You don't get to pick and choose the conclusions of the research and still claim to an informed position. Either you refute it, and the 25M number goes out the window, or you accept it and the rate of crimes by illegal immigrants is halved. Those are 2 commensurate conclusions of the same research by the researcher who did it.
You don't get to take 1 part and not the other without compelling evidence the researcher was talking beyond the scope of the research when drawing conclusions about it.
Take your pick. You can't have it both ways.
Are you making a rational argument or an irrational one?

FFS, it's the link you provided as evidence to support your position.



So is your point illegal immigration is bad for crime? Or is it, "we have no idea how bad illegal immigration is for crime?"
'Cause you started out by saying it's bad for America, but now you seem to be saying there's no way to tell if/whether/how bad it is.