For the sake of argument, how would anyone know if thats accurate or not?
The number of believed illegal immigrants drastically varies in the millions, and ofcourse many illegals are clearly not going to have active records or even details on file of their existence to go on so you have less chance of a conviction --so you're going to have lower crime rates as a result
+ sanctuary cities apparently don't always even check the immigration status on occasion so anyone committing a crime in these areas also wouldn't be added to the data
+ Plenty of drugs and people cross the border all the time, is that not a crime
What if a person actively pays a people smuggler to get into the nation, is that not two people committing crimes... one of them doing it continuously, thus increasing the average?
+If I work without paying taxes, or fake my ID or use other peoples, is that not considered crime in the same way if I did it?
What I'm getting at is that theres ample reason to question the accuracy of that statement
It *could* be accurate (well, if you disregard all of above..) but the methodology to creating that number makes it highly questionable because you are trying to document people who are *by definition* undocumented.
It's like trying to work out how much Cocaine was snorted in NY in the last 4 days -- clearly you're going to have massive gaps in the information, because you know, cocaine is illegal so it *has* to go undetected, unreported, unregistered and lack any sort of identification, else the total use of cocaine would be zero because the authorities would pick it up every time..
