Originally Posted By: Surfdog
Originally Posted By: StuAzole
Originally Posted By: Surfdog
<div class="tenor-gif-embed" data-postid="10525499" data-share-method="host" data-width="100%" data-aspect-ratio="1.7913669064748199"><a href="https://tenor.com/view/survey-says-gif-10525499">Survey Says GIF</a> from <a href="https://tenor.com/search/surveysays-gifs">Surveysays GIFs</a></div><script type="text/javascript" async src="https://tenor.com/embed.js"></script>

There's a "survey" for everything.......

>>uc-riverside-study-confirms-sanctuaries-not-safer-other-cities <<


OK, let's take that one too (even though it is more limited to violent crime rather than crime as a whole). It shows no statistically significant difference in crime levels.

So tell me again why you want to spend your city/state's time, money and resources on immigration cooperation? If the additional costs associated with cooperation don't result in any difference in crime levels, why would you incur the additional costs?

Put another way - you have two choices for an investment. You can invest $10 and get $15 back in 12 months OR you can invest $20 and get $15 in 12 months. Even a guy who doesn't appreciate that .18 = 18% can do this math, right?


Ya, I guess the money saved makes up for all those needless murders, robberies, rapes, and child molesters that could've been reduced, or even never happened. Sounds like validation of a typical California state guv trade-off. rolleyes


You just showed me there's no difference in crime rates. And then you jump into all these bad things that will happen without cooperation. But it's the same. You're operating 100% on feelz now.


Bock you