Https://www.bing.com/search?q=how+much+has+chicago+spent+for+illegal+immagrent+since+2020&form=APMCS1&PC=APMC

1. What numbers reporting actually provides — city vendor payments vs. broader costs

Different outlets cite different measures: ABC7’s I‑Team reports the city has paid about $638.7 million in vendor contracts for new‑arrival migrants since September 2022, a figure drawn from city data ^[1]. NBC Chicago’s investigative piece says the city’s “spending dashboard shows the city has spent more than $400 million over the past two years on migrants,” noting much of that went to private companies and leases ^[2]. These are accounting snapshots of operational and contract payments — not a comprehensive tally of every municipal or state expense tied to migration ^{[2] [1]}.

2. State totals push the conversation into billions — different sources, similar ballparks

Analyses that include state health programs and other supports place Illinois’ total spending substantially higher. The Illinois Policy Institute and Fox 32 cite projections that Illinois will have spent or will spend about $2.5 billion on migrants by the end of 2025, with health care identified as the largest component ^{[3] [4]}. Wirepoints and other policy outlets estimate statewide totals of $2.2 billion or more and say over $1 billion went to health care, although methodologies — which programs are counted, whether federal funds are included, and the time period — differ ^[5].

3. Why totals differ — scope, timeframe, and who’s counting

Disagreement in totals stems from scope: city-only contract payments (e.g., vendor contracts, shelter leases) differ from state-level program spending (e.g., Health Benefits for Immigrant Adults/Seniors). Some estimates include projected budget items for FY2025 (Pritzker’s proposed $182 million, prior $478 million committed), while other tallies compile actual disbursements through certain dates ^{[6] [7] [8]}. Transparency portals exist (Illinois Office of the Comptroller’s Asylum Seekers Transparency Portal) but they warn their listings may not be exhaustive of all immigration‑related spending ^[9].

4. Political framings and implicit agendas in the reporting

Source viewpoints shape emphasis. Conservative or advocacy outlets (Illinois Policy Institute, Wirepoints, FAIR) highlight large dollar totals and budgetary strain to argue policy change or fiscal restraint ^{[3] [5] [10]}. Local outlets (NBC Chicago, ABC7) focus on municipal contract transparency and city-level impacts, sometimes noting gaps or inaccuracies in publicly posted dashboards ^{[2] [1]}. State actors (governor, county) have advocated for additional funding and have proposed budget line items that appear in many projections ^{[6] [8]}.

5. What is verifiable in current reporting and what is not

Verified in the cited reporting: city vendor contracts ≈ $638.7 million since Sept. 2022 per ABC7 ^[1]; NBC Chicago reports “more than $400 million” over two years on migrants per the city dashboard ^[2]; Illinois‑focused analyses project or estimate state spending around $2.5 billion through 2025, largely on health care ^{[3] [4]}. Available sources do not mention a single official Chicago figure titled “total spent since 2020” that aggregates every municipal, county and state line item across all years (not found in current reporting) ^{[2] [1] [3]}.

6. How to read future claims and where to look for clarity

For a focused city figure, check Chicago’s own migration spending dashboard and city contract records cited by ABC7 and NBC Chicago; for statewide totals, examine Illinois budget documents and the Comptroller’s asylum‑seekers portal which tracks some but not necessarily all related expenditures ^{[2] [9] [1]}. Watch for differences between “committed” or “projected” budget amounts (e.g., proposed FY2025 items) and actual paid disbursements — many analysts mix those categories, causing divergent headline numbers ^{[7] [6]}.

Conclusion — What a careful reader should take away

Multiple, credible outlets report large but different tallies because they measure different things: city vendor payments and dashboard-reported expenditures in the low hundreds of millions, and combined state‑level health and support spending projecting into the billions through 2025 ^{[2] [1] [3]}. To move from rhetoric to precision, insist on a clearly defined scope (city vs. state, paid vs. budgeted, which programs included) and consult primary data sources such as municipal contract ledgers and the Illinois Comptroller portal ^{[9] [1] [2]}.