Public policy is often judged not only by its goals but also by its unintended consequences. Laws and executive actions may be enacted with specific objectives in mind, yet their broader economic and social effects frequently determine whether they are ultimately viewed as successful or unsuccessful.
Immigration policy has become one of the clearest examples of that debate. Critics of the Biden administration argue that its approach to border enforcement led to a sharp increase in illegal immigration, placing additional pressure on public services, local communities, and housing markets. Supporters, by contrast, have emphasized humanitarian concerns and the need to expand legal pathways while addressing asylum claims.
One area receiving increased attention is housing affordability. As the United States has faced rising home prices and rental costs in recent years, some policymakers have argued that rapid population growth from unauthorized immigration contributed to increased demand for housing in markets already experiencing limited supply.
Vice President J.D. Vance has previously argued that discussions about housing affordability often overlook the role of demand, including the impact of illegal immigration. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Scott Turner recently echoed that argument, saying the administration intends to prioritize housing opportunities for American citizens while continuing its broader efforts to reduce illegal immigration.
Until recently, much of that discussion remained largely theoretical. A working paper released earlier this year by economists Daniel Wilson and Xiaoqing Zhou of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas attempted to quantify the relationship between unauthorized immigrant worker flows and housing costs.
The researchers described their study as the first systematic empirical assessment of how unauthorized immigration affected local housing markets during the years following the COVID-19 pandemic. Examining commuting zones across the United States, they estimated that increases in unauthorized immigrant workers accounted for roughly 30 percent of the rise in home prices and about 20 percent of the increase in rental costs between early 2021 and early 2024.
According to the paper, an increase in unauthorized immigrant workers equal to one percent of an area’s initial employment was associated with approximately a 2.2 percent increase in home prices and a 1.4 percent increase in market rents. The authors estimated that the average increase in unauthorized immigrant workers during the period they studied represented about 3.1 percent of initial employment across commuting zones, producing measurable effects on housing demand.
The researchers also emphasized that immigration was only one factor influencing housing costs. They noted that rising interest rates, inflation, changing housing preferences following the pandemic, and limited housing construction all contributed to higher prices during the same period.
The study has drawn attention because it provides quantitative support for an argument frequently made by the Trump administration—that adding large numbers of new residents to housing markets without a corresponding increase in available homes places upward pressure on prices.
To illustrate how that dynamic might play out in practice, some commentators have pointed to Springfield, Ohio, which experienced a significant increase in its population after thousands of Haitian migrants settled in the area. While the Federal Reserve paper did not specifically analyze Springfield, supporters of the administration’s position argue that communities experiencing unusually rapid population growth are likely to face greater pressure on local housing markets than areas with slower growth.
The working paper also reached conclusions that did not fully align with common political arguments surrounding immigration. The researchers found that increases in unauthorized immigrant workers were associated with nearly equivalent increases in local employment, suggesting that many immigrants entered newly created jobs rather than directly displacing existing workers. They also found no statistically significant evidence that unauthorized immigration reduced average weekly wages in the areas studied.
Those findings have been cited as evidence that the authors followed the data where it led rather than producing conclusions favorable to one political viewpoint. While some of the results supported claims that immigration affected housing demand, other findings challenged broader assertions that unauthorized immigration consistently reduced employment opportunities or wages for American workers.
