How do New Jersey’s expenditures on immigrants compare to other states’ spending in 2023–2024?
Executive summary
New Jersey appears in several recent analyses as one of the states with multi‑billion‑dollar expenditures tied to immigrants in 2023–2024, but estimates vary sharply depending on the source and methodology, ranging from roughly $5.3 billion to $7.3 billion in state‑level cost tallies cited by advocacy and partisan studies [1] [2]. By contrast, tax‑contribution studies and state actions point to offsetting revenue and targeted aid programs: undocumented workers in New Jersey are estimated to have paid about $1.3 billion in state and local taxes [3], while the state created and has spent tens of millions on pandemic‑era funds for excluded residents [4].
1. What the big cost studies report and where New Jersey lands
Two widely cited state‑level cost tallies put New Jersey among the higher‑spending states: a May 2023 Assembly policy staff analysis referenced by allied outlets estimated roughly $7.3 billion in expenditures associated with unauthorized immigrants in New Jersey [2], and FAIR‑linked figures put a 2023 cost at about $5.3 billion with a per‑person figure often cited in media and advocacy materials [1]. National comparisons using the FAIR approach list California (~$22 billion) and Texas (~$9 billion) as the top spenders, with New Jersey appearing behind larger states such as Florida and New York in some breakdowns [5].
2. Context: why state totals differ so much across reports
These headline numbers diverge because studies use different baselines, scopes, and assumptions — for example whether they count children, federal spending pass‑throughs, or only state and local outlays — and because organizations like FAIR and some legislative offices apply a cost‑of‑services model rather than net fiscal impact modeling that includes taxes paid [1] [6]. Independent researchers and policy shops caution that cross‑state rankings are sensitive to those assumptions, and migration‑data platforms like the Migration Policy Institute offer demographic profiles that are better suited to comparing immigrant populations than to producing single dollar figures [7].
3. Revenue side and state actions that complicate the arithmetic
Counterbalancing the cost narratives, tax‑contribution research from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy and coverage in New Jersey Monitor estimate undocumented immigrants in New Jersey paid roughly $1.3 billion in state and local taxes in recent years, with payments split among sales, property (including via rent), and payroll/income‑type taxes — a figure noted by local reporting and the ITEP study [3] [8]. At the same time, New Jersey has targeted specific programs and emergency appropriations — the Excluded New Jerseyans Fund allocations totaled about $60 million in several $20 million tranches and the state approved roughly $54 million in benefits from that fund — illustrating that not all immigrant‑related spending is ongoing baseline outlays [4].
4. Political framing, methodological warnings and competing agendas
Many of the largest cost claims come from advocacy or partisan sources with explicit policy goals: an Assembly GOP document and FAIR‑linked outlets emphasize fiscal burdens [6] [1], while left‑aligned research centers and ITEP focus on tax contributions and economic integration [3] [8]. Media summaries that list state rankings often rely on the FAIR residual method or on single‑year program tallies, which can amplify certain narratives; fact‑checking coverage underscores that California and Texas lead in raw dollar totals simply because of population scale and policy choices, not a uniform national accounting standard [5].
5. Bottom line and limits of the record for 2023–2024 comparisons
Comparing New Jersey to other states in 2023–2024 shows it among the higher nominal spenders in some cost‑of‑services studies (roughly $5–$7 billion in cited reports) but far below California and Texas in raw dollar totals using the same methodologies [2] [1] [5]; importantly, credible alternative analyses place substantial revenue contributions from undocumented workers and document targeted, rather than omnibus, state spending such as the Excluded New Jerseyans Fund [3] [4]. The available reporting does not provide a single, noncontroversial national ledger for 2023–2024 — cross‑state comparisons are only as reliable as the underlying methodological choices, and readers should treat top‑line dollar rankings as indicative rather than definitive [7] [8].