How have policymakers and media cited or challenged Camarota’s 2024 conclusions on immigration statistics?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Policymakers and media have widely cited Steven Camarota’s 2024 and 2025 analyses — especially his use of the Current Population Survey (CPS) to argue that the foreign‑born and unauthorized populations rose sharply under Biden and then fell — with Republicans and some outlets treating his numbers as proof of a crisis and Democrats and many analysts disputing methodology and larger claims (examples: CPS peak of ~51.4–51.6 million foreign‑born; Camarota’s CIS estimates of ~13–14 million unauthorized) [1] [2] [3]. Major critiques center on which data set is appropriate (CPS vs. ACS or administrative data), how to estimate unauthorized migrants, and how fiscal and labor impacts are measured; defenders point to CPS timeliness and internal CIS methods [1] [4] [5].
1. Republican policymakers seized Camarota’s CPS totals as political proof
House Republicans and conservative commentators have repeatedly cited Camarota’s CPS‑based totals and his testimony about “encounters” and fiscal costs to argue for tougher enforcement and to justify legislative action; Camarota testified before the House Judiciary Committee framing the scale as a budget and housing affordability problem and used CPS growth figures to quantify increases since 2021 [4] [5] [6]. Republican officials have leaned on his CIS reports — which say the foreign‑born hit record highs and put unauthorized estimates in the low‑to‑mid tens of millions — to support claims that policy choices under the Biden administration produced “chaos” at the border and fiscal drains [1] [2] [6].
2. Media coverage split: some amplify, others contextualize or challenge
Mainstream and business outlets have quoted Camarota on labor‑market effects and the size of the foreign‑born workforce, often noting his CIS affiliation and policy stance; CNBC summarized his view that immigration raises GDP but may harm low‑skilled native workers, citing his CIS research [7]. Other outlets and fact‑checkers flagged competing estimates and uncertainties: PolitiFact and fact‑check reporting noted that estimates of the unauthorized population vary widely and relayed alternative figures from CMS, Migration Policy Institute and DHS that differ from CIS numbers [3] [8] [9].
3. Methodological fight: CPS timeliness vs ACS and administrative data
Camarota defends using the CPS because it is monthly and can show rapid changes through 2024, arguing it better captures recent flows than the ACS; CIS reports and testimony emphasize CPS’s larger immigrant sample and timeliness as a reason why CPS yields higher, “more up‑to‑date” foreign‑born totals [4] [1]. Critics caution CPS isn’t designed primarily for precise immigrant‑stock estimates and that administrative sources (DHS, State Department, visa statistics) and the ACS are standard for stock estimates; fact‑checkers and migration researchers have urged caution about equating CPS fluctuations with precise counts of unauthorized immigrants [8] [9] [1].
4. Dispute over the unauthorized‑population translation and fiscal claims
Camarota and CIS publish methods that convert CPS foreign‑born totals into unauthorized estimates and then model fiscal impacts, concluding illegal immigrants are “almost certainly a net fiscal drain” due to low education and incomes [10] [2]. Opponents point out alternative teams produce lower unauthorized estimates (e.g., CMS, MPI) and emphasize immigrant tax contributions, complementary labor effects, and methodological differences that materially change fiscal conclusions [9] [3]. Available sources do not provide an independent consensus reconciling those divergent fiscal calculations.
5. Critics question motives, but Camarota has long policy influence
Observers who track advocacy and research note CIS’s long record of pressing for lower immigration and that Camarota’s work is routinely cited by anti‑immigration policymakers — a context critics say should be considered when interpreting CIS conclusions [11] [12]. Camarota’s defenders point to his long record of publishing, testifying before Congress, and advising agencies like CBO as evidence of scholarly standing [13] [12]. Both the advocacy history and his institutional credibility shape how policymakers and media treat his numbers [11] [12].
6. What remains unresolved and why it matters
Key unresolved issues in coverage are whether short‑term CPS swings reflect real changes in the unauthorized stock, which data are best for stock versus flow questions, and how to translate population estimates into fiscal or labor impacts — differences that produce very different policy prescriptions [1] [4] [10]. Sources show both strong uptake of Camarota’s figures in Republican policy circles and substantive methodological pushback from academics, think tanks, and fact‑checkers; readers should treat numeric claims as contingent on method and data choice [2] [8] [9].
Limitations: reporting above is drawn only from available search results; available sources do not mention every reaction from individual media outlets or all academic rebuttals beyond those cited here [1] [8] [9].