Https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/116727/witnesses/HHRG-118-JU01-Wstate-CamarotaS-20240111.pdf

1. The Big Claim: How Many Undocumented Immigrants and How Fast Are Numbers Rising?

Camarota’s testimony asserts a rapid increase in the undocumented population — from 10.2 million in January 2021 to 12.8 million by October 2023, with other CIS materials suggesting even larger counts by 2024 — figures that underpin subsequent fiscal calculations ^{[1] [6]}. The January 2024 subcommittee hearing repeats related tallies about releases and “got-aways,” citing 3.3 million released and 1.7 million got-aways since the Biden administration began, framing a surge narrative ^[3]. Statements for the record from advocacy groups emphasize uncertainty in counts due to enforcement, asylum processing delays, and reluctance to claim benefits, arguing that administrative data understate or misclassify transient populations; these groups also stress differences between short-term arrivals and long-term residents when assessing fiscal effects ^[4]. The dispute over scale and duration of presence is central because short-term arrivals create different fiscal and service dynamics than settled populations.

2. Dollars and Sense: The Fiscal-Drain Calculations Under Scrutiny

Camarota’s fiscal model produces headline numbers: $25.9 billion in annual federal taxes paid by undocumented immigrants versus about $42 billion in welfare program costs and $68.1 billion for educating their children, culminating in an average lifetime net drain near $68,000 per person ^{[1] [2]}. Other witnesses and filings point to complementary figures—immigrants’ contributions to GDP and tax rolls—and note legal and practical limits on benefit access that reduce direct fiscal outlays, including waiting periods for federal programs and underutilization due to fear of immigration consequences ^[4]. These contrasting framings reflect methodological choices: which programs to count, whether to include secondary fiscal effects (e.g., children’s future earnings), and the timeframe for amortizing education and health costs. The resulting divergence demonstrates that identical inputs with differing scopes yield very different policy-relevant totals ^[2].

3. Welfare Use and Access: High Use or High Barriers?

Camarota presents welfare usage rates for unauthorized-headed households at about 59% using one or more major programs, a statistic used to justify claims of disproportionate fiscal burdens ^{[1] [2]}. Advocacy and research submissions to the record counter that many immigrants face statutory restrictions, long eligibility waits, and chilling effects that suppress benefit take-up, including documented avoidance of services because of immigration consequences, with Urban Institute findings that 31% of adults in immigrant families avoided noncash programs in 2019 for such fears ^[4]. This tension—high measured usage in some studies versus documented underutilization in others—reflects differences in defining “welfare” (including benefits accessed on behalf of US-born children), population samples, and measurement periods. The disparity in definitions and the presence of policy-driven barriers are decisive for interpreting whether observed benefit receipts reflect entitlement access or emergency-driven public assistance.

4. Local Stress and National Context: Schools, Housing, and Services

The hearing record frames local budget strain as immediate and concrete: New York City’s one-billion-dollar education estimate for newly arrived students and research linking immigrant inflows to rent pressure in metros are cited to show tangible local impacts ^{[3] [6]}. CIS analyses link immigration-driven household increases to housing cost increases, and to potential wage effects for less-educated US-born workers, arguing for broader socioeconomic consequences ^[6]. Opposing statements emphasize immigrants’ tax contributions to federal, state, and local coffers—citing billions in income and payroll taxes—and recommend work-authorizing reforms to accelerate self-sufficiency and reduce reliance on services ^[4]. The record shows a classic federalism tension: national economic contributions can coexist with acute local fiscal and service pressures, and policy responses hinge on whether funding flows down to jurisdictions shouldering immediate costs.

5. Methodology, Motive, and What Policymakers Need to Know

Differences across testimonies and submissions trace to methodological choices and institutional priorities: CIS frames cost-focused lifetime accounting and emphasizes enforcement; advocacy groups emphasize access restrictions, contributions, and policy fixes like expedited work authorization ^{[1] [4]}. Congressional leaders used CIS data to argue for enforcement and budgetary relief to localities, while others used the record to underscore humanitarian, legal, and labor-market dimensions ^{[3] [7]}. For policymakers, the record demands three actions: reconcile population-count methodologies; standardize which fiscal items are included (direct, indirect, short- versus long-term); and weigh distributional effects between federal revenues and local expenditures. The hearing materials make clear that fiscal conclusions differ not only by data but by the questions asked, and those differences explain the policy prescriptions urged in the record ^{[2] [4]}.