# U.S. Public Opinion About Immigration Enforcement in Sensitive Locations

## TL;DR

Most Americans oppose ending immigration enforcement restrictions at sensitive locations like hospitals and schools, fearing it would prevent undocumented immigrants from seeking care.

## Contribution

This study provides new empirical evidence on public opinion regarding immigration enforcement in sensitive locations.

## Key findings

- Most Americans do not support rescinding ICE's sensitive locations policy.
- Support for the policy is linked to sympathy towards immigrants and concerns about healthcare access.
- Age and political identity are key predictors of views on the policy.

## Abstract

In 2011, the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued a memorandum titled, “Enforcement Actions at or Focused on Sensitive Locations.” The memorandum stated that immigration enforcement actions should not occur at specified sensitive locations, which included schools, healthcare facilities, places of worship, sites of public religious ceremony, and sites of public demonstration. These policies were rescinded in January 2025, creating the possibility of enforcement actions in these locations. The aim of this study was to investigate U.S. public opinion regarding immigration enforcement in sensitive locations. We conducted an online survey of 3,563 American adults with quotas implemented on gender, age, race, and geographic location. The survey ran from January 23 to February 3, 2025. 3,563 individuals completed the survey. Age and political identification were the most consistent predictors of support for rescinding sensitive locations policy, as well as in the belief that such enforcement would not deter care seeking. Sympathy towards immigrants was also a predictor of support for sensitive locations policy. Our findings suggest that the majority of Americans do not think that ICE’s sensitive locations policy should be rescinded and believe that rescinding this policy will deter undocumented immigrants from seeking needed medical care for themselves and their children. A lack of support for rescinding this policy suggests that it should be reinstated, a move that would help to protect healthcare access for undocumented people and their families.

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10903-025-01772-0.