Project 2025: Center for Immigration Studies
Center for Immigration Studies
The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) describes itself as an independent, non-partisan, non-profit think tank dedicated to researching and analyzing the economic, social, fiscal, and environmental impacts of immigration on the United States. Established in 1985, CIS claims to provide policymakers, academics, media, and citizens with reliable information on immigration’s consequences. The organization advocates a “pro-immigrant, low-immigration” stance, supporting reduced immigration levels while emphasizing a welcoming approach to those admitted.
While CIS claims to be non-partisan, its research and policy stances align closely with conservative viewpoints, such as opposing family-based immigration (“chain migration”), sanctuary city policies, and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). This alignment raises questions about the organization’s neutrality. CIS positions itself as a provider of “reliable information,” but critics have accused it of selective use of data to support anti-immigration positions. Some reports are described as straightforward analyses of Census data, but many are seen as tailored to justify restrictive policies.
Selected Controversies
- CIS was founded by John Tanton, a controversial figure associated with nativist and anti-immigration activism. Tanton also founded other organizations like FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform), which have been criticized for promoting xenophobic ideologies. Tanton has also faced allegations of antisemitism.
- CIS has been linked to anti-Muslim rhetoric through its publications and endorsements from figures like Frank Gaffney. Critics argue that this undermines its claim of being an objective research organization.
- The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has labeled CIS a hate group, accusing it of distributing white nationalist content and promoting nativist ideologies. CIS denies these allegations but remains controversial in this regard.
- CIS advocates for policies such as ending birthright citizenship, implementing stricter public charge rules, and opposing family-based immigration systems.
Funding Sources
- The Colcom Foundation is CIS’s largest funder. Based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, it supports immigration-restrictionist organizations. It has provided significant grants to CIS and similar groups like FAIR and NumbersUSA. Between 2014 and 2017, the foundation contributed approximately $4.26 million to CIS
- Foundation for the Carolinas (FFTC) manages donor-advised funds, including those of North Carolina billionaire Fred Stanback, a known advocate of population control. CIS received $300,000 from FFTC in 2018 and over $4 million between 2004 and 2017
- Maytag Family Foundation: A California-based private foundation that has provided multiple grants to CIS. In 2018, the foundation had total revenue of just under $5 million
- F.M. Kirby Foundation: This family foundation provided grants to CIS between 2005 and 2019. It was founded by Fred Morgan Kirby, whose retail chain merged into Woolworth’s
- Scaife Family Foundations: These foundations have a history of funding conservative causes and anti-immigration organizations. They granted $75,000 to CIS in both 2011 and 2012
- Weeden Foundation: Based in New York, this foundation supports population control initiatives and has provided smaller grants to anti-immigration organizations like CIS
NOTE: CIS does not publicly disclose detailed information about its funding sources but relies heavily on contributions from private foundations with ties to immigration-restrictionist movements. The significant support from organizations like the Colcom Foundation highlights its alignment with specific ideological goals, raising questions about its claim of being a neutral research organization. Many of the organizations that support CIS are committed to “population control” measures which can arguably be described as eugenics.
Help Truth Wins Out research and fight Project 2025 with a tax-deductible contribution today.
It highlights CIS’s origin, links to John Tanton (a figure frequently tied to nativist and population control movements), and its funding sources, noting that many backers are organizations already aligned with strict immigration restriction. The article accuses CIS of using selective data—or framing data—to support more restrictive immigration policies under the guise of rigorous research.
Another striking angle is how Truth Wins Out connects CIS to Project 2025—a policy blueprint assembled by conservative actors, especially through the Heritage Foundation, that could dramatically reshape U.S. immigration controls under a future administration. The article presents CIS not just as a passive contributor, but as a strategic part of pushing a harder line on immigration.