Quote:
Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey
The funny thing is that states that refuse to have sanctuary cities are small donors to the federal government.
|
Where did you get that bit of data from? First, with the exception of St. Louis as was cited, I couldn't find a good reference for some of the cities not shown above to have refused sanctuary city status. It just appears that they are not.
Here's a sampling of the tax collections of a few of the states in FY2007 shown on the map above that do not have sanctuary cities. The number in parenthesis is their rank out of all 50 in tax collections (ie how much they gave versus others):
Pennsylvania (#7 in federal tax collections) - $112,368,286,000
Georgia (#11 in federal tax collections) - $75,217,980,000
Massachusetts (# 12 in federal tax collections) - $74,782,325,000
Missouri (#18 in federal tax collections) - $48,568,138,000
Compare that with some of the states on the list with at least one sanctuary city:
Michigan (#13) - $69,923,907,000
Washington (#15) - $57,449,739,000
Maryland (#17) -$53,705,070,000
Colorado (#20) - $45,404,194,000
Arizona (#23) - $35,485,237,000
Oregon (#28) - $23,466,608,000
Utah (#36) - $15,063,650,000
As you can see Georgia, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania all have higher tax collection rates than seven of the states on the list with sanctuary cities. With that in mind, I am not sure how your correlation of amount of tax paid and having a sanctuary city holds any weight.
Also, even the premise of the OP is a bit odd give that Atlanta, Philadelphia, Boston and Pittsburgh are not sanctuary cities and are all well known cities, and all four city centers are Democratic party strongholds.
I think there are far more complex matters at play as to whether a city will be a sanctuary city or not than this thread could consider.