> I think you're reading into the sanctuary cities thing too much. That's just an example of a policy (yeah, there's no legal Def, but that's how they're colloq

> I think you're reading into the sanctuary cities thing too much. That's just an example of a policy (yeah, there's no legal Def, but that's how they're colloquially known now, plus sanctuary and refuge are synonymous anyways) that Republicans complain about and Democrats complain about them complaning about. It seems the term is widely used by both sides now, although that's not a policy I follow very much. You interpreted the article as "trying to support those policies, by showing there's little difference between the states". Except it is pointing out that there are significant differences between the states, and they don't align at all with the narrative. I am pointing out that your interpretation has imbued the article with an objective that by your own description does not correlate with the contents of the article. You've effectively dismissed the article by establishing new goals and goalposts and declaring it a failure. "I would agree, except you need to look at the mitigating and confounding factors to draw that conclusion" You are presuming that the conclusion is "these policies are not causing increased murder rates", despite me pointing out that wasn't the objective and both of us failing to finding any argument supporting that conclusion in the article. > This is a political article, not a well formed study. It's definitely not a study, and yes it is a political article. Where you lose me is saying this, seemingly acknowledging that the existing narrative is political and not a study... and then saying the article is a failure because it failed to provide what you'd want in a well formed study of the underlying cause.