illegal immigration
Polls: Majority of Americans want troops sent to border, oppose illegal immigration

A group of illegal border crossers from Mexico, Honduras and Guatemala arrested on private ranch in Maverick County, Texas.
From The Center Square
By
84% of registered voters oppose ‘illegal’ immigration while 71% support ‘legal’ immigration, showing a clear understanding of the effects of both legal and illegal immigration
Polls are consistently showing two key indictments on the Biden-Harris administration border policy: Americans not only overwhelmingly oppose illegal immigration but also want troops sent to the southern border and the border secure.
Two new recent polls support this trend, although polls have consistently shown that Americans overwhelminglyĀ disapproveĀ of Vice President Kamala Harrisā job as āborder czar.ā
A new Napolitan News ServiceĀ pollĀ found that 84% of registered voters believe āillegal immigration is bad for the United Statesā compared to only 12% who say it is good.
The ratio of opposition/support to illegal immigration has āremained broadly unchanged for decades,ā the news service says.
The overwhelming majority polled, 71%, said they support legal immigration, arguing it is good for the country. Those who oppose illegal immigration say it hurts Americans.
āThat view has also remained stable for decades. Voters make a clear distinction between legal and illegal immigration,ā the news service says.
The primary reason for opposition: crime. Among those polled, 49% cited crime as a top concern; 28% said illegal immigration allows criminals and terrorists into the country; 26% said it places a burden on the economy and healthcare; 16% that it allows in people who are dangerous; 5% that it allows in drugs and dealers.
āOverall, these numbers reflect the fact that voters see America as both a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws,ā RMG Research president Scott Rasmussen said. āVoters understand why most immigrants want to bring their families to the land of opportunity. But they are angry at the federal government for allowing and encouraging illegal immigration.ā
In a separateĀ poll, 75% said they support sending U.S. troops to āchallenge drug cartels and secure the border.ā
āThatās up significantly since President Biden took office and the total includes 90% of Republicans and 62% of Democrats,ā Napolitan News Service said.
The findings are consistent with several other polls.
A recent Rasmussen ReportsĀ pollĀ found that nearly two-thirds surveyed say the southern border crisis should be called an invasion. Large majorities said border security is a vital national security interest (70%) and acknowledged whatās happening is a crisis (72%).
This is after Texas changed the conversation on the border, introducing the term and concept of invasion to the American public, with 55 countiesĀ declaring an invasion. Sixty counties also issued disaster declarations citing the border crisis.
A recent Monmouth University Polling InstituteĀ reportĀ found the majority polled said they support building a border wall, a policy former President Donald Trump implemented that Biden ended on his first day in office. The majority polled, over 80%, said illegal immigration is āeither a very serious (61%) or somewhat serious (23%) problem.ā
āPublic concern about illegal immigration is higher during President Joe Bidenās term than it was under the prior two administrations,ā the institute said.
A University of Texas/Texas Politics ProjectĀ pollĀ found that the majority of Texans, including Hispanics and Blacks, support building a wall and border security measures. It also found that Democrats in Texas are increasingly supporting Trump.
Overall, 65% of all Texas voters said they support Texas building its own wall and barriers; 57% support Texas installing marine buoys in the Rio Grande River; 66% support deploying additional state police and military resources to the border.
A majority of Hispanic Texas voters, 56%, also disapprove of Bidenās handling of immigration and border security, the UT/TPP poll found.
Another UT/TPPĀ pollĀ found that Texans overwhelmingly support Gov. Greg Abbottās border security efforts through Operation Lone Star, including supporting Texas installing marine barriers, constructing a border wall and physical barriers at the Texas-Mexico border, deploying additional resources to the border, and busing illegal foreign nationals north.
These findings are similar to those from The Center Square Voters’ Voice polls conducted in conjunction with Noble Predictive Insights. OneĀ pollĀ last year found that 82% of Americans are concerned about border security. Among them, 50% said the border crisis became worse under the Biden-Harris administration.
AnotherĀ from March found that 62% of voters say the U.S. is moving in the wrong direction under the Biden-Harris administration with yetĀ anotherĀ showing that illegal immigration nearly ties inflationary high costs as the top concern.
Another Voterās Voice poll found that Americans want states to play a role in border security, supporting Texas and other stateās right to secure their borders.
Daily Caller
DOJ Releases Dossier Of Deported Maryland Manās Alleged MS-13 Gang Ties

From theĀ Daily Caller News Foundation
By Katelynn Richardson
The Department of Justice (DOJ) released documents Wednesday demonstrating Kilmar Armando Abrego Garciaās membership in the MS-13 gang.
Abrego Garciaās police interview, immigration court rulings and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) deportable/inadmissible alien record highlighting his membership in the gang, which he has disputed in court, areĀ includedĀ in the release.
In a December 2019 decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed Abrego Garciaās challenge to an immigration judgeās factual finding that he is āa verified member of MS-13.ā
The board found the immigration judge āappropriately considered allegations of gang affiliation against the respondent in determining that he has not demonstrated that he is not a danger to property or persons.ā
Officers found Abrego Garcia loitering in a Home Depot parking lot on March 28, 2019, wearing āa Chicago Bulls hat and a hoodie with rolls of money covering the eyes, ears and mouth of the presidents on the separate denominations,ā the initial Prince Georgeās County Police Department Gang Field Interview Sheet states.
āWearing the Chicago Bulls hat represents that they are a member in good standing with the MS-13,ā the document states. āOfficers contacted a past proven and reliable source of information, who advised Kilmar Armando ABREGO-GARCIA is an active member of MS-13 with the Westerns clique. The confidential source further advised that he is the rank of āChequeoā with the moniker of āChele.’ā
The administration became embroiled in a legal dispute after Abrego Garcia, who entered the country illegally in 2011, was deported in March to El Salvador as a result of an error. In court records, they argued Abrego Garcia could not ārelitigate the finding that he is a danger to the community.ā
A lower court ordered his return, but the Supreme CourtĀ requiredĀ it to clarify the order and directed the administration to āfacilitateā Abrego Garciaās release.
The Department of Justice (DOJ)Ā indicatedĀ Wednesday that it would appeal the amendedĀ orderĀ Judge Paula Xinis issued which directed the government to ātake all available steps to facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia to the United States as soon as possible.ā
During a Monday meeting with President Donald Trump, El Salvadoran President Nayib BukeleĀ saidĀ he would not āsmuggleā a terrorist into the U.S.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) alsoĀ releasedĀ court filings Wednesday showingĀ Abrego Garciaās wife requested a domestic violence restraining order against him.
illegal immigration
Despite court rulings, the Trump Administration shows no interest in helping Abrego Garcia return to the U.S.

Ā
By Greg Collard
With research assistance fromĀ James Rushmore
Timeline: The Case of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia
With President Trump sitting next to him, El Salvador President Nayib Bukele told reporters in the Oval Office on Monday that no, he is not going to release Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia from his countryās Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT), despite a Justice Department lawyer admitting in a court filing that Abrego Garciaās deportation last month was an āadministrative error.ā
No matter, Bukele said when asked if would return him to the U.S.:
Bukele:Ā Of course Iām not going to do it. The question is preposterous. How can I smuggle a terrorist into the United States. I donāt have the power to return him to the United States.
Reporter:Ā But you could release him inside El Salvador.
Bukele:Ā Yeah, but Iām not releasing, I mean Iām not very fond of releasing terrorists into our country. We just turned the murder capital of the world into the safest country in the Western hemisphere, and you want us to go back into releasing criminals so we can go back to being the murder capital of the world? Thatās not going to happen.
Not that there was any doubt what Bukele would say. Attorney General Pam Bondi set the tone early on in the meeting. She explained what the Supreme Court meant last week when it said a lower court ruling āproperly requires the government to āfacilitateā Abrego Garciaās release from custody in El Salvador.ā
The Supreme Court ruled, president, that if El Salvador wants to return him ⦠we would facilitate it, meaning provide a plane.
It brings to mind President ClintonāsĀ infamous grand jury testimonyĀ when he said: āIt depends upon what the meaning of the word āisā is.ā
Abrego-Garcia left El Salvador and illegally entered the U.S. in 2011. His status as an illegal immigrant changed after he was arrested in 2019 and the Department of Homeland Security accused him of being a member of the MS-13 gang. Abrego Garcia fought the accusation and applied for asylum. Instead, an immigration judge granted him āwithholding of removalā status.
A federal judge wrote in an April 6 opinion that in El Salvador āthe Barrio 18 gang had been targeting him and threatening him with death because of his familyās pupusa business.ā
The Justice Department argues its hands are tied. It doesnāt matter that the U.S. is paying El SalvadorĀ $6 million a yearĀ to house U.S. deportees at CECOT.
āThe United States does not have control over Abrego Garcia. Or the sovereign nation of El Salvador,ā says one court filing.
Below is a timeline of the case since Abrego Garcia was arrested last month, leading up to Mondayās Oval Office meeting with Bukele.
March 12-15, 2025
ICE agents stop Abrego Garcia and tell him that he is no longer under āwithholding of removalā status. The Trump administration says he is a member of the MS-13 gang, which the president has designated a foreign terrorist organization.
Abrego Garcia, who denies he is part of MS-13, is sent to an ICE detention facility in La Villa, Texas, and from thereĀ he is deportedĀ to El Salvador on March 15 along with 260 others, primarily Venezuelan nationals. He is being held in CECOT, a prison that has a capacity of 40,000 inmates.
March 24, 2025
Abrego Garcia and his wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, file a lawsuit that notes Abrego Garcia has been in the U.S. legally since 2019 under withholding of removal status, and that the designation was never lifted.
They also accuse the government of sending Abrego Garcia to El Salvador despite āknowing that he would be immediately incarcerated and tortured in that countryās most notorious prison; indeed, Defendants haveĀ paid the government of El Salvador millions of dollars to do exactly that. Such conduct shocks the conscience and cries out for immediate judicial relief.ā
The lawsuit requests the court order the U.S. government to tell the government of El Salvador to release and deliver Abrego Garcia to the U.S. Embassy in San Salvador.
March 31, 2025
The Justice DepartmentĀ acknowledgesĀ in a court filing that āalthough ICE was aware of his protection from removal to El Salvador, Abrego Garcia was removed to El Salvador because of an administrative error.ā
Still, the Justice Department argues the motion should be denied because the court āhas no powerā over El Salvador. Justice Department attorneys argue:
Under their (plaintiffs) logic, this Court may assume jurisdiction to decide whether the order is legal, but if the order were determined legal, then jurisdiction would disappear again.
The government also says thereās no proof that Abrego Garcia will be tortured or killed in CECOT:
Plaintiffs point to little evidence about conditions in CECOT itself (focusing primarily on its capacity for detainees), instead extrapolating from allegations about conditions in different Salvadoran prisons. While there may be allegations of abuses in other Salvadoran prisonsāvery few in relation to the large number of detaineesāthere is no clear showing that Abrego Garcia himself is likely to be tortured or killed in CECOT. More fundamentally, this Court should defer to the governmentās determination that Abrego Garcia will not likely be tortured or killed in El Salvador.
April 4, 2025
U.S. District Court Judge Paula Xinis orders the Trump Administration to return Abrego Garcia to the U.S. by 11:59 p.m., April 7. She writes:
Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits because Abrego Garcia was removed to El Salvador In violation of the Immigration and Nationality Actā¦and without any legal process; his continued presence in El Salvador, for obvious reasons, constitutes irreparable harm; the balance of equities and the public interest weigh in favor of returning him to the United States; and issuance of a preliminary injunction without further delay is necessary to restore him to the status quo and to avoid ongoing irreparable harm resulting from Abrego Garciaās unlawful removal.
April 5, 2025
The Justice Department appeals the order, calling it āindefensibleā that āa federal district judge ordered the United States to force El Salvador to send one of its citizensāa member of MS-13, no lessāback to the United States by midnight on Monday. If there was ever a case for an emergency stay pending appeal, this would be it.ā
More from the appellate motion:
Foremost, [the order] commands Defendants to do something they have no independent authority to do: Make El Salvador release Abrego Garcia, and send him to America. That is why Plaintiffs did not even ask the district court for an order directing Abrego Garciaās return. As Plaintiffs themselves acknowledged, a federal court āhas no jurisdiction over the Government of El Salvador and cannot force that sovereign nation to release Plaintiff Abrego Garcia from its prison.ā That concession is all that is needed to order a stay here. No federal court has the power to command the Executive to engage in a certain act of foreign relations; that is the exclusive prerogative of Article II, immune from superintendence by Article III.
April 6, 2025
Judge XinisĀ issues a follow-up memorandum opinion to her April 4 order:
Although the legal basis for the mass removal of hundreds of individuals to El Salvador remains disturbingly unclear, Abrego Garciaās case is categorically differentāthere were no legal grounds whatsoever for his arrest, detention, or removal. Nor does any evidence suggest that Abrego Garcia is being held in CECOT at the behest of Salvadoran authorities to answer for crimes in that country. Rather, his detention appears wholly lawless.
The judge also writes that in 2019, Homeland Security ārelied principally on a singular unsubstantiated allegation that Abrego Garcia was a member of MS-13.ā
April 7, 2025
A three-judge panel of Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously denies the governmentās motion for a stay of Xinisā order that say Abrego Garcia must be returned to the U.S. by 11:59 p.m. Judge Stephanie Thacker writes:
The United States Government has no legal authority to snatch a person who is lawfully present in the United States off the street and remove him from the country without due process. The Governmentās contention otherwise, and its argument that the federal courts are powerless to intervene, are unconscionable.
The Trump Administration appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court, and Chief Justice John Roberts grants an administrative stay to give justices time to consider the case.
Following the stay, Bondi accuses Abrego Garcia of being a āviolent gang memberā:
We will continue to fight for the safety of Americans and get these people out of our country to make America safe.
April 10, 2025
The Supreme Court rules against the Trump administration but directs Judge Xinis to āclarifyā a portion of her ruling. From the Supreme Courtās decision:
The order properly requires the Government to āfacilitateā Abrego Garciaās release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term āeffectuateā in the District Courtās order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Courtās authority. The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs. For its part, the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps.
April 11, 2025
If the Supreme Court said, āBring somebody back,ā I would do that. I respect the Supreme Court.
President TrumpĀ says that aboard Air Force OneĀ a day after the Supreme Court upholds a lower court ruling and says the government should āfacilitateā Abrego Garciaās return to the U.S.
Meanwhile, Judge XinisĀ issues a new orderĀ that directs the government to ātake all available steps to facilitate the returnā of Abrego Garcia. In a hearing, she alsoĀ makes clear her frustrationĀ with the Justice Department.
āThe record, as it stands, is, despite this court’s clear directive, your clients have done nothing to facilitate the return of Mr. Abrego Garcia,ā she says.
Xinis also orders the administration to provideĀ daily updatesĀ on the status of Abrego Garciaās return. She also criticizes Justice Department attorneys in her order:
During the hearing, the Court posed straightforward questions, including: Where is Abrego Garcia right now? What steps had Defendants taken to facilitate his return while the Courtās initial order on injunctive relief was in effectā¦? Defendantsā counsel responded that he could not answer these questions, and at times suggested that Defendants had withheld such information from him. As a result, counsel could not confirm, and thus did not advance any evidence, that Defendants had done anything to facilitate Abrego Garciaās return. This remained Defendantsā position even after this Court reminded them that the Supreme Court of the United States expressly affirmed this Courtās authority to require the Government āfacilitateā Abrego Garciaās return. From this Courtās perspective, Defendantsā contention that they could not answer these basic questions absent some nonspecific āvettingā that has yet to take place, provides no basis for their lack of compliance.
April 12, 2025
A State Department officialĀ reports to the courtĀ that Abrego Garcia is āalive and secureā at CECOT. āHe is detained pursuant to the sovereign, domestic authority of El Salvador,ā the State Departmentās Michael Kozak says in a filing.
However, he does not give an update on the status of Abrego Garciaās return to the U.S.
-
2025 Federal Election6 hours ago
The Federal Brief That Should Sink Carney
-
2025 Federal Election8 hours ago
How Canada’s Mainstream Media Lost the Public Trust
-
2025 Federal Election11 hours ago
Ottawa Confirms China interfering with 2025 federal election: Beijing Seeks to Block Joe Tayās Election
-
John Stossel7 hours ago
Climate Change Myths Part 2: Wildfires, Drought, Rising Sea Level, and Coral Reefs
-
2025 Federal Election10 hours ago
Real Homes vs. Modular Shoeboxes: The Housing Battle Between Poilievre and Carney
-
COVID-199 hours ago
Nearly Half of āCOVID-19 Deathsā Were Not Due to COVID-19 – Scientific Reports Journal
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Poilievreās Conservatives promise to repeal policy allowing male criminals in female jails
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Carney Liberals pledge to follow āgender-based goals analysisā in all government policy