Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Net fiscal effects undocumented immigrants
Executive summary
Estimates of the net fiscal effect of undocumented immigrants vary widely: some scholarship-oriented sources conclude immigration broadly reduces long‑term budget deficits (a small positive net fiscal impact) [1], while advocacy and think‑tank studies produce multi‑billion or per‑person cost figures—e.g., FAIR’s $151 billion annual “fiscal burden” [2] and Manhattan Institute’s claim that certain undocumented groups cost hundreds of thousands over 30 years [3]. Policy simulations also show removal would shrink revenues by hundreds of billions over a decade, increasing primary deficits [4].
1. Headlines don’t agree: big divergence in methods and results
Different organizations reach opposite headlines because they measure different things: academic and policy researchers (reported by the Economic Policy Institute and Migration Policy–linked work) find “a broad consensus that immigration reduces overall budget deficits” or that the long‑run net fiscal impact is small but positive [1], whereas advocacy groups and some think tanks present large annual or per‑person costs, such as FAIR’s $151 billion annual cost estimate [2] and AEI/Manhattan Institute figures claiming specific undocumented subgroups impose large 30‑year nominal costs [3] [5]. Those disparities reflect choices about time horizons (10 vs. 30 years), which levels of government are counted (federal only vs. federal+state+local), treatment of children/descendants, inclusion of tax payments, and whether economic growth effects are modeled [3] [1] [5].
2. Which costs are typically counted — and which are often omitted
Studies that report large fiscal burdens usually count education, emergency health services, public benefits, and local government costs and may subtract taxes paid by undocumented households only partially [2]. By contrast, research summarized by the EPI emphasizes that long‑term fiscal accounting typically includes immigrant tax contributions, labor supply effects and the fiscal roles of descendants—factors that can offset near‑term costs and shift the net balance positive over time [1]. The Manhattan Institute report highlights methodological updates such as life‑expectancy and fertility adjustments and treatment of descendants, illustrating how technical choices change outcomes [3].
3. What happens fiscally if policymakers pursue mass deportation or exclusion
Analyses that model aggressive removal show substantial fiscal downsides: Penn Wharton’s budget model projects deportation policies would reduce revenues by about $300.4 billion from 2025–2034 and raise primary deficits by roughly $861.8 billion (rising to $986.8 billion when dynamic effects are included) — because undocumented workers pay taxes and support economic activity that generates revenue [4]. That finding underlines a recurring theme in the literature: removing workers shrinks the tax base and can increase net deficits even if some programmatic expenditures fall.
4. Local vs. federal impacts: timing matters
Several reports note a timing mismatch. Newly arrived, low‑educated undocumented immigrants can impose negative local fiscal impacts early on—especially for K–12 education and uncompensated emergency health care—because children use services that localities pay for while earnings and tax contributions accrue over time [6] [2]. Federal fiscal effects often look different because Social Security and federal tax structures, long time horizons, and immigrant descendants can change net outcomes [1] [3].
5. Polling, politics and framing shape the conversation
House committee releases, conservative think tanks, and advocacy groups emphasize headline costs and “burden” framing, sometimes producing per‑taxpayer or per‑person cost figures for political audiences [7] [8] [2]. Pro‑immigrant organizations and academic centers emphasize contributions and long‑run benefits—such as taxes paid by undocumented households or the economic activity immigrants sustain—citing figures like nearly $90 billion in taxes from undocumented households in 2023 [9] [1]. Each side’s incentives—calling attention to short‑run local costs vs. long‑run aggregate gains—help explain divergent public narratives [7] [9].
6. How to read any single number you see in the media
Treat single figures (per‑person lifetime cost, annual national burden, revenue loss from deportation) as the product of specific assumptions: chosen time window, which governments are included, whether descendants are counted, treatment of tax payments, and whether general equilibrium (growth) effects are modeled [3] [4] [1]. Available sources do not mention a single, undisputed “net fiscal effect” number because scholarly and policy estimates use different, sometimes incompatible methodologies [1] [2] [3].
7. Bottom line for policymakers and readers
Policymakers seeking clarity need consistent accounting rules: specify the time horizon, which levels of government are included, and whether economic feedbacks and descendants are counted. The research indicates that restrictive policies such as mass deportation can produce large revenue losses and bigger deficits over the budget window modeled [4], while other careful analyses conclude immigration overall tends to improve or only slightly strain public finances over the long run [1]. Given the stakes and the methodological levers that change outcomes, debate must focus on assumptions as much as on the headline numbers.