By Koffi DzakpataVerifying the claim: It is often said that irregular migrants cost host countries a great deal of money, primarily due to significant public spending on social services, healthcare, housing, security and deportations.
Conclusion: Partly true (costs do exist, but the picture is often incomplete and misleading)
While irregular migrants can generate specific costs for host countries, such as emergency accommodation, border controls and emergency healthcare, these costs should not be considered in isolation. Numerous studies show that the estimated costs are often overstated when migrants’ economic and tax contributions are excluded. Regular migrants generally contribute more to public budgets, and the methodology used to calculate costs varies significantly from one study to another.
Context
The economic cost of irregular migration is a key issue in public discourse, particularly during elections or migration crises. The issue relates to employment, public finances, access to social services, security spending, deportations and emergency accommodation.
It is therefore important to distinguish between the immediate costs, such as emergency hospitalisations, and the broader economic effects, such as tax contributions and participation in the labour market.
Verification methodology
To establish a balanced analysis, we:
- consulted reliable economic studies examining the costs and contributions of migrants;
- differentiated findings according to migration status (irregular vs. regular migrants);
- incorporated data from academic or international institutions (e.g. the European Union (EU) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), as well as universities).
- identified the most common methodological biases in cost estimates.
Data analysis
- Costs specific to irregular migration
Several sources suggest that some countries incur significant costs in managing irregular immigration.
In Tunisia, for example, specialists estimate that irregular migrants cost around 400 million dinars per year in healthcare, housing and public services. However, this figure is not based on transparent methodology or official data collection.
In the United Kingdom, some analyses estimate public spending on social services and benefits paid to migrants (which may include irregular migrants) at around £3.5 billion (approximately €4 billion).
These figures are often cited in the media, but they represent gross costs and do not take into account: tax contributions (income tax, VAT, social security contributions); the share of migrants who work (even informally); and the long-term impact on economic growth.
- Nuanced scientific studies
However, independent economic research paints a more complex picture.
For example, a study of the situation of migrants in several European countries found that they cost the government far less than native-born citizens in eight out of fifteen countries examined. This was primarily due to their younger age and receipt of fewer social benefits, such as pensions.
A fact-checking analysis in the Netherlands revealed that certain political voices had greatly overstated the costs attributed to migrants (including asylum seekers), and that the actual expenditure represented less than 1% of GDP when calculated properly.
- Overlooked economic contributions
Discussions about costs often overlook the following elements:
Migrants, including those working in the informal economy, often pay indirect taxes, such as VAT and consumption taxes, and contribute to local economic activity.
Regularising migrants can increase tax revenue (income tax and social security contributions) by more than the additional spending on social services would increase. A British estimate suggests that regularisation would result in a net increase in tax revenue.
In some Latin American countries, migrants contribute to economic growth by filling key roles and stimulating demand for goods and services, which can offset – or even exceed – the public spending associated with their reception.
Evolving factors
The net economic impact of irregular migrants is influenced by several factors.
Demographic structure and age: Migrants tend to be young, meaning they contribute more to healthcare and pension systems through work and contributions than they receive in benefits.
Regularisation and integration: Policies that regularise migrants and facilitate their integration into the labour market increase tax contributions and reduce administrative and detention-related costs.
Access to social services: In some countries, irregular migration can limit access to social benefits, which may reduce direct costs in the short term, but can lead to costly long-term issues such as deteriorating health and marginalisation.
Methodological considerations
Be aware of the following major biases in cost estimates:
- Non-uniform definitions: Some countries do not distinguish between regular and irregular migrants in their budget statistics.
- Partial data: Figures cited in the media are not always verifiable or published by recognised institutions.
- Omission of contributions: Many analyses fail to account for taxes paid, undeclared work or the positive indirect effects on the economy.
- Time frame: Initial costs may be offset in the long term by growing tax contributions.
Conclusion
Claiming that irregular migrants “cost a lot” to host countries is an oversimplification.
While some costs are real, such as emergency accommodation, border control and emergency healthcare services, these should not be considered in isolation.
However, these costs should be considered alongside the overall economic contributions of migrants, whether regular or irregular. Furthermore, estimates based on flawed methodology can exaggerate the situation and perpetuate stigmatising narratives.
In reality, migrants, including those in an irregular situation, often contribute more to the economy than is commonly believed. Net costs may be small or even positive when taxes, labour market participation and economic growth are properly evaluated. A balanced approach should consider the economic, social and demographic benefits, rather than focusing solely on immediate expenditure.