It's important when discussing this fallacy to be precise in your terminology, because phrases like "more likely" have different meanings depending on context.

It's important when discussing this fallacy to be precise in your terminology, because phrases like "more likely" have different meanings depending on context. >U.S. states with proportionally more immigrants have proportionally more households with income above $100k.[1] Ergo, immigrants are more likely than non-immigrants to have household incomes above $100k. Whether or not that's a fallacy really depends on how you interpret that statement. If my only information about the world is what is stated above, then finding out that someone is an immigrant should increase my estimation of the likelihood that their household income is above $100k. Being an immigrant is evidence of living in a state where it's more common to have a household income over $100k. Living in a state where it's more common to have a household income over $100k is evidence of having a household income over $100k. When I learn more about the world, my model will change, and I'll stop being wrong about this particular thing. The fallacy comes when you say that the group correlation implies a correlation at the individual level.