses linked their support for Trump to dissatisfaction with liberal policies, both at a local and national level. They blamed these policies for various social and economic issues and expressed a desire for change, which they believe Trump represents.

Personal Attacks and Accusations

A portion of the comments included personal attacks on AOC, calling her a communist, a hypocrite, and questioning her authenticity and background. These responses often conflated broader political ideologies with personal character judgments.

Celebration of Rally Success

There was a strong emphasis on Trump rally turnout, with claims of thousands attending, despite the rain. This was used to further argue support for Trump is strong and growing, even in areas presumed to favor Democrats.

Expressions of Solidarity and Celebration

Many responses included celebratory language and emojis, expressing joy over what they perceived as a political victory. Phrases like “liberal tears” and “God is good” were used to underscore their satisfaction with the event and its implications.

Accusations of Violence and Incitement

A few responses went as far as accusing AOC of inciting violence, referencing past events and suggesting her comments could lead to unrest. This reflects a deeper animosity and distrust toward her and her political actions.

Memorial Day is dedicated to honoring and remembering military personnel who have died in service to the United States. The day is marked by various activities including parades, ceremonies, and moments of silence. MIG Reports analysis shows public sentiment and discussion around Memorial Day can vary significantly across different ideological backgrounds.

General Sentiment

Most Americans respect and honor Memorial Day as a solemn and significant day. However, many discussions emphasize different aspects of the holiday. The sentiment attached to these discussions can differ markedly between conservative and liberal or progressive circles.

Conservative Perspectives

Conservatives emphasize the themes of patriotism, sacrifice, and national pride. They use Memorial Day as an opportunity to celebrate the military and express gratitude for the freedoms secured by fallen soldiers.

Discussions in conservative circles focus on attending parades, visiting memorials, and participating in ceremonies. There is often a strong sense of community and collective honor in these activities.

The sentiment in conservative circles is predominantly positive but can also be solemn and reflective. There is a strong emotional attachment to the military and a high level of respect for those who have served and sacrificed.

Liberal Perspectives

Liberals often use Memorial Day as a time to reflect on the consequences of war and the importance of peace. They emphasize the human cost of conflict and the need for diplomatic solutions to global issues.

Discussions tend to focus on the experiences of minority groups in the military, how we treat veterans, and issues like mental health and homelessness among former service members.

The sentiment in liberal and progressive circles can be mixed. While there is respect and honor for fallen soldiers, there is also critical reflection on the reasons for war and the treatment of veterans. Emotions can range from solemn to critical, with an underlying call for systemic change.

Partisan Differences on Social Media

Platforms and forums conservatives congregate often feature highly patriotic posts and discussions supporting the military. Users share stories of bravery and sacrifice, often accompanied by American flags and other national symbols.

Liberal social media discussions tend to include tributes to soldiers but are also likely to feature critiques of military interventions and discussions on how to better support living veterans. There are calls for policy changes and discussions on the broader implications of military actions.

Despite ideological differences, both conservative and liberal discussions share a common thread of honoring those who serve the country. However, the context and additional themes discussed can differ widely.

The evolving landscape of digital currencies brings together perspectives from many voting groups. From conservative, small-government voters to progressive, anti-establishment advocates, many Americans are bullish on digital assets. However, as governments explore the implementation of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) or other forms of regulated digital currencies, crypto advocates are vocal in expressing their concerns, and skepticism.

CBDCs are digital assets that use blockchain in a similar way to Bitcoin or Ethereum. However, CBDCs are also owned and controlled by the government. Because digital assets are completely trackable and transparent, many fear a government issued digital currency would threaten financial autonomy.

Many in the crypto community fear the actions of figures like Fed chair Jerome Powell and SEC chair Gary Gensler. They suspect politicians and government officials who have an investment in protecting the financial system status quo will work to impose greater strictures on cryptocurrencies. They also fear the potential of these figures to push a government controlled digital currency, despite their claims that the U.S. has no such plans.

Why Americans Like Decentralized Currencies

The traditional banking system in the United States, sometimes called “TradFi,” is often viewed through a lens of skepticism and distrust. Many Americans mention private banks and the Federal Reserve in relation to corruption, lack of transparency, and political scandals. A growing number of Americans suspect TradFi institutions of being complicit in unethical behavior.

Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, on the other hand, are seen by some as a potential antidote to the corruption and inefficiency of traditional banks. The decentralized nature of cryptocurrencies promises a level of transparency and freedom from central authority. This appeals to Americans who are disillusioned with conventional financial systems.

However, this optimism can sometimes be tempered by volatility in crypto markets and regulatory uncertainty in the U.S. for digital currencies. Many who view the Federal Reserve, the SEC, and the IRS negatively voice concerns about government overreach. Crypto supporters often cite these agencies as a key reason for their support of decentralized finance.

The traditional banking system is highly regulated, which portends providing a level of security and protection for consumers. However, many voters view this regulatory framework as overly bureaucratic, slow to adapt to new technologies, and exploitative of Americans’ finances.

In contrast, the relatively unregulated nature of cryptocurrencies presents both an opportunity and a risk. Many say the appeal lies in crypto's innovation and the promise of financial sovereignty.

American Views of a Potential CBDC

Much of the crypto community prioritizes privacy and sovereignty over government sponsored consumer protections. These advocates, often supporters of privacy-focused coins like Monero, perceive CBDCs as tools for enhanced government surveillance.

Pro-crypto voters argue a state issued digital currency would erode financial privacy by enabling real-time tracking of individual transactions. Privacy advocates vocally resist and criticize the potential implementation of CBDC.

Many are also skeptical about involving regulatory bodies like the SEC in the crypto space. Recent controversies around figures like Gary Gensler and Joe Biden have fueled distrust. Many believe regulatory bodies unfairly favor certain crypto projects who play ball with regulators and stifle genuine innovation.

Crypto has a strong base among libertarians who advocate for minimal government intervention in personal finances. There are also many anti-establishment Democrats and progressives who want to oppose big banks and promote financial inclusion. Across political divides, crypto voters see blockchain assets as tools for financial freedom and decentralized ownership. CBDCs, being state controlled, are seen as antithetical to these ideals.

Democrats Emerge as Adversaries to Crypto Voters

Democrats take a cautious approach towards cryptocurrency, often advocating for strict regulations. They emphasize the need for robust regulatory frameworks, which the claim will protect consumers. Democrat politicians express a desire prevent financial crimes and ensure the benefits of crypto are equitably distributed. However, this stance is often diametrically opposed to the principles of sovereignty and ownership that many in the crypto community subscribe to.

Republicans are widely perceived as more pro-crypto than Democrats. They tend to view blockchain technologies as an embodiment of free-market principles and innovation. They are more likely to advocate for a regulatory environment fostering growth and minimizing government interference. For this reason, even Democratic crypto voters voice support for pro-crypto Republicans.

MIG Reports deep-dive analysis on Mexican cartel presence in the United States highlights a few notable trends:

• Increasing concerns about cartel activities
• Polarization on illegal immigration
• Evolving discourse on the border
• Media blame for information gaps among voters

Cartels inflict severe humanitarian and socioeconomic harm on their own country and the U.S. They drive violence, exploitation, and forced migration; destabilizing communities, undermining development, and contributing to poverty and corruption.

They also play a significant role in irregular and illegal immigration, with migrants often falling victim to cartel violence. Their activities threaten national security by infiltrating U.S. neighborhoods with drug and child trafficking and organized crime.

• Discussion trends show drug and human trafficking are two of the most prevalent keywords related to border issues.

Common Viewpoints Among All Voters

Despite significant ideological and political divides, recent escalations in the border crisis are driving down approval for the Biden administration’s policies. Democrats and progressives are still much more likely to support the existing border situation. However, there are several key points of agreement that a majority of Americans share:

• American sentiment towards Mexican cartels is overwhelmingly negative.
• Cartels are primarily viewed through the lens of violence, drug trafficking, and the ensuing social harm.
• The opioid crisis driven by fentanyl is a major concern linked to cartel activities.
• Cartels are perceived as a direct threat to American society.

There also seems to be certain knowledge gaps in various demographics regarding border issues. Analysis suggests this is largely a result of media outlets selectively reporting or framing political narratives.

• Conservatives and legal immigrants tend to have the most initiative in seeking out information about the border and Mexican cartels.
• Wealthier and more left leaning Americans may have some knowledge, but largely accept media narratives.
• Young Americans and elderly Americans may both have a skewed view of the border due to lack of or outdated information.

Views of Mexican Cartels

Political Trends

Republicans tend to view cartels as a major threat exacerbated by perceived lax border policies under Democratic administrations. The narrative often links cartels to broader criticisms of immigration policy, highlighting issues such as fentanyl trafficking and human trafficking.

Democrats, while also concerned about cartel activities, focus more on the humanitarian aspects of immigration and the need for comprehensive immigration reform. There is less emphasis on cartels as the primary issue.

Geographic Influence

Border State residents in places like Texas, Arizona, and California are more likely to have heightened concerns about cartels due to their proximity to the Mexican border. These areas are more directly impacted by cartel activities like drug trafficking and illegal crossings.

Concerns about cartels in non-border states are often more abstract and tied to national narratives than direct experience.

Socioeconomic Status

Lower income communities are often directly affected by the negative consequences of drug trafficking and illegal cartel activity. They tend to see increased crime and addiction rates. Higher income communities are more likely to be focused on broader national security and economic implications rather than personal safety.

Overall Sentiment Trends

The volume of discourse around cartels has increased significantly in recent years. It is particularly pronounced amid the opioid crisis and high-profile cases of human trafficking.

Negative sentiment has also intensified, especially among Republicans and residents of border states. There is a marked increase in the association of cartel activities with broader criticisms of the Biden administration's policies.

However, there are notable demographics who are relatively ignorant of the complexity of cartel operations. This group includes:

• Some urban liberal populations – particularly those insulated from direct impacts. They often do not fully grasp the nuances of cartel operations and the effects on border communities.
• Younger Americans – especially those not living in high-impact areas. They may lack a comprehensive understanding of the issue, often receiving information through filtered social media narratives.

Top Discussion Topics Related to Cartels

Drug Trafficking

The fentanyl crisis is a significant concern. Many attribute the influx of fentanyl to cartel activities. This is often mentioned with criticisms of current border policies.

Human Trafficking

There is strong negativity towards cartels perpetrating human trafficking, particularly child trafficking. This topic ties into broader concerns about immigration policies and border security.

Violent Crime

Many Americans associate cartels with increased violent crime. This is true in border states and across the nation as cartels expand their operations.

View of Illegal Immigration

Political Trends

Republicans typically express strong anti-cartel sentiments. They often link cartel activities to illegal immigration and border security. Messaging from conservative media and politicians emphasizes the dangers posed by cartels in terms of drug trafficking and violent crime.

As with cartels, liberals and Democrats tend to focus more on humanitarian aspects of the immigration conversation. They highlight the plight of asylum seekers and the socioeconomic factors driving migration. They may be more critical of aggressive border policies they feel unfairly target immigrants.

Geographic Influence

Border State residents have heightened awareness and therefore stronger opinions about illegal immigration due to proximity and direct impact. Experiences with border security issues and local crime rates influence their views.

Residents of non-border states are generally less directly affected and may be more influenced by national media narratives. Their opinions can fluctuate based on high-profile news stories or political campaigns.

Socioeconomic Status

Working-class and lower income groups are more likely to support stringent measures against illegal immigration due to perceived competition for jobs and resources. They also have higher exposure to drug-related issues in their communities.

Middle- and upper-class groups often focus more on policy and humanitarian aspects, advocating for comprehensive immigration reform and international cooperation to tackle the root causes of cartel power.

Overall Sentiment Trends

Recent data, such as the rise in fentanyl-related deaths and reports of increased illegal crossings, have heightened public concern about immigration. This is particularly pronounced among conservatives, who link these issues directly to border security failures.

The topic of cartels and immigration has become highly polarized, with significant differences in sentiment between political affiliations. This polarization is fueled by targeted media narratives and political rhetoric.

There is also a growing divide between those advocating for empathetic approaches to immigration and those prioritizing national security. This divide is often along socioeconomic political lines.

Ignorance of the Border Crisis

Urban residents in non-border states far from the crisis sometimes have limited knowledge of cartel operations and immigration. Their understanding is largely shaped by media consumption, which can vary widely in accuracy and focus.

While more informed on certain social issues, younger Americans often lack detailed knowledge about the operational intricacies of cartels, focusing instead on broader humanitarian narratives.

Residents in higher socioeconomic brackets can also be somewhat insulated from the direct impacts of cartel activities, leading to a less urgent perception of the issue.

Overall View of the Border Crisis

General Sentiments and Understanding

Republicans typically express the deepest concern over cartel activities, associating them with broader issues of illegal immigration, drug trafficking, and national security. Sentiment is strongly negative, emphasizing the dangers posed by open border policies, which conservatives believe enables cartel operations. This group almost universally advocates for stricter border controls and increased law enforcement.

Democrats often frame the issue within a broader context of immigration reform and humanitarian concerns. While acknowledging the dangers of cartels, they argue for comprehensive immigration policies to address root causes and provide pathways to citizenship. Their sentiment is mixed, balancing concerns about security with empathy for migrants.

Media Influence

Media outlets play a crucial role in shaping public opinion. Conservative media often highlights violent incidents involving cartels and illegal immigrants. They disseminate information and bring awareness to what is happening while advocating for stringent border measures.

In contrast, mainstream and leftist media focuses on humanitarian aspects, critiquing harsh enforcement policies and highlighting stories of migrant suffering. Many view mainstream media as a critical cause for progressive and urban Americans’ lack of knowledge about border issues.

There is some media coverage, especially from outlets like NBC News and AP News, amplifying the perception of cartels as a pervasive threat. Reports on cartel violence and its impact on both Mexican and American communities reinforce the idea that cartels are a critical issue that requires urgent attention.

Public Awareness

There is a significant disparity in public awareness about cartel operations. Many Americans are aware of high-profile incidents and general issues related to drug trafficking and violence. However, detailed knowledge about cartel structures, operations, and their socioeconomic impact is limited. This is true across the board but is especially pronounced among those not directly affected by the border crisis.

Despite insufficient public awareness about border issues overall, discussions have dramatically increased during the Biden administration. Awareness also rises with high-profile incidents like the murder of Laken Riley, which many point out happens more frequently under current policies.

Social media platforms also amplify these discussions. This can result in viral awareness campaigns or sometimes lead to echo chambers where existing sentiments are reinforced.

Major Sentiment Trends

There is a noticeable increase in fear, especially among conservative circles. This is driven by increasing violent crimes and drug trafficking associated with cartel activities.

Among liberals and younger demographics, there is advocacy for balanced policies that secure the border while addressing humanitarian needs. This trend reflects an acknowledgment, even on the left, of unacceptable current conditions at the border.

A recent pivot by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Biden administration regarding the approval of an Ethereum ETF (Exchange-Traded Fund) has the crypto community buzzing. On Wednesday, speculation suddenly started whirling that an ETH ETF, which many saw as an extreme long shot, was rapidly becoming a sure thing.

The shift comes amid a broader regulatory landscape in which pro-crypto Americans feel adversarial towards Gary Gensler’s SEC and anti-crypto Democrats. This rivalry includes the contentious FIT21 Act, which aims to clarify the regulatory framework for cryptocurrencies and digital assets. A surprisingly bipartisan vote to approve FIT21 sent the rumor mill churning.

Have Democrats Actually Changed Their Minds?

Cryptocurrency enthusiasts and libertarians are mostly positive about the SEC's pivot from decidedly against crypto to sparking rumors an ETH ETF is imminent. This group has long advocated for the mainstream acceptance of digital assets, viewing the potential approval of an Ethereum ETF as a step towards legitimizing cryptocurrencies.

However, most remain skeptical that recent wind changes come from genuine support for crypto. They voice suspicions that Democratic politicians rather seek to avoid upsetting voters prior to the 2024 election.

Banks May Own Politicians

Many people praise the FIT21 Act and criticize regulatory figures like SEC Chair Gary Gensler. They perceive his outspoken opposition to FIT21 as an attempt to stifle innovation and pander to banks. Some even view the SEC and Biden administration’s newfound acceptance of crypto as an indication they are receiving pressure from banks. There is speculation that banks want to participate in crypto gains – and that politicians respond more to banks than voters.

Voters May Make Themselves Known

Others highlight the importance of crypto in the upcoming presidential election. Instead of pressure from banks interested in joining the crypto upside, this group believes crypto voters could be a decisive factor for Biden's campaign. This is especially true as the president continues to hemorrhage support from pro-Palestine Democrats and blue-collar Americans.

• Wednesday’s rumors Gensler would approve an Ethereum ETF likely account for his brief bump in approval over the last few days.
• Gensler’s approval reached a high of 53% as conversations gained steam about bipartisan votes and the possible ETF approval.

Partisan Views of the Issue

Many see recent shifts as a rebuke of what they perceive as overreach by regulatory agencies under the Biden administration. Comments from GOP figures and their supporters often frame the issue in terms of economic freedom and innovation. The enthusiastic support from Republicans reflects a broader GOP strategy to position themselves as champions of financial innovation and deregulation.

Progressive and Democratic voters tend to be more critical of the SEC's new position and the FIT21 Act. They echo concerns raised by SEC Chair Gensler about potential regulatory loopholes and undermining investor protections.

Financial industry professionals and analysts have a mixed but generally cautious perspective. They recognize the potential benefits of a regulated Ethereum ETF but are also mindful of the complexities involved in integrating cryptocurrencies into the traditional financial system.

Biden Admin and Crypto

The relationship between American crypto holders and the Biden administration has been fraught with tension. The prevailing sentiment towards Biden and Democrats is overwhelmingly negative. Crypto enthusiasts on the left and the right express frustration and anger, perceiving the administration's stance as overly restrictive.

Many crypto holders feel the administration, through Gary Gensler's leadership at the SEC, is creating unwarranted roadblocks. There is a palpable desire among crypto holders for a change in leadership at the SEC. His stance is often described as anachronistic, with critics arguing existing securities laws, which are nearly a century old, need updating.

Recent bipartisan votes suggest discontent with Democratic crypto policies is not confined to a single political ideology but spans across the political spectrum.

Playing Catchup with Crypto Voters

Many suspect President Biden is shifting his stance on crypto to accommodate younger voters – who largely disapprove of him. With broader political shift towards more crypto-friendly regulations, people attribute this to an attempt to win over voters.

The administration's perceived hostility towards crypto is increasingly viewed as a contributing factor to his disapproval. Especially given the high level of engagement with digital assets among younger demographics.

In addition, political figures like former President Donald Trump, have begun to embrace crypto more openly. Trump's campaign even accepts crypto donations. This move, which is perceived as an attempt to appeal to the crypto community, seems to be welcomed.

Despite some expressing skepticism that Trump truly embraces crypto, most seem willing to believe he won’t actively fight against it. The Biden administration, by contrast, continues to solidify its reputation of being antagonistic towards crypto holders. It remains to be seen whether voters will accept a pro-crypto pivot from Biden as readily as they have from Trump.

Recent reporting that sex offenders are being employed and housed in hotels with unaccompanied migrant children has sparked significant controversy and concern about a program already rampant with child trafficking.

MIG Reports analysis reveals an intersection of concern over immigration, child welfare, and public safety. This issue is particularly sensitive, given the heightened scrutiny around the treatment and care of vulnerable populations such as unaccompanied minors.

Americans Agree Child Safety is Crucial

The general sentiment on this issue is overwhelmingly negative. Concerns about the safety and well-being of unaccompanied migrant children are prominent. And reports of children exposed to registered sex offenders exacerbates fears of abuse and exploitation. Public outrage is pronounced, with calls for immediate reforms and stricter oversight of facilities housing unaccompanied minors.

Media Coverage

The topic has garnered media attention but has not received wall-to-wall coverage. Reports tend to spike following investigations or statements from public officials and advocacy groups. Mainstream media and social media platforms have been instrumental in amplifying the issue, often framing it within the broader context of immigration policies and government accountability.

Political Reactions

Political figures have responded with sharp criticisms and calls for action. There is bipartisan condemnation, though framing and blame often diverges along party lines. Conservative voices emphasize the need for stricter immigration controls and better vetting processes. Progressive voices focus on systemic failures and the need for comprehensive child protection measures.

Social Media Trends

Social media platforms have generated a robust conversation, with hashtags like #ProtectOurChildren and #ChildSafety gaining traction. Americans express a mix of indignation, fear, and demands for accountability. The discourse often overlaps with immigration debates, reflecting broader anxieties about border security and governmental oversight.

Voter Group Reactions to Government Failures

Parents and Families

Sentiment is highly negative for families. Parents are particularly alarmed by the potential risks posed to children. This demographic is likely to demand stringent background checks and reforms to ensure children's safety. Many are calling for increased advocacy and support for policies aimed at protecting children in institutional care.

Immigrant Communities

Voter sentiment is mixed among immigrants. While there is concern for the safety of children, immigrant communities might also fear increased stigmatization and punitive measures which could affect their own status and treatment.

This group seems to want child protection along with immigrant rights, emphasizing humane and safe treatment for all.

Public Safety Advocates

Sentiment is strongly negative with safety advocates. This group is likely to push for immediate actions and reforms to prevent similar situations. They promote advocacy for stricter regulations and oversight of facilities housing vulnerable populations.

Political Partisans

Conservatives are likely to argue for more restrictive immigration policies and enhanced security measures. Progressives may focus on systemic failures and advocate for comprehensive reforms in child protection and immigration policies.

Across the political aisle, there is increasing polarization, with each side using the issue to bolster their respective policy agendas.

General Public

Sentiment is generally negative among most Americans, driven by concerns for child safety and governmental accountability. There is heightened public scrutiny of governmental and institutional practices, along with potential shifts in public opinion towards more protective measures for children.