If you’re looking for Google to help you find one of the most reputable sources for facts about illegal immigration in America, don’t be surprised when you’re essentially tricked into landing on one of the vilest, and most conservative hating organizations in America.

Here’s what it looks like when you search on Google for CIS, the Center For Immigration Studies. Note, that the top search box prominently displayed at the top of the page is actually a link to a page on the SPLC site that trashes the reputable, fact-based CIS organization. Note, the SPLC link at the top of the search is not identified as a paid “Ad”. :

Here is the actual link to CIS: https://cis.org

So, who is the Southern Poverty Law Center, and why should we care if Google causes unsuspecting users who are looking for facts about illegal immigration to be directed to their site instead of the legitimate fact-based CIS organization?

Here’s a video showing uncovering the scary truth about the SPLC organization:

Here’s a sampling of what you’ll find on the landing page for the Southern Poverty Law Center, that Google has set up to look like a link to the CIS website:

CIS reports have been widely criticized and debunked by groups such as the Immigration Policy Center and the CATO Institute. Alex Nowasteh, an Immigration Policy Analyst at CATO said in early 2017, “Oh, I’m convinced that [CIS executive director Mark Krikorian is] wrong about all the facts and issues. They’re wrong about the impact of immigrants on the U.S. economy and on U.S. society.”

On Twitter, Alex Nowrasteh openly hates President Trump, defends DACA and despises Trump’s travel ban from terror-hotbed nations.

The Southern Poverty Law Center article uses radical leftist Congressman Luis Gutierrez to refute the highly reputable CIS group.

Speaking about CIS to Univision in August of 2017, Illinois Rep. Luis Gutierrez stated, “Their research is always questionable because they torture the data to make it arrive at the conclusion they desire, which is that immigrants are criminals and a burden on the U.S. and our economy. It is the worst kind of deception, but politicians, the conservative media and some Americans eat it up because it always looks somewhat legitimate at first glance.” CIS has also defended the usage of “anchor babies” and released a report on “terror babies,” popular concepts among the nativist movement.

Here’s an example of  CIS’s Jessica Vaughan’s Congressional testimony regarding Sanctuary Cities and the threat they pose to American citizens  that Rep. Luis Gutierrez criticized:

While capable of appearing as a sober-minded policy analyst in some settings, longtime CIS executive director Mark Krikorian’s contributions to the immigration policy debate rarely rise above petulant commentary dashed with extremist statements. Often, these statements are highly revealing.

In the article, Google features at the top of the search for CIS, the SPLC exposes its extreme radical views by attempting to destroy the character of Mark Krikorian, the highly-respected expert on immigration, by picking a few ridiculous quotes from his decades’ long career that most people would consider incocuous.

At his perch at the National Review and on Twitter Krikorian has asked “How many rapists & drug-dealers are the anti-deportation radicals protecting?” and argued that Mexico’s “weakness and backwardness has been deeply harmful to the United States.” Krikorian has called Mexican-American journalist Jorge Ramos a “white-Hispanic ethnic hustler” and riffed that if the U.S. was a police state, as Chelsea Manning claimed, then “this mentally ill traitor would have been dumped in a shallow grave years ago.” In one exchange on Twitter, Krikorian tried to whitewash the role eugenicists played in the 1924 Immigration Act only to stop responding when Harry H. Laughlin’s role in advancing the legislation was mentioned. Laughlin was the most prominent eugenics advocate prior to WWII and went on to co-found the racist pseudoscience promoting Pioneer Fund, which Tanton had close ties to through the 90s.

Finally, it wouldn’t be a SPLC hit piece on a conservative or conservative group without finding a way to tie them to alleged “racism” that is also somehow tied to President Trump or his administration:

More recently, CIS has been in the headlines for its connections to Trump Administration adviser Stephen Miller, a man who in college collaborated with white nationalist Richard Spencer to bring another white nationalist, Peter Brimelow, onto campus for a debate on immigration. Miller has been instrumental in pushing for anti-immigrant policies in the Trump White House and has regularly drawn from CIS. In early 2017, Miller made the rounds on national media defending the Trump administration’s Muslim ban by citing the CIS. “First of all, 72 individuals, according to the Center for Immigration Studies, have been implicated in terroristic activity in the United States who hail from those seven nations, point one,” Miller said on NBC’s Meet the Press. Fact-checkers at The Washington Post debunked the talking point, which collapsed several categories of crimes related to terrorism to reach a higher number, and awarded it “Three Pinocchios.”

Here’s who the CIS actually is from their website:

Who We Are

The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent, non-partisan, non-profit, research organization. Since our founding in 1985, we have pursued a single mission – providing immigration policymakers, the academic community, news media, and concerned citizens with reliable information about the social, economic, environmental, security, and fiscal consequences of legal and illegal immigration into the United States.

The Center is governed by a diverse board of directors that has included active and retired university professors, civil rights leaders, and former government officials. Our research and analysis has been funded by contributions and grants from dozens of private foundations, from the U.S. Census Bureau and Justice Department, and from hundreds of generous individual donors.

Our board, our staff, our researchers, and our contributor base are not predominantly “liberal” or predominantly “conservative.” Instead, we believe in common that debates about immigration policy that are well-informed and grounded in objective data will lead to better immigration policies.

The ranking of articles to support a leftist narrative is nothing new. A quick search of 100 Percent Fed Up shows our website followed by an obscure fake fact-checking site designed to harm our credibility with no rhyme or reason behind their methodology, and then our Facebook page with almost 2 million followers is listed below the fake fact-checking site.  Next on the list is our Twitter account, followed by two more unreliable “fact-checking” websites. We’ve had stories with over 1 million hits on our Facebook page, wouldn’t you think one of those stories would have shown up on the Google search under our name?

Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.