America's anti-immigrant fever is starting to break
Tribune News Service
Despite President Donald Trump's decade-long demonization of immigrants, an overwhelming majority of Americans are rejecting his message. A new Gallup poll shows that 79% of those polled — a record high — say immigration is good for the country, with only 17% saying it is bad. And the number of Americans who want less immigration is dropping fast. Only 30% now support more restrictions, compared to 55% in 2024. These findings come against the backdrop of the cruelest crackdown on immigration in modern history and may indicate that America's anti-immigrant fever is breaking.
Trump, however, just keeps doubling down. He now is on the cusp of building ICE into a domestic army with massive detention capabilities. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said this week that the public should expect more raids in more states. 'We're going to come harder and faster, and we're going to take these criminals down with even more strength than we ever have before,' she said, even though ICE's own data shows the vast majority of those arrested — 72% — have no criminal records.
Perhaps that's why Americans are turning away from the notion that immigrants constitute an invading force to be repelled and removed. That shift extends to Independents and Republicans. One of the most startling findings in the Gallup poll shows that 64% of Republicans say immigration is a net benefit to the country. Just a year ago that figure stood at 39%.
Only 4% of Republicans a year ago believed immigration should remain at current levels. That has now leapt to 36%. It seems unlikely that a shift of this magnitude is attributable only to GOP voters' faith in Trump; otherwise, we would probably not see a small but growing share of Republican voters saying immigration levels should be increased. Moreover, support for other Trump immigration measures is eroding, whether hiring more Border Patrol agents or building a bigger border wall. Notably, support for deportations, one of his signature campaign promises, has fallen more than 10 percentage points since 2024. Other polls have detected a similar shift. A Pew poll in June found flagging support for key Trump restrictions, suspending refugee programs, and greater approval of citizenship for those who earned it.
That is affecting Trump's approval ratings on his defining issue. Gallup found that 62% of the public (and 69% of independents) disapprove of his handling of immigration, with 45% disapproving strongly. Worse still, his draconian approach is costing him his newfound support among Hispanics, who proved critical to his narrow win over Democrat Kamala Harris in 2024. Only 21% approve of his immigration policies. Hispanics make up nearly 20% of the US population, and even if Trump does not run again, members of his party will carry that burden of disapproval into the next election. Unlike crackdowns from earlier eras, social media is playing a pivotal role in this one. Trump can't control the narrative here against an endless stream of TikTok videos and Instagram Reels that show the brutal reality of roundups and raids, family separations, arrests and lockups.
What is the average American to make, for instance, of videos showing agents mounted on horseback and soldiers in full tactical gear sweeping across Los Angeles' MacArthur Park on an otherwise peaceful Saturday, with a summer day camp in full swing? Or of a 57-year-old California farm worker chased by ICE agents only to fall off a greenhouse roof to his death? Or of surgical staff in Oxnard, California, seen struggling to block ICE agents' entry into their center in pursuit of the center's Honduran landscaper? Americans don't want this, even if former President Joe Biden did make his share of mistakes on immigration. Among his biggest were allowing criminals to remain at large and neglecting the crisis at the border until it reached powder keg proportions.
And Trump's swift action at the border paid off — and allayed the concerns of a majority of Americans. By June, illegal border crossings had plummeted to their lowest levels since the 1960s.
With the border crisis quelled, Americans are reverting to their longstanding views on immigration: They don't want to see it escalate out of control, but they do see a place for it. Polls have shown support for the basic elements of comprehensive reform: tighter borders and ports of entry, coupled with a humane approach to those who come to the US to work. Instead of taking the win, Trump's pendulum keeps swinging further to the right. Despite reports of horrific conditions at 'Alligator Alcatraz,' the tented detention camp deep in the Florida Everglades, the White House is urging states to build their own versions. Red states have responded with gusto. 'We don't have alligators, but we have lots of bears,' an official for Alaska told Fox News' Laura Ingraham. Representative Nancy Mace of South Carolina posted on X that her state has 'a swamp and a dream. South Carolina's gators are ready.'
Such comments reflect a disturbing, ride-'em-cowboy attitude that may play to MAGA fanboys online, but is deeply out of sync with the public at large. The result is a widening gap between the indiscriminate brutality of the Trump administration's methods and what Americans are willing to tolerate. That gap will only grow larger, as will the inevitable backlash.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Middle East Eye
2 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Academics fear Columbia University's deal with Trump has wider ramifications
The US government intends to fine several universities it accuses of failing to stop antisemitism on campus in exchange for federal funding freezes to be lifted, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday. The strategy would see Harvard, Cornell, Duke, Northwestern and Brown universities targeted, according to a White House official, with Harvard being the main focus. All of the universities are currently in talks with President Donald Trump's administration over accusations by a federal task force committee that they have allowed antisemitism to fester on their campuses. The move comes after the administration successfully extracted $200m from Columbia to settle allegations that it violated Title VI by failing to address harassment of Jewish students, in exchange for restoring its federal grants. Now, the administration is looking to widen the net to other institutions and reportedly hopes to garner much more money from Harvard, which has an endowment of $53.2bn. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Critics believe the agreement with Columbia sets a dangerous precedent, and that these tactics can be used to change the academic landscape. Former Columbia University law professor Katherine Franke said that Columbia bent over backwards to appease the government by implementing the agreement in advance for months. This included adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition of antisemitism, circumventing its senate to change the University Judicial Board rules/composition, and creating a new provostial position to monitor certain departments. Columbia University to pay $220m, undertake major reforms in bid to restore federal funding Read More » "It's an unusual tactic in normal times, to implement the terms of a settlement voluntarily before the full agreement is reached," she said. "But these are not normal times, and Columbia has shown itself more than willing to bend a knee to the Trump administration in the hopes that doing so will make things less bad." Harvard University has put up more of a fight and is currently suing the Trump administration in federal court, with one lawsuit claiming that the administration's freezing of more than $2bn in federal research money is illegal. Harvard is also being penalised by being cut off from future grants. Franke warned that the agreement was a slippery slope and that the government would weaponise the spectre of antisemitism to dismantle the institution. "This agreement is not the end of the story… it is merely the start of the next phase of the administration's campaign to use Columbia as an example for other universities. They won't let up, and the 'agreement' gives them all the power to keep weaponising the specter of antisemitism to dismantle a world-class university." Undermining the fightback Columbia's agreement with the Trump administration is also being seen as a move that undermines the fightback from Harvard and students and activists on campuses. A student, who wished to be anonymous and is a member of the pro-Palestine group Students for Justice in Palestine at Wesleyan College in Georgia, said: "What Harvard has done, at least legally, to combat the Trump administration is now being undercut by Colombia's capitulation. I think that it bodes very poorly for the climate of student activism in the coming year." 'The bottom line is ultimately more important than the purported mandate or principle of learning, freedom of thought and expression' - Kourouss Esmaili, scholar at Tufts Kouross Esmaeli, a visiting scholar at Tufts University in the Department of Studies in Race, Colonialism and Diaspora, said that plans to control universities expose the corporate nature of universities. "The bottom line is ultimately more important than the purported mandate or principle of learning, freedom of thought and expression," Esmaeli said. In an email he sent to Middle East Eye, he wrote: "The administration's use of federal funds to intimidate and transform higher education into an acquiescence factory is a serious compromise of our basic values and rights. "The people in charge of the corporate universities will continue to bend the knee to their sovereign in the name of saving their institution. But hopefully this is exposing the universities' complicity not only in the genocide in Palestine, but the larger American capitalist interests." Esmaeli says that the events demonstrate why universities have been so resistant to divest from Israel, a key demand from pro-Palestine protesters, and the US military-industrial complex.
Middle East Eye
4 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Netanyahu slammed for joking about fast food on Nelk Boys podcast as Gaza starves
The Full Send Podcast is facing intense backlash on social media and has lost over 10,000 subscribers in less than a day after publishing an hour-long interview with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on 21 July. The podcast, hosted by Kyle Forgeard and Aaron Steinberg of the Nelk Boys - a Canadian-American influencer collective known for its conservative-leaning content - is particularly popular among young men. The interview, which starts with Netanyahu praising US President Donald Trump and their "decades-long" friendship, quickly shifts to Netanyahu expressing alarm over shifting attitudes among young Americans towards Israel. "I'm concerned that the young people in America are getting the wrong picture of Israel," he says. He goes on to justify his podcast appearance as part of a broader image campaign: "The only way you can fight lies is with the truth. And you have to tell it as often and as intensely as the lies that are leveled against you... I'm doing this podcast among other things to reach young people." New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters As reports from humanitarian groups were confirming that children are dying of starvation in Gaza, Netanyahu appeared on the podcast to crack jokes about his longtime love of fast food: "I was a junk food junkie for many years," he said with a chuckle. 'Out of touch' He then went on to reminisce about an occasional visit to the US with his wife Sarah, saying: "You know what the first thing we did was? McDonald's. And to be honest, Burger King. I like Burger King more." The casual tone and detachment from the humanitarian crisis unfolding in Gaza drew swift condemnation online. "As Gaza starves, Netanyahu jokes about McDonald's with 'manosphere' podcasters Nelk Boys. What a genocidal disgusting piece of shit," one user wrote on X. Children in Gaza show signs of malnutrition and abuse after detention in Israel Read More » "Imaging being the Nelk Boys [right now] total idiots. full access to Netanyahu, and the hardest hitting question they ask is 'do you prefer Burger King or McDonalds?' while Netanyahu starves an entire population," another user posted. In a tweet on X, One Path Network accused the Nelk Boys of helping to polish Netanyahu's image. "The Nelk Boys had an opportunity to challenge power, to ask about the siege, the bombings, the starvation. Instead, they offered him fries. In doing so, they helped launder the image of a man overseeing one of the worst humanitarian disasters of our time." Others said the interview was "the most out-of-touch interview", as Netanyahu shared how he enjoys eating burgers with Trump. "When President Trump comes to Israel. And then we have dinner, we bring this chef, he's like a very good chef. And he gives a seven-course dinner. Telling you, seven-course, it's the longest dinner I've ever had. And you know in this fancy plate he brings up this dressed up hamburger and I look at Trump and he looks at me. Finally we had what we wanted. We got the hamburger, you know," Netanyahu said. "the normalization of Netanyahu, the constant whitewashing of Israel's alleged war crimes... is why a man who has blood dripping from his be invited on to the Nelk Boys' highly influential podcast to jokes about whether he prefers McDonald's or Burger King." — Mobeen Hussain (@amhuss27) July 25, 2025 Scripted The interview also drew sharp backlash for a series of inflammatory remarks made by Netanyahu. Many were outraged by his description of women in Gaza, which he called as "property" during the podcast. "You know what the women in Gaza are? They're property. They're nothing. They have no rights. They're completely subjugated, and God forbid they're executed anytime they commit a so-called offense," he added. Some called the comments "disgusting" while another pointed out the irony. "Claiming to care about the rights of women in Gaza while bombing their homes, starving their children, and denying them access to healthcare and safety. There is no feminism in occupation. You can't liberate women by killing them." The final wave of backlash turned directly towards the Nelk Boys themselves, after a video clip went viral in which they admitted that the interview script had been written and provided by the White House - with no room for edits or input. Nelk boy admits he was given a "script" with questions to ask Netanyahu. This is idiot just confirmed they were doing straight propaganda for Israel — YeetTheRich_ (@_Yeet_The_Rich_) July 23, 2025 The revelation only intensified criticism that the entire episode is "sickening propoganda" that was orchestrated rather than a genuine conversation. "Why the actual FUCK is it not a bigger story that the White House Communications Team setup an interview with Benjamin Netanyahu and the fucking Nelk Boys? What in the name of propaganda is going on here?" asked a user. The Nelk Boys have confirmed that their softball interview with Benjamin Netanyahu was largely scripted as the PM's team had handed them "a paper with questions to ask" in advance. They also revealed the interview was set up by the White House. — Furkan Gözükara (@GozukaraFurkan) July 23, 2025 One person pointed out that the episode was a confirmation of what many had already suspected: "Now it's 100% proof that Netanyahu did this interview only to push propaganda and to try to humanize himself while he commits a genocide." Some called the Nelk Boys "puppets", while many also highlighted the fact that the Nelk Boys were unable to push back with Netanyahu throughout the hour-long interview. "The nelk boys were misinformed and unable to pushback to anything netanyahu said, making it easy for him to spew pure bs propaganda to a largely misinformed younger [audience]," one user wrote. "You guys didn't question him once, this is crazy," another added in the comments on YouTube. The Nelk Boys' YouTube channel lost over 10,000 subscribers within 24 hours of the episode's release on 21 July. The interview also received more dislikes than likes before the group disabled the visibility of the dislike count on the video.
Gulf Today
4 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Forgotten godfather of Trump's immigration campaign
Gustavo Arellano, Tribune News Service He inveighs against illegal immigration in terms more appropriate for a vermin infestation. He wants all people without papers deported immediately, damn the cost. He thinks Los Angeles is a cesspool and that flying the Mexican flag in the United States is an act of insurrection. He uses the internet mostly to share crude videos and photos depicting Latinos as subhuman. Stephen Miller? Absolutely. But every time I hear the chief architect of President Donald Trump's scorched earth immigration policies rail in uglier and uglier terms, I recall another xenophobe I hadn't thought of in awhile. For nearly 30 years, Glenn Spencer fought illegal immigration in Los Angeles and beyond with a singular obsession. The former Sherman Oaks resident kicked off his campaign, he told The Times in a 2001 profile, after seeing Latinos looting during the 1992 LA riots and thinking, "Oh, my God, there are so many of them and they are so out of control." Spencer was a key volunteer who pushed for the passage of Prop. 187, the 1994 California ballot initiative that sought to make life miserable for undocumented immigrants and was so punitive that a federal judge later ruled it unconstitutional. A multiplatform influencer before that became commonplace, Spencer hosted a local radio show, produced videos that he mailed to all members of Congress warning about an "invasion" and turned his vitriolic newsletter into a website, American Patrol, that helped connect nativist groups across the country. American Patrol's home page was a collection of links to newspaper articles about suspected undocumented immigrants alleged to have committed crimes. While Spencer regularly trashed Muslims and other immigrants, he directed most of his bile at Mexicans. A "Family Values" button on the website, in the colors of the Mexican flag, highlighted sex crimes allegedly committed by undocumented immigrants. Editorial cartoons featured a Mexican flag piercing a hole in California with the caption "Sink-hole de Mayo." Long before conservative activists recorded themselves infiltrating the conferences of political enemies, Spencer was doing it. He provoked physical fights at protests and published reams of digital nonsense against Latino politicians, once superimposing a giant sombrero on an image of Antonio Villaraigosa with the epithet, "Viva Mexico!" On the morning Villaraigosa, the future LA mayor, was to be sworn in as speaker of the assembly in 1998, every seat in the legislative chamber was topped by a flier labeling him a communist and leader of the supposed Mexican takeover of California. "I don't remember if his name was on it, but it was all his terminology," said Villaraigosa, who recalled how Spencer helped make his college membership in the Chicano student group MEChA an issue in his 2001 mayoral loss to Jim Hahn. "But he never had the balls to talk to me in person." Spencer became the Johnny Appleseed of the modern-day Know Nothing movement, lecturing to groups of middle-aged gringos about his work — first across the San Fernando Valley, then in small towns where Latinos were migrating in large numbers for the first time. "California (it) has often been said is America's future. Let me tell you about your future," he told the Council of Conservative Citizens in Virginia in 1999. Spencer is the person most responsible for mainstreaming the lie of Reconquista, the wacko idea that Mexicans came to the U.S. not for economic reasons but because of a plot concocted by the Mexican government to take back the lands lost in the 1848 Mexican-American War. He wrote screeds like "Is Jew-Controlled Hollywood Brainwashing Americans?" and threatened libel lawsuits against anyone — myself included — who dared point out that he was a racist. He was a favorite punching bag of the mainstream media, a slovenly suburban Ahab doomed to fail. The Times wrote in 2001 that Spencer "foresaw millions of converts" to his anti-immigrant campaign, "only to see his temple founder." Moving to southern Arizona in 2002, the better to monitor the US-Mexico border, Spencer spent the rest of his life trying to sell state and federal authorities on border-monitoring technology he developed that involved planes, drones and motion-detection sensors. His move inspired other conservatives to monitor the US-Mexico border on their own. By the Obama era, he was isolated even from other anti-immigrant activists for extremist views like banning foreign-language media and insisting that every person who came to this country illegally was a drug smuggler. Even the rise of Trump didn't bring Spencer and his work back into the limelight. He was so forgotten that I didn't even realise he was dead until Googling his name recently, after enduring another Miller rant. Spencer's hometown Sierra Vista's Herald Review was the only publication I found that made any note of his death from cancer in 2022 at age 85, describing his life's work as bringing "the crisis of illegal immigration to the forefront of the American public's consciousness." That's a whitewash worthy of Tom Sawyer's picket fence. We live in Glenn Spencer's world, a place where the nastier the rhetoric against illegal immigration and the crueler the government's efforts against all migrants, the better. Every time a xenophobe makes Latinos out to be an invading force, every time someone posts a racist message on social media or Miller throws another tantrum on Fox News, Glenn Spencer gets his evil wings. Spencer "stood out among a vile swamp of racists and crackpots like a tornado supercell on radar," said Brian Levin, chair of the California Civil Rights Department's Commission on the State of Hate and founder of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at Cal State San Bernardino, who monitored American Patrol for years. "What's frightening now is that hate like his used to be well-segregated from the mainstream. Now, the guardrails are off, and what Spencer advocated for is federal policy." I first found out about Spencer in 1999 as a student activist at Chapman University. Spencer applauded the Anaheim Union High School District's decision to sue Mexico for the cost of educating undocumented immigrants' children, describing those of us who opposed it as communists — when he was being nice. His American Patrol described MEChA, which I, like Villaraigosa, belonged to, as a "scourge" and a "sickness." His website was disgusting, but it became a must-read of mine. I knew even then that ignoring hate allows it to fester, and I wanted to figure out why people like Spencer despised people like me, my family and my friends. So I regularly covered him and his allies in my early years as a reporter with an obsession that was a reverse mirror of his. Colleagues and even activists said my work was a waste of time — that people like Spencer were wheezing artifacts who would eventually disappear as the U.S. embraced Latinos and immigrants. And here we are. Spencer usually sent me legal threats whenever I wrote about his ugly ways — threats that went nowhere. That's why I was surprised at how relatively polite he was the last time we communicated, in 2019. I reached out via email asking for an interview for a Times podcast I hosted about the 25th anniversary of Prop. 187. By then, Spencer was openly criticizing Trump's planned border wall, which he found a waste of money and not nearly as efficient as his own system. Spencer initially said he would consider my request, while sending me an article he wrote that blamed Prop. 187's demise on then-California Gov. Gray Davis and Mexico's president at the time, Ernesto Zedillo. When I followed up a few months later, Spencer bragged about the legacy of his website, which he hadn't regularly updated since 2013 due to declining health. The American Patrol archives "would convince the casual observer that The Times did what it could do (to) defeat my efforts and advance the cause of illegal immigration," Spencer wrote. "Do I think The Times has changed its spots? No. Will I agree to an interview? No." Levin hadn't heard about Spencer's death until we talked. "I thought he went into irrelevance," he admitted with a chuckle that he quickly cut off, realizing he had forgotten about Spencer's legacy in the era of Trump. "We ignored that cough, that speck in the X-ray," Levin concluded, now somber. "And now, we have cancer."
