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.