Fact check: 2023 illegal immigrants cost per state

1. Big Numbers, Bigger Disagreements: Why Estimates Diverge

The analyses present multiple headline totals: FAIR’s March 2023-based estimate of roughly $150.7 billion is repeatedly referenced as the principal net cost figure, yielding per-taxpayer and per-undocumented-person averages widely reported ^[1]. Other sources claim much larger sums, including a cited upper-bound of $451 billion that appears to aggregate broader cost categories tied to recent migrant surges; that higher figure is not reconciled with FAIR’s methodology in the provided material, revealing methodological divergence—what counts as a cost, how benefits and taxes paid are offset, and whether short-term emergency expenditures or longer-term fiscal impacts are included ^{[4] [5]}.

2. States at the Epicenter: California and Texas Lead the Tab

All three source clusters consistently identify California and Texas as bearing the largest absolute state-level costs, with FAIR-based breakdowns assigning about $22.8 billion to California and between roughly $9.9 billion and as high as $13.4 billion to Texas depending on the report and year referenced ^{[1] [2] [3]}. The concentration reflects population size, proximity to the southern border, and local spending on education, emergency medical care, and shelter. The variation in Texas estimates underscores inconsistent inclusion of state versus local spending and whether recent post-2020 border surges are fully captured ^{[6] [3]}.

3. What Costs Are Counted—and What’s Left Out

Analyses emphasize education, health care (including indigent care), housing/shelter, and law enforcement/social services as primary cost drivers, but they differ on offsets such as taxes paid by undocumented workers and longer-term economic contributions. FAIR reports present these categories as net fiscal burdens after offsets, while some commentators inflating totals appear to include broader indirect costs or projected future liabilities associated with policy changes, producing higher figures and partisan framings that attribute costs to current federal administration policies ^{[1] [4] [5]}.

4. Timing Matters: 2020–2023 Surge Shapes the Math

Multiple analyses note a notable jump in unauthorized entries during 2020–2022 and continuing pressures in 2023, driving emergent fiscal pressures for city and state systems—New York City’s daily shelter expenditures and Massachusetts’ shelter expansion are cited as concrete examples of recent local cost spikes. These short-term emergency costs can substantially raise year-to-year totals and explain why 2023 estimates differ from earlier baseline analyses; whether one treats these as recurring structural costs or temporary crisis spending affects comparative totals and policy implications ^{[6] [5]}.

5. Source and Agenda: Who’s Framing the Cost Story?

A significant portion of the provided data traces back to the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and allied summaries; FAIR is an advocacy organization that favors stricter immigration controls, which shapes study design and public messaging. Other mentions in the material come from commentators and outlets that sometimes tie fiscal totals directly to criticism of federal enforcement policies, suggesting an ideological framing. That pattern does not invalidate the numerical work but requires scrutiny of assumptions, discount rates, and treatment of offsets across studies ^{[1] [4] [2]}.

6. Contrasting Perspectives: Conservative Advocacy vs. Local Fiscal Reporting

The material juxtaposes advocacy-driven national cost tallies with local government expense accounts showing immediate fiscal stress in municipalities. Advocacy reports emphasize aggregate national burden to argue for policy overhaul, while local reporting (e.g., city shelter costs) underscores urgent operational impacts and budgetary strain. Both perspectives are factually grounded but answer different questions: national net fiscal balance versus near-term municipal cash flows, and conflating them without methodological clarity produces misleading comparisons ^{[5] [2]}.

7. What’s Missing: Economic Contributions and Long-Term Dynamics

The provided analyses largely focus on costs rather than a balanced net-benefit accounting that would include undocumented workers’ tax contributions, labor market effects, and long-term fiscal impacts of integration. The absence of these countervailing factors in the cited summaries means the reported net burdens may overstate purely fiscal shortfalls or omit dynamic offsets like consumption-driven tax receipts and Social Security contributions that are difficult to trace in short-term state budgets ^{[1] [3]}.

8. Bottom Line for Policymakers and Citizens

Policymakers should recognize that estimates vary sharply by methodology and timeframe: FAIR-centered analyses place 2023 net costs around $150 billion with California and Texas leading in absolute terms, while other figures cited in commentary expand the scope and yield much larger totals tied to emergency responses. Disentangling short-term municipal emergency spending from durable state and federal fiscal effects—and incorporating tax contributions and long-term economic dynamics—is essential for informed policy. The debates documented here are fact-based but reflect differing priorities and assumptions that must be reconciled in public analysis ^{[1] [4]}.