Carcassman, no worries; I don't think that's smartass at all. I'm familiar with the literature (quite old actually) that job number one of a bureaucracy is to "grow the empire." The guy at the top increases his influence and wealth by overseeing a larger agency (empire). However, I'm not seeing the "good fit" where a city, or its leaders, movers and shakers, benefit by the sanctuary designation. Improving and expanding city infrastructure supports larger local gov't. departments. When the various departments grow, thereby expanding their influence and wealth, the city learders at the top of the pyramid grow their influence and wealth even more.

From what little I'm getting on this, being a sanctuary city may attract more immigrants to a city because of the benefits to illegals, the city doles out this elusive federal money people are talking about, but not identifying a single federal law or program that facilitates this, for social services to immigrants allegedly in the form of housing, medical services, and education. I want to know exactly what federal funds are being funneled. So far no one here on the DS is willing or able to ID the legal pathway that is this alleged funnel.

I think a city benefits more by funding infrastructure. Infrastructure attracts business, industry, and people, who end up paying taxes to the local, state, and federal gov'ts., feeding the machine, as it were, and feeding the egos and wealth of those at the top. Intrinsically that makes ever so much more sense than pissing away money on people who contribute few benefits and may actually be a financial drain on the city. See what I mean?