Back to Politics

Where immigration enforcement draws support

Source reportMethodology

Overview

More adults agree than disagree that the criteria for obtaining US citizenship should be more restrictive.


The same pattern appears on enforcement spending: about 50% agree that the government is spending too little to reduce illegal immigration, while 20% disagree.

Stacked breakdown

44% agree that citizenship criteria should be more restrictive.

The criteria for obtaining US citizenship should be more restrictive.

Strongly agree
25.0%
Somewhat agree
18.4%
Neither agree nor disagree
22.2%
Somewhat disagree
14.1%
Strongly disagree
11.7%
Don’t know
5.2%
No answer
3.3%

2024 · base n 1,000 · +/- 3.4%

pol

View source data

Restrictive citizenship criteria draw more agreement

About 44% agree that the criteria for obtaining US citizenship should be more restrictive.

About 26% disagree, while 22% neither agree nor disagree.

Stacked breakdown

50% agree that the government spends too little to reduce illegal immigration.

The government is spending too little money to reduce illegal immigration.

Strongly agree
30.5%
Somewhat agree
19.3%
Neither agree nor disagree
22.2%
Somewhat disagree
10.3%
Strongly disagree
9.2%
Don’t know
5.5%
No answer
2.9%

2024 · base n 1,000 · +/- 3.4%

media_fin

View source data

Enforcement spending also draws support

About 50% agree that the government spends too little money to reduce illegal immigration.

About 20% disagree, and 22% neither agree nor disagree.

The two measures point in the same direction

The paired results do not measure the same policy, but both show a larger agreement side than disagreement side on restrictive or enforcement-focused immigration statements.

Methodology

Full methodology
Mode
Verasight panel recruited via random address-based sampling, random person-to-person text messaging, and dynamic online targeting
Population
US adults age 18+
Field dates
2024-10-01 → 2024-10-11
Base (unweighted)
1,000
Margin of error
+/- 3.4%
Module
pol
Sponsor
Verasight
Weight variable
weight
Weighting targets
age, race/ethnicity, sex, income, education, region, metropolitan status

Sources

[2]
  • 01
    How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement: The criteria for obtaining US citizenship should be more restrictive.Shows views on whether US citizenship criteria should be more restrictive.reports.verasight.io/reports/verasight-apsa-omnibus-survey-2024-103
  • 02
    How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement: The government is spending too little money to reduce illegal immigration.Shows views on whether the government spends too little to reduce illegal immigration.reports.verasight.io/reports/verasight-apsa-omnibus-survey-2024-103

Citation

Verasight APSA Omnibus Survey #2024-103, fielded October 1-11, 2024, N=1,000 US adults age 18+, +/- 3.4%.

https://reports.verasight.io/reports/verasight-apsa-omnibus-survey-2024-103#q-pol-15

Verasight survey methodology

How Verasight conducts surveys.

This page describes the Verasight general survey contract, separate from how the Data Library packages it. Each wave's specific field dates, sample sizes, and module breakdown are listed in that wave's report.

Mode
Verasight panel recruited via random address-based sampling, random person-to-person text messaging, and dynamic online targeting.
Population
US adults age 18+.
Sample design
Surveys are run as omnibus or single-topic waves. Omnibus waves are split into modules with their own respondent set, typically around one thousand respondents per module.
Field window
Each wave specifies its own field dates. Most omnibus waves field across roughly two weeks.
Weighting
Per-module weighting to CPS targets including age, race and ethnicity, sex, income, education, region, and metropolitan status.
Partisanship benchmark
Pew Research Center's NPORS benchmarking surveys, three-year running average.
Vote benchmark
2024 presidential vote population benchmarks.
Margin of error
Typically about plus or minus 3.4 to 3.6 percent per module at standard module sizes. Question-level MoE is recomputed when a base shrinks materially below the module baseline.
Reporting
Every wave is published as a standalone report at verasight.io/reports with full instrument and methodology.
Transparency
AAPOR transparency standards.

Wave-specific methodology, full weighting variable lists, and verbatim instrument text live in each report at verasight.io/reports.