A new national survey shines a light on a troubling consensus among Americans: the situation at the southern border has reached a crisis point, and frustration with the federal response is palpable. Conducted by the Pew Research Center from January 16 to 21, the survey of over 5,000 adults across the country highlights deep worries regarding illegal immigration, cutting across political lines. Among conservatives, these concerns are especially strong.
One respondent’s tweet summarizes this sentiment: “It’s going to become our problem if we don’t close our freaking borders.” This reflects the findings of the survey, which revealed that a staggering 78% of Americans believe the surge of migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border constitutes either a crisis (45%) or a major problem (32%). The figure rises to 93% among Republicans, with 70% branding it a full-blown crisis, while 61% of independents voice similar concerns.
Several factors contribute to this anxiety, including security risks, economic strain, and a lack of effective leadership. Notably, 57% of participants assert that the influx of migrants increases crime rates—a belief held by 85% of Republicans. In contrast, only 31% of Democrats share this view, yet the divide in party lines does little to alleviate the overall unease, underscoring a widespread desire for stronger border control.
The survey reveals what respondents identify as the primary driver of the migrant surge: the search for better economic opportunities in the U.S. A solid 71% of all participants—spanning both Republican and Democratic affiliations—point to jobs and prosperity as major reasons for their migration.
Despite this shared understanding of the factors at play, the interpretation of U.S. policies creates a stark divide. Republicans are quick to blame lenient immigration policies for allowing too many migrants to stay, with 76% voicing this concern. Conversely, only 39% of Democrats agree. This divergence shapes opinions on potential solutions, such as building a more extensive border wall, which garners support from 72% of Republicans but just 15% of Democrats.
However, there is an area of unexpected bipartisan agreement: improving the immigration system by increasing the number of judges to expedite asylum cases. A majority of 60% of Americans back this proposal, which aims to tackle the massive backlog plaguing the system. As of early 2024, there are over 3 million pending cases—a troubling statistic that highlights the inefficiencies within the immigration framework.
Delays in the asylum process not only stall administrative procedures but also provide migrants with opportunities to disappear into the U.S., making the system a potential trap. This has led to perceptions that the current bureaucratic maze serves as both a magnet for migrants and a loophole for those circumventing enforcement. Alarmingly, 80% of survey respondents criticize the government’s handling of the situation, with 45% deeming it a “very bad job.”
Public frustration is mirrored in local communities facing tangible impacts from immigration policies. Some 22% of respondents express concerns about the economic burden of immigration, citing pressures on schools, hospitals, housing, and job markets. The same percentage points to security issues, which break down into crime (10%), terrorism (10%), and drug trafficking (3%).
This feedback aligns with reports from border agents and law enforcement. Trafficking routes from Mexico are reportedly reactivated, and drug flows across the border are rising. In response, state leaders in Texas and Arizona have mobilized National Guard units, pushing for more rigorous state-level enforcement amid claims of federal inaction.
The current predicament isn’t merely a reactive crisis; it raises questions about executive capacity to control immigration effectively. Historically, U.S. presidents have wielded broad authority under immigration law to restrict entry. Citing Section 1182(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, presidents have the power to suspend entry when deemed “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” Court affirmations of this authority, such as in Trump v. Hawaii, have solidified the legal framework for intervention. Yet, fluctuating judicial interpretations have muddied the waters, leaving border towns in a precarious position as they confront surging migrant numbers without clear federal direction.
These vulnerabilities have opened the door for smuggling networks to thrive, as U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers report operational slowdowns due to resource allocation issues. In some areas, operations at certain freight train crossings were suspended in order to redistribute manpower. Such reactive measures highlight a lack of strategic management.
Policy changes that do emerge often face legal challenges, leaving measures like the “Remain in Mexico” program or Title 42 expulsions tangled in court battles. This cycle leads to uncertainty for both migrants seeking asylum and the enforcement agencies tasked with managing them.
Moreover, public sentiment has sharpened around high-profile cases that humanize the consequences of these policies. The case of Laken Riley, whose murder by an illegal immigrant drew national outrage, has prompted new laws aimed at mandating detention for illegal aliens charged with violent crimes. The deportation of thousands with violent records, including over 47,000 with assault charges and hundreds linked to homicides, underscores a broader push for preemptive control rather than reactive measures after tragedies occur.
The magnitude of this border crisis has already begun reshaping the political landscape. Following President Trump’s return to office on January 20, 2025, federal agencies reported an extraordinary drop in illegal crossings. August statistics from Customs and Border Protection indicate a mere 6,300 apprehensions—a staggering 90% reduction compared to the prior year. In March, crossings had decreased by 95%, evidence of a significant policy shift.
This decline has coincided with the rollback of initiatives perceived as incentives for illegal crossings, including the “CBP One” migration app and problematic “catch-and-release” policies. The Trump administration reinstated border wall construction and introduced executive actions stripping public benefits from illegal immigrants, aiming to curtail taxpayer-funded enticements that attract migrants.
With over 1.6 million illegal migrants estimated to have left the country and nearly 200,000 deported—many with prior criminal convictions—the administration has ramped up stringent immigration screening protocols, including vetting for potential anti-American ideologies during the immigration process.
Clearly, Americans are advocating for robust border control while favoring leaders willing to take the necessary actions. As evidence mounts, it’s apparent that public patience is waning. The tweet from @verogutierrezm3 resonates deeply: “It’s going to become our problem if we don’t close our freaking borders.” For many, the crisis is no longer a distant threat—it has arrived.
"*" indicates required fields
