There’s an overwhelming consensus among a panel of Ohio economists that cutting immigration will harm aspects of the state economy.
More than three fourths of the 21 surveyed agreed that cutting immigration will lead to higher prices for consumers.
Ninety five percent believed that it would result in less small-business formation. And they were unanimous in saying that cutting immigration would lead to less tax revenue.
The survey by Scioto Analysis comes as immigration is way down in the United States.
During a year of President Donald Trump’s aggressive, sometimes violent enforcement, net migration to the United States fell to an estimated 1.3 million in 2025, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. That’s a 52% drop from a year earlier.
If current trends continue, it could drop even more precipitously — to just 321,000 — for 2026, the Census Bureau said.
In Ohio, the rate of international immigrants responsible for net population growth fell from 0.5% in 2024 to 0.2% in 2025, according to the global population data firm PRB. That puts it in the bottom half of states.
With the state already expected to lose a net 675,000 residents by 2025, the loss of international immigrants could be particularly impactful. That’s because about three out of every five of the 290,000 people Ohio added to its population between 2014 and 2024 were immigrants.
Most of the economists surveyed by Scioto Analysis didn’t think any of this would be good for the state economy.
Asked whether they agreed that “Fewer international immigrants in Ohio will lead to a net loss in tax revenue,” all 21 did.
“This is a no-brainer,” Jonathan Andreas of Bluffton University wrote in the comment section of the survey. “There will be fewer people working and a smaller economy which can benefit some people, but not the tax revenues.”
Kathryn Wilson of Kent State University pointed out that tax contributions from immigrants can be especially big.
”The research is clear that immigrants pay significantly more in taxes than they receive in benefits (in part because they are not eligible for many benefits),” she said. “Therefore, fewer international immigrants in Ohio will lead to a net loss in tax revenue.”
There was also near unanimity when the economists were asked whether they agreed that “A reduction in international immigration will result in fewer small businesses being started in Ohio.” Twenty of 21 did.
“Immigration self-selects for hard-working, entrepreneurial-minded individuals,” said Michael Jones of the University of Cincinnati.
“Someone who is willing to leave their home country and family to start a new life likely possesses a higher than average drive to succeed. Economists as a whole are generally supportive of allocating labor anywhere in the world to its most productive uses.”
There was less unanimity when the economists were asked whether they agreed that “Lower levels of international immigration will lead to higher prices for services in Ohio.” Sixteen agreed and five were uncertain.
Some of those who agreed noted the loss of service-sector workers.
“This is one of the clearest costs of restricting immigration,” Andreas said. “Of course there are also benefits for some people, but this is a definite cost.”
The reason several cited for their uncertainty didn’t seem to be cause for comfort. They said the loss of immigrants might dampen the economy, and the damage might offset the effects of having fewer workers.
“There will be fewer service providers but the demand for services will also decline, so the result is ambiguous and is likely to vary among categories,” said Bill LaFayette of Regionomics.
Originally published by the Ohio Capital Journal. Republished here with permission.