A recent study argues that immigration restrictions may be economically counterproductive for certain U.S. states, particularly those facing population decline and workforce shortages. The analysis, published by John Bitzan of North Dakota State University's Challey Institute for Global Innovation and Growth, found that a 1 percent increase in state population from immigration correlates with a 1.5 percent increase in private sector GDP.
The research examined data across all U.S. states from 2008 to 2023, finding significant variation by region. States with smaller immigrant populations — including West Virginia (2.97 percent), Montana (4.04 percent), Mississippi (4.02 percent), North Dakota (2.48 percent) and Wyoming (2.89 percent) — showed the largest economic effects from immigration-driven population growth. The study projects that a 1 percent increase in total state population from immigrants could raise private-sector GDP by anywhere from 0.57 to 4.41 percent depending on the state.
The findings arrive as net international migration has declined sharply. According to U.S. Census Bureau data, net migration peaked at 2.7 million in 2024, fell to 1.3 million in 2025, and is projected to drop to 321,000 in 2026 — described by the bureau as a historic decline.
What the Left Is Saying
Progressive economists and immigration advocates have long argued that immigrants stimulate economic growth, start businesses at higher rates than native-born Americans, and fill critical labor shortages. The Center for American Progress and other left-leaning research organizations have published analyses arguing that immigration reform would boost GDP, increase tax revenue, and strengthen Social Security's fiscal position.
Senator Alex Padilla of California said in a statement, 'Every credible economic study shows that immigrants are essential to our workforce, our innovation economy, and our long-term prosperity. The data is clear: welcoming immigrants makes America stronger.'
Progressive groups have also pointed to Gallup polling showing 79 percent of Americans believe immigration is good for the country as evidence of broad public support for more open policies.
The study's authors note that states with high levels of economic freedom — including New Hampshire, South Dakota, Idaho and Tennessee — showed large positive effects from immigration. They argue this suggests conservative-leaning states could particularly benefit from immigration reform.
What the Right Is Saying
Conservative critics of increased immigration point to concerns about wage depression for American workers, strain on public services, and fiscal pressures on state budgets. The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and other groups advocating stricter limits contend that immigrants — particularly those with lower education levels — may contribute less in taxes than they consume in public services.
Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas argued in a Senate hearing last year, 'We should welcome legal immigrants who can contribute to our economy and assimilate into our society. But we have an obligation to ensure that immigration serves America's interests first.'
Other conservative economists have raised concerns about the distributional effects of immigration — arguing that while aggregate economic output may increase, lower-wage American workers could face increased competition for jobs. The Heritage Foundation has published analyses suggesting certain immigrant populations place net costs on federal and state budgets.
The study's authors acknowledge these concerns, noting that 'any growing population creates demands on public services.' They argue, however, that the economic gains from immigration outweigh these costs in most scenarios.
What the Numbers Show
According to U.S. Census Bureau data cited in the analysis: net international migration peaked at 2.7 million in 2024 before declining sharply; the projection of 321,000 for 2026 represents what the bureau describes as a historic decline.
The Congressional Budget Office projects that U.S. population growth will slow from an average of 0.3 percent annually over the next decade to just 0.1 percent annually between 2037 and 2056. The CBO estimates the U.S. population will begin declining by 2030 without immigration.
CBO also projects that the ratio of working-age adults (25-64) to elderly Americans (65+) will decline from 2.7 currently to 2.2 over the next three decades — a demographic shift with implications for Social Security funding, healthcare labor shortages, and economic growth potential.
The study found that states with small immigrant populations showed larger percentage gains in private-sector GDP per immigration-driven population increase. West Virginia (4.97 percent of population foreign-born), Montana (4.04 percent), Mississippi (4.02 percent) and Wyoming (2.89 percent) showed effects above 2.7 percent — meaning a 1 percent increase in immigrant population correlated with more than a 2.7 percent increase in private-sector GDP.
Gallup polling cited in the analysis shows 79 percent of Americans believe immigration is 'a good thing' for the country — a record high in the survey's history.
The Bottom Line
The debate over immigration increasingly includes economic arguments on both sides. Bitzan's study adds empirical data to the discussion, suggesting that states most concerned about population loss and workforce shortages may have the strongest economic case for immigration.
Critics argue the analysis overlooks potential negative effects on wages for native-born workers and fiscal costs at the state level. The political challenge remains significant: many of the states projected to benefit most economically from immigration are represented by legislators who oppose increased migration.
The Congressional Budget Office's demographic projections suggest these questions will intensify over time as U.S. population growth slows and the ratio of workers to retirees declines. How Congress addresses immigration policy in response to these trends will likely remain a central economic and political debate.