“On average, counties that did not comply with ICE requests experienced 35.5 fewer crimes per 10,000 people than those that did. Wong also found that counties that did not comply with detainer requests had higher household incomes, lower rates of unemployment, lower rates of poverty, and were less likely to have children under 18 in households receiving public benefits.”
So, you have richer counties (read “whiter”) which declare themselves sanctuaries. Now, is the lower crime rate due to the sanctuary status, or did these places already have lower crime rates when they became sanctuaries?
I think we can figure out this lie with statistics.
Good point. According to what I could find, some states like Ohio, Missouri, and Michigan don't have sanctuary cites, and some rural counties in Vermont and Iowa and Oregon and affluent counties in California are "sanctuaries."
Obviously, if you toss Cleveland, Detroit, and St. Louis, which had high crime rates long before sanctuary cities were an issue, on one side of the scale, and throw affluent cities like San Francisco, San Diego, Portland, and Seattle, which have had lower crime rates even without taking sanctuary laws into account, on the other, your results aren't going to have much to do with sanctuary city laws.