Undocumented immigrants are a burden on the US economy

1. Tax payments and fiscal contributions: money in the till

Multiple analyses find undocumented households and workers contribute tens of billions annually in federal, state, and local taxes—estimates include nearly $97 billion in total taxes in 2022 and $89.8 billion in combined taxes for undocumented households in 2023, and numerous studies emphasize that undocumented workers often pay into Social Security and Medicare even when they cannot claim benefits, producing net fiscal benefits overall ^{[4] [5] [6] [7]}.

2. Labor-market functions: indispensable work, not just low-cost labor

Undocumented workers are concentrated in agriculture, construction, food processing, and services where native-born labor is scarce; they make up substantial shares of farm labor and other essential roles, supporting production and supply chains that would be severely disrupted by large-scale removal ^{[8] [9] [6]}.

3. Macroeconomic and budget effects of removal scenarios

Scenario analyses and literature reviews find that mass deportation or removal of undocumented people would shrink GDP and reduce federal, state, and local revenues—one conservative synthesis estimated deporting all unauthorized immigrants would reduce GDP by 1.4% short-term and more over time, amounting to trillions in lost output and tax base—evidence that undocumented residents are integrated into the growth engine of the economy ^{[3] [6]}.

4. Costs, localized strains, and wage dynamics: the counterarguments

Countervailing evidence shows costs and distributional impacts: CBO finds recent immigration surges can modestly slow wage growth for workers with 12 or fewer years of education and change near-term budget baselines depending on service use and demographic mix, and some conservative reports (e.g., House Budget Committee pieces) highlight public-service costs and emergency-care expenditures as fiscal pressures in certain jurisdictions ^{[2] [10] [11]}.

5. Net effect and hidden incentives in the debate

Broad syntheses from research centers conclude immigration in aggregate reduces overall budget deficits or has a small positive net fiscal impact once long-run contributions are counted, but results depend on methodology, time horizons, and policy choices; political actors advocating mass enforcement often understate economic disruption of deportation and omit tax contributions, while advocacy groups emphasize the fiscal upside of legalization and integration—both narratives carry implicit agendas that shape which costs and benefits are highlighted ^{[1] [5] [7]}.

6. Policy levers that matter for the “burden” framing

Empirical evidence indicates that the fiscal and economic balance hinges on policy: pathways to legal status increase tax revenues and wages, enforcement-heavy approaches impose direct enforcement costs and risk reducing tax receipts and consumption, and targeted labor and social policies (minimum wage, labor protections) have larger effects on low-wage outcomes than undocumented presence alone—meaning the “burden” label is often a policy choice disguised as economic fact ^{[9] [7] [12]}.

Conclusion: a balanced judgement

Labeling undocumented immigrants as a net burden to the U.S. economy is inconsistent with the bulk of current empirical work: they contribute substantial taxes, support essential sectors, and their removal would contract GDP and revenue; at the same time, localized public costs and modest wage effects for specific groups exist and merit policy responses, so the debate is about distribution and policy design more than a simple binary of benefit versus burden ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}.