i reject the premise of judging information by it's source. the term "consider the source" is a logical fallacy.

if hitler told you one day that it's raining out, he might have actually been right. an empiricist can't just jump to the conclusion that something is wrong because they don't like who said it. that's just being prejudicial. you have to analyze each claim separately, independent from previous ones, or the correctness that an institution or individual may have demonstrated in the past.

just because somebody was wrong yesterday doesn't mean they're wrong today. and, even somebody that was wrong frequently in the past could turn out to be right today. there's just no logical connection between the correctness of independent statements.

regardless, the article was just a short analysis of a pew paper. and, pew is a very good source.

if you're insistent on upholding your fallacies, you may prefer this article at vox, which is really not a particularly trustworthy source at all (they post a lot of democratic party talking points), but that is basically doing the same analysis, except with a lot more words:
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/2/6/14516520/refugee-asylum-demographics-muslim-christian

the important source of information here is neither the center for immigration studies, nor vox, but pew.