View this post on the web at [link removed]

⏱️ 5 min read
Democrats Are Seen As Encouraging Resistance
A newly released Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll is flashing a warning sign for sanctuary-style politics. The national survey, conducted at the end of January, finds that voters are uncomfortable not only with certain immigration enforcement tactics, but with elected officials who appear to encourage resistance to federal immigration authorities.
One finding stands out. Sixty percent of voters say some Democratic officials have been encouraging resistance to ICE officers attempting to carry out their duties. That is not a marginal perception. It reflects a majority of voters who believe Democratic leaders are more inclined to obstruct than to enforce.
That perception carries political consequences.
The follow-up result makes the divide sharper. When voters were asked whether they support or oppose elected officials encouraging resistance to ICE, 57 percent opposed such actions, while 43 percent supported them. Most voters are therefore uncomfortable with politicians signaling that interference with federal immigration enforcement is acceptable.
This is more than a matter of tone. It is the difference between advocating for policy change and appearing to endorse defiance of law enforcement.
Sanctuary Laws And The Criminal Line
The tension becomes clearer when the focus shifts from rhetoric to criminal offenders.
Two-thirds of voters say local officials should hand over to immigration authorities individuals in jail who are in the country illegally and have committed crimes. The same share says state and local governments should cooperate with federal authorities in deporting criminals. That reflects a basic expectation that public safety responsibilities extend beyond political disagreements over immigration policy.
California’s sanctuary framework, anchored in laws such as SB 54, was designed to limit cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities. The stated goal was to build trust and prevent broad dragnet enforcement. In practice, however, the policy can encompass individuals with significant criminal histories, creating flashpoints when a serious offender with prior local contact is not transferred to ICE custody.
That conflict between policy and public sentiment is not abstract. It surfaces when such cases make headlines and voters learn that local authorities were restricted from cooperating. Each incident reinforces the perception that sanctuary policies can elevate political positioning over straightforward public safety cooperation.
The polling indicates that many voters do not view broad refusals to cooperate as a balanced middle ground.
The Optics Of “Resistance” Matter
The broader enforcement environment shapes how these issues are interpreted.
A majority of voters believe ICE has been taking people randomly off the street rather than conducting targeted operations. Whether that perception aligns with each individual case is less important than the fact that it influences how enforcement actions are understood.
Against that backdrop, the belief that Democratic officials are encouraging resistance to ICE takes on greater weight. To many voters, this does not register as a principled defense of civil liberties. It reads instead as elected leaders aligning themselves with activists who urge noncompliance with federal law.
That is difficult to reconcile with messages about responsible governance, particularly in swing districts where voters are already uneasy about crime, disorder, and uneven rule enforcement.
California’s Political Risk
These are national numbers rather than California-only data, but they point to political currents that matter in competitive districts.
In a state where one party dominates statewide offices and the Legislature, it is easy to assume sanctuary politics are secure. However, competitive congressional seats, local law enforcement races, and ballot measures unfold within a broader national climate.
Republicans do not need to resolve the immigration debate in its entirety. They need only keep attention focused on criminals, cooperation with federal authorities, and whether elected officials appear to be siding with obstruction.
Issues framed in those terms tend to move suburban voters far more than ideological arguments carried out on social media.
Many Republicans (including me) think that all illegal immigrants should be heading back to their home countries. But you have to take on such battles incrementally.
So, Does It Matter?
Voters can hold more than one idea at a time. They can oppose broad sweeps and still expect the removal of serious criminals. They can express concern about civil liberties and still recoil when politicians appear to encourage resistance to law enforcement.
When policy and rhetoric drift too far from those instincts, the political effects rarely arrive with dramatic fanfare. They surface instead in competitive districts, local races, and elections where voters are making judgments about order, competence, and whether leaders are aligned with basic enforcement or symbolic politics.
This column draws on data from the January 2026 Harvard CAPS / Harris Poll, a monthly national survey fielded January 28–29, 2026, among roughly 2,000 registered voters by The Harris Poll and HarrisX in collaboration with Harvard’s Center for American Political Studies.
A link to a full survey deck (covering many issues beyond immigration) is available to paid subscribers, just below the paywall...

Unsubscribe [link removed]?