Cost of us immigrants
Executive summary
The question “Cost of U.S. immigrants” requires distinguishing fiscal impacts, enforcement costs, and the direct costs borne by migrants themselves; across reputable analyses, immigrants on net raise federal revenues and reduce long‑run deficits but create uneven state and local fiscal pressures and can be associated with substantial one‑time enforcement costs depending on policy choices [1] [2]. Recent policy changes also raise the out‑of‑pocket price of legal immigration through inflation‑adjusted USCIS and HR‑1 fees and higher premium processing charges effective in 2026 [3] [4] [5].
1. Federal ledger: immigrants reduce deficits over a decade, by CBO accounting
The Congressional Budget Office finds that the 2021–2026 surge in immigration boosts federal revenues and mandatory spending, and—on net—lowers federal deficits by about $0.9 trillion over the 2024–2034 period in its baseline projection, meaning that from the federal budget perspective the surge is a net positive over that window [1] [2]. This finding reflects higher payroll and income tax receipts from additional workers as well as higher mandatory outlays and interest costs; it does not imply uniform benefits across programs or geographies and is sensitive to assumptions about wages and fiscal interactions [1].
2. State and local books: costs often exceed revenue gains locally
By contrast, the CBO and related summaries warn that increases in immigration tend to raise state and local costs more than their revenues, producing fiscal pressure for jurisdictions that absorb newcomers’ schooling, health, and other public services even while the federal balance improves [1] [2]. That asymmetry is central to political conflict over immigration policy because municipalities bear immediate service costs while federal receipts adjust over longer horizons [1].
3. Short‑run consumption shock: reduced immigrant spending amid enforcement changes
Brookings estimates that policy shifts in 2025—stronger enforcement and reduced net migration—will lower immigrant consumer spending by roughly $40 billion–$60 billion in 2025 relative to 2024, with an additional $10 billion–$40 billion reduction projected for 2026, a channel that can weaken local retail and service sectors where immigrants are concentrated [6]. Brookings’ projection links observed behavior (voluntary departures, fewer arrivals, and changes in labor participation) to aggregate demand effects that matter for near‑term economic activity [6].
4. Enforcement, removals and the high price of a crackdown
Estimates differ on the fiscal cost of aggressive removal policies: media summaries of think‑tank and CBO data cite figures such as roughly $900 billion to remove millions of undocumented migrants when accounting for law enforcement, deportations, and associated reconciliation costs, and CBO projected hundreds of thousands of removals under stricter scenarios that would shrink population and affect economic output [7] [1]. Those headline figures reflect explicit enforcement outlays plus indirect effects on labor supply, tax receipts, and long‑term fiscal trajectories, and they vary widely depending on assumptions about scale and timing [7] [1].
5. Direct costs to migrants: filing fees and premium processing are rising in 2026
Practical costs paid by immigrants are rising: USCIS and DHS published inflation adjustments to HR‑1 required fees effective January 1, 2026, and premium processing fees were adjusted with an effective date in March 2026, meaning many application, parole, and employment‑authorization fees increased and applicants must include the higher amounts or risk rejection [3] [4] [5] [8] [9]. Reporting lists specific EAD and asylum fee increases (e.g., small increases to EADs and asylum application fees) and notes new consular and processing changes that raise the transactional cost of legal immigration [10] [11].
6. Politics, narratives, and uncertainty: numbers depend on policy choices
Analysts from Brookings and other policy centers stress that outcomes hinge on enforcement intensity, legal pathways, and economic integration policies; an enforcement‑only approach has clear fiscal and human tradeoffs and can create demand shocks and administrative costs that alter the net fiscal picture [12] [6]. Sources have implicit agendas—think tanks and media outlets may emphasize deficit reductions, humanitarian costs, or enforcement budgets—so the arithmetic must be read against those priorities and the technical assumptions in CBO and Brookings analyses [1] [12]. The assembled reporting provides robust estimates for federal budget effects, local fiscal pressure, enforcement cost ranges, and the concrete 2026 fee increases, but cannot deliver a single dollar figure for “the cost of U.S. immigrants” without choosing a timeframe, jurisdiction, and policy scenario [1] [6] [3].