What data sources and methodologies did Camarota use in 2024, and what criticisms have been raised about them?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Steven A. Camarota’s 2024 work at the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) relied primarily on federal survey and administrative datasets — Census Bureau products such as the American Community Survey, CPS and related Census data — and congressional testimony that reuses CIS reports and SIPP/SIPP-adjacent analyses [1] [2] [3]. Critics have repeatedly challenged his methods and credibility: courts have found him unreliable or “not qualified” in at least two voting-related cases, and advocacy sites and watchdogs accuse his CIS work of selective sourcing and numeric manipulation [4] [5] [6].
1. How Camarota says he builds his numbers: public surveys and Census contracts
Camarota’s 2024 testimony and CIS reports draw on mainstream federal sources — the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS), Current Population Survey (CPS) and other Census products — and on analysis of program-use surveys such as the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) when estimating program use and fiscal impacts; Camarota’s background includes work as lead researcher on a contract examining immigrant data quality in the ACS [1] [2] [7]. He routinely frames arguments for congressional hearings by translating those datasets into fiscal and demographic estimates [2] [8].
2. Common methodologies reported in 2024: aggregation, fiscal modeling, and counterfactuals
CIS outputs tied to Camarota typically aggregate Census-based population and program-use counts, estimate per-capita taxes and benefits, and apply fiscal accounting to produce net “cost” or “drain” figures that appear in his January 2024 witness materials and CIS reports [2] [9]. In election-related pieces he extrapolates Census non‑citizen counts to hypothetical voting scenarios, producing state-by-state “how many noncitizens would have to vote” calculations [3].
3. Criticisms from courts and watchdogs: credibility and methodological assumptions
Courts have directly criticized Camarota’s analytical assumptions. A judge concluded Camarota was “not qualified” to opine on causes of changes in voter registration and found his comparisons between 2010 and 2014 election data unreliable because they rested on implausible assumptions about what changed in Kansas [4]. That ruling is not an abstract critique; it rebuked his causal inferences and expert fitness in legal settings [4].
4. Criticisms from advocates and critics: selective sourcing and distortion allegations
Outside the courtroom, advocacy sites and investigative projects allege CIS work under Camarota “uses dubious sources, manipulates numbers, and distorts data” to support anti-immigrant policy aims [5]. These critiques portray CIS as an advocacy organization that selectively frames Census and administrative statistics to produce policy-ready, alarmist headlines rather than neutral, peer-reviewed scholarship [5].
5. Where Camarota’s framing shows up in policy debates
Camarota’s outputs informed congressional testimony and media coverage in 2024, including claims about fiscal costs per undocumented person and statewide vulnerabilities to hypothetical non‑citizen voting — figures that legislators and some reporters cited in hearings and op-eds [2] [3] [9]. He also authored opinion pieces arguing for lower immigration levels that reuse the same population and fiscal estimates [10].
6. Competing viewpoints in available reporting
Available sources show two competing frames: CIS presents government survey data as the basis for concrete fiscal cost estimates and policy prescriptions [2] [3], while critics — courts and watchdogs — dispute the inferential steps, credentials to testify on certain topics, and the selectivity of sources [4] [5]. The record indicates disagreement not over raw Census tables but over how those tables are adjusted, modeled, and interpreted for causal claims [4] [5].
7. Limits of the public record and what’s not documented here
Available sources do not detail every statistical model, codebase, or sensitivity test Camarota used in 2024; they document datasets cited and examples of analytic conclusions and critiques, but not full methodological appendices for all CIS reports referenced in testimony [2] [6]. They also do not contain independent peer review of the specific 2024 fiscal calculations in this packet of materials [5] [2].
8. What readers should watch for when evaluating these claims
When assessing Camarota’s 2024 work, check whether a report (a) discloses raw data sources and adjustments to Census counts, (b) runs robustness tests or alternative assumptions, and (c) is situated in a peer-reviewed venue versus an advocacy briefing used for testimony — the difference matters because courts and critics have faulted inference and expert qualification even when underlying source data are mainstream [4] [5] [2].
Summary: Camarota uses mainstream federal surveys and Census-derived counts to build fiscal and demographic claims [1] [2], but multiple sources record significant critiques — legal rulings questioning his expert qualifications and watchdog accusations of selective or politicized use of data [4] [5].