1. Many want it to be true that it's an objectively good idea to allow more immigration, or for there to be a broad consensus that more immigration is objectively good, or for there to be more ammunition to conduct moral posturing upon the outgroup when the outgroup has negative valence about immigration, or maybe two or all three. (I don't particularly disagree, immigration is fine.)
2. One great way to accomplish all of those is to create an association between "immigrant" and "success" or "innovation" in people's minds.
3. People gloss over the difference between P(A|B) and P(B|A) all the time. If you can show that P(B|A) is surprisingly high, and there's sufficient motivation to do so, people will instead think something much more like "A and B are associated" than "A often implies B though not at all necessarily the converse".
4. So, just show that {thing you want people to have positive valence about} is overrepresented in {tiny set of things with positive valence}. This will probably be easy, since there are lots of tiny sets of things with positive valence.
This strategy is far more used in the negative case -- "people who do bad thing Y are often from group X, don't concern yourself with the base rate of bad thing Y among all members of group X" -- but either way it's very effective and very insidious.