How would legalizing undocumented immigrants change GDP, tax revenue, and labor market outcomes?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Legalizing undocumented immigrants is projected by many mainstream analyses to raise GDP, increase tax revenues, and alter labor markets modestly — typically boosting economic output and government receipts while producing mixed effects on native wages depending on skill level and time frame (Center for American Progress/CMS, ITEP, CBO) [1] [2] [3]. Estimates vary because studies use different assumptions about wage gains, labor substitution, capital responses, and one-time implementation costs, and because some sources carry clear policy agendas (Manhattan Institute, American Immigration Council) [4] [5].
1. How legalization changes GDP: a consistent upward pressure with varied magnitudes
Multiple empirical estimates conclude legalization expands GDP by raising documented workers’ wages, productivity, and labor force participation — the Center for American Progress and allied analysts estimate roughly $1.2 trillion in additional GDP over ten years from regularizing roughly 11 million undocumented people, a figure repeated by immigrant-advocacy reporting and CMS summaries [1] [6]. The Congressional Budget Office’s broader projections also find that higher immigration increases labor supply, spurs investment, and boosts economic activity and revenues, though precise magnitudes depend on assumptions about capital accumulation and productivity [3]. Methodological differences matter: the Manhattan Institute models growth by assuming proportional capital response to immigrant labor and no labor substitution or complementarity, producing different per-person GDP impacts than studies that assume wage convergence or stronger complementarities [4].
2. Tax revenue: clear increases but dependent on compliance and time horizon
Analyses converge that legalization raises tax collections — the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) and American Immigration Council show substantial existing tax payments by undocumented households ($89.8 billion in 2023) and argue that granting work authorization raises income- and payroll-tax compliance, yielding additional revenue per legalized worker [5] [2]. Estimates of the long-run revenue lift are large in some studies — $184 billion in added federal, state, and local taxes over ten years is cited by CMS-affiliated summaries and CAP-backed work [6] [1] — but those figures net against one-time legalization costs (some advocates and analysts note implementation could cost hundreds of billions over decades) and depend on assumptions about wage gains and formalization [1].
3. Labor market outcomes: wage gains, mobility, and displacement debates
Most labor-economics work in the provided reporting finds legalization raises wages and mobility for immigrants — literature reviews put expected wage boosts in the 6–15% range after legal status, with the CBO estimating an eventual ~12% wage increase in some scenarios — and this increases productivity and tax bases [2]. However, the effect on native workers is heterogeneous: models in peer-reviewed work (ScienceDirect) find legalization and legal immigration tend to reduce net tax burdens on natives and increase native welfare overall, yet low-skilled native workers in concentrated markets may face short-run wage pressure from an expanded low-skilled labor supply [7]. The Manhattan Institute explicitly sidesteps substitution/complementarity debate by assuming neither, which understates distributional conflict and understates potential sectoral displacement in the short term [4].
4. Fiscal balance and long-run public finance: modest net gains by many accounts
A number of sources report that immigration — legalized or otherwise — reduces long-run budget deficits or has a small positive net fiscal impact when measured over long horizons and at all government levels; the Economic Policy Institute and CBO summaries emphasize that expanded labor force and tax base lift revenues and can improve fiscal balances even accounting for some program eligibility changes [8] [3]. Still, partisan analyses differ: conservative outlets like the House Budget Committee frame costs differently and some advocacy pieces emphasize one-time costs or service pressures; readers should note those institutional incentives when weighing headline numbers [9] [1].
5. Points of uncertainty, political context and hidden agendas
All quantitative claims rest on assumptions about wage convergence, enforcement, employer behavior, and capital responses; think tanks carry interpretable biases — the Manhattan Institute’s constant-returns, no-substitution assumption narrows estimated distributional impacts, while advocacy groups emphasize larger upside GDP and tax figures to press for legalization [4] [5] [1]. Several reputable empirical studies and the CBO temper optimism with caveats about short-run labor-market dislocation, implementation costs, and program design that determine who benefits most and when [3] [7]. The balance of evidence in the provided reporting: legalization likely raises aggregate GDP and tax revenue and increases immigrant wages and mobility, while producing modest, uneven effects on native wages that depend on skill, region, and policy details [2] [1] [3].