How many undocumentillegal aliens are in Texas?
Executive summary
The best available estimates place the number of unauthorized (undocumented) immigrants in Texas between roughly 1.7 million and about 2.1 million people, with most prominent research centers clustering near 2 million but differing because of definition and methodology choices [1] [2] [3]. Disagreement among reputable sources reflects differences in how “unauthorized” is defined, the survey and modeling methods used, and the rapid changes in migration and enforcement in recent years [4] [5] [6].
1. What the headline numbers say and why they diverge
Some widely cited tallies put Texas at about 1.7 million undocumented residents, as reported by The Texas Tribune’s recent reporting [1], while national research organizations and news outlets often estimate closer to 2.0–2.1 million, including Migration Policy Institute’s “nearly 2 million” figure and Pew/Axios reporting of 2.1 million for Texas [2] [3]. These differences are not random: they stem from divergent methodologies — for example, MPI’s approach imputes unauthorized status using pooled American Community Survey data and SIPP surveys and explicitly counts visa overstayers and people in “twilight” statuses such as DACA, TPS or parole [4]. Pew uses a separate residual-method estimation tied to census and administrative records and reports state shares that yield different absolute counts depending on modeling choices [5] [7].
2. Definitions matter: “unauthorized,” “undocumented,” and “illegal” are not interchangeable in practice
Scholars and agencies use terms like “unauthorized immigrant,” “undocumented immigrant,” or “illegal alien” with overlapping but not identical operational definitions; MPI’s definition, for instance, includes those who entered without authorization, visa overstayers, and people with temporary or pending statuses such as DACA, parole or TPS [4]. Pew and DHS use similar but not identical frameworks — Pew’s reports equate “unauthorized immigrant” with what many call “undocumented” or “illegal” in public discourse, and it focuses on survey-based state shares that produced Texas as roughly 8–9% of households with an unauthorized immigrant in recent years [5] [7]. Because some counts include people with provisional humanitarian statuses while others exclude them, headline totals can shift by hundreds of thousands [4] [2].
3. Timing and rapid change amplify uncertainty
Estimates reflect different reference years and often lag real-time shifts: MPI’s 2023-weighted methodology and Tribune reporting from 2026/2025 capture different snapshots amid surges in arrivals and intensified interior enforcement that have altered the undocumented population and where people live [4] [1] [8]. Pew’s later national tally showing Texas accounting for about 9% of unauthorized immigrants corresponds to a 2023-era rise that put Texas near 2.1 million in some analyses [5] [3]. Rapid policy and enforcement changes — such as marked increases in ICE interior arrests reported in Texas — affect the population and the ability of surveys to capture it immediately [8].
4. How confident can one be in a single number?
Given methodological variation, migration dynamics, and definitional choices, confidence in a single precise count is limited; the most defensible presentation is a range. Multiple reputable sources converge on a ballpark: roughly 1.7 million on the lower end (Texas Tribune) and about 2.0–2.1 million on the higher end (MPI, Pew/Axios), so reporting Texas’s unauthorized population as “around 2 million” accurately reflects current best estimates while acknowledging uncertainty [1] [2] [3]. Federal historical estimates and academic compilations show additional variation over decades, underscoring why agencies and researchers favor ranges and confidence intervals rather than single-point certainties [6] [9].
5. What this means for policy and public debate
The selection of a specific figure often serves political ends: lower counts can be presented to downplay scale, while higher counts can justify calls for stronger enforcement or emergency measures; both choices are visible across think tanks, state reporting, and advocacy outlets [2] [3]. Accurate public debate requires naming the source and definition behind any number — for example, whether it includes visa overstayers or people with temporary protective parole — and recognizing that policy changes and enforcement actions documented in reporting have real effects on the size and distribution of this population [4] [8].