I mean, it's a good idea if the end goal is to benefit the communities where asylum seekers end up. But even a good idea can be completely subverted or sabotaged by failures of execution at any step in the process, and the stated purpose in this case is for "punishment" of cities that have the gall to welcome others in need. The explicitly malevolent intent of the policy makes me think that the administration will try to make it as painful for every party as possible at every step in the process. It doesn't help that Stephen Miller seems to have set himself up as some sort of Bannon-like successor.
And that's really my question - what are the vectors for subversion, what are the critical points of execution, and how could this turn out to be worse rather than better? The point of the article is that immigration is a problem that should be grappled with by people who like immigrants. I watched a Frontline on immigration talking about how horribly we treated immigrants... under Obama. My argument is that if we treat immigration as an asset rather than a pox we might come up with better solutions and that the idea of opening sanctuary cities to immigrants, while definitely a knuckle-rubbing wet dream of the MAGA crew, is actually the sort of thing the rest of us should consider.