We believe that to understand fast-moving events, you need context. And we keenly understand that hot-burning events can distort our understanding of that very context. Analyst, beware.

That’s the core tension we navigate as researchers when public opinion flashes hot: how to measure something that is deeply emotional, often polarised, and unfolding in real time. The challenge isn’t just methodological – it’s philosophical. Because when the country convulses, as it did during the recent ICE raids and protests in Los Angeles, it’s not only about what happened – it’s about what it means, and meaning lives in context.

That’s why our analytical approach is always dual: firstly, understand the forces shaping the broader landscape – the enduring tensions, identity cleavages, and value systems that define “The New America.” Secondly, capture the event-level reaction – with rapid, rigorously constructed polling that reflects the emotional temperature without reinforcing bias.

The deeper structure: nativism and conditional belonging

To understand the protests in LA, we must begin with the deeper structural divide they surfaced – one shaped not just by partisanship or policy, but by identity, belonging and moral recognition.

That divide is anchored in competing definitions of what it means to be American. For many nativists, belonging is rooted in ethnocultural traits – speaking English, being born in the country, sharing a common heritage. Citizenship is inherited. For others, American identity is civic: grounded in democratic participation and shared values like fairness, freedom and equal treatment. Here, citizenship is earned.

Ipsos research over the past decade shows that roughly one-third of Americans are strongly nativist. Another 20-25% are conditional nativists – they lean toward prioritising the culturally familiar when concerns about safety, scarcity or tradition are triggered.

This structure explains why immigration debates provoke such intensity. They aren’t just about enforcement. They’re about belonging, and about who gets to define “us.”

What the LA protests reveal

Against that context, the protests in Los Angeles – sparked by ICE raids targeting undocumented immigrants – take on deeper meaning.

The chant “ICE out of LA!” wasn’t a blanket rejection of enforcement. It was a demand for more humane, dignified application of power – recognition over repression. In our recent Ipsos polling, 87% of Americans support deporting undocumented immigrants with criminal records.

But there is nuance – and understanding that nuance is key. Americans are conditional in their support of deportation. While they support enforcement in principle, that support erodes fast when complexity enters the picture. Only 41% support ending birthright citizenship. Just 34% want to revoke protections for Dreamers. And majorities oppose chaotic removals and family separations.

This isn’t contradiction – it’s calibration. The public draws moral lines: enforcing laws is acceptable, but cruelty is not.

Ballot responses and the edge of acceptability

Recent rapid-response polls reveal where the LA raids sit on the spectrum of acceptable government action. A Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted 11–12^th June found 48% of Americans support deploying military force to respond to violent immigration-related protests, while 41% oppose it.

However, that same poll showed 49% of respondents believe president Trump has gone too far with recent raids and military deployment, compared to just 40% who say he hasn’t. National support for increased deportations remains above 50%, yet nearly half believe the current tactics cross a line.

These findings suggest that while Americans accept enforcement and even allow strong responses to unrest, the LA raids are viewed by many as pushing the boundary of acceptable state behaviour.

How we measure: framing, specificity, and meaning

Immigration reliably activates moral foundations. It brings freedom, fairness, order and justice into conflict. That’s why question wording in flash polling matters – not just technically, but conceptually.

At Ipsos, our experience shows that specific ballot questions – those that name particular actions or policies – are far more robust than vague, general ones. When questions are abstract (“Do you support enforcement?”), they tend to mask the underlying divide. But when framed in real-world terms – family separations, birthright citizenship, Dreamer protections – the public’s boundaries become visible.

Skip rigour or allow framing bias, and you distort the signal. But when done carefully, rapid-response polling reveals how the public processes events through deeply held values: strong abstract support, fast backlash when tactics feel extreme, and a pattern showing that the LA raids sit at the outer edge of what Americans find morally acceptable.

This is why understanding the structure beneath the sentiment is essential. Americans expect enforcement, but they demand moral coherence.

Why context matters

The LA protests didn’t create the divide – they laid it bare. They are both a symptom of the underlying rift in society and a demonstration of the boundaries of what is acceptable. The challenge now is addressing the deeper identity questions beneath the flashpoints: Who gets to be seen, protected, and counted as American?

Belonging isn’t enforced – it’s granted. It must be granted openly, deliberately, and together.

In moments like these, one truth becomes clear: we cannot accurately assess a specific event without understanding the broader forces at work. Context isn’t background – it’s the key to meaning, and meaning is what the public ultimately responds to. 

Clifford Young is president of public affairs, and Mallory Newall is vice-president of public affairs, at Ipsos in the US