I don't live in a sanctuary city/state. Not likely to know someone.
Are anecdotes the only evidence you take?
I think that if those citizens who do live in sanctuary city / state wanted to make a change then they would have addressed that with their elected government. If the overwhelming majority of the population in that area finds value in its immigration polices or practices, but another citizen of that same city/state perceives it another way; then that citizen in opposition has the choice of continuing to lobby for change in their local policies or leavening the environment that s/he/they dislikes. These issues appear to be a local matter unless their policies have created an specific adverse condition that has spilled over into another distinct area who then would have justifiable cause for concern and consider appropriate recourse.
Appropriate recourse is not invading a city with masked gunmen numbering in similar size of a U.S. Marine Regiment. Especially, a city who did not ask for help, is far from you and there was no specific adverse condition created to consider. If there are grievances then those grievances should be handled in court not at gunpoint.
I don't think that folks from where you are from would want people from Brooklyn NY to tell you how to govern your local policies would you? Especially given that all they would have really known about the situation is a brief drive through, fly through visit or is second hand information from sensationalist tabloids with the word NEWs in their DBA name.
Keep in mind that this whole immigration issue is nothing new and it is congresses fault. Congress has failed over and over again to address the issue for decades because the two party system needs something to divide people. There was a bipartisan bill to address these issues but Donald stopped it from passing because he was going to use this issue to get into office.
Folks say that Biden was doing this or doing that for this reason or that reason, but I believe that he was just trying to force congress to act and set appropriate laws. I think that many were led to believe that the undocumented folks are voting but the reality is that the real reason it works is that immigration is good for the economy. Those folks seeking legal status are paying all of the taxes you are without representation or benefit. They don't vote, or collect benefits other than those with refugee status, but they do pay into them. Of course this backfired on the Dems and IMO was the second largest mistake he made.
I think that we are all suffering from what's called future shock and people don't understand how to process it. Shocking news used to take time to travel but now it's immediate reporting.
It became a larger issue when Ted Turner made the first 24 hours News broadcasting channel and now it is in hyperdrive with social media. Our kids born since 2000 are learning how to sort this out but I don't think that older generations have yet. These kids don't trust anything they see on line. If you find yourself agreeing with much of what the news is providing to you, then you just might be consuming a procured product that was designed to be attractive to you.
Future shock, a concept by Alvin Toffler, describes the psychological stress and disorientation from experiencing too much change too quickly, leading to anxiety, confusion, and an inability to cope, often triggered by rapid technological and social advancements. It's a form of "societal motion sickness" where individuals feel overwhelmed by accelerated innovation,
prompting defense mechanisms like retreating to the past (revisionism) or simplifying complex issues (super-simplification). Today, it's seen in reactions to AI, social media, and constant digital flux, creating a need for resilience and new ways to manage change.