{"id":22910,"date":"2020-05-04T10:02:04","date_gmt":"2020-05-04T14:02:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/?p=22910"},"modified":"2020-05-04T10:02:08","modified_gmt":"2020-05-04T14:02:08","slug":"immigration-public-health-false-arguments-immigrationreform-com","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/2020\/05\/04\/immigration-public-health-false-arguments-immigrationreform-com\/","title":{"rendered":"More Deceptive \u201cResearch\u201d From the Cato Institute"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

No matter how you look at it, the past several months have been devastating to the concept of globalism. Mass-migration and enmeshed economies have acted as intercontinental highways for COVID-19. As a result, the vast majority of modernized countries have instituted broad travel restrictions in order to limit the virus\u2019s spread. In fact, according to the New York Times<\/a>, \u201c<\/em>93 percent of the global population now lives in countries with coronavirus-related travel restrictions.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Despite this scathing indictment, self-proclaimed \u201celitist\u201d<\/a> and globalist Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute made a half-hearted and fully embarrassing effort to defend keeping our borders open in the middle of a pandemic. He did this with two \u201cstudies.\u201d The first<\/a> attempted to examine whether there was a connection between migrants and the spread of COVID-19, and the second<\/a> examined the connection between migrants and the spread of measles. His assessments contained a number of significant errors, but let\u2019s just take a look at two.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the first study, Nowrasteh concludes that COVID-19 spreads as a result of population density, not immigration. However, he conveniently omits any mention of immigration as a driver of population density. As pointed out<\/a> by Jason Richwine from the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), immigration has become the primary driver of increased population density in the United States, and thus should be considered as an important correlation. Additionally, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) has noted<\/a> multiple times that unchecked immigration has led to the overcrowding in cities, in addition to massive urban sprawl.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Furthermore, COVID-19 originated in Wuhan, China. It didn\u2019t\ncome to the U.S. as a waterborne or airborne pathogen, it arrived inside a\nperson. Therefore, claiming that immigration isn\u2019t a factor in the spread of\npandemic disease is simply ludicrous.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The second issue, one that is inherent in both studies, the parameters of his data are problematic. \u00a0Nowrasteh regularly makes apples to oranges comparisons in order to \u201cprove\u201d his assertions. The research question raised by Cato should be whether new migrants coming into the United States pose a risk of bringing communicable diseases with them. The best way to answer this question would be to compare the prevalence of disease among U.S. citizens and long-term migrants against the prevalence of disease in migrants who have only recently entered the country. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, the Cato Institute deceptively compares the prevalence of measles and COVID-19 among the entirety<\/em> of the foreign-born population with the entirety of the native-born population. This approach includes a vast amount of irrelevant data, which yields an inaccurate result. By including immigrants who have been in the U.S. for a lengthy period of time \u2013 benefiting from American health care and vaccination requirements, Cato artificially reduces the rate of disease stemming from new migration into the country. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Americans\u2019 primary concern, when it comes to public health,\nis whether some new migrants risk inadvertently bringing communicable diseases\ninto the country, not whether those immigrants who have been here for years are\nmore likely to contract a disease than native-born citizens.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So let\u2019s take an accurate look at this question by examining official CDC data<\/a> regarding measles. During Fiscal Year 2019, there were 1,487 cases of measles reported. Some important data points include: <\/p>\n\n\n\n