What national polls exist measuring American attitudes toward sanctuary cities and what do they show?
Executive summary
Multiple national and high-profile polls have measured American attitudes toward sanctuary cities, but results vary widely depending on question wording and partisanship: some polls show pluralities or majorities supporting sanctuary policies or protections, while others show strong majorities favoring cooperation with federal immigration enforcement [1] [2] [3]. Academic research and specialty polling trace a clear partisan split and show that factual knowledge and question framing strongly shift responses [4] [5] [6].
1. Major national polls and what they report
A Harvard–Harris poll reported by The Hill found very high majorities—about 80%—saying local authorities should report undocumented immigrants to federal agents, and majorities supporting related Trump administration enforcement measures [2], while a New York Times/Ipsos poll summarized in Newsweek found 55% of voters supported Trump’s broader deportation plans and very high support (88%) for deporting immigrants with criminal records, figures the coverage linked to debates over sanctuary jurisdictions [3]. By contrast, Marist polling found a more even split on sanctuary cities specifically: roughly half of Americans (50%) said sanctuary cities were needed to provide services to undocumented immigrants, while 41% opposed them and 10% were unsure [1]. Rasmussen polling has at times reported near-even or plurality support for sanctuary-state policies, noting that “nearly half of voters still favor” such restrictions on cooperation with federal authorities [7]. These differences illustrate that different national surveys produce different headline outcomes [2] [1] [3] [7].
2. Why partisanship and knowledge matter
Scholarly work shows partisanship is the single strongest predictor of attitudes toward sanctuary policies: Democrats tend to support sanctuary approaches while Republicans oppose them, and partisan cues shape how respondents “learn” the politically correct position on sanctuary policies [4] [5]. Research further finds that increasing substantive knowledge about what sanctuary policies actually do tends to increase support among liberals and Democrats, whereas conservatives often align with ideological priors without needing detailed policy knowledge [5] [6]. Polls that do not control for or report partisan breakdowns therefore can obscure this structured divide [4] [6].
3. Question wording and the frame effect
Polling on sanctuary cities is especially sensitive to wording: questions framed around “reporting to federal agents” or “cooperating with ICE” yield stronger opposition to sanctuary policies (as in the Harvard–Harris and NYT/Ipsos items) while questions framed around “providing services” or “protecting families” produce more favorable responses (as in Marist) [2] [3] [1]. Academic reviewers caution that divergent question frames produce divergent public opinion snapshots and that many surveys do not measure detailed knowledge about what sanctuary policies entail, which compounds variability [5] [6].
4. Trends, limits, and what polling does not settle
Although multiple polls and scholarly studies document partisan polarization and framing effects, polling has been historically sparse and uneven on sanctuary topics until recent years, limiting long-run trend analysis [4]. Polls also do not resolve empirical debates about outcomes of sanctuary policies—advocacy and research organizations point to studies finding no link between sanctuary policies and higher crime or worse public outcomes, but those substantive claims are separate from opinion polling and require different research methods [8]. Likewise, government actions—new federal lists of designated “sanctuary jurisdictions” and executive orders—shape the political context in which polling is conducted but do not substitute for sober methodological comparisons across surveys [9] [10].
5. What these polls imply for politics and policy
The polling record suggests sanctuary cities are a polarized political issue: public opinion can be marshaled to support either national enforcement or local protections depending on messaging and partisan cues, which explains why administrations and advocacy groups make heavy use of headline poll numbers in legal and budget fights over sanctuary jurisdictions [2] [1] [9]. Policymakers should therefore treat single-poll headlines with caution and look for consistent patterns across differently worded national surveys and partisan subgroups before drawing conclusions about “public will” [5] [6].