REMINDER: Siteowner has no obligation to monitor the Forums. However, Siteowner reserves the right to review the Materials submitted to or posted on the Forums, and remove, delete, redact or otherwise modify such Materials, in its sole discretion and for any reason whatsoever, at any time and from time to time, without notice or further obligation to you. Siteowner has no obligation to display or post any Materials provided by you. Siteowner reserves the right to disclose, at any time and from time to time, any information or Materials that Siteowner deems necessary or appropriate to satisfy any applicable law, regulation, contract obligation, legal or dispute process or government request. To further read the rules and terms of agreement of this Forum, click here.
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.
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.