Immigration in Massachusetts and the United States – Comprehensive Reports
Reports: Immigration in Massachusetts —– Briefing Document: Immigration in Massachusetts —– A Demographic and Economic Profile of the Unauthorized Population in Massachusetts —– The Long-Term Fiscal Implications of Current Immigration Trends in Massachusetts: A Policy Brief for State Officials —– Unauthorized Immigration and Public Services in Massachusetts: A Plain-Language Guide —–Understanding Immigration in Massachusetts: A Student’s Guide —- Beyond the Shelter Crisis: Five Data-Driven Truths About Immigration in Massachusetts
Reports: Immigration in the United States —— Briefing Document: Analysis of Unauthorized Immigration in the United States —— 5 Facts About U.S. Immigration That Challenge the Headlines — A Timeline of U.S. Immigration: Key Laws, Rulings, and Policy Shifts —– An Economic Analysis of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population in the United States
Gardner Magazine has created the following two videos, one focused on Massachusetts Immigration Topics and the other on United States Immigration Topics
Gardner Magazine has created a “DEBATE” podcast and a “Deep Dive” podcast focused on Massachusetts Immigration and United States Immigration. Listen on any device. CLICK PLAY.
Briefing Document: Immigration in Massachusetts
Briefing Document: Immigration in Massachusetts
Summary
Massachusetts is home to approximately 1.3 million foreign-born residents, constituting 18.8% of its total population in 2024—a proportion significantly higher than the U.S. national average of 14.8%. Within this demographic, the state’s unauthorized and inadmissible immigrant population is a subject of significant fiscal and policy analysis. Estimates of this group’s size vary, with the Migration Policy Institute (MPI) identifying 388,000 unauthorized individuals and the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) calculating approximately 355,000 illegal and inadmissible migrants, including about 50,000 who have arrived since 2021.
The recent influx of migrants has placed a substantial financial strain on the state. Massachusetts has already spent over $1 billion on its emergency shelter system, with state officials projecting an additional $1.8 billion will be needed over the next two years. Beyond these immediate costs, a CIS analysis warns of a potential “fiscal time bomb” beginning in 2026, when a cohort of parolees will become eligible for federal welfare benefits after a five-year residency period. This could add an estimated $4.6 million in annual costs for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) alone.
Long-term fiscal impacts span several sectors. The cost to educate an estimated 25,000 school-aged children of unauthorized or inadmissible migrants is approximately $575 million annually. Healthcare costs for this population are also considerable, with one academic study estimating a direct cost of $3,800 per year for each additional nonelderly adult immigrant. Public safety costs, specifically for the incarceration of convicted criminal aliens, were estimated at $27 million in Fiscal Year 2022.
The demographic profile of the unauthorized population is diverse. Key countries of origin include Brazil (21%), Guatemala (14%), and El Salvador (12%). The population shows strong workforce attachment, with a 73% employment rate, primarily in construction and professional services. However, a significant portion (40%) lives below 200% of the federal poverty level. The policy debate surrounding this issue is intense, with organizations like CIS and the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance advocating for more restrictive state policies—such as expanding E-Verify and limiting access to benefits—to mitigate costs and deter illegal immigration, citing current state policies as unsustainable “pull factors.”
——————————————————————————–
1. The Scope of Immigration in Massachusetts
Overall Foreign-Born Population
Based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, Massachusetts has a substantial and growing foreign-born population. This group includes naturalized U.S. citizens, authorized residents on various visas, and undocumented residents.
| Metric | Value (2024) | Trend |
|---|---|---|
| Total Foreign-Born Residents | ~1.3 million | Increased from 1.1 million in 2014 |
| Share of State Population | 18.8% (approx. 9 in 50) | Increased from 15.7% in 2014 |
| Comparison to U.S. Average | Higher than the U.S. overall (14.8%) |
The concentration of foreign-born residents varies significantly across the state’s metropolitan areas. Data from 2019-2023 shows the Boston metro area having the highest share, nearly four times that of the Pittsfield area.
| Metropolitan Area | Foreign-Born Share of Population (2019-2023) |
|---|---|
| Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH | 19.7% |
| Providence-Warwick, RI-MA | 14.3% |
| Barnstable Town, MA | 9.6% |
| Springfield, MA | 9.4% |
| Pittsfield, MA | 5.9% |
The Unauthorized and Inadmissible Population
Two primary sources provide estimates and profiles of the unauthorized immigrant population in Massachusetts, using different methodologies and terminology.
• Center for Immigration Studies (CIS): Estimates there are about 355,000 “illegal and inadmissible migrants” living in Massachusetts, marking a sharp increase of more than 50,000 new arrivals since 2021.
• Migration Policy Institute (MPI): Estimates the “unauthorized population” at 388,000, based on analysis of 2019-23 U.S. Census data.
MPI provides a detailed demographic profile of this population:
| Demographic Category | Estimate | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Top Countries of Birth | ||
| Brazil | 82,000 | 21% |
| Guatemala | 53,000 | 14% |
| El Salvador | 46,000 | 12% |
| Top Languages at Home | (Population ages 5+) | |
| Spanish | 186,000 | 49% |
| Portuguese | 87,000 | 23% |
| English | 38,000 | 10% |
| Years of U.S. Residence | ||
| Less than 5 | 117,000 | 30% |
| 5 to 9 | 67,000 | 17% |
| 20 or more | 114,000 | 29% |
| Family with Children | ||
| Reside with at least one U.S.-citizen child | 113,000 | 31% (of adults 15+) |
| Educational Attainment | (Adults 25+) | |
| High school diploma or equivalent | 121,000 | 31% |
| Bachelor’s, graduate, or professional degree | 68,000 | 22% |
| English Proficiency | (Population ages 5+) | |
| Speak English “not well” or “not at all” | 167,000 | 44% |
| Workforce & Economics | ||
| Labor Force Participation (Employed) | 261,000 | 73% (of civilians 16+) |
| Below 200% of Poverty Level | 155,000 | 40% |
| Uninsured | 55,000 | 14% |
| Homeowner | 94,000 | 24% |
2. Analysis of Fiscal Impact and Public Service Costs
The influx of migrants has generated significant and escalating costs for Massachusetts taxpayers across shelter, welfare, education, healthcare, and public safety systems.
Emergency Shelter and Housing
The most immediate fiscal pressure comes from the state’s emergency shelter system, which has been overwhelmed by newly arrived migrants.
• Cost to Date: Over $1 billion has been spent.
• Projected Future Cost: State budget officials anticipate another $1.8 billion will be required over the next two years.
• Local Impact: The Healey administration has converted state facilities, including a former state prison in Norfolk and a former soldier’s home in Chelsea, into large temporary migrant housing facilities, drawing criticism from local officials about the strain on municipal services and the displacement of other needs.
Welfare Programs and Eligibility
A central argument from CIS is that state policies expand welfare access to migrants beyond federal mandates.
• Temporary SNAP Expansion: In December 2023, the legislature allocated $6 million for a temporary SNAP program for certain inadmissible aliens. The program served 4,000 families but exhausted its funding in just over two months and was shut down.
• Eligibility for New Arrivals: A significant share of migrants who entered under Biden administration parole programs may be eligible for welfare programs upon arrival.
| Category of New Arrival (CIS Estimate) | Estimated Number in MA | Welfare Eligibility |
|---|---|---|
| Cubans & Haitians | 14,000 | Eligible immediately for federal means-tested programs |
| Afghan & Ukrainian Parolees | 2,000 | Eligible immediately for federal means-tested programs |
| Unaccompanied Minors | 8,500 | Eligible immediately for all medical services |
| Other Parolees | 10,500 | Eligible after 5 years for federal means-tested programs |
| Entered w/o Inspection | 15,000 | Not eligible |
| Total New Arrivals since 2021 | 50,000 |
The “Fiscal Time Bomb”
A key concern highlighted by CIS is the cohort of parolees (estimated at 10,500 in MA) who will become eligible for federal means-tested benefits after five years of residency.
• Timeline: This eligibility will begin to phase in starting in 2026.
• Potential Cost: If this group’s welfare usage matches the national average for illegal immigrant households (60%), and considering an average monthly SNAP benefit of 188perpersoninMassachusetts,theadditionalcosttotaxpayersforSNAPalonecouldbe∗∗4.6 million per year**.
Education Costs
The responsibility of educating migrant children represents one of the largest ongoing fiscal burdens.
• Student Population: CIS estimates there are approximately 25,000 children in Massachusetts schools who are illegal aliens, with at least 10,000 having arrived in the last three years (including 8,500 unaccompanied minors).
• Annual Cost: With the state spending an average of nearly 23,000perstudentperyear,thebasecostforthesechildrenis∗∗575 million annually**. CIS attributes 40% of this cost to children who arrived under Biden administration policies.
• Additional Costs: The cost of educating students who are not fluent in English is 20% to 40% higher than for native-born students.
• State Agency Spending: Services for unaccompanied minors account for 61% of the $19.4 million total budget for the Massachusetts Office for Refugees and Immigrants (ORI).
Healthcare Costs
Under state and federal law, all illegal immigrants in Massachusetts have access to some form of government-subsidized or government-paid healthcare.
• Immediate Access: An estimated 16,000 new arrivals (including Haitians and Ukrainians) have immediate access to Medicaid.
• Children’s Coverage: All children under 19, regardless of immigration status, are covered under the state’s Children’s Medical Security Plan.
• Proposed Expansion: Legislation (S 740 / H 1237) has been introduced to expand this coverage to illegal immigrants up to age 21 and to provide more comprehensive services, at an estimated annual cost of $112 to $166 million.
• Per-Person Cost: A 2023 academic study estimated the direct cost of health insurance for each additional nonelderly adult immigrant (legal or illegal) to be about $3,800 per person per year.
Public Safety and Incarceration Costs
Criminal justice costs associated with illegal immigration are another significant expense.
• Incarceration Cost: Using data from the federal State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP), CIS estimates the cost of incarcerating convicted criminal aliens in Massachusetts in FY2022 was approximately $27 million.
• Incarceration Data (FY2022): Massachusetts reported that convicted illegal aliens were incarcerated for a total of 43,811 days, and suspected illegal aliens for another 23,816 days. This group accounted for about 3% of the total corrections population.
• Reduced Enforcement: Deportations of aliens arrested for state and local crimes from Massachusetts plummeted by 77% between 2019 and 2021, from an average of 88 per month to 20 per month, according to ICE records obtained by CIS.
3. The Policy Landscape: Critiques and Proposed Reforms
Critiques of Current Federal and State Policies
The CIS report and statements from the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance frame the current situation as a crisis driven by policy failures at both the federal and state levels. The combination of federal parole programs and state-level “sanctuary” and “right-to-shelter” laws is seen as creating powerful “pull factors” for migrants.
Key Statements:
• Jessica Vaughan, Center for Immigration Studies: “It simply is not sustainable to have a generous welfare state with mass illegal migration. The cost of these choices inevitably reduces the state’s ability to provide for American citizens and legal immigrants who need assistance.”
• Paul Diego Craney, Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance: “Massachusetts taxpayers better be ready for the fiscal time bomb our Governor and State House leaders have set us up for.”
• State Representative Marcus Vaughn (R-Wrentham): “Small bedroom communities like mine are being required to shoulder the very high economic cost for the state’s broken policies… This is unsustainable for the state and for small suburban towns.”
• State Senator Ryan Fattman (R-Sutton): “This study demonstrates plainly that the long-term impact on Massachusetts finances will be devastating… The time is now to reform our state’s broken right to shelter law.”
Policy Recommendations from the Center for Immigration Studies
To mitigate the fiscal costs of illegal immigration, CIS proposes a series of policy changes for Massachusetts lawmakers to consider:
• Limit Benefits: Pare back state-funded services to illegal migrants to the minimum required by federal law, such as emergency healthcare and K-12 schooling.
• Restrict Shelter Access: Limit eligibility for the state’s emergency shelter system to U.S. citizens and lawful residents.
• Deter Illegal Employment: Expand the use of E-Verify and increase state-led worksite enforcement operations.
• Enhance Immigration Enforcement: Override the state court decision that blocks local law enforcement from honoring ICE detainers and require local cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
• Address Associated Crime: Create a dedicated unit to focus on crimes associated with illegal immigration, such as human trafficking and gang crime.
• Repeal Driver’s Licenses: Repeal the law allowing driver’s licenses for illegal aliens or make them clearly distinguishable and not valid for identification.
• Tap into Remittances: Impose a modest fee on all outbound money transmissions to help offset migration costs.
• Increase Accountability: Require NGOs involved in migrant resettlement to register with the state and report on their activities and funding. Require sponsors of parolees to be vetted and hold them financially accountable. ————————————————————————-
A Demographic and Economic Profile of the Unauthorized Population in Massachusetts
A Demographic and Economic Profile of the Unauthorized Population in Massachusetts
1.0 Introduction: Context and Purpose
For social services organizations and community leaders across Massachusetts, a nuanced understanding of the unauthorized immigrant population is of paramount strategic importance. This demographic group, with its unique challenges and contributions, is an integral part of the state’s social and economic fabric. This report provides a data-driven profile of unauthorized immigrants in the Commonwealth, synthesizing the most comprehensive data available to inform effective program development, community outreach, and equitable resource allocation.
The presence of this population exists within the broader context of Massachusetts’ significant foreign-born community. In 2024, approximately 1.3 million foreign-born individuals resided in the state, representing 18.8% of the total population. This share is notably higher than the U.S. average of 14.8%, underscoring the central role of immigration in the state’s contemporary identity.
Estimates of the size of the unauthorized population vary. The Migration Policy Institute (MPI) places the figure at 388,000. A separate analysis from the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) estimates the population at approximately 355,000, asserting that this includes about 50,000 new arrivals who have settled in the state since 2021.
This report will detail this population’s origins, family structures, educational background, and economic standing. By providing a clear and objective overview, it aims to equip stakeholders with the foundational knowledge needed to serve all members of the Massachusetts community effectively.
2.0 Demographic Profile: Origins, Residency, and Population Structure
Understanding the demographic makeup of the unauthorized population is fundamental to effective service delivery. Factors such as country of origin, length of residence in the United States, and age distribution are critical for designing culturally competent programs and anticipating the evolving needs of community members. This section provides a detailed breakdown of these core demographic characteristics.
Countries and Regions of Origin
| Country | Percentage of Population |
|---|---|
| Brazil | 21% |
| Guatemala | 14% |
| El Salvador | 12% |
| Dominican Republic | 6% |
| Honduras | 6% |
| Region | Percentage of Population |
|---|---|
| Mexico and Central America | 33% |
| South America | 31% |
| Europe/Canada/Oceania | 11% |
Length of U.S. Residence
The population is not composed solely of recent arrivals; a clear majority (55%) are long-term residents who have lived in the United States for 10 years or more. This mix of newcomers and established community members has significant implications for service needs, ranging from immediate settlement support to long-term integration assistance.
• Less than 5 years: 30%
• 5 to 9 years: 17%
• 10 to 19 years: 26%
• 20 or more years: 29%
Age and Gender Distribution
The age structure of the unauthorized population is heavily weighted toward prime working-age adults. The largest single cohort is individuals aged 35-44 (27%), followed closely by those aged 25-34 (23%). Children under the age of 16 make up 8% of the population. In terms of gender, the population is nearly balanced, with females comprising 45% of the total.
These demographic characteristics directly shape the family and household structures detailed in the following section.
3.0 Household and Family Characteristics
Examining the family composition of the unauthorized population is essential for social service agencies to understand support needs related to housing, childcare, education, and family services. The data reveals a community with deep family ties, including a significant number of households with U.S.-citizen children.
Parental and Marital Status
Analysis of the population aged 15 and older highlights the prevalence of mixed-status families and diverse household structures.
• 31% reside with at least one U.S.-citizen child under the age of 18.
• 11% reside with only noncitizen children under the age of 18.
• 58% reside with no children.
Marital status further illustrates the community’s integration into the broader society. Among those aged 15 and older, 35% have never been married. Half of the population is married, and their spousal statuses illustrate deep ties to the broader U.S. community: 21% are married to a U.S. citizen, 9% to a legal permanent resident, and 20% to a non-U.S. citizen who is not an LPR.
The presence of children in nearly half of households, particularly school-aged children, makes education a critical area of focus for this population.
4.0 Education, Language, and Skills Profile
Educational attainment and English proficiency are key determinants of economic opportunity and social integration. Understanding this profile is vital for workforce development agencies, adult education providers, and public schools seeking to support the unauthorized population and their families.
Educational Attainment and Enrollment
The educational attainment of unauthorized adults (aged 25 and over) is varied. While a majority (67%) hold at least a high school diploma or equivalent, a significant 21% have not completed high school, indicating a need for adult basic education.
For school-aged children, enrollment rates are high. Among those aged 5 to 18, 90% are enrolled in school, demonstrating strong engagement with the K-12 education system.
Language Proficiency and Use
English proficiency varies widely within the population aged 5 and older. A combined 56% report speaking English “well” (22%), “very well” (24%), or speak only English at home (10%). However, a substantial minority of 44% report speaking English “not well” or “not at all,” highlighting a critical barrier to employment and civic engagement for many.
The languages spoken at home reflect the population’s primary regions of origin, with Spanish and Portuguese being the most common.
| Language | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Spanish | 49% |
| Portuguese | 23% |
| English | 10% |
| Haitian Creole | 5% |
| Chinese | 3% |
This educational and linguistic profile directly influences the workforce participation and economic outcomes discussed in the next section.
5.0 Economic Profile and Workforce Participation
Understanding the economic standing and labor force engagement of the unauthorized population is crucial for assessing self-sufficiency and identifying needs related to employment services, financial literacy, and healthcare access. The data reveals a population with a high rate of workforce participation that contributes significantly to key sectors of the Massachusetts economy.
Labor Force and Industry of Employment
Among civilians aged 16 and older, there is a very high rate of labor force participation. A full 73% are employed, and an additional 5% are unemployed but actively seeking work. Twenty-two percent are not in the labor force.
These workers are employed across a range of vital industries, with the top five sectors accounting for over 70% of the employed unauthorized population.
• Construction: 18%
• Professional, scientific, management, administrative, and waste management services: 18%
• Accommodation and food services, arts, entertainment, and recreation: 15%
• Health services and social assistance: 10%
• Manufacturing: 9%
Income and Economic Standing
While many unauthorized immigrants are in low-wage sectors, a significant majority of families have incomes above the federal poverty level. Fully 60% of individuals live in families with incomes at or above 200% of the poverty level. In contrast, 16% of families live below the poverty line. The persistence of a 16% poverty rate despite high workforce engagement suggests that many are employed in low-wage sectors, highlighting a need for services that address not just unemployment but also underemployment and wage stagnation.
Key indicators of economic stability show a mixed picture. A notable 24% of the unauthorized population are homeowners, suggesting a degree of long-term investment and stability. However, 14% are uninsured, pointing to a significant gap in access to healthcare.
This detailed profile of the unauthorized population provides a firm foundation for identifying key areas where programmatic focus can yield the greatest impact.
6.0 Conclusion: Key Insights for Programmatic Planning
This report provides a detailed, data-driven profile of the unauthorized immigrant population in Massachusetts. The findings reveal a community that is diverse, deeply rooted, and highly engaged in the state’s economy. For social service organizations, community leaders, and policymakers, the data points to several critical considerations for effective program design and resource allocation.
• Diverse Origins: The population is not a monolith. With major groups from Latin America (notably Brazil, Guatemala, and El Salvador) and other regions worldwide, services must incorporate culturally and linguistically specific outreach to be effective.
• Established Community Roots: With 55% of residents having lived in the U.S. for 10 years or more and 31% raising U.S.-citizen children, programs should prioritize long-term integration, family-centered support, and civic engagement rather than focusing solely on the needs of new arrivals.
• Significant Workforce Engagement: The high labor force participation rate, particularly in essential sectors like construction, professional services, and hospitality, underscores opportunities for programs focused on worker rights, vocational skills development, and financial literacy to support economic mobility.
• Educational and Language Barriers: Despite high workforce participation, a substantial portion of the adult population has less than a high school education and limited English proficiency. This highlights a persistent and critical need for accessible adult education, English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESL), and workforce training programs.
• Economic Vulnerability and Opportunity: While a majority of families live above 200% of the poverty level, a notable segment remains in poverty, and 14% lack health insurance. The combination of high employment and persistent poverty points to a need for programs that address underemployment and low wages, in addition to targeted financial assistance and healthcare access for the most vulnerable.
————————————————-
The Long-Term Fiscal Implications of Current Immigration Trends in Massachusetts: A Policy Brief for State Officials
The Long-Term Fiscal Implications of Current Immigration Trends in Massachusetts: A Policy Brief for State Officials
1.0 Introduction: An Unprecedented Challenge to State Fiscal Stability
Massachusetts is currently facing an unprecedented influx of illegal and inadmissible migrants, a trend that is placing significant and escalating strain on state resources. While immediate crises, such as emergency shelter capacity, have captured public attention, they represent only the leading edge of a much larger fiscal challenge. The purpose of this brief is to provide state officials with a data-driven analysis of the current and, more critically, the long-term fiscal implications of these trends. By examining the demographic landscape and projecting future costs across core state services—including welfare, education, healthcare, and public safety—this brief illuminates the structural financial burdens being embedded into the state budget. It concludes with a series of actionable policy recommendations designed to mitigate future financial burdens and ensure the Commonwealth’s long-term fiscal health. A credible analysis of these fiscal impacts must therefore begin with a clear, quantitative understanding of the population at the center of this challenge.
2.0 The Current Immigration Landscape in Massachusetts: A Demographic Overview
A clear understanding of the scale and characteristics of the state’s immigrant population is the essential foundation for any credible fiscal analysis. The data presented here establishes the factual basis for the subsequent cost projections, providing a detailed snapshot of both the broader foreign-born community and the specific unauthorized population that is the focus of this brief.
In 2024, Massachusetts is home to approximately 1.3 million foreign-born residents, who constitute 18.8% of the total state population. This share is notably higher than the U.S. average of 14.8%. Within this group, the number of illegal and inadmissible migrants is estimated to be approximately 355,000. This figure includes an estimated 50,000 new arrivals who have settled in the Commonwealth since 2021, reflecting a sharp increase driven by recent national trends. This estimate aligns with other analyses, such as that of the Migration Policy Institute, which places the number closer to 388,000, underscoring the significant scale of the population. The following table provides a more detailed demographic profile of the state’s unauthorized population.
Demographic Profile of the Unauthorized Population in Massachusetts
| Characteristic | Data |
|---|---|
| Top Countries of Birth | Brazil (21%), Guatemala (14%), El Salvador (12%) |
| Years of U.S. Residence | Less than 5 years (30%), 20 or more years (29%) |
| Age Distribution | Under 16 (8%), 35 to 44 (27%) |
| Family Composition | 31% reside with at least one U.S.-citizen child under 18 |
| Educational Attainment | 87% with high school diploma or less, 22% with Bachelor’s degree or higher |
| Labor Force Participation | 73% employed |
| Top Industries of Employment | Construction (18%), Professional/scientific (18%), Accommodation/food services (15%) |
| Poverty Level | 60% at or above 200% of the poverty level |
| Health Insurance Status | 14% uninsured |
Source: Migration Policy Institute (MPI) analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data (2019-23)
With this demographic context established, the brief will now analyze the most immediate financial pressures this population places on the Commonwealth’s budget.
3.0 Analysis of Immediate Fiscal Pressures: The Emergency Shelter Crisis
The state’s emergency shelter crisis is the most visible and acute symptom of the broader fiscal challenge posed by the recent migrant influx. These immediate costs, while substantial, are a precursor to larger, more permanent budgetary impacts that will affect a wide range of state services for years to come. The financial strain on the shelter system serves as a clear warning of the unsustainable trajectory of current policies.
To date, Massachusetts taxpayers have already spent over 1billion∗∗ontheemergencysheltersystem.Statebudgetofficialsanticipatethatanother∗∗1.8 billion will be required over the next two years to manage the ongoing demand, which is largely driven by newly arrived migrants.
This crisis is not confined to the state budget; it is having a direct and disruptive impact on local communities across the Commonwealth. The Healey administration has taken extraordinary measures, such as converting a former state prison in Norfolk and a former soldier’s home in Chelsea into large-scale migrant shelters. These actions have strained local resources and prompted concern from local leaders. As state Representative Marcus Vaughn noted, this approach is “unsustainable for the state and for small suburban towns.”
While the shelter crisis commands immediate attention, it is only the leading edge of a wider and more deeply embedded set of long-term fiscal burdens across core state services, which will now be examined.
4.0 Projecting Long-Term Fiscal Burdens Across State Services
Beyond the immediate shelter crisis, the most significant and enduring fiscal impacts of the current immigration trend are embedded within the state’s social safety net, public education, healthcare, and public safety systems. These costs are not temporary outlays but represent growing, long-term liabilities that will compound over time if current policies remain unchanged. This analysis now moves from the acute crisis of emergency shelter to the chronic, systemic fiscal burdens being permanently woven into the Commonwealth’s core services.
4.1 Welfare and Social Services: A Looming “Fiscal Time Bomb”
Massachusetts provides certain welfare benefits to inadmissible migrants, a policy that creates significant fiscal exposure. A December 2023 supplemental spending bill allocated $6 million for SNAP benefits, which served 4,000 families before the funds were completely depleted in just over two months, highlighting the high demand for these services.
A more significant threat to the state’s long-term fiscal stability is a “fiscal time bomb” set to begin in 2026. This is when large numbers of migrants who entered the U.S. under federal parole programs will complete their mandatory five-year waiting period and become eligible for a wide range of federal means-tested welfare benefits, including Medicaid, TANF, and SNAP.
The potential impact of this eligibility expansion is substantial. Based on the current number of parolees in the state, each new cohort becoming eligible could add $4.6 million to the annual cost of SNAP benefits for taxpayers in Massachusetts alone. This projection is reinforced by analysis from the Center for Immigration Studies, which estimates that nearly 60% of all households headed by illegal immigrants use at least one welfare program, compared to 40% of households headed by the U.S.-born.
4.2 Public Education System Costs
The influx of migrant families has placed a considerable and costly burden on the Massachusetts public school system. An estimated 25,000 children in Massachusetts schools are illegal aliens. At least 10,000 of these students have arrived in the last three years, a figure that includes 8,500 unaccompanied minors placed in the state.
The direct fiscal impact is significant. With the state’s average per-pupil spending at nearly 23,000peryear,thebaseeducationalcostforthese25,000childrenisapproximately∗∗575 million annually**.
This figure, however, understates the true financial strain. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has found that the cost of educating students who are not fluent in English is 20 to 40 percent higher than for native-born students. This premium for language services and other support further inflates the overall cost to local school districts and state taxpayers.
4.3 Healthcare System Expenditures
Under a combination of federal and state laws, all illegal immigrants residing in Massachusetts have access to some form of government-subsidized or government-paid healthcare. This open-ended commitment creates a significant and growing liability for the Commonwealth.
A 2023 academic study provides a baseline for estimating this liability, finding that the direct cost of health insurance for each additional nonelderly adult immigrant is approximately $3,800 per person per year.
This cost is poised to escalate further. The legislature is currently considering a bill (S 740 / H 1237) that would expand healthcare coverage to more illegal immigrants. If enacted, this legislation is projected to add between $112 million and $166 million to the state’s annual healthcare expenditures, institutionalizing another major long-term cost driver.
4.4 Public Safety and Corrections Costs
The public safety implications of current immigration trends are exacerbated by a sharp decline in interior enforcement. According to records from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), deportations of criminal aliens from Massachusetts plunged by 77 percent between 2019 and 2021. This reduction means more deportable criminals remain in Massachusetts communities, increasing the burden on state and local law enforcement.
This trend has a direct fiscal consequence for the state’s corrections system. Based on the most recent federal data available (FY2022), convicted illegal aliens were incarcerated in Massachusetts prisons and jails for a total of 43,811 days. The estimated annual cost to the state for this incarceration was approximately $27 million.
This comprehensive analysis of escalating, long-term fiscal burdens necessitates a proactive policy response to ensure the Commonwealth’s financial health, as detailed in the final section.
5.0 Policy Recommendations for Fiscal Mitigation
While federal failures created this crisis, inaction at the state level is a choice. Massachusetts lawmakers possess the authority to enact targeted reforms that can significantly mitigate these fiscal drains and discourage further unsustainable settlement. The following recommendations outline a path toward achieving this goal.
• Control Access to State-Funded Benefits
◦ Limit state-funded services for illegal migrants to the minimum required by federal law, excluding discretionary benefits like health insurance for those over 18, SNAP and TANF payments for the unlawfully present, and non-emergency shelter.
◦ Restrict eligibility for the state’s emergency shelter system to U.S. citizens and lawful residents only.
◦ Initiate a state lawsuit to challenge the legality of the federal government’s definition of welfare eligibility for aliens granted parole after an illegal entry.
• Enhance Enforcement and Public Safety
◦ Deter the hiring of unauthorized workers by expanding the use of the E-Verify system and funding state-led worksite enforcement operations.
◦ Enact legislation to override the court decision that blocks local law enforcement from honoring ICE detainers and ensure local officials are permitted to communicate with federal immigration authorities.
◦ Repeal the law allowing driver’s licenses for illegal aliens or, at a minimum, ensure the licenses are visually distinct and not valid as a secure form of ID.
• Increase Transparency and Accountability
◦ Mandate that all hospitals receiving Medicaid funding collect and report data on the immigration status of patients to accurately determine healthcare costs.
◦ Require sponsors of migrants entering under parole programs or as unaccompanied minors to register with the state for vetting and to attest that they will provide financial support.
◦ Enact legislation to impose a modest fee on all outbound money transmissions from Massachusetts, with the proceeds retained by the state to help offset migration-related costs.
Implementing these policy changes can create a more sustainable fiscal future for the Commonwealth.
6.0 Conclusion: The Urgent Need for State-Level Action
This brief has detailed the scale of the current migrant influx into Massachusetts and the severe fiscal pressures it has created, most visibly demonstrated by an emergency shelter crisis that has already cost taxpayers over $1 billion. While these immediate costs are staggering, they are overshadowed by a more profound, long-term threat to the Commonwealth’s financial stability.
The central warning of this analysis is the impending “fiscal time bomb” set to begin in 2026, when thousands of parolees become eligible for federal welfare benefits. This event will institutionalize massive new long-term costs across the state’s welfare, education, healthcare, and public safety systems, transforming a temporary crisis into a permanent structural deficit. The time for incremental adjustments has passed. Decisive state-level action is now the only variable capable of averting a permanent structural deficit and protecting the Commonwealth’s fiscal integrity.
————————————————————————-
Unauthorized Immigration and Public Services in Massachusetts: A Plain-Language Guide
————————————————————————-
Unauthorized Immigration and Public Services in Massachusetts: A Plain-Language Guide
Massachusetts sits at the intersection of federal immigration policy and state-level social service obligations, creating a complex and fiscally demanding environment. This guide provides a data-driven overview of public service eligibility for unauthorized immigrants and analyzes the resulting costs that have become a central focus of state policy debates.
1. Setting the Stage: Immigration in Massachusetts
To analyze the impact on public services, it is essential to first understand the scale and composition of the immigrant population in the state.
1.1 The Bigger Picture: Foreign-Born Residents
The term “immigrant” often refers to the broader “foreign-born” population. According to data from USAFacts, the foreign-born population in Massachusetts is a significant and growing part of the state’s demographic landscape.
• Total Population: In 2024, Massachusetts is home to approximately 1.3 million foreign-born residents.
• Share of State Population: This group represents 18.8% of the state’s total population, or about 9 in every 50 residents.
• Who is “Foreign-Born”? This is a broad category that includes naturalized U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, individuals on temporary visas, and unauthorized residents.
• National Comparison: Massachusetts has a higher share of foreign-born residents than the U.S. average of 14.8%.
1.2 Focusing In: The Unauthorized Population
A subset of the foreign-born population is classified as “unauthorized.” Estimating the exact size of this group is challenging, and research organizations provide different figures based on their methodologies.
• Center for Immigration Studies (CIS): Estimates there are approximately 355,000 “illegal and inadmissible migrants” in Massachusetts, which includes about 50,000 new arrivals since 2021.
• Migration Policy Institute (MPI): Estimates the unauthorized population in Massachusetts to be 388,000.
These population estimates form the demographic backdrop against which a complex web of federal and state rules determines eligibility for public aid.
2. Who is Eligible for What? The Basic Rules
Access to public services for unauthorized immigrants is governed by a combination of strict federal prohibitions and specific state-level policy choices.
2.1 The Federal Baseline vs. State Policies
As a general rule, federal law bars unauthorized immigrants from eligibility for most major federal welfare programs, such as SNAP (food stamps), Medicaid, and TANF (cash assistance). However, states have the authority to create their own programs or to use state funds to provide benefits to residents regardless of their immigration status. Massachusetts has established several policies that provide services to this population beyond what is federally mandated, creating significant fiscal pressures on the state budget.
2.2 Key Categories of Eligibility in Massachusetts
Eligibility for benefits often depends on the specific manner in which an individual arrived in the country, with different groups of new arrivals facing different rules.
| Category of New Inadmissible Arrival | General Eligibility Status |
|---|---|
| Cubans & Haitians | Eligible immediately for federal means-tested programs |
| Afghan and Ukrainian Parolees | Eligible immediately for federal means-tested programs |
| Unaccompanied Minors | Eligible immediately for all medical services |
| Other Parolees | Eligible after 5 years for federal means-tested programs |
| Entered Without Inspection | Not eligible for federal programs |
Source: Center for Immigration Studies estimates based on federal and state laws.
This framework of eligibility creates a tiered system of access that manifests differently across key public services.
3. A Closer Look at Key Public Services
While some services are federally mandated, others are state-funded initiatives that have become central to the fiscal debate in Massachusetts.
3.1 Emergency Shelter: A Primary Fiscal Driver
The state’s emergency shelter system has been a primary area of focus due to a significant increase in demand, leading to substantial costs.
• Taxpayers in Massachusetts have already spent over $1 billion on the emergency shelter system.
• State budget officials project that another $1.8 billion will be needed over the next two years to manage the system.
3.2 Healthcare Access: A Patchwork of Programs
Massachusetts provides some form of government-subsidized healthcare to all residents, but the level of coverage for unauthorized immigrants varies.
• For Children: All children under the age of 19, regardless of immigration status, are covered for basic medical and dental care through the state’s Children’s Medical Security Plan.
• For Certain New Arrivals: Some groups, such as parolees from Haiti and Ukraine, are granted entry in a way that gives them immediate access to federal benefits, including Medicaid.
• For Other Adults: The Massachusetts Health Safety Net program uses state funds to cover certain hospital facility services—such as hospital rooms, nursing, and technicians—for low-income, uninsured individuals, including inadmissible immigrants.
• Proposed Expansion: A pending bill (S 740 / H 1237) seeks to expand healthcare coverage for unauthorized immigrants. If enacted, this program is estimated to cost between $112 million and $166 million per year.
3.3 Nutrition Assistance (SNAP): A Case Study
In December 2023, the legislature created a temporary, state-funded program to provide SNAP benefits to certain inadmissible immigrants. The state allocated $6 million for a seven-month pilot program. However, high demand exhausted the funds in just over two months after serving 4,000 families, and the program was shut down. This serves as a concrete example of a state-level initiative to provide aid and the intense demand for such services.
3.4 Public Education: A Constitutional Mandate
Under federal law, states are required to provide free K-12 public education to all children, regardless of their immigration status. This represents one of the most significant costs associated with this population.
• Student Population: An estimated 25,000 children of unauthorized immigrants are enrolled in Massachusetts public schools. At least 10,000 of these children have arrived since 2021.
• Estimated Annual Cost: With the state spending an average of nearly 23,000perstudent,thebasecosttoeducatethesechildrenisapproximately∗∗575 million per year**.
• Additional Costs: The Congressional Budget Office has noted that the cost to educate students who are not fluent in English can be 20% to 40% higher than for native-born students.
Beyond these immediate operational costs, a key concern for state planners is the projected future growth in welfare eligibility, a scenario some have termed a “fiscal time bomb.”
4. The “Fiscal Time Bomb”: A Look at Future Costs
This term refers to a specific federal rule that will soon make a new cohort of immigrants eligible for federal welfare benefits, potentially increasing costs for programs that are jointly funded by the state and federal government.
4.1 The Five-Year Rule for Parolees
Federal law stipulates that certain immigrants who enter the U.S. under a status called “parole”—which grants temporary permission to enter and remain in the U.S. for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit—become eligible for federal means-tested benefits like SNAP, Medicaid, and TANF after residing in the country for five years.
4.2 Projecting the Impact
The first cohort of parolees who arrived under recent administration policies will begin to meet this five-year residency requirement in 2026.
• Affected Population: An estimated 10,500 such parolees currently reside in Massachusetts and will become newly eligible for benefits starting in 2026.
• Potential Fiscal Impact: For SNAP benefits alone, this new eligibility could add an estimated $4.6 million to the annual cost for taxpayers in Massachusetts.
This specific future liability is one element of a wider, often contentious debate regarding the overall economic contributions and costs associated with unauthorized immigration in the Commonwealth.
5. The Broader Economic Discussion
The conversation around the fiscal impact of unauthorized immigration includes debates over taxes paid, services used, and public safety costs.
5.1 The Cost-Benefit Argument
One perspective, detailed in a report by the Center for Immigration Studies, concludes that illegal and inadmissible migration represents a net fiscal cost. The argument is that, on average, this population pays less in taxes than they consume in government services, primarily due to lower average education levels and wages. The report estimates a lifetime net fiscal cost to taxpayers of $68,000 for each unauthorized immigrant.
5.2 A Demographic Snapshot of the Unauthorized Population
To better understand this population, the Migration Policy Institute provides the following demographic estimates for unauthorized immigrants in Massachusetts:
• Top Industries: The top three industries of employment are:
1. Construction (18%)
2. Professional, scientific, management, administrative, and waste management services (18%)
3. Accommodation and food services, arts, entertainment, and recreation (15%)
• Income Levels: An estimated 60% live in households with an income at or above 200% of the federal poverty level.
• Educational Attainment:
◦ 31% have a high school diploma or equivalent.
◦ 22% have a bachelor’s degree or higher.
This demographic profile from MPI, particularly the data showing that 60% of households are at or above 200% of the poverty level, provides additional context to the fiscal debate, suggesting a population with significant workforce participation but whose income levels may still intersect with the need for public services.
5.3 Public Safety Costs
Public safety is another component of the fiscal discussion. In Fiscal Year 2022, the cost of incarcerating convicted criminal aliens in Massachusetts state prisons and local jails was estimated at approximately $27 million.
——————————————————————————–
In conclusion, the fiscal landscape of unauthorized immigration in Massachusetts is defined by a central tension: federal policies that have resulted in an unprecedented influx of migrants, coupled with state-level policy choices to create a safety net far exceeding federal mandates. This has led to undeniable fiscal pressures, most visible in emergency shelter and education costs. Projections of future liabilities, particularly from growing welfare eligibility, ensure that the debate over the costs, benefits, and responsibilities of serving this population will remain a primary challenge for state policymakers.
————————————-
Understanding Immigration in Massachusetts: A Student’s Guide
Understanding Immigration in Massachusetts: A Student’s Guide
Welcome to this guide on immigration in Massachusetts. The movement of people across borders is a significant topic in our society, but the conversation can often be filled with confusing numbers and strong opinions. This guide is designed to provide a clear, fact-based overview to help you understand the situation in our state.
We will explore three core questions:
1. How many immigrants live in Massachusetts?
2. Who are they, and what are their lives like?
3. What are the key arguments about the financial effects of immigration on the state?
By looking at the data, we can build a more informed picture of this complex subject. Let’s begin by examining the population numbers.
1. How Many Immigrants Live in Massachusetts?
One of the first challenges in understanding immigration is that different sources define and count “immigrants” in different ways. This can lead to a range of numbers. To get a clear picture, we’ll look at two main groups: the total foreign-born population and the smaller unauthorized population living within that group.
1.1. The Total Foreign-Born Population
The broadest measure includes anyone living in the state who was born in another country. According to data from USAFacts, this group is a significant and growing part of the state’s population.
• Total Number: As of 2024, Massachusetts is home to 1.34 million foreign-born residents.
• Share of Population: This represents 18.8% of the state’s total population, which is about 9 in every 50 residents.
The term “foreign-born” is an official census category that includes anyone who is not a U.S. citizen at birth. This means it covers naturalized U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents (green card holders), people on temporary visas (like students or workers), and undocumented residents.
This share of the population has grown from 15.7% in 2014 and is notably higher than the U.S. average of 14.8%.
1.2. The Unauthorized Immigrant Population
Within the larger foreign-born population is a specific group known as “unauthorized immigrants” (also referred to as “illegal immigrants”). Estimating the size of this population is difficult, as they are not officially tracked, and different research organizations produce different figures.
Two primary estimates provide a sense of the scale:
• The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) estimates there are about 355,000 “illegal and inadmissible migrants” in Massachusetts, with roughly 50,000 new arrivals since 2021.
• The Migration Policy Institute (MPI) provides a slightly higher estimate of 388,000 unauthorized immigrants.
These estimates differ in part because the organizations use different methods. The CIS estimate is based on applying recent growth rates to Census data, while the MPI uses a different statistical methodology to analyze government surveys. This guide will use data from both of these sources to build a clearer picture of the demographics and financial discussions surrounding this population.
1.3. Where in Massachusetts Do Immigrants Live?
As is common across the United States, immigrant populations in Massachusetts are often concentrated in and around large metropolitan areas. Data from USAFacts highlights a distinct contrast between different parts of the state.
• Boston metro area: 19.7% of the population is foreign-born.
• Pittsfield metro area: 5.9% of the population is foreign-born.
Now that we have a sense of the numbers, let’s take a closer look at who these individuals and families are.
2. A Closer Look: Profile of Unauthorized Immigrants
To understand the human side of the numbers, this section uses data from the Migration Policy Institute to create a demographic snapshot of the unauthorized population in Massachusetts. This data helps us understand their origins, family structures, education levels, and economic roles.
2.1. Origins and Time in the U.S.
The unauthorized population in Massachusetts comes from all over the world, but a few countries stand out as the most common places of birth.
• Brazil: 82,000 (21% of total)
• Guatemala: 53,000 (14% of total)
• El Salvador: 46,000 (12% of total)
Their experiences in the U.S. are also diverse. The data on years of residence shows that while roughly 30% are recent arrivals (living in the U.S. for less than five years), another 29% have deep roots in the community, having been here for 20 years or more.
2.2. Key Demographics: Education, Language, and Family
The following table breaks down key characteristics that shape the lives and experiences of unauthorized immigrants in the state.
| Demographic | Key Statistic | What This Means |
|---|---|---|
| Education Level | 67% of adults (age 25+) have a high school diploma or less. | This connects to the financial debate discussed later. The CIS report argues that lower average education levels are a primary driver of the net fiscal cost of this population. |
| English Proficiency | 44% of the population (age 5+) speak English “not well” or “not at all.” | Language can be a significant barrier to accessing services, navigating daily life, and securing certain jobs. |
| Family with U.S. Children | 31% of unauthorized immigrants (age 15 and older) reside with at least one U.S.-citizen child. | This is a crucial point: these children are American citizens, making the household potentially eligible for certain social services and welfare benefits on their behalf. |
2.3. Work and Economic Standing
According to MPI data, the vast majority of working-age unauthorized immigrants are employed, with a labor force participation rate of 73% for those age 16 and older. They are most commonly employed in the following industries:
• Construction (Tied for #1)
• Professional, scientific, management, administrative, and waste management services (Tied for #1)
• Accommodation and food services, arts, entertainment, and recreation
In terms of economic standing, their family incomes vary widely. While 60% live in households with an income at or above 200% of the federal poverty level, 8% live in deep poverty (below 50% of the poverty level).
This economic profile is central to the public debate about the financial impact of immigration, which we will explore next.
3. The Financial Debate: Costs and Contributions
The financial impact of immigration, particularly unauthorized immigration, is one of the most complex and debated aspects of the topic. The central argument presented in the Center for Immigration Studies report is that, on average, unauthorized immigrants represent a net fiscal cost. The report states this is because they tend to have lower levels of education and work in lower-paying jobs, meaning they often pay less in taxes than they consume in social services.
To ensure balance, the same report estimates that in 2019, unauthorized immigrants at the national level paid about 6billioninfederalincometax∗∗,∗∗16.2 billion in Social Security taxes, and $3.8 billion in Medicaid taxes.
3.1. Key Areas of State Spending
Reports from the Center for Immigration Studies and the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance identify several major costs for Massachusetts taxpayers associated with the recent influx of migrants.
1. Emergency Shelter: The state has spent over 1billion∗∗todateonitsemergencysheltersystemtohousenewlyarrivedmigrantfamilies.Anadditional∗∗1.8 billion is expected to be needed over the next two years.
2. Public Education: The estimated annual cost to educate about 25,000 children of unauthorized immigrants in public schools is $575 million, with 40 percent of that cost attributable to the arrival of children under Biden policies. The cost can be 20% to 40% higher for students who are not fluent in English.
3. Healthcare: All Massachusetts residents, regardless of immigration status, have access to some level of government-paid healthcare. A proposed bill to expand comprehensive care for unauthorized immigrants is estimated to cost between $112 million and $166 million per year.
4. Public Safety: In fiscal year 2022, the estimated cost of incarcerating convicted criminal aliens in state and local facilities was approximately $27 million.
3.2. The “Fiscal Time Bomb” Argument
The CIS and MassFiscal reports also describe a concept they call a “fiscal time bomb.” This argument centers on federal rules related to migrants who entered the country under a special status called “parole.”
• These migrants become eligible for federal welfare benefits, like SNAP (food stamps), after they have resided in the U.S. for five years.
• This five-year waiting period for many recent arrivals begins to expire in 2026.
• As new groups become eligible each year, the projected cost for SNAP benefits in Massachusetts alone could increase by $4.6 million annually.
This potential increase in future costs adds another layer to the financial discussion as the state plans its budgets.
4. Conclusion: A Complex Picture
This guide has provided a factual overview of immigration in Massachusetts. We’ve seen that the state is home to over a million foreign-born residents, including a significant unauthorized population with diverse origins and, for many, deep roots in the community.
At the same time, the data highlights a central tension. The arrival of new migrants, combined with state policies, presents Massachusetts with significant financial challenges, particularly in funding essential services like shelter, education, and healthcare. Understanding these facts and figures is the first step toward having an informed and productive discussion about this complex and ongoing topic in our communities. —————————————————————-
Beyond the Shelter Crisis: Five Data-Driven Truths About Immigration in Massachusetts
Beyond the Shelter Crisis: Five Data-Driven Truths About Immigration in Massachusetts
The migrant and immigration situation in Massachusetts is a constant fixture in the news, with headlines often focusing on the immediate pressures of the state’s emergency shelter system. This daily focus, while important, can obscure the larger, more complex picture of immigration’s long-term impact on the Commonwealth.
This article goes beyond the daily headlines to reveal five surprising, data-driven truths about the broader profile of immigration in the state. Drawing from government data and detailed fiscal analysis, these points uncover a reality that is more complex, costly, and counter-intuitive than is commonly understood.
——————————————————————————–
1. The Scale: Nearly One in Five Residents is Foreign-Born
In 2024, approximately 1.3 million Massachusetts residents were foreign-born. This constitutes a significant 18.8% of the total population, or about 9 in every 50 residents. This share is notably higher than the U.S. average of 14.8%. This foundational statistic reveals that the presence and influence of the foreign-born population are not a fringe issue but a core demographic reality for the state. This scale sets the stage for understanding immigration’s deep influence on the Commonwealth’s economy and social fabric.
2. The Cost: A Looming “Fiscal Time Bomb” Set for 2026
Massachusetts taxpayers have already spent over $1 billion on the emergency shelter system and are projected to spend another $1.8 billion in the next two years. Beyond these immediate, staggering costs, a more significant fiscal challenge looms on the horizon.
Analysts have identified a “fiscal time bomb” set to detonate in 2026. While some parolee groups, such as those from Cuba, Haiti, and Ukraine, have been eligible for federal means-tested welfare programs upon arrival, a different cohort of parolees faces a five-year waiting period. Beginning in 2026, this specific subset of migrants will become eligible for benefits like SNAP (food stamps) and Medicaid, opening a new and significant channel of public expenditure.
“The Center for Immigration Studies is warning Massachusetts taxpayers and policy makers of a fiscal time bomb set to go off in 2026. A massive wave of generous taxpayer funded welfare benefits will go into effect for illegal and inadmissible migrants, unless action is taken.” — Jessica Vaughan, Center for Immigration Studies
The potential scale of this “time bomb” is substantial. According to estimates, this policy change could add an additional $4.6 million to the annual cost of SNAP benefits for each new cohort of parolees that becomes eligible. The high demand for these benefits has already been demonstrated; in late 2023, the legislature allocated $6 million for a temporary SNAP program for certain migrants, but the funds were completely drained in just over two months.
3. The Profile: More Educated and Economically Active Than You Might Expect
Data on the state’s unauthorized immigrant population presents a counter-intuitive profile that challenges common assumptions. A high percentage of this population aged 16 and over is actively employed (73%). The top three industries for their employment are Construction (18%), Professional, scientific, management, and administrative services (18%), and Accommodation and food services (15%). Perhaps most surprisingly, a clear majority (60%) have family incomes at or above 200% of the federal poverty level.
The data also reveals unexpected levels of educational attainment and economic stability. While many have lower levels of formal education, a significant portion—22% of adults 25 and older—hold a bachelor’s, graduate, or professional degree. Furthermore, nearly a quarter of this population (24%) are homeowners.
These data points present a more nuanced picture of significant economic participation, skill diversity, and integration into the community. This profile creates a striking contrast with analyses suggesting that most new arrivals lack the education or skills to be self-sufficient. This raises a critical question for policymakers: is the profile of recent arrivals fundamentally different from the established unauthorized population, or is the reality of immigrant economic life more complex than a single narrative suggests?
4. The Hidden Burdens: How Public Services Are Strained Beyond Shelters
While shelter costs dominate headlines, the long-term fiscal impact on other essential public services is enormous. Analysis from the Center for Immigration Studies highlights several key areas of significant, ongoing expenditure:
• Education: The base cost of educating an estimated 25,000 children who are unauthorized immigrants in Massachusetts public schools is approximately $575 million per year. This figure does not include the additional 20% to 40% higher cost required for students who are not fluent in English.
• Healthcare: All unauthorized immigrants in Massachusetts have access to some form of government-paid healthcare. A 2023 academic study cited by CIS estimated that the direct cost of health insurance for each additional nonelderly adult immigrant is about $3,800 per person per year.
• Public Safety: The cost of incarcerating convicted unauthorized immigrants within the Massachusetts corrections system was estimated to be approximately $27 million in Fiscal Year 2022.
5. The Local Impact: “This is Unsustainable”
Statewide fiscal numbers translate into direct and tangible pressures on local communities, forcing difficult decisions and straining resources. Perspectives from local officials illustrate the real-world consequences of state and federal policies.
State Representative Marcus Vaughn describes the impact on small towns:
“A small town like Norfolk, which has about 11,000 residents, has suddenly seen hundreds of migrants enter the community, and is being required to provide the social services, schools, and other accommodations necessary. This is unsustainable for the state and for small suburban towns like the towns I represent.” — State Representative Marcus Vaughn
Chelsea City Council Vice President Todd Taylor highlights the human toll and the difficult trade-offs communities are forced to make:
“In April, Chelsea made national news because the Healey administration converted an old soldier’s home into a migrant housing facility. The state made a decision to shut down this facility for our veterans, just to reopen it for migrants.” — Todd Taylor, Chelsea City Council Vice President
These local perspectives demonstrate how abstract policy decisions are creating tangible strain, difficult choices, and social friction in towns and cities across the Commonwealth.
——————————————————————————–
Conclusion: A Complex Challenge Demanding New Questions
The data reveals a multifaceted issue that defies simple narratives. The scale of immigration in Massachusetts is immense, the fiscal reality includes not only immediate crises but a looming “time bomb” of future welfare costs, and the demographic profile of the state’s unauthorized population is more economically diverse and integrated than often portrayed. As the data reveals a challenge far more complex than emergency shelters alone, how can Massachusetts policy leaders balance fiscal sustainability with the social and human realities of modern migration?
====================================================================
Immigration in the United States
Briefing Document: Analysis of Unauthorized Immigration in the United States
Briefing Document: Analysis of Unauthorized Immigration in the United States
Summary
This document synthesizes key data and themes concerning unauthorized immigration to the United States. The unauthorized immigrant population reached an unprecedented 14 million in 2023, an increase of 3.5 million since 2021, marking the most significant two-year growth on record. Preliminary data indicates this growth continued into mid-2024 before slowing, with a probable decline starting in 2025 due to policy shifts.
A defining feature of this recent growth is the changing composition of the unauthorized population. As of 2023, approximately 6 million individuals, over 40% of the total, have some form of temporary protection from deportation, such as pending asylum claims or humanitarian parole. This is a dramatic increase from 2.7 million in 2021 and just 500,000 in 2007.
The national origins of unauthorized immigrants have also diversified significantly. Mexico, while still the top country of origin, accounted for only 30% of the total in 2023—its smallest share on record. Substantial growth has been driven by arrivals from Central and South America and the Caribbean, with the populations from Venezuela, Cuba, Colombia, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Ukraine, and Peru more than doubling between 2021 and 2023.
Economically, research indicates that unauthorized immigration increases the size of the U.S. economy, contributes to growth, and benefits consumers by lowering prices. Immigrants contribute more in tax revenue than they use in services, with a net positive fiscal impact at the federal level. The unauthorized immigrant workforce reached a record 9.7 million in 2023, representing 5.6% of all U.S. workers.
Regarding crime and law enforcement, multiple studies and FBI data consistently show that undocumented immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native-born U.S. citizens. Research also suggests that increased immigration enforcement has no impact on crime rates, and sanctuary city policies have no statistically meaningful effect on crime.
Population Demographics and Trends
Overall Population and Recent Growth
The unauthorized immigrant population in the United States reached a record high of 14 million in July 2023. This represents a substantial increase from 10.5 million in 2021 and surpasses the previous peak of 12.2 million in 2007.
• Record Growth: The population grew by 3.5 million between 2021 and 2023, the largest two-year increase on record.
• Share of Population: As of 2023, unauthorized immigrants constituted 4.1% of the total U.S. population and 27% of its foreign-born population.
• Projections for 2024-2025: Preliminary data suggests the population continued to grow through mid-2024. Growth slowed considerably in the latter half of 2024, and the population has likely started to decline in 2025 due to increased deportations and reduced protections.
Composition of the Unauthorized Population
A significant shift has occurred in the legal vulnerability of the unauthorized population. As of July 2023, an estimated 6 million individuals have some form of temporary protection from deportation.
| Group with Temporary Protection | Estimated Population (July 2023) | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Asylum Applicants | 2.6 million | Individuals with pending defensive or affirmative asylum claims. |
| Released by Border Patrol | 1.0 million | Migrants released into the U.S. with orders to appear in immigration court. |
| Humanitarian Parolees | 700,000 | Individuals admitted for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit. |
| Victims of Crime/Violence | 700,000 | Individuals with T visas (trafficking), U visas (crime victims), SIJ status (abused minors), or VAWA petitions. |
| Temporary Protected Status (TPS) | 650,000 | Individuals from countries facing war, natural disasters, or other crises. |
| DACA Recipients | 600,000 | Individuals brought to the U.S. illegally as children. |
Note: The total of these groups is over 6.2 million; after accounting for overlap, the estimated total with protection is approximately 6 million.
Modes of Entry
Historically, unauthorized immigration has occurred through two primary channels: illegal border crossings and visa overstays.
• Visa Overstays: Since 2007, visa overstays have accounted for a larger share of the growth in the unauthorized population than illegal border crossings. A 2019 study found that from 2016-2017, 62% of the newly undocumented were visa overstays. Overstaying a visa is a civil violation, not a criminal offense.
• Illegal Entry: This involves entering the U.S. at a place not designated by immigration agents or eluding inspection. The first offense is a misdemeanor, and subsequent offenses are felonies. In FY 2023, over 600,000 people were estimated to have entered the U.S. without being apprehended (termed “gotaways”).
Countries and Regions of Origin
The demographic profile of unauthorized immigrants has shifted away from Mexican predominance.
• Mexico: Remains the top country of origin, with 4.3 million individuals in 2023. However, this represents only 30% of the total, the smallest share on record.
• Other Top Countries (2023):
◦ Guatemala: 850,000
◦ El Salvador: 850,000
◦ Honduras: 775,000
◦ India: 680,000
◦ Venezuela: 650,000
• Rapid Growth (2021-2023): The unauthorized populations from Venezuela, Cuba, Colombia, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Ukraine, and Peru all more than doubled during this period. The number from Cuba grew from under 5,000 in 2019 to 475,000 in 2023.
• Regional Increases: The largest regional increases from 2021 to 2023 came from South America (+1.3 million), Central America (+725,000), and the Caribbean (+575,000).
Geographic Distribution
While historically concentrated, the unauthorized immigrant population has become more geographically dispersed. In 1990, the top six states were home to 80% of the unauthorized population; by 2023, this share had fallen to 56%.
| State | Estimated Population (2023) | Growth Since 2021 |
|---|---|---|
| California | 2,300,000 | +425,000 |
| Texas | 2,100,000 | +450,000 |
| Florida | 1,600,000 | +700,000 |
| New York | 825,000 | +230,000 |
| New Jersey | 600,000 | +75,000 or more |
| Illinois | 550,000 | +75,000 or more |
Data based on Pew Research Center estimates, 2023.
Household and Family Characteristics
• Households: A record 7.5 million U.S. households included an unauthorized immigrant in 2023, representing 5.6% of all households nationwide. Nearly 70% of these are “mixed-status,” also containing U.S.-born residents or lawful immigrants.
• Children:
◦ U.S.-Born Children: In 2023, approximately 4.6 million U.S.-born children under 18 lived with at least one unauthorized immigrant parent.
◦ Unauthorized Minors: An additional 1.5 million children under 18 were themselves unauthorized immigrants in 2023, a figure that nearly doubled since 2021.
◦ Birthright Citizenship: Under the 14th Amendment, children born in the U.S. are automatically citizens, regardless of their parents’ status. In 2023, about 300,000 babies were born to unauthorized immigrant parents in the U.S.
Workforce Participation
The number of unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. workforce reached a record 9.7 million in 2023, up from 7.8 million in 2021.
• Share of Workforce: They represent 5.6% of the U.S. workforce, a new high surpassing the previous peak of 5.4% in 2007.
• Key Industries (2023): The industries with the highest shares of unauthorized immigrant workers were:
◦ Construction (15%)
◦ Agriculture (14%)
◦ Leisure and Hospitality (8%)
• Key Occupations (2023):
◦ Farming (24%)
◦ Construction (19%)
◦ Service Occupations (9%)
Causes and Incentives for Immigration
A combination of “push” and “pull” factors drives unauthorized immigration to the U.S., which remains the most-desired destination country for potential migrants worldwide.
• Economic Incentives: The primary driver is the opportunity for employment at wages substantially higher than in native countries. The U.S. has a structural need for low-skilled labor in sectors like agriculture and construction, and a lack of sufficient legal channels for low-skilled workers makes illegal entry a common response to this demand.
• Fleeing Violence and Insecurity: Many immigrants, particularly from Mexico and Central America, flee violence, gang recruitment, kidnappings, rape, and political corruption in their home countries.
• Family Reunification: Existing immigrant communities create a “network effect,” where individuals migrate to join relatives already in the U.S.
• Persecution: Some groups, such as Iranian converts to Christianity, flee persecution and the threat of the death penalty.
• Reduced Barriers: Lower costs of transportation and communication have facilitated migration. The militarization of the border has also had the unintended consequence of encouraging seasonal workers to settle permanently in the U.S. rather than risk repeated crossings.
Legal and Enforcement Framework
Historical Legislation and Court Rulings
U.S. immigration law has evolved from a policy of nearly open borders in the 19th century to a highly regulated system.
• Early Restrictions: The Page Act of 1875 and the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 were the first rigorous controls. The Immigration Act of 1924 established national origin quotas that heavily favored Northern Europeans.
• Supreme Court Rulings: Key decisions established constitutional rights for noncitizens, including due process and equal protection under the 14th Amendment (Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 1886) and protections under the 5th and 6th Amendments (Wong Wing v. US, 1896).
• Modern Framework: The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 abolished the quota system. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) significantly increased penalties for illegal immigration and expanded the list of deportable crimes.
Deportation and Enforcement
Deportations, also known as removals, are a central component of immigration enforcement.
• Trends: Deportations increased significantly under the laws of 1996. Under the Obama administration, removals peaked at over 400,000 annually in FY 2012 and 2013. Deportations under the Trump administration rose from their initial levels but remained below the Obama-era peaks.
• Sanctuary Cities: These jurisdictions limit cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities. Research indicates these policies have no statistically meaningful impact on crime, and some studies suggest they may lower crime rates by building community trust.
• Federal vs. State Role: While the federal government has primary responsibility, states like Arizona (SB 1070) and Texas (Operation Lone Star) have enacted their own stringent enforcement measures, leading to legal challenges over constitutional authority.
Economic Impact
Research consistently shows that unauthorized immigration has a net positive effect on the U.S. economy.
• Economic Growth: Immigrants increase the overall size of the economy and contribute to its growth. Their labor helps reduce the prices of goods and services, benefiting consumers, and reduces incentives for U.S. firms to offshore jobs.
• Wages and Employment: Studies show immigration increases the welfare of native-born citizens. A study concluded that from 1990-2004, immigrant workers raised the wages of native-born workers by 4%. Legalization is projected to significantly increase immigrants’ earnings and consumption, further boosting U.S. GDP.
• Fiscal Effects:
◦ Federal Level: Unauthorized immigrants contribute more in taxes (including an estimated $12 billion annually to Social Security) than they collect in services, creating a net positive fiscal impact. They are ineligible for most federal benefits, including Social Security, Medicare, and ACA subsidies.
◦ State and Local Level: There can be a small, net negative fiscal impact on state and local governments, partly because the federal government does not fully reimburse the costs of incarcerating criminal aliens.
Immigration and Crime
Contrary to common perceptions, extensive research demonstrates that unauthorized immigrants have a lower propensity for crime than native-born citizens.
• Lower Crime Rates: Studies and FBI data consistently find that undocumented immigrants are arrested for violent, drug, and property crimes at significantly lower rates than native-born U.S. citizens.
• Impact of Immigration: Multiple studies have found that an increase in the undocumented immigrant population does not lead to an increase in violent crime.
• Enforcement Impact: Research shows that heightened immigration enforcement has no impact on crime rates. Furthermore, programs like Secure Communities, which led to a quarter of a million detentions, had no observable effect on crime.
• Legalization and Crime: The 1986 amnesty program, which legalized nearly 3 million immigrants, is associated with a 3-5% decrease in crime, primarily in property crimes. ——————————————–
A Timeline of U.S. Immigration: Key Laws, Rulings, and Policy Shifts
A Timeline of U.S. Immigration: Key Laws, Rulings, and Policy Shifts
Introduction: From Open Doors to Complex Rules
U.S. immigration policy has fundamentally transformed over its history. It has moved from a period of nearly open borders in its early years to a highly complex and often contentious system of laws, quotas, and enforcement actions. This timeline charts the most critical legal and political milestones in that evolution, illustrating the shift from welcoming newcomers to meticulously managing who can enter and remain in the country.
——————————————————————————–
1. Early Regulations and Exclusion (1875 – 1917)
This era marks a pivotal shift as the federal government assumed primary control over immigration, moving away from state-level regulations and a de facto open-door policy. The laws enacted during this period were the first to codify exclusion based on race and national origin, establishing a new federal authority to regulate entry and setting a precedent for decades of restrictive legislation.
1875: Page Act This first restrictive federal immigration law specifically banned Chinese women from immigrating to the United States.
1882: Chinese Exclusion Act Expanding on the Page Act, this legislation banned all Chinese immigrants from entering the country, marking the first time a specific nationality was broadly barred.
1886: Yick Wo v. Hopkins The Supreme Court established that the Fourteenth Amendment’s rights to due process and equal protection apply to all residents, regardless of “race, of color, or of nationality.” This landmark ruling was a crucial check on discriminatory state and local laws, affirming that constitutional protections were not limited to citizens.
1896: Wong Wing v. U.S. In another crucial decision, the Supreme Court affirmed that all persons within U.S. territory are afforded the protections guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, reinforcing the principle that constitutional rights extend to non-citizens.
1906: Naturalization Act This law standardized the naturalization process across the country and, for the first time, required immigrants to learn English to become citizens.
1917: Immigration Act This sweeping legislation created a long list of “undesirables” who were barred from entry—including anarchists, political radicals, and those with physical or mental disabilities—and banned immigration from most of Asia.
These early exclusionary laws laid the groundwork for a more comprehensive, quota-based system designed to further regulate the ethnic and national composition of immigrants entering the United States.
——————————————————————————–
2. The Era of National Quotas and Border Formalization (1924 – 1954)
This period saw the U.S. formalize its immigration system by establishing visa requirements, creating strict national origin quotas that heavily favored Northern and Western Europeans, and forming the U.S. Border Patrol to guard its land and sea borders.
1924: Immigration Act of 1924 This act established mandatory visa requirements and enacted strict quotas based on national origin. It set particularly low quotas for Southern and Eastern Europeans, which heavily affected Italian and Jewish immigrants, and it completely prohibited all Asians from immigrating.
1924: Creation of the U.S. Border Patrol The U.S. Border Patrol was officially created this year to guard the nation’s land borders against unauthorized crossings. Its duties were expanded in 1925 to include guarding the sea coast.
1930s: Mexican Repatriation Occurring during the economic crisis of the Great Depression, this decade was marked by a period of mass deportations and forced migration. An estimated 500,000 Mexicans and Mexican Americans—the majority of whom were U.S. citizens—were removed from the country and sent to Mexico.
1942–1964: The Bracero Program This was a bi-national agreement with Mexico that supplied qualified Mexican laborers as guest workers for U.S. agriculture, filling labor shortages during and after World War II.
1952: Immigration and Nationality Act Also known as the McCarran-Walter Act, this legislation maintained the national origins quota system but removed the long-standing ban on Asian immigration and naturalization, while also adding new ideological screening provisions.
1954: Operation Wetback This was a cooperative effort between the U.S. and Mexican governments to deport Mexican nationals who were residing in the U.S. without authorization.
While the quota system defined this era, the mass deportations and guest worker programs revealed deep-seated economic and social tensions, particularly with Mexico, setting the stage for a complete philosophical overhaul during the Civil Rights movement.
——————————————————————————–
3. A New Era: The End of Quotas and the Rise of “Illegal Immigration” as a Central Issue (1965 – 1990)
The landmark legislation of this era abolished the national origins quota system that had defined U.S. immigration policy for decades. This shift fundamentally reshaped the demographics of immigration, moving the primary countries of origin away from Europe and toward Asia and Latin America.
1965: Immigration and Nationality Act Passed just a year after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, this act represented a decisive opening in U.S. immigration policy by abolishing the national origins quota system. Its most significant long-term consequence was a major shift in the origins of immigrants, with far more people arriving from Asia and Latin America and fewer from Europe.
1982: Plyler v. Doe In this landmark case, the Supreme Court ruled that states cannot deny students a public K-12 education on the basis of their immigration status. This decision has had a profound impact on American society, ensuring that millions of children, regardless of their parents’ status, have access to education and the opportunity to integrate into their communities.
1986: Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) This act attempted to resolve the issue of unauthorized immigration by granting amnesty to nearly 3 million undocumented immigrants already in the country while simultaneously making it illegal for employers to knowingly hire undocumented workers, thereby aiming to reduce the economic incentive for illegal entry.
With the passage of IRCA, the policy focus began to shift from who could enter the country legally to how to manage, penalize, and control the population of those residing in the country without authorization.
——————————————————————————–
4. A Turn Toward Enforcement and Security (1996 – 2008)
In response to the demographic shifts from the 1965 Act and the challenges of managing unauthorized immigration addressed in IRCA, this period was defined by a sharp legislative turn toward increased border enforcement and harsher penalties. New laws linked immigration status more directly to criminality and, following the September 11 attacks, fused it with national security concerns.
1996: IIRIRA and AEDPA The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) dramatically increased penalties for immigration violations. Their key effects included increasing the number of border agents, expanding the list of crimes for which any immigrant could be deported, creating a 10-year ban on re-entry for many deported individuals, and expanding the definition of “aggravated felony” to include lesser crimes like shoplifting.
2001: The Patriot Act Passed in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, this act fundamentally fused immigration policy with national security concerns. It significantly expanded the government’s power to deport non-citizens based on suspicion of terrorist activity or affiliations with certain organizations, even those not formally designated as terrorist groups.
2008: William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act This act included provisions that specified procedures for the safe repatriation of unaccompanied minors from non-contiguous countries. These rules later became a critical factor in how the U.S. handled surges of child migrants arriving from Central American nations.
This framework of heightened enforcement and security-focused legislation set the stage for the contentious, executive-action-driven immigration debates of the 21st century.
——————————————————————————–
5. The Modern Era of Executive Actions and Polarized Debate (2012 – Present)
Recent immigration policy has been characterized by the widespread use of executive actions to shape enforcement priorities, provide temporary relief from deportation, and control entry into the country. These unilateral actions by presidents have frequently led to legal challenges and have deepened the sharp political divisions surrounding immigration.
2012: DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) This Obama administration executive action provided temporary protection from deportation and work permits to qualified individuals who were brought to the U.S. as children.
2017: Travel Ban The Trump administration enacted an executive order that created a travel ban from several Muslim-majority countries, a policy that faced numerous legal challenges before being upheld by the Supreme Court in a narrower version.
2018: Family Separation Policy The Trump administration implemented a “zero-tolerance” policy at the southern border that separated migrant children from their parents when families were apprehended for illegal entry.
2021-2023: Humanitarian Parole Programs The Biden administration used its parole authority to create programs like Operation Allies Welcome (OAW) for Afghans, Uniting for Ukraine (U4U), and the CHNV program for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans. These programs allowed hundreds of thousands of people to enter and reside temporarily in the U.S. for urgent humanitarian reasons.
2024: Legislative Stalemate and Policy Shifts A bipartisan border security bill failed to pass in the Senate, highlighting legislative gridlock on the issue. In August, the Biden administration stopped accepting new applications for the CHNV parole program. ————————————————
5 Facts About U.S. Immigration That Challenge the Headlines
5 Facts About U.S. Immigration That Challenge the Headlines
Introduction: Beyond the Noise
Immigration is a constant and often contentious topic in U.S. news cycles and political debates. The public discourse is frequently dominated by heated rhetoric and powerful imagery, shaping perceptions about who is arriving, how they are getting here, and what their impact is on the country.
Behind the headlines, however, the actual data reveals a reality that is far more complex. This analysis will explore five key facts that reveal a profound shift in U.S. immigration. We will show not only how the methods of arrival and countries of origin have changed, but how a massive, growing portion of the so-called “unauthorized” population now exists in a complex, government-sanctioned limbo, challenging the very definition of the term. And while the unauthorized population hit a record 14 million in 2023, preliminary data from 2024 and 2025 suggests this dynamic population is already changing in response to new administration policies, highlighting the rapid pace of transformation.
——————————————————————————–
1. Most New Unauthorized Immigrants Don’t Cross the Border Illegally—They Overstay Visas
When discussions turn to unauthorized immigration, the focus is often on the southern border. However, data shows that for more than a decade, the primary source of new unauthorized populations has been individuals who enter the country legally but remain after their permission to stay has expired. This is known as a “visa overstay.”
Since 2007, visa overstays have consistently accounted for a larger share of the growth in the unauthorized immigrant population than illegal border crossings. This trend has been significant and sustained. For example, from 2016-2017, individuals who overstayed their visas made up 62% of the newly undocumented population, while 38% had crossed a border illegally.
This fact is critical because it shifts the policy challenge from a purely physical one centered on border barriers to a complex administrative and technological one focused on visa issuance, biometric entry-exit tracking, and interior enforcement.
2. The Origins of Immigrants Have Radically Shifted Away From Mexico
For decades, the image of the unauthorized immigrant in the U.S. was overwhelmingly associated with Mexico. While Mexico remains the single largest country of origin, its proportion of the total unauthorized population has fallen to a historic low. In 2023, immigrants from Mexico accounted for only 30% of the unauthorized population, by far the smallest share on record.
In its place, there has been a dramatic and rapid diversification of nationalities. The largest increases in the unauthorized immigrant population between 2021 and 2023 came from other regions of the world, highlighting a major demographic shift.
• South America: 1.3 million increase
• Central America: 725,000 increase
• The Caribbean: 575,000 increase
Specifically, the number of unauthorized immigrants from countries such as Venezuela, Cuba, Colombia, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Ukraine, and Peru more than doubled between 2021 and 2023. This profound shift changes the cultural, linguistic, and political landscape of U.S. immigration. This requires a more sophisticated foreign policy that addresses region-specific drivers of migration—from political instability in Venezuela to economic pressures in Central America—rather than a one-size-fits-all approach focused on Mexico. This dramatic diversification is not random; it is driven by new humanitarian crises and U.S. policy responses, which have in turn reshaped the legal status of the unauthorized population itself, as we’ll see next.
3. Nearly Half of “Unauthorized” Immigrants Have Some Form of Protection From Deportation
The term “unauthorized” can be misleading. It encompasses a complex and growing population of individuals who, while lacking full legal status, have been granted temporary and often precarious forms of protection from deportation by the U.S. government.
In 2023, about 6 million immigrants, or over 40% of the total estimated unauthorized population of 14 million, fell into this category. These are individuals known to the government and in the process of navigating the complex U.S. immigration system. Major categories of protection include:
• Asylum applicants: 2.6 million individuals awaiting rulings on their cases.
• Migrants released by Border Patrol: 1.0 million individuals released into the U.S. with orders to appear in court.
• Humanitarian parolees: 700,000 individuals legally paroled into the U.S. for urgent humanitarian reasons (including programs for Afghans and Ukrainians).
• Victims of crimes or violence: 700,000 individuals who have experienced trafficking, abuse, or other crimes and are awaiting special visas (T, U, SIJ, or VAWA visas).
• Temporary Protected Status (TPS): 650,000 individuals from countries facing war or natural disaster.
• Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): 610,000 individuals brought to the U.S. as children.
This data shows that a 6-million-person cohort is known to the U.S. government, possesses some form of temporary authorization, and is actively navigating the legal immigration system—a stark contrast to the stereotype of a population entirely evading authorities.
4. The Data Shows Unauthorized Immigrants Are Less Likely to Commit Crimes Than Native-Born Citizens
A persistent narrative in the immigration debate links an increase in immigration to an increase in crime. However, this claim is not supported by the available data. Multiple studies and data from the FBI have consistently found that undocumented immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native-born citizens.
One of the most comprehensive analyses comes from data in Texas, which directly compares arrest rates.
In Texas, for example, undocumented immigrants are arrested for violent and drug crimes at less than half the rate of native-born U.S. citizens, and a quarter the rate of native-born citizens for property crimes.
This finding, cited in a comprehensive review of immigration research, highlights a consistent pattern across multiple studies. Most scientific studies that have examined the relationship between immigration and crime show that undocumented immigrants commit less crime than both native-born citizens and legal immigrants.
5. Research Indicates Unauthorized Immigration Benefits the U.S. Economy
Contrary to the perception that unauthorized immigrants are a drain on public resources, a broad body of economic research indicates that their presence has a net positive effect on the U.S. economy. These studies show that immigration, including unauthorized immigration, contributes to economic growth in several key ways.
Research highlights the following economic benefits:
• Increases the overall size of the U.S. economy and contributes to economic growth.
• Enhances the welfare of native-born citizens.
• Contributes more in tax revenue than is collected in government services.
• Reduces incentives for American firms to offshore jobs.
• Benefits consumers by lowering the prices of goods and services.
Furthermore, economists estimate that providing a path to legal status for this population would significantly increase their earnings and consumption. This, in turn, would provide a further boost to the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP), generating additional economic growth.
——————————————————————————–
Conclusion: A More Informed Conversation
The picture that emerges from the data is not one of a population hiding in the shadows. Instead, it is a story of visa systems managing new pressures, a demographic landscape diversifying beyond recognition, and millions of people navigating a semi-legal existence while they await adjudication. The dominant narrative of border crossings misses the central story: the rise of a new, legally ambiguous but government-acknowledged immigrant population.
These data points underscore that effective policy cannot be built on assumptions, but must instead be grounded in a clear-eyed understanding of the facts on the ground. Given that the data challenges so many core assumptions, what is the first step toward having a more productive and fact-based national conversation about immigration?
An Economic Analysis of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population in the United States
An Economic Analysis of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population in the United States
1.0 Introduction: Defining the Scope of the Analysis
The unauthorized immigrant population in the United States reached a record 14 million in 2023, solidifying its role as a significant and complex component of the nation’s economic landscape. As this population grows, an objective, data-driven assessment of its economic function is essential for policymakers, business leaders, and the public. This analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the economic contributions and impacts of this population, grounded in the most current demographic and economic research.
For the purpose of this report, the term “unauthorized immigrant” encompasses a nuanced and evolving group. It includes individuals who entered the U.S. illegally or remained after the expiration of a valid visa. Critically, it also includes a large and rapidly growing cohort of individuals who, while lacking full legal status, possess temporary protections from deportation. As of 2023, this includes millions of asylum applicants, recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), individuals with Temporary Protected Status (TPS), and humanitarian parolees. This definition acknowledges the precarious and impermanent legal status of the entire population under analysis.
This report will proceed in a structured manner to build a holistic economic picture. It begins by establishing the foundational data on the size, distribution, and composition of the unauthorized immigrant population. Subsequent sections will quantify their participation in the labor market, analyze their contributions to national economic growth, assess their comprehensive fiscal effects on government budgets, and evaluate their economic impact on the native-born population. An examination of this population’s demographic profile provides the essential foundation for the economic analysis that follows.
2.0 Demographic and Population Profile of Unauthorized Immigrants
Understanding the demographic profile of the unauthorized immigrant population is of strategic importance for any economic analysis. These characteristics—including population size, geographic distribution, countries of origin, and household structure—are fundamental drivers of their economic integration and overall impact. Changes in these metrics directly influence labor supply, consumer demand, and fiscal outcomes at the local, state, and federal levels.
2.1 Population Size and Growth Trends
According to recent analysis from the Pew Research Center, the unauthorized immigrant population in the United States reached a record 14 million as of 2023.¹ This figure represents a period of unprecedented growth, with the population increasing by 3.5 million between 2021 and 2023 alone. In 2023, unauthorized immigrants constituted a significant share of both the total U.S. population (4.1%) and the nation’s total foreign-born population (27%).
¹Estimates of the unauthorized immigrant population can vary slightly between research institutions due to different methodologies and data adjustments. However, figures from the Pew Research Center, the Center for Migration Studies, and the Department of Homeland Security are generally consistent. The figures in this report are based on revised Census Bureau data and supersede previously published estimates.
2.2 Geographic and Origin-Country Distribution
While certain states continue to be primary destinations, the unauthorized immigrant population has become significantly less geographically concentrated over the past three decades. In 1990, the top six states were home to 80% of this population; by 2023, that share had fallen to 56%.
| State | Estimated Population (2023) |
|---|---|
| California | 2,300,000 |
| Texas | 2,100,000 |
| Florida | 1,600,000 |
| New York | 825,000 |
| New Jersey | 600,000 |
| Illinois | 550,000 |
The composition by country of origin has also diversified. While Mexico remains the single largest country of origin with an estimated 4.3 million individuals, its share of the total unauthorized population has declined to 30%. The next four largest source countries in 2023 were Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, and India.
2.3 Composition: The Rise of Temporary Protected Statuses
A defining feature of the current unauthorized immigrant population is the significant and growing share of individuals who possess some form of temporary protection from deportation. As of 2023, an estimated 6 million people—over 40% of the total unauthorized population—fall into this category. Their status, while precarious and subject to policy changes, often grants them the ability to live and work in the U.S. without immediate fear of removal.
The primary categories of individuals with temporary protection as of July 2023 include:
• Asylum Applicants: An estimated 2.6 million individuals awaiting adjudication of their asylum claims.
• Humanitarian Parolees: Approximately 700,000 individuals granted temporary entry for urgent humanitarian reasons.
• Victims of Crimes or Violence: An estimated 700,000 individuals (an aggregation of individuals with pending or approved U or T visas, Special Immigrant Juvenile status, or VAWA petitions).
• Temporary Protected Status (TPS): Approximately 650,000 individuals from countries facing crises such as war or natural disasters.
• Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): Roughly 600,000 individuals brought to the U.S. as children.
2.4 Household and Family Structure
The economic footprint of this population extends through its household and family units. In 2023, approximately 7.5 million U.S. households included at least one unauthorized immigrant. A key characteristic of these households is their “mixed-status” nature. Almost 70% of these households also contain U.S.-born residents or lawful immigrants, the majority of whom are children. This dynamic intertwines the economic fate of unauthorized immigrants with that of U.S. citizens. In 2023, an estimated 4.6 million U.S.-born children lived with at least one unauthorized immigrant parent.
The demographic characteristics outlined above have direct and immediate consequences for the U.S. labor market, which will be examined in the next section.
3.0 Labor Market Participation and Characteristics
The most direct economic impact of the unauthorized immigrant population stems from their high rate of participation in the U.S. labor force. Their presence is not uniform across the economy but is concentrated in specific industries and occupations that are vital to national output and consumer welfare. This section quantifies their role in the workforce and analyzes the economic dynamics that shape their employment.
3.1 Workforce Size and Share
In 2023, a record 9.7 million unauthorized immigrants were part of the U.S. workforce, according to Pew Research Center analysis. This group constituted 5.6% of all U.S. workers—a new high. Their share of the workforce is notably higher than their 4.1% share of the total population. This disparity is explained by the demographic structure of the unauthorized immigrant population, which is heavily skewed toward working-age adults and includes relatively few children or elderly individuals.
3.2 Industry and Occupational Concentration
Unauthorized immigrant workers are deeply integrated into several key sectors of the American economy. Their concentration is highest in industries that rely heavily on manual labor.
• Construction: 15% of the workforce
• Agriculture: 14% of the workforce
• Leisure and Hospitality: 8% of the workforce
This concentration demonstrates their structural role in non-tradable sectors, which are less susceptible to offshoring and directly impact domestic infrastructure and services. These workers fill a structural need for low-wage labor, performing jobs that are essential for supporting a wide range of services for high-skilled workers and firms. Their labor underpins sectors that are critical to infrastructure, the food supply chain, and consumer services.
3.3 Economic Incentives and Labor Dynamics
A powerful economic incentive drives this labor migration: U.S. employers offer wages that are substantially higher than what workers could earn in their home countries. This dynamic creates a ready supply of labor for physically demanding, low-wage jobs. Historically, this oversupply of labor has exerted downward pressure on wages in specific sectors, such as manufacturing, by providing a large pool of workers willing to accept lower pay.
This deep integration into the labor force generates measurable macroeconomic effects, shaping national output, corporate investment strategy, and consumer price levels.
4.0 Contributions to U.S. Economic Growth and Output
Beyond their direct role as workers, the aggregate presence of the unauthorized immigrant population has measurable effects on the national economy. Economic research indicates that their integration into the labor market increases the overall scale of U.S. economic activity, influences business decisions, and provides tangible benefits to consumers.
4.1 Impact on GDP and Economic Scale
Economic research concludes that unauthorized immigration increases the aggregate size of the U.S. economy and is a net contributor to GDP growth. The infusion of labor expands the productive capacity of the economy, leading to higher overall output. Furthermore, studies projecting the impact of changes in legal status highlight the potential for even greater contributions. A 2016 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research, for instance, found that providing a pathway to legalization would increase the economic contribution of the unauthorized population to an estimated 3.6% of private-sector GDP.
4.2 Influence on Consumer Prices and Business Strategy
The availability of this labor pool directly suppresses price inflation for U.S.-produced goods and services, enhancing consumer welfare. Industries such as agriculture, construction, and hospitality are able to maintain lower operational costs, with those savings often passed on to consumers.
This labor supply also plays a crucial role in corporate strategy. Access to a domestic, low-skilled workforce reduces the incentive for American firms to offshore jobs and import foreign-produced goods. This helps retain certain production activities within the U.S. that might otherwise be relocated to countries with lower labor costs.
These macroeconomic contributions are complemented by a specific set of fiscal impacts, which involve a complex interplay between tax revenues and the consumption of government services.
5.0 Fiscal Impact Analysis: Taxes and Services
A comprehensive economic analysis requires an evaluation of the fiscal balance—the taxes paid by the unauthorized immigrant population versus the government services they consume. The evidence indicates that while the fiscal effects vary between federal and state or local levels, the overall federal impact is positive, largely due to significant contributions to social insurance programs for which this population is largely ineligible.
5.1 Federal Revenue Contributions and Benefit Eligibility
At the federal level, the long-term fiscal impact is broadly positive. A 2007 review by the Congressional Budget Office concluded that, in aggregate and over the long term, tax revenues generated by all immigrants (including unauthorized) exceed the cost of the federal services they use. A primary reason for this net positive contribution is their substantial payments into federal trust funds, coupled with their ineligibility for benefits.
• Unauthorized workers contribute up to $12 billion annually to the Social Security Trust Fund through payroll taxes.
• Between 2000 and 2011, this population contributed a net surplus of $35.1 billion to the Medicare Trust Fund.
Crucially, unauthorized immigrants are barred from receiving benefits from most federally-funded safety net programs, including Social Security, Medicare, non-emergency Medicaid, subsidies under the Affordable Care Act, and the Earned Income Tax Credit. This structural imbalance—paying in without the ability to draw out—creates a direct subsidy for these federal programs.
5.2 State and Local Government Fiscal Effects
In contrast to the positive federal picture, unauthorized immigration can create small, net negative fiscal effects for state and local governments. This local fiscal pressure is driven primarily by constitutionally mandated services, most notably the K-12 education of the 4.6 million U.S.-citizen children living in mixed-status households. Another contributing factor is the partial federal reimbursement for the costs associated with incarcerating criminal aliens, which leaves state and local governments to cover the remainder.
Having examined the fiscal impact on government, the analysis now turns to the direct economic effects on the native-born population.
6.0 Economic Effects on the Native-Born Population
A critical area of inquiry in the economics of immigration is how the presence of unauthorized workers affects the economic welfare of the existing population. A substantial body of research indicates that, on the whole, the economic effects on native-born workers are positive. This is largely due to the complementary nature of their labor, which tends to enhance rather than displace the work of natives.
6.1 Impact on Native Wages and Employment
Multiple studies conclude that illegal immigration increases the overall welfare of natives. Rather than competing directly for the same jobs, unauthorized immigrants often fill different roles, creating efficiencies that benefit the broader economy.
• A study by economist Giovanni Peri found that between 1990 and 2004, the presence of immigrant workers raised the wages of native-born workers in general by 4%.
• A 2015 study focusing on the impact of legalization found that such a policy decreases the unemployment rate of low-skilled natives and increases their income, suggesting that a more stable immigrant workforce enhances labor market conditions for all.
6.2 Labor Market Complementarity
The economic mechanism underlying these positive outcomes is complementarity. As a 2017 review by the National Academy of Sciences explains, unauthorized immigrants often have different skill sets and are willing to take jobs that native workers are not, allowing natives to specialize in higher-skilled, communication-intensive tasks. The entry of these new workers enables employers to expand operations and create more new positions than the number of new entrants. This dynamic can lower the overall unemployment rate and strengthen the bargaining position of existing workers by increasing the demand for complementary labor.
6.3 Economic Consequences of Enforcement and Removal
Research on the effects of immigration enforcement further supports the conclusion that unauthorized immigrants are integral to the labor market.
• Studies show that increasing deportation rates weakens low-skilled labor markets and increases unemployment among native low-skilled workers, as it removes a critical component of the workforce.
• A mass removal of this population would undermine the economic viability of entire sectors, particularly agriculture. It would also lead to significantly higher consumer prices in labor-intensive industries like hospitality and food services.
This analysis concludes by synthesizing these findings into key takeaways for economic and business strategy.
7.0 Conclusion: Key Implications for Economic and Business Strategy
This analysis has established that the 14 million unauthorized immigrants residing in the United States represent a significant and deeply integrated component of the national economy. Their economic role is complex, characterized by high labor force participation in key sectors, a net positive fiscal contribution at the federal level, and a largely complementary relationship with the native-born workforce. In essence, this population functions as a vital source of labor for essential industries, fills structural gaps in the low-skilled labor market, and contributes more to federal social insurance programs than it consumes. For economic advisors and business leaders, understanding these dynamics is critical for informed strategic planning. The core findings distill into three critical takeaways.
Labor Supply and Sector Viability: The deep integration of this workforce makes it a pillar of operational stability in construction, agriculture, and hospitality. Policies resulting in their large-scale removal would trigger immediate labor shortages, threaten the viability of businesses in these sectors, and generate significant inflationary pressure.
Federal Fiscal Health: This population provides a notable subsidy to federal trust funds. Their payroll tax contributions to Social Security and Medicare—programs from which they are barred from receiving benefits—create a net fiscal surplus that helps bolster the solvency of these critical systems.
Consumer and Native Welfare: Economic research consistently shows that this population contributes to lower prices for consumers and complements, rather than displaces, native-born workers. By filling different roles in the labor market, they enable economic expansion and specialization that can lead to increased wages and lower unemployment for the native population, thereby enhancing their overall economic welfare.