How does NYC's budget for illegal immigrants compare to other US cities?

1. Bold Claims on NYC Costs — What the reports actually assert and where they disagree

Multiple reports assert large, multi‑billion dollar burdens on New York City for sheltering and servicing migrants, but they differ substantially in period and scope. One account tallies $4.88 billion spent across FY2023 and FY2024 and warns of costs “potentially doubling to $10 billion by 2025,” anchoring the figure in known shelter, food and service expenditures ^[1]. Another source frames a $12 billion city budget committed to recent migrants, a figure juxtaposed with the annual budgets of major city agencies and that excludes indirect revenue impacts ^[2]. A third fact‑check summary places NYC near $10 billion over three years while noting California and Texas have higher statewide tallies ^{[5] [4]}. These divergent numerical headlines reflect differences in periods covered, whether state spending and federal reimbursement are counted, and whether indirect economic effects are included ^{[1] [2] [5]}.

2. The firmest data points: what city and comptroller reports show

The most granular municipal accounting comes from New York City and New York State officials who report year‑by‑year expenditures: one official review records $1.47 billion in FY2023, $3.75 billion in FY2024, and a preliminary $2.0 billion for FY2025, largely for emergency shelter and healthcare ^[6]. City comptroller analyses provide per‑diem and hotel contract rates — for example a $156 average DHS hotel rate and $332 total daily shelter and services cost under certain contracts — useful for converting caseloads into dollar totals and for benchmarking per‑client expenses ^[7]. These audited, line‑item style figures are the most reliable building blocks, but they still require consistent periodization and inclusion rules before comparing to other jurisdictions ^{[6] [7]}.

3. How NYC stacks up to other cities and states — apples, oranges, and scale problems

When placed alongside state totals and other cities, NYC’s municipal bill ranks among the largest city‑level burdens, but statewide totals can dwarf city budgets. One compilation shows California spending $22 billion in 2022 and Texas $9 billion, positioning those states ahead of NYC in raw dollars ^{[5] [4]}. By contrast, Chicago’s reported direct costs are much smaller — roughly $255 million for 2022–23 — reflecting differences in migrant flows, state vs. city responsibilities, and program mix ^[3]. The contrast exposes a methodological pitfall: comparing a single city to entire states or to cities with very different caseloads and policy regimes produces misleading conclusions unless adjusted for population served, time frame, and which services (shelter, healthcare, education, policing) are counted ^{[5] [3]}.

4. Disputes and agendas: why figures diverge and who benefits from each framing

Differences between sources reflect both technical choices and political framing. Advocacy or policy groups emphasize longer‑term fiscal burdens and indirect losses (lost hotel revenue, tax base erosion), which pushes totals higher and supports calls for federal relief or stricter immigration enforcement ^[2]. Municipal audits and comptroller reports focus on auditable line items — shelter per diems, contracts, and direct program spending — yielding lower but more defensible numbers ^{[6] [7]}. Media and advocacy outlets sometimes present projections as commitments (e.g., “budgeted $12 billion”), while auditors report actual expenditures to date; these different framings can be used to advance claims that the crisis is either an emergency requiring immediate funding or a manageable fiscal allocation, so readers must check whether figures are expenditures, budget authorizations, or modeled forecasts ^{[1] [2] [6]}.

5. Fiscal context and the partly offsetting revenue story

Several reports note that refugees and migrants also contribute taxes and economic activity: one estimate characterizes a national annual fiscal burden around $150 billion offset in part by $31 billion in taxes paid by immigrants ^{[5] [4]}. Locally, the net fiscal impact for NYC depends on whether migrants enter formal labor markets, use public benefits, or occupy hotel rooms that would otherwise generate tourism revenue. Some analyses factor in secondary effects — a reported $211 million annual loss from unavailable hotel rooms — which raises the apparent cost but mixes direct municipal spending with private market losses ^[2]. Accurate comparisons therefore require both gross spending and plausible offsets to assess net budgetary pressure on city finances ^{[5] [2]}.

6. Bottom line: NYC is among the most expensive municipal responders, but cross‑jurisdiction comparisons need nuance

The evidence establishes that New York City has allocated and spent several billion dollars on migrant shelter and services across recent fiscal years and faces projected multibillion‑dollar needs going forward; in raw city‑level terms, NYC’s burden ranks at the high end. However, statewide totals in places like California and Texas exceed NYC’s municipal tab, and city‑to‑city contrasts (NYC vs. Chicago) show vast differences in scale and role. Any fair comparison requires alignment on time horizon, service categories included, whether state/federal spending is counted, and whether indirect economic effects are considered. The published figures cited here provide a strong starting point but leave open key questions about net fiscal impact, longer‑term integration costs, and the degree of federal reimbursement ^{[1] [2] [5] [3] [6]}.