What specific U.S. states or localities report the largest short-term fiscal burdens from unauthorized immigrants, and why?
Executive summary
Short‑term fiscal pressures from unauthorized immigration are concentrated where arrivals are sudden and services are locally funded: border states and large metropolitan school districts, emergency‑care hospitals, and county jails report the heaviest immediate burdens, while national‑level analyses show those local stresses can be offset over time by tax contributions and economic activity [1] [2] [3]. Disagreement about scale and remedies turns on methodology—what costs are counted, whether children born here are included, and whether tax contributions are offset—so reports from advocacy groups, think tanks and the CBO reach very different headline numbers [4] [5] [1].
1. Where the short‑term burdens show up: border states, big cities and county services
Federal analysis by the Congressional Budget Office attributes most of the immediate fiscal strain to state and local governments that absorb the surge beginning in 2021—effects that show up first in K–12 classrooms, public health and emergency medical care, and local corrections and shelter systems where newcomers concentrate rather than being evenly distributed across the country [1] [6]. Local reporting and academic summaries reinforce that the “front line” is municipal and county budgets: school districts facing sudden enrollment increases, county hospitals treating uninsured emergency cases, and sheriff’s budgets that hold people pre‑trial or for immigration detainers see costs earliest and most acutely [7] [2].
2. Which states and localities report the largest short‑term burdens — what the sources actually say
Credible federal work does not produce a single ranked list in the excerpts provided, but the CBO explicitly frames the fiscal problem as concentrated where migrants settle and where schools and hospitals must expand capacity in the near term [1]. Outside the CBO, secondary compilations and state rankings (such as World Population Review) flag high nominal spending impacts in large, high‑population states—Illinois is specifically cited as having one of the higher reported state costs in that dataset—while advocacy groups such as FAIR (an organization with an explicit policy position) publish state breakdowns that place large absolute burdens on populous states and border states alike [8] [4]. Local journalism and state‑level analyses repeatedly single out border counties and gateway cities as the places reporting the steepest short‑term budget pressures [7] [2].
3. Why those places bear the burden: timing, funding structures and demographics
The short‑term concentration reflects three mechanics: newcomers arrive faster than local governments can adjust budgets and staffing; K–12 education and emergency medical care are largely funded and delivered locally; and many recent entrants are renters and low‑wage workers whose immediate tax contributions lag their public service use, producing a timing mismatch between costs and revenue for states and localities [1] [2] [3]. The CBO also notes methodological choices—like how much of property tax on rentals is assigned to renters versus owners—substantially change who appears to bear the cost, showing that accounting decisions, not just demographic facts, shape the short‑term burden narrative [1].
4. How much of the picture is disputed and why methodology matters
Estimates diverge wildly. Advocacy and think‑tank studies produce headline costs ranging from tens of billions annually to multi‑trillion lifetime projections because they differ on whether to include citizen children of unauthorized immigrants, how to annualize lifetime costs, and which benefits (e.g., emergency Medicaid, K–12 education) to allocate to whom [4] [5] [9]. At the same time, analyses showing mitigation through taxes—such as the ITEP finding that undocumented workers paid roughly $96.7 billion in combined taxes in 2022—underscore the countervailing fiscal flows that moderate net short‑term burdens if accounted for [3]. The Economic Policy Institute argues the long‑run federal fiscal picture is positive while acknowledging short‑term local stress, pointing to federal transfers as a practical policy fix [2].
5. Bottom line and policy implication implied by the evidence
The best available federal analyses point to border states, metropolitan school districts and county health and correctional systems as bearing the largest short‑term fiscal burdens because of concentrated arrivals and locally funded services, but the scale of that burden depends heavily on accounting choices and whether tax contributions and long‑run economic effects are included; consequently, scholars and advocates diverge on both numbers and remedies, with many economists pointing to increased federal transfers as the most straightforward way to smooth these short‑term local strains [1] [2] [3].