What did the federation for American immigration reform study on SCAAP data show
Executive summary
The supplied reporting does not include a document that explicitly shows a Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) study that uses SCAAP (State Criminal Alien Assistance Program) data; what is available shows FAIR produces cost studies claiming large fiscal burdens from “illegal immigration” (including a 2024/2025 study putting the annual cost at $151 billion and an estimate of 18.6 million unauthorized immigrants) and that those studies are frequently cited and contested in policy debates [1] [2]. Independent critics and fact‑checkers have repeatedly challenged FAIR’s methodology and credibility, arguing its fiscal estimates are inflated and rest on dubious assumptions [3] [4].
1. FAIR’s public claims about fiscal costs and population
FAIR’s own publications state sweeping conclusions about the fiscal impact of unauthorized immigration — for example, a FAIR report published on its site asserts that as of 2022 taxpayers pay at least $151 billion annually tied to illegal immigration and that a record‑high 18.6 million “illegal aliens” live in the U.S. [1] [2]. FAIR routinely releases policy papers, fact sheets and updated estimates that it says support those numbers and uses them to press for lower legal immigration levels and tougher enforcement [5] [6].
2. The public record provided here contains no direct SCAAP‑based study text
Despite multiple FAIR outputs and outside coverage in the provided reporting, none of the supplied sources include or quote a FAIR study explicitly grounded in SCAAP program data; the materials show FAIR’s cost studies and fact sheets but do not reproduce or document an analysis that names SCAAP as the data source [1] [5]. That gap means reporters and readers cannot verify from these materials whether FAIR used SCAAP, how it interpreted any SCAAP figures, or which SCAAP years and line items—if any—were included, because the available citations and snippets do not contain that detailed provenance [1] [5].
3. How independent reviewers judge FAIR’s fiscal work
Academic and policy critics cited in the files describe FAIR’s fiscal studies as methodologically flawed and prone to assumptions that inflate costs — for example, an American Immigration Council critique concluded FAIR’s Fiscal Burden report relied on empirically weak assumptions and conflated costs to U.S. citizen children with costs attributable to unauthorized immigrants [3]. The Cato Institute and other analysts have also called FAIR’s fiscal calculations “fatally flawed” or lacking credibility, arguing key assumptions drive the large headline numbers [4] [3].
4. FAIR’s reputation, political use, and contested agenda
FAIR is an established anti‑immigration advocacy group that regularly testifies before Congress and lobbies policymakers; its outputs are used by lawmakers and local officials to justify spending and enforcement priorities, as seen in congressional materials citing FAIR’s cost framing during border crisis hearings [5] [7]. At the same time, watchdogs such as the Southern Poverty Law Center and SourceWatch highlight FAIR’s origins, funding ties, and links to controversial figures and funding sources, framing FAIR’s work as part of an explicitly restrictionist political agenda [8] [9].
5. Bottom line and reporting limitations
Based on the documents supplied, the concrete things that can be stated are: FAIR publishes high‑end fiscal estimates and population counts and pushes those findings into policy debates [1] [2], and several policy groups have publicly challenged FAIR’s methodology and credibility [3] [4]. What cannot be substantiated from the provided sources is a specific FAIR study that analyzes SCAAP data line‑by‑line or a clear accounting of how, when, and whether FAIR used SCAAP figures in any given report; that absence in the available reporting prevents a definitive answer about what an alleged FAIR SCAAP study “showed” without consulting the primary FAIR report or SCAAP datasets themselves [1] [5].