Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: What are the main factors contributing to the annual cost of undocumented immigration to US taxpayers?
Executive Summary
The primary factors cited as driving the annual cost of undocumented immigration to U.S. taxpayers are state and local public services—notably K–12 education and emergency medical care—paired with limited tax contributions from many undocumented workers, producing a complex net fiscal picture [1] [2]. Recent analyses also highlight a countervailing fact: undocumented immigrants paid tens of billions in federal, state, and local taxes in recent years, which offset some public costs and complicates single-number cost claims [2] [3]. Below is a comparative, source-by-source review of these claims, their timing, and what each omits.
1. Why K–12 and local services headline the cost debate
Congressional testimony and cost-focused reports emphasize that most immediate fiscal burdens fall on state and local governments, with K–12 education of children of undocumented immigrants repeatedly identified as the largest single item, estimated around $70 billion annually in one 2024 presentation [1]. That testimony also lists emergency medical care and policing as significant daily expenditures, framing costs as recurring line-items in municipal and state budgets. This framing highlights an important dynamic: federal budget figures undercount costs that municipalities legally must shoulder, meaning national cost tallies can mislead if they omit subnational spending [1].
2. Health expenditures and emergency services as persistent drains
Public testimony estimated about $22 billion annually in medical expenditures tied to undocumented populations, with much of this driven by uncompensated emergency care and Medicaid-authorized emergency services [1]. These costs are concentrated in hospitals and clinics in border and gateway jurisdictions and are often absorbed by state budgets or pushed onto local health systems. The emphasis on emergency rather than routine care points to a policy-driven component: eligibility rules and access barriers alter utilization patterns, increasing high-cost episodic care that becomes visible in fiscal tallies [1].
3. Tax contributions that complicate net-cost claims
Independent taxation analyses report that undocumented immigrants collectively paid approximately $96.7 billion in taxes in 2022, including $59.4 billion to the federal government and $37.3 billion to state and local governments, and similarly high figures are reported for 2023 [2] [3]. These payments come through payroll taxes (often via ITINs or misclassified work arrangements), sales taxes, and property-related taxes. The existence of substantial tax payments undermines narratives that undocumented immigrants are purely a fiscal drain, showing that gross cost estimates must be compared against documented tax contributions to measure a net fiscal impact [2] [3].
4. Discrepancies in scope, timing, and methodology between sources
The testimony framing large local costs comes from a 2024 statement that highlighted education and healthcare line-items [1], while the taxation studies published in 2024–2025 document large tax contributions in 2022–2023 [2] [3]. Different time frames and differing definitions—gross costs vs. gross tax payments—produce conflicting headlines. Cost-focused testimonies often omit tax offsets, while tax studies typically do not quantify localized emergency expenditures. Both perspectives are factually accurate in their narrow metrics but lead to contrasting impressions when not directly reconciled [1] [2] [3].
5. What each source omits: age, labor-market effects, and long-term fiscal dynamics
The examined sources provide snapshots: testimony centers on current expenditure lines, and tax reports show annual payments. Neither comprehensively models age structure, long-term fiscal impacts (pension and social services), labor-market effects, nor second-generation outcomes that materially affect net lifetime contributions or costs. These omissions matter because children of undocumented immigrants who are U.S.-born will generate future tax revenues and service use trajectories distinct from short-term headline numbers, a dynamic absent from the cited materials [1] [2] [3].
6. Potential agendas and how they shape presented facts
The 2024 testimony emphasizing large local costs was delivered in a congressional context where policy makers often seek to justify border or enforcement spending; the selection of large, immediate line-items like K–12 and ER costs can foreground fiscal burdens to support policy proposals [1]. By contrast, tax-focused reports emphasize contributions and purchasing power to argue for the economic integration or reform of immigration policy; these studies can underplay localized uncompensated expenses. Recognizing these tendencies clarifies that both sides present accurate data but through advocacy-tailored lenses [1] [2] [3].
7. Bottom line: reconcile gross costs with gross contributions before concluding
The data indicate that undocumented immigration generates substantial, concentrated costs at state and local levels—education and emergency care are leading categories—while simultaneously producing tens of billions in tax revenue, complicating any simple annual cost figure [1] [2] [3]. A rigorous net-cost estimate requires harmonizing time frames, including federal and subnational budgets, accounting for tax contributions, and modeling long-term demographic and labor-market effects. The available sources corroborate the main cost drivers and present credible countervailing tax figures but stop short of a reconciled net fiscal accounting [1] [2] [3].