What components does FAIR include when estimating the annual fiscal cost of illegal immigration?
Executive summary
The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) calculates an annual “net fiscal cost” of illegal immigration by aggregating a set of government expenditures it attributes to unauthorized immigrants and their dependents, subtracting estimated taxes paid by that population, and presenting the remainder as the taxpayer burden; FAIR reports a gross service cost of roughly $182 billion and a net cost of about $150.7 billion after taxes paid [1][2][3]. Critics dispute FAIR’s data choices and methodology, producing much lower estimates and alternative tax tallies [4][5].
1. What FAIR includes in its headline totals: a catalog of public services and enforcement
FAIR’s report sums spending across federal, state and local budgets on goods and services that it identifies as consumed by illegal immigrants and their U.S.-born dependents — prominently including public K–12 education, emergency medical care, welfare and other benefit programs, and criminal justice costs tied to arrest, prosecution, incarceration and detention [3][6]. FAIR describes these items collectively as the “gross annual cost” of illegal immigration before accounting for any tax contributions by undocumented residents, which it places at about $182 billion [1][3].
2. The biggest line items FAIR highlights
FAIR singles out K–12 schooling as its largest single cost, citing the legal requirement to educate children in the U.S. regardless of immigration status and using that as a central driver of its gross expenditure figure [3]. FAIR also reports combined federal, state and local criminal justice costs of roughly $47 billion annually associated with illegal immigration, and it includes emergency healthcare and other social services in its top categories [3][6].
3. How FAIR converts gross costs into a “net” taxpayer burden
After totaling the gross outlays, FAIR subtracts its estimate of taxes paid by unauthorized immigrants — roughly just under $32 billion in its accounting — to arrive at a net fiscal cost to taxpayers of about $150.7 billion per year [2][7]. FAIR then divides those totals further to present per-capita and per-taxpayer figures [3][7].
4. Underlying choices: population counts, benefit eligibility, and static accounting
FAIR’s totals rely on a set of input choices — how many unauthorized immigrants and dependent children are counted, which programs and lines are attributed to that population, and assumptions about benefit take‑up — that determine what is included in the $182 billion gross figure [1][2]. The report treats the fiscal effects statically, tallying current-year costs and revenues rather than attempting a lifetime, dynamic fiscal projection that would account for earnings growth, labor-market effects, or future tax contributions [4].
5. What critics and alternative researchers say about those components
Policy critics contend FAIR overstates costs by using questionable numbers for population and program use and by undercounting taxes and economic contributions; one detailed critique from the Cato Institute argues correcting FAIR’s numbers dramatically reduces the estimated net cost to a range between about $3.3 billion and $15.6 billion and faults FAIR’s static accounting [4]. Independent tax-estimate work from ITEP and others produces much higher estimates of taxes paid by undocumented immigrants — for example, ITEP estimates undocumented immigrants paid roughly $96.7 billion in federal, state and local taxes in 2022 — which would materially change any subtraction from gross outlays [5].
6. Reading FAIR’s totals in context: advocacy, transparency and limits
FAIR is an advocacy organization explicitly committed to reducing legal and illegal immigration, and the report sits within that institutional aim; FAIR’s public materials describe the study as part of a research effort to support policy change, which readers should weigh when assessing methodological choices [8]. The available reporting documents which line items FAIR counts and the headline numbers it reports, but detailed replication depends on access to FAIR’s underlying spreadsheets and assumptions — and opponents argue those assumptions drive much of the difference between FAIR’s estimate and rival analyses [1][2][4].